Latest news with #dueProcess
Bloomberg
3 days ago
- General
- Bloomberg
When Can Noncitizens Be Deported From the US? Immigration Law's 'Odd Anomaly'
Can noncitizens legally be deported over free speech? What due process rights do they have to appeal in court? We look at the legal circumstances around some high profile cases the Trump administration is pursing and whether US citizens could ever face similar treatment. (Produced by Andrew Satter; Executive Producer, Josh Block). (Source: Bloomberg)
Fox News
3 days ago
- General
- Fox News
Trump admin working to fly back Guatemala migrant erroneously deported from US
The Trump administration told a federal judge on Wednesday it is working to charter a plane to return to the U.S. an immigrant from Guatemala who was deported in March without due process and despite fears of persecution. The Justice Department said in a court filing Wednesday that they are working to return to the U.S. the individual, identified only as O.C.G., to the U.S. The update is significant, and marks the first known instance that the Trump administration appears to be complying with a federal court's order to return to the U.S. a migrant who was deported in what administration officials have since acknowledged to be the result of erroneous information. The news comes after U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts ruled last week that the man, identified only as O.C.G., was deported to Mexico without due process and ordered that the administration secure his return to the United States. Lawyers for the Trump administration told the court late Wednesday that ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Phoenix Field Office made contact over the weekend with O.C.G.'s attorneys, and is "currently working with ICE Air to bring O.C.G. back to the United States on an Air Charter Operations (ACO) flight return leg." The update comes after Judge Murphy rejected a request from the Department of Homeland Security on Friday to amend his earlier order requiring the Trump administration to "take all immediate steps" to return the individual to the U.S., citing a lack of due process. Murphy also stressed that he had not been given a chance to contest his removal to a country where he could face threats of torture. These "reasonable fear interviews" are are afforded to migrants under U.S. and international law, providing them a chance to formally seek protection from removal, should they have reasonable fears of persecution or torture in that country. Murphy noted in his ruling that O.C.G. was previously held for ransom and raped in Mexico, but was not afforded the chance to assert those fears prior to his removal, according to his attorneys. "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 said Friday. "The return of O.C.G. poses a vanishingly small cost to make sure we can still claim to live up to that ideal," he added. This is a breaking news story. Check back soon for updates.
Reuters
4 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
US judge blocks Trump order against law firm WilmerHale
May 27 (Reuters) - A judge in Washington on Tuesday struck down an executive order targeting law firm WilmerHale, marking the third ruling to overwhelmingly reject President Donald Trump's efforts to punish firms he perceives as enemies of his administration. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, said Trump's order retaliated against the firm in violation of U.S. constitutional protections for free speech and due process. WilmerHale is the former home of Robert Mueller, the Republican-appointed special counsel who led a probe into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election and Trump campaign ties to Moscow. Trump has derided the investigation as a political "witch hunt." Leon barred federal agencies from enforcing the March 27 executive order against WilmerHale, a 1,100-lawyer firm with offices in Washington, D.C. and across the country. WilmerHale was among four law firms that sued the administration over Trump's orders seeking to bar their attorneys from federal buildings and to strip their clients of U.S. federal government contracts. Trump accused the firms of "weaponizing" the justice system against him and his allies. WilmerHale called Trump's order 'flagrantly' unconstitutional, arguing it violated its rights to speech, due process and equal protection under the law. The firm in its lawsuit was represented by prominent conservative lawyer Paul Clement, who was the U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush presidency. In a related lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on May 2 overturned Trump's executive order against law firm Perkins Coie, ruling that "settling personal vendettas by targeting a disliked business or individual for punitive government action is not a legitimate use of the powers of the U.S. government or an American President." On May 23, U.S. District Judge John Bates in D.C. issued a similar ruling that struck down Trump's order against Jenner & Block. A fourth judge is weighing whether to overturn an executive order that targeted Susman Godfrey. The U.S. Justice Department has defended Trump's orders in court, arguing in each case that Trump was lawfully exercising his presidential power and discretion. The Justice Department can appeal Leon's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Nine law firms, including Paul Weiss, Latham & Watkins; Skadden Arps; and Willkie Farr, reached deals with Trump that averted punitive actions, pledging a combined total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services to advance causes he supports. Trump's targeting of firms has drawn condemnation from many within the legal industry. Some have criticized the firms that reached agreements as capitulating to presidential coercion.
Fox News
4 days ago
- General
- Fox News
US judge accuses Trump admin of ‘manufacturing chaos' in South Sudan deportations, escalating feud
A federal judge in Massachusetts chastised senior Trump officials Monday night for failing to comply with his court orders after a group of migrants was deported from the U.S. to South Sudan — the latest dust-up centered on deportations, due process protections and the administration's willingness, or lack thereof, to comply with federal courts. In a scathing, 17-page order, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy rejected Trump's request to amend or withdraw the judge's earlier decision requiring them to keep in U.S. custody six migrants who were deported to South Sudan without due process or notice. On Wednesday, Murphy ordered that the migrants remain in U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti until each of them could be given a "reasonable fear interview," or a chance to explain to U.S. officials any fear of persecution or torture, should they be released into South Sudanese custody. As of Monday night, he said, these interviews had not taken place. "It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated," Murphy said in his order, noting that the Trump administration is free to return individuals to have the interviews carried out on U.S. soil. He also took aim at Trump officials for attacking the courts, noting Monday night that defendants here have "mischaracterized" the court's order, "while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry." The salvo comes as Murphy, a federal judge in Boston, presides over a class-action lawsuit from migrants who are challenging deportations to third countries, including South Sudan, El Salvador and other countries, including Costa Rica, Guatemala and others that the administration has reportedly eyed in its ongoing wave of deportations. In considering the third-country removals, Murphy stressed that he has attempted to strike a delicate balance between due process protections under the U.S. Constitution and the Trump administration's wave of eleventh-hour removals and deportations. Murphy noted that he allowed the Trump administration to keep the six deported migrants in South Sudan under the custody of U.S. officials, so long as they carry out the so-called "reasonable fear interviews," and make a determination over whether the migrants' concerns were adequate. "The court never said that defendants had to convert their foreign military base into an immigration facility," Murphy wrote in his order Monday night. "It only left that as an option, again, at defendants' request." Murphy also doubled down on his earlier orders as "sensible and conservative," noting that he had repeatedly attempted to strike the right balance in weighing the Trump administration's requests for the men to remain in South Sudan against their right to habeas proceedings and due process under the U.S. Constitution. He also cited DOJ's seemingly fluid position as to what constitutes adequate notice for removals. He said Justice Department attorneys previously told the court that they believe that 24 hours is sufficient and meaningful notice to remove certain migrants, before breaking with that in removing the men to South Sudan. These individuals also do not appear to have any access to counsel. In one case, he said, plaintiffs declared Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials had canceled at least one prerescheduled meeting with an attorney and her client. "Class members likewise had no opportunity to learn anything about South Sudan, a nascent, unstable country to which the United States has recently told its citizens not to travel because of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict," Murphy said. The judge's order is the latest attempt by federal courts judges to rein in the Trump administration as it continues to deport migrants to third countries, including El Salvador and South Sudan. U.S. judges have repeatedly ruled that the Trump administration has violated due process by failing to notify the migrants of their imminent removals, or afford them any opportunity to challenge their deportations in court— a view reiterated, albeit narrowly, by the Supreme Court four separate times since Trump took office. The judges have repeatedly ordered the Trump administration to facilitate their return to the U.S. To date, the Trump administration has not complied publicly with any of the requests to return the deported individuals. White House officials, meanwhile, have blasted so-called "activist" judges as attempting to enact a political agenda, and have repeatedly rejected the notion that illegal immigrants are not entitled to due process. Trump took aim at what he described as "USA hating judges" in a Truth Social post Monday, arguing that they "suffer from an ideology that is sick and very dangerous for our country." Earlier, he described Murphy as yet another "activist judge" who he said is trying to protect "criminal illegal immigrant monsters." "The court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories," Murphy wrote in an apparent response to these comments Monday night. "But that does not change due process," he wrote. "The court treats its obligation to these principles with the seriousness that anyone committed to the rule of law should understand." Murphy added in his order that the Trump administration is welcome to submit its arguments to the court in writing. But he noted, "From this course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite lack of clarity as a means of evasion." As of Monday, he said, this step had not been completed.
The Independent
4 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Trump rants at ‘monster' judges, then one accuses WH of ‘manufacturing chaos' in South Sudan deportations
A frustrated federal judge accused Donald Trump 's administration of 'manufacturing chaos' after the government failed to give a group of deportees due process and violated court orders against removal flights to war-torn South Sudan. District Judge Brian Murphy last week warned that administration officials could face contempt charges after violating his weeks-old court order against summary removals of immigrants without 'meaningful' notice before they are sent to countries where they could face violence or death. He then allowed the government — by its own request — to hold those deportees overseas, in U.S. custody, while giving them a chance to receive a 'reasonable fear interview' to explain how they would face persecution or torture in South Sudan. They are currently being held on a military base in Djibouti. But government attorneys have now 'changed their tune,' Murphy wrote in a late-night order on Monday. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome' than the administration anticipated, he said. Murphy, who was appointed by Joe Biden, has faced a barrage of attacks from the White House, which labeled him a 'far-left activist' who is trying to 'protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants.' Trump called him 'absolutely out of control' and accused him of 'hurting our country.' White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller has derided Murphy as a 'local city judge' who is endangering Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. In a Truth Social post on Memorial Day, Trump raged against 'USA hating judges who suffer from an ideology that is sick and very dangerous for our country.' During a hearing last week, Murphy found that the government violated a court order that deportees receive notice of their removal — in a language they can understand — with at least 15 days to challenge it. Instead, deportees were given fewer than 16 hours' notice. 'Defendants have mischaracterized this court's order, while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry,' Murphy wrote. 'By racing to get six class members onto a plane to unstable South Sudan, clearly in breach of the law and this Court's order, Defendants gave this Court no choice but to find that they were in violation of the Preliminary Injunction.' Murphy said he restrained himself by not ordering the government to 'simply return' the men so they can receive due process in the United States. 'Instead, the Court accepted Defendants' own suggestion that they be allowed to keep the individuals out of the country and finish their process abroad,' he wrote. 'To be clear, the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process,' he wrote. 'The Court treats its obligation to these principles with the seriousness that anyone committed to the rule of law should understand.' Murphy denied a request from government attorneys to block his earlier order. In court, government attorneys characterized the administration's failures to comply with his court orders 'as a big misunderstanding,' according to Murphy. 'From this course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite lack of clarity as a means of evasion,' he wrote. Immigration officials have raced to deport immigrants to El Salvador as well as war-torn African countries including Libya and South Sudan — often with little notice or opportunity for a lawyer, raising alarms among judges, attorneys and legal aid groups that the administration is willfully denying due process rights as Trump pushes for sweeping deportations for potentially millions of immigrants. The class-action case in Murphy's court — involving several deportees challenging their removal — is among several high-profile immigration cases playing out in federal courts across the country
