Latest news with #AlienEnemiesAct
New York Times
a day ago
- General
- New York Times
Lawyers for Migrants Press Appeals Court to Stop Trump's Use of Alien Enemies Act
The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal appeals court early Saturday morning to stop President Trump from using a rarely invoked 18th-century law to deport scores of Venezuelans accused of being gang members to a prison in El Salvador. The A.C.L.U.'s request to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans was an opening salvo in what is likely to be the decisive legal battle over Mr. Trump's attempts to use the law, the Alien Enemies Act, as a centerpiece of his aggressive deportation agenda. The case in front of the appeals court, which emerged from a lawsuit filed in Texas in April, is poised to become the first of its kind to receive a full hearing by the Supreme Court. The justices could get the case later this year and when they do, they will ultimately settle the question of whether Mr. Trump has used the wartime statute lawfully. For more than three months, the A.C.L.U. has been rushing from court to court across the country, filing lawsuits in an effort to stop the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans accused of being members of the street gang Tren de Aragua under the Alien Enemies Act. The act, which was passed more than two centuries ago, gives the government expansive powers to round up and expel citizens of hostile foreign nations, but only at times when war has been declared or during an invasion. The administration has claimed that the presence of Tren de Aragua in United States is tantamount to an invasion and that its members have been acting at the behest of a hostile Venezuelan government. But that position has been rejected by federal judges in New York, Texas, and Colorado, all of whom have issued separate orders declaring that Mr. Trump has been using the act unlawfully. Only one federal judge, in Pennsylvania, has upheld his proclamation invoking the law. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Trump-tapped judge blasts White House's ‘utter disregard' over wrongfully deported asylum seeker
Donald Trump's administration has 'utterly disregarded' a court order for information about a wrongly deported Venezuelan asylum seeker sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, told the man's attorneys to put together a record of the administration's 'lack of compliance' — all but ordering contempt hearings in one of several high-profile legal battles over the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport immigrants. Last month, Gallagher ordered the government to 'facilitate' his release from that country's brutal jail. But when ordered to cough up a status report about his condition, government attorneys essentially only told the court 'we haven't done anything and don't intend to,' Gallagher wrote on Friday. Gallagher previously found that the government's removal of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man named in court documents as 'Cristian' violated a court settlement intended to protect young immigrants who have pending asylum claims. He was deported with dozens of alleged Venezuelan members of the Trend de Aragua gang under the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act in March. The administration was ordered to compile a status report about his 'current physical location and custodial status,' as well as what steps, if any, the government is taking to 'facilitate' his release from the prison, and what the government intends to do when he is returned. Instead, government attorneys not only blew past a deadline to answer, but also '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 wrote. Administration officials 'not only ignore the requirements of this court's orders … but also make no attempt to offer any justification for their blatant lack of effort to comply,' according to Gallagher. The government's response 'adds nothing to the underlying record' and reflects 'zero effort' to comply with court orders, she wrote. She called on Cristian's lawyers to initiate 'a process to create an appropriate record on defendants' lack of compliance with this court's orders' and gave the administration until Monday to cure it. Cristian is one of three men the Trump administration has been ordered to return to the United States following legal battles over their removal. The order for Cristian's return followed the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant living in Maryland who was deported to his home country despite an immigration judge's 2019 order preventing removal from the United States for humanitarian reasons. The Supreme Court unanimously called his removal 'illegal' and similarly ordered the government to 'facilitate' his return. Last week, another judge ordered the administration to 'facilitate' the return of a wrongly deported Guatemalan man sent to Mexico, where he says he survived rape and kidnapping. This week, government attorneys said they would obey the order and arranged a flight to return him. According to a sworn statement from Immigration and Customs Enforcement official Robert Cerna, Cristian was arrested in Texas for cocaine possession in January. The Trump administration has argued that Cristian's removal did not violate a settlement over his removal because his 'designation as an an alien enemy' under the Alien Enemies Act 'results in him ceasing to be a member' of the protected class in the settlement. The administration argues that anyone alleged to be a member of the gang is 'no longer eligible for asylum.' Another court order striking at the president's deportation agenda underscores a growing tension between the judiciary and the administration, which has been repeatedly accused of defying court orders and violating due process protections over his attempts to swiftly remove immigrants. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to continue blocking immigration officials from summarily deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act jailed in Texas while legal challenges play out. The 7-2 decision — with conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting — argues that the immigrants detained in Texas under the controversial war-time law must have 'sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to' get in touch with lawyers and file legal challenges. Trump called the decision a 'bad and dangerous day for America.' 'THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!' he wrote on Truth Social at the time.
The Independent
2 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Trump-tapped judge blasts White House's ‘utter disregard' over wrongfully deported asylum seeker
Donald Trump 's administration has 'utterly disregarded' a court order for information about a wrongly deported Venezuelan asylum seeker sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, told the man's attorneys to put together a record of the administration's 'lack of compliance' — all but ordering contempt hearings in one of several high-profile legal battles over the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport immigrants. Last month, Gallagher ordered the government to 'facilitate' his release from that country's brutal jail. But when ordered to cough up a status report about his condition, government attorneys essentially only told the court 'we haven't done anything and don't intend to,' Gallagher wrote on Friday. Gallagher previously found that the government's removal of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man named in court documents as 'Cristian' violated a court settlement intended to protect young immigrants who have pending asylum claims. He was deported with dozens of alleged Venezuelan members of the Trend de Aragua gang under the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act in March. The administration was ordered to compile a status report about his 'current physical location and custodial status,' as well as what steps, if any, the government is taking to 'facilitate' his release from the prison, and what the government intends to do when he is returned. Instead, government attorneys not only blew past a deadline to answer, but also '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 wrote. Administration officials 'not only ignore the requirements of this court's orders … but also make no attempt to offer any justification for their blatant lack of effort to comply,' according to Gallagher. The government's response 'adds nothing to the underlying record' and reflects 'zero effort' to comply with court orders, she wrote. She called on Cristian's lawyers to initiate 'a process to create an appropriate record on defendants' lack of compliance with this court's orders' and gave the administration until Monday to cure it. Cristian is one of three men the Trump administration has been ordered to return to the United States following legal battles over their removal. The order for Cristian's return followed the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant living in Maryland who was deported to his home country despite an immigration judge's 2019 order preventing removal from the United States for humanitarian reasons. The Supreme Court unanimously called his removal 'illegal' and similarly ordered the government to 'facilitate' his return. Last week, another judge ordered the administration to 'facilitate' the return of a wrongly deported Guatemalan man sent to Mexico, where he says he survived rape and kidnapping. This week, government attorneys said they would obey the order and arranged a flight to return him. According to a sworn statement from Immigration and Customs Enforcement official Robert Cerna, Cristian was arrested in Texas for cocaine possession in January. The Trump administration has argued that Cristian's removal did not violate a settlement over his removal because his 'designation as an an alien enemy' under the Alien Enemies Act 'results in him ceasing to be a member' of the protected class in the settlement. The administration argues that anyone alleged to be a member of the gang is 'no longer eligible for asylum.' Another court order striking at the president's deportation agenda underscores a growing tension between the judiciary and the administration, which has been repeatedly accused of defying court orders and violating due process protections over his attempts to swiftly remove immigrants. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to continue blocking immigration officials from summarily deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act jailed in Texas while legal challenges play out. The 7-2 decision — with conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting — argues that the immigrants detained in Texas under the controversial war-time law must have 'sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to' get in touch with lawyers and file legal challenges. Trump called the decision a 'bad and dangerous day for America.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- 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.
Gulf Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- Gulf Today
Karoline Leavitt lashes out at judges blocking Trump orders
John Bowden, The Independent The White House ramped up its fury at federal judges Thursday after the latest move by a three-judge panel this week to block Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs infuriated officials up and down the administration. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt came to the briefing room podium already breathless as she vowed that the Trump administration would take Wednesday's ruling "to the Supreme Court," delivering a minutes-long, impassioned screed about the unprecedented rate at which Donald Trump's second presidency has been rebuffed by the Judicial Branch. The press secretary went on to note that in February, Trump's first full month in office, he was blocked from taking executive action more times than his predecessor was "in three years". But her comments bely an obvious counter-argument: that the Trump administration's unprecedented usage and scope of executive actions is itself to blame for its sky-high rate of failure at the district court level. And it's not as if district court judges are alone on an island in this regard. Despite having appointed three of the nine sitting Supreme Court justices, Trump has already seen defeat after defeat at the nation's highest court less than six months into his second term. Most recently, the Supreme Court blocked his administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, potentially the clearest example of how the second Trump administration has relied on unconventional to outright brazenly defiant legal tactics to defend the actions of the president and his team in court. A federal district court also halted Trump's outright ban on student visas for international students seeking to go to Harvard, the nation's oldest institution of higher learning, as the White House wages a one-sided ideological war on the school. Still, administration officials are waging war on the judiciary, labeling even conservative judges as "activist" if they rule against Trump. "There is a troubling and dangerous trend of unelected judges inserting themselves into the presidential decision making process," Leavitt said from the podium in her opening remarks Thursday. "America cannot function if President Trump, or any other president, for that matter, has their sensitive diplomatic or trade negotiations railroaded by activist judges. "These judges are threatening to undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage," Leavitt accused, going on to say America's jurists "brazenly abuse their judicial power to usurp the authority of President Trump." She insisted that the court system risked turning America into a non-functioning country if judges continue to refuse to let the president have his way. News broke hours after Leavitt's briefing of a federal appeals court panel temporarily staying the lower court's ruling against Trump on tariffs. But at a press conference later in the afternoon, tensions were still high. White House trade adviser Peter Navarro lashed out at a reporter for The Independent, Andrew Feinberg, for asking about the frequency with which the administration attacks judges as "activists" when the president or his officials disagree with their rulings. "Who is this guy?" the hair-trigger Navarro railed, evading the question in the process. Leavitt's comments also conveniently ignore the fact that the Trump administration has been resisting repeated orders by judges, including those from the Supreme Court, to "facilitate" the return of a man whom the Justice Department's own attorneys have admitted was deported in violation of a judge's order prohibiting him from being sent to his home country. Top administration officials have challenged the order of the lower court, arguing that judges do not have the power to dictate American foreign policy under the Constitution and arguing that the man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is no longer legally the administration's burden. Stephen Miller, architect of the administration's mass deportation plans, also argued on Thursday that the US was facing a "judicial coup" and warned that "it is the end of democracy" if courts to not stop halting individual orders issued by the Trump administration. It is the end of democracy if not reversed.
