Latest news with #JohnCoughenour
Washington Post
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Federal judges speak out about ongoing threats in rare panel session
One federal judge said he was targeted with a 'swatting' attack that drew authorities to his house under false pretenses after he ruled against the Trump administration. Another judge told of receiving voicemails calling for his death. A third said he received a pizza delivery in the name of a colleague's slain son when he spoke out about anti-judge rhetoric. In rare public remarks, a panel of U.S. district judges on Thursday offered firsthand accounts of the threats and harassment they said they and other jurists have faced since President Donald Trump returned to office and heaped criticism on the nation's court system. Speaking in a forum organized by the nonpartisan judicial advocacy group Speak Up for Justice, the judges said attacks on the judiciary have reached levels they had not seen in decades-long careers in public service. They called for a coordinated response from officials across government to end the intimidation, saying it was eroding the rule of law and jeopardizing the safety of judges and their families. 'It's just been stunning to me how much damage has been done to the reputation of our judiciary because some political actors think that they can gain some advantage by attacking the independence of the judiciary,' said Judge John Coughenour, who was targeted with the swatting attack. The virtual forum was part of an expanding effort by judges, lawyers, and legal experts to push back against what they describe as an increasingly hostile and menacing political climate. It included uncommon candor from the judges, who often limit their public speeches and interviews to issues related to court processes and the administration of law. Chief Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island said he was hesitant to speak about the barrage of threats that came after he temporarily blocked the Trump administration's broad freeze on federal grants and other spending. He said he felt compelled to raise public awareness because the attacks had grown so severe. McConnell, an appointee of President Barack Obama, described how his chambers received more than 400 vitriolic phone calls in the spring, including one calling for him to be killed and threatening to 'come for him.' Right-wing influencers doxed the judge and his daughter, and billionaire Elon Musk called for his impeachment. The U.S. Marshals Service identified six credible death threats, he said, and assigned him a protective detail for months. 'I've never spoken about what's happened to me personally because I'm not looking for pity, and I'm not looking for sympathy,' McConnell said. 'I want to be able to just do my job again, and I want to be able to uphold the Constitution. And I want the public to speak out once again and support an independent judiciary.' Threats against federal judges have risen for several years and have come from both sides of the political spectrum. Supreme Court justices have received round-the-clock protection since the conservative majority overturned abortion rights in 2022. District judges handling abortion-related cases and judges overseeing Trump's now-dismissed criminal cases have also received enhanced security. A significant spike in threats occurred in the early months of the Trump administration as the White House faced mounting lawsuits challenging its policies on federal spending, workforce cuts, deportations, and reshaping of immigration policy. The U.S. Marshals Service investigated threats against 297 federal judges between Oct. 1 and mid June, according to data shared with The Washington Post by U.S. District Judge Esther Salas of New Jersey. Nearly 200 of those investigations came between the beginning of March and late May — a period in which Trump and his allies repeatedly assailed the judiciary and vilified judges who ruled against the administration. That was more than double the 80 judges threatened in the previous five months, from Oct. 1 through March 1. The marshals investigated threats against an additional 20 judges between late May and June 16, according to the data, which the agency has not released publicly. A White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement Thursday: 'Attacks against public officials, including judges, have no place in our society and President Trump knows all too well the impact of callous attacks having faced two assassination attempts.' McConnell was also one of dozens of judges to receive an anonymous, unsolicited pizza delivery in the name of Daniel Anderl, the murdered son of Salas. Anderl was fatally shot in the family's home in July 2020 by a disgruntled lawyer posing as a delivery person. The marshals are reviewing more than 100 such deliveries in at least seven states and the District of Columbia. Salas and other judges view the deliveries as threats meant to intimidate the recipient by showing that the senders know where they live. Salas, a founding member of the advocacy group who also spoke in the panel discussion, said Thursday that state judges in Florida and Colorado have also received pizzas, some in her son's name. U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of Washington said in Thursday's panel discussion that he, too, had received a pizza delivery in Anderl's name. Lasnik, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, said that he opted this year not to participate in lawsuits involving the Trump administration so that he would be free to comment broadly on threats and intimidation against the judiciary without raising conflicts of interest. In April, he called on the administration and its supporters to cool their incendiary language toward federal judges in an interview with a local NPR station. Soon after, he said, a pizza showed up at his home in Seattle. Two of his adult children in other cities also received deliveries in Anderl's name. 'What's the message to Judge Lasnik? 'We know where you live. We know where your children live, and they could end up dead like Judge Salas's son did,'' Lasnik said. Coughenour, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said he was targeted this year after he issued a sharply worded ruling calling Trump's executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional. Someone called a fake police report to his home saying he had murdered his wife, he recalled in the panel discussion. Police officers arrived at his house with weapons drawn, he said. Shortly after, he said, someone falsely reported a bomb threat at his house. Coughenour said he can endure the threats and attempts to intimidate because he chose to become a judge. 'But my family didn't,' he said. 'It's unspeakable that people will do these things.'
BBC News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
What to know about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most consequential cases in modern US history on Friday - whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect case stems from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. It will instead focus on federal judges' use of nationwide injunctions, which have stunted key aspects of Trump's agenda. The Trump administration has argued that the judges have overstepped their power, but others say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos". A quick road to the Supreme Court On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits that ended in judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump's executive order "blatantly unconstitutional". Trump's Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be the case being heard at the nation's highest court is not about birthright citizenship directly - but about whether lower courts should have the authority to block nationwide presidential orders with injunctions. The argument against court injunctions The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum. Conservative and liberal justices alike have argued that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."Similarly, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that "universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious". Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact. The Trump administration is arguing in the birthright citizenship case that lower judges did not have the right to put time-consuming legal obstacles in front of the Trump's agenda. The arguments for nationwide injunctions Without nationwide injunctions, backers of the measure say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits. Injunctions are often the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump's executive orders from taking immediate legal effect. Such orders are a marked contrast from laws passing through Congress, which takes longer and subjects them to additional Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system."Your argument says 'we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'" Jackson said. "I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law," she other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws. Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that, in the birthright citizenship case, there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship. What are the arguments around birthright citizenship? The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution establishes the principle of birthright citizenship."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."However, the Trump administration's arguments rest on the clause in the 14th Amendment that reads "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It argues that the language excludes children of non-citizens who are in the US legal scholars say President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive the 15 May hearing, Justice Kagan noted that the administration had lost on the birthright citizenship issue in every lower court and asked: "Why would you ever take this case to us?" Here are some of the ways the justices could rule On nationwide injunctions, the justices could say injunctions can only apply to the people who sued, including class actions, as government lawyers have advocated justices could also say injunctions can only apply in the states where the cases are brought, or that injunctions can only be issued on constitutional questions (like birthright citizenship). Constitutional questions, though, concern the bulk of the cases with nationwide injunctions that the Trump administration is appealing. If the court rules the injunctions should be lifted, then the Trump administration could deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants while the court cases the injunctions hold, the individual court cases challenging the birthright citizenship order will likely work their way to the Supreme Court. The high court could decide on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but justices have indicated they would prefer a separate, full hearing on the could also give indications or hints in their written opinion on which way they are leaning on the citizenship question, without ruling directly on it.
CNN
04-06-2025
- General
- CNN
DOJ presses federal appeals court to reverse ruling blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship
The Justice Department on Wednesday pressed a federal appeals court to reverse a judge's ruling that blocked nationwide President Donald Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship. The hearing before a three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals represents the first time one of the nation's intermediate courts has heard oral arguments over the constitutionality of the controversial policy, which was blocked by several courts earlier this year before it could take effect. The hourlong hearing unfolded at a courthouse in Seattle comes as the Supreme Court is considering whether it should modify the lower-court injunctions so that Trump can begin partially enforcing the policy while the legal challenges are resolved. 'Our position is very firmly grounded in text, history and precedent. But I do want to be clear that the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause sets a floor for birthright citizenship and not a ceiling, so there's nothing in our position that would prevent Congress – if it saw fit and on the terms it saw fit – from granting citizenship to the children of foreigners who are in the country temporarily or unlawfully,' DOJ attorney Eric Dean McArthur told the court. Some of the discussion on Wednesday concerned whether the appeals court should also narrow the reach of the ruling issued in February by US District Judge John Coughenour, with McArthur struggling to answer some questions about how the policy would apply to certain groups of immigrants – like asylum seekers – because officials haven't been able to craft guidance implementing Trump's executive order due to the series of court orders. 'One of the problems with the injunction is that it enjoined the government from even explaining how this order would be implemented,' McArthur said at one point. 'So, how the executive order, if and when it is allowed to take effect, would apply to various categories like asylees, like refugees, is not clear at this point.' But given the Supreme Court's pending ruling on whether the injunctions should be reined in, McArthur suggested later that the appeals court shouldn't yet 'put pen to paper' on its own decision. One member of the panel – Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee – asked questions throughout the hearing that were sympathetic to the administration's arguments, including whether a key 19th century Supreme Court Case offered a more limited understanding of who the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause applies to. Bumatay also pressed an attorney representing the states challenging the policy on whether a nationwide injunction was necessary at this point – an argument the administration has consistently pushed after courts blocked the policy across the board. 'The harms to the states that would flow from a piecemeal rule are the same harms that will flow from the rule itself,' Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell said. 'Babies will be born in non-plaintiff states, they will not receive a Social Security number, their families will move into our states and when they arrive here we will not have any way under our existing systems to enroll them in programs that they are entitled to participate in,' he added. A different panel of the 9th Circuit declined earlier this year to put Coughenour's ruling on hold, and federal appeals courts in Boston and Richmond similarly rejected requests from the administration to undo other rulings blocking Trump's policy. Trump's order, titled 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,' seeks to bar the federal government from issuing 'documents recognizing United States citizenship' to any child born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or were in the states lawfully but temporarily.
Daily Maverick
04-06-2025
- General
- Daily Maverick
Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear arguments in Seattle in the administration's appeal of a judge's ruling blocking enforcement nationwide of the executive order, which is a key element of the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued his preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 after declaring Trump's action 'blatantly unconstitutional' and accusing the Republican president of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland also have issued similar orders blocking the directive nationwide. Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates in lawsuits challenging Trump's directive argued that it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. The administration contends that the 14th Amendment's citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to consider the constitutional questions regarding Trump's action. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments on May 15 in the administration's bid to narrow the three injunctions. Those arguments did not center on the legal merits of Trump's order, instead focusing on the issue of whether a single judge should be able to issue nationwide injunctions like the ones that have blocked Trump's directive. The Supreme Court, which has yet to rule, could allow the directive to go into effect in large swathes of the country. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs. Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, has presided over a legal challenge brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women. The 9th Circuit panel hearing arguments on Wednesday includes two judges appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and one appointed by Trump during his first presidential term.
Reuters
04-06-2025
- General
- Reuters
Trump's birthright citizenship order to face first US appeals court review
June 4 (Reuters) - The constitutionality of President Donald Trump, opens new tab's executive order to curtail automatic birthright citizenship is set to be considered by a U.S. appeals court for the first time on Wednesday, even as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs his administration's request to let it begin to take effect. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is slated to hear arguments in Seattle in the administration's appeal of a judge's ruling blocking enforcement nationwide of the executive order, which is a key element of the Republican president's hardline immigration agenda. Seattle-based U.S. District Judge John Coughenour issued his preliminary injunction on Feb. 6 after declaring Trump's action "blatantly unconstitutional" and accusing the Republican president of ignoring the rule of law for political and personal gain. Federal judges in Massachusetts and Maryland also have issued similar orders blocking the directive nationwide. Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and immigrant rights advocates in lawsuits challenging Trump's directive argued that it violates the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Trump signed his order on January 20, his first day back in office. It directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. The administration contends that the 14th Amendment's citizenship language does not extend to immigrants in the country illegally or immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. The 9th Circuit panel is scheduled to consider the constitutional questions regarding Trump's action. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard arguments on May 15 in the administration's bid to narrow the three injunctions. Those arguments did not center on the legal merits of Trump's order, instead focusing on the issue of whether a single judge should be able to issue nationwide injunctions like the ones that have blocked Trump's directive. The Supreme Court, which has yet to rule, could allow the directive to go into effect in large swathes of the country. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually if Trump's order takes effect nationally, according to the plaintiffs. Coughenour, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, has presided over a legal challenge brought by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon and several pregnant women. The 9th Circuit panel hearing arguments on Wednesday includes two judges appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton and one appointed by Trump during his first presidential term.
