Latest news with #Venezulan
New York Post
5 days ago
- New York Post
ICE hunting for illegal migrant accused of Nashville hit-and-run that mangled tourist celebrating 21st birthday
A Venezulan illegal migrant is on the run after allegedly smashing into a tourist in Nashville and fleeing the scene last month — leaving the victim badly injured in the hospital, authorities says. Tony Gebian Lopez Infante, 32, who already had a deportation order, hit Zach Carach as he was crossing the street on May 18, the Department of Homeland Security said. Florida-native Carach was in Nashville to celebrate his 21st birthday. Advertisement Zach Carach was celebrating his 21st birthday when he was severely injured in a hit-and-run. Courtesy Carach family Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Lopez Infante 'should never have been in the US,' blaming the Biden administration for allowing him to stay. 'The Biden Administration released this illegal alien into our country in 2023,' said McLaughlin. 'This crime was preventable and is the direct result of open border policies that prioritized illegal aliens over the safety of American citizens. Secretary Noem is praying for Zachary Carach's quick recovery.' Advertisement Lopez Infante entered the US on Aug. 1, 2023, and was released into the country two weeks later, according to DHS. He was ordered deported by an immigration judge on Sept. 25, 2024, but was never arrested. He is also wanted in Williamson County for an outstanding probation violation warrant related to a previous theft, according to WKRN. Tony Gebian Lopez Infante, 32, was ordered deported but was not removed from the US. DHS Advertisement The victim's mother, Sheena Carach, said the situation has been 'physically and mentally exhausting for everyone' as her son has spent more than two weeks in the hospital. 'I'm his mom, and I'm lighting a fire. And I'm begging and pleading with every single citizen of this country to get this out there,' Sheena said.
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A conservative judge reveals how Trump could justify eliminating due process
While those hoping to stop the expulsion of people to an El Salvador prison under the Alien Enemies Act scored a victory in court Wednesday, a Trump-appointed judge debued a legal theory likely to rear its head again as litigation goes forward. In J.G.G v. Trump, the case concerning the summary expulsion of Venezulan immigrants to an El Salvador prison, immigrants' rights advocates prevailed, with a federal district court panel for Washington, D.C., upholding a temporary restraining order on the removal of immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act. President Donald Trump invoked the 18th century law to support the summary removal of immigrants that the government claims are part of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. In the ruling, two of the three judges — Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, and Judge Patricia Millett, appointed by former President Barack Obama — agreed that the TRO should be upheld. The Justice Department has since asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue, claiming that the order jeopardizes "sensitive diplomatic negotiations and delicate national-security operations" and that the delay could allow the gang to gain "a greater foothold." Henderson, for his part, wrote that the TRO should be upheld because Trump failed to meet the necessary conditions to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, given that there is no actual war or invasion. Millett, meanwhile, highlighted the fact that the removed immigrants were not given any opportunity to challenge the government's assertion that they are gang members, meaning they were denied due process. However, Judge Justin Walker, who Trump appointed, dissented from the majority opinion and argued that the TRO should not be upheld and that the summary removal of Venezuelans should be allowed to proceed. While most of Walker's dissent focused on questions related to the venue, with the judge arguing that the case should be heard in Texas rather than Washington, D.C., he also previewed an argument which has been made before the Supreme Court and which appears likely to be made before the Supreme Court again if this litigation makes it that far. 'The Government has also shown that the district court's orders threaten irreparable harm to delicate negotiations with foreign powers on matters concerning national security,' Walker wrote. 'And that harm, plus the asserted public interest in swiftly removing dangerous aliens, outweighs the Plaintiffs' desire to file a suit in the District of Columbia that they concede they could have brought in Texas.' Later in his dissent, Walker wrote that the district court's orders, issued by Judge James Baosberg, 'here threaten an 'irreversibl[e] altering [of] the delicate diplomatic balance' that high-level Executive officials recently struck with foreign powers.' 'The orders," Walker continued, "risk the possibility that those foreign actors will change their minds about allowing the United States to remove Tren de Aragua members to their countries. Even if they don't change their minds, it gives them leverage to negotiate for better terms.' Walker, disregarding the lack of any process to determine the acused's guilt or innocence, later reinforced the State Department's assertion that irreparable harm 'is all but inevitable when a court interferes with an ongoing national-security operation that is overseas or partially overseas.' Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director at UCLA's Center for Immigration Law & Policy, told Salon that, while Walker mainly argued against the decision to bring the case in Washington, D.C., the argument that courts can not rule on matters concerning foreign policy in any way is likely on the horizon. 'The underlying question of whether courts should be very differential and not get very involved in assessing the legality of these measures, because it implicates sensitive diplomatic relations, is coming one way or another,' Arulanantham said. Arulanantham said that, in practical terms, this would essentially make it so neither deportations nor other immigration-related decisions could be the subject of judicial review, as they almost all entail some sort of agreement with another country. A similar argument to the theory laid out by Walker was put forth in 2001, in Zadvydas v. Davis, a case concerning whether or not the government could indefinitely detain someone that they wanted to deport, even when no country would agree to receive them. In that case, the government argued that it could indefinitely detain someone and that it was not the judiciary's role to assess diplomatic relations, specifically the likelihood of whether or not another country might eventually agree to take an individual. 'It's another place where the government is seeking to disrupt settled law,' Arulanantham said, noting that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has called for the case to be overturned. Indeed, Thomas, in Zadvydas v. Davis, dissented from the majority opinion and signed on to the dissent of former Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote: 'I do not believe that ... there may be some situations in which the courts can order release.'
CBS News
16-03-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Trump's use of wartime act to deport immigrants will end up before Supreme Court soon, Chicago legal expert says
President Trump has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to speed up the deportation of illegal immigrants linked to a violent Venezuelan gang, but just hours after issuing the order, a federal judge blocked the move, and a legal expert in Chicago said the battle will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court soon. In a proclamation Saturday, Mr. Trump invoked the 2277-year-old wartime law to order the swift removal of anyone affiliated with the Venezulan gang 'Tren de Aragua,' specifying they'd be subject to "immediate apprehension, detention, and removal." The president directed the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice to "apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove every" Venezuelan migrant, 14 or older, who is deemed to be part of Tren de Aragua and who lacks U.S. citizenship or permanent residency. Saturday night, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from removing immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act, preventing the deportations for fourteen days, in response to a federal civil lawsuit filed Saturday by a group of five Venezuelan men in immigration custody in Texas and New York local jails. The judge said any planes that were in the air at the time of his decision would have to be turned around. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for March 21. The lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., by attorneys with the ACLU and Democracy Forward argues the law is strictly a wartime measure that has only been used three times in American history: during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. CBS News Chicago Legal Analyst Irv Miller predicted the legal battle will quickly move to the U.S. Supreme Court. "I suspect that we will get a quick decision from the United States Supreme Court on this one," Miller said. Miller said the lawsuit challenging Mr. Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act will be an interesting case to watch, given the unprecedented nature of his action. The law has never been used to target migrants from countries with which the U.S. is not actively at war, nor with the premise that a non-state actor is staging an invasion or incursion of the U.S. The Alien Enemies Act was last used in World War II to track and detain foreigners from Italy, Germany and Japan. But the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela and the Alien Enemies Act has never been used to in this way, setting up a battle over the issues of national safety versus constitutional rights like fair treatment and the right to a hearing. "You, as a person in this country – not necessarily even a citizen – you have due process rights, and therefore you have to be treated fairly by the government. That's what government must respect, and that's why due process is such a fundamental right," Miller said.
