Tag Archives: Department of Justice

Newsweek: DACA recipient detained by ICE at airport before boarding domestic flight

Posted on by
Reply

Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient and longtime immigration activist, was detained by Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents on Sunday at El Paso International Airport as she prepared to board a domestic flight.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek via email on Wednesday that CBP arrested Santiago, a migrant from Mexico, because of a criminal history that included charges for trespassing and possession of narcotics and drug paraphernalia.

“Illegal aliens who claim to be recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) are not automatically protected from deportations,” McLaughlin said. “DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country. Any illegal alien who is a DACA recipient may be subject to arrest and deportation for a number of reasons, including if they’ve committed a crime.”

Santiago will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.

Why It Matters

Santiago’s detention has sparked concern among advocates as it highlights the fragility of legal protections for DACA recipients, often known as “Dreamers.” DACA provides work authorization and temporary protection from deportation, but it does not confer legal status.

Recent detentions of DACA recipients—including Santiago’s—raise pressing questions about the program’s limits, particularly under intensified immigration enforcement. The incident comes amid continued debate over the fate of DACA and its beneficiaries, as legal and policy battles play out across the U.S.

President Donald Trump has ordered his administration to remove millions of migrants without legal status to fulfill his campaign pledge of mass deportations, with White House officials like White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller previously referencing a daily goal of at least 3,000 arrests. The claimed quota has been met with legal action.

What To Know

Santiago, a member of the Movimiento Cosecha advocacy group, had reportedly presented a valid DACA work authorization card when taken into custody.

Around 4 a.m. local time on Sunday, she was approached and detained by two agents as she was about to board her flight. Despite presenting her DACA work authorization card, agents took her into custody and transferred her to a federal immigration processing facility in El Paso, according to Border Report.

An ICE official told Newsweek via email that this was not Santiago’s first brush with immigration officials, saying she first entered illegally in May 2005 near the Paso Del Norte Port of Entry in El Paso. On August 31, 2020, she was charged with two drug offenses that remain pending.

Santiago has DACA status, which is set to expire April 29, 2026.

“It’s important to note that DHS officials can take enforcement actions against illegal aliens with criminal records,” the official said. “ICE officials served Santiago with a notice to appear before a Department of Justice immigration judge.”

Her supporters, including Movimiento Cosecha, have mobilized a response through social media and organized a GoFundMe campaign that, as of Wednesday morning, had raised more than $56,700 for Santiago’s legal defense of a goal of $70,000. She has received more than 1,200 donations.

Activists dispute the grounds for her detention, arguing that she has legal protection under DACA and is an integral part of her community after more than a decade of activism. They said Santiago had made “such a profound and powerful impact on so many loved friends and community members from Florida to Texas and beyond,” notably aiding the immigrant community and families in El Paso.

“Now, we need to show up for her,” the GoFundMe page said. “Immigrant communities have been targeted for decades, and the Trump administration is taking these fascist tactics to unprecedented levels. This unexpected and cruel detainment will likely result in high legal fees alongside immeasurable emotional impact on her and her family.

“We are asking for support for her legal funds and post-release care and healing. Please give what you can to ensure that Xotchil has the resources needed to fight for her case, her ability to stay in the U.S. with her family and community, and can take the time needed to recover from this traumatic experience after she is released.”

Newsweek has contacted the page’s organizer, Lagartija del Sol, for comment.

A separate petition on ActionNetwork.org has garnered more than 3,200 signatures calling for her release.

Organizers have scheduled a protest for August 6 at the ICE detention facility in El Paso demanding Santiago’s release, according to KVIA.

What People Are Saying

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek via email on Wednesday: “Illegal aliens can take control of their departure with the CBP Home App. The United States is offering illegal aliens $1,000 and a free flight to self-deport now. We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the U.S. the right legal way to live the American dream.”

Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago, in a statement posted on her GoFundMe page by Lagartija del Sol: “I love everyone and thank you so much for walking with me in so many ways, for thinking of my well being and for reminding me of importance of organized struggle and lightening up my spirit.”

What Happens Next

Santiago remains in federal immigration custody as legal proceedings continue. Her supporters are coordinating with her legal team to challenge her removal and demand her release.

The broader legal future for DACA recipients remains uncertain amid ongoing court battles and evolving immigration policies.

DACA recipient detained by ICE at airport before boarding domestic flight
A DHS official said the community activist’s criminal history included charges for trespassing and narcotics possession.

https://www.newsweek.com/ice-detained-daca-recipient-boarding-domestic-flight-immigration-dreamers-2109675

Atlanta Black Star News: ‘Inherently Unreliable’: Trump’s Attempt to Clear His Name Backfires As a Blatant Lie from Maxwell’s Past Resurfaces and Destroys Her Credibility

Posted on by
Reply

From the rally stage last year, Donald Trump hyped the Epstein files as proof of a Democratic coverup to protect pedophiles who never faced justice.

Now, as public scrutiny lands squarely on the president, he’s calling the whole thing a “hoax.”

It’s a striking turn for Trump, who once amplified conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein’s black book and teased his base with promises of transparency. But with the recent disclosure that Trump’s name appears in the unsealed Epstein documents, and his administration suddenly going soft on convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, critics say Trump is no longer just dodging questions—he’s actively working to bury the answers.

The latest red flag? Trump’s own deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche — formerly one of his personal lawyers — conducted a nine-hour interview with Maxwell over two days last month. According to sources familiar with the meetings, Maxwell told Blanche that Trump had “never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern.”

But not everyone on social media was buying it.

“Shocking. You’re telling me Trump’s former lawyer turned Deputy AG ‘interviewed’ Ghislaine Maxwell while she is desperate for a pardon and Trump is publicly suggesting he might give her one, and she said she didn’t witness him commit any crimes? The fix is in,” the group Republicans Against Trump posted on X.

Blanche confirmed that Maxwell “didn’t hold anything back” and was asked about “one hundred different people.” But Trump’s insistence that the interview was “totally above board” hasn’t left anyone feeling convinced.

Making matters worse, days after the interview, Maxwell was quietly transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to the Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas — one of the most lenient facilities in the country, described by former corrections officials as a “country club.”

“Someone gave special preference to Maxwell that, to my knowledge, no other inmate currently in the Federal Bureau of Prisons has received,” said Robert Hood, former warden of the Florence supermax prison, who spoke with The Washington Post. “Inmates, if they have a sex offense, are not going to a place like that, period. It’s truly unheard of.”

Critics now see the nine-hour sit-down between Maxwell and Trump’s handpicked former lawyer as a quid pro quo in motion. As one observer put it: “Trump’s old lawyer, now Deputy AG, has a cozy nine-hour chat with Ghislaine Maxwell, who’s practically begging for a pardon, and—surprise, surprise—she swears Trump never did anything sketchy around her.”

Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Epstein, was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years for trafficking and abusing underage girls. Federal prison guidelines state that sex offenders — particularly those with sentences higher than 10 years — should not be housed in minimum-security facilities like Bryan. Yet that’s exactly where she now resides, complete with arts and crafts, a dog-training program, and unfenced dormitories in a residential neighborhood 100 miles from Houston.

Even Trump feigned surprise: “I didn’t know about it at all, no. I read about it just like you did. It’s not a very uncommon thing,” he said when asked if he approved the transfer.

But according to multiple sources, the prison move followed her voluntary sit-down with Blanche — part of what ABC News described as an effort to defuse growing criticism that the Justice Department was shielding information about Epstein’s network.

That criticism intensified after Attorney General Pam Bondi declared the DOJ found no client list, no blackmail material, and no justification for further investigation — despite admitting Epstein harmed more than 1,000 victims.

Trump’s followers were among the loudest voices demanding answers. In 2019, his top advisers circulated theories about Epstein’s connections to powerful Democrats. Trump himself fueled suspicion when he publicly wondered if Epstein had been murdered. Yet now, as those same followers demand full disclosure, Trump’s tone has shifted dramatically.

“I want to release everything. I just don’t want people to get hurt,” Trump told Newsmax last week. “We’d like to release everything, but we don’t want people to get hurt that shouldn’t be hurt.”

Who those “people” are, Trump wouldn’t say. But the about-face has many asking whether Trump is trying to protect himself — or someone close to him.

The president’s name does appear in Epstein’s files. His associations with both Epstein and Maxwell have long been documented, including photos of the trio together. Still, Maxwell told Blanche that Trump “never did anything concerning” during the years they were acquainted.

The transcript of the conversation has not yet been released, although the DOJ is considering making it public — possibly as early as this week. An audio recording also exists, but there’s no confirmation yet that it will be shared.

Critics questioned how much credibility Maxwell’s claims carry, especially given her own legal jeopardy — and her history of lying under oath. She was previously found to have perjured herself at least twice in depositions related to Epstein’s abuse, casting further doubt on her recent claims that Trump “never did anything.”

Prosecutors said she lied when claiming she wasn’t aware of Epstein’s efforts to recruit underage girls, denied knowing anyone under 18 had ever been on his properties, and falsely stated she had never engaged in sexual activity with other women or seen sex toys at his residences.

Joyce Alene, the first US attorney nominated by Obama posted on X,

“Trump could give Ghislaine Maxwell a pardon on his last day in office, in exchange for favorable testimony now (SCOTUS has already said he can’t be prosecuted for it). She knows he’s her only chance for release. That means any “new” testimony she offers is inherently unreliable unless backed by evidence.”

She followed that up with more context for anyone who wasn’t clear, “And favorable could mean a lot of things here: exonerating him, testifying about other people that MAGA has long believed were involved with Epstein. She can’t be trusted because Trump can’t be trusted–the pardon power is his to wield for his personal benefit and she knows that.”

New York Times best selling author Seth Abramson jumped in the mix to respond to Alene, “Everyone must remember this. Anything Ghislaine Maxwell says at this point is without value because we cannot know what she was paid to induce any new Perjury (she has been charged with it twice in the past) until the final day of the second Trump term…should there ever be one.”

She’s currently appealing her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and her attorney, David Markus, has said she “would welcome any relief.”

Her lawyers are also fighting the government’s request to unseal grand jury records from her and Epstein’s cases, arguing that releasing them would violate her due process rights and feed “public curiosity” at the expense of fairness.

“Jeffrey Epstein is dead,” the attorneys wrote. “Ghislaine Maxwell is not. Whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy.”

Yet some victims argue the public has a right to know. Annie Farmer, who testified at Maxwell’s trial, supports releasing the grand jury material with identifying details redacted.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department has said it wants to unseal the records precisely because of public interest, arguing transparency is essential—even while making clear that only law enforcement personnel testified before the grand juries.

Trump was forced to address the growing scandal on Wednesday as outrage over his administration’s handling of the Epstein case spiraled beyond control — even among his own supporters.

The political firestorm was consuming the White House. With some of his most loyal backers demanding transparency, Trump is instead digging in — denouncing the entire controversy as a “hoax” and attacking Republicans who disagree with him as “weaklings.”

In a Truth Social post Wednesday morning, the president lashed out at his critics, comparing the uproar over the Epstein files to past scandals like the Russia election interference investigation and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

“These Scams and Hoaxes are all the Democrats are good at—it’s all they have,” Trump wrote. “Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullsh-t,’ hook, line, and sinker.”

Trump didn’t stop there.

“I don’t want their support anymore!” he added. “Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats’ work… I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.”

Later, he doubled down during a press spray at the White House, brushing off the Epstein controversy as a “waste of time.”

“They’re wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems, who died three, four years ago,” he said. “I’d rather talk about the success we have with the economy, the best we’ve ever had… Instead, they want to talk about the Epstein hoax. The sad part is, it’s people doing the Democrats’ work. They’re stupid people.”

When pressed Thursday on whether Trump had asked Bondi to appoint a special prosecutor in the Epstein case, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded bluntly:

“The president would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case. That’s how he feels.”

The defensive posture highlights deepening divisions inside the GOP — and even within Trump’s inner circle — over how the administration has handled the fallout.

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino reportedly clashed with Bondi over her decision to block the release of additional Epstein-related documents. Several high-profile conservatives have since called for Bondi’s resignation.

Trump, however, has defended Bondi, saying she has “handled it very well.”

‘Inherently Unreliable’: Trump’s Attempt to Clear His Name Backfires As a Blatant Lie from Maxwell’s Past Resurfaces and Destroys Her Credibility
“Trump’s desperate attempt to clear his name backfires as a past lie from Maxwell resurfaces, shattering her credibility. Discover the sh…

Associated Press: Trump executive order gives politicians control over all federal grants, alarming researchers

Posted on by
Reply

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump late Thursday aims to give political appointees power over the billions of dollars in grants awarded by federal agencies. Scientists say it threatens to undermine the process that has helped make the U.S. the world leader in research and development.

The order requires all federal agencies, including FEMA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, to appoint officials responsible for reviewing federal funding opportunities and grants, so that they “are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.”

It also requires agencies to make it so that current and future federal grants can be terminated at any time — including during the grant period itself.

Agencies cannot announce new funding opportunities until the new protocols are in place, according to the order.

The Trump administration said these changes are part of an effort to “strengthen oversight” and “streamline agency grantmaking.” Scientists say the order will cripple America’s scientific engine by placing control over federal research funds in the hands of people who are influenced by politics and lack relevant expertise.

“This is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S.,” said Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist studying group decision-making at the University of Washington.

The changes will delay grant review and approval, slowing “progress for cures and treatments that patients and families across the country urgently need,” said the Association of American Medical Colleges in a statement.

The administration has already terminated thousands of research grants at agencies like the NSF and NIH, including on topics like transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion.

The order could affect emergency relief grants doled out by FEMA, public safety initiatives funded by the Department of Justice and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control. Experts say the order is likely to be challenged in court.

Trump executive order gives politicians control over all federal grants, alarming researchers
An executive order signed by President Donald Trump aims to give political appointees power over the billions of dollars of grants that are awarded by federal agencies.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-executive-order-federal-funding-grants-nih-fema-4b4b6c23a25a8ae3fdc7b43c4586c999

Newsweek: Bill Maher confronts Dr. Phil on joining Trump admin’s ICE raids

Posted on by
Reply

Comedian and television host Bill Maher pressed television personality and former clinical psychologist, Dr. Phil, on Friday about his inclusion in the Trump administration’s ongoing nationwide immigration raids.

Why It Matters

Phil McGraw or better known as Dr. Phil who is widely known for his television career, is a vocal supporter of the Trump administration. He has spoken at campaign rallies, interviewed the then-Republican candidate, and been present atImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids since Donald Trump took office in January, including operations in Chicago and Los Angeles.

The Trump administration has spearheaded a major immigration crackdown, vowing to carry out the largest mass deportation in U.S. history. The initiative has seen an intensification of ICE raids across the country, with thousands of people detained and many deported.

What To Know

Maher, host of the HBO talk show Real Time with Bill Maher, asked his guest, Dr. Phil, about his reasoning for joining the immigration raids.

“Why are you going on these ICE raids? I don’t understand that,” Maher said. “You’re a guy who we know for so many years who has been working to put families together; to bring families who are apart and heal them. And now you’re going on raids with people who are literally separating families. Explain that to me.”

Dr. Phil quickly countered, “Well, now that’s bull****.”

Maher then interjected, “That’s not bull****…They’re not separating families?”

Dr. Phil continued, “Look, if you arrest somebody that’s a citizen, that has committed a crime or is DUI’d with a child in the backseat, do you think they don’t separate that family right then, right there? Of course they do!”

“But that’s not what’s going on,” Maher argued.

Dr. Phil then referenced part of Maher’s earlier monologue, turning to talk about how ICE agents have to wear masks because of “doxxing” concerns.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported in July that ICE agents “are facing an 830 increase in assaults from January 21st to July 14th compared with the same period in 2024.”

Dr. Phil defended the ICE agents, saying they are simply doing their jobs by carrying out the raids, saying, “They didn’t make the laws; they didn’t make that law. What are you expecting them to do, just not do their job? If you don’t like the law, change it. I don’t like that law, at all. Change the law!”

Maher then asked, “If you don’t like it then why are you going?” which drew applause from the live audience. Dr. Phil responded, “Because that is the law.”

Earlier this summer, large-scale clashes between protesters and immigration officials in Los Angeles prompted the deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines to the city. Dr. Phil was on the ground in Los Angeles with his TV channel, Merit TV, for the raids, while earlier in January he partook in a ride-along with border czar Tom Homan during the Chicago raids.

What People Are Saying

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement previously shared with Newsweek: “Under Secretary Noem, we are delivering on President Trump’s and the American people’s mandate to arrest and deport criminal illegal aliens to make American safe. Secretary Noem unleashed ICE to target the worst of the worst and carry out the largest deportation operation of criminal aliens in American history.”

A Department of Justice spokesperson previously told Newsweek: “The entire Trump Administration is united in fully enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, and the DOJ continues to play an important role in vigorously defending the President’s deportation agenda in court.”

What Happens Next?

Democratic leaders and human rights advocates have criticized the Trump administration’s immigration policies, citing reports of inhumane conditions in detention centers and during detention procedures. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has repeatedly defended the department and its facilities, and has called for expanding ICE’s detention capacity.

Raids are expected to continue as the administration pledges to deport people without proper documentation.

Bill Maher confronts Dr. Phil on joining Trump admin’s ICE raids
Maher pressed Dr. Phil on “going on” some of the Trump administration’s immigration raids.

https://www.newsweek.com/bill-maher-confronts-dr-phil-joining-trump-admins-ice-raids-2111269

Newsweek: Trump administration suffers double legal blow within hours

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration suffered two legal defeats within hours on Friday.

A judge in California ordered the release of a Syrian national it has been seeking to deport while a federal Rhode Island judge blocked the imposition of new conditions on domestic violence programs as part of the president’s campaign against “gender ideology.”

Details of both cases were shared on X by Kyle Cheney, senior legal affairs reporter for Politico.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours via email and press inquiry form respectively.

Why It Matters

With Republicans controlling both chambers of Congress as well as the White House the courts have emerged as one of the main impediments to Trump administration policy.

The administration has suffered a number of prominent legal defeats including courts striking down punitive measures introduced by Trump against law firms involved in proceedings against him, blocking a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and removing sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees.

Release of Salam Maklad

U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer Thurston, of the Eastern District of California, on Friday instructed the release of Salam Maklad, a Syrian from the Druze religious minority who arrived in the United States in 2002 without valid entry documents and claimed asylum, according to court documents seen by Newsweek.

Maklad went on to marry a man who was granted asylum, which her legal team argued made her eligible for legal immigration status.

On July 9, Maklad was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers after arriving for what she believed was a routine “check-in” meeting and subsequently placed in “expedited removal proceedings” seeking to deport her from the U.S.

Thurston noted that Maklad had no criminal history and wasn’t considered a flight risk, and concluded that “the balance of the equities and public interest weigh in favor of Ms. Maklad.” Consequently she ordered her release from custody and said authorities are blocked from rearresting her “absent compliance with constitutional protections, which
include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.”

Domestic Violence Funding

Friday also saw Senior District Judge William Smith of Rhode Island rule the Trump administration couldn’t impose fresh conditions on funds granted by the Violence Against Women Act due to the president’s Executive Order 14168 titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”

This funding is distributed by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women.

Trump’s order stated that sex is a person’s “immutable biological classification as male or female,” and that the federal government should “prioritize investigations and litigation to enforce the rights and freedoms” associated with this position.

The Office on Violence Against Women updated its policy on what constitutes “out of scope activities,” and therefore should not be funded by its grants, after this order was issued in “approximately May 2025,” according to the court filing.

This added spending on “inculcating or promoting gender ideology as defined
in Executive Order 14168″ to the prohibited list.

The case was brought by a coalition of 17 nonprofit groups which argued adhering to President Trump’s position on gender was impeding their ability to assist victims of domestic violence.

Judge Smith backed the coalition’s position concluding that the fresh requirements imposed by the Trump administration “could result in the disruption” of services for victims of domestic and sexual violence.

What People Are Saying

In the California case Judge Thurston ruled: “Respondents are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from re[1]arresting or re-detaining Ms. Maklad absent compliance with constitutional protections, which include at a minimum, pre-deprivation notice—describing the change of circumstances necessitating her arrest—and detention, and a timely bond hearing.

“At any such hearing, the Government SHALL bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that Ms. Maklad poses a danger to the community or a risk of flight, and Ms. Maklad SHALL be allowed to have her counsel present.”

In his ruling Judge Smith wrote: “On the one hand, if the Court does not grant preliminary relief, then the Coalitions will face real and immediate irreparable harm from the challenged conditions, conditions which the Court has already concluded likely violate the APA.

“This could result in the disruption of important and, in some cases, life[1]saving services to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. On the other hand, if the Court grants preliminary relief, then the Office will simply have to consider grant applications and award funding as it normally does.”

What’s Next

It remains to be seen whether the Trump’s administration will seek to appeal either of Friday’s rulings.

Trump administration suffers double legal blow within hours
The courts have developed into one of the main impediments of Trump administration policy.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-administration-suffers-double-legal-blow-within-hours-2111192

Independent: Trump administration tried to reopen deportation proceedings for man who was long dead: ‘They’re very negligent’

Posted on by
Reply

Government rushes to reopen years-old removal proceedings to boost Trump’s mass deportation agenda

Thousands of immigrants who have legally lived and worked in the United States for years have assumed they would be protected against their removal from the country after their cases were frozen.

But the Trump administration is stripping immigrants of their legal status and reopening removal proceedings as the Department of Homeland Security expands its mass deportation machine.

Homeland Security isn’t even checking to see whether these immigrants targeted for deportation are even alive, let alone legally protected from removal, according to California immigration attorneys speaking to The Los Angeles Times.

An immigration judge had closed removal proceedings against construction worker Helario Romero Arciniega, who was severely beaten with a metal sprinkler head and qualified for a special visa for victims of crime.

Earlier this year, the government reopened removal proceedings against him. He died in January, according to the LA County Coroner’s Office.

“They don’t do their homework,” immigration attorney Patricia Corrales told the newspaper. “They’re very negligent in the manner in which they’re handling these motions to re-calendar.”

Corrales, a former Immigration and Naturalization Service and Homeland Security attorney, told The Independent that the government’s recent motions to recalendar removal proceedings that were administratively closed — and not active — are “boilerplate motions” and “DHS doesn’t do their homework” and are “lazy or negligent in the information they provide to the court.”

“My client was in removal proceedings before he passed away. He was alive when his removal proceedings were administratively closed,” she added.

DHS filed a motion to recalendar on July 10 and “failed to mention an important detail,” she told The Independent.

“So, DHS was negligent in failing to even do some basic research to determine whether my client was alive or moved or anything,” she said.

In another case, Adan Rico, a new father studying to be an HVAC technician, said he had no idea the government restarted deportation proceedings against him.

His original lawyer had died, and “if it wasn’t for his daughter calling, I would have never found out my case was reopened,” Rico told The LA Times. “The Department of Homeland Security never sent me anything.”

A statement from Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Donald Trump’s administration is “once again implementing the rule of law” and accused former President Joe Biden of indefinitely delaying cases that left “criminals” stay in the country illegally.

“Now, President Trump and Secretary Noem are following the law and resuming these illegal aliens’ removal proceedings and ensuring their cases are heard by a judge,” she said in a statement shared with The Independent.

Rico, however, is among immigrants with removal protections under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which doesn’t come up for renewal until 2027, according to Corrales.

The Trump administration has effectively “de-legalized” more than 1 million immigrants since January.

Thousands of people who are following immigration law — including those showing up for their court-ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-ins, immigration court hearings and U.S. Customs and Immigration Services appointments — have become easy targets for arrests.

Unlike federal district courts, immigration court judges operate under the direction of the attorney general’s office.

When immigrants have appeared for their hearings, Homeland Security attorneys have moved for the cases to be dismissed, while the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the Department of Justice has issued guidance to judges to grant those motions on the spot.

Those quick dismissals mean immigrants can then be subject to removal, leading to scenes of masked ICE agents dragging people out of courtrooms across the country.

Those arrests have been condemned by immigrants’ rights groups and attorneys as a “corruption” of the courts, “transforming them from forums of justice into cogs in a mass deportation apparatus,” American Immigration Lawyers Association president Kelli Stump said earlier this year.

“The expansion of expedited removal strips more people of their right to a hearing before a judge — as our laws promise,” she added.

In April, Sirce E. Owen, acting director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, issued a memo calling the suspension of removal proceedings “de facto amnesty program with benefits” because immigrants can still have authorization and deportation protections.

Owen stated that, as of April, roughly 379,000 cases were still administratively closed in immigration courts, adding to the system’s backlog of 4 million cases.

A spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review confirmed to The Independent that immigration courts must first receive the underlying initial motion before accepting a response to that motion.

Immigration attorney Edgardo Quintanilla told The LA Times that he has received 40 cases, some dating back to the 2010s. “There is always the fear that they may be arrested when they go to the court,” he said. “With everything going on, it is a reasonable fear.”

Mariela Caravetta told the newspaper that roughly 30 clients have been targeted with new motions from the government reopening their cases in the last month, some of which have been frozen for a decade.

By law, she has only 10 days to reply, forcing her to try to track down clients who have since moved.

“People aren’t getting due process,” Caravetta said. “It’s very unfair to the client because these cases have been sleeping for 10 years.”

The Independent is the world’s most free-thinking news brand, providing global news, commentary and analysis for the independently-minded. We have grown a huge, global readership of independently minded individuals, who value our trusted voice and commitment to positive change. Our mission, making change happen, has never been as important as it is today.

Trump admin tried to reopen deportation proceedings for man who was long dead
Government rushes to reopen years-old removal proceedings to boost Trump’s mass deportation agenda

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-immigration-cases-dead-ice-b2803051.html

LA Times: Westlake Home Depot raided again, reigniting fears of more sweeps despite judge’s order to stop

Posted on by
Reply

After weeks of relative quiet, Border Patrol agents raided a Home Depot in Westlake on Wednesday as a top federal agent warned, “We’re not leaving,” and posted images of half a dozen border agents running from a Penske truck through the parking lot.

As many as 16 immigrants were reported rounded up and arrested in what U.S. Border Patrol Sector Chief Greg Bovino called “Operation Trojan Horse.” The early morning raids revived fears of more widespread sweeps that organizers had hoped would ease with a federal judge’s order, affirmed by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, that immigration officials cannot racially profile people or use roving patrols to target immigrants.

“For those who thought Immigration enforcement had stopped in Southern California, think again,” acting U.S. attorney Bill Essayli posted on X, shortly after the raid. “The enforcement of federal law is not negotiable and there are no sanctuaries from the reach of the federal government.”

A day laborer, who identified himself as Ceasar, said around 6:45 a.m. a yellow Penske truck pulled up to the laborers who had gathered in the parking lot. The driver told them in Spanish he was looking for workers.

Several of the men gathered around the truck and then someone, it was unclear who to him, rolled up the back of the truck. Masked agents, one wearing a cowboy hat, jumped out and started chasing people. People scattered.

“This is the worst feeling ever,” said Ceasar, who has been going to the home improvement store to pick up work for several years.

Video on social media captured the moment the back of the rental truck opened. When Penske Truck Rental was asked about it, they said they were aware of the incident.

“The company was not made aware that its trucks would be used in today’s operation and did not authorize this,” said Penske spokesman Randolph P. Ryerson. “Penske will reach out to DHS and reinforce its policy to avoid improper use of its vehicles in the future.

He added: “Penske strictly prohibits the transportation of people in the cargo area of its vehicles under any circumstances,” the statement said.

One worker who escaped was still shaken by the experience an hour later. He identified himself as Raul, and said he saw at least eight people get arrested.

“That’s one of their cars,” he said pointing to a silver Toyota sedan.

The Home Depot had been one of the scene of the first raids in June that kicked off a more than month of operations in Southern California in which civil rights lawyers say federal agents indiscriminately arrested immigrants. The raids gutted businesses, spread fear and tore apart families.

On July 11, a federal judge temporarily blocked federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate arrests after the ACLU, Public Counsel, other groups and private attorneys sued over the practices saying that the region had been “under seige.”

Department of Justice attorneys argued the order hinders them from carrying federal immigration enforcement, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the order.

For the past weeks since the restraining order kicked in in early July, Bovino has shared photos of arrests of undocumented immigrants, stating that some had active arrest warrants. With others, he referenced a lengthy criminal history, marking the arrests as more targeted than they had been prior.

But organizers say a similar operation to the raid unfolded on Monday at a Home Depot in Hollywood that was the site of a massive raid in June. That operation also sparked concerns about violations of the TRO.

Maegan Ortiz, the executive director of the nonprofit group Instituto de Educación Popular del Sur de California, known as IDEPSCA, said they began receiving word about an immigration operation at the Home Depot in Hollywood around 6:50 a.m. on Monday.

Westlake Home Depot raided again, reigniting fears of more sweeps despite judge’s order to stop

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ar-AA1K1YKo

LA Times: Contributor: Under Trump, U.S. returns to treating violence against women as a ‘private matter’

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. has been waffling for decades over whether women have a right to refugee protection when fleeing gender-based violence. Under different administrations, the Department of Justice has established and reversed precedents, issued and repealed rulings. But the latest flip-flop by the Trump administration is not just another toggle between rules.

In July, the Trump administration’s high court of immigration, the Board of Immigration Appeals, issued a deeply troubling decision. The ruling held that a “particular social group” — one of the five grounds for refugee protection — cannot be defined by gender, or by gender combined with nationality. The ruling, in a case known as Matter of K-E-S-G-, is binding on all adjudicators across the country.

The legal reasoning is both unpersuasive and alarming. It seeks to return refugee law to an era when violence against women was dismissed as a private matter, not of concern to governments or human rights institutions. It is part of a broader, ongoing assault by the Trump administration on women’s rights and immigrant rights — in this case, attempting to turn back history to 1992.

It was in 1993, at the Vienna Conference on Human Rights, when the catchphrase “women’s rights are human rights” gained global prominence. This was a response to the long-standing focus on the violation of civil and political rights by governments, while much of the violence against women was committed by nonstate actors. Women and girls fleeing gender-based violence were considered outside the bounds of protection. But the Vienna Conference marked a turning point, leading to transformative change in how governments and international bodies addressed gender-based violence — because much of the violence in this world is targeted at women. Laws and policies were adopted worldwide to advance women’s rights, including for those seeking refugee protection.

Under international and U.S. law, a refugee is someone with a well-founded fear of persecution linked to that person’s “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” which are commonly referred to as the protected grounds. Gender is not explicitly listed, and as a result, women fleeing gender-based forms of persecution, such as honor killings, female genital cutting, sexual slavery or domestic violence, were often denied protection, with their risk wrongly categorized as “personal” or “private,” and not connected to one of the protected grounds.

To address the misconception that women are outside the ambit of refugee protection, beginning in 1985 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued a series of guidance documents explaining that although “gender” is not listed as a protected ground, women could often be considered a “particular social group” within a country. The commissioner called on countries that were parties to the international refugee treaty — the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol — to issue guidance for their adjudicators to recognize the ways in which gender-based claims could meet the refugee definition.

The United States was among the first to respond to the call. In 1995, the Department of Justice issued a document instructing asylum officers to consider the evolving understanding of women’s rights as human rights. The following year, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a watershed decision, granting asylum to a young woman fleeing genital cutting. The court recognized that claims of gender-based violence could qualify under the “particular social group” category.

Yet the path forward was anything but smooth. In 1999, the same court denied asylum to a Guatemalan woman who endured a decade of brutal beatings and death threats from her husband, while the state refused to intervene. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno found the decision to be so out of step with U.S. policy that she used her authority to vacate it. And so women remained eligible to be considered a “particular social group” when seeking refuge in the U.S. The view was affirmed by a 2014 case recognizing that women fleeing domestic violence could indeed qualify for asylum.

But that progress was short-lived. In 2018, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions took jurisdiction over the case of Anabel, a Salvadoran survivor of domestic violence to whom the top U.S. immigration court had granted asylum.

Sessions ruled that domestic violence is an act of personal or private violence, rather than persecution on account of a protected ground. This characterization of the violence as personal or private was in direct repudiation of the principle that women’s rights are human rights, deserving of human rights remedies, such as asylum.

The Biden administration sought to undo the damage. In 2021, Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland vacated that ruling and reinstated the 2014 precedent, restoring a measure of protection for gender claims.

Now comes the recent ruling from the immigration court under the Trump administration. Going beyond Sessions’ determination that gender violence is personal, the court is striking at the heart of the legal framework itself by barring gender or gender-plus-nationality as a valid way to define a social group. This erects an even higher barrier for women and girls fleeing persecution. It is a transparent attempt to roll back decades of legal progress and return us to a time when women’s suffering was invisible in refugee law.

The implications are profound. This ruling will make it far more difficult for women and girls to win asylum, even though their claims often involve some of the most egregious human rights violations. But it does not foreclose all claims — each must still be decided on its own facts — and there is no doubt the precedent will be challenged in federal courts across the country.

Another reversal is now sorely needed, to get the struggle for gender equality moving in the right direction again. Our refugee laws should protect women, because women should not be subject to gender-based violence. That is, in fact, one of our human rights.

Contributor: Under Trump, U.S. returns to treating violence against women as a ‘private matter’
Our refugee laws should protect women, because women should not be subject to gender-based violence.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-08-03/womens-rights-refugee-gender-human-rights

Raw Story: DOJ scrambling away from Stephen Miller’s comments on mass immigrant arrests: report

Posted on by
Reply

Department of Justice attorneys are attempting to put some distance between themselves and demands from Donald Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller for ICE agents to come up with 3,000 immigrant arrests per day.

In May, Miller told Fox News personality Sean Hannity, “Under President Trump’s leadership, we are looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day and President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every day,”

According to a report from Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein, DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth was put on the spot over that number and told a judge the number came from “anonymous reports in the newspapers.”

The report notes that there is a growing “gulf” between what the White House wants and what DOJ can defend before skeptical judges who have serious questions about the sweeps that have all the appearances of racial profiling.

Politico is reporting, “The existence of the target has created particular complications in the case challenging the immigration sweeps in Los Angeles. The administration is fighting an order that a federal judge issued last month prohibiting ICE from conducting ‘roving’ immigration arrests based on broad criteria such as presence at a home improvement store or car wash.”

The report notes that, on Monday, Roth battled with judges but did concede, “… that such a quota, if it existed, could support claims that some arrests did not meet the legal standard.”

“In this instance, the chasm may be undermining the DOJ’s already strained credibility with judges,” Politico is reporting.

DOJ scrambling away from Stephen Miller’s comments on mass immigrant arrests: report

https://www.rawstory.com/stephen-miller-2673853490

Explicame: Trump policies forced to pass thanks to Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

A recent series of Supreme Court decisions has significantly reshaped the balance of power in the U.S. government, drawing attention from legal scholars.

The U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly played a pivotal role in enabling the Trump administration’s policy objectives, marking a pronounced shift in the dynamics between the executive and judicial branches. Through a series of recent rulings, the Court has upheld key Trump-era administrative actions, reinforcing executive authority and raising concerns about the long-term implications for constitutional checks and balances.

Over just six months in office, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice filed more than 20 emergency requests with the Supreme Court, surpassing the 19 total emergency filings submitted during the entirety of Joe Biden’s presidency. This aggressive use of the emergency docket has yielded significant policy victories and underlined a broader transformation in how executive power is being exercised, and supported, by the judiciary.

Among the cases that the Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration are Trump v. CASA, Trump v. AFGE, McMahon v. New York, and high-profile dismissals involving the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. These rulings have allowed the administration to fast-track deportations, eliminate certain migrant protections, freeze federal education grants, and access Social Security data, among other sweeping policy shifts.

In addition to these substantive decisions, the Supreme Court has moved to limit the ability of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions that could block presidential actions. Critics argue this undermines a core function of judicial oversight. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissenting in one of the related cases, warned that curtailing universal injunctions could “threaten the rule of law.”

Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly emphasized the importance of judicial independence, rejecting the notion that disagreement with judicial decisions justifies impeachment. However, his leadership has also reflected a broader willingness to defer to executive authority in cases with broad constitutional implications.

Legal observers point to a trend: vague rulings, expedited decisions on the shadow docket, and a lack of clear legal reasoning have made it harder to track the boundaries of presidential power. Critics warn that this ambiguity may create the perception that the president can unilaterally restructure federal agencies, an alarming precedent for those who view judicial review as a safeguard against executive overreach.

As the Supreme Court continues to weigh in on high-stakes policy issues, the alignment between the bench and the executive branch under Trump’s leadership has redefined the limits of presidential authority. The consequences of this realignment are likely to shape American governance well beyond the current administration.

Trump policies forced to pass thanks to Supreme Court
A recent series of Supreme Court decisions has significantly reshaped the balance of power in the U.S. government, drawing attention from legal scholars.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-policies-forced-to-pass-thanks-to-supreme-court/ar-AA1JNnKh