Latest news with #ArticleII
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Another judge reminds Trump administration of need to comply with due process
Judges keep reminding the Trump administration to comply with due process. In the latest example, a judge also reminded the administration that it has only itself to blame for the mess it created. The backdrop of the latest legal reminder is the administration's violation of a court order in trying to send migrants to war-torn South Sudan without proper notice or opportunity to contest their removal. The migrants are reportedly now being held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. 'Defendants have mischaracterized this Court's order, while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry,' U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy wrote in an opinion published late Monday. 'By racing to get six class members onto a plane to unstable South Sudan, clearly in breach of the law and this Court's order, Defendants gave this Court no choice but to find that they were in violation of the Preliminary Injunction,' the Biden appointee wrote. Murphy reminded the government that he still hadn't ordered it to bring the people back to the U.S., as the migrants' lawyers had asked. 'Instead, the Court accepted Defendants' own suggestion that they be allowed to keep the individuals out of the country and finish their process abroad,' the judge wrote, using italics in his ruling. He went on to note that the government has since 'changed [its] tune' because, he wrote, 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated.' The judge emphasized that he 'recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process.' Murphy said he hoped 'reason can get the better of rhetoric' as he denied the government's motion to reconsider his prior rulings on the matter. 'Because of this Court's Orders, Defendants are currently detaining dangerous criminals in a sensitive location without clear knowledge of when, how, or where this Court will tolerate their release,' the administration wrote in its unsuccessful reconsideration motion. 'This development has put impermissible, burdensome constraints on the President's ability to carry out his Article II powers, including his powers to command the military, manage relations with foreign nations, and execute our nation's immigration authorities,' it said, contending that the government's actions have been lawful. It's not the first time that a judge has accused the administration of mischaracterizing judicial orders in the context of deportations and due process. In the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government illegally removed to El Salvador in March and whose return it has resisted facilitating, the district judge likewise criticized the government's 'mischaracterization of the Supreme Court's Order' requiring that facilitation. Of course, Abrego Garcia is not the only one whose return the government has been ordered to facilitate. In fact, Murphy's ruling Monday follows his order Friday to facilitate the return of another plaintiff in the case — a gay Guatemalan man listed as O.C.G. in court papers — whom the government sent to Mexico even though he said he had been held for ransom and raped there. The government initially said O.C.G. wasn't afraid to go to Mexico, but it later admitted that it had no witness who could testify to that. 'Defendants' retraction of their prior sworn statement makes inexorable the already-strong conclusion that O.C.G. is likely to succeed in showing that his removal lacked any semblance of due process,' Murphy wrote Friday. 'Due process is, in some sense, a binary — one either receives what the Constitution requires, or one does not,' he wrote, adding, 'It has been clear that O.C.G. did not receive what the Constitution requires.' So once again, the administration's attempt to avoid compliance with legal process meets judicial resistance. And once again, the consequences for the government are yet to be fully determined. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rubio warns court order blocking deportations to South Sudan causes 'irreparable harm' to foreign policy
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday that a federal court order requiring the U.S. government to maintain custody of deportees on a flight meant for South Sudan will cause "significant and irreparable harm to U.S. foreign policy." The Trump administration late Friday filed two court documents after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts said the deportation flight violated his previous April injunction that allows deportees time to challenge an order to be sent to a country other than their own. "This Department of Justice believes that this situation urgently requires judicial intervention to restore President Trump's full Article II authority to conduct foreign policy," a U.S. Department of Justice official told Fox News Digital. Rubio noted the order has already complicated U.S. diplomacy with Libya, South Sudan and Djibouti and presents a serious threat to the president's Article II authority to conduct foreign policy. Federal Judge Orders Trump Administration To Track Deported Immigrants To South Sudan Rubio said in his filing that the court's orders had "already interfered with quiet diplomatic efforts and exacerbated internal political and security divisions" in Libya. Read On The Fox News App The order also threatens to "derail efforts to quietly rebuild a productive working relationship with Juba," the capital of South Sudan, he said. Rubio said before the court's intervention that the South Sudan government had refused to accept a South Sudanese national but had since "taken steps to work more cooperatively with the U.S. government." Dhs Exposes Crimes By Migrants Deported To South Sudan As Judge Threatens To Order Their Return Thirdly, Rubio said the order "causes harm" in Djibouti, which is "strategically located in the Horn of Africa" with the only U.S. military base on the African continent. The deportees are being temporarily held at a U.S. Naval base in Djibouti. In the second filing, the administration asked the court to "reconsider" its order and "highly burdensome requirements." "Because of this Court's Orders, [the U.S. government is] currently detaining dangerous criminals in a sensitive location without clear knowledge of when, how, or where this Court will tolerate their release," the filing said. Judicial Halt Of Deportation Flights Puts Us Foreign Policy At Risk, Career State Dept Official Claims "This development has put impermissible, burdensome constraints on the President's ability to carry out his Article II powers, including his powers to command the military, manage relations with foreign nations, and execute our nation's immigration authorities." The deportees "enjoyed the benefit of full process under the laws of the United States and were lawfully removed from the country," the filing claimed, calling for a stay if not a reconsideration of the order. "These criminal aliens needed only state that they had a fear of removal to South Sudan to receive the other procedures required by the Court's April 18, 2025 injunction," the administration wrote. "The aliens did not do so. Therefore, DHS attempted to remove these aliens — who have committed the most reprehensible violations of our nation's laws — to a place where they no longer pose a threat to the United States." The flight left from Texas earlier this week with eight migrants from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and South Sudan. Murphy issued the ruling Tuesday night after lawyers for the immigrants from Myanmar and Vietnam accused the Trump administration of illegally deporting their clients to third-party countries. They argue there is a court order blocking such removals. Murphy's ruling said the government must "maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful." Rubio announced in April that the U.S. would revoke visas held by South Sudanese passport holders and no others would be issued, attributing the change to "the failure of South Sudan's transitional government to accept the return of its repatriated citizens in a timely manner," according to a statement posted on X at the time. The U.S. has third-party deportation agreements with a handful of countries, the most prominent being El Salvador, which has accepted hundreds of Venezuelan deportees from the Trump administration. Fox News' Brooke Singman contributed to this article source: Rubio warns court order blocking deportations to South Sudan causes 'irreparable harm' to foreign policy
Time of India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump administration challenges court ruling on deportation flights to South Sudan
US President Donald Trump (File Image) The Donald Trump administration on Friday filed two court documents against a ruling by district judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts, which said that a deportation flight to South Sudan violated his previous April injunction which allows deportees time to challenge an order to be sent to a country other than their own. In the first filing, secretary of state Marco Rubio noted the order has already "complicated" US diplomacy with Libya, South Sudan and Djibouti, and presents a "serious threat" to the the US president's authority to conduct foreign policy, Fox News reported. As per the filing, the ruling "interferes with the quiet diplomatic efforts and exacerbated internal political and security divisions" in Libya. The order also threatens to "derail efforts to quietly rebuild a productive working relationship South Sudan," it added. Rubio further said the order "causes harm" in Djibouti, which is "strategically located in the Horn of Africa" and is home to the only US military base on the African continent. The deportees are being temporarily held at an American Naval base in Djibouti. Meanwhile, in the second filing, the Trump administration urged the court to "reconsider" its decision. "Because of the order, the US government is currently detaining dangerous criminals in a sensitive location without clear knowledge of when, how, or where this court will tolerate their release. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Click Here To Read More - micro segmentation software Expertinspector Click Here Undo This development has put impermissible, burdensome constraints on the President's ability to carry out his Article II powers, including his powers to command the military, manage relations with foreign nations, and execute our nation's immigration authorities" the filing stated. The deportees "enjoyed the benefit of full process under the laws of the United States and were lawfully removed from the country," the filing claimed, calling for a stay if not a reconsideration of the order. "These criminal aliens needed only state that they had a fear of removal to South Sudan to receive the other procedures required by the Court's April 18, 2025 injunction. The aliens did not do so. Therefore, DHS (Department of Homeland Security) attempted to remove these aliens, who have committed the most reprehensible violations of our nation's laws, to a place where they no longer pose a threat to the United States. " The flight left from Texas earlier this week with eight migrants from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and South Sudan. District judge Murphy issued the ruling on Tuesday after lawyers for the immigrants from Myanmar and Vietnam accused the Trump administration of illegally deporting their clients to third-party countries. They argue there is a court order blocking such removals. Murphy asked the federal government to "maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the court finds that such removals were unlawful." The US has third-party deportation agreements with a handful of countries, the most prominent being El Salvador, which has accepted hundreds of Venezuelan deportees from the Trump administration.
Epoch Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Judge Upholds Block on Trump Admin's Shutdown of US Institute of Peace
A federal judge has rejected the Trump administration's bid to pause her earlier ruling that restored control of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) to its acting president and board, blocking further attempts by the administration to dismantle the organization and install new leadership. In a seven-page 'While USIP may be considered part of the federal government,' Howell wrote, 'USIP does not exercise executive power and thus is not part of the Executive branch, so the President does not have absolute constitutional removal authority over USIP Board members but must comply with the statute in exercising his removal power.' The judge was responding to the Trump administration's In its May 21 Government attorneys also argued that even if USIP occupies a unique status, its directors are still presidential appointees who can be removed at will under the president's Article II powers. Related Stories 5/19/2025 3/19/2025 In court Howell rejected that position, saying that USIP does not wield executive power and therefore falls outside the reach of the president's unrestricted removal authority. In her May 19 ruling—which she upheld on Friday—Howell wrote that Congress had explicitly structured the institute to operate independently, with protections against unilateral executive interference. Howell described the administration's conduct as a 'gross usurpation of power' carried out 'by acts of force and threat using local and federal law enforcement officers,' and said the attempt to dismantle the institute had 'unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better.' Howell also found that the government had failed to show it would suffer harm without a stay. By contrast, she wrote, continued disruption to USIP would make it 'that much harder' for its restored leadership to undertake 'the job of putting [USIP] back together by rehiring employees and stemming the dissipation of USIP's goodwill and reputation for independence.' USIP's acting president reentered the institute's headquarters on May 21, accompanied by the organization's outside counsel, George Foote. The administration had requested an emergency two-business-day stay to allow time for appeal, and Howell denied that request as well. The legal fight began after Trump issued an On March 14, White House officials fired the Senate-confirmed board members via email. That same day, Moose was removed by the remaining ex officio members, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and replaced with Kenneth Jackson, an official from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Two days later, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) personnel, along with Jackson, In a March 17 post on social media platform X, DOGE stated that Moose allegedly 'denied lawful access [by] Kenneth Jackson, the Acting USIP President (as approved by the USIP Board),' to the building. Officers with the DC Metropolitan Police Department later 'arrived onsite and escorted Mr. Jackson into the building,' according to DOGE. The building was later transferred to the General Services Administration and leased to the Department of Labor. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the court's May 23 ruling. Jack Phillips contributed to this report.
Boston Globe
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Lawyers question legality of Trump's Harvard campaign
In a lawsuit filed Friday morning, Harvard's lawyers argued the revocation of the school's ability to enroll foreign students was 'a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act.' Some of the lawyers interviewed by the Globe Friday, including those who teach at Harvard and others who are not affiliated with the case, agreed with the university that the administration's action appeared illegal. Advertisement Jodie Ferise, a former general counsel at the Independent Colleges of Indiana and former chief international officer at the University of Indianapolis, called the revocation of foreign student enrollment 'serious government overreach.' 'If they just have authority to do that, then I don't know how that differentiates us from an authoritarian regime,' Ferise said. ''You bend to our will, or we will revoke this program.' That's pretty authoritarian.' Advertisement Harvard president Alan Garber said in an 'The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government's illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body,' he said. The federal government defended what it described as a legitimate use of executive authority. Harvard's lawsuit, said Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, 'seeks to kneecap the President's constitutionally vested powers under Article II. We have the law, the facts, and common sense on our side.' The White House did not respond to a separate question on whether it will comply with the judge's order. Harvard has two lawsuits against the Trump administration: one to stop the voluminous cuts to its federal funding, and the other, filed Friday, to fight the foreign student ban. Both argue the Trump administration's methods for intervening in the university's affairs violate federal laws and the US Constitution. The White House, Harvard's lawyers contend, has cast aside the proper procedures for investigating a university in its zeal to make an example of Harvard in its campaign to exert wide-ranging influence over elite universities nationwide. The Trump administration initially alleged Harvard violated civil rights laws by failing to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination. Then, rather than carrying out an investigation as the law requires, it sent Harvard a list of demands that included placing the university's hiring and admissions offices and some academic divisions under federal oversight. Advertisement When Harvard refused, responding that it was already taking steps to address campus antisemitism, the Trump administration began slashing its federal research funding, with the cuts now approaching $3 billion. Related : Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group, said the government does have authority to withhold funding as punishment for civil rights violations. But he said it must follow established procedures, present evidence, and allow a university to defend itself. None of that happened before the Trump administration summarily cut Harvard's research funding, Coward said. Some lawyers say this week's events expose similar misuses of federal authority. The executive branch has authority over student visas but cannot revoke a university's ability to enroll foreign students without proving a violation has occurred, several immigration lawyers and constitutional law specialists said. The government hasn't 'cited any legal authority to do this,' said Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor who specializes in constitutional studies. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced on Thursday the administration had revoked Harvard's certification to participate in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, the federal program that enables universities to enroll student visa holders. But Feldman said the administration 'ignored' the legal procedures required for it suspend foreign student enrollment. 'The DHS letter is a version of business as usual for the Trump administration,' he added. 'These days, they just break the law and don't even make an attempt to justify it.' In her letter, Noem said the government revoked Harvard's certification because the university refused to turn over documentation about its foreign students, including disciplinary records. Advertisement But Garber refuted that accusation in his letter Friday. 'In fact, Harvard did respond to the Department's requests as required by law,' he wrote. Nikolas Bowie, a historian and law professor at Harvard Law School, said the administration's action shows it has little respect for the law. 'The basic way of thinking about this is extortion,' Bowie said. 'The Trump administration is in effect saying, 'Nice university you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it,' while trying to get institutions across the country, from Harvard to law firms and news outlets to just cave to whatever demands it thinks up, as opposed to those that are legally required.' In her letter Thursday, Noem accused Harvard of 'perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-Hamas sympathies, and employs racist 'diversity, equity, and inclusions' policies.' She also demanded Harvard turn over all video footage in the university's possession showing student visa holders participating in campus protests over the past five years. Separately, the Trump administration has arrested and moved to deport foreign students and recent graduates linked to pro-Palestinian advocacy. Asked about international students during a signing ceremony in the Oval Office Friday, President Trump said some of them are 'picketing and screaming at the United States, and screaming at ... they're antisemitic, or they're something. We don't want troublemakers here.' Jay Greene, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said foreign students need to 'behave in a certain way in accordance with the requirements of their visa.' Student visas, he said, 'are granted as a privilege, not a right.' Advertisement 'The speech laws that apply to US citizens do not apply in the same way to non-citizen students on foreign visas,' Greene said. 'The problem is that there's good reason to believe that failure to enforce rules on foreign students at Harvard and MIT and other places has exacerbated the civil rights violations there, and Harvard has refused to cooperate in trying to enforce those rules so that students who do violate the rules would be removed from the United States.' Julian E.J. Sorapuru of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Mike Damiano can be reached at
