Latest news with #Reagan-appointed
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to U.S. to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee
Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been returned to the U.S. to face federal human smuggling charges in Tennessee, according to NBC News, in a case that became emblematic of the combined coarseness and incompetence behind the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The Maryland resident, who was illegally deported to El Salvador in March, was indicted by a federal grand jury on two counts: conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gains and the unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gains, according to a copy of the indictment obtained by NBC News. ABC News first reported the indictment. A judge in 2019 had ordered Abrego Garcia not to be removed to El Salvador, due to the potential persecution the Salvadoran native could face there. Nonetheless, in March, federal officials detained Abrego Garcia, who was living in Maryland, and flew him and others to a notorious prison in El Salvador, where he and others have been held without having been convicted of, or charged with, any crime. (Others have brought separate litigation.) U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to facilitate his return, and the Supreme Court largely upheld her order on April 10, ruling that it 'properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.' The justices noted that the government said his removal to that country 'was the result of an 'administrative error.'' Yet, the government still resisted returning him. During further litigation before Xinis after the Supreme Court ruling, the Obama-appointed judge criticized officials' 'continued mischaracterization' of the high court command, accusing them of acting in 'bad faith.' The government has argued that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, which it has deemed a foreign terrorist organization. Addressing that accusation during the litigation, Reagan-appointed appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote, 'Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.' This is a developing story. Check back for updates. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's Pardon Power Isn't as Absolute as He Thinks
In 2017, President Donald Trump insisted that his power to pardon was 'complete'—a claim consistent with his generally absolutist views of the office's powers, and one also inherited from his predecessors. 'The President, in his action on pardon cases, is not subject to the control or supervision of anyone,' said President Woodrow Wilson's attorney general. President Dwight Eisenhower's pardon attorney claimed that in exercising the power, 'the President is amenable only to the dictates of his own conscience.' President Bill Clinton's pardon attorney advised that any cooperation with congressional investigators on pardon matters was entirely voluntary. The pardon power is expansive, and also now a near-weekly tool to reward Trump's political allies. But just last week, a federal court punctured the popular idea that the power is somehow immune to a normal constitutional check. Among the recipients of Trump's January 6 pardons was John Sullivan, who turned a profit from selling video footage from the riot—money the government later seized. Sullivan claimed, with the backing of the Justice Department, that the government must now reimburse him. Pardons are supposed to relieve a recipient from punishment, and so Sullivan argued that repayment should be a part of that promise. But the court ruled against him, concluding that 'funds may not be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation, plain and simple.' That is, any repayment would run through Congress, which decides how money is dispensed. The case is nominally about whether a pardonee gets to reclaim seized property. But it is more fundamentally about the separation of powers. The president is vested with the power to pardon, while Congress is vested with the power to spend money. Sullivan received his pardon, but 'money is money, the Treasury is the Treasury, and the Constitution says what it says: Once money is in the Treasury, it can only be withdrawn pursuant to a Congressional appropriation,' wrote the Reagan-appointed judge. This was not the first time this particular issue landed in court; the last time, interestingly enough, was after another insurrection. In 1868, President Andrew Johnson pardoned hundreds of thousands of former Confederates, including Herman Knote, whose property the federal government confiscated and sold during the Civil War. After receiving his pardon, Knote sued to claim the proceeds from the government's sale of his property, claiming, like Sullivan, that the pardon entitled him to the money. The Supreme Court disagreed. In Knote v. United States, the court held that while clemency lifts the punishment for a crime, the pardon power cannot simultaneously undermine other parts of the Constitution—in this case, again, Congress's power of the purse. 'Whilst a full pardon releases the offender from all disabilities imposed by the offense pardoned,' the funds from the property sale had already been deposited into the Treasury. And unfortunately for Mr. Knote, once there, they 'can only be withdrawn by an appropriation by law.' When the pardon power bumped up against another part of the Constitution, the former was not entitled to run roughshod over the latter. 'However large, therefore, may be the power of pardon possessed by the President,' the court added, 'and however extended may be its application, there is this limit to it, as there is to all his powers.' Presidents have nonetheless continued to claim that the pardon power is a kinglike exception to the rule; federal courts have also continued, in case after case, to remind them that they are wrong. In 1915, for instance, the Supreme Court found that President Wilson could not cleverly pardon a newspaper editor as a means of compelling his testimony to a grand jury by abrogating his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. The court held 'that the power of the President under the Constitution to grant pardons and the right of a witness must be kept in accommodation.' In 1974, the court held that a president's clemency powers include the authority to impose conditions on a commutation, provided those conditions do not violate other constitutional provisions. The exercise of the pardon power, said the court, cannot 'offend the Constitution.' In other cases this year, the Justice Department has argued that Trump's January 6 pardons somehow cover criminal offenses unrelated to January 6. Courts, in response, have mostly balked. Last month, prosecutors moved to dismiss the gun possession conviction of an alleged drug dealer by claiming that the pardon covered the offense because it was discovered during a January 6–related investigation. A district court denied the motion (a 'bad faith' and 'unreasonable' one, it added). The defendant's lawyer also argued that 'courts don't have the authority to interpret a pardon,' while prosecutors said courts should defer to the executive branch's own interpretation—challenging not just the potential check itself, but the authority to exercise a check in the first place. Again last month, a federal appellate court reasserted its constitutional authority to review the scope of a pardon, and struck down the Department's attempt to inappropriately apply it to separate crimes. Courts are playing their part. But as with the current administration's general assault on the rule of law, and despite insisting on their role in performing a constitutional check, courts alone are not going to rein in escalating abuses. Ever since President Richard Nixon dangled pardons to his Watergate henchmen, presidents have used the pardon power to self-deal—granting clemency to friends and family members and donors, and to obstruct investigations and reward loyalty. But nothing has come close to President Trump's abuse of the power. As a Washington Post investigation of all clemency acts during his first term concluded: 'Never before had a president used his constitutional clemency powers to free or forgive so many people who could be useful to his future political efforts.' His second term appears no different. By one recent estimate, Trump has wiped out more than 700 years of prison time for his allies and supporters since retaking office. To make matters worse, while pardons can be used to commit certain crimes, like to bribe or obstruct justice, the Supreme Court issued an opinion last year that effectively immunizes a president's 'official acts' from criminal liability, including pardons. In recent months, a lucrative cottage industry of 'pardon shopping' has formed, with pardon seekers paying big to lobby the president's inner circle, according to The Wall Street Journal. The court's ruling now helps to insulate a president from criminal accountability—say, if it were discovered that a pardon functioned as a bribe. Yet the ruling does not insulate a president from congressional oversight. Both Democratic and Republican members of Congress have voiced alarm in recent months at expanding abuses—Democrats criticizing President Joe Biden's pardons of family members and Republicans denouncing Trump's January 6 pardons. They include Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, a longtime pardon reform champion, but also Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who suggested that Congress 'revisit' the scope of the power. Bipartisan majorities of Americans also support clearer limits. There are two branches responsible for checking executive power, not one. A basic role for lawmakers could start with an investigation of pardon practices by recent administrations of both parties. This may seem far-fetched for our currently languishing legislature, but consider congressional hearings that examine the Hunter Biden pardon alongside Roger Stone's. The exercise has bipartisan precedent: from Ford to Clinton, Republicans and Democrats have jointly investigated pardon abuses. A step further, Congress could work toward a sense of resolution—a kind of joint statement of principles—to clarify the constitutional meaning of clemency. Resolutions are not law, but they can be important reassertions of political norms. Congress could also create new tools, such as passing legislation to specifically sharpen its pardon oversight tools, or even initiate discussion of a constitutional amendment. All of this is dependent upon a basic recognition that the pardon power is less invincible than many presidents would have us believe. Repeating the fanciful claim of an unchallengeable power does not make it so. What courts are offering is not just a constitutional check, but also a reminder that constitutional checks on the pardon power are well within the realm of the possible.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Federal judge rules against Trump order halting sex change procedures in prisons
A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to continue to provide accommodations and care for transgender inmates in federal prisons, saying officials had not provided a serious explanation for why medical treatment for gender dysphoria should be handled differently than other cases. The order Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Ronald Reagan appointee, blocks officials from carrying out President Donald Trump's executive order, which required Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) officials to stop providing medical procedures related to sex changes. "Neither the BOP nor the Executive Order provides any serious explanation as to why the treatment modalities covered by the Executive Order or implementing memoranda should be handled differently than any other mental health intervention," Lamberth wrote in a 36-page opinion. Two Trans Inmates Ordered Back To Women's Prisons In Reagan-appointed Judge's Injunction The judge granted an injunction requested by three transgender inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria to block the implementation of Trump's executive order. Lamberth ruled the plaintiffs' merits are likely to succeed under the Administrative Procedure Act. "The import of the opinion is essentially this: Under the APA, the BOP may not arbitrarily deprive inmates of medications or other lifestyle accommodations that its own medical staff have deemed to be medically appropriate without considering the implications of that decision," Lamberth wrote. Read On The Fox News App A BOP spokesperson told Fox News Digital the agency doesn't comment on pending litigation or matters that are the subject of legal proceedings. A White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital that the "decision allowing transgender women, aka MEN, in women's prisons fundamentally makes women less safe and ignores the biological truth that there are only two genders. The Trump administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue in court." Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda Trump's order mandated the BOP stop providing "any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate's appearance to that of the opposite sex." Prior to Trump's reversal of BOP gender dysphoria policies, the BOP began funding transgender surgical procedures for transgender inmates in December 2022, with Donna Langan, formerly known as Peter Kevin Langan, becoming the first federal prisoner to undergo taxpayer-funded gender surgery. Langan was convicted in 1997 for involvement in a series of armed bank robberies across the Midwest during the 1990s. Langan was a leader of the Aryan Republican Army, a White supremacist group that carried out these robberies to fund their activities, according to court documents. Tuesday's ruling comes as judges continue to block parts of Trump's article source: Federal judge rules against Trump order halting sex change procedures in prisons
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A Jan. 6 rioter tried to recoup $63K he made filming the mob. A judge said no.
A federal judge has rejected the Justice Department's effort to repay $63,000 to a member of the Jan. 6 mob who filmed the fatal shooting of rioter Ashli Babbitt and then sold the footage for profit. John Sullivan, who was freed from a six-year jail sentence after President Donald Trump's sweeping Day One pardons, had forfeited those profits to the federal government as a consequence of his criminal conviction. After Trump wiped out his case, Sullivan asked the court to permit him to reclaim the money he forked over. The Justice Department and then-interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin sided with Sullivan. But U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said Tuesday that a quick refund would be unconstitutional. Sullivan's funds had been deposited in the U.S. Treasury, he noted, and under the Constitution's 'appropriations clause,' only Congress can authorize the disbursement of funds held by the Treasury. 'Money is money, the Treasury is the Treasury, and the Constitution says what it says: Once money is in the Treasury, it can only be withdrawn pursuant to a Congressional appropriation,' the Reagan-appointed judge wrote. 'All that matters is that funds may not be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation, plain and simple.' It's the latest wrinkle in efforts by Jan. 6 defendants to recoup the fines, penalties and restitution they paid as a consequence of their convictions. Several judges are still weighing requests by some Jan. 6 defendants to recoup funds they paid to help offset the $2.7 million in damage done to Capitol grounds. Lamberth's ruling could have implications for those cases as well. Lamberth has at times chafed at efforts by Trump and his allies to rewrite the history of the attack on the Capitol that threatened the transfer of power in 2021 and left more than 100 police officers injured. He used the opinion on Sullivan — a controversial figure even among Jan. 6 defendants for his unclear ideology — to raise anew the horrors of the attack, and Sullivan's role in fomenting them. The judge recalled Sullivan's participation in the riot as 'to put it gently, idiosyncratic,' noting that he appeared to have no love for Trump supporters but instead pursued a general urge to sow chaos. 'Mr. Sullivan callously used the riots as an opportunity for personal profit, manipulating other rioters for his own gain,' Lamberth wrote. 'Mr. Sullivan cynically and falsely portrayed himself as a journalist not only to legitimize his cruel profiteering — at the expense of the police, his fellow rioters, and his country — but also in hopes of evading legal accountability for his actions.' Prosecutors relied on Sullivan's footage in hundreds of court cases featuring rioters who treaded the same path as Sullivan through the Capitol.
Politico
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
A Jan. 6 rioter tried to recoup $63K he made filming the mob. A judge said no.
A federal judge has rejected the Justice Department's effort to repay $63,000 to a member of the Jan. 6 mob who filmed the fatal shooting of rioter Ashli Babbitt and then sold the footage for profit. John Sullivan, who was freed from a six-year jail sentence after President Donald Trump's sweeping Day One pardons, had forfeited those profits to the federal government as a consequence of his criminal conviction. After Trump wiped out his case, Sullivan asked the court to permit him to reclaim the money he forked over. The Justice Department and then-interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin sided with Sullivan. But U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said Tuesday that a quick refund would be unconstitutional. Sullivan's funds had been deposited in the U.S. Treasury, he noted, and under the Constitution's 'appropriations clause,' only Congress can authorize the disbursement of funds held by the Treasury. 'Money is money, the Treasury is the Treasury, and the Constitution says what it says: Once money is in the Treasury, it can only be withdrawn pursuant to a Congressional appropriation,' the Reagan-appointed judge wrote. 'All that matters is that funds may not be drawn from the Treasury without an appropriation, plain and simple.' It's the latest wrinkle in efforts by Jan. 6 defendants to recoup the fines, penalties and restitution they paid as a consequence of their convictions. Several judges are still weighing requests by some Jan. 6 defendants to recoup funds they paid to help offset the $2.7 million in damage done to Capitol grounds. Lamberth's ruling could have implications for those cases as well. Lamberth has at times chafed at efforts by Trump and his allies to rewrite the history of the attack on the Capitol that threatened the transfer of power in 2021 and left more than 100 police officers injured. He used the opinion on Sullivan — a controversial figure even among Jan. 6 defendants for his unclear ideology — to raise anew the horrors of the attack, and Sullivan's role in fomenting them. The judge recalled Sullivan's participation in the riot as 'to put it gently, idiosyncratic,' noting that he appeared to have no love for Trump supporters but instead pursued a general urge to sow chaos. 'Mr. Sullivan callously used the riots as an opportunity for personal profit, manipulating other rioters for his own gain,' Lamberth wrote. 'Mr. Sullivan cynically and falsely portrayed himself as a journalist not only to legitimize his cruel profiteering — at the expense of the police, his fellow rioters, and his country — but also in hopes of evading legal accountability for his actions.' Prosecutors relied on Sullivan's footage in hundreds of court cases featuring rioters who treaded the same path as Sullivan through the Capitol.
