Latest news with #UniversityofVirginiaSchoolofLaw
Yahoo
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Andrew Boutros sworn in as Chicago's US attorney
Veteran Chicago lawyer and former federal prosecutor Andrew Boutros was sworn in Monday as the 42nd U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. District Chief Judge Virginia Kendall administered the oath of office for Boutros in a customary private ceremony a little over a week after Boutros' selection was announced. 'I am humbled and honored to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago,' Boutros said in a statement Monday, also thanking President Donald Trump, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and others involved in his selection 'for their trust and confidence in me.' 'As U.S. attorney, I am committed to working alongside old and new colleagues to tackle the important problems that face our district,' Boutros said. Boutros named veteran prosecutor Morris Pasqual, who has served as acting U.S. attorney since John Lausch's departure in March 2023, to be his first assistant. Boutros, 47, is a first-generation American whose parents emigrated from Egypt. He attended Virginia Tech University and earned a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2001. Boutros spent eight years as a federal prosecutor under then-U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, bringing a number of high-profile and complex prosecutions involving everything from international trade to dark web narcotics conspiracy. He'd most recently served as co-chair of the government investigations and white-collar group at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP in Chicago. Boutros was selected by the Trump administration after a search process run by Republican U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood, of Peoria. Boutros was appointed as an interim U.S. attorney, which means he was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate. His term runs for 120 days or until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed. jmeisner@
Chicago Tribune
07-04-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Andrew Boutros sworn in as Chicago's US attorney
Veteran Chicago lawyer and former federal prosecutor Andrew Boutros was sworn in Monday as the 42nd U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. U.S. District Chief Judge Virginia M. Kendall administered the oath of office for Boutros in a customary private ceremony a little over a week after Boutros' selection was announced. 'I am humbled and honored to lead the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago,' Boutros said in a statement Monday, also thanking President Donald Trump, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and others involved in his selection 'for their trust and confidence in me.' 'As U.S. attorney, I am committed to working alongside old and new colleagues to tackle the important problems that face our district,' Boutros said. Boutros named veteran prosecutor Morris Pasqual, who has served as acting U.S. attorney since John Lausch's departure in March 2023, to be his first assistant. Boutros, 47, is a first-generation American whose parents immigrated from Egypt. He attended Virginia Tech University and earned his law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2001. Boutros spent eight years as a federal prosecutor under then-U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, bringing a number of high-profile and complex prosecutions involving everything from international trade to dark web narcotics conspiracy. He'd most recently served as co-chair of the government investigations and white-collar group at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP in Chicago. Boutros was selected by the Trump administration after a search process run by Republican U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood, of Peoria. Boutros was appointed as an interim U.S. attorney, which means he was not confirmed by the U.S. Senate. His term runs for 120 days or until a permanent replacement is nominated and confirmed.
Yahoo
21-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nationwide injunctions are central to Trump's feud with judges. Here's what to know
In President Donald Trump's escalating battle with the judiciary, he and his Republican allies have zeroed in on a similar message. No single judge, they argue, should be able to use an injunction to block the powers of the country's elected chief executive. "That's a presidential job. That's not for a local judge to be making that determination," Trump said on Fox News earlier this week as he railed against a judge who issued a limited injunction to stop deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to other countries after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, peppered with questions after the administration did not turn the planes around, on Wednesday preemptively offered her own rebuke of judges who've recently ordered injunctions taking effect nationwide. "The judges in this country are acting erroneously," she said. "We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States. They are trying to clearly slow walk this administration's agenda, and it's unacceptable." MORE: Trump administration escalates legal battle over alleged gang member deportations The White House argues that's especially the case when it comes to immigration matters, foreign affairs, national security and the president exercising his constitutional powers as commander in chief. Judges have, so far, temporarily blocked Trump's efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military, freeze federal funding and bring an end to birthright citizenship. Supporters of nationwide injunctions say they serve as an essential check to potentially unlawful conduct and prevent widespread harm. Critics say they give too much authority to individual judges and incentivize plaintiffs to try to evade random assignment and file in jurisdictions with judges who may be sympathetic to their point of view. In general, legal experts told ABC News an injunction is meant to preserve the status quo while judges consider the merits of the case. (Judges also issue temporary restraining orders -- with similar impact -- as short-term emergency measures to prevent irreparable harm until a hearing can be held.) "Often the nationwide injunction, or universal injunction, is put in place right at the start of a litigation," said Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. "All of these can be appealed, and they are," Frost said. "It's appealed to a three-judge court and then the Supreme Court after that. So, when people say one district court is controlling the law for the nation, well maybe for a few weeks. The system allows for appeals, and the Trump administration has appealed." Chief Justice John Roberts said the same in a rare statement after Trump attacked the federal judge in the deportation flight case as a "Radical Left Lunatic" and called for him to be impeached. MORE: Trump continues to call for judge's impeachment after chief justice's rebuke In fact, Trump was handed a win when an appeals court last week lifted an injunction on his executive orders seeking to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in the federal government. Nationwide injunctions are also not new, though scholars agree they've been used far more in recent decades. "We saw them with Obama, we saw them with the first Trump administration, and saw them with Biden," Frost said. "And now we're seeing them even more with President Trump but they go in lockstep with the sweeping executive orders that seek to change and upend vast swaths of our legal structure." According to a study by the Harvard Law Review, President Barack Obama faced 12 injunctions, the Trump administration faced 64 and President Joe Biden 14 injunctions. Both Democrats and Republicans have either urged the judiciary to rein in injunctions or celebrated their outcomes, depending on whether they align with their political goals. In 2023, when a federal judge in Missouri issued an injunction limiting contact between the Biden administration and social media sites, then-candidate Trump called it a "historic ruling" and the judge "brilliant." The U.S. Supreme Court eventually sided with the Biden administration on the issue. Now, the Trump administration is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to curb injunctions after three different federal judges temporarily blocked the president's birthright citizenship order, saying it likely violated the 14th Amendment. "At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court's intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable," Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in an application to the high court last week. MORE: Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene on blocks to his birthright citizenship order Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said he understands the "frustration" that can stem from nationwide injunctions but ultimately "judges are there to make sure that the government doesn't violate the Constitution." "Trump is really taking a sledgehammer to everything government related," he said. "These norms have been around for decades, so you have to allow some time for the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to weigh in and say whether this is appropriate or not." The White House has said Trump will comply with the courts, but his intensifying rebukes of judges and rulings have raised the question: What happens if he doesn't? "That would completely undermine the integrity of our system," Rahmani said. Nationwide injunctions are central to Trump's feud with judges. Here's what to know originally appeared on
CNN
14-03-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Trump is asking the Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship by arguing about something else
As it pushes to implement a plan to end birthright citizenship, the Trump administration is counting on an argument about out-of-control federal judges to prove irresistible to some Supreme Court conservatives. Rather than waiting to ask the court to rule directly on the merits of birthright citizenship, which President Donald Trump is seeking to unwind, the administration used a series of emergency appeals Thursday to argue that lower courts are vastly exceeding their authority to block the White House's agenda. In effect, it's a strategy that could bring the same result – letting Trump at least temporarily upend more than a century of settled law that's part of the fabric of American society. The use of sweeping, if temporary nationwide orders has 'reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,' acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court in the appeals. 'This court should declare that enough is enough.' For now, the court doesn't appear to be in any rush to resolve the cases. The three justices handling Trump's appeals on Friday asked for a response from the groups challenging Trump by April 4, a far longer timeline than is usual on the court's emergency docket. The birthright citizenship appeals made their way to the high court at a moment when judges are wrestling with a slew of controversial executive actions that seem designed to push the boundaries of the law. The Supreme Court has already twice declined to overturn lower courts that blocked Trump initiatives since January 20. Those cases have drawn fiery dissents from some conservative justices questioning the power of lower courts to force the administration to slow down. Trump's latest appeal – which repeatedly cites conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – appears designed to build further support for that position. But experts say the birthright citizenship case may be a particularly improbable vehicle for changing how lower courts do business. 'There are strong arguments about the scope of injunctions,' said Amanda Frost, a professor at University of Virginia School of Law. 'This is a pretty weak case to bring that kind of argument.' Courts have issued sweeping injunctions requiring Trump to halt implementation of his birthright citizenship plans – among a wave of early legal defeats the new president has faced. A federal judge in January described Trump's effort as 'blatantly unconstitutional.' Three federal appeals courts declined to lift those orders. The administration framed its request of the Supreme Court as 'modest,' noting it's not seeking to lift the injunctions entirely – only to narrow their scope to the parties who sued. But if a majority of justices grant the request, it would have the practical effect of allowing the administration to move forward with an executive order against all but a handful of people. 'The government's argument is anything but 'modest,'' said Rupa Bhattacharyya, legal director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, which is representing two of the groups challenging Trump. 'It would destroy the very concept of the United States as a nation if children born in Tennessee were denied citizenship while children born in Washington state were granted it.' In one sense, Trump is pressing a decades-old legal argument and taking a position that has, at times, drawn bipartisan support. In the final weeks of the Biden administration, for instance, the Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to consider limiting the use of so-called universal injunctions – an invitation the court declined. And the Supreme Court waded into the issue just last year in an emergency appeal dealing with Idaho's strict statewide ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A majority allowed Idaho to enforce its ban, shutting down a lower court's sweeping injunction that had blocked its implementation. Gorsuch, in a lengthy concurrence, lamented lower courts' injunctions that extended beyond the people who challenge the policy in the first place. 'Lower courts would be wise to take heed,' Gorsuch warned in an opinion joined by Thomas and Alito. 'Retiring the universal injunction may not be the answer to everything that ails us. But it will lead federal courts to become a little truer to the historic limits of their office.' Gorsuch's concurrence is the very first Supreme Court opinion the Justice Department cited in its appeals Thursday. Harris argued that courts have not taken heed but have instead doubled down. She did not address the counterargument: That courts are simply reacting to a president who openly ran on shaking up the status quo in ways everyone knew would invite legal challenges. 'District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden administration,' she wrote. Presidents of both parties tend to complain about nationwide injunctions, even as their allies often pursue them when the other party is in power. The Biden administration was forced to pause policies dealing with immigration, Covid-19 and student loan forgiveness. The emergency orders don't decide the merits of a case, but they often have significant practical implications. In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – even though the law conflicted with the court's landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Months later, the court overturned Roe. Even with that history, there have been signs that some justices are restive about the recent flood of lower court orders. When a majority of the court this month let stand a ruling requiring the Trump administration to quickly spend nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, Alito wrote a scathing dissent accusing the lower court of 'judicial hubris.' 'Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?' Alito wrote. 'The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No.'' Alito was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – one vote shy of a majority. The Trump administration is also making a backup argument at the Supreme Court – one that could find some purchase. If the justices are unwilling to allow officials to implement the order, the administration argues, then the court should at least let the executive branch make plans to do so. The lower court orders block such internal planning in rulings the administration said, 'micromanage the internal operations of the executive branch.' The orders 'have prevented executive agencies from developing and issuing public guidance explaining how the executive branch would carry out the citizenship order,' Harris told the Supreme Court. Those orders, she said, 'exceed the courts' authority' under the Constitution. If a majority of the court wants to give the administration a win on part of its request without addressing the more substantial questions involved, the issue of internal planning would have the most limited impact. US District Judge Deborah Boardman, nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, questioned why officials would want to move forward with planning an order widely understood to be illegal. 'Surely, the government has no valid interest in taking internal, preparatory steps to formulate policies and guidance on an unconstitutional executive order,' Boardman wrote last month. A landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1898 affirmed the idea that people born in the United States are citizens, and the modern court hasn't signaled a desire to revisit that holding. Some conservatives have argued that those long-held views are wrong because the 14th Amendment includes a phrase that citizenship applies only to people who are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump is asking the Supreme Court to end birthright citizenship by arguing about something else
As it pushes to implement a plan to end birthright citizenship, the Trump administration is counting on an argument about out-of-control federal judges to prove irresistible to some Supreme Court conservatives. Rather than waiting to ask the court to rule directly on the merits of birthright citizenship, which President Donald Trump is seeking to unwind, the administration used a series of emergency appeals Thursday to argue that lower courts are vastly exceeding their authority to block the White House's agenda. In effect, it's a strategy that could bring the same result – letting Trump at least temporarily upend more than a century of settled law that's part of the fabric of American society. The use of sweeping, if temporary nationwide orders has 'reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,' acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court in the appeals. 'This court should declare that enough is enough.' For now, the court doesn't appear to be in any rush to resolve the cases. The three justices handling Trump's appeals on Friday asked for a response from the groups challenging Trump by April 4, a far longer timeline than is usual on the court's emergency docket. The birthright citizenship appeals made their way to the high court at a moment when judges are wrestling with a slew of controversial executive actions that seem designed to push the boundaries of the law. The Supreme Court has already twice declined to overturn lower courts that blocked Trump initiatives since January 20. Those cases have drawn fiery dissents from some conservative justices questioning the power of lower courts to force the administration to slow down. Trump's latest appeal – which repeatedly cites conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – appears designed to build further support for that position. But experts say the birthright citizenship case may be a particularly improbable vehicle for changing how lower courts do business. That's largely because of the controversy surrounding Trump's position on birthright citizenship. For more than 150 years, courts have understood the 14th Amendment's text to guarantee citizenship to anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States,' regardless of the immigration status of their parents. 'There are strong arguments about the scope of injunctions,' said Amanda Frost, a professor at University of Virginia School of Law. 'This is a pretty weak case to bring that kind of argument.' Courts have issued sweeping injunctions requiring Trump to halt implementation of his birthright citizenship plans – among a wave of early legal defeats the new president has faced. A federal judge in January described Trump's effort as 'blatantly unconstitutional.' Three federal appeals courts declined to lift those orders. The administration framed its request of the Supreme Court as 'modest,' noting it's not seeking to lift the injunctions entirely – only to narrow their scope to the parties who sued. But if a majority of justices grant the request, it would have the practical effect of allowing the administration to move forward with an executive order against all but a handful of people. 'The government's argument is anything but 'modest,'' said Rupa Bhattacharyya, legal director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, which is representing two of the groups challenging Trump. 'It would destroy the very concept of the United States as a nation if children born in Tennessee were denied citizenship while children born in Washington state were granted it.' In one sense, Trump is pressing a decades-old legal argument and taking a position that has, at times, drawn bipartisan support. In the final weeks of the Biden administration, for instance, the Justice Department also urged the Supreme Court to consider limiting the use of so-called universal injunctions – an invitation the court declined. And the Supreme Court waded into the issue just last year in an emergency appeal dealing with Idaho's strict statewide ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A majority allowed Idaho to enforce its ban, shutting down a lower court's sweeping injunction that had blocked its implementation. Gorsuch, in a lengthy concurrence, lamented lower courts' injunctions that extended beyond the people who challenge the policy in the first place. 'Lower courts would be wise to take heed,' Gorsuch warned in an opinion joined by Thomas and Alito. 'Retiring the universal injunction may not be the answer to everything that ails us. But it will lead federal courts to become a little truer to the historic limits of their office.' Gorsuch's concurrence is the very first Supreme Court opinion the Justice Department cited in its appeals Thursday. Harris argued that courts have not taken heed but have instead doubled down. She did not address the counterargument: That courts are simply reacting to a president who openly ran on shaking up the status quo in ways everyone knew would invite legal challenges. 'District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden administration,' she wrote. Presidents of both parties tend to complain about nationwide injunctions, even as their allies often pursue them when the other party is in power. The Biden administration was forced to pause policies dealing with immigration, Covid-19 and student loan forgiveness. The emergency orders don't decide the merits of a case, but they often have significant practical implications. In 2021, the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas law that banned most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy – even though the law conflicted with the court's landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Months later, the court overturned Roe. Even with that history, there have been signs that some justices are restive about the recent flood of lower court orders. When a majority of the court this month let stand a ruling requiring the Trump administration to quickly spend nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, Alito wrote a scathing dissent accusing the lower court of 'judicial hubris.' 'Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?' Alito wrote. 'The answer to that question should be an emphatic 'No.'' Alito was joined by Thomas, Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh – one vote shy of a majority. The Trump administration is also making a backup argument at the Supreme Court – one that could find some purchase. If the justices are unwilling to allow officials to implement the order, the administration argues, then the court should at least let the executive branch make plans to do so. The lower court orders block such internal planning in rulings the administration said, 'micromanage the internal operations of the executive branch.' The orders 'have prevented executive agencies from developing and issuing public guidance explaining how the executive branch would carry out the citizenship order,' Harris told the Supreme Court. Those orders, she said, 'exceed the courts' authority' under the Constitution. If a majority of the court wants to give the administration a win on part of its request without addressing the more substantial questions involved, the issue of internal planning would have the most limited impact. US District Judge Deborah Boardman, nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, questioned why officials would want to move forward with planning an order widely understood to be illegal. 'Surely, the government has no valid interest in taking internal, preparatory steps to formulate policies and guidance on an unconstitutional executive order,' Boardman wrote last month. A landmark Supreme Court precedent from 1898 affirmed the idea that people born in the United States are citizens, and the modern court hasn't signaled a desire to revisit that holding. Some conservatives have argued that those long-held views are wrong because the 14th Amendment includes a phrase that citizenship applies only to people who are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States.
