That woman is such a despicable piece of work. Why would the farm workers believe them. After all you are talking about an administration that was negotiating with Iran then had their negotiating team MURDERED.
update - Bondi fires DoJ ethics head, effective immediately
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
What a fucking moron. USA has a trade SURPLUS with Brazil . Was it signed "His dufusery DJT. " Does he even realize when he does shit like this that American businesses are getting HAMMERED? I wonder if Starbuck will sue his orange ass off.
Last edited:
The Trump administration has gone 0-for-4 in defending the president's executive orders targeting big law firms, and at this point it's hard to see what the White House has gotten out of the episode.
Nine of the firms targeted by president Donald Trump reached settlements to avoid penalties imposed by the executive branch by agreeing to provide free legal services to the administration, but all four firms that refused to submit have successfully challenged the orders – and Politico's Ankush Khardori argued that the decision to reach deals looks worse and worse.
"Trump’s executive orders and the deals struck by the settling firms have not aged well," Khardori wrote. "The firms that threw in the towel appear to have misjudged the fallout — financial, reputational, political and legal. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has gotten hammered by the judges presiding over the cases challenging the White House, and it’s far from clear the government’s appeal will get a better reception in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, if it gets there."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
The president has publicly crowed about the deals for months and keeps threatening to put the settling firms to work for his administration, but representatives from three of those firms privately told Khadori they had still not received any instructions or input from the White House on matters to take on.
"Some of the firms do appear to be making subtle changes to their pro bono portfolios without hearing from the Trump administration," Khadori wrote. "Not surprisingly, firms appear to be pulling back on pro bono immigration work. I also have heard that some conservative legal advocacy groups have fielded calls from lawyers at the settling firms about finding pro bono cases to partner on."
The risk of getting tasked with pro bono work remains the most potent near-term threat to the settling firms, and maybe that shoe will eventually drop, but the firms could be emboldened by the administration's losing streak to defy any orders to take up a case on their behalf.
"The settling firms would — ironically perhaps — end up benefitting from the firms that refused to give in to the Trump administration," Khadori wrote. "That’s because if they ultimately needed to mount their own challenges to the administration, they would likely point directly to the four decisions already rendered against the administration to back them up. Those decisions have been swift and unsparing."
Judges have been throwing the administration's stated grievances against the firms right back at them in their adverse rulings, and Khadori said that didn't bode well in future appeals by the administration, and some of the lawyers at the settling firms that this could just blow over like many Trump iniatives.
"Trump and his administration got the political scalp they wanted, the thinking goes, but they are not particularly good at executing complex policy initiatives — like completing 90 trade deals in 90 days or finding a buyer for TikTok that will actually comply with the law that Trump decided to ignore after reentering office," Khadori wrote.
Judges' 'swift and unsparing' rulings put Trump's retribution plan in jeopardy
Nine of the firms targeted by president Donald Trump reached settlements to avoid penalties imposed by the executive branch by agreeing to provide free legal services to the administration, but all four firms that refused to submit have successfully challenged the orders – and Politico's Ankush Khardori argued that the decision to reach deals looks worse and worse.
"Trump’s executive orders and the deals struck by the settling firms have not aged well," Khardori wrote. "The firms that threw in the towel appear to have misjudged the fallout — financial, reputational, political and legal. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has gotten hammered by the judges presiding over the cases challenging the White House, and it’s far from clear the government’s appeal will get a better reception in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, if it gets there."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
The president has publicly crowed about the deals for months and keeps threatening to put the settling firms to work for his administration, but representatives from three of those firms privately told Khadori they had still not received any instructions or input from the White House on matters to take on.
"Some of the firms do appear to be making subtle changes to their pro bono portfolios without hearing from the Trump administration," Khadori wrote. "Not surprisingly, firms appear to be pulling back on pro bono immigration work. I also have heard that some conservative legal advocacy groups have fielded calls from lawyers at the settling firms about finding pro bono cases to partner on."
The risk of getting tasked with pro bono work remains the most potent near-term threat to the settling firms, and maybe that shoe will eventually drop, but the firms could be emboldened by the administration's losing streak to defy any orders to take up a case on their behalf.
"The settling firms would — ironically perhaps — end up benefitting from the firms that refused to give in to the Trump administration," Khadori wrote. "That’s because if they ultimately needed to mount their own challenges to the administration, they would likely point directly to the four decisions already rendered against the administration to back them up. Those decisions have been swift and unsparing."
Judges have been throwing the administration's stated grievances against the firms right back at them in their adverse rulings, and Khadori said that didn't bode well in future appeals by the administration, and some of the lawyers at the settling firms that this could just blow over like many Trump iniatives.
"Trump and his administration got the political scalp they wanted, the thinking goes, but they are not particularly good at executing complex policy initiatives — like completing 90 trade deals in 90 days or finding a buyer for TikTok that will actually comply with the law that Trump decided to ignore after reentering office," Khadori wrote.
Judges' 'swift and unsparing' rulings put Trump's retribution plan in jeopardy
(Reuters) -President Donald Trump's antitrust enforcers recently cleared a string of multibillion-dollar deals in a week, demonstrating a willingness to settle with companies that marks a shift from the Biden administration.
The U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission cleared three deals that were together worth $63 billion in June, illustrating how FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and DOJ antitrust head Gail Slater are taking a different tack from their predecessors.
The settlements, along with a return to formally cutting short waiting periods, provide certainty to dealmakers and could smooth the path for companies like Nutella maker Ferrero, which on Thursday entered a deal to pay $3.1 billion for cereal maker WK Kellogg.
"The Trump administration's commitment to getting out of the way for non-problematic deals suggests a smoother, quicker process for Ferrero-WK Kellogg, assuming that there are minimal competitive concerns," said Andre Barlow, an antitrust lawyer in Washington.
In late June, the FTC cleared candy maker Mars' $36 billion takeover of Pringles maker Kellanova after around 10 months. The same week, advertising agency Omnicom's $13.5 billion acquisition of rival Interpublic got the green light in less than seven months, after the company agreed to restrictions on its ability to steer ad dollars based on political considerations. Both deals still face regulatory review in other countries.
“Chairman Ferguson has been clear since day one. The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to getting out of the way of mergers if there are no competition concerns,” said FTC spokesperson Joe Simonson.
Deals subject to review in the U.S. must wait 30 days to close — but antitrust enforcers can shorten the waiting period if they do not see a need for further review. More than 100 transactions have been granted shorter reviews since the beginning of Trump's second term, according to FTC data. The practice was suspended for most of former President Joe Biden's term to give antitrust enforcers time to investigate, frustrating dealmakers looking to close quickly.
On average, companies agreed with one another to allow 18.5 months for their deals to close in 2024, according to data compiled by law firm Dechert. The firm suggested in May that the timelines had been extended by the Biden administration's unwillingness to settle with companies.
DETERRENCE NOT THE GOAL
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan often spoke about combatting corporate concentration, and how increased scrutiny should make companies think twice about entering potentially illegal deals.
Now, deterrence is not the goal, Bill Rinner, Slater's deputy in charge of merger enforcement who joined the DOJ from hedge fund Apollo Global Management, said in a June 4 speech.
"Deals that are pro-competitive or competitively neutral should be able to proceed without a lingering regulatory review tax," he said, according to a copy of the remarks delivered in Washington.
Rinner was among DOJ leadership who signed off on a settlement in late June with Hewlett Packard Enterprise over its $14 billion deal to acquire networking gear maker Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued to block the deal in January, shortly after Trump took office, alleging it would harm competition in the market for wireless networking solutions used by large enterprises. HPE started negotiating the deal with the DOJ on March 25, around two weeks after Slater was sworn in, according to court papers.
Ahead of a scheduled trial, the DOJ agreed to drop its claims in exchange for HPE agreeing to license some of Juniper's AI technology to competitors and sell off a unit that caters to small and mid-sized businesses.
The moves are being watched by dealmakers, who see increasing appetite for megadeals. And they signal a potential path forward for deals such as UnitedHealth's $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys, which still faces a court challenge brought by the Biden administration. The DOJ and the companies are scheduled to attend mediation in the case in August.
Other deals are waiting in the wings. Charter Communications' buy of rival Cox Communications for $21.9 billion, financial technology firm Rocket Companies' $9.4 billion deal to buy home loan service provider Mr Cooper Group, and Google parent company Alphabet's $32 billion acquisition of cybersecurity startup Wiz in 2026 are pending regulatory clearance in the U.S.
Antitrust lawyer Barlow said that some deals, such as Kroger's $25 billion bid to buy grocery chain Albertsons, which the Biden administration successfully sued to block, would still face challenges under the Trump administration.
"The question is, would this administration settle it? And I think the answer is, well, you have a better chance with this administration than you did with the last one," he said.
(Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York; Editing by Chris Sanders and Matthew Lewis)
Analysis-Trump's antitrust enforcers 'get out of the way' of multibillion-dollar deals
The U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission cleared three deals that were together worth $63 billion in June, illustrating how FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson and DOJ antitrust head Gail Slater are taking a different tack from their predecessors.
The settlements, along with a return to formally cutting short waiting periods, provide certainty to dealmakers and could smooth the path for companies like Nutella maker Ferrero, which on Thursday entered a deal to pay $3.1 billion for cereal maker WK Kellogg.
"The Trump administration's commitment to getting out of the way for non-problematic deals suggests a smoother, quicker process for Ferrero-WK Kellogg, assuming that there are minimal competitive concerns," said Andre Barlow, an antitrust lawyer in Washington.
In late June, the FTC cleared candy maker Mars' $36 billion takeover of Pringles maker Kellanova after around 10 months. The same week, advertising agency Omnicom's $13.5 billion acquisition of rival Interpublic got the green light in less than seven months, after the company agreed to restrictions on its ability to steer ad dollars based on political considerations. Both deals still face regulatory review in other countries.
“Chairman Ferguson has been clear since day one. The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to getting out of the way of mergers if there are no competition concerns,” said FTC spokesperson Joe Simonson.
Deals subject to review in the U.S. must wait 30 days to close — but antitrust enforcers can shorten the waiting period if they do not see a need for further review. More than 100 transactions have been granted shorter reviews since the beginning of Trump's second term, according to FTC data. The practice was suspended for most of former President Joe Biden's term to give antitrust enforcers time to investigate, frustrating dealmakers looking to close quickly.
On average, companies agreed with one another to allow 18.5 months for their deals to close in 2024, according to data compiled by law firm Dechert. The firm suggested in May that the timelines had been extended by the Biden administration's unwillingness to settle with companies.
DETERRENCE NOT THE GOAL
Former FTC Chair Lina Khan often spoke about combatting corporate concentration, and how increased scrutiny should make companies think twice about entering potentially illegal deals.
Now, deterrence is not the goal, Bill Rinner, Slater's deputy in charge of merger enforcement who joined the DOJ from hedge fund Apollo Global Management, said in a June 4 speech.
"Deals that are pro-competitive or competitively neutral should be able to proceed without a lingering regulatory review tax," he said, according to a copy of the remarks delivered in Washington.
Rinner was among DOJ leadership who signed off on a settlement in late June with Hewlett Packard Enterprise over its $14 billion deal to acquire networking gear maker Juniper Networks.
The DOJ had sued to block the deal in January, shortly after Trump took office, alleging it would harm competition in the market for wireless networking solutions used by large enterprises. HPE started negotiating the deal with the DOJ on March 25, around two weeks after Slater was sworn in, according to court papers.
Ahead of a scheduled trial, the DOJ agreed to drop its claims in exchange for HPE agreeing to license some of Juniper's AI technology to competitors and sell off a unit that caters to small and mid-sized businesses.
The moves are being watched by dealmakers, who see increasing appetite for megadeals. And they signal a potential path forward for deals such as UnitedHealth's $3.3 billion acquisition of Amedisys, which still faces a court challenge brought by the Biden administration. The DOJ and the companies are scheduled to attend mediation in the case in August.
Other deals are waiting in the wings. Charter Communications' buy of rival Cox Communications for $21.9 billion, financial technology firm Rocket Companies' $9.4 billion deal to buy home loan service provider Mr Cooper Group, and Google parent company Alphabet's $32 billion acquisition of cybersecurity startup Wiz in 2026 are pending regulatory clearance in the U.S.
Antitrust lawyer Barlow said that some deals, such as Kroger's $25 billion bid to buy grocery chain Albertsons, which the Biden administration successfully sued to block, would still face challenges under the Trump administration.
"The question is, would this administration settle it? And I think the answer is, well, you have a better chance with this administration than you did with the last one," he said.
(Reporting by Jody Godoy in New York; Editing by Chris Sanders and Matthew Lewis)
Analysis-Trump's antitrust enforcers 'get out of the way' of multibillion-dollar deals
A federal appeals court in New York on Thursday upheld a civil jury verdict that found President Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll, and which ordered him to pay her $5 million in damages.
A three-judge appeals panel in its unanimous ruling said it concluded that Trump “had not demonstrated that the district court” judge who presided over his trial “erred in any of the challenged rulings.”
“Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial,” wrote the panel the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Trump was appealing a May 2023 verdict by a jury in Manhattan federal court.
Read more CNBC politics coverage
View More
That jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a New York City department store in the 1990s, and for defaming her in late 2022 when he denied her allegation. Trump was not president at the time he made the statements that led to the defamation verdict in that case.
Lawyer John Sauer argues for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump on the podium where he is asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $5 million jury verdict finding him liable for sexually assaulting and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of raping her nearly three decades ago, in Manhattan, New York, U.S., September 6, 2024, in this courtroom sketch.
Jane Rosenberg | Reuters
A second jury in the same courthouse in January 2024 found Trump civilly liable for defaming Carroll in statements he made in June 2019, when he was president, after she first went public with her claim that he had raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman store.
The jury in that second case ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages. Trump is appealing that verdict.
A three-judge appeals panel in its unanimous ruling said it concluded that Trump “had not demonstrated that the district court” judge who presided over his trial “erred in any of the challenged rulings.”
“Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial,” wrote the panel the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Trump was appealing a May 2023 verdict by a jury in Manhattan federal court.
Read more CNBC politics coverage
View More
That jury found him liable for sexually abusing Carroll in a New York City department store in the 1990s, and for defaming her in late 2022 when he denied her allegation. Trump was not president at the time he made the statements that led to the defamation verdict in that case.
Lawyer John Sauer argues for Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump on the podium where he is asking a federal appeals court to overturn a $5 million jury verdict finding him liable for sexually assaulting and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of raping her nearly three decades ago, in Manhattan, New York, U.S., September 6, 2024, in this courtroom sketch.
Jane Rosenberg | Reuters
A second jury in the same courthouse in January 2024 found Trump civilly liable for defaming Carroll in statements he made in June 2019, when he was president, after she first went public with her claim that he had raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman store.
The jury in that second case ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages. Trump is appealing that verdict.
Last week, while touring “Alligator Alcatraz,” the new immigrant detention center in Florida, President Donald Trump said he approved of a plan to use National Guard officers as immigration judges in the state.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had been pushing the plan for months as a way to speed up deportations. “He didn’t even have to ask me…He has my approval,” Trump told reporters. Specifically, DeSantis would tap nine National Guard officers from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, the military’s legal arm.
The catch? Legal experts who have served as JAGs themselves question the plan’s legality. “There is no clear precedent for what DeSantis and the president are doing,” says Mark Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University who served as a Navy JAG.
JAGs are lawyers who advise their branch of the military or National Guard on a host of legal matters; they might help commanders follow use-of-force laws, for example, or defend soldiers accused of misconduct. Former JAGs told me that deploying JAGs as immigration judges in Florida would arguably violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement or “executing the laws,” unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
MOTHER JONES TOP STORIES
“That runs the gamut from making arrests, investigating crimes, and doing police work, all the way up to guarding prisoners or running courts,” says Daniel Maurer, an Army JAG until 2024 who also taught law at West Point and at the Judge Advocate General’s School in Virginia.
The Trump administration has already deployed National Guard officers to Los Angeles for its summer immigration raids over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, but the administration insisted those troops were there to provide security to ICE agents, not to participate in arrests themselves.
There’s an important exception to the Posse Comitatus Act: Troops may lawfully engage in civilian law enforcement if the president invokes the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old law that allows the commander in chief to deploy military forces within the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence. Trump has floated the idea in the past. “But none of the facts on the ground justify doing that,” says Maurer, “which is why they haven’t done it yet.”
If Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act, adds Raquel Aldana, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, it would be a huge turning point: “The reality is that, once he does, the powers can be unlimited and we are in a military state.”
Importantly, if the JAGs in Florida were to remain under state command, rather than federal command, the Posse Comitatus Act would not apply and they could arguably engage in law enforcement. The National Guard serves a dual role, not only as reserve military power for the feds, but also as a state-based militia that reports to the governor. As immigration judges, however, these officers would work for the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which means the Possee Comitatus Act would apply. “They’d be in a federal status and subject to federal authorities,” a spokesperson for the Florida National Guard told me.
The former JAGs I spoke with gamed out several scenarios but could not find any that would clearly authorize JAGs to work as immigration judges, short of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act or Congress passing a law giving them that authority.
The administration might assert that JAGs turned immigration judges aren’t performing law enforcement duties—they’re not out on the streets acting as police—and therefore aren’t doing anything wrong. “The million dollar question,” says Geoffrey Corn, a former Army JAG who directs the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, is whether JAGs working as immigration judges would be “executing the law” within the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Courts have held that troops cross the line if they engage in conduct that’s “regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory in nature.” Immigration judges, in ordering people to be detained or deported, arguably engage in compulsory or regulatory conduct.
On the other hand, Corn says, the Trump administration might point to a precedent of military JAGs helping US attorneys prosecute federal misdemeanor crimes on military bases. Nobody has challenged that practice as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, he says. But those JAGs aren’t issuing rulings with a compulsory effect, like judges. And there is a congressional statute that authorizes them to work as prosecutors, says Maurer.
“There’s nuance here that we have not seen addressed before,” Corn says. “We’ve never considered the use of a military lawyer in a quasi-judicial function as a Posse Comitatus issue—nobody has ever brought it up.”
The Florida National Guard does have a so-called 287(g) agreement with ICE that doesn’t violate the Posse Comitatus Act because the Guard stays under state control, not federal control. But this arrangement doesn’t allow Guard personnel to work as judges, Corn says.
The DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment on whether DeSantis’ plan is legal. Trump, after touring Alligator Alcatraz, suggested the governor was within his rights: “On January 20, I signed an executive order empowering governors and state police to be deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, and Ron’s already taken advantage of it,” he said.
The Florida National Guard spokesperson told me they have not yet received orders for JAGs to take on the new assignment, “but we are standing by to provide assistance as needed and directed.”
Should that order come, the JAGs could be trained in as little as six weeks, according to Florida’s proposed immigration enforcement plan. That seems insufficient. “There would be a significant learning curve,” Nevitt notes. Immigration law is “incredibly complex,” Aldana adds, and training people to adjudicate these cases so quickly, even if they are skilled in another area of law, such as military law, “defies logic.”
Impartiality is another concern. If National Guard JAGs work as judges, their chain of command extends up to Trump, and they wouldn’t have “one single iota of judicial independence,” VanLandingham told me.
Some experts question why deploying National Guard personnel is even on the table when Congress just allocated $170 billion to ramp up immigration enforcement. “If ICE now has the money to go out and hire new folks, why do they need the military?” says Maurer. “My speculation is because it plays better on TV: It’s consistent with how the administration has from Day One characterized the threat of illegal immigration as a national security issue, as an invasion. Who fights against an invasion? Well, the military.”
“But what you end up with,” he adds, “is military officers under federal control who are running civilian courts—and that should raise all sorts of alarms.”
www.motherjones.com
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis had been pushing the plan for months as a way to speed up deportations. “He didn’t even have to ask me…He has my approval,” Trump told reporters. Specifically, DeSantis would tap nine National Guard officers from the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, the military’s legal arm.
The catch? Legal experts who have served as JAGs themselves question the plan’s legality. “There is no clear precedent for what DeSantis and the president are doing,” says Mark Nevitt, a law professor at Emory University who served as a Navy JAG.
“This would be unlawful,” says Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles who was an Air Force JAG and is now president emerita of the nonprofit National Institute of Military Justice. And it’s “frightening,” because “the use of military courts to hear civilian cases is the essential component of martial law.”
JAGs are lawyers who advise their branch of the military or National Guard on a host of legal matters; they might help commanders follow use-of-force laws, for example, or defend soldiers accused of misconduct. Former JAGs told me that deploying JAGs as immigration judges in Florida would arguably violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement or “executing the laws,” unless otherwise authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
MOTHER JONES TOP STORIES
“That runs the gamut from making arrests, investigating crimes, and doing police work, all the way up to guarding prisoners or running courts,” says Daniel Maurer, an Army JAG until 2024 who also taught law at West Point and at the Judge Advocate General’s School in Virginia.
The Trump administration has already deployed National Guard officers to Los Angeles for its summer immigration raids over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, but the administration insisted those troops were there to provide security to ICE agents, not to participate in arrests themselves.
There’s an important exception to the Posse Comitatus Act: Troops may lawfully engage in civilian law enforcement if the president invokes the Insurrection Act, a centuries-old law that allows the commander in chief to deploy military forces within the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence. Trump has floated the idea in the past. “But none of the facts on the ground justify doing that,” says Maurer, “which is why they haven’t done it yet.”
If Trump were to invoke the Insurrection Act, adds Raquel Aldana, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, it would be a huge turning point: “The reality is that, once he does, the powers can be unlimited and we are in a military state.”
Importantly, if the JAGs in Florida were to remain under state command, rather than federal command, the Posse Comitatus Act would not apply and they could arguably engage in law enforcement. The National Guard serves a dual role, not only as reserve military power for the feds, but also as a state-based militia that reports to the governor. As immigration judges, however, these officers would work for the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which means the Possee Comitatus Act would apply. “They’d be in a federal status and subject to federal authorities,” a spokesperson for the Florida National Guard told me.
The former JAGs I spoke with gamed out several scenarios but could not find any that would clearly authorize JAGs to work as immigration judges, short of Trump invoking the Insurrection Act or Congress passing a law giving them that authority.
The administration might assert that JAGs turned immigration judges aren’t performing law enforcement duties—they’re not out on the streets acting as police—and therefore aren’t doing anything wrong. “The million dollar question,” says Geoffrey Corn, a former Army JAG who directs the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University, is whether JAGs working as immigration judges would be “executing the law” within the meaning of the Posse Comitatus Act.
Courts have held that troops cross the line if they engage in conduct that’s “regulatory, prescriptive, or compulsory in nature.” Immigration judges, in ordering people to be detained or deported, arguably engage in compulsory or regulatory conduct.
On the other hand, Corn says, the Trump administration might point to a precedent of military JAGs helping US attorneys prosecute federal misdemeanor crimes on military bases. Nobody has challenged that practice as a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, he says. But those JAGs aren’t issuing rulings with a compulsory effect, like judges. And there is a congressional statute that authorizes them to work as prosecutors, says Maurer.
“There’s nuance here that we have not seen addressed before,” Corn says. “We’ve never considered the use of a military lawyer in a quasi-judicial function as a Posse Comitatus issue—nobody has ever brought it up.”
The Florida National Guard does have a so-called 287(g) agreement with ICE that doesn’t violate the Posse Comitatus Act because the Guard stays under state control, not federal control. But this arrangement doesn’t allow Guard personnel to work as judges, Corn says.
The DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review declined to comment on whether DeSantis’ plan is legal. Trump, after touring Alligator Alcatraz, suggested the governor was within his rights: “On January 20, I signed an executive order empowering governors and state police to be deputized to enforce federal immigration laws, and Ron’s already taken advantage of it,” he said.
The Florida National Guard spokesperson told me they have not yet received orders for JAGs to take on the new assignment, “but we are standing by to provide assistance as needed and directed.”
Should that order come, the JAGs could be trained in as little as six weeks, according to Florida’s proposed immigration enforcement plan. That seems insufficient. “There would be a significant learning curve,” Nevitt notes. Immigration law is “incredibly complex,” Aldana adds, and training people to adjudicate these cases so quickly, even if they are skilled in another area of law, such as military law, “defies logic.”
Impartiality is another concern. If National Guard JAGs work as judges, their chain of command extends up to Trump, and they wouldn’t have “one single iota of judicial independence,” VanLandingham told me.
Some experts question why deploying National Guard personnel is even on the table when Congress just allocated $170 billion to ramp up immigration enforcement. “If ICE now has the money to go out and hire new folks, why do they need the military?” says Maurer. “My speculation is because it plays better on TV: It’s consistent with how the administration has from Day One characterized the threat of illegal immigration as a national security issue, as an invasion. Who fights against an invasion? Well, the military.”
“But what you end up with,” he adds, “is military officers under federal control who are running civilian courts—and that should raise all sorts of alarms.”
Experts question the legality of deploying National Guard officials as immigration judges
"The use of military courts to hear civilian cases is the essential component of martial law."
www.motherjones.com
A federal judge has blocked Donald Trump’s executive order that seeks to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen, paving the way for another major Supreme Court case involving the president’s birthright citizenship challenge.
Several courts have already struck down the president’s attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. But the Supreme Court last month determined those judges went too far by issuing nationwide injunctions instead of applying the rulings to only the states and plaintiffs who sued the administration.
This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory
Video Player is loading.
The Independent
Trump speaks after Supreme Court rules in favor of ending birthright citizenship
The court’s conservative majority, however, left open the possibility of plaintiffs bringing a class-action lawsuit representing all impacted newborns.
On Thursday, New Hampshire District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed to grant class-action status to all babies who stand to lose automatic U.S. citizenship when Trump’s order takes effect.
His forthcoming injunction was “not a close call,” said LaPlante, noting that thousands of children would be deprived of their citizenship should Trump’s order go into effect.
“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
A written decision will be stayed to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, he said.
“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project director Cody Wofsy, who argued the case. “We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn’t trample on the citizenship rights of one single child.”
In a statement to The Independent, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said the decision “is an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.”
“This judge’s decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures,” he said. “The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the merits of legal challenges to Trump’s executive order that redefines the scope of the 14th Amendment, but the decision opened the door for partial enforcement in states that were not represented in a wave of lawsuits against the order.
Trump’s order was also blocked from taking effect for 30 days, until later this month, to allow lower courts to revisit the scope of their injunctions and give time for opponents to file new legal challenges.
Critics have warned that allowing the president to effectively rewrite a core component of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits — including voting rights.
The 14th Amendment plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the definition to apply to all children born within the United States.
But under the terms of Trump’s order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn’t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump’s order, according to the plaintiffs.
But the Trump administration did not necessarily use the Supreme Court case to argue over whether he can change the 14th Amendment. Instead, the administration wanted to target what has become a major obstacle to advancing the president’s agenda: universal injunctions that have blocked a bulk of his policy nationally.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the president told reporters at the White House that the Department of Justice intends to “promptly file” legal challenges in cases where the president’s executive actions were temporarily blocked.
Judge strikes down Trump’s birthright citizenship order in new legal challenge after Supreme Court ruling
Several courts have already struck down the president’s attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. But the Supreme Court last month determined those judges went too far by issuing nationwide injunctions instead of applying the rulings to only the states and plaintiffs who sued the administration.
This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory
Video Player is loading.
Trump speaks after Supreme Court rules in favor of ending birthright citizenship
The court’s conservative majority, however, left open the possibility of plaintiffs bringing a class-action lawsuit representing all impacted newborns.
On Thursday, New Hampshire District Judge Joseph Laplante agreed to grant class-action status to all babies who stand to lose automatic U.S. citizenship when Trump’s order takes effect.
His forthcoming injunction was “not a close call,” said LaPlante, noting that thousands of children would be deprived of their citizenship should Trump’s order go into effect.
“That’s irreparable harm, citizenship alone,” he said. “It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world.”
A written decision will be stayed to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, he said.
“This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project director Cody Wofsy, who argued the case. “We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn’t trample on the citizenship rights of one single child.”
In a statement to The Independent, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said the decision “is an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court’s clear order against universal relief.”
“This judge’s decision disregards the rule of law by abusing class action certification procedures,” he said. “The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling did not address the merits of legal challenges to Trump’s executive order that redefines the scope of the 14th Amendment, but the decision opened the door for partial enforcement in states that were not represented in a wave of lawsuits against the order.
Trump’s order was also blocked from taking effect for 30 days, until later this month, to allow lower courts to revisit the scope of their injunctions and give time for opponents to file new legal challenges.
Critics have warned that allowing the president to effectively rewrite a core component of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits — including voting rights.
The 14th Amendment plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has upheld the definition to apply to all children born within the United States.
But under the terms of Trump’s order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn’t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.
More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump’s order, according to the plaintiffs.
But the Trump administration did not necessarily use the Supreme Court case to argue over whether he can change the 14th Amendment. Instead, the administration wanted to target what has become a major obstacle to advancing the president’s agenda: universal injunctions that have blocked a bulk of his policy nationally.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the president told reporters at the White House that the Department of Justice intends to “promptly file” legal challenges in cases where the president’s executive actions were temporarily blocked.
Judge strikes down Trump’s birthright citizenship order in new legal challenge after Supreme Court ruling
