Latest news with #1stCircuit
Winnipeg Free Press
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Federal court denies Boston bomber's request for new judge to oversee death sentence appeal
BOSTON (AP) — A federal court on Thursday denied a request by attorneys for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to remove the judge overseeing the protracted legal battle over his death sentence. The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument made by Tsarnaev's lawyers that U.S. District Court Judge George O'Toole should be recused from the case because, the lawyers contend, he is not impartial. During an August 2024 hearing, Tsarnaev's attorneys pointed to what they said were comments O'Toole made about the case on podcasts and at public events during the appeals process. In a two-page judgment released Thursday, appeals court judges ruled that O'Toole should continue to preside over the case, determining that 'two panel discussions and a podcast in which Judge O'Toole discussed various aspects of organizing complex jury trials and the problems associated with social media in that context' did not constitute grounds for his removal. One of O'Toole's attorneys, David E. Patton, didn't immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment. A federal appeals court in March 2024 ordered O'Toole to investigate claims of juror bias by the defense and to determine whether Tsarnaev's death sentence should stand. He was convicted of helping carry out the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured hundreds of others near the marathon's finish line. It's unclear when O'Toole might rule on the juror bias issue. If he finds that jurors should have been disqualified, he should vacate Tsarnaev's sentence and hold a new penalty-phase trial to determine if Tsarnaev should be sentenced to death, the appeals court said. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death sentence given to Tsarnaev after the 1st Circuit threw out the sentence in 2020. The circuit court found then that the trial judge did not sufficiently question jurors about their exposure to the extensive news coverage of the bombing. The 1st Circuit took another look at the case after Tsarnaev's lawyers urged it to examine issues the Supreme Court didn't consider. Among them was whether the trial judge wrongly forced the trial to be held in Boston and wrongly denied defense challenges to the seating of two jurors who they claim lied during questioning. Tsarnaev's guilt in the deaths of those killed in the bombing was not at issue in the appeal. His lawyers have argued that Tsarnaev fell under the influence of his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a gun battle with police days after the bombing. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted of all 30 charges against him. Prosecutors portrayed the brothers — ethnic Chechens who moved to the United States from Russia more than a decade ago — as full partners in a brutal and coldblooded plan to punish the U.S. for its wars in Muslim countries.
Hamilton Spectator
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Federal court denies Boston bomber's request for new judge to oversee death sentence appeal
BOSTON (AP) — A federal court on Thursday denied a request by attorneys for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to remove the judge overseeing the protracted legal battle over his death sentence. The U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument made by Tsarnaev's lawyers that U.S. District Court Judge George O'Toole should be recused from the case because, the lawyers contend, he is not impartial. During an August 2024 hearing, Tsarnaev's attorneys pointed to what they said were comments O'Toole made about the case on podcasts and at public events during the appeals process. In a two-page judgment released Thursday, appeals court judges ruled that O'Toole should continue to preside over the case, determining that 'two panel discussions and a podcast in which Judge O'Toole discussed various aspects of organizing complex jury trials and the problems associated with social media in that context' did not constitute grounds for his removal. One of O'Toole's attorneys, David E. Patton, didn't immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment. A federal appeals court in March 2024 ordered O'Toole to investigate claims of juror bias by the defense and to determine whether Tsarnaev's death sentence should stand. He was convicted of helping carry out the 2013 bombing that killed three people and injured hundreds of others near the marathon's finish line. It's unclear when O'Toole might rule on the juror bias issue. If he finds that jurors should have been disqualified, he should vacate Tsarnaev's sentence and hold a new penalty-phase trial to determine if Tsarnaev should be sentenced to death, the appeals court said. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death sentence given to Tsarnaev after the 1st Circuit threw out the sentence in 2020. The circuit court found then that the trial judge did not sufficiently question jurors about their exposure to the extensive news coverage of the bombing. The 1st Circuit took another look at the case after Tsarnaev's lawyers urged it to examine issues the Supreme Court didn't consider. Among them was whether the trial judge wrongly forced the trial to be held in Boston and wrongly denied defense challenges to the seating of two jurors who they claim lied during questioning. Tsarnaev's guilt in the deaths of those killed in the bombing was not at issue in the appeal. His lawyers have argued that Tsarnaev fell under the influence of his older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed in a gun battle with police days after the bombing. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was convicted of all 30 charges against him. Prosecutors portrayed the brothers — ethnic Chechens who moved to the United States from Russia more than a decade ago — as full partners in a brutal and coldblooded plan to punish the U.S. for its wars in Muslim countries. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Reuters
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US appeals court weighs Trump move to end of thousands of migrants' status
July 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to rule that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted lawfully when she revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign told a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower-court judge had wrongly concluded Noem lacked the discretion to categorically end the immigration "parole" granted to approximately 430,000 migrants by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, halted the agency's action on April 14, saying Noem could only revoke previously granted parole and work authorizations for migrants on a case-by-case basis. Ensign argued that was wrong, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's May 30 decision to put Talwani's ruling in favor of a class of migrants on hold pending further appeals, which allowed the parole terminations to take effect. "As the Supreme Court has already implicitly recognized by a lopsided vote, the government is likely to prevail on appeal, either in this court or, if necessary, in the Supreme Court," he said. "This court should reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court." The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. Ensign said Noem was legally entitled to categorically end those parole programs, saying she "profoundly disagrees" with the Biden administration's view that they were needed to alleviate pressures at the border and improve the overall immigration system. All three judges on the 1st Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. In May, before the Supreme Court acted, the panel declined to halt Talwani's order, saying Noem had not made a strong showing that her categorical termination of early grants of parole would be upheld on appeal. While liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented in a lengthy opinion, the majority on the nine-member Supreme Court provided no reasoning for why it was staying Talwani's decision. U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta during Tuesday's argument said that placed him and his 1st Circuit colleagues in an "unusual situation" where they are asked to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on how to proceed and were given only the "bottom line." But he told Justin Cox, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing the class action before Talwani, that the justices' order may indicate they "felt that you're at the short end of the stick on the likelihood of success on the merits." Cox said the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order was a reason not to defer to it, saying the 1st Circuit "would be speculating if it sought to assign a particular meaning to it." U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí predicted that even if the 1st Circuit upheld Talwani's decision, the Homeland Security Department could seek to again terminate the migrants' parole status through a new agency action. But Cox said a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would still be "quite valuable" regardless. "At a minimum, it would let our clients and the class members have the dignity of leaving on their own terms, as opposed to being subjected to the kinds of removal and detention processes that are happening right now," he said. The case is Doe v. Noem, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1384. For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the Law Office of Justin B Cox For the United States: Drew Ensign of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants US appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants' status US judge to block Trump from revoking thousands of migrants' legal status
Reuters
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US appeals court weighs Trump's authority to revoke legal status for thousands of migrants
July 29 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to rule that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acted lawfully when she revoked the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign told a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that a lower-court judge had wrongly concluded Noem lacked the discretion to categorically end the immigration "parole" granted to approximately 430,000 migrants by Trump's Democratic predecessor Joe Biden. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, halted the agency's action on April 14, saying Noem could only revoke previously granted parole and work authorizations for migrants on a case-by-case basis. Ensign argued that was wrong, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's May 30 decision to put Talwani's ruling in favor of a class of migrants on hold pending further appeals, which allowed the parole terminations to take effect. "As the Supreme Court has already implicitly recognized by a lopsided vote, the government is likely to prevail on appeal, either in this court or, if necessary, in the Supreme Court," he said. "This court should reject the plaintiffs' brazen request to defy the Supreme Court." The Biden administration, starting in 2022, let Venezuelans who entered the United States by air request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a U.S. financial sponsor. Biden expanded that to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023. Ensign said Noem was legally entitled to categorically end those parole programs, saying she "profoundly disagrees" with the Biden administration's view that they were needed to alleviate pressures at the border and improve the overall immigration system. All three judges on the 1st Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents. In May, before the Supreme Court acted, the panel declined to halt Talwani's order, saying Noem had not made a strong showing that her categorical termination of early grants of parole would be upheld on appeal. While liberal Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor publicly dissented in a lengthy opinion, the majority on the nine-member Supreme Court provided no reasoning for why it was staying Talwani's decision. U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta during Tuesday's argument said that placed him and his 1st Circuit colleagues in an "unusual situation" where they are asked to look to the Supreme Court for guidance on how to proceed and were given only the "bottom line." But he told Justin Cox, a lawyer for a group of migrants pursuing the class action before Talwani, that the justices' order may indicate they "felt that you're at the short end of the stick on the likelihood of success on the merits." Cox said the lack of reasoning in the Supreme Court's order was a reason not to defer to it, saying the 1st Circuit "would be speculating if it sought to assign a particular meaning to it." U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí predicted that even if the 1st Circuit upheld Talwani's decision, the Homeland Security Department could seek to again terminate the migrants' parole status through a new agency action. But Cox said a ruling in the plaintiffs' favor would still be "quite valuable" regardless. "At a minimum, it would let our clients and the class members have the dignity of leaving on their own terms, as opposed to being subjected to the kinds of removal and detention processes that are happening right now," he said. The case is Doe v. Noem, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 25-1384. For the plaintiffs: Justin Cox of the Law Office of Justin B Cox For the United States: Drew Ensign of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: US Supreme Court lets Trump revoke humanitarian legal status for migrants US appeals court rejects Trump bid to revoke thousands of migrants' status US judge to block Trump from revoking thousands of migrants' legal status
Fox News
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
ACLU sues Trump over birthright order as Supreme Court clears path for it to take effect
Hours after the Supreme Court delivered the Trump administration a major victory Friday by ruling lower courts may issue nationwide injunctions only in limited instances, a coalition of liberal legal groups filed a sweeping new class-action lawsuit in New Hampshire federal court. It takes aim at President Donald Trump's January executive order that redefines who qualifies for U.S. citizenship at birth. While the justices' 6-3 ruling leaves open the question of how the ruling will apply to the birthright citizenship order at the heart of the case, Friday's lawsuit accuses the administration of violating the Constitution by denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil if their mothers are either unlawfully present or temporarily in the country and their fathers are not U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus and Democracy Defenders Fund. It seeks to represent a proposed class of children born under the terms of the executive order and their parents. It is not the first legal challenge to the policy. The same group filed a separate suit in January 2025 in the same court on behalf of advocacy organizations with members expecting children who would be denied citizenship under the order. That case led to a ruling protecting members of those groups and is now pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 1. Friday's SCOTUS ruling states that lower courts can no longer block federal policies nationwide unless it's absolutely necessary to give full relief to the people suing. The decision does not say whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is legal, but it means the order could take effect in parts of the country while legal challenges continue. The court gave lower courts 30 days to review their existing rulings. "The applications do not raise — and thus we do not address — the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. "The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions." "A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," she added. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, suggested plaintiffs could pursue class actions as an alternative. "Nevertheless, the parents of children covered by the Citizenship Order would be well advised to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class pending class certification," Sotomayor wrote. "For suits challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order, moreover, lower courts would be wise to act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review." The ACLU lawsuit calls birthright citizenship "America's most fundamental promise" and claims the executive order threatens to create "a permanent, multigenerational subclass" of children denied legal recognition. "The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in the case. "This executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history," added Devon Chaffee, executive director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. "No politician can ever decide who among those born in our country is worthy of citizenship." The lawsuit cites the 14th Amendment, which provides that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." It also references the Supreme Court's 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of noncitizens. The plaintiffs include individuals from Honduras, Taiwan and Brazil. One mother in New Hampshire is expecting her fourth child and fears the baby will be denied citizenship despite being born in the U.S. The case is Barbara et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-244, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. "Trump's executive order directly opposes our Constitution, values, and history and it would create a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights," said SangYeob Kim of the ACLU of New Hampshire in January. "Today's historic decision delivers a decisive rejection of the weaponized lawfare President Trump has endured from leftist activist judges who attempted to deny the president his constitutional authority," White House spokesperson Liz Huston wrote to Fox News Digital. "President Trump will continue to implement his America First agenda, and the Trump Administration looks forward to litigating the merits of the birthright citizenship issue to ensure we secure our borders and Make America Safe Again."
