Latest news with #SixthAmendment
Yahoo
2 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
ACLU accuses Leavenworth facility of breaking the law, violating ICE detainees' rights
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is claiming that a federal prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, is breaking the law and violating the rights of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees. Lawrence police searching for person accused of stabbing elderly woman The ACLU said immigrants being detained at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Leavenworth are currently facing a number of problematic and unlawful conditions, including: Lengthy lockdowns Deprivation of basic needs Crowded and unsanitary conditions Use of force Delays in medical care Lack of language access Lack of telephone access and confidential communications with legal counsel Issues with legal mail Lack of services According to both detainee and attorney reports, the ACLU said a significant number of people detained at FCI Leavenworth continue to be held in ICE's custody even though they have already won their immigration cases. from immigration advocates urged officials to rectify concerns regarding conditions in the facility and the prolonged detention of immigrant detainees. The letter was written by Advocates for Immigrants Rights and Reconciliation, the ACLU, the ACLU of Kansas, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), the Missouri/Kansas Chapter of AILA and the Office of Justice, Peace, and Integrity of Creation of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth. You can read the full letter here. ICE entered into an agreement with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in February to house immigrant detainees. The ACLU said people in ICE custody face more restrictive conditions than those in BOP custody, with less out-of-cell time and no access to outdoor recreation. Language barriers also create significant hurdles for detainees in need of medical care, the ACLU said. Michael Sharma-Crawford, a local immigration attorney and the current chair of the Kansas and Missouri chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said it's a violation of the Sixth Amendment to deny detainees access to a lawyer. 'Detaining someone and undermining their due process by blocking access to counsel is a clear and unequivocal violation of the Sixth Amendment,' Sharma-Crawford said. 'That injustice becomes even more severe when it targets civil detainees—people who are not accused of any crime. The harm in these cases is not just amplified; it is indefensible.' Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's National Prison Project, said FCI Leavenworth is breaking the law. 'The Trump administration's use of federal prisons to detain immigrants must end. Holding people in extended lockdown, and denying them access to adequate medical care, legal counsel, and even sunlight isn't just inhumane – it's illegal,' Cho said. 'The taxpayer-funded conditions faced by immigrants held at FCI Leavenworth should concern us all.' Karla Juarez, executive director of Advocates for Immigrant Rights and Reconciliation, said she's horrified by what's going on at the facility. 'What's happening at FCI Leavenworth is not only a violation of ICE's own policies—it's a violation of our shared humanity,' Juarez said. 'These are people who have already won their immigration cases and who should be free with their families, not locked in overcrowded cells without access to medical care or even sunlight. 'We are horrified. We demand that ICE and BOP stop treating immigrant lives as disposable and immediately release those who have already been granted protection.' An individual who was detained at FCI Leavenworth earlier this year shared his experience with the ACLU. 'The hardest thing I can express was that when we arrived, we were the second group, and it was an abandoned area,' the former detainee shared. 'Everything was very dirty. We didn't have any cleaning supplies. Food was the hardest part because it wasn't a pleasant meal. There was no way to wash clothes. We only had one uniform, and that was it. Honestly, the time we were locked up in the cell was the worst. We had no communication with our families, and they didn't comply with the necessary resources.' He said he hopes ICE makes the necessary changes. 'I hope they get out as soon as possible,' he continued. 'There are many people who are there who have already won a case and are still there. I hope ICE pays more attention to their cases because they never get answers for them. I hope they are truly giving them enough food and they can communicate with their families and lawyers.' Earlier this month, the Kansas Federal Public Defender's office sent a letter to the FCI Leavenworth warden and the assistant general counsel at the BOP due to health concerns for residents – prompted by a monthslong rat infestation at the FCI facility. The letter also noted issues with video visitation of connectivity and timeliness interfering with reliable and confidential visitation for attorneys with clients. A responsive letter from the warden noted pest control measures taken and stated that attorney-client visits are unmonitored and confidential. The FCI Leavenworth facility is run by the BOP. This is not the CoreCivic facility that the city has been battling in court. FOX4 has been in contact with FCI Leavenworth and is awaiting their response. Check back in for the latest updates on this story. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A Federal Judge Lists 8 Ways That Trump Violated the Constitution by Punishing a Disfavored Law Firm
After President Donald Trump began penalizing major law firms that had offended him in one way or another last February, nine of them chose to surrender rather than fight. They agreed to humiliating concessions that included pro bono work, totaling nearly $1 billion, for causes favored by the president. But several firms stood their ground, arguing that Trump's executive orders targeting them violated the First Amendment and undermined the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. So far the latter approach has proven to be pragmatic as well as principled. Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and WilmerHale have obtained court orders barring Trump from abusing his authority to punish law firms for representing his political opponents, supporting causes he does not like, or employing attorneys who have crossed him. The latest example, a permanent injunction that a federal judge in Washington, D.C., issued on Tuesday, underlines the threat posed by Trump's petty vindictiveness. In an opinion peppered with exclamation points, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon says Trump's order against WilmerHale defies the First Amendment in four ways, violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process in two ways, unconstitutionally interferes with the right to legal representation, and flouts the separation of powers. "The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting," Leon writes. "In the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional." In his March 27 order targeting WilmerHale, Trump complained that the firm had "engage[d] in obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends." He was alluding to WilmerHale's work for the Democratic National Committee, state-level Democratic organizations, and the presidential campaigns of two Democrats: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Trump said WilmerHale was "bent on employing lawyers who weaponize the prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process and distort justice," mentioning former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated Trump, and two of "his colleagues." WilmerHale had engaged in "egregious conduct" by "support[ing] efforts to discriminate on the basis of race," Trump averred, referring to the firm's defense of Harvard University's affirmative action practices against a successful challenge by Students for Fair Admissions. He also accused WilmerHale of supporting "the obstruction of efforts to prevent illegal aliens from committing horrific crimes and trafficking deadly drugs within our borders," by which he meant that the firm had challenged some of his immigration policies during his first term. He added that WilmerHale "furthers the degradation of the quality of American elections, including by supporting efforts designed to enable noncitizens to vote." That was a reference to the firm's involvement in challenges to state voter identification and registration laws. As Leon notes, WilmerHale also has irked Trump by representing "inspectors general alleging that President Trump improperly fired them" and the House Ways and Means Committee in "litigation resulting in President Trump's disclosure of his personal tax returns." And the firm challenged a fantasy close to Trump's heart by opposing his lawsuits "challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election." Because WilmerHale had engaged in "conduct detrimental to critical American interests," Trump said, it was appropriate to "suspend any active security clearances" held by lawyers at the firm and restrict their access to federal buildings and government officials. He also ordered the termination of federal contracts with WilmerHale and a review of other contractors' links to the firm. And he threatened the firm with investigations for "racial discrimination" via "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) programs. The day after Trump imposed those penalties, which posed a grave threat to WilmerHale's business, Leon issued a temporary restraining order against the president's edict. He noted that the First Amendment prohibits government retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, including "retaliatory actions based on perceived viewpoint." He added that "the retaliatory nature of the Executive Order at issue here is clear on its face," and "there is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, or that it qualifies as a constitutional harm." Leon reiterates that point in Tuesday's ruling. WilmerHale's legal work is "unquestionably protected conduct under the First Amendment," he notes. "On its face," he says, Trump's order constitutes "retaliation for the firm's protected speech," including its "pro bono practice, 'obvious partisan representations to achieve political ends,' and involvement in immigration and election litigation." The order imposes "a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!" Leon writes. "Any one of those sanctions would cause clients to strongly reconsider their engagements with WilmerHale. Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech! The Order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm's ability to effectively represent its clients! For example, WilmerHale attorneys may not be able to enter federal courthouses for trial, meet with federal regulators, or access classified materials necessary for working on national security matters." Leon notes that "clients have already begun ending or curtailing their relationships with WilmerHale." In addition to the direct restrictions on the firm's work, the order's contracting provisions threatened "severe economic consequences for the firm," he says. "The impact of losing federal contractor clients would be staggering, as '[a]t least 21 of WilmerHale's 25 largest clients in 2024 have contracts with federal agencies. These 21 clients accounted for more than 30% of the Firm's revenue in 2024—nearly $500 million.'" WilmerHale also alleged that Trump's order violated the First Amendment by discriminating against particular viewpoints. Leon agrees. "WilmerHale's representation of clients in litigation is speech," he says. "The Order attacks the viewpoints WilmerHale expressed over the course of these representations, describing WilmerHale's work as 'partisan' and 'political,' and maligning WilmerHale's advocacy on behalf of causes disfavored by President Trump." It "both threatens and imposes sanctions and uses other means of coercion to suppress WilmerHale's representation of disfavored causes and clients." In addition to freedom of speech, the First Amendment guarantees the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Leon says Trump's order blatantly violates that right as well. "WilmerHale has both alleged and shown that the Order violates the Petition Clause by (1) punishing the firm for its past representation of clients in litigation and (2) undermining the firm's ability to pursue litigation in the future," Leon writes. "The Order explicitly targets WilmerHale at least in part for the litigation it has pursued, including election and immigration lawsuits." In addition to "punishing WilmerHale for past petitioning," he notes, the order "creates hurdles to prevent the firm from pursuing future lawsuits" by revoking security clearances and restricting access to federal buildings and agencies, which "would severely hinder WilmerHale's ability to effectively bring cases." Leon is not impressed by Trump's invocation of national security. "Other than a passing reference to WilmerHale's involvement in election and immigration litigation, the Order does not explain how WilmerHale's conduct has threatened national security or how restricting its access to federal buildings or federal employees would remedy those threats," he writes. Rather, the order is "plainly motivated by the President's desire to retaliate against WilmerHale for its protected activity," which is "not a legitimate Government interest." The First Amendment also has long been understood to protect freedom of association. "Compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy can violate this First Amendment right," Leon notes. "WilmerHale alleges that the Order compels the firm's federal contractor clients to disclose their affiliation with WilmerHale, which engages in advocacy on their behalf and on behalf of other clients. I find that this disclosure violates the First Amendment [right to] freedom of association." Regarding WilmerHale's Fifth Amendment claims, Leon notes that the firm has "a protected liberty interest in its right to petition the Government under the First Amendment." WilmerHale "has shown that the Government deprived the firm of this protected liberty interest," he writes, and Trump "issued the Order without any due process." The order also violates due process because it is unconstitutionally vague, failing to provide "fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required," Leon says. The order "does not provide WilmerHale with notice of how it should act in the future to avoid these sanctions," he notes. "The Order's invocation of concepts such as 'bedrock American principles' and 'the interests of the United States' leave WilmerHale and its employees guessing about how to modify their conduct to avoid the Order's sanctions….The Order essentially leaves it to WilmerHale to predict which causes and which attorneys the President personally dislikes and then steer clear of those causes and attorneys. This chilling effect triggers serious vagueness concerns." Trump's instructions to his underlings are also alarmingly vague, Leon says. The order "directs agency officials to take action against WilmerHale to ensure 'consistency' with the 'national interest,' 'the goals and priorities of [the] Administration,' and 'the interests of the United States,'" he writes. "Read in the context of the Order, these phrases are most narrowly construed to mean those interests which the President condones or, in their broadest construction, whatever an agency head thinks is in the interest of the American people. To say the least, the Order is fraught with the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement!" WilmerHale also cited the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees criminal defendants the right to "have the assistance of counsel." Leon says WilmerHale "has alleged and shown that the Order 'infringes the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of [its] clients' by 'eviscerat[ing] the Firm's ability to provide effective representation and advocacy.'" Since WilmerHale's criminal defense work "requires entering federal buildings and engaging with federal employees," Leon notes, the order "effectively prevents the firm's attorneys from representing their clients in criminal matters." It also "coerces WilmerHale's federal contractor clients to choose between their contracts and their engagements—including engagements on criminal matters—with WilmerHale." Those restrictions "may thus cause the firm's criminal defendant clients to abandon the firm and seek alternate counsel," and "some clients have already begun to do so," Leon notes. Although the order "does not directly prohibit criminal defendants from hiring WilmerHale as their counsel," he says, "it certainly has that effect!" According to the Supreme Court, he notes, "indirect infringements on the right to counsel of choice can violate the Sixth Amendment," and "the indirect infringement on the right to counsel here is severe." Finally, Leon concludes that Trump's order "violates the separation of powers by usurping judicial authority to identify and sanction abuses of the judicial process." Even if "each section could be grounded in Executive power, the directives set out in each section clearly exceed that power!" he says. "The President, by issuing the Order, is wielding his authority to punish a law firm for engaging in litigation conduct the President personally disfavors. Thus, to the extent the President does have the power to limit access to federal buildings, suspend and revoke security clearances, dictate federal hiring, and manage federal contracts, the Order surpasses that authority and in fact usurps the Judiciary's authority to resolve cases and sanction parties that come before the courts!" Federal judges have reached similar conclusions in response to lawsuits filed by Perkins Coie, which obtained a permanent injunction on May 2; Jenner & Block, which obtained a permanent injunction on May 23; and Susman Godfrey, which last month obtained a temporary restraining order and is now seeking a permanent injunction. This string of successes makes the capitulations by firms such as Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Latham & Watkins, which sought to assuage the president's wrath by changing their policies and practices, look unwise as well as cowardly. Among other things, those firms agreed to abandon DEI programs and devote huge amounts of pro bono resources to Trump-favored clients and causes. Trump has "hinted" that he views those promised services as "a legal war chest to be used as he wishes," The New York Times reported last month. Citing "two people briefed on the matter," the Times said the options include "sending the lawyers to help Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency," "deploying them to aid the Justice Department," or even assigning them to represent "Mr. Trump or his allies if they [become] ensnared in investigations." In an April 28 executive order, Trump mentioned another use for the legal services obtained through these shakedowns. He ordered "the use of private-sector pro bono assistance" to defend "law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties." The post A Federal Judge Lists 8 Ways That Trump Violated the Constitution by Punishing a Disfavored Law Firm appeared first on
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Louisiana Senate rejects bill for new trials on Jim Crow juries
BATON ROUGE, La. (KTAL/KMSS) — A segment of people in Louisiana prisons have lost their chance to appeal their cases. Proposed bill in Texas would prohibit minors from using social media. Learn tips for managing child's online activity The Louisiana Senate failed to pass Senate Bill 218, which Senator Royce Duplessis introduced and would have allowed people convicted by 'Jim Crow Juries' to receive new trials. In 1898, Louisiana adopted the split jury convictions during a constitutional convention. This allowed white majority juries to convict black people without coming to a unanimous decision. Louisiana House advances state budget in 2025 legislative session The practice of non-unanimous convictions continued in Louisiana until 2018. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the practice violated the right to an impartial jury, a right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Oregon, the other state that allowed split decisions, granted new trials to hundreds of people. SB 218 would have given people in Louisiana jails the same relief. SB 218 failed on a 9-26 vote, completely along party lines. Republican lawmakers were concerned with overburdening courts with additional trials and the possibility of witnesses being dead or evidence being lost. Supporters countered that district attorneys would ultimately decide whether to hold new trials and that transcripts of testimony from old trials are already used in cases. DOJ dismisses investigations of civil rights violations by Louisiana State Police New Orleans Democrat Senator Royce Duplessis, who authored the bill, said, 'If we choose to vote down this bill, we're saying that justice has an expiration date. We have an opportunity in Louisiana to remove this stain, because right now we are the only ones wearing it.' The lopsided nature of the vote, with only one month left in this year's Legislative Session, makes it unlikely that the bill will have another chance at this session despite the fact that 65% of voters surveyed supported it. For now, an estimated 1,000 men and women in Louisiana prisons, despite the jury not being unanimous, are waiting for a path out. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Chicago Tribune
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: Lawmakers should pass the FAIR Act to ensure all Illinoisans get a fair defense in court
Under the Sixth Amendment of the United State Constitution, all accused indigent people are guaranteed the right to effective legal representation in a court of law. Unfortunately, that is not happening in Illinois. Illinois has not significantly updated its public defense structure since 1949. The result is that Illinois is an outlier in the United States and is one of only a handful of states with no statewide body to ensure that those who cannot afford an attorney receive effective representation. Additionally, with 102 counties in Illinois, there are some counties that have no public defenders at all. About 60% of Illinois counties have no government office of public defense and instead contract with private attorneys, often on a part-time basis. Some counties may share a public defender or a judge may appoint any lawyer to represent a client even if that lawyer has no experience in public defense. The result of this lack of effective legal representation can lead to unnecessary jail admissions or prison sentences, which then damage individuals, families and communities through incarceration and lost wages. The Funded Advocacy & Independent Representation (FAIR) Act (HB3363) is currently in the Illinois Senate. Under the FAIR Act, an independent State Public Defender Commission and a state public defender position would be created. The commission would provide resources to county public defender offices, establish training programs and advocate for court system funding. The commission would determine metrics regarding public defender offices, caseloads, staffing and resources. It also would be able to offer resources to under-resourced counties in Illinois. Passing the FAIR Act would put into law the necessary structural changes that Illinois residents need in order to obtain fair and effective public defense representation. The passage of the FAIR Act would modernize the public defense system and offer to all people the constitutional protection and the vigorous defense we all should expect. When I was a child, my father believed that we only get the justice we can afford. That needs to change in Illinois now.A recent news article and opinion piece in the Tribune have an important connection. The Tribune Editorial Board enthused about successes at O'Hare International Airport ('First job for new aviation commissioner? Don't mess up Chicago's O'Hare Airport,' May 11), and Ron Grossman gave a fascinating look at Chicago Union Station's storied past ('100 years ago, the first trains pulled into Union Station,' May 11). Together, this coverage highlights the best possible future for Chicago transportation: connecting these two assets via a quick train ride. The key is bringing intercity and regional rail passengers within walking distance of O'Hare's ticket counters. The best transit systems in the world provide this. Imagine being able to travel conveniently between O'Hare and destinations throughout the region by intercity train. This would make O'Hare an even more appealing hub airport. It would allow ORD to focus on more profitable long-distance flights instead of connectors, while saving fuel and innumerable hours simply getting travelers to and from the airport. It would also fulfill the great potential of Union Station, now 100 years young and looking forward to a bright future as the hub of a magnificent Midwest rail system and future home of high-speed rail. We hope Michael McMurray, Chicago's new commissioner of aviation, sees this potential to revolutionize Chicago transit with a Union Station-O'Hare connection. We're pushing for five straightforward fixes at Union Station to better connect it to the region while increasing its capacity tenfold: a new concourse to make it easier to find your train, direct access to southern platforms from above, through-running trains on Amtrak and Metra to O'Hare, a shift from diesel to electric trains and better connections between Union Station and other transit assets, especially the Ogilvie Transportation Center and the Blue Line. The key is investment, and the looming fiscal cliff for transit presents an opportunity. Let's invest in a comprehensive railway program that connects O'Hare and Union Station as part of a network of fast, frequent, affordable trains and transit that serve our entire state and has become a thriving hub for life sciences innovation. Through our elected officials' foresight and planning and fueled by world-class universities, tech incubators and a growing ecosystem of venture-backed startups, Chicago is an epicenter of biotech and digital health. And essential to the innovation and breakthroughs emerging from the Chicago life sciences industry is artificial intelligence, a powerful tool whose promise we're only beginning to comprehend. AI is transforming the pace and precision of life sciences research in Chicago (and everywhere else). Machine learning is helping startups model new innovations to enhance clinical trials, power personalized medicine tailored to each patient's biology and achieve predictive diagnostics with unthinkable accuracy. It goes without saying that protecting the development of AI and minimizing obstacles to its continued use is essential for a hub such as Chicago. Lawmakers in Springfield are considering a bill, HB3506, to regulate companies that are utilizing AI, proposing technical reporting and compliance obligations that would prove costly and burdensome. As well intentioned as the policy may be, it would as written have a chilling effect on AI innovation by entangling early-stage life sciences startups in red tape before their innovations ever reach a patient or become commercially viable. Before finalizing any bill, Illinois policymakers should thoughtfully engage the community of talented life sciences entrepreneurs here in Chicago to better understand how AI functions in the life sciences. Regulation of this emerging industry is warranted but must be narrowed to address bad actors without handcuffing innovation. Proposed regulations that couple burdensome reporting requirements with overreaching policies risk imposing unsustainable costs on small startups — draining limited resources and possibly forcing promising startups to close before they can get off the ground. Illinois is poised to be a major contender in the next wave of medical innovation, so instead of fast-tracking legislation around a complex and nuanced issue such as artificial intelligence, legislators should take a measured and forward-looking approach. Chicago's life sciences and tech ecosystems are thriving, and we've only scratched the surface on the promise of AI to transform health care. Let's make sure Chicago is at the center of that transformation, supported by smart policy that fosters innovation at every my business was strapped for cash and traditional lending wasn't an option, I had to take a loan from a quick cash lender so my business could survive. But after taking out that financing, I realized that the lender lacked transparency when I saw how high the interest rate really was. This traps small business owners in a vicious debt cycle in which all they can afford to do is make the minimum loan payment, and sometimes, they can't even afford that. While I'm paying off my loan now, other small business owners are still struggling. There's no road map for navigating this debt while keeping cash flow steady. That's why I'm urging the Illinois legislature to support any legislation that would require noncommercial lenders to disclose their annual percentage rate, or APR. This is the only metric that enables borrowers to make apples-to-apples comparisons between different financing products. Small businesses need to be able to make informed decisions so they can access true capital, not high-interest traps that keep us struggling.I'm wondering why Jasmine Paolini, the first Italian to win the Italian Open in 40 years, got the 'Shorts' spot in the Sunday Sports section, while the match between Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner (who lost) got the nice, quarter page article the next day? Oh yeah. Women's sports. Silly me.
NBC News
16-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Former Danity Kane member takes stand in Combs trial; testifies she witnessed brutal attack against Cassie Ventura
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian had harsh words for the defense on Thursday over what he perceived as a prolonged cross-examination of key witness Cassie Ventura. The judge was particularly agitated about the possibility that the defense might not conclude their questioning of the eight-months pregnant Ventura before week's end. This will certainly be an issue during Ventura's testimony today, as it may be difficult for the defense to complete their cross, the prosecution to complete their redirect, and the defense to complete any re-cross, all in one day. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees each criminal defendant the right 'to be confronted with the witnesses against him.' 'A district court should afford wide latitude to a defendant in a criminal case to cross-examine government witnesses…' At the same time, the 'Confrontation Clause [does not] prevent a trial judge from imposing any limits on defense counsel's inquiry in cross-examining a prosecution witness.' Show more
