Latest news with #FederalDistrictCourt
Los Angeles Times
8 hours ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Paul Hasting Adds Preeminent 5-Partner Real Estate Team in Los Angeles
In a move that brings together one of the most highly regarded land use teams in California and Paul Hastings' elite real estate group, the firm announced the addition of partners DJ Moore, Beth Gordie, Winston Stromberg, Benjamin Hanelin and Lauren Paull in Los Angeles. The team joins from Latham & Watkins, uniting two top-ranked Chambers practices. The group has extensive experience advising landowners, developers, project sponsors, institutions and utilities throughout California on securing the full range of local, regional, state and federal approvals necessary to permit and construct development and infrastructure projects, as well as compliance with all associated environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, California Environmental Quality Act, California Coastal Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and many others. 'The real estate sector and California continue to be strategic priorities for the firm, and the team brings an extensive track record of success in high-stakes real estate matters across the state,' said Paul Hastings chair Frank Lopez. 'They are another fantastic addition to our preeminent real estate platform, further strengthening our ability to provide our clients with premier support on their most complex matters involving real estate zoning and environmental matters and more broadly.' Moore's practice focuses on helping clients obtain and defend land use entitlement and environmental approvals from government agencies for major infrastructure, energy and development projects. Gordie focuses on advising landowners and developers through all stages of the entitlement and development process, providing counsel to clients on local planning and zoning regulations, complex regulatory frameworks, government approvals and related environmental matters. Stromberg advises major energy, infrastructure and real estate project developers on land use entitlements, environmental approvals and administrative hearings with a principal focus on litigation arising out of such processes. A former judicial clerk in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California, Hanelin has worked on some of the largest development projects in Southern California over the last 20 years. With a focus on major infrastructure projects, logistics facilities, data centers, film and television developments and California Environmental Quality Act litigation, he guides developers and institutions on state, federal and local planning and zoning regulations and defends any litigation that follows. Paull advises landowners and developers through all stages of the entitlement and development process, counseling clients on planning and zoning regulations, approvals and related environmental matters. 'Paul Hastings' real estate practice has had undeniable momentum and has differentiated itself as a premier, full-service offering at the top of the market,' said Moore. 'We're incredibly excited to continue our work together at Paul Hastings while offering our clients unparalleled service to meet all of their needs with some of the most impressive talent in the industry.' Information sourced from Paul Hastings. For more information, contact christophersumano@
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a day ago
- General
- Business Standard
Judges in deportation cases face evasion and delay from Trump admin
Administration officials have either violated orders or used an array of obfuscations and delays to prevent federal judges from deciding whether violations took place In case after case, the Trump administration has taken a similar approach to the numerous legal challenges that have emerged in recent weeks to President Trump's aggressive deportation plans. Over and over, officials have either violated orders or used an array of obfuscations and delays to prevent federal judges from deciding whether violations took place. So far, no one in the White House or any federal agency has had to pay a price for this obstructionist behavior, but penalties could still be in the offing. Three judges in three different courthouses who have been overseeing deportation cases have said they are considering whether to hold the administration in contempt. All of this first came to the fore when Judge Paula Xinis opened an investigation in mid-April into whether Trump officials had violated her order to 'facilitate' the release of a Maryland man who had been wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador. In a sternly worded ruling in Federal District Court in Maryland, Judge Xinis instructed the Justice Department to tell her what steps the White House had taken, and planned to take, to free the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, from Salvadoran custody. And she wanted answers quickly, declaring that her inquiry would take only two weeks. That was seven weeks ago, and lawyers for Mr. Abrego Garcia say they are no closer now than they were then to understanding why their client was sent to El Salvador or what the government has done to fix what officials have acknowledged was an 'administrative error.' Instead, the lawyers say, the Justice Department has hidden what it knows about Mr. Abrego Garcia's deportation behind repeated claims of privilege. They have also said that the department has offered witnesses for depositions who have little firsthand knowledge of the case and has sought at every turn to slow-walk disclosing documents and responding to questions. 'It is reflective of a pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders,' they wrote in a filing late last week. 'The patina of promises by government lawyers to do tomorrow that which they were already obligated to do yesterday has worn thin.' Such recalcitrance has left lawyers in the Justice Department who are working on these cases in a difficult position. Several times during hearings in the past few months, the lawyers have had to admit to federal judges that their 'clients' in agencies like the Department of Homeland Security have simply refused to provide the information they were asked for. After one of those lawyers, Erez Reuveni, admitted to Judge Xinis during a hearing in April that he was frustrated by how he could not fully answer her questions, the Justice Department responded to his candor by suspending and then firing him. His dismissal prompted a spate of resignations from the department's Office of Immigration Litigation, which has effectively been hollowed out by the administration's give-no-ground approach. In many ways, the intransigent tactics used in these deportation cases echo those employed by the defense lawyers who represented Mr. Trump in the four criminal cases he faced before he was re-elected. In those cases, only one of which survived to go to trial, the lawyers used every means at their disposal to gum up the works: They challenged minor matters, filed appeals at every turn and repeatedly asked judges for delays. Two of those lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove III, now occupy top positions in the Justice Department. Last week, Mr. Trump said he would nominate Mr. Bove to be an appeals court judge. It remains unclear for now how Judge Xinis intends to handle the department's stubbornness in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case, but the tensions could soon come to a head. Just last week, one day before it was supposed to submit its final answers to her questions, the administration asked for a two-week extension, saying that lawyers for the Justice Department had 'expended significant resources' going through the materials she requested. Responding to her demands, the lawyers wrote, had been 'extremely burdensome,' especially, they noted, because the department — the government equivalent of a giant white-shoe law firm — was hindered by 'limited staff available for document review.' Judge Xinis denied the request on the same day it was made. She is not the only judge to have faced obstructions by the Trump administration. One day after Judge Xinis began her investigation in Maryland, a federal judge in Washington, James E. Boasberg, threatened to open a similar inquiry into a violation of an order he had issued in a different deportation case. In that case, Judge Boasberg said he was considering contempt proceedings to punish the administration for failing to comply with his instructions in March to stop planes of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador. One week later, another federal judge in Maryland, Stephanie A. Gallagher, issued a ruling that echoed what Judge Xinis had decided in the Abrego Garcia case. Judge Gallagher told the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of a different immigrant — a young Venezuelan man known only as Cristian — who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador on the same set of flights as Mr. Abrego Garcia. But in the days that followed, Judge Gallagher confronted a familiar pattern of evasion and delay. First, the judge looked on as the Justice Department lost its bid to have a federal appeals court put her order on hold. Then, in the wake of that defeat, she ordered the administration to give her an update on the steps it had taken to seek Cristian's release. When the Justice Department filed its update last week (late, as it turned out), it was largely based on a declaration by a federal immigration official that included no new details about the case. The declaration merely repeated facts that everyone already knew: that Cristian was in the custody of El Salvador and that homeland security officials had asked the State Department for help in complying with the judge's initial order. Displeased by all of this, Judge Gallagher fired off a new decision on Wednesday, accusing the administration of having 'utterly disregarded' her order for an update. She gave Trump officials until 5 p.m. on Monday to send another version. And just before that deadline, the Justice Department filed a new declaration from the same immigration official, asserting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was 'personally handling discussions with the government of El Salvador' concerning Cristian. 'Secretary Rubio has read and understands this court's order,' the declaration said, 'and wants to assure this court that he is committed to making prompt and diligent efforts on behalf of the United States to comply with that order.' But in a dueling submission to Judge Gallagher, Cristian's lawyers said the Trump administration had yet to take any steps to bring their client back. The lawyers asked her to hold a hearing with testimony from 'key decision maker(s)' as to why and to punish officials, if needed, with a finding of contempt. Less than two weeks ago, a federal judge in Boston, Brian E. Murphy, said he might seek contempt sanctions himself against the administration after determining that Trump officials had violated one of his orders by putting a group of immigrants on a deportation flight to Africa with less than one day's notice. In April, Judge Murphy expressly forbade such a move, issuing a ruling that barred officials from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them a 'meaningful opportunity' to object. Judge Murphy stopped short of following the path his colleagues took and ordering the government to 'facilitate' the return of the deported men. Instead, he took the advice of a Justice Department lawyer who suggested the administration could fix the problem it had created by providing the men with hearings in Africa at which they could challenge their removal. Not surprisingly, Judge Murphy seemed a bit confused and more than a little outraged just days later when department lawyers asked him to reconsider this solution, claiming that he had imposed it on the White House and that it was more cumbersome than they had initially imagined. Judge Murphy had to remind the lawyers that the whole proposal had been their idea, not his. 'Defendants have mischaracterized this court's order,' he wrote last week, 'while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry.'
New York Times
a day ago
- General
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Judges in Deportation Cases Face Evasion and Delay by Officials
The entrance to the Salvadoran prison where Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is being held. The tensions between the court and the Trump administration over the case could soon come to a head. In case after case, the Trump administration has taken a similar approach to the numerous legal challenges that have emerged in recent weeks to President Trump's aggressive deportation plans. Over and over, officials have either violated orders or used an array of obfuscations and delays to prevent federal judges from deciding whether violations took place. So far, no one in the White House or any federal agency has had to pay a price for this obstructionist behavior, but penalties could still be in the offing. Three judges in three different courthouses who have been overseeing deportation cases have said they are considering whether to hold the administration in contempt. All of this first came to the fore when Judge Paula Xinis opened an investigation in mid-April into whether Trump officials had violated her order to 'facilitate' the release of a Maryland man who had been wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador. In a sternly worded ruling in Federal District Court in Maryland, Judge Xinis instructed the Justice Department to tell her what steps the White House had taken, and planned to take, to free the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, from Salvadoran custody. And she wanted answers quickly, declaring that her inquiry would take only two weeks. That was seven weeks ago, and lawyers for Mr. Abrego Garcia say they are no closer now than they were then to understanding why their client was sent to El Salvador or what the government has done to fix what officials have acknowledged was an 'administrative error.' Image Chris Newman, right, a lawyer for Mr. Abrego Garcia's family, with Senator Chris Van Hollen in El Salvador in April. Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers have accused the Trump administration of 'a pattern of deliberate delay.' Credit... Daniele Volpe for The New York Times Instead, the lawyers say, the Justice Department has hidden what it knows about Mr. Abrego Garcia's deportation behind repeated claims of privilege. They have also said that the department has offered witnesses for depositions who have little firsthand knowledge of the case and has sought at every turn to slow-walk disclosing documents and responding to questions. 'It is reflective of a pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders,' they wrote in a filing late last week. 'The patina of promises by government lawyers to do tomorrow that which they were already obligated to do yesterday has worn thin.' Such recalcitrance has left lawyers in the Justice Department who are working on these cases in a difficult position. Several times during hearings in the past few months, the lawyers have had to admit to federal judges that their 'clients' in agencies like the Department of Homeland Security have simply refused to provide the information they were asked for. After one of those lawyers, Erez Reuveni, admitted to Judge Xinis during a hearing in April that he was frustrated by how he could not fully answer her questions, the Justice Department responded to his candor by suspending and then firing him. His dismissal prompted a spate of resignations from the department's Office of Immigration Litigation, which has effectively been hollowed out by the administration's give-no-ground approach. In many ways, the intransigent tactics used in these deportation cases echo those employed by the defense lawyers who represented Mr. Trump in the four criminal cases he faced before he was re-elected. In those cases, only one of which survived to go to trial, the lawyers used every means at their disposal to gum up the works: They challenged minor matters, filed appeals at every turn and repeatedly asked judges for delays. Two of those lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove III, now occupy top positions in the Justice Department. Last week, Mr. Trump said he would nominate Mr. Bove to be an appeals court judge. Image The government's tactics in the deportation cases echo those used by President Trump's former defense lawyers, including Todd Blanche, left, and Emil Bove III, center, who are now high-ranking officials at the Justice Department. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times It remains unclear for now how Judge Xinis intends to handle the department's stubbornness in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case, but the tensions could soon come to a head. Just last week, one day before it was supposed to submit its final answers to her questions, the administration asked for a two-week extension, saying that lawyers for the Justice Department had 'expended significant resources' going through the materials she requested. Responding to her demands, the lawyers wrote, had been 'extremely burdensome,' especially, they noted, because the department — the government equivalent of a giant white-shoe law firm — was hindered by 'limited staff available for document review.' Judge Xinis denied the request on the same day it was made. She is not the only judge to have faced obstructions by the Trump administration. One day after Judge Xinis began her investigation in Maryland, a federal judge in Washington, James E. Boasberg, threatened to open a similar inquiry into a violation of an order he had issued in a different deportation case. In that case, Judge Boasberg said he was considering contempt proceedings to punish the administration for failing to comply with his instructions in March to stop planes of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador. One week later, another federal judge in Maryland, Stephanie A. Gallagher, issued a ruling that echoed what Judge Xinis had decided in the Abrego Garcia case. Judge Gallagher told the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of a different immigrant — a young Venezuelan man known only as Cristian — who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador on the same set of flights as Mr. Abrego Garcia. But in the days that followed, Judge Gallagher confronted a familiar pattern of evasion and delay. First, the judge looked on as the Justice Department lost its bid to have a federal appeals court put her order on hold. Then, in the wake of that defeat, she ordered the administration to give her an update on the steps it had taken to seek Cristian's release. Image Recalcitrance from the Justice Department has left its lawyers who are working on deportation cases in a difficult position. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times When the Justice Department filed its update last week (late, as it turned out), it was largely based on a declaration by a federal immigration official that included no new details about the case. The declaration merely repeated facts that everyone already knew: that Cristian was in the custody of El Salvador and that homeland security officials had asked the State Department for help in complying with the judge's initial order. Displeased by all of this, Judge Gallagher fired off a new decision on Wednesday, accusing the administration of having 'utterly disregarded' her order for an update. She gave Trump officials until 5 p.m. on Monday to send another version. And just before that deadline, the Justice Department filed a new declaration from the same immigration official, asserting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was 'personally handling discussions with the government of El Salvador' concerning Cristian. 'Secretary Rubio has read and understands this court's order,' the declaration said, 'and wants to assure this court that he is committed to making prompt and diligent efforts on behalf of the United States to comply with that order.' But in a dueling submission to Judge Gallagher, Cristian's lawyers said the Trump administration had yet to take any steps to bring their client back. The lawyers asked her to hold a hearing with testimony from 'key decision maker(s)' as to why and to punish officials, if needed, with a finding of contempt. Less than two weeks ago, a federal judge in Boston, Brian E. Murphy, said he might seek contempt sanctions himself against the administration after determining that Trump officials had violated one of his orders by putting a group of immigrants on a deportation flight to Africa with less than one day's notice. In April, Judge Murphy expressly forbade such a move, issuing a ruling that barred officials from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them a 'meaningful opportunity' to object. Judge Murphy stopped short of following the path his colleagues took and ordering the government to 'facilitate' the return of the deported men. Instead, he took the advice of a Justice Department lawyer who suggested the administration could fix the problem it had created by providing the men with hearings in Africa at which they could challenge their removal. Not surprisingly, Judge Murphy seemed a bit confused and more than a little outraged just days later when department lawyers asked him to reconsider this solution, claiming that he had imposed it on the White House and that it was more cumbersome than they had initially imagined. Judge Murphy had to remind the lawyers that the whole proposal had been their idea, not his. 'Defendants have mischaracterized this court's order,' he wrote last week, 'while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry.'
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Mahmoud Khalil's detention for alleged threat to US foreign policy is likely ‘unconstitutionally vague,' federal judge says
The Trump administration's use of an obscure portion of immigration law to detain and attempt to deport pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, according to an order issued Wednesday by a federal judge in New Jersey. Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate and permanent US resident, is 'likely to win on the merits' of his arguments against the federal government's assertion that he poses a threat to the administration's foreign policy goal of combatting antisemitism, the lengthy order by Judge Michael Farbiarz of the Federal District Court in New Jersey finds. The administration's use of that law appears to be 'unconstitutionally vague as applied' to Khalil, Farbiarz writes. But the judge did not order Khalil's release, finding also that he has not provided sufficient evidence against the administration's other claims that failed to disclose ties with certain organizations when he applied for residency status in the US. Khalil has been in detention since his arrest near Columbia in March. He was among the first in a series of high-profile arrests made by the Trump administration in the name of battling antisemitism, but which has sparked a litany of free-speech concerns. An immigration judge in April ruled Khalil could be deported after the government argued his presence posed 'potentially serious foreign policy consequences.' Khalil's attorneys argue the government's evidence is insufficient and based solely on a letter from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that does not allege criminal activity. They contend Khalil is being targeted for his political speech, a First Amendment violation. The federal judge's new order is sympathetic to that argument. 'The Secretary did not affirmatively determine that the (Khalil's) alleged conduct has impacted U.S. relations with other countries. Indeed, the Secretary's determination says nothing about any country other than America,' Farbiarz writes. The judge also notes that deporting Khalil on those grounds would be 'unprecedented.' Khalil's legal team praised the order and said it will provide the additional information requested by the judge as quickly as possible to 'return (Khalil) to his wife and newborn son.' 'The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio's weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional,' the legal team said, according to a statement posted by the ACLU, which is helping represent him. Khalil's case is playing out separately in immigration court in Louisiana where he's been in detention. In a lengthy hearing last week, a judge denied a request to terminate Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil's deportation proceedings after his attorneys argued that he was arrested illegally and without a warrant over two months ago. CNN's Ruben Correa contributed to this report.
CNN
7 days ago
- General
- CNN
Mahmoud Khalil's detention for alleged threat to US foreign policy is likely ‘unconstitutionally vague,' federal judge says
Immigration Immigration politics The Middle EastFacebookTweetLink Follow The Trump administration's use of an obscure portion of immigration law to detain and attempt to deport pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, according to an order issued Wednesday by a federal judge in New Jersey. Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate and permanent US resident, is 'likely to win on the merits' of his arguments against the federal government's assertion that he poses a threat to the administration's foreign policy goal of combatting antisemitism, the lengthy order by Judge Michael Farbiarz of the Federal District Court in New Jersey finds. The administration's use of that law appears to be 'unconstitutionally vague as applied' to Khalil, Farbiarz writes. But the judge did not order Khalil's release, finding also that he has not provided sufficient evidence against the administration's other claims that failed to disclose ties with certain organizations when he applied for residency status in the US. Khalil has been in detention since his arrest near Columbia in March. He was among the first in a series of high-profile arrests made by the Trump administration in the name of battling antisemitism, but which has sparked a litany of free-speech concerns. An immigration judge in April ruled Khalil could be deported after the government argued his presence posed 'potentially serious foreign policy consequences.' Khalil's attorneys argue the government's evidence is insufficient and based solely on a letter from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that does not allege criminal activity. They contend Khalil is being targeted for his political speech, a First Amendment violation. The federal judge's new order is sympathetic to that argument. 'The Secretary did not affirmatively determine that the (Khalil's) alleged conduct has impacted U.S. relations with other countries. Indeed, the Secretary's determination says nothing about any country other than America,' Farbiarz writes. The judge also notes that deporting Khalil on those grounds would be 'unprecedented.' Khalil's legal team praised the order and said it will provide the additional information requested by the judge as quickly as possible to 'return (Khalil) to his wife and newborn son.' 'The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio's weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional,' the legal team said, according to a statement posted by the ACLU, which is helping represent him. Khalil's case is playing out separately in immigration court in Louisiana where he's been in detention. In a lengthy hearing last week, a judge denied a request to terminate Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil's deportation proceedings after his attorneys argued that he was arrested illegally and without a warrant over two months ago. CNN's Ruben Correa contributed to this report.
