Latest news with #14thAmendment
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump orbit rewarded in year since criminal conviction
It's been one year since President Trump was found guilty on all counts of falsifying business records to keep alleged affairs secret during his 2016 campaign, enshrining him in history as the first former commander in chief to be convicted of a felony. Now back in the White House, his world looks very different — and those who remained by his side have reaped the benefits. Trump's defense attorneys are now serving at the Justice Department's highest levels. His allies who showed up to the trial have been rewarded with Cabinet posts and even the vice presidency. Trump is also continuing to fight his legal woes, with two major appeals court battles set for June. Here's where everything stands one year later. After retaking the White House, many of Trump's personal defense attorneys filled top Justice Department positions. Todd Blanche, Trump's lead counsel at the hush money trial, serves as deputy attorney general. His right-hand man, Emil Bove, now works as Blanche's deputy. The duo has made aggressive moves, including the controversial dismissal of New York City Mayor Eric Adams's (D) corruption case. Bove's tenure at the department may be quickly coming to a close, however. This week, Trump said he was nominating Bove to a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. D. John Sauer, who successfully argued Trump's presidential immunity claims before the Supreme Court that stymied several of his criminal cases, now spearheads the administration's efforts at the high court as solicitor general. Sauer's office has brought more than a dozen emergency applications to the justices seeking to lift lower court injunctions blocking Trump's policies. Meanwhile, Harmeet Dhillon, who supported Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and represented him in a 14th Amendment challenge to his 2024 candidacy, oversees the Justice Department's civil rights division. She has reshaped the division's priorities, causing an exodus of lawyers. And Alina Habba came to the White House to serve as counselor to the president. Habba, known for her television appearances attacking the cases against Trump, worked on Trump's civil fraud prosecution brought by the New York attorney general and the defamation cases brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. In March, Trump named Habba as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. In that role, she has brought criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) over a scuffle at a Newark immigration facility. But not all lawyers entered the administration. Steve Sadow, Trump's lead counsel in his Georgia criminal case concerning his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, had no interest. Sadow is a longtime Atlanta-based defense attorney who has represented several other prominent clients, such as Usher and Rick Ross. 'I have never been a prosecutor and never will be. It just not in my makeup,' Sadow said in November after Trump's election victory. Trump's criminal trial became a critical stop for his strongest GOP allies and those vying to join his future administration — and showing up paid off. Vice President Vance, then a Republican senator from Ohio, joined Trump's courtroom entourage on the first day of testimony from fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen. He questioned Cohen's credibility as a witness on social media and, outside the courthouse, accused the Manhattan prosecutors trying the case of being 'Democratic political operatives.' Then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), who called the proceeding a 'scam trial' outside the courthouse, is now Interior secretary. On Thursday, Trump named Paul Ingrassia, who attended the trial and liveposted a flood of pro-Trump content, to lead the office charged with prosecuting misconduct in the federal workforce. And Susie Wiles, who was a senior adviser to Trump's presidential campaign, attended parts of the trial and was later named his White House chief of staff. Some Republican allies initially rewarded have ultimately seen those rewards falter. Trump initially named ex-Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for attorney general, but Gaetz withdrew after it became clear he would not earn enough support in Congress. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) was tapped as ambassador to the United Nations, but Trump later asked her to withdraw over fear of losing her congressional seat. And former presidential candidate-turned-Trump-surrogate Vivek Ramaswamy was set to join the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) cost-cutting mission alongside billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk but departed to run for governor of Ohio. Trump's personal legal woes fell into the background after he became president, but some of his biggest cases are returning to the limelight. On June 11, Trump's hush money conviction heads to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit for oral arguments. The president is attempting to move his case out of New York state court — where Trump has long complained he isn't being treated fairly — and into federal court. If successful, the move would provide Trump a pathway to assert immunity and other defenses that could see his 34-count felony conviction tossed. Sullivan & Cromwell now helms the president's defense after many of his mainstay lawyers moved into the Justice Department. The Justice Department is now going to bat for Trump, filing a friend-of-the-court brief backing the president's position. 'To hold otherwise would risk incentivizing state and local prosecutors to manipulate trial dates and the timing of evidentiary submissions in the most high-profile of cases,' the Justice Department wrote in its brief. Trump's attorneys will face off against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's (D) office, which brought the hush money prosecution. The office argues Trump's bid to move courts is dead now that he's been sentenced. Nearly two weeks later, the same court on June 24 will hear Trump's appeal of a jury's verdict ordering him to pay $83.3 million to Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. The Justice Department is attempting to come to Trump's rescue in that case, too. In April, the department again asked to substitute the government as the defendant in Carroll's lawsuit. It had done so at the onset of the case before abandoning the effort in 2023, during the Biden administration. 'I don't need to tell you that Robbie and I are ready for the fight, do I?' Carroll wrote on Substack last month, referencing her attorney, Robbie Kaplan. The trial was the second time a jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll. He also was ordered to hand over $5 million in her separate lawsuit, a verdict the 2nd Circuit upheld in December. And in the state courts in New York, Trump awaits an appeals panel's decision in its review of the state's civil fraud case against him, which ended in a nearly $500 million judgment against him and his business. The panel heard arguments in September and seemed wary of the massive financial penalty. A decision could come at any time. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Does birthright citizenship require 'allegiance' to the U.S.?
'Why are you ignoring the intent of the 14th Amendment, which was to give citizenship to freed slaves and their progeny? Jurisdiction means allegiance to a country, which illegal aliens do not have.' — Brian Jones Hi Brian, It's true that the 14th Amendment repudiated the infamous Dred Scott ruling, which had denied citizenship to people of African descent. But it doesn't follow from that premise to say that U.S.-born babies today aren't citizens because their parents were here unlawfully. To the contrary, the amendment has long been understood to grant citizenship based on the geographical fact of being born here, not based on any extra allegiance factor or parentage. Basing birthright citizenship on allegiance would have weird implications for the very thing you highlight: addressing the sin of slavery. For what allegiance did people owe the country that forced them into bondage — the country that didn't even treat them as people? Taking another example from the era that sparked the 14th Amendment, what about the Confederates who rebelled against the United States — did they demonstrate allegiance? It's not only historical examples but modern ones, too, that make the untenable allegiance theory even less workable. What about dual citizens? What about lawful permanent residents? These and other problems would abound under an allegiance regime. Such issues will only come to pass if the Supreme Court ultimately decides to go against the weight of history. As a brief from constitutional and immigration scholars put it in the pending high court appeal, the 14th Amendment's backers at the time embraced the long-standing principle that 'birth created allegiance,' regardless of parental status. If you're born here, you're a citizen. Yet, it's important to understand the argument behind your statement — 'Jurisdiction means allegiance to a country which illegal aliens do not have' — because that's basically what the administration and its supporters argue in defense of President Donald Trump's executive order. (I should note that Trump's order also seeks to exclude babies whose mothers are lawfully but only temporarily present, like on a visa, which further weakens, or at least further complicates, the allegiance argument.) We're still awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling following the May 15 hearing, at which the government focused not on the argument you raise but on a procedural complaint: that the judges who blocked Trump's order shouldn't have been allowed to do so on a nationwide basis. The government didn't ask the justices to say that those judges were incorrect in rejecting Trump's order. This piecemeal strategy suggests the administration thinks the justices would reject its underlying argument on the merits of the order. But it's still important to understand the merits argument, so let's get into it. As a refresher, the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause says: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' It's that 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' language through which Trump seeks to smuggle an allegiance requirement. But that language only serves to make limited exceptions to birthright citizenship — today, it basically serves as an exception for children of foreign diplomats, so not much of an exception for practical purposes. Being 'subject' to U.S. jurisdiction means being subject to U.S. law. The clause doesn't mention allegiance. That didn't stop the administration from trying to upend the settled view. 'The original meaning of the Citizenship Clause extended citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to people who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States,' is how Solicitor General John Sauer began his rebuttal at the end of the hearing, putting in a last-ditch fighting word for the order that several justices had effectively deemed legally unserious. 'If I were in your shoes, there is no way I'd approach the Supreme Court with this case,' Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general herself, had told Sauer earlier. That's probably because the Supreme Court seemingly settled the matter more than a century ago. In its 1898 ruling in Wong Kim Ark, the court rejected the notion that a person born here could be denied citizenship because his parents owed allegiance to China. In doing so, the court noted that the 14th Amendment 'affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory[.]' There are other ways that the Trump administration tries to distinguish the Wong Kim Ark precedent, but the bottom line is that the court has reaffirmed this understanding of birthright citizenship over the years. That's how lower court judges around the country quickly and easily rejected Trump's order, and that's likely why his administration didn't directly challenge the substance of those judges' rulings at the high court. By focusing on the nationwide injunction issue in the pending appeal, the administration stands a chance at winning a procedural battle, without requiring the court to answer the underlying merits of the citizenship question; that litigation strategy carries the added benefit of potentially curbing all sorts of injunctions against the government in Trump's second term, which has been dominated by executive actions that judges have speedily smacked down. We're still waiting for the justices to rule in the appeal, and they might not address the merits of the underlying order at all and might only answer the procedural injunction question (which, to be sure, carries important consequences in all manner of cases going forward, if the justices make it harder for people to challenge illegal executive actions). The government admits that its new view on the merits of the issue goes against the executive branch's previously established understanding. 'During the 20th century,' it said in its Supreme Court application ahead of the hearing, 'the Executive Branch adopted the incorrect position that the Citizenship Clause extended birthright citizenship to almost everyone born in the United States — even children of illegal aliens or temporarily present aliens.' The policy of 'near-universal birthright citizenship,' it went on, 'has created strong incentives for illegal immigration,' leading to 'birth tourism' in which 'expecting mothers travel to the United States to give birth and secure U.S. citizenship for their children.' That's an understandable political explanation for why the Trump administration wants to end birthright citizenship. But that policy preference doesn't double as a legal argument, nor does it strengthen the actual legal argument put forth by the administration. The legal issue is the meaning of the 14th Amendment as written, and the century-plus precedent reaffirming broad birthright citizenship, not some imagined version of the amendment concocted to match the administration's policy view. Of course, we know this court is willing to reverse precedent. But on top of the serious problems with Trump's merits argument, I again note that if the government were confident in that argument, it might have been eager to make it to the justices as soon as possible. Instead, it appears to be attempting to delay a final decision on the issue. The administration has been aggressive in making its arguments across a series of other cases — and yet, for some reason, it's not eager to hear what the high court thinks about birthright citizenship. Have any questions or comments for me? Please submit them on this form for a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter. This article was originally published on
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump orbit rewarded in year since criminal conviction
It's been one year since President Trump was found guilty on all counts of falsifying business records to keep alleged affairs secret during his 2016 campaign, enshrining him in history as the first ex-commander-in-chief to become a convicted felon. Now back in the White House, his world looks very different — and those who remained by his side have reaped the benefits. Trump's defense attorneys are now serving at the Justice Department's highest levels. His allies who showed up to the trial have been rewarded with Cabinet posts and even the vice presidency. Trump is also continuing to fight his legal woes, with two major appeals court battles set for June. Here's where everything stands one year later. Trump's defense lawyers become the prosecution After retaking the White House, many of Trump's personal defense attorneys filled top Justice Department positions. Todd Blanche, Trump's lead counsel at the hush money trial, serves as deputy attorney general. His right-hand man, Emil Bove, now works as Blanche's deputy. The duo has made aggressive moves, including the controversial dismissal of New York City Mayor Eric Adams's (D) corruption case. Bove's tenure at the department may be quickly coming to a close, however. This week, Trump said he was nominating Bove to a judgeship on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. D. John Sauer, who successfully argued Trump's presidential immunity claims before the Supreme Court that stymied several of his criminal cases, now spearheads the administration's efforts at the high court as solicitor general. Sauer's office has brought more than a dozen emergency applications to the justices seeking to lift lower court injunctions blocking Trump's policies. Meanwhile, Harmeet Dhillon, who supported Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election and represented him in a 14th Amendment challenge to his 2024 candidacy, oversees the Justice Department's civil rights division. She has reshaped the division's priorities, causing an exodus of lawyers. And Alina Habba came to the White House to serve as counselor to the president. Habba, known for her television appearances attacking the cases against Trump, worked on Trump's civil fraud prosecution brought by the New York attorney general and the defamation cases brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. In March, Trump named Habba as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. In that role, she has brought criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) over a scuffle at a Newark immigration facility. But not all lawyers entered the administration. Steve Sadow, Trump's lead counsel in his Georgia criminal case concerning his efforts following the 2020 election, had no interest. Sadow is a longtime Atlanta-based defense attorney who has represented several other prominent clients like Usher and Rick Ross. 'I have never been a prosecutor and never will be. It just not in my makeup,' Sadow said in November after Trump's election victory. Trump's allies rewarded Trump's criminal trial became a critical stop for his strongest GOP allies and those vying to join his future administration — and showing up paid off. Vice President Vance, then a Republican senator for Ohio, joined Trump's courtroom entourage on the first day of testimony from fixer-turned-foe Michael Cohen. He questioned Cohen's credibility as a witness on social media, and outside the courthouse, accused the Manhattan prosecutors trying the case of being 'Democratic political operatives.' Then-North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), who called the proceeding a 'scam trial' outside the courthouse, is now Interior secretary. On Thursday, Trump named Paul Ingrassia, who attended the trial and live tweeted a flood of pro-Trump content, to lead the office charged with prosecuting misconduct in the federal workforce. And Susie Wiles, who was a senior advisor to Trump's presidential campaign, attended parts of the trial and was later named his White House chief of staff. Some Republican allies initially rewarded have ultimately seen those rewards falter. Trump initially named ex-Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for attorney general, but Gaetz withdrew after it became clear he would not earn enough support in Congress. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) was tapped as ambassador to the United Nations, but Trump later asked her to withdraw over fear of losing her congressional seat. And former presidential candidate-turned-Trump-surrogate Vivek Ramaswamy was set to join the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) cost-cutting mission alongside billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk but departed to run for governor of Ohio. Where Trump's legal troubles stand Trump's personal legal woes fell into the background after he became president, but some of his biggest cases are returning to the limelight. On June 11, Trump's hush money conviction heads to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit for oral arguments. The president is attempting to move his case out of New York state court — where Trump has long complained he isn't being treated fairly — and into federal court. If successful, the move would provide Trump a pathway to assert immunity and other defenses that could see his 34-count felony conviction tossed. Sullivan & Cromwell now helms the president's defense after many of his mainstay lawyers moved into the Justice Department. The Justice Department is now going to bat for Trump, filing a friend-of-the-court brief backing the president's position. 'To hold otherwise would risk incentivizing state and local prosecutors to manipulate trial dates and the timing of evidentiary submissions in the most high-profile of cases,' the Justice Department wrote in its brief. Trump's attorneys will face off against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's (D) office, which brought the hush money prosecution. The office argues Trump's bid to move courts is dead now that he's been sentenced. Nearly two weeks later, the same court on June 24 will hear Trump's appeal of a jury's verdict ordering him to pay $83.3 million to Carroll, the longtime advice columnist who accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the 1990s. The Justice Department is attempting to come to Trump's rescue in that case, too. In April, the department again asked to substitute the government as the defendant in Carroll's lawsuit. It had done so at the onset of the case before abandoning the effort in 2023, during the Biden administration. 'I don't need to tell you that Robbie and I are ready for the fight, do I?' Carroll wrote on Substack last month, referencing her attorney, Robbie Kaplan. The trial was the second time a jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll. He also was ordered to hand over $5 million in her separate lawsuit, a verdict the 2nd Circuit upheld in December. And in the state courts in New York, Trump awaits an appeals panel's decision in its review of the state's civil fraud case against the now sitting president, which ended in a nearly $500 million judgment against him and his business. The panel heard arguments in September and seemed wary of the massive financial penalty. A decision could come at any time.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Judge rules effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil likely 'unconstitutional'
May 29 (UPI) -- A federal judge in New Jersey ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration's efforts to deport Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil are most likely unconstitutional but did not set him free from custody. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote that Khalil, who was arrested in March by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the intention of eventual deportation, was likely to win his case "on his vagueness challenge related to the Secretary of State's determination." Khalil's legal team argued on his behalf that the reasons to detain him violated the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, due to unconstitutional vagueness. According to Farbiarz's ruling, vagueness doctrine requires a law be clear enough that people understand the consequence should it be broken, and to block the use of laws that are so broad they bend the separation of governmental powers. In his conclusion, Farbiarz wrote that Khalil is "likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that Section 1227 is unconstitutional as applied to him," with Section 1227 being federal code for what makes a person a "deportable alien." Khalil has been detained for deportation based on allegations that his application for lawful permanent residence was inaccurate, and because U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that Khalil being in the United States compromises "a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest." However, the judge also determined that Khalil "is not likely to succeed" in his case in regard to his purported failure to complete his lawful permanent resident application correctly. Federal officials allege that although Khalil did apply federally to become a lawful permanent resident, he didn't answer certain questions accurately, which can allow the federal government to remove an individual as per laws that pertain to "inadmissible aliens." Khalil remains in custody as the judge considers whether his assertion that his detention has caused him "irreparable harm," and has requested his legal team provide additional evidence of such before he considers his release. ICE arrested Khalil, a Palestinian refugee raised in Syria and former Columbia University graduate student, in March for having allegedly "led activities aligned to Hamas," in relation to his on-campus pro-Palestinian activism. He was the lead student negotiator of an encampment on the campus in 2024 when Columbia was the center of nationwide student protests held against Israel's war in Gaza.
UPI
2 days ago
- Politics
- UPI
Judge rules effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil likely 'unconstitutional'
Pro-Palestinian protesters hold flags and signs at the Release Mahmoud Khaul, Hands Off Our Students, ICE off Our Campus rally in Manhattan in March. File Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo May 29 (UPI) -- A federal judge in New Jersey ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration's efforts to deport Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil are most likely unconstitutional but did not set him free from custody. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote that Khalil, who was arrested in March by Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the intention of eventual deportation, was likely to win his case "on his vagueness challenge related to the Secretary of State's determination." Khalil's legal team argued on his behalf that the reasons to detain him violated the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, due to unconstitutional vagueness. According to Farbiarz's ruling, vagueness doctrine requires a law be clear enough that people understand the consequence should it be broken, and to block the use of laws that are so broad they bend the separation of governmental powers. In his conclusion, Farbiarz wrote that Khalil is "likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that Section 1227 is unconstitutional as applied to him," with Section 1227 being federal code for what makes a person a "deportable alien." Khalil has been detained for deportation based on allegations that his application for lawful permanent residence was inaccurate, and because U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that Khalil being in the United States compromises "a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest." However, the judge also determined that Khalil "is not likely to succeed" in his case in regard to his purported failure to complete his lawful permanent resident application correctly. Federal officials allege that although Khalil did apply federally to become a lawful permanent resident, he didn't answer certain questions accurately, which can allow the federal government to remove an individual as per laws that pertain to "inadmissible aliens." Khalil remains in custody as the judge considers whether his assertion that his detention has caused him "irreparable harm," and has requested his legal team provide additional evidence of such before he considers his release. ICE arrested Khalil, a Palestinian refugee raised in Syria and former Columbia University graduate student, in March for having allegedly "led activities aligned to Hamas," in relation to his on-campus pro-Palestinian activism. He was the lead student negotiator of an encampment on the campus in 2024 when Columbia was the center of nationwide student protests held against Israel's war in Gaza.
