update - Trump DoJ ends desegregation policies in US South
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Another federal judge expresses skepticism over Trump law firm executive orders
Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism about the legality of a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted President Donald Trump's executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.
Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department lawyer's claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.
“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”
Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.
Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department's “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order.
“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That's a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note that Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.
"All we need to do is read this thing," Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”
Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.
On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another member of the panel, California Rep. Dave Min, sent letters to law firms that have settled with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.
Eric Tucker, The Associated Press
Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism about the legality of a Trump administration executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted President Donald Trump's executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.
Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department lawyer's claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The actions have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.
“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”
Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.
Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department's “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order.
“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That's a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note that Jenner & Block previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump during his first term over potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.
"All we need to do is read this thing," Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”
Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.
On Monday, Virginia Rep. Gerald Connolly, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another member of the panel, California Rep. Dave Min, sent letters to law firms that have settled with the administration seeking details about the terms of the deals.
Eric Tucker, The Associated Press
American zionists are still sending the cops out on american students.
Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from South Texas under 18th-century wartime law
A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump's invocation of it was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United States.
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, "the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members, without the usual court proceedings.
"The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese-Americans.
The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. "Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”
If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to remain in the U.S.
The administration, as it has in other cases challenging its expansive view of presidential power, could turn to appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the form of an emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of time.
It’s possible that the losing side in the 5th Circuit would file an emergency appeal with the justices that also would ask them to short-circuit lower court action in favor of a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. Such a decision likely would be months away, at least.
The Texas case is just one piece of a tangle of litigation sparked by Trump's proclamation.
The ACLU initially filed suit in the nation's capital to block deportations. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary hold on removals and ordered the administration turn around planes that had left with detainees headed to El Salvador, a directive that was apparently ignored. Later, the Supreme Court weighed in.
The justices stepped in again late last month with an unusual postmidnight order halting deportations from North Texas, where the ACLU contended the administration was preparing for another round of flights to El Salvador.
___
Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press
A federal judge on Thursday barred the Trump administration from deporting any Venezuelans from South Texas under an 18th-century wartime law and said President Donald Trump's invocation of it was “unlawful.”
U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. is the first judge to rule that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used against people who, the Republican administration claims, are gang members invading the United States.
“Neither the Court nor the parties question that the Executive Branch can direct the detention and removal of aliens who engage in criminal activity in the United States,” wrote Rodriguez, who was nominated by Trump in 2018. But, the judge said, "the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute’s terms.”
In March, Trump issued a proclamation claiming that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was invading the U.S. He said he had special powers to deport immigrants, identified by his administration as gang members, without the usual court proceedings.
"The Court concludes that the President’s invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez wrote.
The Alien Enemies Act has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II, when it was cited to intern Japanese-Americans.
The proclamation triggered a flurry of litigation as the administration tried to ship migrants it claimed were gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Rodriguez’s ruling is significant because it is the first formal permanent injunction against the administration using the AEA and contends the president is misusing the law. "Congress never meant for this law to be used in this manner,” said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, in response to the ruling.
Rodriguez agreed, noting that the provision has only been used during the two World Wars and the War of 1812. Trump claimed Tren de Aragua was acting at the behest of the Venezuelan government, but Rodriguez found that the activities the administration accused it of did not amount to an invasion or “predatory incursion,” as the statute requires.
“The Proclamation makes no reference to and in no manner suggests that a threat exists of an organized, armed group of individuals entering the United States at the direction of Venezuela to conquer the country or assume control over a portion of the nation,” Rodriguez wrote. “Thus, the Proclamation’s language cannot be read as describing conduct that falls within the meaning of ‘invasion’ for purposes of the AEA.”
If the administration appeals, it would go first to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That is among the nation’s most conservative appeals courts and it also has ruled against what it saw as overreach on immigration matters by both the Obama and Biden administrations. In those cases, Democratic administrations had sought to make it easier for immigrants to remain in the U.S.
The administration, as it has in other cases challenging its expansive view of presidential power, could turn to appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, in the form of an emergency motion for a stay pending an appeal.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in once on the issue of deportations under the AEA. The justices held that migrants alleged to be gang members must be given “reasonable time” to contest their removal from the country. The court has not specified the length of time.
It’s possible that the losing side in the 5th Circuit would file an emergency appeal with the justices that also would ask them to short-circuit lower court action in favor of a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. Such a decision likely would be months away, at least.
The Texas case is just one piece of a tangle of litigation sparked by Trump's proclamation.
The ACLU initially filed suit in the nation's capital to block deportations. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary hold on removals and ordered the administration turn around planes that had left with detainees headed to El Salvador, a directive that was apparently ignored. Later, the Supreme Court weighed in.
The justices stepped in again late last month with an unusual postmidnight order halting deportations from North Texas, where the ACLU contended the administration was preparing for another round of flights to El Salvador.
___
Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Lindsay Whitehurst and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.
Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press
The Justice Department ended a decades-old school desegregation order. Others are expected to fall
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Justice Department lifted a school desegregation order in Louisiana this week, officials called its continued existence a “historical wrong” and suggested that others dating to the Civil Rights Movement should be reconsidered.
The end of the 1966 legal agreement with Plaquemines Parish schools announced Tuesday shows the Trump administration is “getting America refocused on our bright future,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said.
Inside the Justice Department, officials appointed by President Donald Trump have expressed desire to withdraw from other desegregation orders they see as an unnecessary burden on schools, according to a person familiar with the issue who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Dozens of school districts across the South remain under court-enforced agreements dictating steps to work toward integration, decades after the Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in education. Some see the court orders' endurance as a sign the government never eradicated segregation, while officials in Louisiana and at some schools see the orders as bygone relics that should be wiped away.
The Justice Department opened a wave of cases in the 1960s, after Congress unleashed the department to go after schools that resisted desegregation. Known as consent decrees, the orders can be lifted when districts prove they have eliminated segregation and its legacy.
The small Louisiana district has a long-running integration case
The Trump administration called the Plaquemines case an example of administrative neglect. The district in the Mississippi River Delta Basin in southeast Louisiana was found to have integrated in 1975, but the case was to stay under the court’s watch for another year. The judge died the same year, and the court record “appears to be lost to time,” according to a court filing.
“Given that this case has been stayed for a half-century with zero action by the court, the parties or any third-party, the parties are satisfied that the United States’ claims have been fully resolved,” according to a joint filing from the Justice Department and the office of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.
Plaquemines Superintendent Shelley Ritz said Justice Department officials still visited every year as recently as 2023 and requested data on topics including hiring and discipline. She said the paperwork was a burden for her district of fewer than 4,000 students.
Louisiana “got its act together decades ago,” said Leo Terrell, senior counsel to the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, in a statement. He said the dismissal corrects a historical wrong, adding it’s “past time to acknowledge how far we have come.”
Murrill asked the Justice Department to close other school orders in her state. In a statement, she vowed to work with Louisiana schools to help them “put the past in the past.”
Civil rights activists say that's the wrong move. Many orders have been only loosely enforced in recent decades, but that doesn't mean problems are solved, said Johnathan Smith, who worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division during President Joe Biden's administration.
“It probably means the opposite — that the school district remains segregated. And in fact, most of these districts are now more segregated today than they were in 1954," said Smith, who is now chief of staff and general counsel for the National Center for Youth Law.
Desegregation orders involve a range of instructions
More than 130 school systems are under Justice Department desegregation orders, according to records in a court filing this year. The vast majority are in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, with smaller numbers in states like Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. Some other districts remain under separate desegregation agreements with the Education Department.
The orders can include a range of remedies, from busing requirements to district policies allowing students in predominately Black schools to transfer to predominately white ones. The agreements are between the school district and the U.S. government, but other parties can ask the court to intervene when signs of segregation resurface.
Last year, a Louisiana school board closed a predominately Black elementary school near a petrochemical facility after the NAACP said it disproportionately exposed Black students to health risks. The board made the decision after the NAACP filed a motion invoking a decades-old desegregation order at St. John the Baptist Parish.
The dismissal has raised alarms among some who fear it could undo decades of progress. Research on districts released from orders has found that many saw greater increases in racial segregation compared with those under court orders.
“In very many cases, schools quite rapidly resegregate, and there are new civil rights concerns for students,” said Halley Potter, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who studies educational inequity.
Ending the orders would send a signal that desegregation is no longer a priority, said Robert Westley, a professor of antidiscrimination law at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans.
“It’s really just signaling that the backsliding that has started some time ago is complete," Westley said. “The United States government doesn’t really care anymore of dealing with problems of racial discrimination in the schools. It’s over.”
Any attempt to drop further cases would face heavy opposition in court, said Raymond Pierce, president and CEO of the Southern Education Foundation.
“It represents a disregard for education opportunities for a large section of America. It represents a disregard for America’s need to have an educated workforce," he said. “And it represents a disregard for the rule of law.”
___
Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye contributed from New Orleans.
___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Collin Binkley, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Justice Department lifted a school desegregation order in Louisiana this week, officials called its continued existence a “historical wrong” and suggested that others dating to the Civil Rights Movement should be reconsidered.
The end of the 1966 legal agreement with Plaquemines Parish schools announced Tuesday shows the Trump administration is “getting America refocused on our bright future,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said.
Inside the Justice Department, officials appointed by President Donald Trump have expressed desire to withdraw from other desegregation orders they see as an unnecessary burden on schools, according to a person familiar with the issue who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
Dozens of school districts across the South remain under court-enforced agreements dictating steps to work toward integration, decades after the Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in education. Some see the court orders' endurance as a sign the government never eradicated segregation, while officials in Louisiana and at some schools see the orders as bygone relics that should be wiped away.
The Justice Department opened a wave of cases in the 1960s, after Congress unleashed the department to go after schools that resisted desegregation. Known as consent decrees, the orders can be lifted when districts prove they have eliminated segregation and its legacy.
The small Louisiana district has a long-running integration case
The Trump administration called the Plaquemines case an example of administrative neglect. The district in the Mississippi River Delta Basin in southeast Louisiana was found to have integrated in 1975, but the case was to stay under the court’s watch for another year. The judge died the same year, and the court record “appears to be lost to time,” according to a court filing.
“Given that this case has been stayed for a half-century with zero action by the court, the parties or any third-party, the parties are satisfied that the United States’ claims have been fully resolved,” according to a joint filing from the Justice Department and the office of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill.
Plaquemines Superintendent Shelley Ritz said Justice Department officials still visited every year as recently as 2023 and requested data on topics including hiring and discipline. She said the paperwork was a burden for her district of fewer than 4,000 students.
Louisiana “got its act together decades ago,” said Leo Terrell, senior counsel to the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, in a statement. He said the dismissal corrects a historical wrong, adding it’s “past time to acknowledge how far we have come.”
Murrill asked the Justice Department to close other school orders in her state. In a statement, she vowed to work with Louisiana schools to help them “put the past in the past.”
Civil rights activists say that's the wrong move. Many orders have been only loosely enforced in recent decades, but that doesn't mean problems are solved, said Johnathan Smith, who worked in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division during President Joe Biden's administration.
“It probably means the opposite — that the school district remains segregated. And in fact, most of these districts are now more segregated today than they were in 1954," said Smith, who is now chief of staff and general counsel for the National Center for Youth Law.
Desegregation orders involve a range of instructions
More than 130 school systems are under Justice Department desegregation orders, according to records in a court filing this year. The vast majority are in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi, with smaller numbers in states like Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. Some other districts remain under separate desegregation agreements with the Education Department.
The orders can include a range of remedies, from busing requirements to district policies allowing students in predominately Black schools to transfer to predominately white ones. The agreements are between the school district and the U.S. government, but other parties can ask the court to intervene when signs of segregation resurface.
Last year, a Louisiana school board closed a predominately Black elementary school near a petrochemical facility after the NAACP said it disproportionately exposed Black students to health risks. The board made the decision after the NAACP filed a motion invoking a decades-old desegregation order at St. John the Baptist Parish.
The dismissal has raised alarms among some who fear it could undo decades of progress. Research on districts released from orders has found that many saw greater increases in racial segregation compared with those under court orders.
“In very many cases, schools quite rapidly resegregate, and there are new civil rights concerns for students,” said Halley Potter, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation who studies educational inequity.
Ending the orders would send a signal that desegregation is no longer a priority, said Robert Westley, a professor of antidiscrimination law at Tulane University Law School in New Orleans.
“It’s really just signaling that the backsliding that has started some time ago is complete," Westley said. “The United States government doesn’t really care anymore of dealing with problems of racial discrimination in the schools. It’s over.”
Any attempt to drop further cases would face heavy opposition in court, said Raymond Pierce, president and CEO of the Southern Education Foundation.
“It represents a disregard for education opportunities for a large section of America. It represents a disregard for America’s need to have an educated workforce," he said. “And it represents a disregard for the rule of law.”
___
Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye contributed from New Orleans.
___
The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Collin Binkley, The Associated Press
