Latest news with #9thCircuit
San Francisco Chronicle
14 hours ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow officers to arrest suspected illegal immigrants in Southern California because of how they look, what language they're speaking and what kind of work they're doing, factors that federal judges have found to be baseless and discriminatory. Last month's ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 'threats to upend immigration officials' ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California,' D. John Sauer, the Justice Department's solicitor general, said Thursday in a filing with the Supreme Court. 'This Court should end this attempted judicial usurpation of immigration-enforcement functions' and suspend the injunction while the case is argued in the lower courts, Sauer wrote. The Central District, which includes Los Angeles County and six other counties, has nearly 20 million residents, more than any other federal court district in the nation. It became the focus of legal disputes over immigration enforcement after President Donald Trump took control of the California National Guard in June and sent thousands of its troops to the streets in Los Angeles to defend immigration agents against protesters of workplace raids. A 9th Circuit panel upheld Trump's commandeering of the National Guard, rejecting a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Frimpong, an appointee of President Joe Biden, ruled July 11 that immigration officers were overstepping legal boundaries in making the arrests, and issued a temporary restraining order against their practices. In a ruling Aug. 1 upholding the judge's decision, another 9th Circuit panel said federal officers had been seizing people from the streets and workplaces based on four factors: their apparent race or ethnicity, the language they spoke or accent in their voice, their presence in a location such as a car wash or an agricultural site, and the type of work they were doing. That would justify the arrest of anyone 'who appears Hispanic, speaks Spanish or English with an accent, wears work clothes, and stands near a carwash, in front of a Home Depot, or at a bus stop,' the panel's three judges said. They agreed with Frimpong that officers could not rely on any or all of those factors as the basis for an arrest. But the Trump administration's lawyers said those factors were valid reasons for immigration arrests in the Central District. In April, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a similar order against the Border Patrol, prohibiting immigration arrests in the Eastern District of California unless officers have a reasonable suspicion that a person is breaking the law. The district is based in Sacramento and extends from Fresno to the Oregon border. 'You can't just walk up to people with brown skin and say, 'Give me your papers,'' Thurston, a Biden appointee, said at a court hearing, CalMatters reported. The Trump administration has appealed her injunction to the 9th Circuit. The administration's compliance with the Central District court order was questioned by immigrant advocates on Wednesday after a raid on a Home Depot store near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, in which officers said 16 Latin American workers were detained. An American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Mohammad Tajsar, said the government 'seems unwilling to fulfill the aims of its racist mass deportation agenda without breaking the law.' There is ample evidence that many businesses in the district 'unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs – like day labor, landscaping, and construction – are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paperwork; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Central America; and that many only speak Spanish,' Sauer told the Supreme Court. 'No one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion' that someone is an illegal immigrant, the Justice Department attorney said. 'But in many situations, such factors – alone or in combination – can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.' The Supreme Court told lawyers for the immigrants to file a response by Tuesday. The case is Noem v. Perdomo, No. 25A169.
Reuters
3 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
US appeals court upholds SEC 'gag rule' over free speech objections
Aug 6 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's so-called "gag rule," rejecting a claim it illegally silences defendants who want to criticize the regulator after settling civil enforcement cases. In a 3-0 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the rule was not unconstitutional on its face, but could violate the First Amendment depending on how it is applied. The rule, reflecting SEC policy dating to 1972, often requires settling defendants to say at least that they neither admit nor deny the regulator's allegations. Twelve petitioners sought to void the rule, including eight people whose SEC settlements triggered it. One, former Xerox chief financial officer Barry Romeril, took a similar case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 in an appeal backed by billionaire and longtime SEC critic Elon Musk, but that court refused to consider it. In Wednesday's decision, Circuit Judge Daniel Bress said that while some defendants find the rule coercive, they remained free not to settle, and instead to speak out against the SEC. He also said the SEC had an interest in deciding how to try its own cases, including by giving defendants different options, knowing that scrapping the rule could lead to fewer settlements. "Provided that any limitation on speech remains within proper bounds, and given the background ability to waive First Amendment rights at least to some extent, the SEC has an interest in giving defendants the option to agree to a speech restriction as part of a broader settlement agreement," Bress wrote. The judge said challenges to applying the rule could still be brought before the SEC brings enforcement cases, while judges consider settlements, or when the SEC reopens settled cases because of alleged breaches. Lawyers for the 12 petitioners did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The SEC had no immediate comment. The petitioners, including the nonprofit New Civil Liberties Alliance, had been appealing from the SEC's decision in January 2024 not to amend the rule. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce dissented, opens new tab from that decision. She found "scant factual basis" for the rule, and said prohibiting denials of wrongdoing "prevents the American public from ever hearing criticisms that might otherwise be lodged against the government, let alone assessing their credibility." The 9th Circuit heard the appeal in Honolulu, Hawaii. The case is Powell et al v SEC, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1899.
Reuters
3 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
US appeals court rejects challenge to SEC 'gag rule'
Aug 6 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected a challenge a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission "gag rule" that prevents defendants who settle civil enforcement actions from publicly denying the regulator's allegations. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the rule, reflecting SEC policy dating to 1972, was not unconstitutional on its face, but could violate the First Amendment if applied in a manner that prevented defendants from criticizing the agency. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress said challenges to how the rule is applied could be brought before the SEC brings enforcement cases, while judges consider settlements, or when the SEC seeks to reopen settled cases because of alleged breaches. To enforce the rule, the SEC often requires settling defendants to say at least that they neither admit nor deny the regulator's allegations. Twelve petitioners, including eight people whose SEC settlements contained the rule's obligations, had sought to declare the rule unconstitutional. Lawyers for the petitioners did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The SEC did not immediately respond to a similar request. The 9th Circuit heard the appeal in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judges Deal Crushing Blow to Trump on Birthright Citizenship
A federal appeals court has dealt a blow to President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship, ruling that his executive order was unconstitutional. 'The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,' Judge Ronald Gould, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote for the 2-1 majority on the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals. The majority concluded in Wednesday's ruling that the executive order was 'invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States.'' Gould was joined on the majority by Judge Michael Hawkins, who was also appointed by Clinton. Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, partially dissented, arguing the states did not have the right to bring the case. The decision prevents the government from nationwide enforcement of Trump's order, which aimed to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his presidency titled, 'Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship.' It attempted to limit birthright citizenship even though it is enshrined by the 14th Amendment. The order was swiftly challenged in the courts, and was blocked within a month by three federal district judges who issued nationwide injunctions. The Trump administration sought relief from the Supreme Court, which did not rule on the constitutionality of the order, but instead argued in June that lower courts do not have the authority to block the policies nationwide. The 9th Circuit case was filed by Democratic attorneys general in four states: Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon. They argued that it would be problematic for the order not to apply nationwide. It marks the second time a court has ruled against Trump's order since the Supreme Court's decision to restrict injunctions. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire also blocked Trump's order nationwide by certifying a class-action lawsuit. Trump's order was first blocked in February by U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee based in Seattle. Wednesday's decision keeps that decision in place. Each court to rule so far on the legality of Trump's order has found it to be unconstitutional.
Los Angeles Times
02-08-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
9th Circuit keeps freeze on Southern California ICE patrols
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt a stinging blow to the Trump administration's mass deportation project Friday night in a fiery opinion upholding a lower court's block on 'roving patrols' across much of Southern California. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the panel wrote. The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order barring masked and heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets of Southern California without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally. Under the 4th Amendment, reasonable suspicion cannot be based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles wrote in her original order. 9th Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung and Ronald M. Gould agreed. 'There is no predicate action that the individual plaintiffs would need to take, other than simply going about their lives, to potentially be subject to the challenged stops,' the opinion said. Fourth Amendment injunctions are hard to win, experts say. Plaintiffs must show not only that they were hurt, but that they are likely to be hurt again in the same way in the future. One way to meet that test in court is to show the injury is the product of a government policy. Throughout a hearing Monday, the appellate judges repeatedly probed that question, roughly doubling the administration's time to respond in an effort to get an answer. 'After the district court injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, 'We are going to continue doing what we're doing' — so that's not a policy?' Berzon asked. 'The policy is to follow the 4th Amendment and to require reasonable suspicion,' said Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov Roth. Roth also rebuffed questions about a 3,000-arrests-per-day quota first touted by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller in May. In a memo to the panel on Wednesday, Roth clarified that 'no such goal' had been established. The court rejected that argument Friday, writing that 'no official statement or express policy is required' to prove one exists. 'Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks ... some repeatedly in the same location,' the opinion said, making the likelihood of future stops 'considerable.' The ruling scolded the Department of Justice for 'misreading' the restraining order it sought to block, and said it 'mischaracterized' Judge Frimpong's order. And it rejected the government's central claim that its law enforcement mandate would be 'chilled' by the district court's order. 'Defendants have failed to establish that they will be 'chilled' from their enforcement efforts at all, let alone in a manner that constitutes the 'irreparable injury' required to support a stay pending appeal,' the panel wrote. The case is still in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction in September. But the 'shock and awe' campaign of chaotic public arrests that first gripped Southern California on June 6 has all but ceased in the seven counties covered by Frimpong's order: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. 'The underlying 4th Amendment law is not complicated,' said Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California — part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests. 'Even a more conservative panel would have been concerned about what the government is doing.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, whose city was among a number of Southern California municipalities allowed to join the lawsuit this week, celebrated the news. 'Today is a victory for the rule of law and for the city of Los Angeles,' Bass said. 'Los Angeles will stand together against this administration's efforts to break up families who contribute every single day to the life, the culture and the economy of our great city.' The Trump administration has previously signaled its intent to fight judicial limits on its deportation efforts any way it can. It was not immediately clear where an appeal would proceed.
