Latest news with #LasAmericas
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Texas may not enforce migrant arrest law, US appeals court rules
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -Texas authorities may not enforce a Republican-backed state law that would let them arrest and prosecute people suspected of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, a divided federal appeals court ruled late on Thursday. A 2-1 panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction that blocked enforcement of the disputed law, which former Democratic President Joe Biden's administration had gone to court to challenge. Republican President Donald Trump's administration dropped the federal government's case, but the Texas law known as SB4 had continued to be challenged by, among others, the immigrant rights group Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, which argued federal law preempted the state's. The law, which Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed in December 2023, would make it a state crime to illegally enter or re-enter Texas from a foreign country and would empower state judges to order that violators leave the United States, with prison sentences up to 20 years for those who refuse to comply. U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the New Orleans-based court's majority, said that for nearly 150 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the power to control immigration was exclusively a federal power. Relying on a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down parts of an Arizona immigration law, she said the Texas law, if allowed to be enforced by the Texas Department of Public Safety, would interfere with the federal government's ability to enforce complex U.S. immigration laws. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, vowed to appeal the decision, saying "I will always fight to stop illegal immigration." The ruling upheld a lower-court judge's February 2024 preliminary injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court a month later briefly allowed the law to take effect, but the 5th Circuit within hours halted it pending further review. The opinion by Richman, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee. U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said the majority treated as irrelevant that Trump has been encouraging states to aid his administration's efforts to ramp up immigration enforcement. "It is a sad day for the millions of Americans who are concerned about illegal immigration and who voiced those concerns at ballot boxes across Texas and the Nation," Oldham wrote. Cody Wofsy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement welcomed the ruling, saying state immigration laws like the one Texas adopted have been repeatedly rejected by courts and "are deeply harmful to our communities.'
Yahoo
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Divided US appeals court blocks enforcement of Texas state immigration law
By Nate Raymond (Reuters) -Texas authorities may not enforce a Republican-backed state law that would let them arrest and prosecute people suspected of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, a divided federal appeals court ruled late Thursday. A 2-1 panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction that blocked enforcement of the disputed law, which former Democratic President Joe Biden's administration had gone to court to challenge. Republican President Donald Trump's administration dropped the federal government's case, but Texas's law known as SB4 had continued to be challenged by, among others, the immigrant rights group Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, which argued federal law preempted the state's. The law, which Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed in December 2023, would make it a state crime to illegally enter or re-enter Texas from a foreign country and would empower state judges to order that violators leave the United States, with prison sentences up to 20 years for those who refuse to comply. U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the New Orleans-based court's majority, said that for nearly 150 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the power to control immigration was exclusively a federal power. Relying on a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down parts of an Arizona immigration law, she said the Texas law, if allowed to be enforced by the Texas Department of Public Safety, would interfere with the federal government's ability to enforce complex U.S. immigration laws. The state did not respond to requests for comment. The ruling upheld a lower-court judge's February 2024 preliminary injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court a month later briefly allowed the law to take effect, but the 5th Circuit within hours halted it pending further review. The opinion by Richman, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee. U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said the majority treated as irrelevant that Trump has been encouraging states to aid his administration's efforts to ramp up immigration enforcement. "It is a sad day for the millions of Americans who are concerned about illegal immigration and who voiced those concerns at ballot boxes across Texas and the Nation," Oldham wrote. Cody Wofsy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement welcomed the ruling, saying state immigration laws like the one Texas adopted have been repeatedly rejected by courts and "are deeply harmful to our communities.'
Reuters
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Divided US appeals court blocks enforcement of Texas state immigration law
July 4 (Reuters) - Texas authorities may not enforce a Republican-backed state law that would let them arrest and prosecute people suspected of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, a divided federal appeals court ruled late Thursday. A 2-1 panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, opens new tab an injunction that blocked enforcement of the disputed law, which former Democratic President Joe Biden's administration had gone to court to challenge. Republican President Donald Trump's administration dropped the federal government's case, but Texas's law known as SB4 had continued to be challenged by, among others, the immigrant rights group Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, which argued federal law preempted the state's. The law, which Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed in December 2023, would make it a state crime to illegally enter or re-enter Texas from a foreign country and would empower state judges to order that violators leave the United States, with prison sentences up to 20 years for those who refuse to comply. U.S. Circuit Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the New Orleans-based court's majority, said that for nearly 150 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the power to control immigration was exclusively a federal power. Relying on a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down parts of an Arizona immigration law, she said the Texas law, if allowed to be enforced by the Texas Department of Public Safety, would interfere with the federal government's ability to enforce complex U.S. immigration laws. The state did not respond to requests for comment. The ruling upheld a lower-court judge's February 2024 preliminary injunction. The U.S. Supreme Court a month later briefly allowed the law to take effect, but the 5th Circuit within hours halted it pending further review. The opinion by Richman, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Biden appointee. U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said the majority treated as irrelevant that Trump has been encouraging states to aid his administration's efforts to ramp up immigration enforcement. "It is a sad day for the millions of Americans who are concerned about illegal immigration and who voiced those concerns at ballot boxes across Texas and the Nation," Oldham wrote. Cody Wofsy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement welcomed the ruling, saying state immigration laws like the one Texas adopted have been repeatedly rejected by courts and "are deeply harmful to our communities.'
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge blocks Trump's rule barring migrants at US-Mexico border from claiming asylum
A federal judge blocked a Trump administration policy barring migrants who cross the US-Mexico border from seeking asylum, issuing a major blow to President Donald Trump, who has sought to seal off access to protections on the border. In a sharply worded decision issued Wednesday, US District Judge Randolph Moss found that the administration overstepped its authority by bypassing immigration law. 'The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,' Moss wrote. The ruling – targeting a signature element of Trump's agenda – comes as the administration touts low border crossings. Current and former Homeland Security officials have previously cited the clampdown on the US southern border as contributing to a sharp decline in unlawful crossings. In June, the US Border Patrol recorded just over 6,000 encounters, according to federal data. Earlier this year, immigrant rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, sued over a presidential proclamation that effectively shut down asylum at the southern border. The challengers argued that the proclamation endangered thousands of lives by preventing people from seeking refuge in the US. The lawsuit tested whether presidential power can override protections guaranteed by Congress for people fleeing persecution and marked one of the most sweeping efforts by the Trump administration to restrict immigration. 'This an enormous victory for those fleeing danger and the rule of law,' said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. 'The court properly recognized that the president cannot simply ignore laws passed by Congress.' The judge said that neither immigration statutes nor the Constitution give the president power to unilaterally deny access to asylum for people who have already entered the US, no matter how they arrived. 'Nothing in the (Immigration and Nationality Act) or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,' the ruling states. Moss stayed his decision for 14 days. The administration is expected to appeal. In a statement to CNN, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin cast Moss as a 'rogue district judge,' and said she expected the administration to be vindicated by a higher court. 'The President secured the border in historic fashion by using every available legal tool provided by Congress. Today, a rogue district judge took those tools away, threatening the safety and security of Americans and ignoring a Supreme Court decision issued only days earlier admonishing district courts for granting nationwide injunctions,' she said. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller also blasted the ruling. 'To try to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling on nationwide injunctions a marxist judge has declared that all potential FUTURE illegal aliens on foreign soil (eg a large portion of planet earth) are part of a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States,' Miller said in a post on X. 'The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored,' Miller added in another post. The Trump administration argued that the president has broad authority under federal law to suspend the entry of people deemed detrimental to US interest – especially in what it described as a national security and public health emergency at the border. Tensions flared during oral arguments in April in a packed federal courtroom in Washington, DC. DOJ lawyers argued that the proclamation was unreviewable under the immigration statutes in question. Moss pressed that argument, at one point posing a hypothetical: Would a presidential order to shoot migrants at the border be legally immune from judicial review? DOJ attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged that such an order would raise constitutional issues, but hesitated to say what legal limits might apply—drawing a pointed rebuke from the bench. The plaintiffs had highlighted that at least two of their clients had already been deported under the policy. While those individuals had expressed a desire to seek asylum, government attorneys argued that they had not established an imminent intent to file claims – raising further questions about who the policy actually applied to and how it was enforced. This story has been updated with additional developments.
CNN
02-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Judge blocks Trump's rule barring migrants at US-Mexico border from claiming asylum
A federal judge blocked a Trump administration policy barring migrants who cross the US-Mexico border from seeking asylum, issuing a major blow to President Donald Trump, who has sought to seal off access to protections on the border. In a sharply worded decision issued Wednesday, US District Judge Randolph Moss found that the administration overstepped its authority by bypassing immigration law. 'The President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted,' Moss wrote. The ruling – targeting a signature element of Trump's agenda – comes as the administration touts low border crossings. Current and former Homeland Security officials have previously cited the clampdown on the US southern border as contributing to a sharp decline in unlawful crossings. In June, the US Border Patrol recorded just over 6,000 encounters, according to federal data. Earlier this year, immigrant rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, sued over a presidential proclamation that effectively shut down asylum at the southern border. The challengers argued that the proclamation endangered thousands of lives by preventing people from seeking refuge in the US. The lawsuit tested whether presidential power can override protections guaranteed by Congress for people fleeing persecution and marked one of the most sweeping efforts by the Trump administration to restrict immigration. 'This an enormous victory for those fleeing danger and the rule of law,' said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. 'The court properly recognized that the president cannot simply ignore laws passed by Congress.' The judge said that neither immigration statutes nor the Constitution give the president power to unilaterally deny access to asylum for people who have already entered the US, no matter how they arrived. 'Nothing in the (Immigration and Nationality Act) or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,' the ruling states. Moss stayed his decision for 14 days. The administration is expected to appeal. CNN has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment. The Trump administration argued that the president has broad authority under federal law to suspend the entry of people deemed detrimental to US interest – especially in what it described as a national security and public health emergency at the border. Tensions flared during oral arguments in April in a packed federal courtroom in Washington, DC. DOJ lawyers argued that the proclamation was unreviewable under the immigration statutes in question. Moss pressed that argument, at one point posing a hypothetical: Would a presidential order to shoot migrants at the border be legally immune from judicial review? DOJ attorney Drew Ensign acknowledged that such an order would raise constitutional issues, but hesitated to say what legal limits might apply—drawing a pointed rebuke from the bench. The plaintiffs had highlighted that at least two of their clients had already been deported under the policy. While those individuals had expressed a desire to seek asylum, government attorneys argued that they had not established an imminent intent to file claims – raising further questions about who the policy actually applied to and how it was enforced.
