Law & Crime: ‘Rightfully done and justly suffered’: Judge swats down Jan. 6 defendant’s restitution and fine return request

A pardoned Jan. 6 defendant and former U.S. Marine who sought to recover fines and restitution he paid after his Capitol riot conviction got swatted down Friday by a federal judge, who reminded him that a pardon does not make one’s conviction or the exaction of monetary penalties “erroneous”  — meaning no refunds.

“As the Supreme Court explained in Knote … once a conviction has been ‘established by judicial proceedings,’ any penalties imposed are ‘presumed to have been rightfully done and justly suffered,’ regardless of whether the defendant later receives a pardon,” wrote U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in a nine-page order for defendant Hector Vargas Santos, 29, of Jersey City, New Jersey.

Suck it up, Bubba!

Law & Crime: ‘Out of a job right now’: Judge accused of helping immigrant evade ICE ‘wants a trial date,’ but it’s been delayed, lawyers say

Lawyers for Hannah Dugan, the Wisconsin judge indicted on federal charges for allegedly impeding government agents during an immigration bust, says she “wants a trial date” as soon as possible — revealing Wednesday that her obstruction case is reportedly “hanging over her head” — as she’s continues to be “out of a job right now.”

Dugan’s cries apparently fell on deaf ears as U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman chose to delay the Milwaukee County judge’s July 21 jury trial date indefinitely at a hearing Wednesday, while Dugan’s lawyers had argued for keeping things on schedule. Adelman wants to first weigh a motion to dismiss filed by Dugan’s legal team last month before setting an official trial date, according to court records.

Adelman said he sees where the judge is coming from, but he also wants to make sure the case is “done right,” according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Law & Crime: ‘Seemingly defiant posture’: State AG gets tongue-lashing from appeals court over ‘veiled threat’ to defy judge’s order stopping immigration arrests

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit delivered a sharp rebuke on Friday to Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier over the state’s new immigration enforcement law — scolding him for making “a veiled threat” to defy a judge’s order blocking local immigrant arrests, while ruling to leave the order in place.

Back in April, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued a 14-day stay that blocked the law in question — signed into effect by Gov. Ron DeSantis in February — which gives state law enforcement the power to arrest and prosecute undocumented immigrants. It is a first-degree misdemeanor now for a person to enter Florida as an “unauthorized alien” under the law.

Williams, a Barack Obama appointee, ordered that the legislation not be enforced, arguing that it was the federal government’s responsibility to apprehend and litigate migrants, not individual states.

Law & Crime: ‘We have concerns’: Appeals court shoots down Trump DHS bid to continue carrying out ‘third country’ deportations

federal appellate court on Friday declined to lift a nationwide injunction that bars the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from carrying out President Donald Trump’s plans to summarily deport immigrants to countries where they are not from, allegedly without due process.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling in a two-page order, denying an emergency motion from the government for a stay of an April 18 preliminary injunction. The three-judge panel determined that DHS failed to satisfy the criteria required for such relief, and the court has “concerns regarding the continuing application of the Department of Homeland Security’s March 30 Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals,” among other things, according to the order.

The ruling stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by immigration advocates after DHS issued new guidance authorizing the removal of certain noncitizens to “third countries” not named in their immigration proceedings, and with which they allegedly have no historical or legal ties. The plaintiffs argued that the policy violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, as well as obligations under the Convention Against Torture human rights treaty.