Latest news with #Cristian
New Straits Times
2 days ago
- Sport
- New Straits Times
'Nice show': Swiatek says women deserve French Open night matches
PARIS: Three-time reigning champion Iga Swiatek said women's matches can provide just as much entertainment as the men's as she weighed in Friday on the uneven scheduling of French Open night sessions. Tournament director Amelie Mauresmo has rejected accusations that the decision to only put men's matches in the primetime slot implies that women are "not worthy" of it. Swiatek has been reluctant to get drawn into a continuing debate but said after her third-round win over Romania's Jaqueline Cristian that women's matches should be treated evenly. "I think it should be equal. Like personally it's not like, you know, I have big feelings about it because I just do my job. I adjust to the schedule that I'm given," she said. "But, yeah, I think it should be equal, because the women's matches can be an entertainment the same way. "As you could see today on my match, they were giving waves and everything. So people like it. We can put on a nice show. That's why I think it should be equal." Four-time Roland Garros champion Swiatek battled past the 60th-ranked Cristian 6-2, 7-5 to reach the fourth round and improve her win-loss record at the tournament to 38-2. Swiatek broke Cristian twice in a comfortable first set, but she was pushed a lot harder by her rival in the second and had to save six break points. The 23-year-old Pole increased her winning run at the French Open to 24 matches as she looks to become the first woman to win four successive titles in Paris in over a century. Swiatek will play 12th seed Elena Rybakina for a place in the quarter-finals after the Kazakh dispatched 2017 champion Jelena Ostapenko 6-2, 6-2 in a clash of big hitters. She has a 4-4 record against Rybakina but has lost both previous meetings on clay. Swiatek though could scarcely hide her relief at avoiding Ostapenko, who is 6-0 against her. A grinning Swiatek suggested earlier she had no preference as to her last-16 opponent before asking: "Am I a good liar?"
The Sun
2 days ago
- Sport
- The Sun
'Nice show': Swiatek says women deserve French Open night matches
THREE-TIME reigning champion Iga Swiatek said women's matches can provide just as much entertainment as the men's as she weighed in Friday on the uneven scheduling of French Open night sessions. Tournament director Amelie Mauresmo has rejected accusations that the decision to only put men's matches in the primetime slot implies that women are 'not worthy' of it. Swiatek has been reluctant to get drawn into a continuing debate but said after her third-round win over Romania's Jaqueline Cristian that women's matches should be treated evenly. 'I think it should be equal. Like personally it's not like, you know, I have big feelings about it because I just do my job. I adjust to the schedule that I'm given,' she said. 'But, yeah, I think it should be equal, because the women's matches can be an entertainment the same way. 'As you could see today on my match, they were giving waves and everything. So people like it. We can put on a nice show. That's why I think it should be equal.' Four-time Roland Garros champion Swiatek battled past the 60th-ranked Cristian 6-2, 7-5 to reach the fourth round and improve her win-loss record at the tournament to 38-2. Swiatek broke Cristian twice in a comfortable first set, but she was pushed a lot harder by her rival in the second and had to save six break points. The 23-year-old Pole increased her winning run at the French Open to 24 matches as she looks to become the first woman to win four successive titles in Paris in over a century. Swiatek will play 12th seed Elena Rybakina for a place in the quarter-finals after the Kazakh dispatched 2017 champion Jelena Ostapenko 6-2, 6-2 in a clash of big hitters. She has a 4-4 record against Rybakina but has lost both previous meetings on clay. Swiatek though could scarcely hide her relief at avoiding Ostapenko, who is 6-0 against her. A grinning Swiatek suggested earlier she had no preference as to her last-16 opponent before asking: 'Am I a good liar?' 'Let's say it doesn't matter, really. Oh, my God. I couldn't play poker,' she joked.
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
3 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.
