update - Federal judge allows deportations to South Sudan after reconsideration
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
President Donald Trump's crackdown on asylum-seekers was dealt a major blow on Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled that the administration had vastly overstepped its legal authority with an executive order issued on the first day of his second term.
Politico reports that Moss found that Trump's January 20 executive order slapping new restrictions on asylum-seekers even if they arrive at proper points of entry exceeded his powers as outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which the judge described as containing the "sole and exclusive" procedure for properly deporting undocumented immigrants. In fact, Moss went so far as to say that Trump had established "an alternative immigration system" with his asylum order.
Moss—appointed to the district court in Washington, D.C. by former President Barack Obama—also didn't buy the administration's rationale that such drastic measures were necessary due to the emergency of an "invasion" at the southern border.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president... the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance," the judge wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in court, praised the ruling as "a hugely important decision" that will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
The original Trump order not only barred asylum-seekers who showed up at the border outside the proper points of entry, but also mandated that asylum-seekers at the points of entry provide additional documentation beyond what is required by law, including medical histories and information about potential past criminal records.
Moss' order is not going into effect immediately as he is giving the administration two weeks to prepare an appeal.
Trump dealt major blow in 'hugely important' court ruling
Politico reports that Moss found that Trump's January 20 executive order slapping new restrictions on asylum-seekers even if they arrive at proper points of entry exceeded his powers as outlined by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which the judge described as containing the "sole and exclusive" procedure for properly deporting undocumented immigrants. In fact, Moss went so far as to say that Trump had established "an alternative immigration system" with his asylum order.
Moss—appointed to the district court in Washington, D.C. by former President Barack Obama—also didn't buy the administration's rationale that such drastic measures were necessary due to the emergency of an "invasion" at the southern border.
"Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the president... the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance," the judge wrote. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void."
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who argued the case in court, praised the ruling as "a hugely important decision" that will "save the lives of families fleeing grave danger" and "reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."
The original Trump order not only barred asylum-seekers who showed up at the border outside the proper points of entry, but also mandated that asylum-seekers at the points of entry provide additional documentation beyond what is required by law, including medical histories and information about potential past criminal records.
Moss' order is not going into effect immediately as he is giving the administration two weeks to prepare an appeal.
Trump dealt major blow in 'hugely important' court ruling
DENVER (AP) — A federal judge on Wednesday ended an order blocking the deportation of the family of the man charged in the fatal firebomb attack in Boulder, Colorado, noting government lawyers say the man's relatives are not being rushed out of the country as the White House originally stated.
Hayam El Gamal and her five children were detained by immigration agents on June 3, two days after her husband Mohamed Sabry Soliman was accused of throwing two Molotov cocktails at people demonstrating for awareness of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Prosecutors announced Monday that an 82-year-old woman who was injured in the attack had died.
U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garica dismissed the family's lawsuit challenging their detention by immigration authorities. The ruling noted that El Gamal and her children ages 4 to 18 are not eligible for expedited deportations because they have been in the country for over two years, which he said lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have acknowledged.
Soliman is an Egyptian national who federal authorities say was living in the U.S. illegally. He is being prosecuted in both state and federal court for the attack, which prosecutors say injured a total of 13 people. Investigators say he planned the attack for a year and was driven by a desire “to kill all Zionist people.” He has pleaded not guilty to federal hate crimes charges but hasn't been asked to enter a plea in the state case, which now includes a murder charge.
On the day El Gamal and her children were arrested, the White House said in social media posts that they “COULD BE DEPORTED AS EARLY AS TONIGHT” and that six one-way tickets had been purchased for them, with their “final boarding call coming soon." Those statements led a federal judge in Colorado to issue an emergency order temporarily blocking the family's deportation, Garcia said.
The case was later transferred to Texas, where the family is being held in an immigration detention center for families. Garcia is based in San Antonio.
Because the family is in regular deportation proceedings, there is no longer any reason to block their deportation, Garcia said. Regular proceedings can take months or even years if decisions are appealed. He also turned down the family's request to be released from the detention center in the meantime, saying they can pursue release through the normal bond process in the immigration system.
Lawyers for the family had challenged their detention as unconstitutional because they said it was intended to punish them for Soliman's actions. According to a court filing by El Gamal's lawyers, one of the immigration agents who arrested them told her, “You have to pay for the consequences of what you did.”
Garcia said immigration authorities have discretion in deciding who to detain and he did not have authority to review their decision to detain El Gamal and her children. Lawyers for the government said they are being lawfully held because they are accused of overstaying their visas.
One of the family's attorneys, Niels Frenzen, said they hoped to get the family released from the detention center while the deportation proceedings continue.
An email seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was not immediately returned.
Colleen Slevin, The Associated Press
Judge ends order blocking deportation of family of man charged in Boulder firebomb attack
Hayam El Gamal and her five children were detained by immigration agents on June 3, two days after her husband Mohamed Sabry Soliman was accused of throwing two Molotov cocktails at people demonstrating for awareness of Israeli hostages in Gaza. Prosecutors announced Monday that an 82-year-old woman who was injured in the attack had died.
U.S. District Judge Orlando L. Garica dismissed the family's lawsuit challenging their detention by immigration authorities. The ruling noted that El Gamal and her children ages 4 to 18 are not eligible for expedited deportations because they have been in the country for over two years, which he said lawyers for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have acknowledged.
Soliman is an Egyptian national who federal authorities say was living in the U.S. illegally. He is being prosecuted in both state and federal court for the attack, which prosecutors say injured a total of 13 people. Investigators say he planned the attack for a year and was driven by a desire “to kill all Zionist people.” He has pleaded not guilty to federal hate crimes charges but hasn't been asked to enter a plea in the state case, which now includes a murder charge.
On the day El Gamal and her children were arrested, the White House said in social media posts that they “COULD BE DEPORTED AS EARLY AS TONIGHT” and that six one-way tickets had been purchased for them, with their “final boarding call coming soon." Those statements led a federal judge in Colorado to issue an emergency order temporarily blocking the family's deportation, Garcia said.
The case was later transferred to Texas, where the family is being held in an immigration detention center for families. Garcia is based in San Antonio.
Because the family is in regular deportation proceedings, there is no longer any reason to block their deportation, Garcia said. Regular proceedings can take months or even years if decisions are appealed. He also turned down the family's request to be released from the detention center in the meantime, saying they can pursue release through the normal bond process in the immigration system.
Lawyers for the family had challenged their detention as unconstitutional because they said it was intended to punish them for Soliman's actions. According to a court filing by El Gamal's lawyers, one of the immigration agents who arrested them told her, “You have to pay for the consequences of what you did.”
Garcia said immigration authorities have discretion in deciding who to detain and he did not have authority to review their decision to detain El Gamal and her children. Lawyers for the government said they are being lawfully held because they are accused of overstaying their visas.
One of the family's attorneys, Niels Frenzen, said they hoped to get the family released from the detention center while the deportation proceedings continue.
An email seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was not immediately returned.
Colleen Slevin, The Associated Press
Judge ends order blocking deportation of family of man charged in Boulder firebomb attack
The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is looking into potentially filing criminal charges against election officials pegged by the Trump administration for allegedly failing to keep a close eye on their electronic voting systems, according to The New York Times.
The report comes as Donald Trump continues to claim the 2020 presidential election was "a total fraud" that was rigged against him. The president wrote on social media last month, "The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!"
However, the Times reported that far from "overwhelming," the evidence of alleged electronic voter fraud being considered by the DOJ isn't new or groundbreaking.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
"Instead," the effort "is driven by the unsubstantiated argument made by many in the Trump administration that American elections are easy prey to voter fraud and foreign manipulation," wrote reporters Devlin Barrett and Nick Corasaniti.
"Such a path could significantly raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, thrusting the Justice Department and the threat of criminalization into the election system in a way that has never been done before," they added.
The report quoted Dax Goldstein with the nonprofit States United Democracy Center, saying, “The tactics we’re seeing out of D.O.J. right now are building on what we’ve seen from anti-democracy groups for years. They’re rooted in the same lies about elections, and they’re all meant to create noise and fear and concerns about issues with our elections that just don’t exist. Our elections are safe and secure, and election officials are working to keep them that way.”
Election experts also expressed concern that "under the guise of election integrity," the DOJ "could end up using their unique tools to introduce new vulnerabilities to the system.”
Read The New York Times article here.
The report comes as Donald Trump continues to claim the 2020 presidential election was "a total fraud" that was rigged against him. The president wrote on social media last month, "The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!"
However, the Times reported that far from "overwhelming," the evidence of alleged electronic voter fraud being considered by the DOJ isn't new or groundbreaking.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
"Instead," the effort "is driven by the unsubstantiated argument made by many in the Trump administration that American elections are easy prey to voter fraud and foreign manipulation," wrote reporters Devlin Barrett and Nick Corasaniti.
"Such a path could significantly raise the stakes for federal investigations of state or county officials, thrusting the Justice Department and the threat of criminalization into the election system in a way that has never been done before," they added.
The report quoted Dax Goldstein with the nonprofit States United Democracy Center, saying, “The tactics we’re seeing out of D.O.J. right now are building on what we’ve seen from anti-democracy groups for years. They’re rooted in the same lies about elections, and they’re all meant to create noise and fear and concerns about issues with our elections that just don’t exist. Our elections are safe and secure, and election officials are working to keep them that way.”
Election experts also expressed concern that "under the guise of election integrity," the DOJ "could end up using their unique tools to introduce new vulnerabilities to the system.”
Read The New York Times article here.
A federal judge on Friday briefly halted deportations of eight immigrants to war-torn South Sudan, sending the case to another judge, in Boston, the day after the Supreme Court greenlighted their removal.
District Judge Randolph Moss sent the case north from Washington after an extraordinary Fourth of July hearing on Friday afternoon. He concluded that the judge best equipped to deal with the issues was Brian Murphy, the one whose rulings led to the initial halt of the Trump administration's effort to begin deportations to the eastern African country.
He extended his order halting the deportation until 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, but it was unclear whether Murphy would act on the federal holiday to further limit the removal. Moss said new claims by the immigrants’ lawyers deserved a hearing.
The administration has been trying to deport the immigrants for weeks. None are from South Sudan, which is enmeshed in civil war and where the U.S government advises no one should travel before making their own funeral arrangements. The government flew them to the U.S. Naval Base at Djibouti but couldn't move them further because Murphy had ruled no immigrant could be sent to a new country without a chance to have a court hearing.
The Supreme Court vacated that decision last month, then Thursday night issued a new order clarifying that that meant the immigrants could be moved to South Sudan. Lawyers for the immigrants, who hail from Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries, filed an emergency request to halt their removal later that night.
The case was assigned to Moss, who briefly barred the administration from moving the immigrants from Djibouti to South Sudan until his afternoon hearing concluded. He slightly extended that bar after he sent the case to Murphy. The administration has said it expected to fly the immigrants to South Sudan sometime Friday.
The temporary stay was first reported by legal journalist Chris Geidner.
Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press
Judge briefly blocks immigrants' deportation to South Sudan after Supreme Court cleared the way
District Judge Randolph Moss sent the case north from Washington after an extraordinary Fourth of July hearing on Friday afternoon. He concluded that the judge best equipped to deal with the issues was Brian Murphy, the one whose rulings led to the initial halt of the Trump administration's effort to begin deportations to the eastern African country.
He extended his order halting the deportation until 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, but it was unclear whether Murphy would act on the federal holiday to further limit the removal. Moss said new claims by the immigrants’ lawyers deserved a hearing.
The administration has been trying to deport the immigrants for weeks. None are from South Sudan, which is enmeshed in civil war and where the U.S government advises no one should travel before making their own funeral arrangements. The government flew them to the U.S. Naval Base at Djibouti but couldn't move them further because Murphy had ruled no immigrant could be sent to a new country without a chance to have a court hearing.
The Supreme Court vacated that decision last month, then Thursday night issued a new order clarifying that that meant the immigrants could be moved to South Sudan. Lawyers for the immigrants, who hail from Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries, filed an emergency request to halt their removal later that night.
The case was assigned to Moss, who briefly barred the administration from moving the immigrants from Djibouti to South Sudan until his afternoon hearing concluded. He slightly extended that bar after he sent the case to Murphy. The administration has said it expected to fly the immigrants to South Sudan sometime Friday.
The temporary stay was first reported by legal journalist Chris Geidner.
Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press
Judge briefly blocks immigrants' deportation to South Sudan after Supreme Court cleared the way
Fully aware that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court is going to extremes to hand Donald Trump multiple victories by use of the so-called "shadow docket," judges in the lower courts are fashioning some of their rulings to work around the nation's highest court.
According to a report from Politico, the Supreme Court has been handcuffing the lower courts by swatting down nationwide injunctions even when they are constitutionally sound which is leading to both plaintiffs, and the judges hearing challenges, to tailor their filings accordingly.
As Politico's Kyle Cheney and Hassan Ali Kanu wrote, "... early results indicate that judges see other paths to impose sweeping restrictions on government actions they deem unlawful. And those options remain viable in many major pending lawsuits against the administration."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Case in point: on Friday U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued an "extraordinary" rejection of a Trump demand to eliminate asylum for most southern border-crossers which has national implications.
Politico is reporting Judge Moss, "emphasized that his decision was not one of the now-verboten injunctions. Instead, it relied on two alternative routes the Supreme Court acknowledged remained available for those challenging Trump’s policies: class actions, which allow large groups to band together and sue over a common problem, and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that permits courts to 'set aside' federal agency actions that violate the law, including rules, regulations and memos laying out new procedures."
That was followed, just hours later when U.S. District Judge John Bates ordered the Trump administration "to restore hundreds of web pages containing gender-related data that officials took down pursuant to a Trump executive order cracking down on 'gender ideology.'"
The report notes that Bates –– a George W. Bush appointee –– "... emphasized that the APA allows courts to effectively undo unjustified agency action, adding that even the Justice Department did 'not argue that more tailored relief is even possible here, let alone appropriate.'"
The Politico report added, "In short, the Supreme Court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions may be the tectonic shift that wasn’t. Despite the extraordinary potential to reshape the judiciary, its immediate impact — particularly in the innumerable challenges to Trump’s effort to single-handedly slash and reshape the federal government — may be limited."
Judges using 'alternative routes' to bypass Supreme Court's pro-Trump rulings
According to a report from Politico, the Supreme Court has been handcuffing the lower courts by swatting down nationwide injunctions even when they are constitutionally sound which is leading to both plaintiffs, and the judges hearing challenges, to tailor their filings accordingly.
As Politico's Kyle Cheney and Hassan Ali Kanu wrote, "... early results indicate that judges see other paths to impose sweeping restrictions on government actions they deem unlawful. And those options remain viable in many major pending lawsuits against the administration."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
Case in point: on Friday U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss issued an "extraordinary" rejection of a Trump demand to eliminate asylum for most southern border-crossers which has national implications.
Politico is reporting Judge Moss, "emphasized that his decision was not one of the now-verboten injunctions. Instead, it relied on two alternative routes the Supreme Court acknowledged remained available for those challenging Trump’s policies: class actions, which allow large groups to band together and sue over a common problem, and the Administrative Procedure Act, a federal law that permits courts to 'set aside' federal agency actions that violate the law, including rules, regulations and memos laying out new procedures."
That was followed, just hours later when U.S. District Judge John Bates ordered the Trump administration "to restore hundreds of web pages containing gender-related data that officials took down pursuant to a Trump executive order cracking down on 'gender ideology.'"
The report notes that Bates –– a George W. Bush appointee –– "... emphasized that the APA allows courts to effectively undo unjustified agency action, adding that even the Justice Department did 'not argue that more tailored relief is even possible here, let alone appropriate.'"
The Politico report added, "In short, the Supreme Court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions may be the tectonic shift that wasn’t. Despite the extraordinary potential to reshape the judiciary, its immediate impact — particularly in the innumerable challenges to Trump’s effort to single-handedly slash and reshape the federal government — may be limited."
Judges using 'alternative routes' to bypass Supreme Court's pro-Trump rulings
Twitter poster draws parallels between historical "jokes" about Blacks being eaten by alligators and the current "jokes" about alligator Alcatraz..
