Latest news with #MarshalsService
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
ICE Mistakenly Detains U.S. Marshals Deputy Who ‘Fit The General Description' Of Intended Person
Immigration agents briefly detained a U.S. Marshals Service deputy last month as he was entering a federal building that houses the immigration court in Tucson, Arizona. The Marshals Service — an agency in charge of enforcing the law in federal courts, protecting judges and apprehending fugitives — confirmed with the Arizona Daily Star on Thursday that a deputy 'who fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE was briefly detained at a federal building in Tucson after entering the lobby of the building.' Immigration and Customs Enforecement officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment from HuffPost. 'The Deputy US Marshal's identity was quickly confirmed by other law enforcement officers, and he exited the building without incident,' the Marshals Service told the Arizona Daily Star It's unclear what the Marshals Service meant when it said the deputy 'fit the general description' of a person being sought by ICE. However, President Donald Trump's policy of aggressive mass deportation has raised concerns about racial profiling. Legal residents and U.S. citizens, including Native Americans, all have been stopped by ICE. And prior to Trump's current presidential term, a 2022 report from the American Civil Liberties Union shed light on racial profiling that it called 'endemic' to an ICE program that allows state and local law enforcement to perform certain immigration enforcement duties. Earlier this year, Jensy Machado, a Northern Virginia man who voted for Trump, was handcuffed by ICE agents. A spokesperson for ICE said Machado 'matched the description of the subject of an operation.' Machado is now reconsidering his vote for the president and said ICE agents are 'just following Hispanic people.' Last week, Axios reported on a meeting between two top Trump administration officials, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, where they discussed a goal of arresting 3,000 people a day. Noah Schramm of the ACLU of Arizona told the Arizona Daily Star that while there's little information about the incident involving the deputy, arrest quotas from the Trump administration are leading to more mistakes. 'It is not surprising that there would be these cases that the wrong person is detained,' Schramm said. 'I think it reflects that they are trying to get numbers and that they are OK violating basic principles and basic procedures that are meant to protect people and make sure the wrong people don't get picked up.' U.S. Citizen Says He's Reconsidering Support For Trump After Being Handcuffed By ICE 11 ICE Officers Are Stuck In A Shipping Container In Djibouti Massachusetts Teen Arrested By ICE On His Way To Volleyball Practice Has Been Released
New York Times
27-05-2025
- General
- New York Times
Marshals' Data Shows Spike in Threats Against Federal Judges
Threats against federal judges have risen drastically since President Trump took office, according to internal data compiled by the U.S. Marshals Service. In the five-month period leading up to March 1 of this year, 80 individual judges had received threats, the data shows. Then, over the next six weeks, an additional 162 judges received threats, a dramatic increase. That spike in threats coincided with a flood of harsh rhetoric — often from Mr. Trump himself — criticizing judges who have ruled against the administration and, in some cases, calling on Congress to impeach them. Many judges have already spoken out, worrying about the possibility of violence and urging political leaders to tone things down. Since mid-April, the pace of the threats has slowed slightly, the data shows. Between April 14 and May 27, it shows 35 additional individual judges received threats. Still, the total number of judges threatened this fiscal year — 277 — represents roughly a third of the judiciary. The threat data was not released publicly but was provided to The New York Times by Judge Esther Salas of Federal District Court for New Jersey, who said she obtained it from the Marshals Service, which is tasked by law with overseeing security for the judiciary. In 2020, Judge Salas' son, Daniel Anderl, was shot and killed at the entrance of her home by a self-described 'anti-feminist' lawyer, and since then she has advocated judicial safety. 'This has nothing to do with hysteria or hyperbole,' she said in an interview. 'These numbers tell a dramatic story. They show a spike that ought to be alarming and concerning to everyone.' Spokesmen for the White House and the marshals did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The marshals define a threat as 'any action or communication, whether explicit or implied, of intent to assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate or interfere' with any marshals-protected person, including federal judges, according to an internal document reviewed by The Times. That language mirrors a federal statute that treats as criminals those who interfere with federal officials performing their duties. Threats against judges have been rising in recent years, including before Mr. Trump took office. Marshals Service data shows there were threats against more than 400 individual judges in 2023, the year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion. In June 2022, after the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe leaked, an armed man tried to assassinate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh at his home. A series of judges have blocked Mr. Trump's sweeping executive actions, including his efforts to deliver on his campaign promise of mass deportations. Last week, a federal judge in Boston ordered the United States to maintain custody of a group of deportees whom the administration is trying to send to South Sudan, and to bring back another deportee now in hiding in Guatemala. Mr. Trump called the judge, Brian E. Murphy, a 'far-left activist' and then broadened his attack on Monday, condemning 'USA hating judges who suffer from an ideology that is sick, and very dangerous for our country,' in a social media post rendered in all capital letters. Some judges who have ruled against the administration have received unwelcome pizza deliveries at their homes, and at the homes of their family members. The authorities are investigating the matter. Judge Salas said she had learned from the marshals that 103 pizzas had been sent anonymously, including 20 in the name of her dead son.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Convicted sex offender from Bristol arrested as fugitive in Mexico
BRISTOL, Va. (WJHL) — The United States Marshals Service announced on Tuesday that a Bristol, Virginia man accused of violating the sex offender registry was arrested in Mexico. According to a news release from the Marshals Service, Corey Parton, 36, was indicted by a federal grand jury on March 12, 2024 for allegedly violating the sex offender registry. THP: Man arrested after motorcycle pursuit in Bean Station Parton was a fugitive since that time and is presumed to have been in Mexico. He was arrested in Mexico on Sunday after marshals provided information to the Federal Police of Mexico. Parton was deported to the U.S. on Monday and taken into the Marshals Service's custody. As of Tuesday afternoon, Parton had yet to appear in court. Court documents obtained by News Channel 11 show Parton is charged with the following: Failure to register as a sex offender or update a registration as required by the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) Failure to provide information required by SORNA relating to intended travel in foreign commerce A criminal complaint details the circumstances that led to Parton being required to be registered as a sex offender and his new charges. The complaint states that he was convicted in December 2018 of proposing a sex act by communications systems and soliciting child pornography. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now Parton reportedly completed his initial registration as a sex offender in Virginia after the conviction. As a Tier III offender, Parton was required to re-register every 90 days. In August 2023, a Virginia State Police (VSP) trooper was sent to investigate Parton, who was registered as living at a Bristol, Virginia address. That trooper reportedly learned that Parton had an Instagram account with a different name, which must be reported to the sex offender registry. The complaint also noted that in August 2023, Parton was on probation and was not allowed to have any social media accounts. Additionally, the VSP trooper reportedly found Parton had a registered vehicle with a listed address in Roanoke, which he also had not reported to the registry. Parton had also allegedly not reported to the proper channels that he had changed his employment and was working at a pizza chain in Blountville. According to the complaint, Parton was sent re-registration forms in May and August 2023 but did not fill them out and submit them. Due to the social media accounts, vehicle registration and employment change, Parton was charged with three registration violations. He was arrested in August 2023 and given a bond. Additional charges were filed against him in September 2023, and a VSP trooper learned Parton had allegedly boarded a cruise ship in Galveston, Texas and gotten off in Cancun, Mexico. Parton reportedly never returned to the ship and never notified authorities that he was traveling. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What happens if Trump doesn't obey court orders? New spotlight on U.S. marshals
As a couple of key court cases against President Trump's executive actions intensify, questions of how and whether the White House will follow judges' orders are mounting. Already, some judges have issued orders reprimanding the Trump administration and demanding action. But who has the authority to enforce such orders? Situated at the nexus of the face-off between the executive and judicial branches is a little-scrutinized arm of the federal government: the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Marshals Service is a federal law enforcement agency. It is tasked with a broad range of actions — hunting fugitives, transporting federal prisoners and managing goods seized from criminals. Oftentimes the Marshals Service will work with state and local law enforcement agencies on particularly difficult cases, such as hunting down a man who escaped a Pennsylvania prison last year. "People ask us to do jobs they're not willing to do," said Barry Lane, a spokesperson for the U.S. Marshals Service. Federal courts also rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to enforce federal orders. Sometimes that means keeping order in a courtroom, said Stephen Monier, a retired former U.S. marshal for the district of New Hampshire. "The judge can say, get him out of here for being disruptive in the courtroom — which, then, we would be responsible for," Monier said. "We would remove him from the courthouse." The Marshals Service reports to the Department of Justice, which is part of the sprawling federal executive structure. But it serves as the enforcer of federal court orders — occupying an unusual position between the executive and judicial branches. "Like the director of the FBI, the director of Marshals Service reports to the attorney general of the United States," Monier said, adding, "but because of our unique role with the court, we are the enforcement arm of the court." Another responsibility of the Marshals Service is protecting courthouses and judicial officers. U.S. Marshals have ramped up security efforts in response to an increasing number of threats against judges and court personnel — including creating the Judicial Threat Branch to monitor and respond to high-level incidents. One of the marshals' responsibilities was providing protective service detail for U.S. District Judges Aileen Cannon and Tanya Chutkan, who ruled in criminal cases against Trump. "These decisions generated threats directed at the judges that warranted protective service details," the U.S. Marshals Service's annual report notes. Trump has repeatedly said he will follow court orders, and White House officials have said they are following the letter of the law in the myriad cases brought against the administration since he took office. So far, the Supreme Court has issued limited rulings affecting the White House. Last weekend, the justices temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out deportations of Venezuelan men deemed foreign gang members. "We are obviously complying with the court's order," Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. "However, it was a temporary pause. The Supreme Court basically said, sit tight and they will follow up with an order, and we're confident that the Supreme Court will rule on the side of law and recognize the president absolutely has the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists from our nation's interior under the Alien Enemies Act." But Trump has already lashed out at other federal court judges who've ruled against his administration over their efforts to deport immigrants — including U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who threatened to hold White House officials in contempt of court for not following his earlier orders to stop a plane carrying deportees to an El Salvador prison midflight. Boasberg said last week that he found probable cause for putting administration officials in criminal contempt for not turning the planes around. Being held in criminal contempt of court means defying a judge's orders. Boasberg said that Trump administration officials violated his orders by not stopping a plane carrying deportees to El Salvador. He warned that he could refer the matter for prosecution — where Department of Justice officials would have to decide whether to take up the case. If they decline to do so, Boasberg said, he would appoint a private attorney to prosecute the case against the administration and specific officials. Holding a defendant — never mind a government official — in criminal contempt is rare. "It would be very unusual in my experience," Monier said. In another case, the Supreme Court said the administration had a duty to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man the Trump administration said it had mistakenly deported to that country. But Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador, and U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis condemned the government's lawyers for defying the court's order, saying their "objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply." No. The U.S. Marshals spokesperson declined to comment for this article and referred The Times to its annual report. The U.S. Marshals Service is also without a permanent director, since Gadyaces Serralta, whom Trump appointed last month, has yet to be confirmed. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
What happens if Trump doesn't obey court orders? New spotlight on U.S. marshals
WASHINGTON — As a couple of key court cases against President Trump's executive actions intensify, questions of how and whether the White House will follow judges' orders are mounting. Already, some judges have issued orders reprimanding the Trump administration and demanding action. But who has the authority to enforce such orders? Situated at the nexus of the face-off between the executive and judicial branches is a little-scrutinized arm of the federal government: the U.S. Marshals Service. The U.S. Marshals Service is a federal law enforcement agency. It is tasked with a broad range of actions — hunting fugitives, transporting federal prisoners and managing goods seized from criminals. Oftentimes the Marshals Service will work with state and local law enforcement agencies on particularly difficult cases, such as hunting down a man who escaped a Pennsylvania prison last year. 'People ask us to do jobs they're not willing to do,' said Barry Lane, a spokesperson for the U.S. Marshals Service. Federal courts also rely on the U.S. Marshals Service to enforce federal orders. Sometimes that means keeping order in a courtroom, said Stephen Monier, a retired former U.S. marshal for the district of New Hampshire. 'The judge can say, get him out of here for being disruptive in the courtroom — which, then, we would be responsible for,' Monier said. 'We would remove him from the courthouse.' The Marshals Service reports to the Department of Justice, which is part of the sprawling federal executive structure. But it serves as the enforcer of federal court orders — occupying an unusual position between the executive and judicial branches. 'Like the director of the FBI, the director of Marshals Service reports to the attorney general of the United States,' Monier said, adding, 'but because of our unique role with the court, we are the enforcement arm of the court.' Another responsibility of the Marshals Service is protecting courthouses and judicial officers. U.S. Marshals have ramped up security efforts in response to an increasing number of threats against judges and court personnel — including creating the Judicial Threat Branch to monitor and respond to high-level incidents. One of the marshals' responsibilities was providing protective service detail for U.S. District Judges Aileen Cannon and Tanya Chutkan, who ruled in criminal cases against Trump. 'These decisions generated threats directed at the judges that warranted protective service details,' the U.S. Marshals Service's annual report notes. Trump has repeatedly said he will follow court orders, and White House officials have said they are following the letter of the law in the myriad cases brought against the administration since he took office. So far, the Supreme Court has issued limited rulings affecting the White House. Last weekend, the justices temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out deportations of Venezuelan men deemed foreign gang members. 'We are obviously complying with the court's order,' Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Tuesday. 'However, it was a temporary pause. The Supreme Court basically said, sit tight and they will follow up with an order, and we're confident that the Supreme Court will rule on the side of law and recognize the president absolutely has the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists from our nation's interior under the Alien Enemies Act.' But Trump has already lashed out at other federal court judges who've ruled against his administration over their efforts to deport immigrants — including U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who threatened to hold White House officials in contempt of court for not following his earlier orders to stop a plane carrying deportees to an El Salvador prison midflight. Boasberg said last week that he found probable cause for putting administration officials in criminal contempt for not turning the planes around. Being held in criminal contempt of court means defying a judge's orders. Boasberg said that Trump administration officials violated his orders by not stopping a plane carrying deportees to El Salvador. He warned that he could refer the matter for prosecution — where Department of Justice officials would have to decide whether to take up the case. If they decline to do so, Boasberg said, he would appoint a private attorney to prosecute the case against the administration and specific officials. Holding a defendant — never mind a government official — in criminal contempt is rare. 'It would be very unusual in my experience,' Monier said. In another case, the Supreme Court said the administration had a duty to 'facilitate' the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man the Trump administration said it had mistakenly deported to that country. But Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador, and U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis condemned the government's lawyers for defying the court's order, saying their 'objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply.' No. The U.S. Marshals spokesperson declined to comment for this article and referred The Times to its annual report. The U.S. Marshals Service is also without a permanent director, since Gadyaces Serralta, whom Trump appointed last month, has yet to be confirmed.
