Latest news with #TheSupremeCourt
Epoch Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Judge Orders Trump Admin to Facilitate Return of Wrongfully Deported Guatemalan Man
A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who was deported to Mexico in February, after the government admitted to an error in its court statements about his case. The Guatemalan native, referred to as O.C.G. in court documents, left his homeland in March 2024 and entered the United States without prior authorization to seek asylum. He was sent back to Guatemala, and two months later, O.C.G. tried to reenter the United States through Mexico. According to The judge subsequently ruled that O.C.G. should not be returned to Guatemala due to his fears of persecution. Two days after being granted withholding of removal, he was placed on a bus to Mexico without being given the chance to speak to his attorney, court documents stated. After arriving in Mexico, O.C.G. was given a choice of whether to remain in detention while applying for asylum in Mexico or be sent back to Guatemala. He chose to return to Guatemala, where he has remained since, according to court documents. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy said that government lawyers initially said that O.C.G. had verbally expressed that he was not afraid of being sent to Mexico, citing data entries from immigration officers. Related Stories 5/21/2025 4/24/2025 The attorneys later admitted they could not identify any immigration officers to support that claim. 'No one has ever suggested that O.C.G. poses any sort of security threat,' Murphy stated in a 14-page order. 'In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances, only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped.' Murphy acknowledged that mistakes can happen but said, 'the events leading up to this decision are troubling.' 'The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm,' he stated. Murphy ordered discovery, including depositions of those involved in giving the false information and related data entries. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for O.C.G. at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said that his legal team was 'elated' by Murphy's ruling and would work to facilitate a return plan. The Department of Homeland Security did not return a request for comment at the time of publication. The ruling came just days after Murphy In another case, the government said it The Supreme Court has ordered the administration to facilitate his return to the United States. The administration said it lacks the authority to return him because he is now in the custody of Salvadoran authorities. Reuters and Jacob Burg contributed to this report.
Epoch Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Over Blocks on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Policy
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on May 15 over President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and whether federal judges went too far in their decisions to block his order nationwide. It's the first major hearing of Trump's second term and could offer insight into how the justices view the ongoing legal challenges to his agenda. So far, federal judges have blocked a long list of the president's second-term policies while provoking criticism from Republicans alleging they abused their authority. The justices' eventual comments will play a role in congressional attempts to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions while also clarifying when they are and aren't appropriate. The hearing is somewhat unusual in that it's less focused on substantive interpretation of laws or constitutional provisions compared with other hearings. Instead, the administration has asked the court to temporarily halt three nationwide injunctions while the more in-depth questions about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment play out in the court system. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a brief to the court on April 7 that Trump's second term had already seen double the nationwide injunctions granted in the first three years of the Biden administration. 'Those injunctions thwart the Executive Branch's crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness,' he said. Related Stories 5/10/2025 11/24/2024 It's unclear if Sauer will argue on May 15, but that seemed likelier than usual given the high-profile nature of the case. On the other side, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum and attorney Kelsi Corkran are expected to The Supreme Court could wade into the particulars of the orders and whether the judges needed to issue such sweeping injunctions. They could also probe the nature of judges' authority in issuing nationwide injunctions. Republicans have suggested that the practice of issuing nationwide relief, which has grown in recent years, exceeds the parameters that Article III of the Constitution sets up for courts' authority. That portion of the Constitution says the judicial branch has power over 'cases' and 'controversies.' Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has accused judges of exceeding that authority by granting relief to parties not before the court. 'Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with resolving 'cases' and 'controversies,' not making policy,' he Amid the procedural intricacies, the justices could still consider the constitutionality of the president's order in weighing whether the lower courts were right to issue injunctions at a preliminary stage of litigation. The issue stems from a provision of the 14th Amendment, which reads: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' The executive branch has interpreted this amendment to mean that the children of illegal immigrants should receive citizenship. Trump disputed that in his order on Jan. 20 and said that the amendment wasn't so far-reaching. His order directed the government not to grant citizenship if a person's mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person's birth. The order also states that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother's presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual's birth. Critics say Trump's interpretation flies in the face of the plain language of the amendment and a decision the Supreme Court issued in 1898 called United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That case saw a majority of the court hold that the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were legally present in the United States. The administration has said the decision shouldn't be read as applying to the children of illegal immigrants. Federal judges in U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said in his Feb. 6 opinion that illegal immigrants were covered by the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' He, like other judges, has argued in favor of the nationwide scope of their injunctions. Coughenour said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be 'ineffective' because plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states. 'For example, babies born in other states would travel to the Plaintiff States,' he said. 'Once they do, those persons would be eligible for service and support that, without nationwide relief, need be funded by the Plaintiff States.'
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Jully urges guv to ensure disqualification of MLA
Jaipur/Alwar: Leader of Opposition Tuesday raised the issue of delay in the disqualification of convicted with governor Haribhau Bagde during an event in a formal letter submitted to Bagde, Jully accused Assembly Speaker Vasudev Devnani of "deliberately delaying" the disqualification process, despite 13 days passing since the upheld Meena's conviction in a 2005 criminal the letter, Jully cited that the Rajasthan High Court, on May 1, 2025, upheld Meena's three-year sentence for offences under IPC Sections 353, 506, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Supreme Court, he added, already dismissed Meena's Special Leave Petition on May 7, 2025. "As per Article 191 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, any public representative sentenced to more than two years stands automatically disqualified from holding office," Jully the delay in action by the Speaker's office, Jully said, "Even after 13 days since the High Court's order, no step has been taken to disqualify Meena. The Speaker's inaction is a blatant disregard of constitutional duty and democratic norms."Jully urged the governor to uphold the constitutional mandate and ensure Meena's disqualification with effect from May 1, the date of the high court's decision. "The dignity of democratic institutions, the supremacy of the law, and the credibility of the legislature demand urgent intervention," he in the day, Congress chief whip Rafeek Khan also visited the Assembly with a letter from the Congress Legislature Party (CLP), calling for immediate action. "The Hon'ble Speaker is out of town. I met the Assembly secretary and demanded that disqualification proceedings be initiated without further delay, or people will lose faith in this institution," Khan said.
The National
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The National
Joanna Cherry slates Nicola Sturgeon response to Supreme Court ruling
The top court's ruling was seen as a major defeat for the trans rights movement – and the former SNP first minister broke her silence on the issue on Monday. Sturgeon said the judgment, which said women were defined in law by biology and which has triggered a roll-back in trans rights, could make trans people's lives 'unliveable'. Cherry, one of the former FM's fiercest critics within the SNP, accused Sturgeon of 'fatuous hyperbole'. She said 'To say that The Supreme Court judgment means we are 'at risk of making the lives of trans people almost unliveable' is the sort of fatuous hyperbole that she has indulged in in relation to these issues from the outset and it is deeply irresponsible for any politician to so misrepresent the judgment.' Nicola Sturgeon reacts to UK Supreme Court judgement on the definition of a woman. Warns equalities watchdog guidance could make trans lives 'unliveable'. — Craig Meighan (@craigymeighan) May 6, 2025 The former SNP MP, who lost her seat at last year's General Election, also claimed Sturgeon was trying to 'rewrite history' by saying that all sides of the debate had been listened to when drawing up controversial trans rights laws, which have since been shelved. The SNP's Gender Recognition Reform Bill, which sought to make the process of getting a Gender Recognition Certificate easier, was criticised by gender critical feminists for promoting 'self-ID' practices, which they said would mean anyone who claimed to be a woman would be considered one in law. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon breaks silence on Supreme Court gender ruling Cherry added: 'It's simply not true to say that all opinions were taken account of in this debate. 'She branded the views of those of us who pointed out the implications for the rights of women, including lesbians, as 'not valid' and she called us transphobes bigots, racists and homophobes.' Speaking to reporters in Holyrood as John Swinney prepared to set out the SNP's legislative agenda, Sturgeon (below) also claimed that the Supreme Court ruling had contributed to the Scottish Government shelving its plans to make misogyny a specific hate crime. (Image: Andrew Milligan) Cherry said: ''Her snide suggestion that the Supreme Court judgement has stymied the Misogyny Bill has no basis in fact unless, of course, she is referring to the fact that misogyny was going to be defined as including hatred against men. 'She seems also to be forgetting that it was her Government that prevented sex being included as a protected characteristic in the Hate Crime Bill. 'Nicola Sturgeon is trying to rewrite history in relation to these matters, but those of us who fought her every inch of the way in her attack on the rights of women and LGB people will not let her do so.'
News18
05-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
'Appear Or Face Action': SC To Samay Raina, Other Influencers On Pleas For 'Ridiculing' Divyangs
The NGO had referred to the deficiencies in the existing legal framework and urged the bench to formulate guidelines on online content The Supreme Court on Monday sought the presence of five social media influencers, including 'India's Got Latent" host Samay Raina, on a plea of an NGO which alleged that they ridiculed persons with a rare disorder Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) on their show. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh asked the Mumbai Commissioner of Police to serve notice on the five influencers to ensure their presence in the court, failing which coercive action will be taken. The bench also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani on the PIL of NGO 'Cure SMA Foundation of India' for direction on regulating social media content concerning disabled people and persons with rare disorders. The bench termed the influencers ridiculing such people as 'damaging" and 'demoralising" and said some serious remedial and punitive action was needed so that these things don't happen again. 'This is very, very damaging and demoralising. There are statutes which try to bring these people into the mainstream, and with one incident, the entire effort goes. You should think of some remedial and punitive action within the law," the bench told senior advocate Aprajita Singh, appearing for the NGO. Observing that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is not absolute, the bench said no one can be allowed to demean anybody under the garb of the right and mulled framing guidelines on social media content concerning the disabled and people with rare disorders. The NGO had referred to the deficiencies in the existing legal framework and urged the bench to formulate guidelines on online content. First Published:
