Latest news with #4thCircuitCourtofAppeals
Politico
2 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
Georgetown researcher targeted for deportation settles with Trump admin
A judge ordered Suri's release from immigration detention in May amid a wave of legal rebukes for the administration's targeting of other pro-Palestinian academics, including Columbia University students Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi and Yunseo Chung, as well as Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to permit Suri to remain free while his lawsuit was pending. Despite his release, immigration court proceedings that could lead to Suri's deportation continued. In addition, Suri's civil litigation continued in the Virginia court as he sought the reinstatement of his legal status in a Department of Homeland Security database that tracks immigrant students and researchers permitted into the country. The deal revealed Tuesday will likely obviate the need for a hearing that was set for Friday in federal court in Alexandria over his bid for reinstatement. ICE had terminated Suri's record in the system in March, which made it difficult for him to continue his academic work. The termination also extended to his two young children, whose student status in the U.S. was linked to their father's. Suri's wife, Mapheze Saleh, is a U.S. citizen. But her father's former role advising Hamas leadership figured into the Trump administration's decision to target Suri. Under the settlement, the Trump administration has agreed to maintain Suri's student status unless officials become aware of a 'newly discovered, independent legal ground' to take action against him — and give him 21 days notice before acting on it. It also made the reinstatement of his status retroactive to March 18. Suri and the other academics' arrests were the centerpiece of a recent trial in Massachusetts, where U.S. District Judge William Young is weighing whether the administration engaged in an unconstitutional policy of targeting immigrants based on their protected free speech.
Politico
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Trump asks Supreme Court to permit firings on consumer safety board
Last month, a federal judge in Baltimore concluded that the firings were illegal and ordered the trio reinstated. On Tuesday, a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals turned down the Trump administration's request to proceed with the firings, prompting the new appeal to the Supreme Court. In the high court appeal, Solicitor General John Sauer says actions by the three reinstated commissioners have demonstrated 'hostility to the President's agenda' by seeking to reverse decisions made following their firing. Boyle, Hoehn-Saric and Trumka have 'thrown the agency into chaos and have put agency staff in the untenable position of deciding which Commissioners' directives to follow,' Sauer wrote. The main legal issue in the fight is the validity and scope of a 90-year-old Supreme Court case known as Humphrey's Executor that upheld Congress' power to limit the president's ability to remove officials at some federal agencies. The justices have narrowed the sweep of that precedent in recent years, relying on a legal theory of broad presidential power known as the 'unitary executive,' although they have not formally overturned the 1935 decision. In May, over the objection of all the liberal justices, the high court granted Trump's emergency request to fire two Biden-appointed members of federal panels that handle labor issues, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court's majority said the panels exercise 'considerable executive power,' which supported Trump's arguments that he could dismiss their members without cause. Sauer argued that the district court and the 4th Circuit essentially defied the Supreme Court's ruling in the labor board cases and he urged the Supreme Court to end what he called a 'court-ordered take-over of the CPSC.' The administration's request will go, at least initially, to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency matters arising from the 4th Circuit. In a filing submitted shortly after Sauer's request, lawyers for the board members Trump is trying to fire urged Roberts not to issue an administrative stay putting them out of office again, saying doing so 'would disrupt the status quo.'
Middle East Eye
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Appeals court rejects Trump administration bid to re-detain Georgetown scholar
Georgetown University researcher Badar Khan Suri can remain free while he fights his deportation, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected the Trump administration's request that Suri be returned to immigration detention while it seeks to deport him by a vote of 2-1. Suri was arrested on 17 March by masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents outside his home in Virginia in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech and association, and he spent eight weeks in detention, mostly in Texas. Upon his release in May, he returned home to his wife and three children in Virginia, where his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his arrest is proceeding. 'I am grateful for my freedom and for the time I have to spend with my family,' said Dr. Badar Khan Suri. 'I have faith that the American judiciary will protect my constitutional rights'.
Los Angeles Times
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Parents may pull their children from classes that offend their religion, Supreme Court rules
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Friday that parents have a right to opt their schoolchildren out of classes and lessons that offend their religious beliefs. The 6-3 ruling will have an impact nationwide because it empowers parents who object to books or lessons at school. 'A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill,' said Justice Samuel A. Alito, speaking for the conservative majority. Parents in Montgomery County, Md., sued over new LGBTQ+ storybooks that were used in kindergarten and elementary school classes. This clash between progressive educators and religiously conservative parents moved quickly to the Supreme Court after judges refused to intervene. Alito said the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction which would require the schools to 'notify them in advance' when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child's class. In ruling for the parents, the court did not say parents have right to change the lessons and books that were used at school. They could, however, choose to have their children temporarily removed from those classes. The court's three liberals dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said 'today's ruling ushers in ...new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to subtle themes contrary to the religious principles that parents wish to instill in their children. Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country, countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent's religious beliefs. The result will be chaos for this Nation's public schools.' Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out their children from sex education classes. But Montgomery County officials said this state rule applied to older students and to sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children. When the new LGBTQ+ storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when 'unsustainably high numbers' of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule. In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children to be removed from class during the reading lessons. A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to intervene. Those judges said the 'free exercise' of religion under the 1st Amendment protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs but it does not shield people from views they oppose. Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty appealed to the Supreme Court. They said the school board had 'mandated new 'inclusive' storybooks that celebrate gender transitions, explore Pride parades, and introduce same-sex romance between young children.' At first, parents had been promised they would be notified and could opt their children out when the storybooks were read, they said. But that promise was revoked. 'If parents did not like what was taught to their elementary school kids, their only choice was to send them to private school or to home school,' they said.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Judge Thwacks Trump Admin For Defying Her Order In Alien Enemies Act Case
The pattern of defiance is so familiar now that there is almost no benefit of the doubt left for federal judges to give the Trump administration. This morning, in one of the key cases in which the U.S. government has been ordered to 'facilitate' the return of a deported individual, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher of Maryland set the stage for contempt proceedings against the administration after finding that it 'utterly disregarded' her order to provide a status report on the pseudonymous plaintiff 'Cristian' in a closely watched Alien Enemies Act case. Gallagher called the government's late-filed status report on Tuesday 'the functional equivalent of, 'We haven't done anything and don't intend to.'' She thwacked the government for being late with the status report and ignoring the substance of what she had asked it to contain. Cristian, a Venezuelan national, was deported to El Salvador on March 15 under the Alien Enemies Act in violation of a 2024 settlement agreement barring the removal of asylum seekers like him. Following the lead of the Abrego Garcia case, Gallagher ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Cristian's return. After the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals last week declined the government's request to pause her order while it appealed, Gallagher quickly ordered the Trump administration to provide her with a status report within a week on Cristian's status and the steps it had taken and planned to take to facilitate his return to the United States. As I noted here, the administration filed the status report after her deadline and did not substantively answer her questions. 'Instead, Defendants simply reiterated their well-worn talking points on their reasons for removing Cristian and failed to provide any of the information the Court required,' Gallagher concluded in her latest order. Gallagher pulled no punches, writing that the administration's status report: 'adds nothing to the underlying record' 'reflects a lack of any effort' 'shows zero effort to comply' is 'patently insufficient' shows a 'blatant lack of effort' What happens now? Gallagher all but urged Cristian's counsel to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the Trump administration, inviting them to give her input on 'a process to create an appropriate record on Defendants' lack of compliance with this Court's Orders.' In the meantime, she gave the administration until 5 p.m. ET Monday to cure its noncompliance with a more fulsome status report. In the slow-moving, drawn-out constitutional clash in the handful of 'facilitate' cases, the Cristian case is quickly catching up to the others as a flash point in whether the judicial branch will hold or be able to hold the line against a defiant executive.
