Trump withdraws his harassment lawfare litigation against journo Anne Selzer from Federal Court to avoid a judicial dismissal and then immediately files exactly the same nonsense lawsuit in Iowa state court. Clear abuse of process and intimidation.
update - Abrego Garcia gives details of torture and ill treatment at CECOT
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
The Trump administration has brought few apparent penalties against businesses employing undocumented immigrants, despite promising to use unprecedented enforcement actions against employers to break up the economic incentives for illegal immigration.
A Washington Post analysis found that just one business has faced charges from among the roughly two dozen the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has announced raiding.
In that case, stemming from a March operation, the manager of a San Diego powder coating business pleaded guilty earlier this month to a pattern of hiring undocumented immigrants, admitting to employing at least 10 people illegally.
The manager, John Washburn, was sentenced to a year of probation and 50 hours of community service, the Justice Department said.
ICE said in April it had subpoenaed records on about 1,200 business, netted the highest rate of worker arrests in its history, and proposed $1 million in fines related to workplace operations.
The apparently lax enforcement against employers comes despite promises of tough penalties for those hiring undocumented people.
The Department of Homeland Security has vowed there will be no “safe spaces” for employers illegally hiring undocumented people.
“You’re going to see more work site enforcement than you’ve ever seen in the history of this nation,” White House border czar Tom Homan said earlier this month. “We’re going to flood the zone.”
While few companies appear to have been hit with punishments scores of workers have been arrested.
Immigration raids have taken place at or near businesses across the country, ranging from restaurants and farm fields, to Home Depot parking lots around Los Angeles to a Louisiana race track. More than 55,000 people are estimated to currently be in immigration detention.
The Independent has contacted the White House for comment on worksite enforcement levels, which deferred to the Department Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Justice Department, when asked about enforcement levels, provided the following statement: “Under President Trump and Attorney General Bondi’s leadership, the Department of Justice will enforce federal immigration laws and hold bad actors accountable when they employ illegal aliens in violation of federal law.”
In recent weeks, Trump, whose own businesses have been accused of illegally using migrant labor, has toyed with finding some sort of immigration compromise for businesses in hospitality and agriculture, which rely heavily on immigrant labor. But his immigration officials have insisted workplace raids will continue everywhere.
“We’re working on it right now. We’re going to work it so that some kind of a temporary pass where people pay taxes, where the farmer can have a little control, as opposed to you walk in and take everybody away,” Trump said in an interview that aired Sunday on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.
Trump threatened tough punishment for employers who hired migrant workers. So far only a handful have faced the wrath
A Washington Post analysis found that just one business has faced charges from among the roughly two dozen the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has announced raiding.
In that case, stemming from a March operation, the manager of a San Diego powder coating business pleaded guilty earlier this month to a pattern of hiring undocumented immigrants, admitting to employing at least 10 people illegally.
The manager, John Washburn, was sentenced to a year of probation and 50 hours of community service, the Justice Department said.
ICE said in April it had subpoenaed records on about 1,200 business, netted the highest rate of worker arrests in its history, and proposed $1 million in fines related to workplace operations.
The apparently lax enforcement against employers comes despite promises of tough penalties for those hiring undocumented people.
The Department of Homeland Security has vowed there will be no “safe spaces” for employers illegally hiring undocumented people.
“You’re going to see more work site enforcement than you’ve ever seen in the history of this nation,” White House border czar Tom Homan said earlier this month. “We’re going to flood the zone.”
While few companies appear to have been hit with punishments scores of workers have been arrested.
Immigration raids have taken place at or near businesses across the country, ranging from restaurants and farm fields, to Home Depot parking lots around Los Angeles to a Louisiana race track. More than 55,000 people are estimated to currently be in immigration detention.
The Independent has contacted the White House for comment on worksite enforcement levels, which deferred to the Department Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Justice Department, when asked about enforcement levels, provided the following statement: “Under President Trump and Attorney General Bondi’s leadership, the Department of Justice will enforce federal immigration laws and hold bad actors accountable when they employ illegal aliens in violation of federal law.”
In recent weeks, Trump, whose own businesses have been accused of illegally using migrant labor, has toyed with finding some sort of immigration compromise for businesses in hospitality and agriculture, which rely heavily on immigrant labor. But his immigration officials have insisted workplace raids will continue everywhere.
“We’re working on it right now. We’re going to work it so that some kind of a temporary pass where people pay taxes, where the farmer can have a little control, as opposed to you walk in and take everybody away,” Trump said in an interview that aired Sunday on Fox News’ Sunday Morning Futures.
Trump threatened tough punishment for employers who hired migrant workers. So far only a handful have faced the wrath
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled that recent mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services were likely unlawful and ordered the Trump administration to halt plans to downsize and reorganize the nation's health workforce.
U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose granted the preliminary injunction sought by a coalition of attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit filed in early May.
DuBose said the states had shown “irreparable harm,” from the cuts and were likely to prevail in their claims that “HHS’s action was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to law.”
“The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress,” DuBose wrote in a 58-page order handed down in U.S. district court in Providence.
Her order blocks the Trump administration from finalizing layoffs announced in March or issuing any further firings. HHS is directed to file a status report by July 11.
The ruling applies to terminated employees in four different divisions of HHS: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Center for Tobacco Products within the Food and Drug Administration; the Office of Head Start within the Administration for Children and Families and employees of regional offices who work on Head Start matters; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. eliminated more than 10,000 employees in late March and consolidated 28 agencies to 15. Since then, agencies including the CDC have repeatedly rescinded layoffs affecting hundreds of employees, including in branches that monitor HIV, hepatitis and other diseases.
The attorneys general argued that the massive restructuring was arbitrary and outside of the scope of the agency's authority. The lawsuit also says the action decimated essential programs and pushed burdensome costs onto states.
“The intended effect … was the wholesale elimination of many HHS programs that are critical to public health and safety,” the lawsuit argued.
The cuts are part of a federal “Make America Healthy Again” directive to streamline costly agencies and reduce redundancies. Kennedy told senators at a May 14 hearing that there is “so much chaos and disorganization" at HHS.
But the restructuring had eliminated key teams that regulate food safety and drugs, as well as support a wide range of programs for tobacco, HIV prevention and maternal and infant health. Kennedy has since said that because of mistakes, 20% of people fired might be reinstated.
HHS layoffs were likely unlawful and must be halted, US judge says
U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose granted the preliminary injunction sought by a coalition of attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit filed in early May.
DuBose said the states had shown “irreparable harm,” from the cuts and were likely to prevail in their claims that “HHS’s action was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to law.”
“The executive branch does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress,” DuBose wrote in a 58-page order handed down in U.S. district court in Providence.
Her order blocks the Trump administration from finalizing layoffs announced in March or issuing any further firings. HHS is directed to file a status report by July 11.
The ruling applies to terminated employees in four different divisions of HHS: the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Center for Tobacco Products within the Food and Drug Administration; the Office of Head Start within the Administration for Children and Families and employees of regional offices who work on Head Start matters; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. eliminated more than 10,000 employees in late March and consolidated 28 agencies to 15. Since then, agencies including the CDC have repeatedly rescinded layoffs affecting hundreds of employees, including in branches that monitor HIV, hepatitis and other diseases.
The attorneys general argued that the massive restructuring was arbitrary and outside of the scope of the agency's authority. The lawsuit also says the action decimated essential programs and pushed burdensome costs onto states.
“The intended effect … was the wholesale elimination of many HHS programs that are critical to public health and safety,” the lawsuit argued.
The cuts are part of a federal “Make America Healthy Again” directive to streamline costly agencies and reduce redundancies. Kennedy told senators at a May 14 hearing that there is “so much chaos and disorganization" at HHS.
But the restructuring had eliminated key teams that regulate food safety and drugs, as well as support a wide range of programs for tobacco, HIV prevention and maternal and infant health. Kennedy has since said that because of mistakes, 20% of people fired might be reinstated.
HHS layoffs were likely unlawful and must be halted, US judge says
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, who were fired by President Donald Trump and then reinstated by a federal judge.
Trump has the power to fire independent agency board members, the Justice Department argued in its filing to the high court, pointing to a May ruling by the Supreme Court that endorsed a robust view of presidential power.
The administration asked the court for an immediate order to allow the firings to go forward, over the objections of lawyers for the commissioners.
The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward.
A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members “without cause.” The three liberal justices dissented.
The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch.
Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive.
The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.
The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president’s party. They serve staggered terms.
That structure ensures that each president has “the opportunity to influence, but not control,” the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission’s independence.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Trump asks Supreme Court to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Trump has the power to fire independent agency board members, the Justice Department argued in its filing to the high court, pointing to a May ruling by the Supreme Court that endorsed a robust view of presidential power.
The administration asked the court for an immediate order to allow the firings to go forward, over the objections of lawyers for the commissioners.
The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump fired the three Democrats on the five-member commission in May. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Joe Biden.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox in Baltimore ruled in June that the dismissals were unlawful. Maddox sought to distinguish the commission's role from those of other agencies where the Supreme Court has allowed firings to go forward.
A month earlier, the high court's conservative majority declined to reinstate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board finding that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members “without cause.” The three liberal justices dissented.
The administration has argued that all the agencies are under Trump's control as the head of the executive branch.
Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted that it can be difficult to characterize the product safety commission's functions as purely executive.
The fight over the president's power to fire could prompt the court to consider overturning a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.
The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president’s party. They serve staggered terms.
That structure ensures that each president has “the opportunity to influence, but not control,” the commission, attorneys for the fired commissioners wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission’s independence.
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Trump asks Supreme Court to remove 3 Democrats on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
WASHINGTON (AP) — A former FBI agent who was charged with joining a mob's attack on the U.S. Capitol and cheering on rioters is now working as an adviser to the Justice Department official overseeing its “weaponization working group,” which is examining President Donald Trump's claims of anti-conservative bias inside the department.
The former FBI supervisory agent, Jared Lane Wise, is serving as a counselor to Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin Jr., who also serves as director of the working group, according to a person familiar with the matter. The person was not authorized to publicly discuss a personnel matter and spoke on condition of anonymity.
A department spokesperson declined to comment. The New York Times was first to report on Wise's appointment.
When Trump returned to the White House in January, he picked Martin to serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. But the president pulled his nomination to keep the job on a more permanent basis two days after a key Republican senator said he could not support Martin for the job due to his defense of Capitol rioters.
Martin was a leading figure in Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement. He spoke at a rally in Washington on the eve of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. He represented three Jan. 6 defendants and served on the board of the nonprofit Patriot Freedom Project, which reports raising over $2.5 million to support riot defendants.
Attorney General Pam Bondi called for creating the “weaponization” group in February to investigate claims by Trump and Republican allies that the Justice Department unfairly targeted conservatives during President Joe Biden’s administration. The group's review includes the work of former special counsel Jack Smith, who led two federal prosecutions of Trump that were ultimately abandoned after Trump was elected to a second term.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro replaced Martin as the top federal prosecutor in Washington, but Martin immediately moved over to his current Justice Department position.
Wise, who worked as a special agent or supervisory special agent for the FBI from 2004 through 2017, was arrested in Oregon on Capitol riot-related misdemeanor charges in May 2023.
Wise repeatedly shouted, “Kill ’em!” as he watched rioters assaulting officers outside the Capitol, according to an FBI agent’s affidavit. Wise clapped his hands and raised his arms ”in triumph” after he entered the building through the Senate wing door, the affidavit says. He left the building about nine minutes after entering.
Police body camera footage showed Wise berating police officers outside the Capitol and repeatedly shouting, “Shame on you!”
“I’m former law enforcement," he told them." You’re disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can’t see it.”
Wise was on trial in Washington when Trump returned to the White House in January and immediately pardoned, commuted prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of cases for all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in the attack. The case against Wise was dismissed before the jury reached a verdict.
Ex-FBI agent charged in Capitol riot now works on Justice Department's 'weaponization' task force
The former FBI supervisory agent, Jared Lane Wise, is serving as a counselor to Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin Jr., who also serves as director of the working group, according to a person familiar with the matter. The person was not authorized to publicly discuss a personnel matter and spoke on condition of anonymity.
A department spokesperson declined to comment. The New York Times was first to report on Wise's appointment.
When Trump returned to the White House in January, he picked Martin to serve as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. But the president pulled his nomination to keep the job on a more permanent basis two days after a key Republican senator said he could not support Martin for the job due to his defense of Capitol rioters.
Martin was a leading figure in Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement. He spoke at a rally in Washington on the eve of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. He represented three Jan. 6 defendants and served on the board of the nonprofit Patriot Freedom Project, which reports raising over $2.5 million to support riot defendants.
Attorney General Pam Bondi called for creating the “weaponization” group in February to investigate claims by Trump and Republican allies that the Justice Department unfairly targeted conservatives during President Joe Biden’s administration. The group's review includes the work of former special counsel Jack Smith, who led two federal prosecutions of Trump that were ultimately abandoned after Trump was elected to a second term.
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro replaced Martin as the top federal prosecutor in Washington, but Martin immediately moved over to his current Justice Department position.
Wise, who worked as a special agent or supervisory special agent for the FBI from 2004 through 2017, was arrested in Oregon on Capitol riot-related misdemeanor charges in May 2023.
Wise repeatedly shouted, “Kill ’em!” as he watched rioters assaulting officers outside the Capitol, according to an FBI agent’s affidavit. Wise clapped his hands and raised his arms ”in triumph” after he entered the building through the Senate wing door, the affidavit says. He left the building about nine minutes after entering.
Police body camera footage showed Wise berating police officers outside the Capitol and repeatedly shouting, “Shame on you!”
“I’m former law enforcement," he told them." You’re disgusting. You are the Nazi. You are the Gestapo. You can’t see it.”
Wise was on trial in Washington when Trump returned to the White House in January and immediately pardoned, commuted prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of cases for all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in the attack. The case against Wise was dismissed before the jury reached a verdict.
Ex-FBI agent charged in Capitol riot now works on Justice Department's 'weaponization' task force
Judge blocks ‘sweeping’ asylum crackdown after Trump declared ‘invasion’ at southern border
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump’s proclamation declaring an “invasion” at the border cannot be used to justify the unilateral restrictions he sought to impose on asylum seekers.
The judge said his ruling will apply to all people “who are currently present or who will be present in the United States." | Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s effort to crack down on asylum claims by immigrants crossing the southern border vastly exceeded his legal authority and must be halted, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump’s Jan. 20 proclamation declaring an “invasion” of southern border-crossers cannot be used to justify the “sweeping” unilateral restrictions he sought to impose, including severe limits to asylum applications and the ability to seek protection from torture.
Under Trump’s proclamation, people who crossed the southern border between “ports of entry” are barred from seeking asylum or invoking other legal protections that would allow them to temporarily remain in the U.S. while their claims are processed.
And the proclamation further says that immigrants who do arrive at ports of entry — designated locations where people can enter the country legally — are severely restricted from invoking those protections. To do so, they must provide far more detailed personal information than is required under federal immigration law, such as extensive medical and criminal histories.
By imposing the severe restrictions, the proclamation allows immigration authorities to quickly deport people who say they are fleeing violence, persecution or humanitarian strife, rather than processing their claims. Trump and his allies say this was a necessary step to regain control of an overrun border.
But Moss said those limitations go far beyond what the law allows. Existing procedures in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge said, provide the “sole and exclusive” means for the federal government to deport people who cross the border illegally — no matter how cumbersome or inadequate the administration views the process. Trump’s proclamation established “an alternative immigration system” that has no basis in law, the judge ruled.
“Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President … the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,” Moss wrote in the 128-page ruling. “An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”
Moss, an Obama appointee in Washington, said his ruling will apply to all people “who are currently present or who will be present in the United States” and might face the restrictions being challenged in the case. He said a separate ruling would address similar claims by those already deported under the procedures he has found to be illegal.
“The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote. “But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”
Moss agreed to pause his ruling for two weeks to give Trump a chance to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling is the latest legal setback for Trump’s mass deportation agenda, a particularly significant repudiation coming just days after the Supreme Court sharply limited the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal government policies. That decision came in cases challenging his effort to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and foreigners on short-term visas, although the justices did not directly address that issue.
Moss acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions but noted that the decision left room for judges to act under a federal law that allows them to “set aside” efforts by government agencies to implement new policies the courts deem unlawful. Moss’ ruling effectively blocks federal agencies from implementing Trump’s proclamation and requires that immigrants covered by the decision continue to have the ability to seek asylum or relief under the international Convention Against Torture.
A White House spokesperson called the ruling “an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty” and said the administration would appeal.
“A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally. The judge’s decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come to in illegally,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.
Other administration officials used even harsher language to disparaged Moss.
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called Moss “a rogue district judge” and said he was “threatening the safety and security of Americans.”
Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said Moss had “no authority” to issue the order he did. “Judge Moss thinks he is Emperor Moss,” the spokesperson said.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump’s proclamation declaring an “invasion” at the border cannot be used to justify the unilateral restrictions he sought to impose on asylum seekers.
The judge said his ruling will apply to all people “who are currently present or who will be present in the United States." | Guillermo Arias/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump’s effort to crack down on asylum claims by immigrants crossing the southern border vastly exceeded his legal authority and must be halted, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said Trump’s Jan. 20 proclamation declaring an “invasion” of southern border-crossers cannot be used to justify the “sweeping” unilateral restrictions he sought to impose, including severe limits to asylum applications and the ability to seek protection from torture.
Under Trump’s proclamation, people who crossed the southern border between “ports of entry” are barred from seeking asylum or invoking other legal protections that would allow them to temporarily remain in the U.S. while their claims are processed.
And the proclamation further says that immigrants who do arrive at ports of entry — designated locations where people can enter the country legally — are severely restricted from invoking those protections. To do so, they must provide far more detailed personal information than is required under federal immigration law, such as extensive medical and criminal histories.
By imposing the severe restrictions, the proclamation allows immigration authorities to quickly deport people who say they are fleeing violence, persecution or humanitarian strife, rather than processing their claims. Trump and his allies say this was a necessary step to regain control of an overrun border.
But Moss said those limitations go far beyond what the law allows. Existing procedures in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge said, provide the “sole and exclusive” means for the federal government to deport people who cross the border illegally — no matter how cumbersome or inadequate the administration views the process. Trump’s proclamation established “an alternative immigration system” that has no basis in law, the judge ruled.
“Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President … the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,” Moss wrote in the 128-page ruling. “An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”
Moss, an Obama appointee in Washington, said his ruling will apply to all people “who are currently present or who will be present in the United States” and might face the restrictions being challenged in the case. He said a separate ruling would address similar claims by those already deported under the procedures he has found to be illegal.
“The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote. “But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”
Moss agreed to pause his ruling for two weeks to give Trump a chance to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling is the latest legal setback for Trump’s mass deportation agenda, a particularly significant repudiation coming just days after the Supreme Court sharply limited the ability of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal government policies. That decision came in cases challenging his effort to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants and foreigners on short-term visas, although the justices did not directly address that issue.
Moss acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling on nationwide injunctions but noted that the decision left room for judges to act under a federal law that allows them to “set aside” efforts by government agencies to implement new policies the courts deem unlawful. Moss’ ruling effectively blocks federal agencies from implementing Trump’s proclamation and requires that immigrants covered by the decision continue to have the ability to seek asylum or relief under the international Convention Against Torture.
A White House spokesperson called the ruling “an attack on our Constitution, the laws Congress enacted, and our national sovereignty” and said the administration would appeal.
“A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally. The judge’s decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come to in illegally,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said.
Other administration officials used even harsher language to disparaged Moss.
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called Moss “a rogue district judge” and said he was “threatening the safety and security of Americans.”
Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said Moss had “no authority” to issue the order he did. “Judge Moss thinks he is Emperor Moss,” the spokesperson said.
