Tag Archives: Congress

LAist: Disabled immigrants are being abused and neglected inside Adelanto Detention Center, report says

Posted on by
Reply

A disability-rights group says immigrant detainees inside a federal detention center near Victorville are being abused and neglected, in part because the population inside the facility has grown rapidly in recent weeks, according to a new report.

Investigators with the non-profit watchdog Disability Rights California toured the Adelanto Detention Center late last month. They said they interviewed 18 people during the monitoring visit.

They also noted in the report, released last week, that the population inside the facility had risen dramatically from approximately 300 people in the weeks before the visit to nearly 1,400. The increase coincided with immigration agents ramping up raids across the L.A. region.

“Due to the surging numbers of people at Adelanto, conditions appear to have quickly deteriorated,” according to the report.

Spokespeople for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which rents the facility, and The GEO Group, which operates it, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Rep. Jay Obernolte, a Republican who represents the Adelanto area, recently toured the facility and praised its operations.

“Those in custody are provided with access to medical care, legal counsel, meals, and the full rights guaranteed under federal law,” he said in a statement.

We reached out to two Democratic members of Congress who toured the facility, but they were unavailable for comment in time or did not respond.

The findings

The report provides a rare look inside the conditions at the Adelanto facility.

Overall, Disability Rights California said it found serious issues including:

  • Inadequate access to medical treatment, such as life-saving medication and wound care, and exposure to widespread respiratory illnesses; 
  • Inadequate access to food and water, including extreme delays in meal distribution, provision of food that results in significant health issues, and a shortage of drinking water; 
  • Inadequate access to clean clothes, with many remaining in soiled clothing for long periods of time; and 
  • Minimal opportunities to contact family. 

“Further intensifying these issues, many of the people DRC interviewed had never experienced incarceration and felt overwhelmed and terrified by their confinement in a locked, jail-like facility,” the report states.

Among the 18 people interviewed during the June 25 visit, many said they were not receiving proper medication to manage their medical conditions, according to Disability Rights California.

One person reported he needed to take diabetes medication twice per day but had only received it twice over the 10 days he had been detained — placing him at life-threatening risk of diabetic shock, according to the report. Other people reported insufficient access to medication to manage severe asthma and urinary conditions, or not having medications transferred from previous facilities to ensure continued treatment.

Access to clean clothes is another problem, investigator Paula Sandoval told LAist. She said she met one man who said he didn’t have access to clean clothes for nearly three weeks.

Another investigator, Robert Reyes Villagomez, described a Venezuelan man who said he had panic attacks stemming from his fear of returning to the country. The investigator said the man came to the U.S. seeking asylum because he was tortured and sexually assaulted by government officials.

“He hadn’t seen or talked to anybody on the medical team despite putting in written medical accommodation requests multiple times,” Villagomez said.

Staff at Adelanto told investigators there were three psychologists to serve the entire population inside the detention center.

According to the report, two people told investigators they had acute spinal conditions that substantially impacted their ability to lie down to rest. The first person said his mattress was damaged and causing significant pain to his spine. He asked for a new mattress, the report states, but never received a response.

‘Grave concerns’

The report focused on people with disabilities, but it noted many of the detainees who were interviewed or otherwise interacted with said they faced the same conditions.

“While walking through the housing units, investigators observed several individuals pointing towards their mouths and shaking their heads ‘no’ to indicate that they were not receiving food,” the report stated.

Most people who were interviewed also reported that the quality of the food was poor or portions were too small to keep them satisfied. Many shared that they are experiencing gastric issues due to poor food quality, including severe stomach cramping and pain.

During the monitoring visit, detainees told investigators they had minimal opportunities to remain in contact with family and loved ones while in detention. They reported limited access to phones to make calls, and those calls were regularly disconnected.

The watchdog group said it has “grave concerns” that a continued surge of detainees held in Adelanto will put those with disabilities at even greater risk of abuse, neglect and harm, according to the report.

“The conditions at Adelanto make it clear that the current system of immigration detention is dangerous and inadequate for all people, especially for those with disabilities.”

The report is available online here.

Disabled immigrants are being abused and neglected inside Adelanto Detention Center, report says
Immigrant detainees have complained of poor conditions inside center amid period of increased ICE sweeps.

https://laist.com/news/disabled-immigrants-are-being-abused-and-neglected-inside-adelanto-detention-center-report-says

The Nation: Punished for Playing by the Rules: the Deliberate Cruelty of Trump’s Deportation Regime

Posted on by
Reply

Joselyn Chipantiza-Sisalema, 20, dressed in a red shirt and blue jeans on a Tuesday morning in June and took the subway from Bushwick to Lower Manhattan. She walked into the Jacob Javits Federal building at 26 Federal Plaza, a few blocks north of City Hall, took her keys and phone out of her pockets to pass through security, and got in an elevator up to the 12th-floor courtroom of Judge Donald Thompson. Like the vast majority of people appearing in immigration court, she had no lawyer with her. Chipantiza-Sisalema’s parents and younger brother had made the brutal journey from Ecuador to the United States in 2022, part of an increasing number of Ecuadorans propelled north as their country destabilized. They settled in New York—where a large Ecuadoran population has been part of the city since the 1970s—and filed a claim for asylum. Chipantiza-Sisalema joined her parents last year, crossing into the US at El Paso in May 2024. In the volatile political climate in Ecuador, she had faced threats and stalking, her father later told reporters. Immigration officials in El Paso determined Chipantiza-Sisalema was not a flight risk or a danger to the community, so she was permitted to go on to New York to her family and told to appear in court more than a year later. She followed the rules.

The June 24 hearing at 26 Federal Plaza was her first immigration hearing. It was brief. Judge Thompson scheduled her next date for March 2026. But when Chipantiza-Sisalema stepped out of the courtroom to return home, masked men grabbed her. She was hustled down to the 10th floor of the courthouse. She would remain there for nine days—without being charged or ever given the opportunity to contest her detention, without access to an attorney, sleeping on the floor, with minimal food and nowhere to bathe. In hasty one-minute phone calls, Chipantiza-Sisalema told her parents there were at least 70 other people there. The small number of holding cells in the federal building are meant to be used just for a few hours before someone is transferred to a different facility, attorneys familiar with the building explained. There is no provision for meals and no beds. When she was put on a plane and transferred to the for-profit Richwood Detention facility in Louisiana on the Fourth of July—before a New York judge had a chance to review the habeas corpus petition an attorney filed the day before—she was still wearing that same red shirt and blue jeans.

The overwhelming majority of immigrants whose cases are winding through the immigration court system show up for their hearings, believing that by adhering to the system’s labyrinthine requirements they’ll be rewarded with clearance to stay in the country. Or at least the chance to fight another day. But under President Donald Trump’s aggressive deportation regime, abiding by the immigration system’s rules has become increasingly dangerous. Those who show up in court now routinely face arrest. But failure to appear for a hearing generally triggers a deportation order, attorneys explained. Immigrants, advocates, and elected officials at all levels are scrambling to confront what they say is lawlessness inside the courthouse and throughout the ICE detention system. “ICE is just detaining everyone and giving only some a right to a hearing, and it’s only the possibility of having a lawyer who will shout and scream for you that your case is heard,” said Melissa Chua, an attorney at the pro bono New York Legal Assistance Group, who is representing several people who, despite following US immigration procedure, are now in detention.

Chipantiza-Sisalema is just one of hundreds of people taken in the past month by masked ICE agents at Manhattan’s immigration courts, Harold Solis, co–legal director for the Brooklyn-based immigrant rights group Make the Road New York, told The Nation. “The truth is, I don’t think anyone has a full scope of how many people have been held there.” Make the Road is now representing Chipantiza-Sisalema. Similar scenes have played out in courthouses across the country, with immigrants often shuttled between several facilities before their family or attorney can locate them. Beginning in April, it appeared to court observers in Manhattan that ICE was lying in wait for people whose cases were dismissed or who were ordered to be deported. Veteran attorneys say courthouse arrests had previously been extremely unusual. “In all my years of practice, it has never been a fact of life that going to immigration court leads to you being detained,” Solis said. By late June, ICE was routinely taking people even when, like Chipantiza-Sisalema, US immigration judges had ordered them to reappear several months in the future.

“People are being disappeared into this hole of 26 Federal Plaza for a prolonged period of time and in deplorable conditions,” said Kendal Nystedt, an attorney at the rights group Unlocal whose client was held there for six days. The New York Immigration Coalition is representing someone held for three weeks, executive director Murad Awawdeh said. The vast majority, maybe as many as 99 percent, according to a close court watcher who asked not to be identified because of the nature of her work, do not have an attorney.

“If you’re someone without a family member or no one has alerted us to you, there is no way for us to know what has happened,” said Chua. “They are really creating this shadow place that can deny people protections they are afforded by our Constitution.”

In the chaotic seconds as immigrants exit courtrooms, volunteer observers hastily attempt to catch people’s names, alien registration numbers, and contacts for family members before ICE strongarms them into elevators and out of sight. The hope is that by collecting people’s names, their families will be able to find out where they are sent. A diffuse mutual aid network raises commissary funds, tries to connect people to counsel, and offers support to families left behind—often without a breadwinner. Ordinarily when someone is detained, they show up in the ICE detainee locator in a mattered of hours, attorneys said. But those held at 26 Federal Plaza and in irregular detention in courthouses elsewhere are listed only as “in transit” for the days-long duration of their stay. In this limbo state, their lawyers and families can’t reach them.

Chua and other attorneys emphasized that the spectacle of ICE sweeping people up in courthouses was a dramatic departure from norms—even in an immigration system hardly characterized by transparency or compassion. Several members of New York’s congressional delegation, including Representatives Adriano Espaillat, Daniel Goldman, Jerrold Nadler, and Nydia Velasquez, have tried to find out how many people are held at 26 Federal Plaza—and to assess conditions. They’ve all been rebuffed.

In a surreal, Kakfaesque incident, Bill Joyce, deputy director of the New York ICE field office, told Representatives Goldman and Nadler in June that the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza—where a shifting number of immigrants are held against their will for days on end—is not a detention facility. Rather, it is a place ICE is “housing [immigrants] until they can be detained.” Members of Congress have a right to inspect places where people are detained, but not, Joyce argued, a place they are merely “held.” On July 14, Espaillat and Velasquez were again prevented from inspecting the facility. The lawmakers are considering legal action against the Department of Homeland Security for preventing them from exercising their oversight rights, Espaillat said.

That people are held within a courthouse in a sanctuary city that considers itself the capital of immigrant America is an affront that has New York lawmakers searching for solutions. “We’re fighting this from the legal front and the budgeting front and the legislative front. And we’re fighting this in public opinion,” Espaillat said. Likewise, New York City Public Advocate Jumaane Williams said his office is seeking litigation in support and praised the efforts of court observers. A coalition of immigrants rights groups in Washington, DC, filed a class action suit in federal district court in DC on July 17, alleging that the courthouse arrests are a violation of due process. New York groups could soon follow.

While ICE is barred by state law from entering New York criminal and civil courts, 26 Federal Plaza is under federal jurisdiction. But standing beside Chipantiza-Sisalema’s bereft and terrified parents at a July 3 press conference, several elected officials called on New York Governor Kathy Hochul to find a way to intervene. Assemblywoman Emily Gallagher, who represents parts of Brooklyn, thinks lawmakers, whose session ended mid-June, should return to Albany. “I also call on my governor, Kathy Hochul, to pass New York for All and to call us to a special session and get ICE out of our courts,” she said, referring to a bill that would extend some sanctuary protections to immigrants across New York State. Espaillat introduced HR 4176—The No Secret Police Act—in June. In the unlikely event it passes the Republican-controlled Congress, it would bar federal law enforcement officers from wearing masks or hiding their badges except in specific undercover instances. Last week, New York Attorney General Leticia James and a coalition of 20 attorneys general urged Congress to pass the bill and a bundle of similar legislation.

Closer to home, the New York City budget adopted at the end of June increased city funding for pro bono immigration lawyers by $76 million to $120 million in total, and the city’s law department filed amicus briefs in support of two detained New Yorkers this spring. But the New York Immigration Coalition wants to see a full right to counsel extended to immigration court. The rollout of city-funded right-to-counsel in housing court several years ago was not without complications, but it dramatically rebalanced the scale between tenants and landlords and has been copied elsewhere. New York wouldn’t be the first place to guarantee a right to an immigration lawyer. Oregon adopted universal access to representation in most immigration matters in 2022, said Isa Peña, director of strategy for Innovation Law Lab, based in Portland.

As courthouse arrests pile up, lawyers who are able to identify people being held are filing habeas corpus petitions in federal district courts, in hopes of keeping their clients from being transferred to distant detention facilities or deported—but also simply to compel the government to reveal where they are, dispelling the twilight status of being in perpetual “transit.” These petitions have the advantage of being heard by judges who are part of the federal judiciary—and perhaps more attuned to the rule of law than immigration court judges, who serve at the pleasure of the Department of Homeland Security.

In Buffalo, in a case since joined by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Prisoners Legal Service is arguing that ICE’s aggressive presence in the halls of federal courthouses constitutes not just an escalation of Trump’s war on immigrants but a systematic attempt to deprive people of their due-process rights. “It’s a huge deviation in ICE tactics and unlawful in various ways,” said NYCLU attorney Amy Louise Belscher, who is representing Oliver Mata Velasquez in a habeas case. Mata Velasquez, 19, came to the United States from Venezuela in September 2024, using the CBPOne app the Biden administration required of asylum seekers.As with Chipantiza-Sisalema, immigration officials at the border determined Mata Velasquez was not a flight risk or a danger and permitted him to enter the country. He obtained work authorization and showed up May 21 for his first immigration hearing, as instructed. A judge told him to return in February 2026, but before he could leave the courthouse, ICE arrested him. Last week a judge ordered Mata Velasquez immediately released and forbade ICE from detaining him again without permission from the judge.

“Federal judges are finding these courthouse arrests unlawful,” Belscher said. “They are detaining people not because they are at risk of flight or a danger to the community, but because they are easy to find.” The NYCLU’s arguments for Mata Velasquez cite a bundle of cases successfully argued in Oregon, by the Innovation Law Lab. Those cases, named for ICE Seattle field office director Drew Bostock, argue that the courthouse arrests violate the immigrant’s right to due process. That such a violation is occurring precisely in the place one goes to seek justice has scandalized attorneys. “When we saw that people were targeted at the courthouse—where your fundamental freedoms are supposed to be upheld, we moved quickly to intervene,” Innovation Law Lab’s Peña said.

Some of the habeas petitions filed in New York last month resulted in judges’ issuing emergency orders to keep the person nearby, preventing ICE from venue shopping by sending the person to Texas or Louisiana.

People aren’t only being taken at court. Milton Maisel Perez y Perez, a teacher who fled his native Guatemala because of threats from gangs, has been in immigration proceedings for six years. Like hundreds of thousands of immigrants across the country, he gained the right to work legally and was required to check in periodically under the Department of Homeland Security’s Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP). Last month, he went to the ISAP facility in Jamaica, Queens. It was perhaps the 50th time he’d done so, his attorney S. Michael Musa-Obregon said. This time, Perez y Perez was arrested. He was transferred to the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza and held for three days. After Musa-Obregon filed a habeas petition with the Southern District of New York, but before it could be heard by a judge, ICE prepared to move Perez y Perez to detention—clear across the country in Seattle. A judge’s order at the last minute had him removed from the plane and transferred to detention in Goshen, New York.

The courthouse arrests are a cynical campaign, Musa-Obregon said. “They are detaining people with the idea that it is much easier to get people to give up their rights when they are incarcerated,” he said. On the Fourth of July, Trump signed into law his massive spending bill, which included $170 billion for immigration enforcement and border security. It makes ICE the largest law enforcement entity in the country and promises to vastly expand the for-profit immigrant detention system. The masked men in the halls of justice are just the beginning. But the ancient writ of habeas corpus appears to be working.

District Judge Analisa Torres ruled on Chipantiza-Sisalema’s habeas petition on July 13, ordering her immediate release. The manner of her arrest, the judge wrote, “offends the ordered system of liberty that is the pillar of the Fifth Amendment.” She was back in her parents’ arms on July 16. Snatched by masked men and held for three weeks, she’s one of the lucky ones.

Punished for Playing by the Rules: the Deliberate Cruelty of Trump’s Deportation Regime
Migrants who show up for their court dates now routinely face arrest by ICE. But failing to appear triggers a deportation order.

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/ice-trump-detention-regime-cruelty

Also here:

Punished for Playing by the Rules: the Deliberate Cruelty of Trump’s Deportation Regime

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/punished-for-playing-by-the-rules-the-deliberate-cruelty-of-trump-s-deportation-regime/ar-AA1JcQGd

Knewz: Trump Impeachment Campaign Makes Major Moves in House

Posted on by
Reply

In a powerful show of public dissent, nearly one million Americans signed a petition calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Knewz.com has learned that the signatures were collected by advocacy organizations Free Speech For People and Women’s March and delivered to the leadership of the House Judiciary Committee following a press conference by Representative Al Green of Texas.

Backed by a growing protest movement and a formal campaign known as “Impeach Trump. Again.” led by constitutional lawyers at Free Speech For People, the effort accuses President Trump of a sweeping list of constitutional violations and abuses of power. Supporters of the movement argue that Congress must now act decisively to defend the democracy. Speaking to reporters outside the United States Capitol, Rep. Green expressed his appreciation to Free Speech For People, Women’s March and the nearly one million individuals who had signed the petition calling for President Donald Trump’s impeachment. He emphasized that the widespread public support demonstrated the urgency and significance of the issue, which Congress could no longer afford to ignore, he said. “His abuse of power, disregard for the Constitution, authoritarian dictatorship activity and violations of the War Powers Clause demand a response. Impeachment and removal from office is the remedy provided in our Constitution to protect democracy from an authoritarian president whose threat to democracy has become an assault on democracy. This is why the article of impeachment filed in June is the first in the foundation to remove an authoritarian president — but not the last,” Rep. Green said in a statement.

Tamika Middleton, the Managing Director of Women’s March, accused President Trump of “trampling” on the Constitution and attacking “our communities with cruelty and impunity.” She said in her statement, “Nearly one million people demanding impeachment is proof that we will not back down. Congress must act now to protect our freedoms and our futures.” Alexandra Flores-Quilty, the Campaign Director for Free Speech For People, told reporters outside the U.S. Capitol, “What this campaign shows is that nearly 1 million Americans across the country refuse to let Trump and his allies destroy our democracy. … It’s up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power.”

According to reports, Rep. Green introduced articles of impeachment against Trump for violating the War Powers Clause of the Constitution following the military attack on Iran without congressional authorization and forced a floor vote on the articles. Seventy-eight members of the House voted in favor of advancing the articles of impeachment introduced by Rep. Green — nearly four times the number who had previously gone on record supporting such action against President Trump. With close to one million petition signatures now submitted in support of impeachment, advocates argue that Congress faces growing public pressure to act on its constitutional responsibilities. “The Framers designed the constitutional remedy of impeachment to deal with a president who would attack the Constitution, trample on the rule of law and engage in High Crimes. … The American people are demanding that Members of Congress abide by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and impeach and remove Trump,” said John Bonifaz, the co-founder and president of Free Speech For People.

According to the Impeach Trump Again campaign, the allegations against the president span a wide range of constitutional and legal violations. These include unlawfully bypassing Congress’ authority to declare war, deploying military forces against civilian protesters and engaging in the illegal detention, deportation and removal of U.S. residents, migrants and asylum-seekers — sometimes to foreign prisons. He is also accused of attempting to deport immigrants for peaceful protest, defying court orders and undermining judicial authority. Additional charges involve using presidential power for personal retribution, dismantling independent oversight bodies, imposing unauthorized tariffs and accepting prohibited foreign and domestic emoluments. The campaign further alleges he repeatedly overstepped local, state and federal boundaries by abusing emergency and pardon powers, interfering with the judicial process and corruptly dismissing criminal charges against political figures including New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Other serious accusations include denying citizens their birthright, obstructing efforts to secure elections, allegedly planning the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza and engaging in corrupt activities during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump Impeachment Campaign Makes Major Moves in House
In a powerful show of public dissent, nearly one million Americans signed a petition calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump.

https://knewz.com/trump-impeachment-campaign-makes-major-moves-in-house

Associated Press: Trump signs bill to cancel $9 billion in foreign aid, public broadcasting funding

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump signed a bill Thursday canceling about $9 billion that had been approved for public broadcasting and foreign aid as Republicans look to lock in cuts to programs targeted by the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The bulk of the spending being clawed back is for foreign assistance programs. About $1.1 billion was destined for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which finances NPR and PBS, though most of that money is distributed to more than 1,500 local public radio and television stations around the country.

The White House had billed the legislation as a test case for Congress and said more such rescission packages would be on the way.

Some Republicans were uncomfortable with the cuts, yet supported them anyway, wary of crossing Trump or upsetting his agenda. Democrats unanimously rejected the cuts but were powerless to stop them.

The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. Conservatives particularly directed their ire at NPR and PBS. Lawmakers with large rural constituencies voiced grave concern about what the cuts to public broadcasting could mean for some local public stations in their state. Some stations will have to close, they warned.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said the stations are “not just your news — it is your tsunami alert, it is your landslide alert, it is your volcano alert.”

On the foreign aid cuts, the White House argued that they would incentivize other nations to step up and do more to respond to humanitarian crises and that the rescissions best served the American taxpayer.

Democrats argued that the Republican administration’s animus toward foreign aid programs would hurt America’s standing in the world and create a vacuum for China to fill. They also expressed concerns that the cuts would have deadly consequences for many of the world’s most impoverished people.

“With these cuts, we will cause death, spread disease and deepen starvation across the planet,” said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii.

Trump signs bill to cancel $9 billion in foreign aid, public broadcasting funding
President Donald Trump has signed a bill to cancel about $9 billion that had been approved for public broadcasting and foreign aid.

https://apnews.com/article/pbs-npr-budget-cuts-trump-republicans-7d29c97c85d0b450549af657e115f0f8

Law & Crime: ‘Flip-side of the same coin’: Trump-appointed judge dismisses White House lawsuit by using Supreme Court precedent that tossed nationwide injunctions

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration may not terminate its agencies’ collective bargaining agreements (CBAs), in large part because allowing it to do so would be similar to the “judicial overreach” that the Supreme Court sought to mitigate in a recent ruling in favor of President Donald Trump, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.

The White House’s attempt to toss out labor unions from key federal agencies, as U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas put it, boils down to the authority that the different branches of government possess.

And on this matter, because the Trump administration’s lawsuit was preemptive – that is, asking the court to approve of their future conduct in breaking the CBAs as part of an executive order – the judge found that his hands were tied.

To explain why he came to that decision, the judge pointed to the highest court in the land and its recent case in Trump v. CASA that severely limited the power of U.S. district judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

“This Court’s decision to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction is bolstered by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, wherein the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” Albright, a Trump appointee from the president’s first term, wrote in a 27-page filing.

In making its decision in the landmark birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court found that universal injunctions were not present for most of the country’s history. And in this case, the district judge opined, the White House asked a court to go a step further – by asking for relief to do something before having even begun.

Albright wrote, at length:

Here, pre-enforcement declaratory judgments pre-approving an Executive Order have been conspicuously nonexistent for all of this Nation’s history. CASA was not decided upon the issue of standing before us today. Nonetheless, the practical impact of the holding in CASA as well as the core legal principle espoused by the Supreme Court remains central to this Court’s decision today— “federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them.” Absent a justiciable case or controversy, this Court will not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch. Accordingly, this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Trump’s March 27 Executive Order 14251 – titled Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs – declared to “enhance the national security of the United States” by having agencies “have as a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work.”

On the same day, the Office of Personnel Management issued a memo to the relevant agencies – which include the Department of Defense and Department of State – that they are “no longer required to collectively bargain with Federal unions.”

It is also on this fateful March day that the administration filed its lawsuit against the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest labor union representing federal workers, seeking pre-approval for the termination of the CBAs. The timing of that action is where the district judge takes issue, finding that no “controversy” requiring him to act existed at the time of the lawsuit because the executive order had not yet been publicly announced.

“It is difficult to imagine how the parties could have formed a concrete dispute over the Executive Order when that document had not yet been released to the public,” Albright wrote. And because a “controversy” could not be found, the White House did not have the legal authority to bring the case, and the court did not have the jurisdiction to hear it.

The Texas-based judge was not unsympathetic to the Trump administration’s position, however. Pointing to nearly 25 nationwide injunctions being filed in the first 100 days of the administration, Albright wrote: “The Court is sympathetic to the administration’s desire for legal certainty with respect to its ability to enforce its Executive Orders when faced with the unavoidable reality that a district court somewhere will likely issue a universal injunction.”

But, again pointing to the Supreme Court, he wrote that “it is appropriate to presume” district courts will follow the high court’s ruling in Trump v. CASA and “curtail the availability” of nationwide injunctions – thus helping ease their concerns.

Albright focused on the issue of precedent while underscoring how much the judiciary can step in on the executive branch’s behalf.

“Allowing the government to seek a declaratory judgment every time (as in this case) the Executive signs a new Executive Order appears to this Court to simply be an escalation in the battle to gain some advantage by being able to select the venue in which the litigation is filed,” he wrote. “The perception, whether correct or not, that one party or the other can gain advantage by selecting a favorable forum threatens the legitimacy of the federal courts.”

He then concluded by once again referencing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

“[T]he relief Plaintiffs now seek is roughly the flip-side of the same coin as the relief sought by litigants seeking nationwide injunctions against this Administration,” Albright wrote. “One litigant rushes off to select a forum it perceives to be favorable to enjoin an Executive Order; and the Administration now rushes to preempt that injunction with a declaratory judgment in its own forum of choice.”

“While the Court understands the reasoning behind the Administration’s response to what it perceives as improper judicial overreach, the solution to perceived judicial overreach is not more judicial overreach, but a return to the principles of judicial restraint and strict adherence to the constitutional limits imposed upon the federal judiciary,” he concluded.

Seeking a national injunction in support of executive order(s) not yet issued — that’s quite a stretch, and then some!

Federal judge dismisses White House lawsuit by using SCOTUS precedent that helped Trump
The Trump administration may not terminate its agencies’ collective bargaining agreements, a federal judge ruled as he cited recent Supreme Court precedent that handed the president a major win.
‘Flip-side of the same coin’: Trump-appointed judge dismisses White House lawsuit by using Supreme Court precedent that tossed nationwide injunctions

CBS News: ICE head says agents will arrest anyone found in the U.S. illegally

Posted on by
Reply

In an exclusive interview with CBS News, the head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said his agents will arrest anyone they find in the country illegally, even if they lack a criminal record, while also cracking down on companies hiring unauthorized workers.

Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, said his agency will prioritize its “limited resources” on arresting and deporting “the worst of the worst,” such as those in the U.S. unlawfully who also have serious criminal histories.

But Lyons said non-criminals living in the U.S. without authorization will also be taken into custody during arrest operations, arguing that states and cities with “sanctuary” policies that limit cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement are forcing his agents to go into communities by not turning over noncitizen inmates.

“What’s, again, frustrating for me is the fact that we would love to focus on these criminal aliens that are inside a jail facility,” Lyons said during his first sit-down network interview on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.” “A local law enforcement agency, state agency already deemed that person a public safety threat and arrested them and they’re in detention.”

“I’d much rather focus all of our limited resources on that to take them into custody, but we do have to go out into the community and make those arrests, and that’s where you are seeing (that) increase” in so-called “collateral” arrests, Lyons added, referring to individuals who are not the original targets of operations but are nonetheless found to be in the U.S. unlawfully.

Collateral arrests by ICE were effectively banned under the Biden administration, which issued rules instructing deportation officers to largely focus on arresting serious criminal offenders, national security threats and migrants who recently entered the U.S. illegally. That policy was reversed immediately after President Trump took office for a second time in January.

As part of Mr. Trump’s promise to crack down on illegal immigration, his administration has given ICE a broad mandate, with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller pushing the agency to conduct 3,000 daily arrests. While ICE has so far not gotten close to that number, the agency just received tens of billions of dollars in additional funds from Congress to turbo-charge its deportation campaign.

Lyons said “it’s possible” to meet the administration’s target of 1 million deportations in a year with the new infusion of funds. ICE has recorded nearly 150,000 deportations in Mr. Trump’s first six months in office, according to internal government data obtained by CBS News.

From Jan. 1 to June 24, ICE deported around 70,000 people with criminal convictions, but many of the documented infractions were for immigration or traffic offenses, according to data obtained by CBS News.

While the administration frequently highlights arrests of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like murder and rape, ICE also has sparked backlash in communities across the country due to some of its tactics and actions, including the use of masks by agents (which Lyons said will continue due to concerns about the safety of his officers), arrests of asylum-seekers attending court hearings and raids on worksites.

“ICE is always focused on the worst of the worst,” Lyons said. “One difference you’ll see now is under this administration, we have opened up the whole aperture of the immigration portfolio.”

Lyons promises to hold companies accountable 

Another major policy at ICE under the second Trump administration is the lifting of a Biden-era pause on large-scale immigration raids at worksites.

In recent weeks, federal immigration authorities have arrested hundreds of suspected unauthorized workers at a meatpacking plant in Nebraska, a horse racetrack in Louisiana and cannabis farms in southern California. At the cannabis farms alone, officials took into custody more than 300 immigrants who were allegedly in the country unlawfully, including 10 minors.

Amid concerns from industry leaders that Mr. Trump’s crackdown was hurting their businesses, ICE in June ordered a halt to immigration roundups at farms, hotels and restaurants. But that pause lasted only a matter of days. Since then, the president has talked about giving farmers with workers who are not in the U.S. legally a “pass,” though his administration has not provided further details on what that would entail.

In his interview with CBS News, Lyons said ICE would continue worksite immigration enforcement, saying there’s no ban on such actions. He said those operations would rely on criminal warrants against employers suspected of hiring unauthorized immigrants, which he said is not a “victimless crime,” noting such investigations often expose forced labor or child trafficking.  

“Not only are we focused on those individuals that are, you know, working here illegally, we’re focused on these American companies that are actually exploiting these laborers, these people that came here for a better life,” Lyons said.

Asked to confirm that ICE plans to hold those employing immigrants in the U.S. illegally accountable — and not just arrest the workers themselves — Lyons said, “One hundred percent.”

ICE head says agents will arrest anyone found in the U.S. illegally, crack down on employers of unauthorized workers
Immigration agents will arrest anyone they find in the country illegally, even if they lack a criminal record, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said in an exclusive CBS News interview.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-head-todd-lyons-agents-will-arrest-anyone-found-illegally-crack-down-on-employers

Mirror: CNN halts show for ‘breaking news’ as poll delivers harsh blow to Donald Trump

Posted on by
Reply

CNN’s regular broadcast was interrupted for a breaking news segment, revealing that a significant number of Americans were against Donald Trump’s latest immigration move.

Trump, who was brutally blasted over his new $250 visa fee for travelers, has often boasted about his poll numbers on immigration but the reality is very different.

I’ve separated the poll results into bullet points for readability:

  • As a poll appeared on screen, the news anchor shared, “Just 42% of Americans now approve of how he’s handled immigration,
  • with only 40% approving of his policies on deportation specifically.
  • When it comes to deportations, 55% think Trump has gone too far and that’s up sharply by 10 points since February.”
  • Another poll dissecting the different aspects of deportation showed that 53% of people were against Trump’s plan to increase the ICE Budget by billions.
  • 59% also opposed his move to end the effort to end birthright citizenship.
  • Another 57% Americans opposed the President’s hopes to build new detention centers.
  • A staggering 59% of people were against Trump’s plan to detain undocumented immigrants with no criminal record.
  • When asked if they believed “Trump’s immigration policies are making the US safer,” 53% of Americans said no.

CNN halts show for ‘breaking news’ as poll delivers harsh blow to Trump
President Donald Trump has come under fire from a new poll by CNN, which says 55% of Americans believe that he has gone ‘too far’ with his latest immigration plans

https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/donald-trump-immigration-cnn-poll-1280319

Raw Story: Judge gives Alina [Bimbo #4] Habba lesson in law during blistering rebuke

Posted on by
Reply

This is sizzling — read it all!

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Alina [Bimbo #4] Habba, was admonished in a New Jersey court when Judge André Espinosa of U.S. District Court found her arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka inappropriate.

Raw Story reported in May that the dressing down of the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey by the judge was so significant that the mayor was caught on a hot mic commenting: “Jesus, he tore these people a new a–hole. Good grief.”

Baraka was arrested on trespassing charges on May 9 after attempting to enter an ICE facility in Newark with members of Congress. The charges were dropped days later, but [Bimbo #4] Habba still went to court.

But more details about the dressing down were released Monday.

National security expert Marcy Wheeler posted the full transcript, as provided by the court reporter, in a post on X on Monday.

[Bimbo #4] Habba’s last day in her interim post is Tuesday, unless a panel of judges steps in to extend her job. So far, the appointment has been stalled in the Senate.

“I don’t want to belabor the proceeding today,” the judge began, noting that they were there after [Bimbo #4] Habba’s office claimed to be prosecuting the mayor, only to drop the charges before discussing the case in court.

The judge then eviscerated [Bimbo #4] Habba’s office.

“Please consider sharing with your colleagues this modest reminder of your unique duty as federal prosecutors. Your Office serves the 9.5 million people who live in the District of New Jersey, and your colleagues are charged with working to protect those people and the 13 interests of the Constitution under which we all live and that you and every one of your colleagues swore to uphold when you joined that Office,” the judge said.

“This is an immense responsibility with which comes an imperative for meticulous diligence and unwavering integrity.”

He cited a 1940 address by the Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, who warned against the temptation to prosecute for every possible offense. He told prosecutors, “the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes.”

Espinosa said it’s clear Jackson understood the duty of the prosecutor was for the people, not for a political party or others.

“Justice Jackson warned against using the immense power of the government to pursue weak cases or to make examples without sufficient cause,” the judge continued. “Your discretion, therefore, is not merely a legal tool but a moral compass guiding the exercise of immense power. It demands a judicious restraint, a deep respect for individual liberty, and an unwavering commitment to the principle that justice is never served by arbitrary or ill-conceived actions.”

In this case, in particular, the judge stated that the arrest was “hasty” and “followed by the swift dismissal a mere 13 days later.”

He blasted [Bimbo #4] Habba, claiming that arresting a public figure isn’t to trigger an investigation. It’s the other way around; the investigation should lead to an arrest. It has been key for the office “particularly over the last two decades,” Judge Espinosa added.

The legacy has been “one of careful deliberative action,” the judge said. It implies that in this case, it was clearly ignored. He said that the office only brings charges after an “exhaustive” search for evidence.

“So let this incident serve as an inflection point and a reminder to uphold your solemn oath to the people of this district and to your client Justice itself and ensure that every charge brought is the product of rigorous investigation and earned confidence in its merit mirroring the exemplary conduct that has long defined your Office,” he said.

Raw Story: Judge gives Alina Habba lesson in law during blistering rebuke

https://www.rawstory.com/alina-habba-2673535158

Washington Post: Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him

Posted on by
Reply

A comprehensive analysis of hundreds of lawsuits against Trump policies shows dozens of examples of defiance, delay and dishonesty, which experts say pose an unprecedented threat to the U.S. legal system.

President Donald Trump and his appointees have been accused of flouting courts in a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling, a Washington Post analysis has found, suggesting widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.

Plaintiffs say Justice Department lawyers and the agencies they represent are snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked.

Judges appointed by presidents of both parties have often agreed. None have taken punitive action to try to force compliance, however, allowing the administration’s defiance of orders to go on for weeks or even months in some instances.

Outside legal analysts say courts typically are slow to begin contempt proceedings for noncompliance, especially while their rulings are under appeal. Judges also are likely to be concerned, analysts say, that the U.S. Marshals Service — whose director is appointed by the president — might not serve subpoenas or take recalcitrant government officials into custody if ordered to by the courts.

The allegations against the administration are crystallized in a whistleblower complaint filed to Congress late last month that accused Justice officials of ignoring court orders in immigration cases, presenting legal arguments with no basis in the law and misrepresenting facts. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor also chided the administration, writing that Trump officials had “openly flouted” a judge’s order not to deport migrants to a country where they did not have citizenship.

The Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases — almost 35 percent.

Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary’s role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution. Immigration cases have emerged as the biggest flash point, but the administration has also repeatedly been accused of failing to comply in lawsuits involving cuts to federal funding and the workforce.

Trump officials deny defying court orders, even as they accuse those who have issued them of “judicial tyranny.” When the Supreme Court in June restricted the circumstances under which presidential policies could be halted nationwide while they are challenged in court, Trump hailed the ruling as halting a “colossal abuse of power.”

“We’ve seen a handful of radical left judges try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,” Trump said, falsely portraying the judges who have ruled against him as being solely Democrats.

His point was echoed Monday by White House spokesman Harrison Fields, who attacked judges who have ruled against the president as “leftist” and said the president’s attorneys “are working tirelessly to comply” with rulings. “If not for the leadership of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch would collapse into a kangaroo court,” Fields said in a statement.

Retired federal judge and former Watergate special prosecutor Paul Michel compared the situation to the summer of 1974, when the Supreme Court ordered President Richard M. Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. Nixon initially refused, prompting fears of a constitutional crisis, but ultimately complied.

“The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,” Michel said. “We’re in new territory.”

Deportations and Defiance

Questions about whether the administration is defying judges have bubbled since early in Trump’s second term, when the Supreme Court said Trump must allow millions in already allocated foreign aid to flow. The questions intensified in several immigration cases, including high-profile showdowns over the wrongful deportation of an undocumented immigrant who came to the United States as a teenager and was raising a family in Maryland.

The Supreme Court ordered the government to “facilitate” Kilmar Abrego García’s return after officials admitted deporting him to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador despite a court order forbidding his removal to that country. Abrego remained there for almost two months, with the administration saying there was little it could do because he was under control of a foreign power.

In June, he was brought back to the United States in federal custody after prosecutors secured a grand jury indictment against him for human smuggling, based in large part on the testimony of a three-time felon who got leniency in exchange for cooperation. And recent filings in the case reveal that El Salvador told the United Nations that the U.S. retained control over prisoners sent there.

“Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance.” U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, on the government declining to identify officials involved in Kilmar Abrego García’s deportation.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego’s lawyers, said the events prove the administration was “playing games with the court all along.”

Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago law professor, said the case is “the sharpest example of a pattern that’s observed across many of the cases that we’ve seen being filed against the Trump administration, in which orders that come from lower courts are either being slow-walked or not being complied with in good faith.”

In another legal clash, Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg found Trump officials engaged in “willful disregard” of his order to turn around deportation flights to El Salvador in mid-March after he issued a temporary restraining order against removing migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, which in the past had been used only in wartime.

A whistleblower complaint filed by fired Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni alleges that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told staffers before the flights that a judge might try to block them — and that it might be necessary to tell a court “f— you” and ignore the order.

Bove, who has since been nominated by Trump for an appellate judgeship and is awaiting Senate confirmation, denies the allegations.

In May, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, opined that the government had “utterly disregarded” her order to facilitate the return of a Venezuelan man who was also wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Like Boasberg, who was appointed by Obama, she is exploring contempt proceedings.

Another federal judge found Trump officials violated his court order by attempting to send deportees to South Sudan without due process. In a fourth case, authorities deported a man shortly after an appeals court ruled he should remain in the U.S. while his immigration case played out. Trump officials said the removal was an error but have yet to return him.

One of the most glaring examples of noncompliance involves a program to provide legal representation to minors who arrived at the border alone, often fearing for their safety after fleeing countries racked by gang violence.

In April, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a Biden appointee, ordered the Trump administration to fund the program. The government delayed almost four weeks and moved to cancel a contract the judge had ordered restarted. While the money was held up, a 17-year-old was sent back to Honduras before he could meet with a lawyer.

Attorneys told the court that the teen probably could have won a reprieve with a simple legal filing. Alvaro Huerta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in a suit over the funding cuts, said other minors might have suffered the same fate.

“Had they been complying with the temporary restraining order, this child would have been represented,” Huerta said.

Gaslighting the Court:

Another problematic case involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to police unfair, abusive or deceptive practices by financial institutions.

A judge halted the administration’s plans to fire almost all CFPB employees, ruling the effort was unlawful. An appeals court said workers could be let go only if the bureau performed an “individualized” or “particularized” assessment. Four business days later, the Trump administration reported that it had carried out a “particularized assessment” of more than 1,400 employees — and began an even bigger round of layoffs.

CFPB employees said in court filings that the process was a sham directed by Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service. Employees said counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget told them to brush off the court’s required particularized assessment and simply meet the layoff quota.

“All that mattered was the numbers,” said one declaration submitted to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee.

Jackson halted the new firings, accusing the Trump administration of “dressing” its cuts in “new clothes.”

“There is reason to believe that the defendants … are thumbing their nose at both this Court and the Court of Appeals.” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on the government’s attempt to carry out firings at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite a court order blocking the move.

David Super, a Georgetown law professor, said the government has used the same legal maneuver in a number of cases. “They put out a directive that gets challenged,” Super said. “Then they do the same thing that the directive set out to do but say it’s on some other legal basis.”

He pointed to January, when OMB issued a memo freezing all federal grants and loans. Affected groups won an injunction. The White House quickly announced it was rescinding the memo but keeping the freeze in place.

Justice Department attorneys argued in legal filings that the government’s action rendered the injunction moot, but the judge said it appeared it had been done “simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.”

“It appears that OMB sought to overcome a judicially imposed obstacle without actually ceasing the challenged conduct. The court can think of few things more disingenuous.” U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan on the Trump administration arguing a court order blocking a freeze on federal grants was moot because it had rescinded a memo.

In another case, a judge blocked the administration from ending federal funds for programs that promote “gender ideology,” or the idea that someone might identify with a gender other than their birth sex, while the effort was challenged in court. The National Institutes of Health nevertheless slashed a grant for a doctor at Seattle Children’s Hospital who was developing a health education tool for transgender youth.

The plaintiffs complained it was a violation of the court order, but the NIH said the grant was being cut under a different authority. Whistleblowers came forward with documents showing that the administration had apparently carried out the cuts under the executive order that was at the center of the court case.

U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointee, said the documents “have raised substantial questions” about whether the government violated her preliminary injunction and ordered officials to produce documents. The government eventually reinstated the grant.

In a different case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, was unsparing in her decision to place a hold on the Trump’s administration’s ban on transgender people serving in the military, saying the order was “soaked in animus.”

Then the government issued a new policy targeting troops who have symptoms of “gender dysphoria,” the term for people who feel a mismatch between their gender identity and birth sex, and asked Reyes to dissolve her order.

Reyes was stunned. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had made repeated public statements describing the policy as a ban on transgender troops. Hegseth had recently posted on X: “Pentagon says transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.”

“I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public — what they really mean to the public — and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I’m an idiot,” the judge told the government’s lawyer. “The court is not going to be gaslit.”

Courts have traditionally assumed public officials, and the Justice Department in particular, are acting honestly, lawfully and in good faith. Since Trump returned to the White House, however, judges have increasingly questioned whether government lawyers are meeting that standard.

“The pattern of stuff we have … I haven’t seen before,” said Andrew C. McCarthy, a columnist for the conservative National Review and a former federal prosecutor. “The rules of the road are supposed to be you can tell a judge, ‘I can’t answer that for constitutional reasons,’ or you can tell the judge the truth.”

A Struggle for Accountability

While many judges have concluded that the Trump administration has defied court orders, only Boasberg has actively moved toward sanctioning the administration for its conduct. And he did so only after saying he had given the government “ample opportunity” to address its failure to return the deportation flights to El Salvador.

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.” U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, when moving to sanction the Trump administration.

The contempt proceedings he began were paused by an appeals court panel without explanation three months ago. The two judges who voted for the administrative stay were Trump appointees.

On Friday, the Trump administration brokered a deal with El Salvador and Venezuela to send the Venezuelan deportees at the heart of Boasberg’s case back to their homeland, further removing them from the reach of U.S. courts.

A contempt finding would allow the judge to impose fines, jail time or additional sanctions on officials to compel compliance.

In three other cases, judges have denied motions to hold Trump officials in contempt, but reiterated that the government must comply with a decision, or ordered the administration to turn over documents to determine whether it had violated a ruling. Judges are considering contempt proceedings in other cases as well.

Most lawsuits against the administration have been filed in federal court districts with a heavy concentration of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The vast majority of judges who have found the administration defied court orders were appointed by Democrats, but judges selected by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have also found that officials failed to comply with orders. Most notably, at least two Trump picks have raised questions about whether officials have met their obligations to courts.

Legal experts said the slow pace of efforts to enforce court orders is not surprising. The judicial system moves methodically, and judges typically ratchet up efforts to gain compliance in small increments. They said there is also probably another factor at work that makes it especially difficult to hold the administration to account.

“The courts can’t enforce their own rulings — that has to be done by the executive branch,” said Michel, the former judge and Watergate special prosecutor.

He was referring to U.S. Marshals, the executive branch law enforcement personnel who carry out court orders related to contempt proceedings, whether that is serving subpoenas or arresting officials whom a judge has ordered jailed for not complying.

Former judges and other legal experts said judges might be calculating that a confrontation over contempt proceedings could result in the administration ordering marshals to defy the courts. That type of standoff could significantly undermine the authority of judges.

The Supreme Court’s June decision to scale back the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and the administration’s success at persuading the justices to overturn about a dozen temporary blocks on its agenda in recent months, might only embolden Trump officials to defy lower courts, several legal experts said.

Sotomayor echoed that concern in a recent dissent when she accused the high court of “rewarding lawlessness” by allowing Trump officials to deport migrants to countries that are not their homelands. The conservative majority gave the green light, she noted, after Trump officials twice carried out deportations despite lower court orders blocking the moves.

“This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” Sotomayor wrote. “Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

Two months after a federal court temporarily blocked Trump’s freeze on billions in congressionally approved foreign aid, an attorney for relief organizations said the government had taken “literally zero steps to allocate this money.”

Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, has ordered the administration to explain what it is doing to comply with the order. Trump officials have said they will eventually release the funds, but aid groups worry the administration is simply trying to delay until the allocations expire in the fall.

Meanwhile, about 66,000 tons of food aid is in danger of rotting in warehouses, AIDS cases are forecast to spike in Africa and the government projected the cuts would result in 200,000 more cases of paralysis caused by polio each year. Already, children are dying unnecessarily in Sudan.

Such situations have prompted some former judges to do something most generally do not — speak out. More than two dozen retired judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents have formed the Article III Coalition to push back on attacks and misinformation about the courts.

Robert J. Cindrich, who helped found the group, said the country is not yet in a constitutional crisis but that the strain on the courts is immense. Citing the administration’s response to orders, as well as its attacks on judges and law firms, Cindrich said, “The judiciary is being put under siege.”

Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him
A comprehensive analysis of lawsuits against Trump policies shows dozens of examples of defiance, delay and dishonesty, a serious test for the court system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges

NBC News: Abused and abandoned immigrant youth on special visas fear the future after Trump changes

Posted on by
Reply

Beneficiaries of the Special Immigrant Juveniles program no longer automatically get work permits and protection against deportation while they wait for the green card process.

Rodrigo Sandoval, 17, just graduated from high school in South Carolina. He gets excited when he talks about what he’d like to do — he’s interested in business administration, graphic design or joining the Navy — but his face becomes solemn when he talks about the future.

“I’ve noticed a lot of changes, especially in the Hispanic community. We live in constant fear of being deported, arrested and all that,” said Sandoval, who came to the U.S. at age 12, fleeing El Salvador due to gang violence that threatened his and his family’s life.

One of his earliest memories is when he was 5.

“It’s one of my traumas because they put a gun to my head. All I remember is crying out of fear,” said Sandoval, who is a beneficiary of the Special Immigrant Juvenile Status classification.

The SIJS classification, created by Congress in 1990 as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, protects immigrant minors who have been victims of abuse, abandonment or neglect in their countries and gives them a path to permanent residency in the U.S. They must be under 21 or under 18 in some states, including South Carolina, where Sandoval lives.

Last month, the Trump administration ended a measure in place since 2022 that automatically issued the young immigrants work permits and protection from deportation as they waited for their green card applications, which can take years.

“Once they’re approved for special immigrant juvenile status, they’re put on a waiting list, which is currently very, very long. We typically tell clients it’ll probably take more than four or five years,” Jennifer Bade, an immigration attorney based in Boston said in an interview with Noticias Telemundo.

Now after changes under the Trump administration, work permit and Social Security applications must be processed separately, complicating the process for many young people because, in many cases, granting the applications depends on visa availability.

“It’s very strange that they’re in that category because SIJS is about humanitarian protection for young immigrants. There shouldn’t be visa limits for these young people,” said Rachel Davidson, director of the End SIJS Backlog Coalition, a nonprofit organization that advises SIJS recipients and proposes solutions to tackle the backlog in their green card applications.

Verónica Tobar Thronson, a professor at Michigan State University’s School of Law, said many of these young immigrants may not be able to get work permits or renew current ones. “If they don’t have a work permit or an ID, they can’t travel, they can’t enter a federal building, they can’t apply for a Social Security number — they also don’t qualify for student loans if they enroll in college, and in some states, they can’t apply for assistance with medical or social services because they don’t qualify for anything at all.”

In information sent to Noticias Telemundo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated that foreign nationals from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras currently make up the majority of SIJS applicants, “and collectively represent more than 70% of all SIJS applications,” although they did not specify the total number.

USCIS stated to Noticias Telemundo that while it’s not rescinding protection from deportation from those who already have it, it has the “right to rescind the grant of deferred action and revoke the related employment authorization at any time, at its discretion.”

More than 107,000 young SIJS beneficiaries from 151 countries were on the waiting list to apply for a green card as of March 2023, according to data collected by groups such as the End SIJS Backlog Coalition and Tulane Law School’s Immigrant Rights Clinic.

Of the approximately 280,000 SIJS applications approved in the last 12 fiscal years, “more than 139,000 have been filed or approved for adjustment of status,” according to USCIS.

The current processing time for applications for the program (the SIJ I-360 form) is less than five months, according to USCIS. However, the annual visa cap creates a bottleneck because, regardless of the speed of SIJS processing, the number of visas issued remains the same.

Both Rodrigo Sandoval and his 20-year-old sister, Alexandra, have already been approved for SIJS but are on the waiting list to apply for permanent residency. Both Alexandra’s and her brother Rodrigo’s work permits expire in 2026, and according to their lawyer, they still have three to five years to wait before adjusting their status.

Though they currently have protections under SIJS, Alexandra is still worried about what could happen. “If the police stop us and ask for our documents, it’s all over because we risk being deported.”

Hiromi Gómez, a 17-year-old student with SIJS, said it took her nine years to get to apply for a green card, “and I still haven’t received it.” She worries about more recent young immigrants who will have a harder time securing protections due to recent changes.

Khristina Siletskaya is a South Carolina-based immigration attorney who, among other things, handles cases involving SIJS beneficiaries, including the Sandoval siblings. The Ukrainian-born attorney said that despite changes in U.S. immigration policies, “all hope is not lost.”

“This new change that everyone is talking about eliminated the automatic granting of deferred action (from deportation). However, the United States continues to approve cases of special immigrant juvenile status; that continues to operate normally,” the lawyer explained.

Siletskaya and other experts emphasize that the recent changes are a return to the past, because the automatic granting of deferred action and work permits was implemented in May 2022 but did not exist before. Attorneys for young people with SIJS are exploring other legal avenues to assist them in their search for protection.

“Does this mean young people can’t get Social Security? First, you can try the Department of Social Services. Often, you may be able to get Social Security, but it will indicate that you’re not eligible for work purposes,” Siletskaya said. “So young people could at least get emergency Medicaid, but that will depend on each state.”

Regarding work permits, the attorney said there are ways to try to obtain one. The first is to apply for one separately and ask USCIS to grant it. Siletskaya said she has several cases where they’ve initiated this process, but warns that she has not yet received a response in those cases.

Another option explored by attorneys is to obtain a work permit based on parole, since a young person with SIJS is often granted parole as they work to adjust their status and obtain a green card.

Following the recent changes to SIJS, a group of 19 lawmakers led by Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem expressing concern about the changes. The letter said it “leaves abused and abandoned youth in legal limbo while heightening their vulnerability to exploitation.”

In the letter, the members of Congress said they had received reports “of an increase in the number of detentions and deportations of SIJS beneficiaries.”

Cortez Masto and other Democrats introduced the Vulnerable Immigrant Youth Protection Act in Congress, seeking to change visa categories for SIJS beneficiaries and prevent delays in adjusting their status, among other things. But the lack of Republican lawmakers supporting it could hamper its passage.

The bill is still in its early stages of discussion in the Senate, according to Cortez Masto’s office, and members of Congress have not yet received an official response to the letter sent to Noem.

Both Siletskaya and other attorneys consulted by Noticias Telemundo recommend that young people with SIJS avoid taking risks and remain cautious.

“Don’t get into trouble. If you don’t have a driver’s license, let your friends drive. Stay discreet, respect the law, stay out of situations where you might be exposed, and wait until you receive your green card,” she said.

Despite immigration changes and other challenges, Rodrigo Sandoval said he wanted to make the most of every minute of his work permit, which expires next year. That’s why he has two jobs: He’s a barber and also works on construction sites to help his family.

“My message to people is to keep fighting and keep dreaming big. I don’t think there are limits because we as Hispanics are fighters. And this comes from other generations,” he said, getting emotional. “The truth is, what we have to do is not give up.”

Abused and abandoned immigrant youth sue Trump administration over deportation fears
Beneficiaries of the Special Immigrant Juveniles program no longer automatically get work permits and protection against deportation while they wait for the green card process.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/abused-immigrant-youth-fear-deportation-trump-rcna219060