Latest news with #D.C.Circuit
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Scores Migration Legal Win From Obama and Biden Judges
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal appeals court on Tuesday declined to halt the implementation of a national registry for noncitizens, delivering a procedural victory for the Trump administration in a case that has drawn sharp criticism from immigrant rights advocates. In a ruling issued in the name of the court as a whole (a "per curiam" order), rather than attributed to a specific judge, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected an emergency request from several advocacy groups to block the Alien Registration Requirement (ARR) while litigation continued. Judges Karen Henderson, Robert Wilkins, and Bradley Garcia—appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, respectively—found that the plaintiffs had not met the "stringent" standard for an injunction, pending appeal. Why This Matters The D.C. Circuit's refusal to pause the ARR means the rule will remain in effect nationwide for months while the appeal plays out. For the Trump administration, the decision represents a step toward reinstating strict enforcement measures grounded in decades-old immigration laws. For immigrant rights groups, it signals an uphill legal battle against a policy they say will deter participation in public life and expose millions to heightened surveillance and potential prosecution. The ruling also underscores that the outcome is not being determined along partisan lines—judges appointed by presidents from both parties agreed the plaintiffs had not met the legal standard for an emergency injunction. People gather at the San Antonio City Hall in protest against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on June 11, 2025, in San Antonio, Texas. People gather at the San Antonio City Hall in protest against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on June 11, 2025, in San Antonio, Texas. AFP/Getty Images What To Know The regulation, which took effect April 11 after a lower court ruling, requires all noncitizens aged 14 and older to register their fingerprints and carry an identification card or face potential fines or imprisonment. Younger children must be registered by a parent or guardian and re-register upon turning 14. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) estimates the rule could affect between 2.2 million and 3.2 million people, primarily those who entered the country without documentation. Canadians staying longer than one month also fall under the requirement. The panel's decision on Tuesday leaves in place an April 10 ruling by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, who determined that the plaintiffs—Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, United Farm Workers of America, Casa Inc. and Make the Road New York—had not demonstrated that the registry would "erode their core missions" and presented only speculative harm. As the plaintiffs didn't have the required standing, McFadden concluded the court could not decide the merits of the case. Broader 'Self-Deportation' Strategy The plaintiffs argue that the policy—which the Trump administration says aligns immigration enforcement with the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act—is part of a broader "self-deportation" strategy. Carl Berquist, general counsel for the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, told Courthouse News that the measure "melds into the administration's entire self-deportation plan of rolling out these [ICE] raids, repurposing the CBP One app into this CBP Home app with a self-deportation tool and trying to roll out some kinds of incentives for people to take action." The policy had a "severe chilling effect" on noncitizens, Berquist added, implicating "their Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate" and "their First Amendment right to assemble and to protest," He described the case as "a little bit below the radar" compared with higher-profile immigration disputes but maintained the harm is "substantial nonetheless." The National Immigration Law Center has also warned that enforcement could lead to increased racial profiling. In a statement, the group said: "While their stated targets are undocumented immigrants, the very mechanics of enforcing registration expand the target to anyone who looks or sounds foreign to law enforcement." Newsweek contacted Carl Berquist and the National Immigration Law Center for comment via email on Thursday outside of regular office hours. What People Are Saying DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said: "The Trump administration will enforce all our immigration laws—we will not pick and choose which laws we will enforce." An emailed statement carried by Courthouse News continued: "We must know who is in our country for the safety and security of our homeland and all Americans." What Happens Next According to DHS, certain categories of immigrants—including green card holders, individuals with removal orders, people holding Employment Authorization Documents, those admitted with visas, border crossing card holders, and others—are already considered registered under existing law. The D.C. Circuit has set an expedited schedule for the case, with the plaintiffs' brief due September 16, the government's response due October 16, and a reply from the plaintiffs due November 6. Oral arguments will follow, with a date to be determined. For now, the ARR remains in effect nationwide, and both sides are preparing for a legal confrontation in the fall that could test the scope of federal authority over noncitizen identification and tracking.
The Hill
6 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Appeals court orders Trump administration restore public funding tracker
A federal appeals court on Saturday ordered the Trump administration to restore a public database showing how federal funding is apportioned. The administration disabled the database in March as it stared down several lawsuits challenging funding freezes, claiming Congress' mandate to make the data public infringed on President Trump's core executive authority. 'To hear the Government tell it, the separation of powers hangs in the balance and only this Court can set things right. But when it comes to appropriations, our Constitution has made plain that congressional power is at its zenith,' wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson. The order to restore the database takes effect Friday, though the administration could still attempt to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The Hill has reached out to the Justice Department for comment. The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was unanimous in its ruling. An appointee of the older former President Bush, Henderson was the sole judge appointed by a Republican president. She was joined on the panel by Robert Wilkins, an appointee of former President Obama, and Brad Garcia, an appointee of former President Biden. Henderson decried the administration in her 25-page statement, which Wilkins joined. It began with a reference to an English civil war in the 17th century between the Stuart monarchs and parliament. 'By the end of the upheaval, Parliament emerged supreme in matters of taxation and spending. Our Constitution followed suit, granting the Congress plenary control over the public fisc,' Henderson wrote. 'Recently, the Executive has once again locked horns in a struggle for control over the purse strings.' Two private groups that regularly sue the Trump administration, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy, challenged the takedown in April. They cited two recent congressional spending deals that require the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to make apportionment decisions publicly available within two business days. 'They will be deprived of information that the Founding generation—from Franklin to Jefferson to Madison to Mason—all thought vital to our Republic,' Henderson wrote in her ruling. Trump has faced bipartisan pressure to restore the tracker, but the administration contends it contains sensitive information that could pose a national security threat. The Justice Department also argued the two groups have no right to sue and the requirement to post the data is unconstitutional. The administration's appeal to the D.C. Circuit came after U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled last month that the administration must restore the database. The D.C. Circuit halted the ruling as it considered the administration's request for a longer pause. Saturday's ruling lasts until the court resolves the appeal, which will now proceed in normal course.
Newsweek
6 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Bid To Make Key Data Secret Hit by Major Legal Blow
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A federal appeals court has rejected a bid by the Trump administration to keep a public database of federal spending under wraps, ruling that the move defied Congress' constitutional authority over government appropriations. In a unanimous order issued on Saturday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave the administration until August 15 to restore the database. The panel upheld an earlier district court decision that the data must remain publicly accessible while litigation over the dispute proceeds. Why It Matters The D.C. Circuit's decision reaffirms Congress' exclusive constitutional authority over federal spending and its power to require public disclosure of how funds are allocated. By ordering the Trump administration to restore a congressionally mandated database of apportionment records, the court underscored that only Congress—not the president—can decide whether such information remains public. The panel warned that allowing the executive branch to conceal these records would undermine congressional oversight, weaken the separation of powers and hinder enforcement of laws such as the Impoundment Control Act, which bars presidents from withholding or delaying funds that Congress has approved. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with House Republicans at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Washington, D.C., on November 13, 2024. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with House Republicans at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Washington, D.C., on November 13, 2024. ALLISON ROBBERT/POOL/AFP via Getty Images What To Know The case stems from the administration's decision in March to shut down the long-running public database, which details federal spending and contract information. The Trump administration argued that the disclosure of certain data could interfere with the president's ability to manage federal funds and could expose sensitive information. The ruling also places the dispute in a long historical context, tracing the principle of legislative control over public money from 17th-century England through the debates of America's Founders. The court cited figures such as James Madison, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, who viewed public access to government financial records as a safeguard against executive overreach and a cornerstone of democratic accountability. By linking modern transparency requirements to these centuries-old ideals, the decision frames the case as more than a fight over a single database: It is a test of whether the executive can limit Congress' ability to oversee and publicize the use of taxpayer funds. Two members of the appeals court panel—Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Judge Robert Wilkins, appointed by President Barack Obama—issued a 25-page opinion rejecting the administration's rationale. Henderson wrote that the administration's effort "was an affront to Congress' authority over government spending" and posed a threat to the separation of powers. She added that Congress' authority is "at its zenith" when both approving expenditures and requiring details of that spending to be disclosed. She wrote, "Only Congress—not the administration—could decide to shut down the database." Executive Overreach The administration's move came as it faced a series of lawsuits alleging that it was preparing to unlawfully "impound" congressionally mandated funds by withholding or delaying their disbursement. The government contended that the database could disclose information that should not be public, while critics argued that it was an essential transparency tool for monitoring compliance with congressional spending directives. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled last month in favor of plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy, ordering the data restored. Sullivan rejected the administration's claims that public access threatened executive functions, saying the data's availability was essential to Congress' oversight powers. The Justice Department obtained a temporary stay of Sullivan's order pending appeal, but Saturday's ruling lifted that pause. The third judge on the appeals panel, Bradley Garcia, appointed by President Joe Biden, agreed with the outcome but did not join Henderson's opinion. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about recent administration actions terminating federal grants and contracts worth billions of dollars that Congress had already approved. The Justice Department has maintained that such funds could still be obligated within statutory deadlines, but some legislators have warned that the approach could undermine congressional intent. What People Are Saying Judge Karen Henderson wrote: "No court would allow a losing party to defy its judgment. No President would allow a usurper to command our armed forces. And no Congress should be made to wait while the Executive intrudes on its plenary power over appropriations." Becky Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, told The Washington Post in July: "It is outrageous that this Trump administration is taking away money that was already promised to our kids and to our schools—that schools already made plans for." Representative Robert C. Scott, a Democrat from Virginia, said in a statement on July 1: "This Administration's plan to deny states resources previously allocated to them and refusal to distribute the funds as allocated by Congress violates the law." What Happens Next The panel's order reinforces that decisions to curtail access to congressionally mandated spending information rest with Congress—not the executive branch. Still, Saturday's ruling does not resolve the broader legal question of whether the administration is ultimately required to make the spending data public. That issue continues to be litigated. However, unless the full appeals court or the Supreme Court intervenes with a delay, the administration must restore the spending database by August 15.
Politico
08-08-2025
- Politics
- Politico
Appeals court panel quashes Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings over Alien Enemies Act deportations
The episode began when President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime authority, to deport the Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran prison with just a few hours notice. When a handful of the men sued to block the deportations, Boasberg hastily convened a March 15 hearing and tried to halt them, saying they appeared to violate due process. He ordered Justice Department lawyers to ensure that deportees who had already been loaded onto airplanes were not transferred out of U.S. custody. The administration nevertheless continued the deportations, deplaning the men before a bank of TV cameras that captured them being forcibly transferred to Salvadoran officials. A month later, Boasberg found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt. The administration filed an unusual type of emergency appeal, arguing it had not defied Boasberg because his oral orders were not legally binding and he lacked authority over the planes once they left U.S. airspace. The D.C. Circuit panel quickly paused Boasberg's contempt-related order while the judges considered the administration's appeal. And on Friday, the panel issued its formal ruling on the matter. While both Katsas and Rao voted to 'vacate' the contempt-related order, they disagreed about how far to go in limiting Boasberg's future options. Katsas wrote in a solo opinion that he wanted to rule out any further criminal contempt proceedings stemming from the El Salvador deportations. Rao, by contrast, wrote her own solo opinion stopping short of foreclosing that possibility. The third member of the appeals panel, Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented. She said the majority's ruling was legally unjustified and 'a grave disservice' to Boasberg. The full 11-member bench of the D.C. Circuit — which has seven Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees — could reconsider the panel's ruling and revive Boasberg's contempt proceedings. Lawyers for the deported men, who have since been moved to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap brokered by the Trump administration, could also take the issue to the Supreme Court.
Hindustan Times
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Who is James Boasberg? Trump administration files misconduct complaint against top Federal Judge
The U.S. Justice Department on Monday said it filed a misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a prominent judge in Washington, D.C., who has drawn President Donald Trump's ire. James Boasberg has been hearing a lawsuit brought on behalf of alleged Venezuelan gang members removed from the U.S. under the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act.(AFP) U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the complaint in a post on X days after Boasberg said he might initiate disciplinary proceedings against Justice Department lawyers for their conduct in a lawsuit brought by Venezuelans challenging their removal to a Salvadoran prison in March. The judge in April concluded the Trump administration appeared to have acted "in bad faith" when it hurriedly assembled three deportation flights on March 15 at the same time that he was conducting emergency court proceedings to assess the legality of the effort. The Justice Department's complaint focused on comments the conservative media outlet The Federalist this month reported that Boasberg made during a meeting of the judiciary's top policymaking body in March that was attended by Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. The Justice Department, in a complaint reviewed by Reuters, said that during the meeting, Boasberg expressed his concern to Roberts and others that the Trump administration would disregard court rulings and trigger "a constitutional crisis.' The Justice Department argued those comments eroded public confidence in judicial neutrality and ran afoul of the judicial code of conduct. It accused him of then acting on his belief by issuing an order that blocked the president from using wartime powers to deport Venezuelan migrants. Justice Department Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle addressed the complaint to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Mizelle asked the federal appeals court to refer the complaint to a special investigative committee. He also requested that the deportations lawsuit be reassigned to a different judge. Boasberg's chambers did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Boasberg, a former federal prosecutor, was first appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, who nominated him to the D.C. Superior Court in 2002. President Barack Obama, a Democrat, in 2011 appinted him to a U.S. District Court judgeship. Boasberg has been hearing a lawsuit brought on behalf of alleged Venezuelan gang members removed from the U.S. under the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act. In an April order, Boasberg said there was "probable cause" to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court for violating his order to turn deportation flights around. The D.C. Circuit halted Boasberg's contempt finding days later, but has yet to rule on whether it should be reversed.
