Latest news with #legalRights
Associated Press
4 days ago
- Health
- Associated Press
How Rural Texans Are Protecting Their Rights After Serious Accidents
05/30/2025, Sherman, TX // KISS PR Brand Story PressWire // Texans in rural areas often face unique challenges when injured due to accidents caused by others. From fewer medical resources nearby to long travel distances for legal counsel, residents outside major metropolitan centers often struggle to get the help they need. But the Law Office of John H. Nix is helping to close that gap. The firm is empowering rural Texans to assert their legal rights and recover damages after serious accidents, wrongful deaths, and other personal injury matters. Serving Sherman and surrounding counties, the Law Office of John H. Nix has built a reputation for results-driven representation in cases involving motor vehicle collisions, oilfield accidents, truck crashes, and wrongful death. Led by experienced trial attorney John H. Nix, the firm provides direct, personalized service without treating clients like case numbers. The firm's clients include farmers, ranchers, blue-collar workers, and families who may have little experience with legal procedures. When these individuals are injured through no fault of their own—whether by reckless drivers, unsafe worksites, or negligent manufacturers—they deserve skilled legal help to pursue fair compensation. That's why the Law Office of John H. Nix offers its services to clients throughout North Texas and the Texoma region. As a personal injury lawyer in Sherman, TX, John Nix brings decades of trial experience, and his background as a former prosecutor gives him insight into both sides of the courtroom. He understands the tactics large insurance companies use to avoid paying fair settlements. Whether negotiating or litigating, Nix tailors each case strategy to the specific needs and goals of his clients. His law firm in Sherman, TX, is known for its attention to detail, thorough case preparation, and aggressive advocacy in court. The Law Office of John H. Nix handles various personal injury claims, including those involving car wrecks, 18-wheeler accidents, and industrial or oilfield injuries. For those who have lost a loved one due to negligence, the firm's wrongful death lawyer in Sherman, TX, provides compassionate legal support during a difficult time. By filing a wrongful death lawsuit, families can get compensation for funeral expenses, lost financial support, and emotional distress. Texans in Grayson County, Fannin County, Cooke County, and the broader North Texas region trust the Law Office of John H. Nix because of its proven track record and strong community ties. Unlike firms based in major cities that may lack familiarity with rural lifestyles, it understands the specific hardships rural clients face. The firm also prioritizes transparency and clarity, offering free consultations and contingency fee arrangements. This means clients only pay legal fees if their case is successful. The Law Office of John H. Nix guides clients through each step of the claims process, from initial evidence gathering to negotiations with insurers and, if necessary, trial representation. Its accident attorney in Sherman, TX, works to maximize settlements while minimizing stress for the client, enabling injured individuals to focus on healing. Learn more about the Law Office of John H. Nix by visiting the firm's website at About Law Office of John H. Nix Law Office of John H. Nix provides legal representation in personal injury and wrongful death cases across North Texas. The firm focuses on client-first strategies, offering tailored legal solutions for rural and small-town residents. ### Media Contact Law Office of John H. Nix 514 N Elm St, Sherman, TX 75090 (903) 868-2600 newsroom: Source published by Submit Press Release >> How Rural Texans Are Protecting Their Rights After Serious Accidents
The Independent
27-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Bush-appointed judge torches Trump with 27 exclamation points — and a gumbo recipe — in a ruling against an executive order
A conservative federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump 's executive order punishing a law firm tied to his political opponents 'must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional,' dealing yet another blow to the president's retaliatory campaign against lawyers and legal groups that opposed his agenda. 'Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the founding fathers!' wrote Judge Richard Leon in Washington D.C. Leon's colorful 73-page opinion uses 27 exclamation points — including in the very second sentence — and compares Trump's executive order against the law firm WilmerHale to a gumbo that gives him 'heartburn,' whose recipe he included. 'The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting,' wrote Leon, who was appointed by George W. Bush. 'The Founding Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence,' he added. But nearly 250 years later, 'several executive orders have been issued directly challenging these rights and that independence' within the last few months, Leon wrote. Trump's executive orders single out individual firms that worked for prominent Democratic officials or represented causes he opposed while imposing punitive measures on the law firms like banning their employees from federal buildings and stripping their security clearances. Several firms arranged deals with the Trump administration — including agreeing to perform millions of dollars in pro-bono work — to avoid the president's sanctions. WilmerHale had previously employed former special counsel Robert Mueller, who returned to the firm after leading the investigation into whether Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election to boost Trump's chances of winning. The firm also represented Democrats against Trump's 2020 election challenges, members of Congress seeking his tax records, and inspectors general who sued Trump after they were abruptly terminated at the start of his administration, among others. In his order on March 27, Trump claimed the firm 'abandoned the profession's highest ideals and abused its pro bono practice to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States.' The order accuses so-called 'Big Law' firms of actions that 'threaten public safety and national security, limit constitutional freedoms, degrade the quality of American elections, or undermine bedrock American principles.' In his order, Judge Leon slammed the administration for throwing 'a kitchen sink of severe sanctions on WilmerHale for this protected conduct!' He added: 'Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm's protected speech! It both threatens and imposes sanctions and uses other means of coercion to suppress WilmerHale's representation of disfavored causes and clients.' Leon said Trump's executive order is clearly 'motivated by the president's desire to retaliate against WilmerHale for its protected activity.' This is 'not a legitimate government interest, and the order's unsupported assertion of national security will not save it!' he wrote. In a footnote in his ruling, Leon said Trump's executive order is 'akin to a gumbo.' Sections of the order outlining sanctions against the firm 'are the meaty ingredients—e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters,' Leon wrote. 'But it is the roux … which holds everything together,' he added, pointing to the president's justification for attacking the firm. 'A gumbo is served and eaten with all the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together,' Leon wrote. 'This gumbo gives the Court heartburn.' Several federal judges in recent days have struck down similar orders. Last week, District Judge John Bates, another Bush appointee, blocked a near-identical order targeting the firm Jenner Block after finding it was clear retaliation for the firm's employment of Andrew Weissmann, whom Trump accused of making a career out of 'weaponized government and abuse of power.' 'Like the others in the series, this order … makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents and a lawyer Jenner once employed,' Bates wrote. Another federal judge is currently weighing a decision in a similar case against Trump's order targeting the law firm Susman Godfrey.
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The first rule of ICE Club? Don't talk about ICE Club. And treat all migrants as criminals.
A bird sits on a security fence at the Chase County Detention Facility in 2021. (Max McCoy/Kansas Reflector) Jails are hard places made necessary by people like Ernest Hoefgen. Few are likely to remember Hoefgen now, but back in September 1943 the 31-year-old escaped from the city jail at Cottonwood Falls. He'd been picked up for assault, according to newspaper accounts, and was using an alias. In reality, Hoefgen was an escapee from the Texas state prison at Huntsville, where he had been serving a life sentence for murder. Stick with me, because this is not a story about a murder that took place eight decades ago, but about due process in America in 2025. I've been thinking a lot lately about the Constitutional guarantee of due process, which means everyone should have access to fair and adequate legal proceedings when the government threatens to deprive us of life, liberty or property. This is regardless of what Kristi Noem, director of Homeland Security, may say it and habeas corpus are. Our thinking about courts and jails and their role in American society has been shaped by Hoefgen and other criminals like him. The reason 'In Cold Blood' stays with us, apart from Truman Capote's writing, is that it's a story of a farm family in western Kansas who were murdered in a sensational way. It leaves us asking, why? Movies, books and television also tend to blur our thinking about who is a criminal and who is not. If you're in jail — or a detention center, as they're likely called now — you must be a criminal, right? Well, no. There are plenty of people being processed in our jails right now who have committed no crime but who have violated relatively minor civil codes, comparable to getting a ticket from the city for the height of your grass. But unlike policing lawn care, there's a gold rush related to immigration enforcement. There's a billion-dollar detention industry hungry to fill beds with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees, and civil liberties are being eroded in the process. ICE doesn't like to talk about how much it pays facilities, or to have any of its contractors talk about how much they make per day for each detainee. Apparently, the first rule of ICE club is don't talk about ICE club. But let's talk first about how jails are supposed to function. In 1938, Hoefgen killed carpenter George Richet with a hatchet from Richet's own toolbox. Hoefgen and a teenage girlfriend, Sylvia Phipps, were hitchhiking near Wichita Falls when the carpenter gave them a lift, according to the Associated Press. Hoefgen later told investigators he didn't know why he killed Richet, who still had $8 in cash when his body was found by railway workers. The case remained unsolved for two years. Both Hoefgen and Phipps were later picked up on forgery charges at Scottsbluff, Nebraska, found guilty, and sentenced to prison. In 1940, Phipps told the matron at the women's reformatory she wanted to talk to investigators because she had witnessed the killing of Richet in Texas. When questioned, Hoefgen confessed. We know all this about Hoefgen because of due process. The evidence against him was carefully detailed in court filings, he had advice from lawyers, and his court proceedings were open to the public and the press. Hoefgen was sent to Huntsville to serve his life sentence, but he escaped — twice. After the second escape, he ran back to his home state of Kansas, where he married a local girl named Pauline and got into trouble at Cottonwood Falls. After escaping from the city jail, he stole another car and picked up a hitchhiker, 18-year-old Kansas State University student Bruce Smoll. When Smoll became suspicious, according to a United Press story, Hoefgen shot him to death. Rabbit hunters found the body a month later in a cornfield near Peabody, about 40 miles southwest of Cottonwood Falls. Based on a hunch from Smoll's father that Hoefgen may have been involved in his son's death, and tips from Pauline's parents, investigators found Hoefgen living in Denver and returned him to Marion County, where he was charged with Smoll's murder. Hoefgen's story is full of odd details that, if you put them in a movie, would shatter the audience's suspension of disbelief. When he and Phipps were in the county jail at Gering, Nebraska, awaiting trial on the forgery charges, they allegedly hatched a ridiculous jailbreak plot by hiding notes to one another in bananas and tomatoes. My interest in Hoefgen is because his last murderous jail escape began in Cottonwood Falls. The Chase County Detention Center at Cottonwood Falls has received attention lately as being the last and largest ICE-contracted jail facility in Kansas. The 148-bed facility was built to turn a profit for this central Kansas county of 2,500, and it has been mostly full since the mass deportations began under the Trump administration. Back in 2021 and again earlier this month, I wrote about my discomfort with a picturesque Kansas county profiting from the misery of ICE detentions. Four years ago, the rate paid per day of inmate detention was $62. Curious about how much Chase County is now receiving to house detainees, I filed a Kansas Open Records Act request for the facility contract. I was told to take a hike. 'Due to being a federal contracted agency,' Sheriff Jacob Welsh wrote in an email, 'there are contract restrictions which I am not allowed to disclose any information about the contract.' Requests, he said, were to be sent directly to ICE. Welsh did not respond to a request to cite the KORA exemption he felt applied in the situation or to provide the language in the federal contract that forbade him from discussing the contract. I did contact ICE for the contract but received an automated out-of-office reply from spokeswoman Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe. The email said she would respond when she returned 'Monday, May 21.' As of Friday, I had not received a response from O'Keefe or any other ICE representative. Max Kautsch, a First Amendment lawyer at Lawrence, told me that Welsh's responses showed a lack of concern for open records and state law. 'The sheriff's response violates the Kansas Open Records Act,' Kautsch said, 'because he does not 'cite the specific provision of law' authorizing denial of the request,' which he must do under Kansas law. There are legitimate exemptions to KORA that allow the use of federal law to deny requests, such as how public universities can deny some requests for student information under Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. 'If the sheriff insists on denying the request based on guidance he's received from the federal government, he must come clear to the public and cite that authority, as KORA requires,' Kautsch said. 'He also would need to explain why he is unable to produce even a redacted version of the requested records.' Welsh's response raises concerns about open government. 'These circumstances suggest, at a minimum, that the sheriff is indifferent to open records laws, attention to detail, or both,' Kautsch said. 'That conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the inmate information portal on the sheriff's website says access to records held by the Chase County Jail is purportedly governed by the 'Kentucky Open Records Act.' Their office is in Cottonwood Falls, Kansas. If the sheriff's office can't be bothered to properly identity its own state law on its own website, perhaps it is to be expected that it wouldn't know how to respond to a KORA request, either.' Why Kentucky? I don't know. Perhaps the template for the inmate portal was borrowed from the Muhlenberg County Detention Center. To get a better understanding of what ICE detainees at Chase County and elsewhere go through, I contacted Kansas City, Missouri, immigration attorney Michael Sharma-Crawford. For years, Sharma-Crawford told me, Chase County was the only immigration detention facility for most of Kansas and Missouri. There are now more counties being contracted, he said, especially in Missouri. In Kansas, for-profit CoreCivic is attempting to repurpose a shuttered prison in Leavenworth for ICE detention, but it has faced legal challenges and has not yet opened. The issue with the current wave of detainments, Sharma-Crawford said, is the speed at which deportations are being carried out and the difficulty in tracking cases through the system. Migrants are typically given a handful of documents upon their arrest containing the specifics against them. Without access to those papers, it's difficult for an immigration attorney to evaluate a case, he said, or to track a migrant's case online. In many instances, he said, jails meant to house criminal detainees are unprepared to deal with civil immigration cases. He commended Chase County on being willing to fax immigration documents to attorneys, while allowing the detainees to keep the originals, and to facilitate attorney-client phone calls. 'I'd take 12 Chase Counties compared to other facilities,' Sharma-Crawford said. Access to legal counsel is an important Sixth Amendment right, he said, and this is especially important when deportation may now occur three weeks or less from the time of arrest. 'If you're from Mexico, you have to move quickly,' he advised. 'If you don't know what your status is, you should talk to an immigration attorney.' He also suggested having important documents, like birth certificates, at the ready, and being prepared to seek a second legal opinion when necessary. Sharma-Crawford said the immigration system was broken and that things were building to a chaotic crescendo. The administration's goal, he said, is to artificially clog the system and then claim it is impractical to give every detainee a hearing. But as late Justice Antonin Scalia said, due process applies to everyone. It's something average Americans should take to heart, no matter where they were born. It's something that is being lost among the current rhetoric about crime and immigration. The vast majority of ICE detainees, he said, are held on civil charges. 'I don't defend people against criminal charges,' Sharma-Crawford said. If we don't protect the due process rights of migrants now, he said, we might be denying due process for everyday civil infractions tomorrow, such as allowing your grass to grow too high. 'At some point, this leads to abbreviated trials' and other erosions of due process, he said. The prospect of CoreCivic opening a thousand-bed facility at Leavenworth terrifies him. The previous prison operated by CoreCivic in Leavenworth was described as a 'hell hole' of abuse and mismanagement. The city of Leavenworth sued to stop the facility from being reopened as an ICE detention facility, but on Thursday a federal judge dismissed the case. While Chase County did not provide answers to my questions about how lucrative its ICE contract was, a 2024 report by the American Immigration Council provides some clues. It estimated the average daily rate for detention to be $237 per person, with single adults spending an average of 55 days in detention. The rate for Chase County, of course, might differ. But with nobody willing to talk, who knows? Communities such as Cottonwood Falls and Leavenworth must weigh the price of monetizing ICE detainment in the age of Trump against the fundamental American values of fairness and compassion. Leavenworth wouldn't directly share in the per-day rate as Chase County does, but there is the lure of jobs and economic development. It is a devil's bargain, a Faustian pact, the civic equivalent of 30 pieces of silver. Back in 1943, Hoefgen pleaded guilty in Marion County District Court to the murder of K-State student Smoll. He was sentenced to death. Hoefgen was hanged shortly after 1 a.m. Friday, March 10, 1944, on a newly constructed gallows in a warehouse at the Kansas State Penitentiary at Lansing. His last meal had been fried chicken. He declined requests to speak to reporters and showed little emotion as he was led up the 13 fated steps, an eyewitness from the Associated Press reported. Hoefgen was the first person to be executed by Kansas since 1870. The death penalty is currently legal in Kansas, but it hasn't been used since 1965. The most notorious murderers executed at the Lansing gallows were 'In Cold Blood' killers Dick Hickok and Perry Smith. While it's easy to see the story of Hoefgen as that of a criminal who got what he deserved, it's also a saga of Constitutional due process. He was repeatedly brought before the courts in the downward spiral of his life, afforded lawyers, treated humanely and even given fruit while in custody. Whether you agree with capital punishment or not, there was no abbreviation of justice. County jails were typically places where criminal defendants were sent to await their trials or where those convicted of misdemeanor crimes served sentences of a year or less. They were not places for defendants in civil cases. Criminal cases can result in punishment that includes jail time, while civil cases typically involve settling disputes. The migrants now being rushed through the deportation pipeline deserve the full protection of due process. If we deny them legal representation and access to courts by accelerating their cases through a broken system, we are betraying core American values. We risk turning justice into an unthinking machine run by idealogues and fueled by the monetization of detainment. It is either due process for all, or due process for none. Max McCoy is an award-winning author and journalist. Through its opinion section, the Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Associated Press
25-05-2025
- Associated Press
The Role of a Criminal Defense Lawyer: What You Should Know Before Hiring One
05/24/2025, Miami , Florida // KISS PR Brand Story PressWire // Hiring a criminal defense lawyer can be a crucial step when facing legal trouble. Understanding their role helps in making an informed decision. A criminal defense lawyer stands by you during tough times. They provide guidance through the complex legal system. Their role involves three main tasks. First, they analyze your case details carefully. Second, they prepare a sound defense strategy. Third, they represent you in court, ensuring your rights remain protected. Choosing the right lawyer requires knowledge of these responsibilities. Not all lawyers are the same. It is important to find one who aligns with your needs. To aid in this, we will explore the key aspects to consider when hiring a criminal defense lawyer. For more detailed legal assistance, you can visit Understanding these elements can help you feel more confident in your choice and the process ahead. This blog provides the essential insights without overwhelming details. Understanding the Criminal Defense Lawyer's Role A criminal defense lawyer's role is multifaceted. Their primary responsibility is to protect your legal rights through the legal process. They do this by ensuring you receive a fair trial and by challenging any evidence that may be unlawfully obtained or unreliable. This involves: For more insights on legal procedures, consider reviewing resources such as the U.S. Courts website. Qualities to Look For in a Lawyer Choosing the right lawyer involves assessing several key qualities. These qualities can significantly influence the outcome of your case: These traits are essential in ensuring that your defense is both effective and thorough. Comparing Public Defenders and Private Lawyers One of the decisions you may face is whether to hire a private lawyer or rely on a public defender. Here's a comparison to help you decide: Both options have their advantages and challenges. Exploring both can help you make a choice that best suits your situation. Steps to Hire the Right Criminal Defense Lawyer Finding the right lawyer involves careful planning. Consider following these steps: Taking these steps will guide you towards a more informed and confident decision. For further guidance, the U.S. Department of Justice offers additional resources on understanding your rights. Conclusion Hiring a criminal defense lawyer is a decision that should not be taken lightly. Understanding their role, qualities to look for, and the differences between public defenders and private lawyers can help you make the best choice. A well-chosen lawyer can provide invaluable support and advocacy during a challenging time. By following the outlined steps, you can ensure that you find a lawyer who meets your needs and helps safeguard your future. Remember, informed decisions are the foundation of effective legal defense. Original Source of the original story >> The Role of a Criminal Defense Lawyer: What You Should Know Before Hiring One
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin's threat to suspend core U.S. legal right sparks outcry and alarm
Legal experts and Democrats expressed growing alarm over the weekend that Trump administration officials are openly discussing unilaterally suspending habeas corpus — a bedrock American legal right — without the approval of Congress. The writ of habeas corpus, which dates back centuries, grants anyone detained in the U.S. the right to see a judge, challenge the government's evidence against them and present a defense. But White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller downplayed its significance on Friday, suggesting that the administration could move to suspend it unilaterally. "That's an option we're actively looking at," Miller told reporters at the White House. Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, described Miller's statement on Substack as 'factually and legally nuts' and called it the 'most remarkable (and remarkably scary) comments about federal courts that I think we've ever heard from a senior White House official." Other legal scholars strongly challenged Miller's assertion that the president could unilaterally suspend habeas corpus, Latin for 'that you have the body." Vladeck and three other experts said that a legal consensus has existed for decades that only Congress has the authority to suspend the right. They noted that Article 1 of the Constitution, which describes Congress's powers, states, 'the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Over the weekend, senior Republicans largely declined to answer questions about Miller's threat. Democrats argued that the Trump administration is using its immigration crackdown to undermine the power of the judicial branch, bypass traditional legal safeguards and dangerously increase the power of the president. 'The one power you cannot give the executive is the power to arbitrarily imprison people who oppose the regime,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at a Democratic rally in Sarasota, Florida. 'Today it may be an El Salvadorian immigrant or a foreign student, but tomorrow it is you or me. The slope to despotism can be slippery and quick.' President Trump has been personally involved in discussions with the administration about potentially suspending habeas corpus, CNN reported on Saturday. He appeared to allude to the issue in a statement to reporters on April 30. 'There are ways to mitigate it and there's some very strong ways,' Trump said. 'There's one way that's been used by three very highly respected presidents, but we hope we don't have to go that route.' The White House did not respond to requests for comment from NBC News. Trump was most likely referring to Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, who suspended habeas corpus during and after the Civil War; Theodore Roosevelt, who suspended it in two provinces in the Philippines during a 1905 rebellion there; and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who suspended it in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Supreme Court and several federal judges have recently ruled that anyone detained in the U.S. — including migrants — has the right to appear before a judge and present their defense. Trump and Miller have assailed those rulings. In his remarks on Friday, Miller referred to the jurists responsible as 'a handful of Marxist judges' carrying out 'a judicial coup.' He warned that the administration's decision to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally would depend on whether the courts 'do the right thing.' Vladeck accused Miller of threatening judges. 'It's not just the mafia-esque threat implicit in this statement,' Vladeck wrote. 'He's suggesting that the administration would (unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases.' Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, called Miller's claim that the president has the power to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus false. 'Habeas corpus can only be suspended under the Constitution in times of invasion or insurrection. None of that is happening now,' said Somin, a libertarian legal scholar and the Simon Chair of Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. 'And it can only be done by Congress, not the president acting on his own.' Somin and Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling in which conservative Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concluded that only Congress has the authority to suspend habeas corpus. O'Connor also emphasized that habeas corpus has acted as a 'critical check' on the executive branch's power to unlawfully detain individuals in the U.S. 'Only in the rarest of circumstances has Congress seen fit to suspend the writ,' O'Connor wrote, referring to habeas corpus. 'At all other times, it has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law.' Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, agreed in an opinion of his own that the power to suspend habeas corpus rests solely with Congress. He also said that the executive branch cannot unilaterally round up Americans and hold them in 'detention without charge,' even in times of rebellion. 'Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime,' Scalia wrote. 'The Executive's assertion of military exigency has not been thought sufficient to permit detention without charge.' Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, said that Trump and Miller are trying to discredit judges and maximize the power of the presidency. 'Denial of habeas corpus jurisdiction for immigrants is an attempt to do an end run around checks and balances,' Gillers said. 'It is a way to sideline the courts and retain maximum power in the executive branch." This article was originally published on
