Latest news with #JohnSauer
Wall Street Journal
4 days ago
- General
- Wall Street Journal
Nationwide Injunctions? Only if the Supreme Court Has Spoken
Nationwide injunctions came before the Supreme Court in an emergency oral argument this month. The justices are clearly concerned about the practice, in which a lone federal trial judge can block a government policy even if other judges have upheld it. But the government failed to offer a satisfactory solution. There is, however, a clean and simple fix that the court itself could effectuate. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that nationwide injunctions are flat-out unconstitutional. In response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, he said that means even the Supreme Court couldn't issue one—a position the justices are unlikely to favor.
The Guardian
6 days ago
- General
- The Guardian
White House asks supreme court to block challenges to deportations to South Sudan
The Trump administration asked the US supreme court late on Tuesday to halt an order allowing people to challenge their deportations from the US to South Sudan, an appeal that came hours after the federal judge overseeing the case suggested the Trump administration was 'manufacturing' chaos and said he hoped that 'reason can get the better of rhetoric'. Judge Brian Murphy found the White House violated a court order with a deportation flight bound for the chaotic African nation carrying people from other countries who the Trump administration said had been convicted of crimes in the US. Murphy said those people must get a real chance to raise any fears that being sent there could put them in danger. 'From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that defendants [the Trump administration] invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,' the Boston-based Murphy wrote in his 17-page order. The federal government argued that Murphy has stalled its efforts to carry out deportations of people who can't be returned to their home countries. Finding countries willing to take them is a 'a delicate diplomatic endeavor' and the court requirements are a major setback, the US solicitor general, John Sauer, wrote in an emergency appeal asking the court to immediately halt his order. Murphy, a district judge in Massachusetts, said he had given the Trump administration 'remarkable flexibility with minimal oversight' in the case and emphasized the numerous times he attempted to work with the government, according to an order published on Monday night. This is the latest case in which federal judges weighing in on the legality of the Trump administration's sweeping agenda have used forceful, sometimes even scathing language to register their displeasure. The Trump administration has accused judges of thwarting 'the will of voters' by stopping or slowing the White House agenda, a dramatic break in attitude about the role of the judiciary in interpreting the rule of law. In a hearing last week called to address reports that eight people had been sent to South Sudan, Murphy said the men hadn't been able to argue that the deportation could put them in danger. But instead of ordering the government to return the men to the US for hearings – as the plaintiffs wanted – he gave the government the option of holding the hearings in Djibouti, where the plane had flown on its way to South Sudan, as long as the men remained in US government custody. Their exact whereabouts and status at that time was not made public. Days later, the Trump administration filed another motion saying that Murphy was requiring them to hold 'dangerous criminals in a sensitive location'. Murphy, though, said it was the government's 'own suggestion' that they be allowed to process the men's claims while they were still abroad. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated,' the Boston-based Murphy, who was appointed by Joe Biden, wrote. The government has argued that the men had a history with the immigration system, giving them prior opportunities to express a fear of being deported to a country outside their homeland. And they've said that the men's home countries – including Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam – would not take them back. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The Trump administration has increasingly relied on third countries to take people who cannot be sent to their home countries for various reasons. Some countries simply refuse to take back their citizens being deported while others take back some but not all of their citizens. And some cannot be sent to their home countries because of concerns they'll be tortured or harmed. Historically that has meant that immigration enforcement officials have had to release people into the US that it wants to deport but can't. But the Trump administration has leaned on other countries to take them, including Panama and El Salvador. The Associated Press contributed reporting
Wall Street Journal
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
A Universal Injunction Compromise
Does a single federal judge, with jurisdiction over a state or a district within a state, have the authority to stop the government from carrying on an allegedly unlawful policy everywhere in the country? The permissibility of such 'nationwide' or 'universal' injunctions is before the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA. (The case arises from several challenges to President Trump's executive order denying citizenship to U.S. born children whose parents are nonresident aliens.) From the justices' questions in oral arguments last week, it was clear all are uneasy with the idea that trial judges have the authority to act as a 'roving commission to correct every legal wrong that they can consider and to exercise general legal oversight over the executive branch,' as Solicitor General John Sauer put it. On the other hand, requiring everyone injured by an executive action to initiate his own lawsuit to gain relief seems unduly burdensome.
Reuters
21-05-2025
- Business
- Reuters
White House asks US Supreme Court to block access to DOGE records
May 21 (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to set aside a judge's order requiring Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to answer questions and disclose documents about its operations. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C. ordered DOGE to turn over some records to the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), after finding that DOGE was likely a government agency covered by the federal Freedom of Information Act. Cooper also said CREW was entitled to question DOGE's Acting Administrator Amy Gleason at a deposition. A federal appeals court declined on May 14 to put Cooper's order on hold. President Donald Trump created DOGE in an executive order on January 20, the day he began his second White House term. In seeking an emergency stay from the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer said Cooper's "extraordinarily overbroad and intrusive" order would distract DOGE from its mission to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in the federal government. He also called the order "an untenable affront to separation of powers," and said the government would likely succeed in showing that DOGE is a White House body exempt from FOIA, which lets the public review government records. "This Court has rejected similar fishing expeditions into sensitive executive-branch functions, and it should not allow this one to proceed," Sauer wrote. The case is In re US DOGE Service et al, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 24A1122.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to block FOIA case against DOGE
The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency injunction to block proceedings in a case involving a Freedom of Information request seeking information from the Department of Government Efficiency. The government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued the budget-slashing agency earlier this year for public access to its records and its plans for overhauling the government. MORE: DOGE likely subject to Freedom of Information Act, judge says The administration has claimed executive privilege, insisting that DOGE -- as a presidential advisory board -- is not subject to FOIA. A federal court hearing the case is scheduled to proceed with depositions and document production as part of a hearing to determine whether FOIA applies. Solicitor General John Sauer told the court that such an effort defeats the purpose of the litigation and effectively would expose private executive branch information. A representative of CREW, responding to the administration's request for an injunction, said in a statement, "While DOGE continues to attempt to fight transparency at every level of justice, we look forward to making our case that the Supreme Court should join the District Court and Court of Appeals in allowing discovery to go forward." A federal judge in March determined that DOGE likely should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. U.S. District Judge Chris Cooper ruled that President Donald Trump's executive orders, his public statements about DOGE, and the agency's "substantial authority over vast swathes of the federal government" were enough to determine that DOGE likely should be subject to FOIA, which gives media organizations and the public the right to access records from the federal government. ABC News' Peter Charalambous contributed to this report. Trump administration asks Supreme Court to block FOIA case against DOGE originally appeared on
