Latest news with #Deadline:LegalNewsletter
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
ICE details dangerous working conditions in Djibouti. But they don't have to be there.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are laboring under dangerous conditions while maintaining custody over migrants they're holding at a military base in Djibouti, according to a declaration from an ICE official Thursday. But the Trump administration is choosing to keep them there, so if the government's top priority is caring for its workers, it could move them elsewhere while the legal process plays out. The government had sought to deport a group of migrants to war-torn South Sudan, but U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy told the government to give them a chance to properly challenge their removals. The judge didn't say that they had to stay in Djibouti while their claims are processed; he just said the government had to maintain custody and control over them. The government could bring them back to the U.S. to continue the process here if that's what the government preferred. To underscore that the status quo is due at least partly to the government's preference, Murphy emphasized in a recent ruling that, even though he found the government had violated a prior order in attempting the premature deportations, he didn't grant the migrants' request to be returned to the U.S. 'Instead, the Court accepted [the government] Defendants' own suggestion that they be allowed to keep the individuals out of the country and finish their process abroad,' he wrote, using italics to press the point. The Biden appointee in Boston had told the government, while ordering officials to maintain custody and control of the migrants, that while he 'leaves the practicalities of compliance to [government] Defendants' discretion, Defendants have ensured, and the Court expects, that class members will be treated humanely.' Thursday's ICE declaration filed to Murphy suggests that it's ICE officers themselves who are facing inhumane conditions. It says they're showing symptoms of respiratory infections but can't get proper testing for diagnoses, and that they're at risk of rocket attacks from Yemeni terrorists but lack body armor or other protective gear. A Trump official said Thursday that the judge was 'literally putting ICE agents' lives in danger.' But that's not quite true. The judge never said they had to stay there. As Murphy put it in his recent ruling, officials are 'manufacturing the very chaos they decry.' 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 Donald Trump's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charity in tax case
The Supreme Court sided with a Catholic charity in a legal dispute with Wisconsin state authorities over unemployment benefit taxes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's opinion for the court cited the First Amendment's mandate of 'government neutrality between religions.' As framed by the charity, the legal question in the case was whether a state violates the First Amendment by 'denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior.' Catholic Charities Bureau argued that its exclusion by the state from a religious exemption was unconstitutional 'in at least three ways,' including for allegedly being discriminatory. A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the state last year. The court's liberal majority concluded that the charity isn't 'operated primarily for religious purposes' under state law, over conservative dissent that said the majority 'rewrites the statute to deprive Catholic Charities of the tax exemption, rendering unto the state that which the law says belongs to the church.' Reversing the state court on Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed this case an easy one, reasoning that the state court failed to apply the rigorous constitutional analysis required. 'When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny,' Sotomayor wrote for the court. 'Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion,' she wrote, referring to the process of a higher court sending a case back to a lower court. The March 31 oral argument reflected bipartisan concern among Supreme Court justices in the charity's favor. The state had argued that the group didn't engage in 'distinctively religious activities' and didn't assert 'a religious objection to contributing to unemployment insurance.' 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
17 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rules against Mexico in its lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers
The Supreme Court sided with the firearms industry in ruling that Mexico's novel lawsuit didn't plausibly allege that gun companies had aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. Mexico had sued seven U.S. firearm manufacturers and a distributor for allegedly aiding and abetting illegal sales, arguing that the companies intentionally facilitated unlawful trafficking of their firearms across the southern border, supplying a demand by Mexican drug cartels that seek out American-made military-style weapons. But the companies argued that Mexico's legal theory was too far-fetched. 'Indeed, if Mexico is right, then every law enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and Budweiser is liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk, and crash,' argued Noel Francisco, a former solicitor general under Donald Trump, to the justices on behalf of the industry in March. 'The First Circuit gravely erred in embracing that implausible theory and should be reversed,' Francisco added, referring to the federal appeals court that greenlit Mexico's lawsuit to move forward last year. The appellate panel noted that the 'increase in gun violence in Mexico correlates with the increase of gun production in the United States, beginning with the end of the United States' assault-weapon ban in 2004.' This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 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 Donald Trump's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court revives straight woman's workplace discrimination claim
A unanimous Supreme Court sided with a straight woman in her discrimination appeal, ruling that a lower court applied too strict a standard against her. After being passed over and demoted in favor of a lesbian woman and a gay man, Marlean Ames brought a discrimination claim against her employer, the Ohio Department of Youth Services. But as a member of a 'majority' group, she had a greater burden to show what courts call 'background circumstances' that would 'support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' The legal question at the Supreme Court was whether majority-group plaintiffs need to show such circumstances. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court said the additional requirement is inconsistent with federal law and Supreme Court precedent, so ti sent the case back for further litigation. Among the parties who agreed that the lower court ruling against Ames got it wrong were not only the America First Legal Foundation, a group founded by Donald Trump ally Stephen Miller, but also the federal government during the Biden administration. 'The 'background circumstances' requirement has no basis in Title VII's text, and it contradicts this Court's precedent, including the Court's assurances that all plaintiffs may proceed according to the same standards,' the government wrote in a December filing from the office of then-Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars the failure or refusal 'to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.' Ohio's Republican attorney general, Dave Yost, defended the state. His office cast the 'background circumstances' rule as a simple application of Supreme Court precedent that's 'just another way of asking whether the circumstances surrounding an employment decision, if otherwise unexplained, suggest that the decision was because of a protected characteristic.' This is a developing story. Check back for updates. 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 Donald Trump's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Due process is not limited to citizens, contrary to Nancy Mace's claim
The Trump administration and its supporters could still use a refresher on due process. I previously explained why White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller was wrong to suggest the constitutional protection is limited to citizens. Now it appears that Nancy Mace could use that lesson, too. Amid a series of social media posts apparently intended to be provocative, the Republican U.S. representative from South Carolina wrote Tuesday night, 'Due process is for citizens.' The implication being that noncitizens don't get that protection. That's incorrect. The constitutional amendments that provide for due process apply not only to the narrower category of 'citizens' but to the broader category of 'person[s].' Indeed, the Republican-majority Supreme Court recently acknowledged this principle. Approvingly quoting from a prior precedent on the matter, it noted, ''It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law' in the context of removal proceedings.' So while it's true that due process is for citizens, it's not limited to citizens. 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
