update - Abrego Garcia released from jail

[mandrill]

Most of the tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed on countries around the world face a crucial legal test on Thursday.

The hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit involves a pair of lawsuits challenging the 25 per cent tariff Trump levied on imports from Canada and Mexico in March and what Trump called his "Liberation Day" tariffs, imposed on nearly every other country in April.




At issue is whether Trump's justifications for the tariffs hold any legal water, given the president has limited powers to levy duties on foreign countries.

Canada is watching the case closely because of its implications for the tariffs Trump imposed ostensibly to combat cross-border fentanyl trafficking — tariffs that he's threatening to raise to 35 per cent on Friday.

Todd Tucker, director of industrial policy and trade at the Roosevelt Institute, a Washington think-tank, says the legal challenge to Trump's tariffs has global economic implications.

"Trump is disrupting global trade relations in a way that we haven't seen since the 1930s," Tucker said in an interview with CBC News.

"Some kind of favourable, even partial victory for the plaintiffs in these cases will sort of put the global economy back on a more secure footing," he said.


Related video: U.S. to halt 'de minimis' tariff exception for low-value packages (CBC)

It has been a deadly night in Kiev.
Video Player is loading.

CBC
U.S. to halt 'de minimis' tariff exception for low-value packages

The case, which has moved further through the courts than any other legal challenge of Trump's tariffs, brings together two related lawsuits:

Both sets of plaintiffs won their case at the U.S. Court of International Trade in late May.

That ruling found the president overstepped his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the statute Trump used to impose both sets of tariffs.

Oral arguments take place Thursday in the Trump administration's appeal of that ruling

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center, a non-profit public interest litigation firm representing the five small businesses, says the case aims to rein in what he describes as presidential overreach.



Trump imposed tariffs on Canada on the basis that the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. across the country's northern border constitutes an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' (Darryl Dyck/The Canadian Press)
"The case is about whether the president has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs on any country he wants, at any rate he wants, at any time he wants, for any reason he wants," said Schwab in an interview with CBC News.

"Congress ultimately has that power under our constitution, and although Congress can delegate that power to the president, they have not done so."




Do tariffs 'deal with' fentanyl crisis?
The IEEPA gives the president the authority to use emergency economic measures to "deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States."

The Trump administration's argument — both in his executive order levying the tariffs on Canada and in its legal brief filed for the appeal — is that the flow of fentanyl across the country's northern border constitutes that "unusual and extraordinary threat."

The administration claimed the tariffs "deal with" the fentanyl threat by giving the U.S. leverage to pressure Canada to address the issue.

Trump's justification for the tariffs on Mexico is similar: that drug trafficking and illegal immigration across the southern border constitute an emergency, and that tariffs provide leverage to force the Mexican government to take action.

But the Court of International Trade didn't buy those arguments.




'Pretty major national significance'
The court ruled that the tariffs on Canada and Mexico do not actually deal with the specific threats Trump cited. It also ruled that the "Liberation Day" tariffs were applied too broadly across the globe to be truly addressing an emergency.

That ruling struck down both sets of tariffs, but almost immediately, the Trump administration requested and obtained a stay, which meant the tariffs have continued to apply.

Molly Nixon, a Washington-based attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a national public interest firm, says whichever side wins the appeal, it's very likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is a question of pretty major national significance," Nixon told CBC News. "I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court didn't review the case."

No president before Trump has used the IEEPA to impose tariffs.

His predecessors have used its powers to levy sanctions on enemy regimes, to ban transactions with groups that are deemed terrorist organizations or to freeze the assets of designated transnational criminal organizations.



Electrical engineer David Levi is the owner of MicroKits, a small business in Charlottesville, Va., that designs and sells make-them-yourself gadget kits and musical instruments. His company is one of five small businesses pursuing a lawsuit against the Trump administration over tariffs. (CBC News)
Small business owner 'deeply invested' in case
While Canadians are predominantly interested in the case for its impact on the fentanyl tariffs, David Levi, an electrical engineer in Charlottesville, Va., is deeply invested in the "Liberation Day" side of the case.

Levi owns MicroKits, a small business that designs and sells make-them-yourself gadget kits and musical instruments. His company is one of the five small-business plaintiffs pursuing the lawsuit.


"The tariffs really affect me, because I have to buy parts internationally," Levi said, adding that the high tariff rates announced on Chinese imports and the uncertainty over costs disrupted his business.

"My worker who actually puts all the parts together, her hours have been cut 40 per cent and in the last three or four months we've missed out on thousands of units of production," he said.

Appeal court ruling expected within weeks
Thursday's hearing is before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.

The case is moving through the courts at what is, for the U.S. legal system, lightning speed. Legal observers say they expect the appeal court to issue a ruling within weeks, likely by early September.


That could soon be followed by the losing party petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.

The case does not address Trump's 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from around the world, which he imposed using a different statute, the president's long-established power to levy duties on imports for reasons of national security.

Other Canadian exports that comply with the rules of origin in the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement are exempt from the fentanyl tariffs, which means nearly 90 per cent of Canadian exports can enter the U.S. tariff free.

This is the court case that could kneecap most Trump tariffs

 

[mandrill]

The Trump administration is weaponizing federal agencies to prop up right-wing media in an unprecedented assault on free speech — with the Federal Trade Commission now forcing advertisers to return toElon Musk's X platform through a controversial merger condition, an expert wrote Wednesday.




In a stunning break from traditional practice, the FTC announced it would only approve a massive ad agency merger if the combined company agrees to never "refuse to place ads on websites for political reasons," journalist Julia Angwin wrote for the New York Times.

The move represents a dramatic expansion of government power, transforming an agency focused on consumer protection into a tool for media manipulation.

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

"While the move would theoretically affect platforms of any political persuasion, there’s little doubt that it is a thinly veiled attempt to prop up X," Angwin wrote.

She claimed Trump was stepping in to save his former ally Elon Musk's company from an advertising death spiral. The platform, formerly Twitter, hemorrhaged advertisers after Musk's takeover unleashed a torrent of antisemitism and conspiracy theories. In 2023, dozens of major brands fled after watchdog groups exposed how their ads were appearing alongside pro-Nazi content.




X's response? Sue the messenger. The company launched legal attacks against Media Matters, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, and multiple advertisers, claiming they were "illegally boycotting" the platform.

Now Trump's FTC is investigating these same watchdog groups for alleged "conspiracy" — a chilling escalation that has Media Matters considering shuttering operations due to crushing legal costs.

"The agency's conditions for approving the ad merger are blatantly inconsistent with the First Amendment right of advertisers not to associate their brands with content or viewpoints that they know consumers find objectionable," Fordham University law professor Olivier Sylvain told reporters.

The implications are staggering. Advertising is a trillion-dollar industry that determines which media survives online. By controlling where ads flow, Trump is essentially controlling the media landscape itself. Marketing firm Forrester has already advised clients in an article titled "X-tortion: How Advertisers Are Losing Control of Media Choice" to buy X ads simply to avoid government retaliation.




This represents a fundamental threat to press freedom. The administration is simultaneously punishing mainstream outlets like the Associated Press, defunding public media, and filing defamation suits against critical coverage while forcing advertisers to fund conservative platforms.

The strategy could channel millions toward Trump's Truth Social and favored right-wing outlets while starving adversarial media of revenue. It's a sophisticated scheme to reshape America's information ecosystem through government coercion — a tactic more befitting authoritarian regimes than democratic societies.

'X-tortion': Trump accused of forcing advertisers to give millions to ex-ally Musk's X

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump's government was in court on Thursday to defend his unilateral takeover of U.S. tariffs despite the Constitution allocating the job to Congress.

Writing for Politico, legal reporter Kyle Cheney characterized the judges as asking questions "sharply."

Several times, the judges on the panel questioned how Trump could use the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify issuing increased tariffs. In the past, the IEEPA has been used to issue sanctions and other penalties, but it has never been used to justify tariffs.



“IEEPA doesn’t mention the word tariffs anywhere,” Judge Jimmie Reyna pointed out during the hearing.

Similarly, Cheney cited Judge Timothy Dyk, saying “it was hard for me to see” that Congress intended to give the president the authority to rewrite the entire U.S. code when it passed the legislation in 1977.

Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate said that Trump's use of the tariffs as a bargaining chip was also an important part of his deal-making process. He cited the deal between the U.S. and the European Union as an example.

However, national security expert Marcy Wheeler, who followed the trial, pointed to one female judge expressing her outrage that the attorney general of Oregon didn't find Trump's reasoning that the United States is in an "emergency" at all persuasive.




"They also assume Trump tells the truth in his EO," wrote Wheeler.

Cheney wrote that some of those judges found Trump's claims "legitimate."

Trump signed his first executive order in April, stating that he would impose stiff tariffs on goods from all countries, thereby nullifying trade deals he had approved during his first term. He set a 90-day deadline, claiming that he would make 90 deals in that time. He reached two. Trump then pushed off the deadline to Aug. 1. He announced Thursday that Mexico's tariffs will also now be delayed while negotiations are ongoing. Since the announcement in April, however, a 10% tax has been imposed on all foreign goods.

"Trump’s justification for the emergency tariffs is the nation’s longstanding and persistent trade deficits with foreign trading partners, which he says have become so acute they now threaten military readiness and America’s manufacturing capacity," wrote Cheney. "He has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on Brazil, citing that country’s trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a former Trump ally, and free speech concerns, which the White House claims amounts to an emergency."

However, the claim that the trade deficit is an emergency prompted skepticism among judges because those deficits have been in effect for a decade or more.

Read the full report here.

'Sharp' appeals court judges signal Trump may lose key court battle: 'Hard for me to see'

 

[mandrill]

In 2020, a disgruntled litigant posing as a deliveryman opened fire at the New Jersey home of District Judge Esther Salas, killing her 20-year-old son Daniel Anderl. Five years later, as President Donald Trump steps up his criticism of federal judges who have blocked some of his agenda, dozens of judges have had unsolicited pizzas delivered to their homes, often in Daniel Anderl’s name.


District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. of Rhode Island, who stalled Trump’s initial round of across-the-board spending cuts, is among those who received pizzas in Anderl's name. His courtroom also has been flooded by threatening calls, including one profanity-laced one that called for his assassination.

McConnell, Jr. played a recording of the call during an unusual discussion Thursday where multiple federal judges discussed threats they have received — a notable conversation because judges usually only speak publicly from the bench and through their rulings, and rarely if ever, about personal threats and attacks. Salas and others said the number of attacks has escalated in recent months.

Without using his name, Salas called on Trump and his allies to tone down the rhetoric and stop demonizing the judiciary, for fear of what more could happen.




“We’re used to being appealed. But keep it on the merits, stop demonizing us,” Salas said. “They’re inviting people to do us harm.”

Thursday’s event was sponsored by Speak up for Justice, a nonpartisan group supporting an independent judiciary. District Judge John C. Coughenour of Washington recalled having a police SWAT team called to his home to respond to a false report of an attack after Coughenour in January halted Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of people in the country illegally.

This image provided by Esther Salas shows U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, in her courtroom in Newark, N.J., March 20, 2025. (Esther Salas via AP)© The Associated Press
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of Washington also had pizzas delivered in Anderl’s name to both his home and those of his two adult children, each in different cities, after an article in which he was quoted as being critical of attacks on judges was picked up by a television station in the Pacific Northwest, where he hears cases.




“The message to me was ‘we know where you live, we know where your kids live, and they could end up dead like Daniel Anderl did,’” Lasnik said in an interview.

Salas says U.S. Marshals have told her of more than 100 cases of so-called “pizza doxings,” unwanted deliveries to the homes of federal judges and their families, since 2024, with most occurring this year. Salas added that she’s heard of additional cases targeting state judges in states ranging from Colorado to Florida, incidents that wouldn’t be tracked by Marshals, who protect federal judges.

“This is not some random, silly act, this is a targeted, concentrated, coordinated attack on judges,” Salas said in an interview, “and yet we don’t hear any condemnation from Washington.”

Salas, nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, in 2022 was critical of protests at the homes of Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices who revoked women’s right to have an abortion, which were followed by the arrest of a man at the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh who said he was there to assassinate the justice. Salas said both sides of the political aisle have used worrying rhetoric about judges, but it’s reached a new peak since Trump took office.


“I’ve often referred to it as a bonfire that I believe the current administration is throwing accelerants on,” Salas said.

Trump himself has led the charge against judges, often going after them by name on social media. He’s said judges who’ve ruled against his administration are “sick,” “very dangerous” and “lunatic.” Trump’s allies have amplified his rhetoric and called for impeaching judges who rule against the president or simply disobeying their rulings. Earlier this year, several judges at the panel noted, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee had a “wanted” poster of judges who’d crossed the president hanging outside his congressional office.

Lasnik said many judges appointed by presidents of both parties have told him of concerns but are nervous about discussing the issue openly.

“A lot of them don’t know how to speak up and are afraid of crossing a line somewhere where they would get a judicial complaint like judge Boasberg did,” Lasnik said, referring to District Judge James E. Boasberg of D.C., who infuriated the Trump administration by finding they likely committed criminal contempt by disobeying his order to turn around a deportation flight to El Salvador.


Though Chief Justice John Roberts has come to Boasberg's defense, Trump’s Department of Justice this week filed a complaint against Boasberg over comments he made at a judicial conference that other judges worry the Trump administration won't obey their orders. Last month, Trump’s Justice Department took the extraordinary step of suing every federal judge in Maryland over rules governing how they handle immigration cases.

More than five dozen judges who've ruled against Trump are receiving enhanced online protection, including scrubbing their identifying information from websites, according to two Trump-appointed judges who wrote Congress urging more funding for judicial security. In 2022, Congress passed a law named after Daniel Anderl allowing judges to sue internet sites to take down identifying information.

Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press

Federal judges detail rise in threats, 'pizza doxings,' as Trump ramps up criticism

 

[mandrill]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge in California extended on Thursday temporary protected status for 60,000 people from Central America and Asia, including people from Nepal, Honduras and Nicaragua.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem determined that conditions in their home country no longer warranted protections.




Temporary Protected Status designations for an estimated 7,000 from Nepal was scheduled to end Aug. 5. And protections allowing 51,000 Hondurans and nearly 3,000 Nicaraguans to reside and work lawfully in the U.S. for more than 25 years were set to expire Sept. 8. The secretary said both Honduras and Nicaragua had made “significant progress” in recovering from 1998’s Hurricane Mitch.

Temporary Protected Status is a temporary protection that can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people of various nationalities who are in the United States, which prevents them from being deported and allows them to work. The Trump administration has aggressively been seeking to remove the protection, thus making more people eligible for removal.

The terminations are part of a broad effort by the Republican administration to deport immigrants en masse, by going after people who are in the country illegally but also by removing protections that have allowed people to live and work in the U.S. on a temporary basis.



Noem can grant Temporary Protected Status to people of various countries already in the U.S. if conditions in the home country prevent a safe return, such as natural disaster or political instability.

The Trump administration has already terminated TPS for about 350,000 Venezuelans, 500,000 Haitians, more than 160,000 Ukrainians and thousands of people from Afghanistan, Nepal and Cameroon. Some have pending lawsuits at federal courts.

Lawyers for the National TPS Alliance argue that Noem’s decisions were not based on objective analysis of conditions at home countries, but predetermined by President Donald Trump’s campaign promises and motivated by racial animus. They say designees usually have a year to leave the country, but in this case, they got far less.

“They gave them two months to leave the country. It’s awful,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney for plaintiffs at a hearing Tuesday.




The government argues that Noem has clear and unreviewable authority over the TPS program and that her termination decisions reflect the administration’s objectives in the areas of immigration and foreign policy.

Justice Department attorney William Weiland said it is not a pretext to have a different view of a program that provides temporary safe harbor.

“It is not meant to be permanent,” he said Tuesday.

Janie Har, The Associated Press

Judge extends migrant status protections for 60,000 people from Central America and Nepal

 

[mandrill]

 

[dirtydaveiii]

If waco TACO is still alive in 4 years he will be joining her

 

[Valcazar]

View attachment 468358

Well that little bit of corruption was quick.
Trump really does think his supporters are pathetic, servile, idiots, doesn't he?

 

[Frankfooter]

View attachment 468358

The bigger question is who took her off the sex offenders list.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1951337945824121189

 

[Valcazar]

The bigger question is who took her off the sex offenders list.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1951337945824121189

They didn't take her off the list. They waived her status to allow the transfer.
Still super corrupt, just not quite the same thing, from what I understand.

 

[mandrill]

A federal judge has cast doubt on Donald Trump and the Justice Department’s assertion that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who recently returned to the United States after a controversial deportation, is a member of the notorious MS-13 gang. The ruling marks the latest twist in a legal saga that has raised questions about the government’s handling of the case and its commitment to due process.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was accused of belonging to the deadly MS-13 gang. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Abrego was sent to El Salvador in March by the Trump administration, which for months ignored a federal court order requiring his return to the U.S. The order, which was issued in April, compelled the government to bring him back, regardless of allegations about his criminal background. He was returned earlier this month and promptly faced federal charges of illegally transporting undocumented immigrants, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

Trump’s Justice Department


A judge rejected the DOJ’s bid to detain Abrego Garcia ahead of trial. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
In its effort to keep Abrego in custody ahead of trial, the Justice Department argued that his alleged ties to MS-13 justified detention. Prosecutors asserted that their investigation “revealed that the defendant has a long history and association with MS-13,” pointing to statements from two cooperating witnesses. In her ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes rejected that argument, describing the government’s evidence as weak and unreliable. Holmes noted that the claims were “general statements, all double hearsay,” and that a third witness directly contradicted them, saying that in a decade of knowing Abrego, he had never seen any indications — such as tattoos or behavior — that linked him to MS-13. “The government’s evidence of Abrego’s alleged gang membership is simply insufficient,” Holmes wrote, effectively dismantling a key component of the Justice Department’s detention bid.

The Trump administration

Abrego’s criminal charges don’t hinge on whether he’s a gang member. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
For months, officials had leaned on the claim of gang affiliation to justify their actions, even though it did not excuse their failure to comply with the court order to return Abrego. The hearing provided a critical opportunity for the Justice Department to substantiate its claims, but it fell short. Holmes’ decision does not absolve Abrego of the criminal charges he faces, nor does it prevent future deportation efforts. Prosecutors can still pursue their case, and the government has already signaled plans to detain him in immigration custody if he is released from criminal custody. A motion to halt his release is also pending, which could ultimately keep him behind bars. The judge acknowledged that her ruling might ultimately be an “academic exercise” if immigration authorities take custody regardless of the criminal proceedings. Still, she emphasized that the government must respect due process while its case moves forward.

Substantial evidence?


Abrego pleaded not guilty to allegations of illegally transporting undocumented immigrants. By: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The episode highlights broader concerns about the Justice Department’s handling of the case. By failing to substantiate its own accusations, the government has raised questions about the thoroughness and fairness of its approach. For Abrego, the ruling represents a significant, if temporary, legal victory — and a potential sign that his defense may find further openings as the case progresses. If the Justice Department cannot produce more substantial evidence, the saga of Abrego Garcia may become a symbol of the perils of relying on unverified claims in high-stakes immigration and criminal proceedings.

Trump administration’s MS-13 case crumbles in court

 

[mandrill]

The Trump administration is freezing $339 million in research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, accusing the school of civil rights violations related to antisemitism, affirmative action and women’s sports, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The federal government has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges but this is one of the rare cases it has targeted a public university.





Several federal agencies notified UCLA this week that they were suspending grants over civil rights concerns, including $240 million from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health, according to the person, who spoke about internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity.

The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.”

Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants.




The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation.

The National Science Foundation said in a statement it informed UCLA that it was suspending funding awards because the school isn't in line with the agency's priorities.

UCLA’s chancellor Julio Frenk called the government's decision “deeply disappointing.”

“With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty and staff," he said in a statement.

The Department of Energy said in its letter it found several “examples of noncompliance” and faulted UCLA for inviting applicants to disclose their race in personal statements and for considering factors including family income and ZIP code. Affirmative action in college admissions was outlawed in California in 1996 and struck down by the Supreme Court in 2023.




The letter said the school has taken steps that amount to “a transparent attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,” disadvantaging white, Jewish and Asian American applicants.

It also said UCLA fails to promote an environment free from antisemitism and discriminates against women by allowing transgender women to compete on women’s teams.

Frenk said that in its letter the federal government "claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons” to freeze the funding but “this far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.”

Earlier this week, UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus.


UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students’ access to some areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.

The university has said that it’s committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations.

___

Rodriguez reported from San Francisco and Binkley from Washington.

Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Donald Trump’s border czar is adamant that Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil will still be deported from the country despite several court rulings that have kept the Palestinian activist out of detention.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected a request from the Trump administration to re-arrest Khalil and keep him in immigration detention center while he continues to challenge the government’s attempts to remove him from the United States. Homan says the administration will continue to appeal.




“We got radical judges just trying to stop the Trump administration from doing our job and enforcing the law,” he told Newsmax on Thursday.

He claimed there is “only one ending” to Khalil’s case: “We detain him and deport him, but regardless, he will be deported.”

That same day, the immigration court judge overseeing his case voided her earlier ruling that allowed the government to deport him.

Khalil, a prominent student activist against Israel’s war in Gaza, was stripped of his green card and arrested in front of his then-pregnant wife in their New York City apartment building on March 8. He was then sent to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana, where he was held for more than 100 days and forced to miss the birth of his child.

Trump administration officials have accused Khalil of “antisemitic activities,” allegations Khalil and his legal team have flatly denied. Officials concede that Khalil did not commit any crime, but Secretary of State Marco Rubio has sought to justify Khalil’s arrest by claiming that Khalil’s presence in the country undermines foreign policy interests to prevent antisemitism.



Khalil and his legal team argue his arrest and detention — and attempted removal from the country, which is currently blocked by court order — are retaliatory violations of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, among other claims.

“Look, First Amendment rights have a limitation, too,” Homan told Newsmax. “He did a lot of bad things. We’re going to hold him accountable. He will be deported.”

Khalil was freed from immigration detention in June after more than 100 days in a Louisiana ICE facility. He will remain out on bail while his legal challenges continue (REUTERS)
On June 11, a federal judge granted Khalil’s release from ICE detention on bail while legal challenges against his arrest and threat of removal from the country continue in both federal and immigration courts.

New Jersey District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled that the administration had unconstitutionally wielded the law against Khalil, whose “career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” the judge wrote.




The government has “little or no interest in applying the relevant underlying statutes in what is likely an unconstitutional way,” Farbiarz added.

“Mahmoud spent 104 days in detention as punishment for speaking out for Palestinian rights,” ACLU senior staff attorney Noor Zafar said in a statement after this week’s appeals court ruling.

“That is time with his family that he will never get back, but this decision affirms that he will remain free and that the government cannot pursue his removal based on the likely unconstitutional foreign policy charge as his case moves through appeal,” she added. “We will not stand by and allow the government to weaponize immigration law to suppress lawful political speech.”

Khalil’s attorneys have also argued that the administration’s secondary basis for his arrest and removal — allegations that he lied in immigration paperwork — are similarly retaliatory and violate his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights.


The White House continues to insist that Khalil can still be deported on those grounds.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told The Independent on Friday that “Khalil was given the privilege of coming to America to study on a student visa he obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.”

“Despite the lower court judge’s wishes to the contrary, the executive branch has the lawful authority to take actions that will protect America’s foreign policy interests and promote the overall welfare of the public,” she added. “The Trump Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on the issue.”

‘First Amendment has limits’: Tom Homan insists that Mahmoud Khalil will be deported

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.




U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand “expedited removal” for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration's plans.

The case “presents a question of fair play” for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order.

“In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,” she wrote. “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention.




Immigrants' advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit’s high stakes.

The judge's ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case's conclusion.

Cobb said the case’s “underlying question” is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to “plead their case within a system of rules.”

“Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?” she added.


A plaintiffs' attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a “huge win” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested.

“Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,” Sung said.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

President Donald Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.


“Expedited removal” was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try.

ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump’s second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in “workplace raids,” according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

___

Spagat reported from San Diego.

Judge pauses Trump administration's push to expand fast-track deportations

 

[mandrill]

Former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, should be stripped of his law license for his role in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, a Washington-based disciplinary panel has ruled.

The D.C. Bar's Board on Professional Responsibility issued its ruling on Thursday, stating that Clark "persistently and energetically sought" to pressure Justice Department leaders to make false claims about election fraud and had made "intentionally false statements."





The board concluded that his conduct violated professional ethics and warranted disbarment: "Lawyers cannot advocate for any outcome based on false statements and they certainly cannot urge others to do so," the board said in its report.

"[Clark] persistently and energetically sought to do just that on an important national issue. He should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated."

In response, Clark called the process "100% politicized and said, "I know I did the right thing ... and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did."

Why It Matters
If upheld, the panel's ruling would reinforce accountability for government lawyers alleged to have been involved in attempts to subvert election results and add to a growing list of Trump-aligned attorneys facing sanctions over 2020 election challenges.

The board said the ruling is intended to deter future efforts to pressure federal agencies into making false claims on matters of national importance; that it is essential for upholding professional ethics and maintaining public trust in the justice system.




What To Know
Clark served as assistant attorney general in Trump's first administration and became a key figure in the president's attempts to challenge his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

According to a Senate Judiciary report, Clark pushed Justice Department superiors to send a letter to Georgia lawmakers stating that federal investigators had found "significant concerns" about the election's outcome—a claim officials had already determined to be false.

When department leaders refused, Clark continued to advocate for the letter's release and met directly with Trump about potentially replacing then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, the Senate report said.

That plan led to a contentious meeting at the White House on January 3, 2021, during which several senior Justice Department and White House officials threatened to resign if Trump installed Clark as acting attorney general, the report added.




Clark's attorney, Harry MacDougald, said during disciplinary hearings last year that the letter was part of normal debate between lawyers and punishment would have a "chilling effect."

Growing List of Trump Allies Hit With Sanctions

Jeffrey Clark, who now serves as acting head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget, is not the first Trump-aligned attorney to face professional sanctions for actions related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and joins a list who have faced or are facing disciplinary action:

• Rudy Giuliani: Disbarred in Washington and New York.
• John Eastman: Suspended while appealing disbarment in California.
• Jenna Ellis: Three-year suspension in Colorado.
• Kenneth Chesebro: Lost law license in New York.

Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington and lost his New York law license for advancing false claims of election fraud.


John Eastman, who advised Trump on strategies to challenge the election results, has been suspended from practicing law while he appeals a California judge's disbarment recommendation.

Jenna Ellis, a former Trump campaign attorney, agreed to a three-year suspension of her law license in Colorado after admitting to making false statements about the election and pleading guilty in a related Georgia criminal case.

Attorney Kenneth Chesebro, who helped design the so-called "alternate electors" plan, lost his New York law license earlier this year.

What People Are Saying
Jeffrey Clark, responding to Thursday's "100% politicized" decision, said on X: "I know I did the right thing in 2020 and 2021 during the first President Trump Administration and wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I had not proceeded to internally raise the election questions I did."


Harry MacDougald, Clark's attorney, said: "They want to disbar Jeff Clark for the heresy of privately recommending further investigations of the 2020 election." In criticizing the disciplinary proceedings, he argued they unfairly targeted his client for legal advice, saying: "This is a pure thought crime and a travesty of justice."

James Burnham, Managing Partner at King Street Legal, said on X: "I worked closely with Jeff Clark in both Trump Administrations. This is an outrageous weaponization of the bar ethics process—one that could be turned against any lawyer serving in government at any time. All steps must be taken to push back."

Rachel Cauley, White House OMB communications director also denounced the ruling, calling it: "...another chapter in the Deep State's ongoing assault on President Trump and those who stood beside him in defense of the truth," adding: "Jeff Clark has been harassed, raided, doxed, and blacklisted simply for questioning a rigged election and serving President Trump."


What Happens Next
The recommendation now goes to the D.C. Court of Appeals, which will make the final decision on whether Clark will permanently lose his license.

Under D.C. Bar rules, the finding triggers an automatic suspension of Clark's ability to practice law unless he successfully petitions the court within 30 days to block it.


Trump Ally Faces Disbarment for 'Dishonesty': Panel

 

[mandrill]

U.S. District Court Judge Jia Cobb ruled Friday that President Donald Trump's administration cannot use "summary deportation" for anyone who had previously been paroled into the United States.

Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney posted the ruling on Bluesky in which the judge shames the administration for using tactics many of those immigrants saw in the countries from which they fled.

"More broadly, this case presents a question of fair play," she wrote.

Parole means the immigrants have been granted permission to enter and stay in the country temporarily, despite not meeting the standard requirements for admission

Plaintiffs ... and hundreds of thousands of others like them, fled oppressive regimes and perilous conditions in their home countries. They arrived for inspection at the United States border pursuant to procedures created and advocated by the U.S. Government. They were paroled into this country under those procedures and given the chance to prove their claims for asylum or other relief authorized by our laws. In a world of bad options, they played by the rules."

"Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so," Cobb continued.

"This case’s underlying question, then, asks whether parolees who escaped oppression will have the chance to plead their case within a system of rules. Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that—as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges ... may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?"

Cheney noted that this ruling shields "hundreds of thousands of people that ICE had targeted for quick removal and courthouse arrests."

Read more here.

Judge shames Trump as she shields 'hundreds of thousands' of immigrants from deportation