Law & Crime: Trump doubles down on claim he has ‘absolute immunity’ from Central Park 5 defamation lawsuit

President Donald Trump is doubling down on his claim that he has “absolute immunity” from a defamation lawsuit filed against him by members of the exonerated Central Park Five over false statements he made about them during a televised debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

In an 11-page reply filed Wednesday, the president asserted he is entitled to an automatic stay in the case as an appellate court decides whether he is protected from litigation under Pennsylvania law. The filing argues that the state’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) — an anti-SLAPP law aimed at preventing defendants from being intimidated or silenced by the threat of expensive lawsuits — applies to the lawsuit and immunizes him against the plaintiffs’ claims.

Trump is appealing an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in which she refused to dismiss the defamation suit, holding that the Central Park Five’s claims were not barred by UPEPA, which is Pennsylvania’s version of an anti-SLAPP law.

“In enacting the [UPEPA], the Pennsylvania General Assembly explicitly recognized the severe chilling effect that lawsuits which target public participation have on constitutionally protected speech. To combat these abuses of the judicial process, the legislature provided defendants with substantive immunity from suit to spare them the burdens and expenses associated with meritless litigation,” Wednesday’s filing states. “Because the record demonstrates UPEPA immunity was intended to protect defendants from the burdens of litigation, and President Trump’s appeal presents a non-frivolous question, this Court should order an immediate stay.”

Beetlestone last month ruled that UPEPA does not apply in federal court. In his appeal, Trump asserted that the law must be applied in federal court, thereby making him immune from the plaintiffs’ suit. The appeal further argued that because Trump is allegedly entitled to immunity, it is “mandatory” that the court grant his request for a stay pending appeal.

Attorneys for the Central Park Five pushed back on Trump’s claim that a stay in the case is mandatory, claiming the president “does not cite any relevant case for this proposition” and is conflating absolute immunity — being immune from litigation — with being statutorily immune from liability.

For example, a sitting president would be immune from litigation if a lawsuit were based on any official acts taken within the scope of presidential duties, regardless of the merits. On the other hand, immunity based on anti-SLAPP statutes typically requires courts to address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.

Trump on Wednesday argued that plaintiffs’ position “fundamentally misconstrues the statute,” claiming UPEPA “grants defendants an immediate entitlement to avoid the litigation process itself, which cannot be vindicated once Defendant is subjected to the burdens of litigation.”

“UPEPA immunity is, therefore, like that afforded to defendants under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity, and the Court should stay the proceedings in this case as it would in cases where such immunities are invoked,” the filing says.

The president further asserted that refusing his request to stay the proceedings while the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would establish a precedent allowing lawsuits to be filed against citizens “for merely voicing their opinions in quintessentially political discussions.”

The wrongly accused quintet sued Trump for false statements he made during last year’s presidential debate with Kamala Harris in which he said the plaintiffs “pled guilty” to the horrific 1989 attack on a Manhattan jogger and “ultimately killed a person.”

Antron McCray, Korey Wise, Kevin Richardson, and Raymond Santana gave police coerced confessions, but never pleaded guilty while Yusef Salaam did not confess or plead guilty. Additionally, no one died in the attack, which was later conclusively proven to have been committed by a man named Matias Reyes.

Crybaby Trump claims no responsibility for defamation of others during a political debate.

Straight Arrow News: DOJ whistleblower says Trump appointee ordered defiance of courts

“They’re putting attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service in the impossible position of fealty to the President or fealty to the Constitution – candor to the courts or keeping your head low and lying if asked to do so,” Reuveni told The New Yorker. “That is not what the Department of Justice that I worked in was about. That’s not why I went to the Department of Justice and stayed there for fifteen years.” 

Shortly after three planes filled with alleged Tren de Aragua gang members took off for an El Salvador supermax prison in March, a judge issued a verbal order with a simple instruction to government lawyers:  turn the planes around. The planes, however, continued to El Salvador

Now, a whistleblower says a top Department of Justice (DOJ) official authorized disregarding the judge’s order, telling his staff they might have to tell the courts “f- you” in immigration cases.

The official was Principal Associate Attorney General Emil Bove, whom President Donald Trump nominated to be a federal judge. Leaked emails and texts from whistleblower and former DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni, released during the week of July 7, came days before a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Bove’s nomination to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the committee approves, Bove’s nomination will advance to the full Senate.

At Bove’s direction, “the Department of Justice is thumbing its nose at the courts, and putting Justice Department attorneys in an impossible position where they have to choose between loyalty to the agenda of the president and their duty to the court,” Reuveni told The New York Times.

Bove is perceived by some as a controversial choice for the lifetime position. He served on Trump’s defense team in the state and federal indictments filed after Trump’s first term in the White House.

In 2024, after Trump appointed him acting deputy attorney general, Bove ignited controversy over his firing of federal prosecutors involved in cases involving the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol and over his role in dismissing corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Early this year, the federal government was using an arcane 18th-century wartime law – the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – to remove the alleged gang members from the United States without court hearings. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ruled the removals violated the men’s right to due process, setting up the conflict with the DOJ.

The leaker’s emails and texts suggest Bove advised DOJ attorneys that it was okay to deplane the prisoners in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. 

The messages also cite Bove’s instruction for lawyers to consider saying “f- you” to the courts.

 When Reuveni asked DOJ and Department of Homeland Security officials if they would honor the judge’s order to stop the planes to El Salvador, he received vague responses or none at all.

While the email and text correspondence allude to Bove’s instruction, none of the messages appear to have come directly from Bove himself. The official whistleblower complaint was filed on June 24.

Bove denies giving that instruction. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Bove said he “never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order.”

The leak prompted outrage from both sides of the political spectrum. Some say deporting people without trial to a supermax prison in El Salvador violates due process rights and a  DOJ lawyer telling other lawyers to ignore a court order should put him in contempt of court. 

However, Attorney General Pam Bondi – who served as one of Trump’s defense attorneys during his first Senate impeachment trial in 2020 – responded on X, saying there was no court order to defy. 

“As Mr. Bove testified and as the Department has made clear, there was no court order to defy, as we successfully argued to the DC Circuit when seeking a stay, when they stayed Judge Boasberg’s lawless order. And no one was ever asked to defy a court order,” the attorney general wrote Thursday, July 10, when the emails and texts were released. 

Bondi was referring to the DOJ’s immediate emergency appeal to the D.C. Circuit of Appeals requesting a stay of Boasberg’s temporary restraining order. The DOJ did not turn the planes around, arguing that a verbal order by the lower court is not binding and that the planes had already left U.S. airspace.

On March 26, the DOJ lost its appeal, with the D.C. Circuit voting 2-1 to uphold Boasberg’s ruling. The DOJ appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower courts had interfered with national security and overreached on executive immigration power. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DOJ, 6-3, and lifted the lower court’s injunction on April 9.

Bondi accused the whistleblower Reuveni of spreading lies. She said on X that this is “another instance of misinformation being spread to serve a narrative that does not align with the facts.” 

“This ‘whistleblower’ signed 3 briefs defending DOJ’s position in this matter and his subsequent revisionist account arose only after he was fired because he violated his ethical duties to the department,” Bondi wrote.

Reuveni worked at the DOJ for 15 years, mostly in the Office of Immigration and Litigation. Bondi fired Reuveni in April for failing to “zealously advocate” for the United States in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was accidentally deported to the El Salvador prison and whose return the Supreme Court eventually ordered.

Bondi and other Trump administration officials have fired many DOJ and FBI employees, saying the administration has broad constitutional power to do so. 

“They’re putting attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service in the impossible position of fealty to the President or fealty to the Constitution – candor to the courts or keeping your head low and lying if asked to do so,” Reuveni told The New Yorker. “That is not what the Department of Justice that I worked in was about. That’s not why I went to the Department of Justice and stayed there for fifteen years.” 

https://san.com/cc/doj-whistleblower-says-trump-appointee-ordered-defiance-of-courts

MSNBC: The Trump admin is going after Maryland courts for doing exactly what courts are supposed to do

The suit challenges a May 28 order issued by the district’s chief judge concerning the handling of habeas corpus petitions.

In a move more characteristic of a 17th-century English king than a 21st-century American president, the Trump administration last week filed a lawsuit against every sitting federal judge in the state of Maryland.

The charge? That one judge’s attempt to preserve due process for individuals challenging their deportations is disrupting the president’s immigration policies. This unprecedented lawsuit is a dangerous attack on an independent judiciary and escalates the ongoing struggle between the executive and judicial branches. And it brings America one step closer to a constitutional crisis.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the U.S. government and the Department of Homeland Security in U.S. District Court in Maryland against all 15 active and senior-status judges in that district, as well as the district’s clerk of court. The suit challenges a May 28 order issued by the district’s chief judge concerning the handling of habeas corpus petitions — legal actions that contest the government’s detention of individuals as unlawful.

The May 28 order expressly addresses the “recent influx” of habeas petitions concerning people subject to deportation, an influx triggered by the administration’s aggressive immigration policies. DHS is trying to move quickly to deport people whom it has identified as illegal aliens; in response, many detainees are filing lawsuits to block those deportations. DHS is proceeding with deportation before courts can hear the cases, and judges are scrambling to manage what the May 28 order describes as “hurried and frustrated hearings” in which “clear and concrete information about the location and status of the [detainees] is elusive.” To ensure that detainees are afforded due process — the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process to all “persons” in the United States, not just “citizens” — the May 28 order prohibits the government from deporting a prisoner for two days after a habeas petition is filed, giving the presiding judge time to review the case.

Several appellate courts have similar standing orders.

But here, the administration has taken the extraordinary step, apparently for the first time in our nation’s history, of pre-emptively suing all the judges responsible for implementing a ruling it claims is unlawful.

This lawsuit is not about immigration policy. It is a frontal assault on judicial authority, raising separation of powers principles that predate the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

This attempted power grab should alarm anyone who values our constitutional framework.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-doj-suing-marylands-federal-judges-rcna215771

Newsweek: Donald Trump Suffers Double Deportation Loss In Hours: ‘Irreparable Harm’

Donald Trump’s administration suffered a double legal blow on Friday when the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift a judge’s injunction blocking the swift deportation of illegal immigrants to a country other than their own, such as El Salvador or Libya.

Also on Friday, the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision blocked the administration’s request to resume the rapid deportation of Venezuelan nationals using the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 1798 law.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-suffers-double-deportation-loss-2073578

MSNBC: Trump-appointed judge calls Trump’s Alien Enemies Act invocation ‘unlawful’

President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act has faced intense preliminary litigation in courts around the country, leading to rulings such as the Supreme Court’s insistence that people potentially subject to the act must receive due process. But a new and significant ruling from a Trump-appointed judge Thursday gets to the heart of the matter, deeming the president’s invocation itself “unlawful.”

But U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. said that Trump’s invocation “exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful.” The judge said the administration therefore can’t use the act to detain Venezuelans, transfer them within the U.S. or remove them from the country. The ruling applies to a class of plaintiffs in the Southern District of Texas.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-appointed-judge-calls-trump-s-alien-enemies-act-invocation-unlawful/ar-AA1E0Asw

Associated Press: Maryland Sen. Van Hollen says he was denied entry to the El Salvador prison holding Abrego Garcia

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen says he was denied entry into an El Savador prison on Thursday while he was trying to check on the well-being of of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was sent there by the Trump administration in March despite an immigration court order preventing his deportation.

Van Hollen is in El Salvador to push for Abrego Garcia’s release. The Democratic senator said at a news conference in San Salvador that his car was stopped by soldiers at a checkpoint about 3 kilometers from the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, even as they let other cars go on.

“They stopped us because they are under orders not to allow us to proceed,” Van Hollen said.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele said this week that they have no basis to send him back, even as the Trump administration has called his deportation a mistake and the U.S. Supreme Court has called on the administration to facilitate his return. Trump officials have said that Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen who was living in Maryland, has ties to the MS-13 gang, but his attorneys say the government has provided no evidence of that and Abrego Garcia has never been charged with any crime related to such activity.

Senstor Van Hollen should ask the International Red Cross to check on the welfare of our prisoners in El Salvador. If their access is denied, the tinpot dictators Trump and Bukele should be charged in an international tribunal.

https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-el-salvador-trump-deportation-van-hollen-senator-81cca0ac24a9a312be97c730679f8dd1