ReportWire

Tag: federal judge

  • Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty, judge rules

    [ad_1]

    Luigi Mangione will not face death penalty, judge rules

    I’M JASON NEWTON AND I’M ASHLEY HINSON. LUIGI MANGIONE. DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WANT TO BLOCK CERTAIN EVIDENCE FROM HIS UPCOMING TRIAL. MAGGIONI IS ACCUSED OF KILLING UNITEDHEALTHCARE CEO BRIAN THOMPSON IN MANHATTAN. THAT WAS A YEAR AGO TODAY, THOUGH, POLICE OFFICERS FROM ALTOONA, PENNSYLVANIA, CONTINUE THEIR TESTIMONY ABOUT THE DAY OF MANGIONE’S ARREST. KHIREE JOINING US NOW IN KAI BODY CAMERA VIDEO PLAYED IN COURT TODAY, RIGHT? IT DID. AND ASHLEY JASON, THE BODY CAMERA VIDEO SHOWS THE MOMENTS AFTER POLICE RESPONDED TO THE ALTOONA MCDONALD’S WHERE THEY FOUND MANGIONE. THIS HAPPENED FIVE DAYS AFTER BRIAN THOMPSON’S MURDER. IN THE VIDEO, YOU CAN HEAR ONE OF THE OFFICERS SAY, QUOTE, IT’S HIM, DUDE, IT’S HIM. THAT’S IN REFERENCE TO PHOTOS CIRCULATING ONLINE SHOWING THE MAN POLICE SAY KILLED THOMPSON. ACCORDING TO OFFICER CHRISTINA WASSER, THEY BEGAN SEARCHING MANGIONE’S BAG AFTER PUTTING HIM IN HANDCUFFS. INSIDE THE BAG, THEY FOUND A LOADED GUN MAGAZINE. THE MAGAZINE WAS WRAPPED UP IN A PAIR OF UNDERWEAR. MANGIONE’S DEFENSE WANTS THE CONTENTS OF THAT BAG EXCLUDED FROM HIS TRIAL. THEY CLAIM OFFICERS DIDN’T HAVE A PROPER WARRANT TO SEARCH IT. TODAY, OFFICER WASSER SAID THAT SHE WAS FOLLOWING POLICE PROTOCOLS. THOSE PROTOCOLS, SHE TOLD THE COURT, REQUIRE OFFICERS SEARCH A SUSPECT’S PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF AN ARREST. OFFICER WASSER ALSO TESTIFIED MANGIONE WAS TOLD OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, WHICH HE INVOKED WHILE OFFICERS FOUND THE MAGAZINE AT THE SCENE. THEY DID NOT UNCOVER THE NOTEBOOK UNTIL THEY RETURNED TO THE POLICE STATION. MANGIONE HAS PLEADED NOT GUILTY TO STATE AND FEDERAL MURDER CHARGES. HIS TEAM TODAY ALSO CALLED ON A JUDGE TO BAN THE WORDS,

    Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.This is a developing story and will be updated.

    NEW YORK —

    Luigi Mangione will not face the death penalty for allegedly killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024, a federal district judge ruled.

    The decision is a loss for federal prosecutors, who were adamant about pursuing the death penalty in the case.

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ICE deports Maryland father despite ‘do not remove’ orders

    [ad_1]

    Federal immigration authorities removed a Maryland father to El Salvador on Tuesday despite two court orders saying not to.During an emergency hearing Thursday at federal court in Baltimore, a federal judge examined what happened to Jose Serrano-Maldonado.Federal authorities admitted they made a mistake, conceding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated court orders filed in the system, even with a banner in Serrano-Maldonado’s file that said, “Do not remove.”But the feds couldn’t say why they did it anyway.The judge called this a very bad situation and demanded to know, in writing, exactly who took what steps, when and why.Serrano-Maldonado’s immigration attorney, Anna Alyssa Tijerina, is fighting for his immediate return to the United States, telling the judge that her client’s life is in danger.”He told me he is going to try and remain in his house as much as possible until this is resolved. He told me he wants to come back to the United States, even if it’s back to the detention center,” Tijerina told sister station WBAL-TV.Assistant U.S. Attorney Beatrice Thomas offered no comment outside the court when asked questions by WBAL. In court, Thomas told the judge that the government is working to fly Serrano-Maldonado back on “ICE Air” but that there’s a lot of red tape and it could take many days.The judge ordered status updates to be filed daily until Serrano-Maldonado is returned to the U.S. It’s unlikely that those daily status updates will be accessible publicly because the government said it plans to file the updates under preliminary seal.”I can’t imagine being in (the family’s) position of knowing, not knowing. At least, ‘There’s no new update today,’ is an update, right? They know something, they know that nothing was done today, but something will be done tomorrow,” Tijerina told WBAL. “For the sake of my client, for the sake of my client’s life in El Salvador, and for the sake of his family, I hope that this gets resolved quickly.”Thursday’s hearing was the first of three immigration hearings for this sole judge in the single courtroom on just one day.

    Federal immigration authorities removed a Maryland father to El Salvador on Tuesday despite two court orders saying not to.

    During an emergency hearing Thursday at federal court in Baltimore, a federal judge examined what happened to Jose Serrano-Maldonado.

    Federal authorities admitted they made a mistake, conceding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated court orders filed in the system, even with a banner in Serrano-Maldonado’s file that said, “Do not remove.”

    But the feds couldn’t say why they did it anyway.

    The judge called this a very bad situation and demanded to know, in writing, exactly who took what steps, when and why.

    Serrano-Maldonado’s immigration attorney, Anna Alyssa Tijerina, is fighting for his immediate return to the United States, telling the judge that her client’s life is in danger.

    “He told me he is going to try and remain in his house as much as possible until this is resolved. He told me he wants to come back to the United States, even if it’s back to the detention center,” Tijerina told sister station WBAL-TV.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Beatrice Thomas offered no comment outside the court when asked questions by WBAL. In court, Thomas told the judge that the government is working to fly Serrano-Maldonado back on “ICE Air” but that there’s a lot of red tape and it could take many days.

    The judge ordered status updates to be filed daily until Serrano-Maldonado is returned to the U.S. It’s unlikely that those daily status updates will be accessible publicly because the government said it plans to file the updates under preliminary seal.

    “I can’t imagine being in (the family’s) position of knowing, not knowing. At least, ‘There’s no new update today,’ is an update, right? They know something, they know that nothing was done today, but something will be done tomorrow,” Tijerina told WBAL. “For the sake of my client, for the sake of my client’s life in El Salvador, and for the sake of his family, I hope that this gets resolved quickly.”

    Thursday’s hearing was the first of three immigration hearings for this sole judge in the single courtroom on just one day.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Trump administration’s freeze of $10 billion in child-care funds

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s move to freeze $10 billion in child-care funds in five Democrat-led states including California.

    The ruling Friday afternoon capped a tumultuous stretch that began earlier this week when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services told California officials and those in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and New York that it would freeze federal funding over fraud concerns.

    On Thursday the states sued the administration in federal court in Manhattan. The states sought a temporary restraining order, asking the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s demands for large volumes of administrative data.

    An attorney for the states argued Friday morning that there was an immediate need for funding — and that withholding it would cause chaos by depriving families of their ability to pay for child care, and would harm child-care providers who would lose income.

    In a brief ruling, Judge Arun Subramanian said that “good cause has been shown for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.”

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The federal government’s effort has been viewed as a broad attack on social services in California, and jolted tens of thousands of working families and the state’s child-care industry. Providers told The Times that the funding freeze could imperil child-care centers, many of which operate on slim margins.

    “The underscoring issue is that child care and these other federally funded social services programs are major family supports,” said Nina Buthee, executive director of EveryChild California. “They are essential infrastructure that our communities need and depend on, and should not be political tools. So the fact that this judge went in and blocked this very dramatic freeze, I think is only a good thing.”

    In a trio of Jan. 6 letters addressed to Gov. Gavin Newsom, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said it was concerned there had been “potential for extensive and systemic fraud” in child care and other social services programs that rely on federal funding, and had “reason to believe” that the state was “illicitly providing illegal aliens” with benefits.

    The letters did not provide evidence to support the claims. State officials have said the suggestions of fraud are unsubstantiated.

    Newsom has said he welcomes any fraud investigations the federal government might conduct, but said cutting off funding hurts families who rely on the aid. According to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, about $1.4 billion in federal child-care funding was frozen per the letters from Health and Human Services.

    “You want to support families? You believe in families? Then you believe in supporting child care and child-care workers in the workforce,” Newsom told MS NOW.

    After Subramanian issued the ruling, Newsom’s press office said on X that “the feds went ghost-hunting for widespread ‘fraud’ (with no evidence) — and ended up trying to rip child care and food from kids.”

    “It took a federal judge less than 24 hours to shut down Trump’s politically motivated child care cuts in California,” the account posted.

    In instituting the freeze, Health and Human Services had said it would review how the federal money had been used by the state, and was restricting access to additional money amid its inquiries. The federal government asked for various data, including attendance documentation for child care. It also demanded beefed-up fiscal accountability requirements.

    “Again and again, President Trump has shown a willingness to throw vulnerable children, seniors, and families under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against Democratic-led states,” Bonta said in a statement following the ruling. “Cutting funding for childcare and other family assistance is cruel, reckless, and most importantly, illegal.”

    For Laura Pryor, research director at the California Budget & Policy Center, it is “a sigh of relief.”

    [ad_2]

    Daniel Miller, Kate Sequeira

    Source link

  • The Supreme Court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with key exceptions

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

    In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

    With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

    But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

    In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

    Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

    Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
    Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

    They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

    And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

    Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

    The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

    For much of the year, however, Roberts and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump. In dissent, the three liberal justices said the court should stand aside for now and defer to district judges.

    In May, the court agreed that Trump could end the Biden administration’s special temporary protections extended to more than 350,000 Venezuelans as well as an additional 530,000 migrants who arrived legally from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua or Venezuela.

    It was easier to explain why the new administration’s policies were cruel and disruptive rather than why they were illegal.

    Trump’s lawyers argued that the law gave the president’s top immigration officials the sole power to decide on these temporary protections and that “no judicial review” was authorized.

    Nonetheless, a federal judge in San Francisco twice blocked the administration’s repeal of the temporary protected status for Venezuelans, and a federal judge in Boston blocked the repeal of the entry-level parole granted to migrants under Biden.

    The court is also poised to uphold the president’s power to fire officials who have been appointed for fixed terms at independent agencies.

    Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, the government has had semi-independent boards and commissions led by a mix of Republicans and Democrats.

    But Roberts and the court’s conservatives believe that because these agencies enforce the law, they come under the president’s “executive power.”

    That ruling may come with an exception for the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency whose nonpartisan stability is valued by business leaders.

    Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, the former legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the court has sent mixed signals.

    “On the emergency docket, it has ruled consistently for the president, with some notable exceptions,” he said. “I do think it significant that it put a halt to the National Guard deployments and to the Alien Enemies Act deportations, at least for the time being. And I think by this time next year, it’s possible that the court will have overturned two of Trump’s signature initiatives — the birthright citizenship executive order and the tariffs.”

    For much of 2025, the court was criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

    That practice arose in 2017 in response to Trump’s use of executive orders to make abrupt, far-reaching changes in the law. In response, Democratic state attorneys and lawyers for progressive groups sued in friendly forums such as Seattle, San Francisco and Boston and won rulings from district judges who put Trump’s policies on hold.

    The 2017 “travel ban” announced in Trump’s first week in the White House set the pattern. It suspended the entry of visitors and migrants from Venezuela and seven mostly-Muslim countries on the grounds that those countries had weak vetting procedures.

    Judges blocked it from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying the order discriminated based on nationality.

    A year later, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and upheld Trump’s order in a 5-4 ruling. Roberts pointed out that Congress in the immigration laws clearly gave this power to the president. If he “finds that the entry of … any class of aliens … would be detrimental,” it says, he may “suspend the entry” of all such migrants for as long as “he shall deem necessary.”

    Since then, Roberts and the court’s conservatives have been less willing to stand aside while federal judges hand down nationwide rulings.

    Democrats saw the same problem when Biden was president.

    In April 2023, a federal judge in west Texas ruled for anti-abortion advocates and decreed that the Food and Drug Administration had wrongly approved abortion pills that can end an early pregnancy. He ordered that they be removed from the market before any appeals could be heard and decided.

    The Biden administration filed an emergency appeal. Two weeks later, the Supreme Court set aside the judge’s order, over dissents from Thomas and Alito.

    The next year, the court heard arguments and then threw out the entire lawsuit on the grounds that abortion foes did not have standing to sue.

    Since Trump returned to the White House, the court’s conservative majority has not deferred to district judges. Instead, it has repeatedly lifted injunctions that blocked Trump’s policies from taking effect.

    Although these are not final rulings, they are strong signs that the administration will prevail.

    But Trump’s early wins do not mean he will win on some of his most disputed policies.

    In November, the justices sounded skeptical of Trump’s claim that a 1977 trade law, which did not mention tariffs, gave him the power to set these import taxes on products coming from around the world.

    In the spring, the court will hear Trump’s claim that he can change the principle of birthright citizenship set in the 14th Amendment and deny citizenship it to newborns whose parents are here illegally or entered as visitors.

    Rulings on both cases will be handed down by late June.

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Venezuelan migrants sent to El Salvador demand justice after US judge ruling

    [ad_1]

    Men who were part of the group of Venezuelan migrants that the United States government transferred earlier this year to a prison in El Salvador demanded justice on Friday, days after a federal judge in Washington ruled that the Trump administration must give them legal due process.The men told reporters in Venezuela’s capital that they hope legal organizations can push their claims in court. Their press conference was organized by Venezuela’s government, which had previously said it had retained legal services for the immigrants.On Monday, a federal judge ordered the U.S. government to give legal due process to the 252 Venezuelan men, either by providing court hearings or returning them to the U.S. The ruling opens a path for the men to challenge the Trump administration’s allegation that they are members of the Tren de Aragua gang and subject to removal under an 18th century wartime law.The men have repeatedly said they were physically and psychologically tortured while at the notorious Salvadoran prison.”Today, we are here to demand justice before the world for the human rights violations committed against each of us, and to ask for help from international organizations to assist us in our defense so that our human rights are respected and not violated again,” Andry Blanco told reporters in Caracas, where roughly two dozen of the migrants gathered Friday.Some of the men shared the daily struggles they now face — including fear of leaving their home or encountering law enforcement — as a consequence of what they said were brutal abuses while in prison. The men did not specify what justice should look like in their case, but not all are interested in returning to the U.S.”I don’t trust them,” Nolberto Aguilar said of the U.S. government.The men were flown to El Salvador in March. They were sent to their home country in July as part of a prisoner swap between the Trump administration and the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.Camilla Fabri, Venezuelan vice minister of foreign affairs for international communications, said Maduro’s government is working with a bar association in the U.S. and “all human rights organizations to prepare a major lawsuit against Trump and the United States government, so that they truly acknowledge all the crimes they have committed against” the men.

    Men who were part of the group of Venezuelan migrants that the United States government transferred earlier this year to a prison in El Salvador demanded justice on Friday, days after a federal judge in Washington ruled that the Trump administration must give them legal due process.

    The men told reporters in Venezuela’s capital that they hope legal organizations can push their claims in court. Their press conference was organized by Venezuela’s government, which had previously said it had retained legal services for the immigrants.

    On Monday, a federal judge ordered the U.S. government to give legal due process to the 252 Venezuelan men, either by providing court hearings or returning them to the U.S. The ruling opens a path for the men to challenge the Trump administration’s allegation that they are members of the Tren de Aragua gang and subject to removal under an 18th century wartime law.

    The men have repeatedly said they were physically and psychologically tortured while at the notorious Salvadoran prison.

    “Today, we are here to demand justice before the world for the human rights violations committed against each of us, and to ask for help from international organizations to assist us in our defense so that our human rights are respected and not violated again,” Andry Blanco told reporters in Caracas, where roughly two dozen of the migrants gathered Friday.

    Some of the men shared the daily struggles they now face — including fear of leaving their home or encountering law enforcement — as a consequence of what they said were brutal abuses while in prison. The men did not specify what justice should look like in their case, but not all are interested in returning to the U.S.

    “I don’t trust them,” Nolberto Aguilar said of the U.S. government.

    The men were flown to El Salvador in March. They were sent to their home country in July as part of a prisoner swap between the Trump administration and the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

    Camilla Fabri, Venezuelan vice minister of foreign affairs for international communications, said Maduro’s government is working with a bar association in the U.S. and “all human rights organizations to prepare a major lawsuit against Trump and the United States government, so that they truly acknowledge all the crimes they have committed against” the men.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about the upcoming Epstein files release

    [ad_1]

    A new federal law requires the Justice Department to release by Friday a massive trove of investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.The release of the Epstein files, detailing the probes into the disgraced multimillionaire and sex offender who died in 2019, has attracted significant attention. The public has been captivated by Epstein’s lavish lifestyle, claims of underage sex trafficking, and his ties to President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, celebrities and foreign dignitaries.Veto-proof majorities in Congress passed a law last month requiring the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein-related files in its custody. Trump fought hard to stop the law but signed it after being outmaneuvered by a bipartisan groundswell of support from lawmakers and the public.However, it’s unclear exactly which records will be made public and how much of the material will be new. Over the 20-year saga surrounding Epstein’s sex crimes, thousands of files have already been disclosed through civil litigation and public records requests.Here’s what you need to know about the files:Why is this happening now?The law, called the Epstein Files Transparency Act, is only three pages long and spells out in simple language what the Justice Department must release and what it can withhold.The federal government is required to release “searchable and downloadable” copies of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” related to Epstein and Maxwell that are in the possession of the Justice Department or FBI.The law explicitly calls for the release of travel logs, materials about Epstein’s associates, any related immunity deals, relevant corporate records, all internal Justice Department communications about the investigations, and documents about Epstein’s 2019 death.What’s in DOJ’s Epstein files?CNN has reported that there’s more than 300 gigabytes of data that lives within the FBI’s primary electronic case management system, called Sentinel. This includes videos, photographs, audio recordings and written records.The FBI conducted two probes into Epstein. The first began in 2006 after sex abuse allegations emerged in Florida. That led to a non-prosecution deal in which Epstein avoided federal charges. Much of the same conduct was also scrutinized by the Palm Beach Police Department, leading to Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea on state charges. He would serve just 13 months in a Florida jail for state prostitution charges, though he was allowed to spend nearly half of that time on “work release” at his office.The second FBI investigation led to Epstein’s federal sex trafficking indictment in 2019. The bulk of the “Epstein files” comes from that New York-based second FBI probe, though there are also materials from the first investigation in Miami, CNN previously reported.What has DOJ said it may release?The Justice Department has described in court filings the types of documents in its possession that it believes must be publicly released under the new law. However, the department warned that the list is “not entirely comprehensive” of what may be released.The list says materials obtained from search warrants, and FBI affidavits supporting search warrants, will be released. The FBI notably raided Epstein’s homes in Florida, New York, and the private island that he owned in the US Virgin Islands, known as Little Saint James.The list also mentions memos from FBI interviews with witnesses. CNN has reported that there are at least hundreds of pages of these memos, known as “302s.”The list also includes financial records, bank records, travel logs from commercial and private flights, materials subpoenaed from Internet providers like Google, what’s referred to as “school records,” information from law firms representing victims, arrest reports, depositions from related civil lawsuits, immigration records, documents from the Palm Beach Police Department and forensic reports from seized dozens of Epstein’s electronic devices.Federal judges have also paved the way for the Justice Department to release grand jury materials from the Epstein indictment, the Maxwell trial and the related probe in Florida.But the grand jury files might not be all that illuminating. One of the judges wrote that nearly all of the grand jury material from the Maxwell case “was already a matter of public record” and that its disclosure “would not reveal new information of any consequence.”What might be redacted?The law says records can’t be “withheld, delayed, or redacted” due to concerns about “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” And it explicitly says this applies to “any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”However, under the law, Attorney General Pam Bondi can “withhold or redact” portions of records that fall under five categories, as long as she publicly explains every redaction.Those categories are: records that contain personally identifiable information about Epstein’s victims, materials depicting child sexual abuse, materials depicting physical abuse, any records that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation,” or any classified documents that must stay secret to protect “national defense or foreign policy.”CNN reported that the FBI recovered thousands of nude and seminude photographs of young women at Epstein’s property in Manhattan. Those images will not be made public.What won’t be in the release?There are limits for what we’ll see. The Justice Department’s in-house files about the Epstein case only represent a portion of what exists in the entire Epstein-related universe.For instance, the House Oversight Committee’s recent releases contained documents obtained from Epstein’s estate, including some materials that the FBI later said it had never seen before. Lawmakers are also pursuing bank records that might not be in the Justice Department’s existing cache of materials.Naturally, this means there could be more disclosures even after the Justice Department’s highly anticipated document drop.What are experts looking for?Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, a top expert on the Epstein saga, said she is keeping an eye out for drafts of un-filed indictments, tips from the public that the FBI received about Epstein, and internal emails and texts from the investigators who worked on the cases.Others, including some Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns about the possibility that the Trump administration will overzealously withhold or redact materials – particularly documents that make Trump look bad – due to the ongoing Trump-backed probe into Epstein’s associates.Last month, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to several well-known Democrats, including former President Clinton. That probe is ongoing, though the Justice Department said back in July that its exhaustive review of the Epstein and Maxwell case files did not uncover enough evidence to charge any of their associates.What have the victims said?Some of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims have been wary of the Justice Department releasing grand jury and other materials, for fear of being named publicly. But others have supported the unsealing, if proper redactions are made to conceal names and identifying information.One victim who testified during Maxwell’s trial supported the release provided such redactions are made. In a letter to the federal judge who presided over the case, the victim also voiced concern that the Justice Department might not release everything they have.Others have been far more critical of the releases. When Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a large tranche of documents from Epstein’s estate in November, a group of victims quickly lamented that names and other personal information was not redacted.“Transparency cannot come at the expense of the privacy, safety, and protection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking victims,” lawyers for the victims wrote in a letter to the judge in the Maxwell case, adding that they “already suffered repeatedly, both at the hands of their abusers as well as by the actions of the media and inactions on the Government.”The judge who presided over Maxwell’s case, Paul Engelmayer, also criticized the Justice Department’s handling of victims during the months-long debate over whether to release more of the files. He said in one ruling that the Justice Department, “although paying lip service to Maxwell’s and Epstein’s victims, has not treated them with the solicitude they deserve.”The Justice Department has said in court filings that, in anticipation of the release, it has coordinated closely with known victims and was trying to reach lawyers for more victims. However, CNN reported Tuesday that some Epstein survivors haven’t received any outreach from the Justice Department ahead of the files’ release.What has already been released?A deluge of files, memos, transcripts and other documents surrounding the Epstein saga have already been released through Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial, public records requests over the years, Justice Department reports, and numerous civil lawsuits.Such documents released by the Justice Department include their findings from an internal investigation into the 2008 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which the DOJ now says was wholly improper, as well as the department’s inspector general’s report on Epstein’s suicide at a federal prison in Manhattan.Earlier this year, Trump appointees at the Justice Department and FBI released a batch of declassified Epstein files investigators had gathered. The information from those files, however, was largely already public and the Trump administration has been heavily criticized by supporters and detractors for the bungled release ever since.The Justice Department released hundreds of pages from its controversial sit-down interview with Maxwell earlier this year, where she defended her actions and even criticized some of the victims.More recently, members of the House Oversight Committee released multiple tranches of files and photographs from Epstein’s estate.CNN’s Kara Scannell contributed to this report.

    A new federal law requires the Justice Department to release by Friday a massive trove of investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.

    The release of the Epstein files, detailing the probes into the disgraced multimillionaire and sex offender who died in 2019, has attracted significant attention. The public has been captivated by Epstein’s lavish lifestyle, claims of underage sex trafficking, and his ties to President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, celebrities and foreign dignitaries.

    Veto-proof majorities in Congress passed a law last month requiring the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein-related files in its custody. Trump fought hard to stop the law but signed it after being outmaneuvered by a bipartisan groundswell of support from lawmakers and the public.

    However, it’s unclear exactly which records will be made public and how much of the material will be new. Over the 20-year saga surrounding Epstein’s sex crimes, thousands of files have already been disclosed through civil litigation and public records requests.

    Here’s what you need to know about the files:

    Why is this happening now?

    The law, called the Epstein Files Transparency Act, is only three pages long and spells out in simple language what the Justice Department must release and what it can withhold.

    The federal government is required to release “searchable and downloadable” copies of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” related to Epstein and Maxwell that are in the possession of the Justice Department or FBI.

    The law explicitly calls for the release of travel logs, materials about Epstein’s associates, any related immunity deals, relevant corporate records, all internal Justice Department communications about the investigations, and documents about Epstein’s 2019 death.

    What’s in DOJ’s Epstein files?

    CNN has reported that there’s more than 300 gigabytes of data that lives within the FBI’s primary electronic case management system, called Sentinel. This includes videos, photographs, audio recordings and written records.

    The FBI conducted two probes into Epstein. The first began in 2006 after sex abuse allegations emerged in Florida. That led to a non-prosecution deal in which Epstein avoided federal charges. Much of the same conduct was also scrutinized by the Palm Beach Police Department, leading to Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea on state charges. He would serve just 13 months in a Florida jail for state prostitution charges, though he was allowed to spend nearly half of that time on “work release” at his office.

    The second FBI investigation led to Epstein’s federal sex trafficking indictment in 2019. The bulk of the “Epstein files” comes from that New York-based second FBI probe, though there are also materials from the first investigation in Miami, CNN previously reported.

    What has DOJ said it may release?

    The Justice Department has described in court filings the types of documents in its possession that it believes must be publicly released under the new law. However, the department warned that the list is “not entirely comprehensive” of what may be released.

    The list says materials obtained from search warrants, and FBI affidavits supporting search warrants, will be released. The FBI notably raided Epstein’s homes in Florida, New York, and the private island that he owned in the US Virgin Islands, known as Little Saint James.

    The list also mentions memos from FBI interviews with witnesses. CNN has reported that there are at least hundreds of pages of these memos, known as “302s.”

    The list also includes financial records, bank records, travel logs from commercial and private flights, materials subpoenaed from Internet providers like Google, what’s referred to as “school records,” information from law firms representing victims, arrest reports, depositions from related civil lawsuits, immigration records, documents from the Palm Beach Police Department and forensic reports from seized dozens of Epstein’s electronic devices.

    Federal judges have also paved the way for the Justice Department to release grand jury materials from the Epstein indictment, the Maxwell trial and the related probe in Florida.

    But the grand jury files might not be all that illuminating. One of the judges wrote that nearly all of the grand jury material from the Maxwell case “was already a matter of public record” and that its disclosure “would not reveal new information of any consequence.”

    What might be redacted?

    The law says records can’t be “withheld, delayed, or redacted” due to concerns about “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” And it explicitly says this applies to “any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    However, under the law, Attorney General Pam Bondi can “withhold or redact” portions of records that fall under five categories, as long as she publicly explains every redaction.

    Those categories are: records that contain personally identifiable information about Epstein’s victims, materials depicting child sexual abuse, materials depicting physical abuse, any records that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation,” or any classified documents that must stay secret to protect “national defense or foreign policy.”

    CNN reported that the FBI recovered thousands of nude and seminude photographs of young women at Epstein’s property in Manhattan. Those images will not be made public.

    What won’t be in the release?

    There are limits for what we’ll see. The Justice Department’s in-house files about the Epstein case only represent a portion of what exists in the entire Epstein-related universe.

    For instance, the House Oversight Committee’s recent releases contained documents obtained from Epstein’s estate, including some materials that the FBI later said it had never seen before. Lawmakers are also pursuing bank records that might not be in the Justice Department’s existing cache of materials.

    Naturally, this means there could be more disclosures even after the Justice Department’s highly anticipated document drop.

    What are experts looking for?

    Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, a top expert on the Epstein saga, said she is keeping an eye out for drafts of un-filed indictments, tips from the public that the FBI received about Epstein, and internal emails and texts from the investigators who worked on the cases.

    Others, including some Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns about the possibility that the Trump administration will overzealously withhold or redact materials – particularly documents that make Trump look bad – due to the ongoing Trump-backed probe into Epstein’s associates.

    Last month, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to several well-known Democrats, including former President Clinton. That probe is ongoing, though the Justice Department said back in July that its exhaustive review of the Epstein and Maxwell case files did not uncover enough evidence to charge any of their associates.

    What have the victims said?

    Some of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims have been wary of the Justice Department releasing grand jury and other materials, for fear of being named publicly. But others have supported the unsealing, if proper redactions are made to conceal names and identifying information.

    One victim who testified during Maxwell’s trial supported the release provided such redactions are made. In a letter to the federal judge who presided over the case, the victim also voiced concern that the Justice Department might not release everything they have.

    Others have been far more critical of the releases. When Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a large tranche of documents from Epstein’s estate in November, a group of victims quickly lamented that names and other personal information was not redacted.

    “Transparency cannot come at the expense of the privacy, safety, and protection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking victims,” lawyers for the victims wrote in a letter to the judge in the Maxwell case, adding that they “already suffered repeatedly, both at the hands of their abusers as well as by the actions of the media and inactions on the Government.”

    The judge who presided over Maxwell’s case, Paul Engelmayer, also criticized the Justice Department’s handling of victims during the months-long debate over whether to release more of the files. He said in one ruling that the Justice Department, “although paying lip service to Maxwell’s and Epstein’s victims, has not treated them with the solicitude they deserve.”

    The Justice Department has said in court filings that, in anticipation of the release, it has coordinated closely with known victims and was trying to reach lawyers for more victims. However, CNN reported Tuesday that some Epstein survivors haven’t received any outreach from the Justice Department ahead of the files’ release.

    What has already been released?

    A deluge of files, memos, transcripts and other documents surrounding the Epstein saga have already been released through Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial, public records requests over the years, Justice Department reports, and numerous civil lawsuits.

    Such documents released by the Justice Department include their findings from an internal investigation into the 2008 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which the DOJ now says was wholly improper, as well as the department’s inspector general’s report on Epstein’s suicide at a federal prison in Manhattan.

    Earlier this year, Trump appointees at the Justice Department and FBI released a batch of declassified Epstein files investigators had gathered. The information from those files, however, was largely already public and the Trump administration has been heavily criticized by supporters and detractors for the bungled release ever since.

    The Justice Department released hundreds of pages from its controversial sit-down interview with Maxwell earlier this year, where she defended her actions and even criticized some of the victims.

    More recently, members of the House Oversight Committee released multiple tranches of files and photographs from Epstein’s estate.

    CNN’s Kara Scannell contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge orders Trump administration to end National Guard deployment in DC

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to end its monthslong deployment of National Guard troops to help police the nation’s capital.Video above: Can President Trump legally deploy the National Guard to other states?U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb concluded that President Donald Trump’s military takeover in Washington, D.C., violates the Constitution and illegally intrudes on local officials’ authority to direct law enforcement in the district. She put her order on hold for 21 days to allow for an appeal, however.District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued to challenge the Guard deployments. He asked the judge to enjoin the White House from deploying Guard troops without the mayor’s consent.In August, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington. Within a month, more than 2,300 National Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling the city under the command of the Secretary of the Army. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist in patrols.It’s unclear how long the deployments will last, but attorneys from Schwalb’s office said Guard troops are likely to remain in the city through at least next summer.“Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” they wrote.Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the D.C. National Guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in the district.“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.Trump’s Guard deployments have led to other court challenges. On Monday, a federal appeals court suspended an order blocking Trump from taking command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In September, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally sent Guard troops to the Los Angeles area after days of protests over immigration raids.In Washington, the Trump administration deputized Guard troops to serve as special U.S. Marshal Service deputies. Schwalb’s office said out-of-state troops are impermissibly operating as a federal military police force in D.C., inflaming tensions with residents and diverting local police resources.“Every day that this lawless incursion continues, the District suffers harm to its sovereign authority to conduct local law enforcement as it chooses,” his office’s attorneys wrote.

    A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to end its monthslong deployment of National Guard troops to help police the nation’s capital.

    Video above: Can President Trump legally deploy the National Guard to other states?

    U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb concluded that President Donald Trump’s military takeover in Washington, D.C., violates the Constitution and illegally intrudes on local officials’ authority to direct law enforcement in the district. She put her order on hold for 21 days to allow for an appeal, however.

    District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued to challenge the Guard deployments. He asked the judge to enjoin the White House from deploying Guard troops without the mayor’s consent.

    In August, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington. Within a month, more than 2,300 National Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling the city under the command of the Secretary of the Army. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist in patrols.

    It’s unclear how long the deployments will last, but attorneys from Schwalb’s office said Guard troops are likely to remain in the city through at least next summer.

    “Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” they wrote.

    Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the D.C. National Guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in the district.

    “There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.

    Trump’s Guard deployments have led to other court challenges. On Monday, a federal appeals court suspended an order blocking Trump from taking command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In September, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally sent Guard troops to the Los Angeles area after days of protests over immigration raids.

    In Washington, the Trump administration deputized Guard troops to serve as special U.S. Marshal Service deputies. Schwalb’s office said out-of-state troops are impermissibly operating as a federal military police force in D.C., inflaming tensions with residents and diverting local police resources.

    “Every day that this lawless incursion continues, the District suffers harm to its sovereign authority to conduct local law enforcement as it chooses,” his office’s attorneys wrote.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court dismisses long-shot challenge to right to marry for same-sex couples

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed without comment a long-shot challenge to the constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.

    The justices turned away an appeal petition from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who defied the court’s landmark decision in 2015 and repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

    She appealed after one couple sued and won $100,000 in damages plus attorneys fees for her deliberate violation of their constitutional rights.

    She argued the court should hear her case to decide whether the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment should have protected her from being sued.

    Her appeal also posed a separate question she had not raised before in her long legal fight. She said the court should decide “whether Obergefell v. Hodges,” which established the right to same-sex marriage, “should be overturned.”

    That belated question drew wide attention to her appeal, even though there was little or no chance it would be seriously considered by the high court.

    Some LGBTQ+ advocates were concerned, however, because the conservative court had overturned Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion in the Dobbs case of 2022.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself alone, said then “we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring to cases on the rights to contraception, private sexual conduct and same-sex marriages.

    But other conservative justices had disagreed and said abortion was unique. “Rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe … termed ‘potential life,’ ” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in his opinion for the court.

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her new book “Listening to the Law” described the right to marry as a “fundamental right” that is protected by the Constitution.

    “The complicated moral debate about abortion stands in dramatic contrast to widespread American support for liberties like the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception, and direct the upbringing of children,” she wrote.

    In July, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimated there are 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and nearly 300,000 children being raised by them.

    Davis had suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts.

    A federal judge in Kentucky and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected her claims based on the free exercise of religion.

    Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis speaks to reporters in Kentucky in 2015. The Supreme Court on Monday rejected her appeal to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.

    (Timothy D. Easley / Associated Press)

    Those judges said government officials do not have free speech or religious right to refuse to carry out their public duties.

    “That is not how the Constitution works. In their private lives, government officials are of course free to express their views and live according to their faith. But when an official wields state power against private citizens, her conscience must yield to the Constitution,” Judge Helene White wrote for the 6th Circuit Court in March.

    Ten years ago, shortly after the court’s ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges, Kentucky’s governor, the county’s attorney and a federal judge all told Davis that she was legally required to give a marriage license to same-sex couples who applied for one.

    She refused and said the county would issue no marriage licenses until she had been given a special exemption.

    David Moore and David Ermold had been a couple for 19 years, and they filed suit after they were turned away from obtaining a marriage license on three occasions. Davis said she was acting “under God’s authority.”

    A federal judge held her in contempt for refusing to comply with the law. While she was in jail, the couple finally obtained a marriage license from one of her deputies, but their lawsuit continued.

    The Kentucky Legislature revised the law to say that county clerks need not put their name on the licenses issued by her office. Davis said that accommodation was sufficient, and she tried to have the lawsuit dismissed as moot.

    The 6th Circuit refused because the claim for damages was still valid and pending. The Supreme Court turned away one of her appeals in 2019.

    A federal judge later ruled she had violated the rights of Moore and Ermold, and a jury awarded each of them $50,000 in damages.

    Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, which advocates for religious freedom, appealed on her behalf.

    His petition to the Supreme Court said the court should hear her case to decide whether the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion should shield a public official from being sued “in her individual capacity.”

    The 6th Circuit Court rejected that claim in a 3-0 ruling.

    “The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” Judge White said.

    “Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine the dire possibilities that might follow if Davis’s argument were accepted. A county clerk who finds interracial marriage sinful could refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples. An election official who believes women should not vote could refuse to count ballots cast by females. A zoning official personally opposed to Christianity could refuse to permit the construction of a church,” she said.

    Judge Chad Readler, a Trump appointee, said even if public employees have some rights based on their religious views, “her conduct here exceeded the scope of any personal right. … Rather than attempting to invoke a religious exemption for herself, Davis instead exercised the full authority of the Rowan County Clerk’s office to enact an official policy of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, one every office employee had to follow.”

    [ad_2]

    David G. Savage

    Source link

  • Trump’s top federal prosecutor in L.A. faces challenge over ‘acting’ status

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge heard arguments Tuesday to decide whether maneuvers used by the Trump administration to install Bill Essayli as acting United States attorney in Los Angeles are improper — and, if so, what should be done about it.

    During a Tuesday hearing in downtown L.A., Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright — who flew in from Hawaii for the proceeding — wondered how to proceed after defense attorneys sought to dismiss indictments against three clients and to disqualify Essayli “from participating in criminal prosecutions in this district.”

    Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April.

    His term was set to expire in late July unless he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges. But the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term for an additional nine months without any confirmation process.

    Seabright was selected from the District of Hawaii after L.A.’s federal judges recused themselves from the proceedings. He questioned the consequences of dismissing any charges over Essayli’s title.

    “If I did this for your client, I’ll have to do it for every single defendant who was indicted when Mr. Essayli was acting under the rubric of acting U.S. attorney, correct?” Seabright said to a deputy federal public defender.

    “I don’t think you will,” replied James A. Flynn. “This is a time-specific, case-specific analysis and the court doesn’t need to go so far as to decide that a dismissal would be appropriate in all cases.”

    “Why not? You’re asking for a really draconian remedy here,” Seabright said, before questioning how many indictments had been made since Essayli was designated acting U.S. attorney at the end of July.

    “203, your honor,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins responded.

    In a court filing ahead of the hearing Tuesday, lawyers bringing the challenge against Essayli called the government’s defense of his status a handbook for circumventing the protections that the Constitution and Congress built against the limitless, unaccountable handpicking of temporary officials.”

    During the nearly two-hour hearing, Flynn cited similar legal challenges that have played out elsewhere. A federal judge ruled in August that Alina Habba has been illegally occupying the U.S. attorney post in New Jersey, although that order was put on hold pending appeal. Last month, a federal judge disqualified Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, from several cases, concluding she “is not validly serving as acting U.S. attorney.”

    The judges who ruled on the Nevada and New Jersey cases did not dismiss the charges against defendants, instead ordering that those cases not be supervised by Habba or Chattah.

    Flynn argued that the remedies in other states “have not been effective to deter the conduct.”

    “This court has the benefit of additional weeks and has seen the government’s response to that determination that their appointments were illegal and I submit the government hasn’t gotten the message,” Flynn said.

    Flynn said another option could be a dismissal without prejudice, which means the government could bring the case against their clients again. He called it a “weaker medicine” than dismissal with prejudice, “but would be a stronger one than offered in New Jersey and Nevada.”

    The hearing grew testy at times, with Seabright demanding that Assistant U.S. Atty. Robbins tell him when Essayli’s term will end. Robbins told the judge the government believes it will end on Feb. 24 and that afterward the role of acting U.S. attorney will remain vacant.

    Robbins noted that Essayli has also been designated as first assistant U.S. attorney, essentially allowing him to remain in charge of the office if he loses the “acting” title.

    Bondi in July also appointed him as a “special attorney.” Robbins told the judge that “there’s no developed challenge to Mr. Essayli’s appointment as a special attorney or his designation as a first assistant.”

    “The defense challenge here, the stated interest that they have, is Bill Essayli cannot be acting,” Robbins said. “But they don’t have a compelling or strong response to Bill Essayli is legitimately in the office and he can be the first assistant … he can supervise other people in the office.”

    Seabright asked both sides to brief him by Thursday on “whatever hats you believe [Essayli’s] wearing now” and “whether I were to say he wasn’t legitimately made acting U.S. attorney … what hats does he continue to wear.”

    “If I understand the government’s proposed remedy correctly … it would essentially be no remedy at all, because they would be re-creating Mr. Essayli as the acting United States attorney, he’d just be wearing a first assistant hat,” Flynn said.

    A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    When asked by a Times reporter last month about the motion to disqualify him, Essayli said “the president won the election.”

    “The American people provided him a mandate to run the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney’s office and I look forward to serving at the pleasure of the president,” he said during a news conference.

    Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language verbatim at news conferences. His tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of prosecutors quitting.

    [ad_2]

    Brittny Mejia

    Source link

  • Federal agents held him in a hospital for 37 days, at times shackled to his bed, without charging him

    [ad_1]

    For more than a month, federal immigration officials surveilled Bayron Rovidio Marin in a hospital bed at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, where he lay recuperating from serious injuries to his leg after an encounter with agents at a Carson car wash they raided. He was never charged and his lawyers say he was shackled to his bed for several days and couldn’t speak privately with doctors or legal counsel.

    Over the weekend, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order requiring immigration officials to remove the guards watching over Bayron Rovidio Marin, take off the handcuffs and leave him unrestrained.

    “He is presently detained under restrictions that limit his access to counsel, medical providers, and family,” U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela wrote in her Oct. 4 order. “He has been questioned by government officials while in pain and under the influence of medication. He cannot place phone calls and remains handcuffed to a hospital bed despite a broken leg that prevents him from walking. He has received no more than a vague explanation for his detention, and Respondents’ proffered excuses for delaying a formal notice are unsupported by facts.”

    Despite Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s insistence on holding the man, Valenzuela said the government failed to provide any proof that he had “violated any law or regulation” or show that he was a “flight risk.”

    To date, ICE has not placed Rovidio Marin in removal proceedings, charged him with violating immigration law, set bond, issued a Notice to Appear or otherwise processed him, according to the order. The government told the court that they would determine the immigration status of Rovidio Marin once he was released from the hospital. His attorneys argued being indefinitely held without any charges is a clear constitutional violation.

    The Department of Homeland Security and the medical center did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Under federal law, officers initiating warrantless arrests must provide the person in custody a reason why they were arrested or detained and within 48 hours determine if the person will remain in custody, released on bond or given a notice to appear in court and an arrest warrant issued. Those rules are only waived in extraordinary circumstances. The judge noted that the September 11 attacks previously qualified as an “extraordinary circumstance” in delaying notices to appear to noncitizen detainees, but said that Rovidio Marin has been held “substantially longer.”

    Kyle Cheney, with Politico, first posted about the case on social media.

    It’s unclear exactly how he was injured, but his lawyers say that Rovidio Marin had been at the car wash on Aug. 27, when immigration agents doing a “roving patrol” stormed in and raided it.

    In an emailed press statement, Cynthia Santiago, Attorney for CLEAN Carwash Worker Center and Nicolas Thompson-Lleras, Attorney for CHIRLA said he suffered severe injuries and was arrested by Border Patrol agents who transferred him into ICE custody.

    “For 37 days, our client was forced to endure medical treatment and recovery with ICE agents in his room, 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” the statement read. “ICE agents listened to every conversation between him and his doctors,” they stated. “They interrogated him while he was in pain and under the influence of medication. They did not permit him to see his family and removed his access to phone calls.”

    According to the judge’s order, Rovidio Marin has been under the supervision of ICE, which contracted with Spectrum Detention Services to provide guards at the hospital where he was taken.

    Once admitted he was placed under what is known as a “blackout” procedure for patients in law-enforcement custody, making it harder for anyone to find him. He was registered under the pseudonym “Har Maine UNK Thirteen.”

    Two to four uniformed guards —either Spectrum employees or ICE agents— “have been continuously stationed in Petitioner’s hospital room, monitoring him at all times, including while he sleeps, eats, uses the restroom, or receives medical care,” according to a declaration referenced in the order.

    “It’s fundamental that you can’t be detained indefinitely without charges,” said Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic, who is representing Rovidio Marin in the habeas case. “Freedom from restraint is the cornerstone of our society and so to arrest someone and withhold their liberty for an extended period of time without any charges, it’s antithetical to our constitutional system and our immigration laws. Our immigration laws do provide for the rights of immigrants as well.”

    The temporary restraining order expires Oct. 18.

    [ad_2]

    Brittny Mejia, Rachel Uranga

    Source link

  • Commentary: So much winning. Can Bonta maintain California’s legal hot streak against Trump?

    [ad_1]

    It was late Sunday evening when President Trump got thumped with a court loss — again — by California.

    No, a federal judge ruled, Trump cannot command the California National Guard to invade Portland, Ore. At the request of California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and others, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut broadened a temporary restraining order that had blocked Oregon’s National Guard from being used by the federal government. It now includes not just California’s troops but troops from any state. At least for the next two weeks.

    It’s the kind of legal loss Trump should be used to it by now, especially when it comes to the Golden State. Since Trump 2.0 hit the White House this year with Project 2025 folded up in his back pocket, the state of California has sued the administration 42 times, literally about once a week.

    While many of those cases are still pending, California is racking up a series of wins that restored more than $160 billion in funding and at least slowed down (and in some cases stopped) the steamrolling of civil rights on issues including birthright citizenship and immigration policy.

    “We have won in 80% of the cases,” Bonta told me. “Whether it be a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order, and more and more now permanent final injunctions after the whole trial court case is done.”

    I’ll take it. We all need some positive news. I don’t often write just about the good, but in these strange days, it’s helpful to have a reminder that the fight is always worth having when it comes to protecting our rights. And, despite the partisan Supreme Court, the reason that we are still holding on to democracy is because the system still works, albeit like a ’78 Chevy with the doors rusting off.

    While Gov. Gavin Newsom has made himself the face of California’s fights against Trump, taking on a pugnacious and audacious attitude especially on social media, the day-in, day-out slugging in those battles is often done by Bonta and his team in courtrooms across the country.

    It’s hard to recall, but months ago, Newsom called a special session of the Legislature to give Bonta a $25-million allowance to defend not just California but democracy. And in a moment when many of us fear that checks and balances promised in the Constitution have turned out to be little more than happy delusions, Bonta has a message: The courts are (mostly) holding and California’s lawyers aren’t just fighting, they’re winning.

    “We can do things that governors can’t do,” Bonta said. “No role and no moment has been more important than this one.”

    Bonta told me that he often hears that Trump is disregarding the courts, so “what’s the point of litigation at all? What’s the point of a court order at all? He’s just going to ignore them.”

    But, he said, the administration has been following judges’ rulings — so far. While there have been instances, especially around deportations, that knock on the door of lawlessness, at least for California, Trump is “following all of our court orders,” Bonta said.

    “We’re making a difference,” he said.

    A few days ago, the U.S. Department of Education was forced to send out a final chunk of funds it had attempted to withhold from schools. Bonta, in a multistate lawsuit, successfully protected that money, which schools need this year to help migrant children and English learners, train teachers, buy new technology and pay for before- and after-school programs, among other uses.

    That’s a permanent, final ruling — no appeals.

    Another recent win saw California land a permanent injunction against the feds when it comes to stopping their payments for costs associated with state energy projects. That a win both for the climate and consumers, who benefit when we make energy more efficiently.

    Last week, Bonta won another permanent injunction, blocking the Trump administration’s effort to tie grants related to homeland security to compliance with his immigration policies. Safety shouldn’t be tied to deportations, especially in California, where our immigrants are overwhelmingly law-abiding community members.

    Those are just a few of Bonta’s victories. Of course, Trump and his minions aren’t happy about them. Stephen Miller, the shame of Santa Monica, seems to have especially lost his marbles over the National Guard ruling. On social media, Miller seems to be attacking the justice system, and attorneys general such as Bonta.

    “There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country,” Miller wrote. “It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.”

    Never mind that the Oregon judge who issued the National Guard ruling is a Trump appointee.

    “Their goal, I think, is to chill and pause and worry judges; to chill and pause and worry the press; to chill and pause and worry attorneys general who stand up for the rule of law and for democracy, who go to court and fight for what’s right and fight for the law,” Bonta said.

    Bonta expects the administration, far from learning any lessons or harboring self-reflection during this mad dash toward autocracy, to continue full speed ahead.

    “We’re going to see more, and we’re going to see it fast, and we’re going to see it escalate,” he said. “None of that is good, including putting military in American cities or, you know, Trump treating them like his royal guard instead of the National Guard.”

    Even when the Trump administration loses, “they always have this like second move and maybe a third, where they are always trying to advance their agenda, even when they’ve been blocked by a court, even when they’ve been told that they’re acting unlawfully or unconstitutionally,” he said.

    On Monday, Trump threatened to use the Insurrection Act to circumvent the court’s ruling on the National Guard, a massive escalation of his effort to militarize American cities.

    But California remains on a winning streak, much to Trump’s dismay.

    It’s my bet that as long as our judges continue to honor the rule of law, that streak will hold.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • Illinois and Chicago sue Trump administration over deployment of National Guard

    [ad_1]

    (CNN) — The state of Illinois and Chicago on Monday sued the Trump administration over its move to deploy National Guard troops to Chicago as the White House targets Democrat-led cities amid weeks of protests against the federal government’s immigration enforcement campaign.

    The lawsuit opens a new front in the legal battles the White House is waging against state and local officials, coming just hours after a federal judge blocked a similar deployment of the guard to Portland, Oregon.

    “Defendants’ deployment of federalized troops to Illinois is patently unlawful,” the lawsuit says. “Plaintiffs ask this court to halt the illegal, dangerous, and unconstitutional federalization of members of the National Guard of the United States, including both the Illinois and Texas National Guard.”

    The lawsuit comes two days after the White House announced President Donald Trump authorized sending 300 members of the Illinois National Guard to Chicago to “protect federal officers and assets,” reprising a strategy he first used against anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in Los Angeles and Washington, DC.

    News of the deployment was condemned by Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who said he refused to call up the National Guard after the Trump administration demanded he do so. On Sunday – after learning the administration also planned to send 400 members of the Texas National Guard to Illinois and Oregon, among other places – Pritzker likened the move to an “invasion.”

    The lawsuit asks the court to order the administration to stop federalizing or deploying any National Guard troops to Illinois, and to declare the federalization of National Guard troops more broadly as unlawful. Trump, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are among the defendants named.

    In a statement, a White House spokesperson said the president “will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities.”

    “Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders like Pritzker have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets,” spokesperson Abigail Jackson told CNN.

    The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, argued the deployments are politically motivated, claiming Trump has a long history of making “threatening and derogatory” comments about Chicago and the state of Illinois, dating to at least 2013.

    Among other examples, it calls out a September 6 social media post by Trump in which he said Chicago would “find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” referring to the president’s rebranded name for the Pentagon.

    Illinois and Chicago have already seen a “surge” of federal agents, some of whom have responded to demonstrations at an ICE facility in Broadview, near Chicago, the lawsuit says. Those protests are a “flimsy pretext” to deploy National Guardsmen to the state, the lawsuit says.

    Instead, “Defendants’ provocative and arbitrary actions have threatened to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry,” the lawsuit says, because local and state law enforcement have been sent to “maintain the peace” in Broadview while ICE continues operating the facility.

    “There is no legal or factual justification” for the National Guard federalization order, the lawsuit says.

    Illinois’ complaint follows a similar challenge to the administration’s move to assign federalized guard troops from Oregon and California to Portland.

    Officials in both states had objected, and a Trump-appointed federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked the deployment of National Guard from anywhere in the US to Portland.

    The president, the judge said, appeared to have “exceeded his constitutional authority” by federalizing troops, because protests in Portland “did not pose a ‘danger of rebellion.’”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    We’ve moved to Live Updates for coverage of this developing story. Follow the latest here.

    [ad_2]

    Dakin Andone and CNN

    Source link

  • Trump’s National Guard deployment in Portland, Oregon halted as Chicago braces for troops

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump’s crime and immigration crackdown hit a legal roadblock in Portland, Oregon, as new details emerged about the administration’s plan to send federal troops into Chicago. On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s effort to federalize 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut said the plan to send troops to Portland likely overstepped Trump’s authority and threatened state sovereignty. “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation,” Immergut said. The decision was celebrated by state and local leaders who brought the lawsuit, but the White House vowed to appeal. “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland has been at the center of recent protests. On Saturday, hundreds marched to the building, prompting federal agents to deploy tear gas, among other crowd-control munitions. At least six people were arrested. Similar demonstrations and a similar debate have been playing out in Chicago. On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said federal agents shot and injured one woman during what the agency described as a “defensive” response to an alleged vehicle-ramming attack. On Saturday, Trump authorized 300 troops to protect federal officers and assets in Chicago, despite opposition from Illinois Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker. The timeline of the National Guard’s arrival was not immediately clear. More from our Washington Bureau:

    President Donald Trump’s crime and immigration crackdown hit a legal roadblock in Portland, Oregon, as new details emerged about the administration’s plan to send federal troops into Chicago.

    On Saturday, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s effort to federalize 200 members of the Oregon National Guard. U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut said the plan to send troops to Portland likely overstepped Trump’s authority and threatened state sovereignty.

    “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation,” Immergut said.

    The decision was celebrated by state and local leaders who brought the lawsuit, but the White House vowed to appeal.

    “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson.

    An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Portland has been at the center of recent protests. On Saturday, hundreds marched to the building, prompting federal agents to deploy tear gas, among other crowd-control munitions. At least six people were arrested.

    Similar demonstrations and a similar debate have been playing out in Chicago. On Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security said federal agents shot and injured one woman during what the agency described as a “defensive” response to an alleged vehicle-ramming attack.

    On Saturday, Trump authorized 300 troops to protect federal officers and assets in Chicago, despite opposition from Illinois Democratic Governor J.B. Pritzker. The timeline of the National Guard’s arrival was not immediately clear.

    More from our Washington Bureau:

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In a week of stumbles, Trump faces setbacks in court and abroad

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Facing viral rumors of his imminent death, President Trump emerged in the Oval Office on Tuesday alive and scowling. Core tenets of his economic policies were under strain. Flashy diplomatic overtures to Moscow appeared to be backfiring. And a scandal over a notorious sexual abuser that has fixated his base was roaring back to life in Washington.

    It was a challenging week for the president, whose aggressive approach to his second term has begun to hit significant roadblocks with the public and the courts, and overseas, with longstanding U.S. adversaries Trump once hoped to coax to his will.

    The president called for an expedited Supreme Court review of an appellate court ruling that he had exceeded his authority by issuing sweeping global tariffs last spring — a decision that, if left standing, could upend the foundation of his economic agenda. On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued jobs numbers showing a contraction of the labor market in July, a first since the depths of the pandemic in 2020.

    New art lining a hallway in the West Wing features photographs of Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, where Trump said the Russian president had agreed to meet with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to discuss an end to the war. Yet, three weeks on, Russia had launched its most intense bombardment of Kyiv in years, and Putin traveled to Beijing for a military parade hosted by Xi Jinping, which Russian state media used to mock the U.S. president.

    During an appearance in the Oval Office on Friday afternoon, Trump said reaching a deal to end the war between Russia and Ukraine has turned out to be “a little bit more difficult” than he initially thought.

    And a rare spree of bipartisanship broke out on Capitol Hill — in opposition to Trump’s causes.

    A tense hearing at the Senate Finance Committee with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. laid bare concern over the direction of federal vaccination policy and public health recommendations under his leadership across party lines.

    Trump declined to stand behind him wholeheartedly after the hearing. “He’s got some little different ideas,” Trump told reporters, adding: “It’s not your standard talk.”

    On Wednesday, moments after a group of more than 100 women pleaded for Trump’s help from the steps of the Capitol seeking transparency over the investigation of their alleged abuser, Jeffrey Epstein, Trump dismissed the matter as a “hoax” perpetrated by Democrats.

    “The Department of Justice has done its job, they have given everything requested of them,” Trump repeated on Truth Social on Friday. “It’s time to end the Democrat Epstein Hoax.”

    Trump was close friends with Epstein for more than a decade. But his base has repeatedly called for the release of thousands of files in his case — and some of Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress are set to vote against his wishes for a discharge petition directing the Justice Department to do so in the coming days.

    A far-right political activist released hidden camera footage this week of a Justice Department official claiming the agency would redact the names of Republicans, but not Democrats, identified in the files. In the video, the DOJ official also suggested that Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell was recently moved to a lower-security prison as part of a deal to keep her quiet.

    Public support for Trump has appeared stable since July, with roughly 42% of Americans approving of his job performance across a series of high quality polls. But the end of the August recess in Washington — and the oncoming flu and COVID-19 season — could return public attention to subjects that have proved politically perilous for the president this week.

    Polls show that a majority of the president’s Republican voters support vaccines. They oppose Putin and increasingly support Ukraine. And across the political spectrum, Americans want the Epstein files released, unredacted and in full.

    A string of court losses

    The president’s agenda suffered several setbacks this week, as federal judges across the country ruled his administration had broken the law in various instances.

    In San Francisco, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s deployment of military troops in Los Angeles was illegal and barred soldiers from aiding immigration arrests in California in an order set to take effect next week.

    In Boston, a federal judge said the Trump administration broke the law when it froze billions of dollars in research funds awarded to Harvard University. In another court ruling, a judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting dozens of unaccompanied migrant children to Guatemala.

    And on Friday afternoon, a federal judge stopped the Trump administration from taking away the deportation protections under Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans and Haitians living in the United States.

    While the court decisions represent a snag for key portions of the administration’s agenda, the cases continue to play out in court — and could ultimately turn in favor of Trump.

    Legal experts are closely watching those decisions. In the case of the military troop deployments, for instance, some fear a reversal on appeal could ultimately hand the president broader power to send troops to American cities.

    Trump has floated additional federal deployments — to Chicago, Baltimore and New Orleans — in recent days.

    Trump reacts to a bad week

    Trump greeted the waves of bad news with a characteristic mix of deflection, finger-pointing and anger.

    He warned that losing his appeal on tariff policy at the Supreme Court would render the United States a “third world country,” telling reporters, “if we don’t win that case, our country is going to suffer so greatly.” And he said he was “very disappointed” in Putin.

    After the parade in Beijing — which was also attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, a longstanding U.S. ally now ostracized by Trump’s tariffs — drew widespread media attention, Trump wrote on social media that the countries were conspiring together against the United States.

    “We’ve lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China,” he wrote.

    In another lengthy social media post on Friday, Trump accused Democrats of fueling the Epstein “hoax” as a means to “distract from the great success of a Republican President.”

    Days earlier, survivors of Epstein’s sexual abuse publicly pressured lawmakers to back a legislative measure to force the release of the sex trafficking investigation into the late financier.

    “This is about ending secrecy wherever abuse of power takes root,” said Anouska De Georgiou, who was among the Epstein victims who held a news conference on Capitol Hill.

    A few high-profile Republicans also broke with Trump on the Epstein issue, calling for more transparency on the investigation. Trump ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said she is willing to expose those who are tied to Epstein’s sex trafficking case.

    On a phone call with Trump on Wednesday morning, Greene suggested he meet with Epstein’s victims at the White House while they were gathered in town. He was noncommittal, the congresswoman told reporters.

    The survivors left town without a meeting. At the direction of the White House, Republican leadership continues to press Republican members to oppose efforts to release the files.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • District of Columbia sues over Trump’s deployment of the National Guard

    [ad_1]

    The District of Columbia on Thursday sued to stop President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard during his law enforcement intervention in Washington.The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, said the surge of troops essentially amounts to an “involuntary military occupation.” He argued in the federal lawsuit that the deployment, coinciding with an executive order Aug. 11, that now involves more than 1,000 troops is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.A federal judge in California recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after days of protests over immigration raids in June was illegal.The Republican administration is appealing that decision and Trump has said he is ready to order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition in those Democrat-led cities. That court ruling, however, does not directly apply to Washington, where the president has more control over the Guard than in states.The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment to the new lawsuit.Members of the D.C. National Guard have had their orders extended through December, according to a Guard official. While that does not necessarily mean all those troops will serve that long, it is a strong indication that their role will not wind down soon.Several GOP-led states have added National Guard troops to the ranks of those patrolling the streets and neighborhoods of the nation’s capital.Schwalb’s filing contends the deployment also violates the Home Rule Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, because Trump acted without the mayor’s consent and is wrongly asserting federal control over units from other states.The city’s attorney general, an elected official, is its top legal officer and is separate from Washington’s federal U.S. attorney, who is appointed by the president.The lawsuit is the second from Schwalb against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the Guard, actions that have been with protests from some residents.Trump has said the operation is necessary to combat crime in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has pointed to a steep drop in offenses such as carjackings since it began.Violent crime has been an issue in the capital for years, though data showed it was on the decline at the start of Trump’s intervention.

    WASHINGTON —

    The District of Columbia on Thursday sued to stop President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard during his law enforcement intervention in Washington.

    The city’s attorney general, Brian Schwalb, said the surge of troops essentially amounts to an “involuntary military occupation.” He argued in the federal lawsuit that the deployment, coinciding with an executive order Aug. 11, that now involves more than 1,000 troops is an illegal use of the military for domestic law enforcement.

    A federal judge in California recently ruled that Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles after days of protests over immigration raids in June was illegal.

    The Republican administration is appealing that decision and Trump has said he is ready to order federal intervention in Chicago and Baltimore, despite staunch opposition in those Democrat-led cities. That court ruling, however, does not directly apply to Washington, where the president has more control over the Guard than in states.

    The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment to the new lawsuit.

    Members of the D.C. National Guard have had their orders extended through December, according to a Guard official. While that does not necessarily mean all those troops will serve that long, it is a strong indication that their role will not wind down soon.

    Several GOP-led states have added National Guard troops to the ranks of those patrolling the streets and neighborhoods of the nation’s capital.

    Schwalb’s filing contends the deployment also violates the Home Rule Act, signed by President Richard Nixon in 1973, because Trump acted without the mayor’s consent and is wrongly asserting federal control over units from other states.

    The city’s attorney general, an elected official, is its top legal officer and is separate from Washington’s federal U.S. attorney, who is appointed by the president.

    The lawsuit is the second from Schwalb against the Trump administration since the president asserted control over the city’s police department and sent in the Guard, actions that have been with protests from some residents.

    Trump has said the operation is necessary to combat crime in the district, and Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, has pointed to a steep drop in offenses such as carjackings since it began.

    Violent crime has been an issue in the capital for years, though data showed it was on the decline at the start of Trump’s intervention.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chief Justice John Roberts is wary of entering political fray, his top adviser says

    [ad_1]

    MEMPHIS, Tennessee — When Chief Justice John Roberts released his annual year-end message last December, he lamented increasing threats against the judiciary and urged respect for court orders.

    Some observers saw the message as a veiled response to President Donald Trump’s electoral victory less than two months earlier — or a warning about what Trump’s second term might hold.

    But Roberts’ top aide said Wednesday that the chief justice’s New Year’s Eve missive was not prompted by the election.

    Robert Dow, a federal judge who serves as counselor to Roberts, told a judicial conference here that the chief justice was instead reacting to a long-term trend of eroding esteem for the judiciary.

    “We started work on that in about September, and there was a full draft of it before the election, and it was finished up between the administrations,” Dow told the 6th Circuit Judicial Conference. “It was the culmination of a lot of things that had been brewing. … It was a message for that moment and it’s really a message for the general times.”

    Dow pointed to other periods in American history when the judiciary loomed large in political debate and sometimes encountered threats of violence over unpopular rulings. “This isn’t the first time that we’ve had to navigate times similar to the times we’re in now. It doesn’t make it any less scary for all of us who have to navigate that.”

    Roberts “is very aware of these threats,” Dow said.

    But he also suggested the chief justice is wary about being pulled into political struggles where the judiciary is at a significant disadvantage compared to the White House and Congress.

    “The problem for our branch is that we have a very tiny megaphone, and if we use our megaphone too often, we risk losing what I would say is the long game, and the long game is to preserve our independence,” said Dow, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2007.

    Dow did not mention explicitly that Roberts has sometimes spoken out on behalf of judges who have faced verbal assaults from Trump, other administration officials or other political figures. The most recent riposte from the chief justice came in March, after Trump called for the impeachment of the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, James Boasberg, over a ruling he issued against one of Trump’s signature deportation policies.

    “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said in a terse written statement released by the high court.

    In a similar episode in 2018, Roberts clapped back at Trump for describing some judges who’d ruled against the administration as political partisans. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

    Roberts also took on criticism from a prominent Democrat in recent years, rebuking Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for declaring that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would “reap the whirlwind” if they cast votes against abortion rights. “Threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” the chief justice said in 2020. (Schumer walked back his statement. Trump hasn’t.)

    During the discussion Wednesday, federal judges in attendance were shown an alarming series of photos depicting shooting incidents, vandalism and arson at various federal courthouses in recent years. Dow also pointed to a surge in verbal threats against federal judges as well as a troubling number of physical attacks on judges and their family members.

    The judges also heard that some lawmakers have introduced legislation to shift control of the Marshals Service, historically part of the Justice Department, to the judiciary.

    While Dow discouraged any attempt to square off with the political branches for public attention, he did say the detached, sometimes secretive approach of some in the federal judiciary may not be well-suited to the current era where judicial rulings often become footballs in the political arena.

    “This may be a wake up call for all of us to rededicate ourselves to get out there in the world and not be isolated judges, and make sure that people understand what we do, why it’s important, and the value over the long term for our country that we continue to have a strong, robust, independent judiciary that’s free from violence and intimidation and whose rulings are respected,” Dow said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Public defender’s office seeks removal of Trump’s top federal prosecutor in L.A.

    [ad_1]

    The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles filed a motion Friday to disqualify acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, arguing that the Trump administration’s pick to serve as the top federal prosecutor in Southern California is unlawfully occupying his post.

    Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April, and his term was set to expire in late July unless he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges. But the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term another nine months without any confirmation process.

    The federal public defender’s office filed a motion seeking to dismiss an indictment against their client and to disqualify Essayli and attorneys working under him “from participating in criminal prosecutions in this district.”

    The defendant, Jaime Ramirez, was indicted on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    In a 63-page motion filed in Ramirez’s case, James Anglin Flynn and Ayah A. Sarsour, deputy federal public defenders, argued that the Trump administration circumvented limitations that Congress has imposed on temporary service in key offices, including U.S. attorneys.

    Essayli’s term was supposed to expire on July 29. At that point the White House had not formally nominated him before the U.S. Senate, and local federal judges had taken no action to confirm Essayli, or anyone else, to the position. At the eleventh hour, the White House named Essayli as acting U.S. attorney, allowing him to hold the post for 210 more days without confirmation hearings.

    Essayli “was not lawfully acting as the United States Attorney in any capacity” on Aug. 13, when the government obtained the indictment against Ramirez, the deputy federal public defenders wrote in their motion. “And he has no such lawful authority today.”

    The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Department of Justice declined to comment.

    In their motion, Flynn and Sarsour pointed out that the Trump administration has used similar strategies to keep political allies in power in U.S. attorney’s offices in New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico and the Northern District of New York. But legal challenges are mounting. Last week, a federal judge ruled that Alina Habba has been illegally occupying her seat in New Jersey since early July, although that order was put on hold pending appeal.

    Habba was nominated for the post earlier this year but did not receive Senate or judicial confirmation. Instead, local federal judges chose Desiree Leigh Grace, a veteran Republican prosecutor within the office, to replace Habba. Bondi responded by firing Grace and naming Habba acting U.S. attorney, sparking confusion over who actually held the post and all but paralyzing the federal criminal court system in the Garden State.

    On Tuesday, the federal public defender’s office in Nevada filed a motion to do one of two things: dismiss an indictment that acting U.S. Atty. Sigal Chattah brought against one of its clients, or disqualify the U.S. attorney’s office entirely. The 59-page motion specifically challenged Chattah, stating that she is not lawfully serving as acting U.S. attorney.

    Echoing Judge Matthew W. Brann’s ruling on Habba, the Nevada public defenders argued that Chattah was not first an assistant U.S. attorney, as federal law required when the U.S. attorney seat became vacant.

    The motion also argues that Chattah was illegally kept in office past the 120-day limit and can’t exercise the powers of the office without Senate confirmation.

    “The Court should dismiss the indictment; at a minimum, it should disqualify Ms. Chattah from this prosecution, as well as attorneys operating under her direction; and the judges of this district should exercise their authority to appoint a proper interim U.S. Attorney,” the Nevada motion read.

    Last month, in the final days before Chattah’s interim appointment ended, more than 100 retired state and federal judges wrote Nevada’s chief federal district judge to urge him not to appoint her once her term expired. The group said Chattah’s history of “racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements” was disqualifying.

    The letter called Chattah’s interim appointment “a troubling pattern by the Trump administration of bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in confirming U.S. Attorneys.”

    According to the letter, as of July, Trump had submitted formal nominations for only nine of his administration’s 37 interim appointees.

    “If this pattern persists, by late fall, more than one-third of the 93 U.S. Attorneys will have evaded Senate review this year alone,” the letter read. “Yet, the constitutional role of the Senate is vital regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys.”

    Each of Trump’s controversial picks has demonstrated fealty to the president. Chattah has long upheld Trump’s lie that he actually won the 2020 election. Habba — who once served as Trump’s personal attorney and has no prosecutorial experience — promised to turn New Jersey “red,” breaking with longstanding norms of federal prosecutors eschewing partisan politics. She has also filed criminal charges against two Democratic lawmakers in the state over scuffles with immigration officers at a Newark detention facility.

    Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often aping the president’s language verbatim at news conferences. His tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of prosecutors quitting in the face of his belligerent, scream-first management style.

    A Times investigation last month found that his aggressive pursuit of charges against people protesting immigration enforcement in Southern California has led to weak cases being rejected again and again by grand juries. A number of others have been dismissed.

    Even if Trump had formally nominated him to serve a full term as U.S. attorney, it is unlikely he would have ever appeared on the Senate floor. California Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, both Democrats, are both opposed to Essayli’s appointment and could have derailed any nomination by withholding what is known as their “blue slip,” or acknowledgment of support for a nominee.

    The procedural blockades have drawn Trump’s ire, and the president has challenged Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) to do away with honoring the blue slip tradition. Grassley has held firm, but Trump has threatened litigation.

    Legal experts called the White House’s move to keep Essayli in office unprecedented last month, and warned it could affect criminal cases.

    “These laws have never been used, as far as I can see, to bypass the Senate confirmation process or the judicial one,” Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor in L.A. who now serves as a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, told The Times last month. “The most serious consequences are if you’re going to end up with indictments that are not valid because they weren’t signed by a lawful U.S. attorney.”

    [ad_2]

    Brittny Mejia, James Queally

    Source link

  • Commentary: Pick for Nevada prosecutor shows justice under Trump isn’t blind — it’s been perverted

    [ad_1]

    The parade of Trump terribles is a long one, starting in Washington and stretching clear across this beleaguered nation.

    A bumbling Defense secretary who lacks the competence to organize a two-car military procession.

    A screw-loose Health secretary who seems not to care if measles and other plagues descend on America.

    A director of national intelligence who’s shown no great abundance of that quality but, rather, an eagerness to twist and bend facts like a coat hanger, serving whatever cockamamie claim the president burps up.

    Because, after all, obeisance and lay-down-your-life loyalty are the main prerequisites for service in the Trump administration, along with the all-important consideration of how one comes across on television.

    How else to explain the chief federal prosecutor he’s imposed on Nevada, Sigal Chattah?

    Chattah, 50, devoted years to a not-particularly-noteworthy legal career, practicing domestic and international law at her Las Vegas firm and teaching political science for a time at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In 2022, Chattah was the Republican nominee for state attorney general, losing rather handily to incumbent Democrat Aaron Ford.

    But not before distinguishing herself as a notably reprehensible candidate.

    Among other things, Chattah compared Ford to the leader of Hamas and said that her opponent, who happens to be Black, “should be hanging from a f— crane.” (The Israeli-born Chattah told the Las Vegas Review Journal the “smart-ass comment” was a tongue-in-cheek expression derived from her Middle East background.)

    A pugnacious poster on social media — another perceived asset in Trump World — Chattah called a Black member of Congress a “hood rat,” a Black female prosecutor “ghetto” and a Black “Saturday Night Live” cast member a “monkey.”

    She suggested immigrants — make that “invaders” — and college protesters should be shot and transgenderism should be treated with “meds or commitment to an in-patient facility.”

    But what might have particularly endeared her to Trump is her embrace of his ego-salving Big Lie about the 2020 election being stolen from under him. Chattah even served as legal counsel to one of the fake electors who tried to overturn Joe Biden’s clear-cut victory and swipe Nevada for Trump.

    It’s hardly unusual for a president to pick a member of his party to serve as U.S. attorney, replacing the choice of a previous administration. In fact, even though justice is supposed to be blind and thus, theoretically above political considerations, that’s how the selection process usually works.

    But Trump has broken new and treacherous ground by installing not just partisans as federal prosecutors but lackeys — starting with Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi — who’ve shown their allegiance not to fair-minded application of the law but rather delivering on the feral impulses of their White House patron.

    Trump’s pick for top prosecutor in the Los Angeles area is Bill Essayli, a former state assemblyman from Riverside County whose main qualification seemed to be his loud, performative approach to serving in Sacramento’s GOP minority.

    Bondi appointed Essayli on an interim basis in early April. His appointment was limited to 120 days; normally within that time he would have been formally nominated and faced confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Knowing the latter was unlikely, the Trump administration executed an end run and named Essayli “acting U.S. attorney,” which gives him an additional 210 days in the job before he faces formal confirmation.

    As it happened, the very same day that maneuvering took place, prosecutors moved to dismiss charges in a criminal case involving one of Trump’s political donors.

    Coincidence?

    The same sleight-of-hand — interim appointment, designation as “acting U.S. attorney” — was used to extend the tenure of Trump sycophants as chief federal prosecutors in New Jersey, New Mexico, upstate New York and, in Chattah’s case, Nevada.

    (In a setback for Trump, a federal judge ruled last week that his former personal attorney, Alina Habba, was unlawfully serving as New Jersey’s top prosecutor, though the order was put on hold pending appeal.)

    Chattah’s partisanship is plain as a desert squall. In a remarkable breach of protocol and ethics — not to mention the federal law forbidding employees from mixing work and politics — she kept her position as Nevada’s representative on the Republican National Committee even as she served as interim U.S. attorney.

    Chattah abandoned the post only after the Nevada Independent reported on the obvious conflict of interest.

    Last month, in the final days before Chattah’s interim appointment ended, more than 100 retired state and federal judges wrote Nevada’s chief federal district judge to object to her continued service. The group said Chattah’s history of “racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements” was disqualifying.

    The Trump administration extended her tenure nonetheless.

    As part of their unavailing effort, the judges quoted a 1940 speech then-U.S. Atty. Gen. Robert H. Jackson delivered, citing the immense power and responsibility that rests with a U.S. attorney.

    “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous,” said Jackson, who went on to serve as one of the Supreme Court’s most distinguished justices. “… The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.

    “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

    Obviously, Jackson never knew Chattah or other Trump appointees besmirching the halls of justice. But the late justice, buried at Maple Grove Cemetery in Frewsburg, N.Y., is doubtless turning somersaults in his grave.

    [ad_2]

    Mark Z. Barabak

    Source link

  • Judge blocks Trump from withholding funds from Los Angeles, other sanctuary cities

    [ad_1]

    By Dietrich Knauth and Nate Raymond

    (Reuters) -A U.S. federal judge on Friday blocked Donald Trump‘s administration from withholding federal funding from more than 30 so-called sanctuary jurisdictions including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago that have declined to cooperate with the Republican president’s hardline immigration crackdown.

    U.S. District Judge William Orrick expanded an injunction that he initially issued in April covering 16 cities and counties including San Francisco, where he is based, to cover a new batch of local governments that recently joined the case and sought to be protected under his court order.

    The lawsuit was filed after Trump signed two executive orders in January and February that the cities and counties said unlawfully threatened to cut off funding to them unless they cooperated with federal immigration law enforcement, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    Those orders targeted so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that have laws and policies that limit or prevent local law enforcement from assisting federal officers with civil immigration arrests.

    Orrick on Friday said Trump’s orders “threaten to withhold all federal funding from the plaintiffs as sanctuary jurisdictions if they do not adapt their policies and practices to conform with the Trump administration’s preferences.”

    “That coercive threat (and any actions agencies take to realize that threat, or additional Executive Orders the President issues to the same end) is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect,” Orrick wrote. “I do so again today for the protection of the new parties in this case.”

    The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration is already appealing Orrick’s earlier ruling.

    Among the cities covered by Orrick’s new order is Los Angeles. Trump’s deployment in June of the National Guard to patrol Los Angeles after protests against intensified federal immigration raids is the subject of a separate lawsuit by California Governor Gavin Newsom.

    (Reporting by Dietrich Knauth in New York and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Kim Coghill)

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge tells Trump admin to pack up Alligator Alcatraz, leave the Everglades, Big Cypress

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge says the Trump administration must halt construction, stop bringing new detainees, and begin winding down operations at the mass detention center in the Big Cypress National Preserve known as Alligator Alcatraz.

    “This is a landmark victory for the Everglades and countless Americans who believe this imperiled wilderness should be protected, not exploited,” said Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades. “It sends a clear message that environmental laws must be respected by leaders at the highest levels of our government — and there are consequences for ignoring them.”

    U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued a temporary restraining order on Aug, 7, which put a stop to new construction and any additional infrastructure at Alligator Alcatraz for two weeks.

    Late in the evening on Aug. 21 she doubled-down on the restraining order, saying the state and federal government should pack everything up at Alligator Alcatraz and prepare to shut down the facility.

    This preliminary injunction will last until the trial is complete.

    The ruling stems from a June 27 lawsuit filed by Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, and joined by the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida.

    “This ruling affirms what we argued in court — that the government can’t just build something in the middle of the Everglades and the Big Cypress preserve with no environmental review, and no public input,” said Tania Galloni, managing attorney for the Florida office of Earthjustice. “This is why we have environmental laws — to protect the wetlands and ecosystems we all depend on from illegal development.”

    Others said the detainment facility is a clear violation of major federal laws put in place to protect wildernesses like the Big Cypress and Everglades National Park.

    “The state and federal government paved over 20 acres of open land, built a parking lot for 1,200 cars and 3,000 detainees, placed miles of fencing and high-intensity lighting on site and moved thousands of detainees and contractors onto land in the heart of the Big Cypress National Preserve, all in flagrant violation of environmental law,” said Paul Schwiep, counsel for Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity.

    Protestors gather at the entrance of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport on Tuesday, July 1, 2025. It is being transformed into a detention center that is known as “Alligator Alcatraz”.

    More: Naples Daily News reporter Chad Gillis describing the scene outside Alligator Alcatraz

    Alligator Alcatraz sprang to existence early this year, after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced on social media that a detention facility would be constructed at the old jetport in rural eastern Collier County.

    That facility has been managed and maintained by Miami-Dade County for decades but was taken over by the state when Gov. Ron DeSantis declared a state of emergency, which allowed the construction of the center to bypass staff review, public comment and permitting.

    A campground is lit up at night with the Milky Way overhead. The photo was taken near Skillet Strand in the Big Cypress National Preserve, a 730,000-acre conservation property where Alligator Alcatraz is being built.

    A campground is lit up at night with the Milky Way overhead. The photo was taken near Skillet Strand in the Big Cypress National Preserve, a 730,000-acre conservation property where Alligator Alcatraz is being built.

    Typically a facility proposed within the boundaries of a National Park Service preserve must go through extensive federal review, a process that can take years.

    Alligator Alcatraz was up and running in a matter of days, by July 2.

    More: Hundreds flock to Clyde Butcher’s gallery to hear him speak on Alligator Alcatraz

    The defendants in the case include the Florida Division of Emergency Management, the Department of Homeland Security, ICE and Miami-Dade County.

    In another case focusing on plaintiffs legal and civil rights, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz ruled Aug. 18 the matter should move to a different court while also declaring part of the lawsuit moot.

    At the heart of the case was whether the government had violated detainees’ rights to due process and legal counsel. Civil rights attorneys had said the remote Everglades facility made it nearly impossible for immigrants to speak confidentially with lawyers or even find out which immigration court can hear their cases. The plaintiffs’ attorneys filed suit in the Southern District of Florida, which includes Miami-Dade County, though state and federal officials argued that it should have been filed in the Middle District of Florida, which includes Collier County.

    In his 47-page order, Ruiz agreed, transferring the case to the middle district. He also dismissed the immigration-court allegations in the lawsuit, saying they were moot after a federal decision that judges at Krome North Processing Service Center would handle the detainees’ cases.

    The case now heads to “a sister court in the Middle District of Florida to reach the merits of plaintiffs’ remaining claims under the First Amendment,” Ruiz wrote.

    Amy Bennett Williams contributed to this story.

    This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Alligator Alcatraz: Judge moves to shut down Florida detention center

    [ad_2]

    Source link