update - Fed judge blocks Trump's election balloting rules as unconstitutional overreach
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
The appeals process begins in earnest on Wednesday, after a New York City jury last year convicted Donald Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a scheme to silence an adult film star, whose story about having sex with Trump threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign.
That unanimous conviction on May 30 — and a judge’s sentencing on January 10 that preserved the historic verdict — ensured that Trump would return to the White House as the first-ever criminally convicted president.
The conviction carried no consequences for the president. Still, it left an indelible stain he has so far failed to remove despite successfully fighting off federal indictments that consumed his 2024 campaign.
But his legal battle isn’t over.
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Manhattan will hear oral arguments as his attorneys attempt to transfer the case from New York criminal court to federal jurisdiction, a process known as “removal.”
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg opposes the move, arguing such a case cannot be removed to federal court after a conviction.
But attorneys for the president claim that his “unprecedented prosecution “belongs there. If the case is moved to federal court, Justice Department lawyers could theoretically dismiss it.
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Trump’s then-attorney, Michael Cohen, paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 for the rights to her story, one of several so-called hush money schemes the president arranged with tabloid publishers to prevent embarrassing stories from being published anywhere.
Trump then reimbursed Cohen in a series of checks, some of which were cut from the White House.
Those reimbursements were falsely recorded in accounting records as “legal expenses,” fulfilling what prosecutors called a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election unlawfully.
A weeks-long trial in Manhattan criminal court last year included blockbuster testimony from Cohen, Daniels, White House aides, and Trump’s allies. At the same time, emails, phone records, text messages, invoices, checks with Trump’s Sharpie-inked signature, and other documents — including a handwritten note from his accountants that outlined the math for Cohen’s checks — gave jurors the paper trail.
A jury found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts against him on May 30, 2024 (Getty Images)
Days before Trump’s inauguration, and more than seven months after the jury’s decision, New York Justice Juan Merchan handed Trump a sentence that preserved the verdict without any criminal consequences.
Manhattan prosecutors and Judge Merchan agreed that the only remaining option for the conclusion of the case — navigating a landmark Supreme Court decision on “immunity” and the potential interference with his second term — meant abandoning a typical sentence of jail, fines or probation.
“The only lawful sentence” that remained for Trump’s crimes is that of an “unconditional discharge,” Merchan told Trump during his sentencing hearing on January 10.
Trump continues to deny any wrongdoing. His attorneys, whom the president has appointed to top roles at the Department of Justice, argued that certain evidence used at trial should have been withheld from jurors under the Supreme Court’s “immunity” decision, which shields the president from criminal prosecution for “official” acts in office.
However, those arguments were rejected by Judge Merchan, the New York appeals court, and the Supreme Court, which stated that Trump’s challenges to “alleged evidentiary violations” could be addressed through the normal course of appeal.
Meanwhile, Trump’s long-simmering fight to move the case entirely out of the hands of state courts will be heard before a panel of federal appeals court judges.
The president has hired the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to support his federal appeal.
Last month, Justice Department lawyers filed a supporting brief in the case, arguing that the judges should throw it out entirely.
Trump is simultaneously appealing an $83 million verdict in a defamation case from E. Jean Carroll as well as a massive judgment against him in a sprawling civil fraud case, with interest growing to more than half a billion dollars owed to the state of New York after the president and his top associates defrauded banks and investors to benefit his real-estate empire.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart player in the British news industry. For the first time since the end of the Second World War, and across the world, pluralism, reason, a progressive and humanitarian agenda, and internationalism – Independent values – are under threat. Yet we, The Independent, continue to grow.
That unanimous conviction on May 30 — and a judge’s sentencing on January 10 that preserved the historic verdict — ensured that Trump would return to the White House as the first-ever criminally convicted president.
The conviction carried no consequences for the president. Still, it left an indelible stain he has so far failed to remove despite successfully fighting off federal indictments that consumed his 2024 campaign.
But his legal battle isn’t over.
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in Manhattan will hear oral arguments as his attorneys attempt to transfer the case from New York criminal court to federal jurisdiction, a process known as “removal.”
The office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg opposes the move, arguing such a case cannot be removed to federal court after a conviction.
But attorneys for the president claim that his “unprecedented prosecution “belongs there. If the case is moved to federal court, Justice Department lawyers could theoretically dismiss it.
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, Trump’s then-attorney, Michael Cohen, paid Stormy Daniels $130,000 for the rights to her story, one of several so-called hush money schemes the president arranged with tabloid publishers to prevent embarrassing stories from being published anywhere.
Trump then reimbursed Cohen in a series of checks, some of which were cut from the White House.
Those reimbursements were falsely recorded in accounting records as “legal expenses,” fulfilling what prosecutors called a conspiracy to influence the 2016 election unlawfully.
A weeks-long trial in Manhattan criminal court last year included blockbuster testimony from Cohen, Daniels, White House aides, and Trump’s allies. At the same time, emails, phone records, text messages, invoices, checks with Trump’s Sharpie-inked signature, and other documents — including a handwritten note from his accountants that outlined the math for Cohen’s checks — gave jurors the paper trail.
A jury found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts against him on May 30, 2024 (Getty Images)
Days before Trump’s inauguration, and more than seven months after the jury’s decision, New York Justice Juan Merchan handed Trump a sentence that preserved the verdict without any criminal consequences.
Manhattan prosecutors and Judge Merchan agreed that the only remaining option for the conclusion of the case — navigating a landmark Supreme Court decision on “immunity” and the potential interference with his second term — meant abandoning a typical sentence of jail, fines or probation.
“The only lawful sentence” that remained for Trump’s crimes is that of an “unconditional discharge,” Merchan told Trump during his sentencing hearing on January 10.
Trump continues to deny any wrongdoing. His attorneys, whom the president has appointed to top roles at the Department of Justice, argued that certain evidence used at trial should have been withheld from jurors under the Supreme Court’s “immunity” decision, which shields the president from criminal prosecution for “official” acts in office.
However, those arguments were rejected by Judge Merchan, the New York appeals court, and the Supreme Court, which stated that Trump’s challenges to “alleged evidentiary violations” could be addressed through the normal course of appeal.
Meanwhile, Trump’s long-simmering fight to move the case entirely out of the hands of state courts will be heard before a panel of federal appeals court judges.
The president has hired the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to support his federal appeal.
Last month, Justice Department lawyers filed a supporting brief in the case, arguing that the judges should throw it out entirely.
Trump is simultaneously appealing an $83 million verdict in a defamation case from E. Jean Carroll as well as a massive judgment against him in a sprawling civil fraud case, with interest growing to more than half a billion dollars owed to the state of New York after the president and his top associates defrauded banks and investors to benefit his real-estate empire.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart player in the British news industry. For the first time since the end of the Second World War, and across the world, pluralism, reason, a progressive and humanitarian agenda, and internationalism – Independent values – are under threat. Yet we, The Independent, continue to grow.
Where are the people the Trump administration has deported?
The Trump administration's aggressive immigration deportation efforts often have been carried out illegally. What has happened to the people at the center of the cases?
Chris Geidner
Jun 11, 2025
In its first 150 days, the second Trump administration has used immigration authorities to aggressively deport people — including by sending them to foreign prisons and to countries where they had no prior connection. And, though the executive has extensive power over immigration matters, these deportations have been carried out at times in violation of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, court orders, and court-approved settlements.
Many of these people have, essentially, been disappeared — with the Trump administration arguing that courts lack authority to issue orders as to people outside of U.S. airspace and that the government itself lacks the ability to bring back those people it sent to a foreign prison.
Just over 50 days into his time back in office, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act — a 1798 law only previously invoked during wartime — to try and rapidly deport Venezuelans who the administration decided were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. In doing so, the Trump administration provided even less process than was given to Nazis who the U.S. was seeking to depart during World War II — a point Judge Patricia Millett raised in arguments over the president’s actions at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 24.
The AEA proclamation is just one front in this anti-immigrant effort, spearheaded by Stephen Miller with support from several of Trump’s cabinet members. Among its challenged actions, the government sent three flights to El Salvador on March 15, including two with people aboard under the purported authority of Trump’s AEA proclamation. The Trump administration has sent people to Guantanamo Bay before trying to have the Defense Department send them elsewhere. It also reportedly planned to send a flight to Libya and/or Saudi Arabia until a court intervened. And, it did send a flight out of the U.S. that was bound for South Sudan but landed at a military base in Djibouti after court intervention. (In addition to the deportations, there are also the many AEA challenges as to those in the U.S. currently and the efforts to revoke student visas and deport them and recently graduated students. Law Dork has and will continue to cover those cases, but they are not the focus of this report.)
Individuals and their lawyers have challenged these deportations in multiple lawsuits as to classes of people and as to specific individuals. Judges in these cases have either ordered the government to take action to remedy a found legal violation or at least raised questions about the administration’s actions.
Law Dork can report that two such orders have resulted in the return of a person to the U.S. Both Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison in an “administrative error,” and O.C.G., a gay man sent into hiding when the Trump administration deported him to Mexico, have been brought back to the U.S. in the past two weeks.
But, that is not true for many others.
So, almost five months into the Trump administration: Where are they?
Law Dork brings you independent, in-depth legal and political journalism that seeks to hold government and other public officials accountable. Support Chris Geidner’s reporting by becoming a paid or free subscriber today.
Members of the AEA CECOT class — the people sent to CECOT under Trump’s AEA proclamation — are, we believe, still in El Salvador’s CECOT prison. There were materials turned over in the challenge pending before D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg over that class under seal and subject to redactions, but his ruling stated that the class in question was “currently” in CECOT.
Although Boasberg had set a June 11 deadline for the Trump administration to explain how it would provide the ability for those people to seek habeas relief, a D.C. Circuit panel “administratively stayed” that order on June 10, as I covered at Law Dork.
So far as we know then, the people on those first two planes likely remain in CECOT — although Boasberg found that, based on a declaration from a State Department official, the Trump administration claims that both the “detention” of CECOT class members and their “ultimate disposition” as to that prison “are matters within the legal authority of El Salvador.” Although raised in Boasberg’s discussion of “constructive custody” for habeas purposes, the information is relevant here as to figuring out whether those people sent to CECOT remain there.
According to the Trump administration, it is not their call.
The third March 15 plane to CECOT, the Trump administration has insisted, contained no one deported under the AEA. These people, per the Trump administration, were “noncitizens subject to final orders of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Aside from later raised cases, those people are likely still in CECOT — although, for similar reasons as with the AEA CECOT class, there is no real reason to know that outside of specific cases where questions have led to further information being provided.
Among those people on the third flight was Kilmar Abrego Garcia, deported in an “administrative error” but now returned to the U.S. and indicted in Tennessee in a political move that reportedly led to the abrupt resignation of the head of the criminal division of the Nashville U.S. Attorney’s Office. Abrego Garcia’s removal-in-error case garnered significant national attention but little public movement from the Trump administration to adhere to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’s April 4 order that the administration “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.
But, behind the scenes, the administration was apparently cooking up the Tennessee case and, on June 6, the case was unsealed as Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. He is currently in Tennessee, where a detention hearing is set for Friday.
Before I move on, however, I would like to note the administration’s disingenuous-at-best, lawless-at-worst actions since the unsealing of the Tennessee case in federal court in Maryland, where Xinis was hearing the case about Abrego Garcia’s deportation.
On June 6, DOJ lawyers told Xinis, “Defendants hereby provide notice that they have complied with the Court’s order, and indeed have successfully facilitated Abrego Garcia’s return,“ as part of a request that Xinis stay all deadlines in the Maryland case. Needless to say, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers did not agree, responding over the weekend that “to characterize the Government as having ‘complied with the Court’s order’ is pure farce.” They continued, highlighting the government’s intransigence in the case and then adding:
They concluded:
Xinis is yet to rule on that request.
Elsewhere in federal court in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher has been overseeing a class-action settlement agreement reached during the Biden administration requiring the government to rule on the class members’ asylum applications prior to any removal. Cristian, however, was sent to CECOT on one of the AEA planes before any such ruling. As I’ve covered previously, Gallagher found on April 23 that the government’s actions were not allowed under the settlement and ordered the government to “facilitate” Cristian’s return to the U.S.
As of June 6, Mellissa B. Harper, the acting deputy associate director of Enforcement and Removal Operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security, stated that her “understanding” was that Cristian remained at CECOT, per the Salvadoran government via the U.S. Embassy.
However, Harper continued:
As Cristian’s lawyers noted on June 10, though, the recent return of Abrego Garcia to the United States raises questions about Harper’s second claim.
“The government’s return of Mr. Abrego Garcia confirms they have the power to return individuals detained in El Salvador, despite their assertion to the contrary,” class counsel Brian Burgess with Goodwin wrote. “Plaintiffs raise this development, as 1-1/2 months have passed since this Court ordered that the government facilitate Class Member Cristian’s return to the United States.“
Then, there is the third-country removals case, D.V.D. v. DHS. This is the case over attempts by the government to deport people to a country other than their home country or another country in which the person has legal status. To do so, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ordered, certain process must be provided so that the person has the ability to challenge their removal to that third country.
Since then, the parties have returned to court three times regarding allegations that the Trump administration is violating that preliminary injunction — and had significant follow-up litigation surrounding one specific plaintiff in the case. The first time, the administration sent people to Guantanamo Bay and then claimed it was the Defense Department sending them to a third country. That led to Murphy’s first “clarification” of his injunction: No, the Trump administration can’t do that without still adhering to the injunction’s terms.
There were specific questions raised as to one of the plaintiffs. O.C.G., a gay man, was sent into hiding, his lawyers said, due to the Trump administration’s actions deporting him to a third country where he previously had faced violence. On May 23, Murphy ordered that the government “facilitate” his return, and the Justice Department told Murphy five days later that DHS was “working … to bring O.C.G. back to the United States.“
That has happened, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case told Law Dork. O.C.G. is in immigration detention in Arizona, one of the lawyers for the case, Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said on Wednesday.
For the rest of the class, though, the Trump administration has continued to seek third country removals with less process provided than Murphy ordered was necessary.
When news reports emerged that the administration had planned deportations to Libya and/or Saudi Arabia, the plaintiffs’ lawyers went back to Murphy, who issued another “clarification” order. “If there is any doubt—the Court sees none—the allegedly imminent removals, as reported by news agencies and as Plaintiffs seek to corroborate with class-member accounts and public information, would clearly violate this Court’s Order,” he wrote on May 7.
Less than two weeks later, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were back in court on May 20. This time flights had already left the U.S., the lawyers believed, with a destination of South Sudan — a country where the Trump administration had pulled all non-emergency personnel due to the dangerous conditions. Murphy issued a quick order that the administration “maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country” until he could issue a further ruling.
That led the flight to land at a military base in Djibouti. After a further hearing the next day, Murphy concluded that the Trump administration’s actions sending the people on the flight violated his injunction because they had not been given a sufficient opportunity to challenge their removal to South Sudan. As such, he ordered that each person “be given a reasonable fear interview in private, with the opportunity for the individual to have counsel of their choosing present during the interview, either in-person or remotely, at the individual’s choosing,“ among other protections. Murphy allowed that the Trump administration could carry out those interviews in Djibouti or back in the U.S., so long as certain protections were maintained.
It has now been three weeks since that order, and, as of June 9, the people remained in Djibouti. In a June 2 filing, DOJ stated that “all eight aliens remain in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Djibouti.” In a June 9 filing, DOJ stated, “All detainees that arrived in Djibouti remain there in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“
Where are they?
According to ICE’s Harper, who submitted a declaration in the case dated June 4, they are in a cargo shipping container on the base.
Harper went on to describe the conditions in Djibouti, noting cramped sleeping quarters for the ICE officers and that “ICE personnel had to interrupt the flight and disembark in Djibouti without being on anti-malaria medication for at least 48-72 hours prior to arrival, as recommended by medical professionals.” She also noted that ICE “officers were warned by U.S. Department of Defense officials of imminent danger of rocket attacks from terrorist groups in Yemen.“
Harper did not mention the worse conditions in the country where the U.S. was trying to deport these people.
These are not all of the cases, let alone the questionable — or even illegal — deportations carried out by the Trump administration. The New York Times, to give just one example, reported on a case where claimed “administrative errors” led to a person’s removal. Jordin Melgar-Salmeron’s case is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — and there are doubtless many more.
These cases that have captured our attention, however, do show how broad the Trump administration has gone already to deport people — and how much success they have had at sending people out of the country, even if it is done illegally.
www.lawdork.com
The Trump administration's aggressive immigration deportation efforts often have been carried out illegally. What has happened to the people at the center of the cases?
Chris Geidner
Jun 11, 2025
In its first 150 days, the second Trump administration has used immigration authorities to aggressively deport people — including by sending them to foreign prisons and to countries where they had no prior connection. And, though the executive has extensive power over immigration matters, these deportations have been carried out at times in violation of the Constitution, the laws of the United States, court orders, and court-approved settlements.
Many of these people have, essentially, been disappeared — with the Trump administration arguing that courts lack authority to issue orders as to people outside of U.S. airspace and that the government itself lacks the ability to bring back those people it sent to a foreign prison.
Just over 50 days into his time back in office, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act — a 1798 law only previously invoked during wartime — to try and rapidly deport Venezuelans who the administration decided were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. In doing so, the Trump administration provided even less process than was given to Nazis who the U.S. was seeking to depart during World War II — a point Judge Patricia Millett raised in arguments over the president’s actions at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 24.
The AEA proclamation is just one front in this anti-immigrant effort, spearheaded by Stephen Miller with support from several of Trump’s cabinet members. Among its challenged actions, the government sent three flights to El Salvador on March 15, including two with people aboard under the purported authority of Trump’s AEA proclamation. The Trump administration has sent people to Guantanamo Bay before trying to have the Defense Department send them elsewhere. It also reportedly planned to send a flight to Libya and/or Saudi Arabia until a court intervened. And, it did send a flight out of the U.S. that was bound for South Sudan but landed at a military base in Djibouti after court intervention. (In addition to the deportations, there are also the many AEA challenges as to those in the U.S. currently and the efforts to revoke student visas and deport them and recently graduated students. Law Dork has and will continue to cover those cases, but they are not the focus of this report.)
Individuals and their lawyers have challenged these deportations in multiple lawsuits as to classes of people and as to specific individuals. Judges in these cases have either ordered the government to take action to remedy a found legal violation or at least raised questions about the administration’s actions.
Law Dork can report that two such orders have resulted in the return of a person to the U.S. Both Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison in an “administrative error,” and O.C.G., a gay man sent into hiding when the Trump administration deported him to Mexico, have been brought back to the U.S. in the past two weeks.
But, that is not true for many others.
So, almost five months into the Trump administration: Where are they?
Law Dork brings you independent, in-depth legal and political journalism that seeks to hold government and other public officials accountable. Support Chris Geidner’s reporting by becoming a paid or free subscriber today.
Members of the AEA CECOT class — the people sent to CECOT under Trump’s AEA proclamation — are, we believe, still in El Salvador’s CECOT prison. There were materials turned over in the challenge pending before D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg over that class under seal and subject to redactions, but his ruling stated that the class in question was “currently” in CECOT.
Although Boasberg had set a June 11 deadline for the Trump administration to explain how it would provide the ability for those people to seek habeas relief, a D.C. Circuit panel “administratively stayed” that order on June 10, as I covered at Law Dork.
So far as we know then, the people on those first two planes likely remain in CECOT — although Boasberg found that, based on a declaration from a State Department official, the Trump administration claims that both the “detention” of CECOT class members and their “ultimate disposition” as to that prison “are matters within the legal authority of El Salvador.” Although raised in Boasberg’s discussion of “constructive custody” for habeas purposes, the information is relevant here as to figuring out whether those people sent to CECOT remain there.
According to the Trump administration, it is not their call.
The third March 15 plane to CECOT, the Trump administration has insisted, contained no one deported under the AEA. These people, per the Trump administration, were “noncitizens subject to final orders of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.” Aside from later raised cases, those people are likely still in CECOT — although, for similar reasons as with the AEA CECOT class, there is no real reason to know that outside of specific cases where questions have led to further information being provided.
Among those people on the third flight was Kilmar Abrego Garcia, deported in an “administrative error” but now returned to the U.S. and indicted in Tennessee in a political move that reportedly led to the abrupt resignation of the head of the criminal division of the Nashville U.S. Attorney’s Office. Abrego Garcia’s removal-in-error case garnered significant national attention but little public movement from the Trump administration to adhere to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’s April 4 order that the administration “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia.
But, behind the scenes, the administration was apparently cooking up the Tennessee case and, on June 6, the case was unsealed as Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. He is currently in Tennessee, where a detention hearing is set for Friday.
Before I move on, however, I would like to note the administration’s disingenuous-at-best, lawless-at-worst actions since the unsealing of the Tennessee case in federal court in Maryland, where Xinis was hearing the case about Abrego Garcia’s deportation.
On June 6, DOJ lawyers told Xinis, “Defendants hereby provide notice that they have complied with the Court’s order, and indeed have successfully facilitated Abrego Garcia’s return,“ as part of a request that Xinis stay all deadlines in the Maryland case. Needless to say, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers did not agree, responding over the weekend that “to characterize the Government as having ‘complied with the Court’s order’ is pure farce.” They continued, highlighting the government’s intransigence in the case and then adding:
Opposing the government’s request for a stay, the lawyers continued, “The Government’s conclusory professions of compliance are entitled to no deference, and Plaintiffs are entitled to examine in discovery whether Government officials acted in good faith.“
They concluded:
Xinis is yet to rule on that request.
Elsewhere in federal court in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher has been overseeing a class-action settlement agreement reached during the Biden administration requiring the government to rule on the class members’ asylum applications prior to any removal. Cristian, however, was sent to CECOT on one of the AEA planes before any such ruling. As I’ve covered previously, Gallagher found on April 23 that the government’s actions were not allowed under the settlement and ordered the government to “facilitate” Cristian’s return to the U.S.
As of June 6, Mellissa B. Harper, the acting deputy associate director of Enforcement and Removal Operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security, stated that her “understanding” was that Cristian remained at CECOT, per the Salvadoran government via the U.S. Embassy.
However, Harper continued:
As Cristian’s lawyers noted on June 10, though, the recent return of Abrego Garcia to the United States raises questions about Harper’s second claim.
“The government’s return of Mr. Abrego Garcia confirms they have the power to return individuals detained in El Salvador, despite their assertion to the contrary,” class counsel Brian Burgess with Goodwin wrote. “Plaintiffs raise this development, as 1-1/2 months have passed since this Court ordered that the government facilitate Class Member Cristian’s return to the United States.“
Then, there is the third-country removals case, D.V.D. v. DHS. This is the case over attempts by the government to deport people to a country other than their home country or another country in which the person has legal status. To do so, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ordered, certain process must be provided so that the person has the ability to challenge their removal to that third country.
Since then, the parties have returned to court three times regarding allegations that the Trump administration is violating that preliminary injunction — and had significant follow-up litigation surrounding one specific plaintiff in the case. The first time, the administration sent people to Guantanamo Bay and then claimed it was the Defense Department sending them to a third country. That led to Murphy’s first “clarification” of his injunction: No, the Trump administration can’t do that without still adhering to the injunction’s terms.
There were specific questions raised as to one of the plaintiffs. O.C.G., a gay man, was sent into hiding, his lawyers said, due to the Trump administration’s actions deporting him to a third country where he previously had faced violence. On May 23, Murphy ordered that the government “facilitate” his return, and the Justice Department told Murphy five days later that DHS was “working … to bring O.C.G. back to the United States.“
That has happened, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case told Law Dork. O.C.G. is in immigration detention in Arizona, one of the lawyers for the case, Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said on Wednesday.
For the rest of the class, though, the Trump administration has continued to seek third country removals with less process provided than Murphy ordered was necessary.
When news reports emerged that the administration had planned deportations to Libya and/or Saudi Arabia, the plaintiffs’ lawyers went back to Murphy, who issued another “clarification” order. “If there is any doubt—the Court sees none—the allegedly imminent removals, as reported by news agencies and as Plaintiffs seek to corroborate with class-member accounts and public information, would clearly violate this Court’s Order,” he wrote on May 7.
Less than two weeks later, the plaintiffs’ lawyers were back in court on May 20. This time flights had already left the U.S., the lawyers believed, with a destination of South Sudan — a country where the Trump administration had pulled all non-emergency personnel due to the dangerous conditions. Murphy issued a quick order that the administration “maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country” until he could issue a further ruling.
That led the flight to land at a military base in Djibouti. After a further hearing the next day, Murphy concluded that the Trump administration’s actions sending the people on the flight violated his injunction because they had not been given a sufficient opportunity to challenge their removal to South Sudan. As such, he ordered that each person “be given a reasonable fear interview in private, with the opportunity for the individual to have counsel of their choosing present during the interview, either in-person or remotely, at the individual’s choosing,“ among other protections. Murphy allowed that the Trump administration could carry out those interviews in Djibouti or back in the U.S., so long as certain protections were maintained.
It has now been three weeks since that order, and, as of June 9, the people remained in Djibouti. In a June 2 filing, DOJ stated that “all eight aliens remain in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Djibouti.” In a June 9 filing, DOJ stated, “All detainees that arrived in Djibouti remain there in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).“
Where are they?
According to ICE’s Harper, who submitted a declaration in the case dated June 4, they are in a cargo shipping container on the base.
Harper went on to describe the conditions in Djibouti, noting cramped sleeping quarters for the ICE officers and that “ICE personnel had to interrupt the flight and disembark in Djibouti without being on anti-malaria medication for at least 48-72 hours prior to arrival, as recommended by medical professionals.” She also noted that ICE “officers were warned by U.S. Department of Defense officials of imminent danger of rocket attacks from terrorist groups in Yemen.“
Harper did not mention the worse conditions in the country where the U.S. was trying to deport these people.
These are not all of the cases, let alone the questionable — or even illegal — deportations carried out by the Trump administration. The New York Times, to give just one example, reported on a case where claimed “administrative errors” led to a person’s removal. Jordin Melgar-Salmeron’s case is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — and there are doubtless many more.
These cases that have captured our attention, however, do show how broad the Trump administration has gone already to deport people — and how much success they have had at sending people out of the country, even if it is done illegally.
Where are the people the Trump administration has deported?
The Trump administration's aggressive immigration deportation efforts often have been carried out illegally. What has happened to the people at the center of the cases?
www.lawdork.com
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge cast doubts Thursday on the legality of President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, warning that the Trump administration’s contention that the president’s position cannot be second-guessed — even by the courts — evoked the founders’ fear of a monarchy.
“That’s not where we live. We live in response to a monarch. This country was founded in response to a monarch,” U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said during an emergency court hearing on a lawsuit filed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom. “The Constitution is a document of limitations.”
Breyer suggested Trump’s call-up of 4,000 members of California’s National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles — over Newsom’s fierce objection — may have been legally deficient.
The judge said Trump did not appear to have issued the order “through” Newsom himself, despite a legal requirement that such orders pass through the governor of the state involved.
“I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody if in fact you didn’t give it to him,” Breyer wondered aloud. “It would be the first time I’ve ever seen something going ‘through’ somebody if it never went to them directly.”
And the judge also sounded dubious of Trump’s claim that the unrest in Los Angeles posed a “danger of rebellion,” one of several possible predicates for his power to federalize California’s Guard troops. Breyer forcefully resisted the Justice Department’s contention that Trump’s claim of a potential rebellion is unreviewable by the courts.
“That’s the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,” Breyer said. “It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.”
Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate insisted that violence directed at federal officials over the weekend was sufficiently dangerous to support Trump’s finding. Trump on Saturday ordered the guard to Los Angeles after a wave of protests there against the administration’s deportation policies turned violent.
Shumate argued that Trump had satisfied the law’s procedural requirements as well by communicating his order through Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the commander of the California National Guard, who answers to Newsom.
Even if the judge found fault in that process, Shumate said, it wasn’t enough to unwind the deployment. The DOJ attorney dismissed any slip-up as “a foot fault,” that the White House should be allowed to fix with new paperwork.
Breyer, 83, a Clinton appointee and the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, promised to make a determination “very soon,” perhaps as early as Thursday afternoon. And despite the judge’s inclinations in court, it’s unclear just what relief he could grant.
The only immediate, urgent ask from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, which filed the lawsuit on Newsom’s behalf, was that National Guard troops be barred from taking part in immigration enforcement operations. However, it seemed during the hearing that Breyer was toying with the idea of declaring the whole National Guard deployment illegal.
At one point during the hearing, Breyer held up a pocket copy of the Constitution and waved it in front of Shumate. After the DOJ attorney said Trump has broad powers over the military under the founding document, the judge said those weren’t the only issues implicated by the case.
“This is a country that champions the right to free speech and champions the right to redress grievances. That’s also in the book,” the judge said.
Breyer did suggest several times that he was uncomfortable with the notion of micromanaging the operation of the military. He declined to immediately consider Newsom’s request to block the deployment of 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, saying any action seemed premature because they hadn’t yet arrived in the city.
Shumate asked Breyer to stay the effect of any order he might issue for 48 hours so that the Trump administration could appeal. The state’s lawyer, Nicholas Green, opposed any such delay.
Newsom’s team, which filed the lawsuit on Monday, asked the judge on Tuesday to issue a temporary restraining order within two hours. The judge instead gave the Justice Department a day to file a written opposition and setting the hearing he held Thursday.
“That’s not where we live. We live in response to a monarch. This country was founded in response to a monarch,” U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said during an emergency court hearing on a lawsuit filed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom. “The Constitution is a document of limitations.”
Breyer suggested Trump’s call-up of 4,000 members of California’s National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles — over Newsom’s fierce objection — may have been legally deficient.
The judge said Trump did not appear to have issued the order “through” Newsom himself, despite a legal requirement that such orders pass through the governor of the state involved.
“I’m trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody if in fact you didn’t give it to him,” Breyer wondered aloud. “It would be the first time I’ve ever seen something going ‘through’ somebody if it never went to them directly.”
And the judge also sounded dubious of Trump’s claim that the unrest in Los Angeles posed a “danger of rebellion,” one of several possible predicates for his power to federalize California’s Guard troops. Breyer forcefully resisted the Justice Department’s contention that Trump’s claim of a potential rebellion is unreviewable by the courts.
“That’s the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,” Breyer said. “It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.”
Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate insisted that violence directed at federal officials over the weekend was sufficiently dangerous to support Trump’s finding. Trump on Saturday ordered the guard to Los Angeles after a wave of protests there against the administration’s deportation policies turned violent.
Shumate argued that Trump had satisfied the law’s procedural requirements as well by communicating his order through Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the commander of the California National Guard, who answers to Newsom.
Even if the judge found fault in that process, Shumate said, it wasn’t enough to unwind the deployment. The DOJ attorney dismissed any slip-up as “a foot fault,” that the White House should be allowed to fix with new paperwork.
Breyer, 83, a Clinton appointee and the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, promised to make a determination “very soon,” perhaps as early as Thursday afternoon. And despite the judge’s inclinations in court, it’s unclear just what relief he could grant.
The only immediate, urgent ask from California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, which filed the lawsuit on Newsom’s behalf, was that National Guard troops be barred from taking part in immigration enforcement operations. However, it seemed during the hearing that Breyer was toying with the idea of declaring the whole National Guard deployment illegal.
At one point during the hearing, Breyer held up a pocket copy of the Constitution and waved it in front of Shumate. After the DOJ attorney said Trump has broad powers over the military under the founding document, the judge said those weren’t the only issues implicated by the case.
“This is a country that champions the right to free speech and champions the right to redress grievances. That’s also in the book,” the judge said.
Breyer did suggest several times that he was uncomfortable with the notion of micromanaging the operation of the military. He declined to immediately consider Newsom’s request to block the deployment of 700 active-duty Marines to Los Angeles, saying any action seemed premature because they hadn’t yet arrived in the city.
Shumate asked Breyer to stay the effect of any order he might issue for 48 hours so that the Trump administration could appeal. The state’s lawyer, Nicholas Green, opposed any such delay.
Newsom’s team, which filed the lawsuit on Monday, asked the judge on Tuesday to issue a temporary restraining order within two hours. The judge instead gave the Justice Department a day to file a written opposition and setting the hearing he held Thursday.
The next president of the United States...............Newsom kicks Trump in the ass.
Noem is a compete lunatic. She should be charger with assault in California and thrown in jail.
