Tag Archives: Constitution

KTLA: ICE officers barred from using deceptive tactics in Southern California home raids

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are no longer allowed to identify themselves as local police or use deceptive tactics during home arrests in Southern California, following a court-approved settlement reached in a class action lawsuit.

The settlement, approved Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II in Kidd v. Noem, prohibits ICE officers in the agency’s Los Angeles Field Office from falsely claiming to be state or local law enforcement or misrepresenting the nature of their visit in order to enter a home or persuade a resident to come outside.

The case was filed in 2020 by Osny Sorto-Vazquez Kidd and two immigrant advocacy organizations, the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA). The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of ICE’s home arrest practices in Los Angeles and surrounding counties.

Under the agreement, ICE officers may not claim to be conducting criminal investigations, probation or parole checks, or other public safety inquiries unless those claims are accurate. Officers are also prohibited from using pretexts, such as suggesting a problem with a resident’s vehicle, to lure individuals outside.

“This settlement makes clear immigration officers are not above the Constitution and will be held accountable for their deceptive practices,” said Diana Sanchez, a staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which represented the plaintiffs. “We’ll be monitoring to ensure ICE does not violate the rights of our community members.”

As part of the settlement, ICE officers in the Los Angeles Field Office must wear visible identifiers clearly labeling them as “ICE” whenever they display the word “POLICE” on their uniforms. The measure aims to prevent confusion among residents and reduce the possibility that individuals might mistake federal immigration agents for local law enforcement.

“For far too long, ICE disrespected the privacy of community members by taking shortcuts around the Constitution’s requirement that law enforcement have a warrant signed by a judge to enter a home,” said Annie Lai, director of the Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic at the UC Irvine School of Law. “Thanks to this settlement, ICE must now be transparent about who they are if they don’t have a warrant and want to speak with someone at their home.”

The settlement also mandates new training protocols. ICE must inform all Los Angeles Field Office officers of the new policies through broadcast messages and regular trainings. Officers will be required to document certain details when conducting home arrests, and ICE must share those records with class counsel to ensure compliance. This oversight will remain in place for three years.

The Los Angeles Field Office covers seven counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo.

The settlement follows a related court ruling issued in May 2024, which found that ICE officers and Homeland Security Investigations agents may not enter the private area around a home, known legally as the “curtilage,” without a judicial warrant or consent if their intent is to make a warrantless arrest. The combined effect of the two rulings significantly limits ICE’s authority to carry out home arrests without judicial oversight.

Angelica Salas, executive director of CHIRLA, said the decision brings meaningful safeguards. “By prohibiting ICE agents from using trickery, for example, falsely claiming that there is an issue with a resident’s vehicle, to lure people out of their homes, this settlement protects all its occupants and creates a safer community.”

Lizbeth Abeln, deputy director at the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, called the agreement a long overdue victory.

“For years, we’ve heard the testimonies: ICE agents impersonating local police, showing up at people’s doors, lying about their purpose, and using fear to tear families apart,” she said. “ICE can no longer use deception to target our communities.”

Giovanni Saarman González, a partner at Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP and counsel for the plaintiffs, said the settlement, combined with the earlier ruling, offers meaningful relief to the classes and the broader Southern California community.

ICE officers barred from using deceptive tactics in Southern California home raids
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are no longer allowed to identify themselves as local police or use deceptive tactics during home arrests in Southern California, following a court…

https://ktla.com/news/california/ice-officers-barred-deceptive-tactics-home-raids

KEYT: Nursing mother unlawfully detained by ICE, attorney says

Posted on by
Reply

The attorneys for a nursing mother in the Twin Cities who has spent more than three weeks in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody argue she is unlawfully detained and will petition in federal court on Tuesday for her release.

Antonia Aguilar Maldonado, 26, has two young children who are U.S. citizens and lives in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, and was taken into custody on July 17. Gloria Contreras Edin and Hannah Brown, who are representing her pro bono, submitted a writ of habeas corpus petition challenging her continued detention.

They argue she should be released on bond in accordance with an immigration judge’s earlier decision on July 31, to which the Department of Homeland Security filed an automatic stay, which has kept her in the Kandiyohi County Jail.

“I’ve had over 1,000 cases before the immigration courts, and in all of my years and in all of my experience, I haven’t seen anything like this before, especially when someone is lactating, has small baby at home, no criminal history, and then being detained for so long,” Contreras Edin said in an interview. “It just goes against ICE’s policies. It just seems wrong.”

There is a hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in St. Paul seeking emergency relief. In court filings, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said Maldonado’s detention is “fully supported by statute, regulation and the Constitution” and that “her detention is lawful because she is an applicant for admission who is not ‘clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted’ to the United States,” writing that Maldonado “herself does not claim that she has lawful status to remain in the United States.”

The government is asking the judge to reject the motion for a temporary restraining order.

“We should respect the fact that our country can and should enforce immigration laws. I think that’s important,” Contreras Edin said. “But I also think that we should recognize an element of humanitarian interests and concerns, right? We don’t want a US citizen baby being deprived of his mother’s milk. This is about a mother and a baby.”

Maldonado came to the U.S. as a teenager in 2017 and had a removal order in 2019 for failing to attend a hearing. But an immigration judge reopened her case last year after finding she wasn’t given notice of that court appearance, her attorney said.

Since then, she has been doing “everything right,” Contreras Edin explained, and filed for asylum, obtained work authorization and has no criminal history. Her arrest on July 17 came as a surprise.

“In my practice during removal proceedings, someone like Ms. Maldonado would have normally been released on a bond and then proceed with a non-detained docket, and would have been allowed to appear before an immigration judge while being able to be with her family and her children,” she said.

Contreras Edin described her client as depressed and distraught and said she has to pump breast milk and dump it in the sink.

“She’s imagining the wailing of her baby every night, and that’s what she goes to bed to, and now her milk is turning green,” she said.

Her children are currently staying with relatives.

When asked about Maldonado’s case, a spokesperson for ICE provided the following statement to WCCO: “By statute, we have no information on this person.”

Contreras Edin said she is hopeful a judge will authorize the release of Maldonado, pointing to a similar case involving a Turkish graduate student at the University of Minnesota who was detained by ICE and later released.

Nursing mother unlawfully detained by ICE, attorney says | News Channel 3-12
By Caroline Cummings Click here for updates on this story TWIN CITIES, Minnesota (WCCO) — The attorneys for a nursing mother in
Nursing mother unlawfully detained by ICE, attorney says

NBC News: Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that they say led to chilling of free speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

Stanford University’s student newspaper sued the Trump administration Wednesday over two provisions in federal immigration law that it says the officials have wielded against those with pro-Palestinian views.

The Stanford Daily, in addition to two former college students, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing the administration of using the provisions to threaten deportation and the revocation of visas. They say the situation has led to censorship and violations of free speech rights.

The paper’s staff members who are on visas have self-censored and declined assignments related to the war in Gaza, fearful that their reporting could jeopardize their lawful immigration status, the lawsuit said.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is helping represent the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

A senior State Department official declined to comment and directed NBC News to comments Rubio has about visa holders and complying with U.S. law.

In April, Rubio wrote in an opinion piece published on Fox News that he would be taking a “zero-tolerance approach to foreign nationals who abet terrorist organizations.”

“The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that visa holders or other aliens cannot use the First Amendment to shield otherwise impermissible actions taken to support designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizballah, or the Houthis, or violate other U.S. laws,” Rubio said.

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, described the lawsuit as “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs take aim at the Deportation Provision and Revocation Provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” The second gives the secretary the power to revoke a visa or documentation at his or her discretion.

As the lawsuit points out, the Trump administration has cited the Deportation Provision as the basis for trying to deport Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested and detained for more than three months. Similarly, the administration used the Revocation Provision to detain Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who has also since been released.

Because of the administration’s use of the statutes, the lawsuit said, the Stanford Daily has received a number of requests from lawfully present noncitizens to have their names, quotes or photos removed from articles. Many international students have stopped speaking to the paper’s journalists, and current and former writers have asked for their opinion editorials to be taken down, the lawsuit said.

“The First Amendment cements America’s promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,” the lawsuit said. “And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.”

One of the unnamed plaintiffs appeared on the Canary Mission, the suit said. The website, run by an anonymous group, has published a detailed database of students, professors and others who it says have shared anti-Israel and antisemitic viewpoints. It has been accused of doxxing and harassment, in addition to launching personal attacks that depict pro-Palestinian activists as being in “support of terrorism,” the Middle East Studies Association of North America said. The plaintiff has stopped publishing and “voicing her true opinions” on the Palestinian territories and Israel, the suit said.

Canary Mission has told NBC News that it documents people and groups who “promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews” across the political spectrum. It did not respond to criticisms of its work.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that block the officials from using the provisions against them based on engaging in what they consider protected speech.

“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” Greta Reich, the Stanford Daily’s editor-in-chief, said in a statement. “The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”

Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that has chilled free speech
The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stanford-student-newspaper-sues-trump-officials-immigration-law-rcna223477

Raw Story: Appeals court rules against Trump admin in big case — and gives deadline to comply

Posted on by
Reply

A federal appeals court ruled over the weekend that Donald Trump’s administration’s moves on government spending are an affront to the Constitution and disclosure laws, according to Politico.

According to the outlet, the three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously to “shoot down a Trump administration bid to make secret a public database of federal spending that researchers say is crucial to ensure the administration is not flouting Congress’ power of the purse.” The court also imposed a deadline, according to the report.

The court reportedly gave “the administration until Friday to put the data back online.”

“Two of the three appeals judges assigned to the matter also signed onto a forceful opinion declaring that the administration’s bid to conceal the data was an affront to Congress’ authority over government spending, one that threatened the separation of powers and defied centuries of evidence that public disclosure is necessary for the public good,” according to the report.

Politico further noted that, “Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote in support of the decision to deny the Trump administration’s request to keep the data under wraps while litigation over the issue goes forward,” and quoted her as saying, “No court would allow a losing party to defy its judgment. No President would allow a usurper to command our armed forces.”

She added, “And no Congress should be made to wait while the Executive intrudes on its plenary power over appropriations.”

Appeals court rules against Trump admin in big case — and gives deadline to comply

https://www.rawstory.com/appeals-court-rules-against-trump

Washington Post: Laura Loomer knocks Medal of Honor recipient in new attack on Army

Posted on by
Reply

The unofficial adviser to President Donald Trump chastised Army Secretary Dan Driscoll over a social media post recognizing Florent Groberg, a decorated soldier who backed Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Far-right political activist Laura Loomer has opened an extraordinary new line of attack on the Pentagon, sharply criticizing Army Secretary Dan Driscoll for allowing the service to acknowledge the battlefield valor of Medal of Honor recipient Florent Groberg, who suffered catastrophic injuries saving the lives of fellow soldiers targeted by a suicide bomber in Afghanistan.

Loomer, writing on social media, questioned why the Army had spotlighted Groberg in a recent post marking the incident’s anniversary. Groberg, she suggested, was undeserving of such recognition because he delivered remarks, as a private citizen, at the 2016 Democratic National Convention and was not “US born.”

“There are probably so many people who the Army could honor who have received the Medal of Honor,” Loomer, a provocateur who, unofficially, has advised President Donald Trump on personnel matters, wrote in her post on X. “But who did the Army choose to honor instead on their social media page under the Trump admin?” Under Driscoll, she continued, “there have been several instances of either him, or the Army promoting anti-Trump Leftists on their official social media channels.”

The Medal of Honor is the United States’ highest recognition for combat valor, and the Defense Department has long celebrated the courage and sacrifice demonstrated by the award’s recipients, putting Loomer’s criticism deeply at odds with one of the more sacrosanct aspects of American military culture. Yet given her considerable influence and frequent visits with Trump — she has taken credit for the administration’s ouster of several appointees whom she branded insufficiently loyal — Loomer’s broadside late Friday night appears certain to force an uncomfortable discussion at the Pentagon and, potentially, within the White House.

Spokespeople for Driscoll and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, both Army veterans like Groberg, did not respond to requests for comment. The White House also did not respond.

An Army official, speaking on the condition of anonymity citing the issue’s sensitivity, said Groberg is a “national hero” and one in a long series of soldiers who will be featured online by the service this year as it celebrates its 250th birthday. Loomer’s attack, the official said, is “despicable.”

“The Army is not going to check the political affiliation of our soldiers before we recognize them,” the official said. “A man or woman serving is not a Democrat or Republican, they are an American. Their political affiliation has nothing to do with their service.”

Loomer’s swipe at Driscoll and Groberg coincided with the anniversary of the suicide bombing on Aug. 8, 2012, that claimed the lives of four men: Army Command Sgt. Maj. Kevin J. Griffin, 45; Army Maj. Thomas E. Kennedy, 35; Air Force Maj. Walter D. Gray, 38; and Foreign Service officer Ragaei Abdelfattah, 43. Groberg, then 29, shoved the attacker away moments before the explosives detonated, preventing far greater carnage. He suffered life-altering injuries to his left leg, and several other soldiers were wounded.

Groberg declined an interview request but voiced amazement online at Loomer’s criticism.

“Thirteen years ago today is my Alive Day, the day I nearly lost my life, and four of my brothers, including three Army leaders, never came home,” he wrote. “I’ve served under presidents from both parties and will always honor my oath to this country. Yes, I spoke for 60 seconds at the DNC when asked about service and sacrifice, not politics. For me, 8/8 isn’t about parties. It’s about the lives we lost.”

During his convention speech, Groberg said he was not speaking as a Republican or a Democrat, but as a “proud immigrant to this country, a proud veteran of the United States Army, and a proud recipient of our nation’s highest military honor.” Groberg, who was born in France and later became a U.S. citizen, recognized his fellow service members who were killed during the attack. He said, too, that when Hillary Clinton’s moment arrived, she would be “ready to serve, ready to lead and ready to defend you.” Trump defeated Clinton in the election that November.

Groberg, asked previously about his decision to appear at the Democratic convention, said he informed organizers he is a Republican.

“I saw an opportunity for me to go in, not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, not as a political figure, but as a veteran. As an immigrant. As an American,” he told The Washington Post in 2016. He said then that he had a “God-given right” to share who he would be voting for, and that he did not judge anyone who voted for Trump.

“I made a choice,” he said. “I stood up. I knew I would take the heat. But guess what? I still go to sleep at night like a baby. I’m okay with it.”

In an interview Saturday, Loomer defended her criticism of Driscoll and Groberg, telling The Post that no one from the White House or Hegseth’s office had contacted her and asked her to take down her posts. She said the Army’s choice to recognize Groberg was ideologically at odds with the Trump administration.

“It is very important that the secretary of the Army does not push out Democratic propaganda,” Loomer said. She added that people can take her criticism “however they want. I just laid out the facts,” and said she thought she had been respectful.

“Well,” she said, “I said, ‘Thank you for your service.’”

Hegseth’s silence, in particular, is notable. Unlike other defense secretaries, he’s been extremely active on social media and quick to publicly rebut perceived critics or slights. He also has repeatedly called for a return of what he calls the “warrior ethos” to the Pentagon, celebrating those who prepare for combat and serve with distinction in it.

He and Loomer spoke privately in recent weeks, Hegseth’s spokesman, Sean Parnell, told CNN recently. The conversation came as she has turned her attention to perceived disloyalty to Trump within the Defense Department.

Driscoll’s name has surfaced as a possible replacement for Hegseth if the defense secretary were to leave the Cabinet post. Hegseth has faced frequent questions about his longtime viability in the role amid allegations of mismanagement and infighting on his team at the Pentagon, but he has retained the president’s support.

Loomer said the social media post about Groberg marks at least the third time this year that the Army has highlighted people who have opposed Trump. She cited Driscoll’s show of gratitude to Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) for attending the Army’s 250th birthday celebration. Vindman, a retired Army officer, was a central figure in Trump’s first impeachment.

Loomer also noted the Army’s announcement that retired Army officer Jennifer Easterly, who served in the Biden administration as the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, would join the faculty at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Driscoll revoked Easterly’s appointment last month, after Loomer and other critics panned the decision, and said he would direct a review of West Point hiring practices.

Others who have served under Trump defended Groberg and questioned Loomer’s understanding of the military’s nonpartisan culture.

“One of the first things my drill sergeant told us at Army Basic Training in 1983 was, ‘You all bleed Army green now — no one cares about the color of your skin, where you came from, or what religion you are,’” Chris Miller, who served as acting defense secretary during the first Trump administration, said in a text message. “He didn’t have to add, ‘or your political affiliation’ because it was taken for granted that our oath was to the Constitution and not any political party or person.”

Miller added: “To have an agent provocateur, seemingly lacking any understanding of the appropriate role of the military in America’s constitutional republic, cast aspersions on Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll’s righteous effort to honor the courage and sacrifice of all Army Medal of Honor recipients is an abomination and disreputable.”

Robert Wilkie, who served as Veterans Affairs secretary during the first Trump administration, said in a statement to The Post that the Medal of Honor “knows no political affiliation.”

“I am a Trump supporter and I am the son of a distinguished combat officer,” Wilkie said. “My service was modest. I was raised to believe that that medal is sacred. No matter what the holder believes or where he came from, he is worthy of the respect and thanks of all Americans.”

Dakota Meyer, a Medal of Honor recipient and friend of several Trump administration appointees, called Loomer out in a social media post of his own on Saturday. While the medal is apolitical, he said, a person wearing it does not have to be.

“If anyone has earned the right to free speech or to have an opinion it’s a man who threw himself in front of a suicide bomber to save lives,” Meyer wrote to Loomer. “What have you done?”

During the first Trump administration, Groberg visited the White House multiple times for ceremonies recognizing other service members who received the Medal of Honor. Trump thanked him directly for attending, according to transcripts from those events.

During the Biden administration, Groberg was appointed to the American Battle Monuments Commission, an independent agency that oversees U.S. military cemeteries and monuments overseas. He has often voiced a need for Americans to stand together and remember U.S. troops killed in combat. Groberg has been retained by the Trump administration on the commission, according to its website.

Groberg also visited the Pentagon recently and met with Hegseth in his office. Groberg, whonow works at an aerospace investment firm, voiced appreciation for the opportunity on LinkedIn.

“Honored to meet with the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth this week for a meaningful conversation about strengthening our defense industrial base and our troops,” Groberg said. “We discussed the importance of competition, resilience, and innovation across the national security ecosystem. Grateful for the time, leadership, and shared commitment to building a more agile and prepared force.”

When some criticized Groberg’s decision to meet with Hegseth, the Medal of Honor recipient defended his choice and said that it appeared Hegseth has veterans’ best interests at heart.

Pathetic partisan bitch!!!

Laura Loomer knocks Medal of Honor recipient in new attack on Army
An unofficial adviser to President Trump, Loomer chastised Army Secretary Dan Driscoll over a social media post recognizing the combat actions of Florent Groberg.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/09/laura-loomer-florent-groberg-dan-driscoll

Raw Story: ‘Family separation on steroids’: Expert lays into Trump plan to target newborn babies

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s administration has drawn up a draft of guidelines to block non-U.S. citizens from having children on U.S. soil and becoming citizens.

The Constitution details “birthright citizenship” in the 14th Amendment, saying that anybody born on American soil belongs to the nation. The Trump administration has tried to block that with an executive order.

Speaking to MSNBC, Slate legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern said the guidelines are a backdoor effort to reinstate the family separation policy from the early days of the first Trump administration. In that case, the government took children from their parents when they came into the U.S. In some instances, the children were given to a host family, while others were thrown in a “detention center.”

“For months, federal courts have prevented the U.S. government from even beginning to plan the implementation of this executive order, finding that it violated the 14th Amendment,” said Stern, noting that the Supreme Court then stepped in to allow it.

“What we see is that this administration doesn’t plan to give any kind of grace period to the children of undocumented immigrants. It will render them noncitizens and deportable from the moment of birth,” clarified Stern.

“The administration has also repealed a 14-year-old rule that barred ICE from entering and committing enforcement actions in and around hospitals. So, the government now has a setup where it can send ICE agents into maternity wards, as you said, to monitor births to demand papers from new mothers and fathers, and to potentially take away and deport their children, their infants, from the moment they’re born. If the parents can’t prove citizenship to their satisfaction.”

Under the new memo, there are about a dozen new classifications of people who will have their U.S. citizenship taken away.

“In fact, the trump administration has already started to quietly reintroduce family separation by relaxing restrictions that had been imposed over the last few years to prevent it from happening,” Stern noted. “The government seems ready to take away infants from their parents if they deem it necessary to effectuate immigration laws. And if this order takes effect, that baby would be deportable upon birth.”

Worse, he said, those infants could be taken, denied citizenship, and under Supreme Court rulings, they could be deported to a third-party country in which they or their parents haven’t set foot.

“This would be like family separation in the first administration on steroids, with a hugely disproportionate impact on the youngest and most vulnerable among us,” he characterized.

‘Family separation on steroids’: Expert lays into Trump plan to target newborn babies

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-family-separation

MSNBC: Laura Loomer’s White House witch hunt is just getting started

Posted on by
Reply

The far-right conspiracy theorist has taken credit for numerous high-level firings over what she claims is “disloyalty” to President Trump.

A self-described “proud Islamophobe” and “pro-white nationalism” influencer is one of the most influential people in the Trump White House — despite not actually working for the administration. And she’s brought a particularly odious form of cancel culture to President Donald Trump’s second term that’s led to well over a dozen White House and federal employees recently fired for wrongthink.

Laura Loomer, 32, is known as much for her overt racism as her peddling of evidence-free conspiracy theories — such as 9/11 was an “inside job,” the Parkland high school shooting was staged, and Ohio was being overrun by “cannibalistic Haitians” who were “eating people’s pets.” Loomer has been described by many news outlets as a personal friend and confidant of Trump’s, and she’s fond of bragging about the “scalps” she’s collected, referring to the former White House and federal employees she successfully targeted for firing.

James Risen, writing in The Guardian, noted that Loomer’s critics insist “she has just been taking credit for moves that Trump was already planning,” but added that “Trump himself has said he takes her seriously, so it may be more accurate to describe her as Trump’s de facto national security adviser.”

Loomer has also referred to herself as Trump’s “loyalty enforcer,” and she has just added a few more “scalps” to her collection.

The Daily Wire — a right-wing partisan site co-founded by MAGA pundit Ben Shapiro — reported that National Security Agency general counsel April Falcon Doss had previously worked for Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., on the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. The Daily Wire’s Luke Rosiak called her a “transparently partisan activist who has written publicly about her opposition to Trump.” As evidence, Rosiak cited Doss’ call “for Trump to be permanently banned from social media for staging an ‘insurrection.’”

Loomer told The New York Times that she “reposted a tweet that exposed her last week and flagged it for the right people.” Doss was fired last week.

Another civil servant recently “Loomer’d” is Jen Easterly, a former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), who had her job offer to serve as the distinguished chair of the Military Academy at West Point’s social sciences department rescinded by Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. Loomer earlier this week called Easterly’s job offer a “vetting crisis” and later boasted that “All Biden holdovers must be removed from the Trump admin.”

Loomer has taken credit for at least a dozen other “scalps” for “disloyalty” — including federal prosecutors, directors and aides on the National Security Council and even Trump’s original surgeon general nominee, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, because of her support for the Covid vaccines that Trump helped bring into existence in his first term.

But one of the most striking Loomer-influenced cancellations is the resignation of Dr. Vinay Prasad from his roles as the Food and Drug Administration’s head of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and chief medical and scientific officer.

Prasad — an acolyte of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who made a name for himself during the Covid pandemic by blasting the FDA and other health agencies on social media, podcasts and his blog — was only on the job a little more than two months. But he made his MAHA mark when he overrode the FDA’s vaccine experts’ recommendations on two Covid vaccines, which led directly to the FDA announcing its plan to only recommend Covid shots for people over 65 or with high-risk health conditions.

But Prasad was not spared from MAGA cancel culture, after Loomer dug up some old podcast clips where Prasad was critical of Trump. In a classic case of people supporting the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party being shocked that the leopards subsequently ate their faces, the MAGA-friendly and cancel culture-obsessed Free Press (where Prasad has been a contributing writer) published an editorial decrying Loomer’s “shameful smear campaign against our honorable, decent friend.”

Loomer told Politico that she expects “hundreds” more to be purged for disloyalty to the dear leader. And Loomer is soliciting snitches via an anonymous tip line.

“I’m happy to take people’s tips about disloyal appointees, disloyal staffers and Biden holdovers,” Loomer said. “And I guess you could say that my tip line has come to serve as a form of therapy for Trump administration officials who want to expose their colleagues who should not be in the positions that they’re in.”

We’re a little more than one-eighth of the way through the second Trump administration, and one of its defining features is that it is led by astoundingly unqualified people whose raison d’etat is ruthlessly enforcing ideological orthodoxy and slavish devotion to the president, rather than the country and the Constitution.

And whether you previously worked for people Trump doesn’t like, or you told the objective truth about Trump’s attempted self-coup, or even if you previously criticized him before turning MAGA sycophant, your job is not safe from being eliminated at the behest of a person who during the 2024 election made comments about Vice President Kamala Harris that were so unimpeachably racist they even drew rebukes from loyal Trumpists JD Vance and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Trump’s election was widely seen as a rebuke against the excesses of left-wing cancel culture. But the Loomering of the federal government shows we probably haven’t seen the worst of MAGA cancel culture yet.

When the Trump dictatorship decides to reenact the Night of the Long Knives, Laura will be running the show.

Opinion | Laura Loomer is bringing MAGA cancel culture to the White House
The far-right conspiracy theorist has taken credit for numerous high-level firings over what she claims is “disloyalty” to President Trump.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/laura-loomer-trump-maga-cancel-culture-firings-rcna222581

Washington Post: Scientist on green card detained for a week without explanation, lawyer says

Posted on by
Reply

Tae Heung Kim, a Korean citizen studying in the United States, is being held in San Francisco after returning from his brother’s wedding overseas.

A Korean-born researcher and longtime U.S. legal permanent resident has spent the past week detained by immigration officials at San Francisco International Airport without explanation and has been denied access to an attorney, according to his lawyer.

Tae Heung “Will” Kim, 40, has lived in the United States since he was 5 and is a green-card holder pursuing his PhD at Texas A&M University, where he is researching a vaccine for Lyme disease, said his attorney, Eric Lee. Immigration officials detained Kim at a secondary screening point July 21 after he returned from a two-week visit to South Korea for his younger brother’s wedding.

Lee said the government has not told him or Kim’s family why it detained Kim, and immigration officials have refused to let Kim speak to an attorney or communicate with his family members directly except for a brief call to his mother Friday. In 2011, Kim faced a minor marijuana possession charge in Texas, Lee said, but he fulfilled a community service requirement and successfully petitioned for nondisclosure to seal the offense from the public record.

“If a green card holder is convicted of a drug offense, violating their status, that person is issued a Notice to Appear and CBP coordinates detention space with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],” a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson said Tuesday in a statement to The Washington Post. “This alien is in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.”

Aside from a brief phone call, the only other contact Kim’s family has had with him is through what they believe to be secondhand text messages — probably an immigration official texting them from Kim’s phone in his presence. When relatives asked via text if Kim is sleeping on the floor or if the lights remain on all day, Lee said, the reply from Kim’s phone read: “Don’t worry about it.”

When Lee asked a CBP supervisor in a phone call if the Fifth and Sixth amendments — which establish rights to due process and the right to counsel — applied to Kim, the supervisor replied “no,” according to Lee.

“If the Constitution doesn’t apply to somebody who’s lived in this country for 35 years and is a green-card holder — and only left the country for a two-week vacation — that means [the government] is basically arguing that the Constitution doesn’t apply to anybody who’s been in this country for less time than him,” Lee said Monday.

Representatives for CBP and the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment about the supervisor’s alleged comment about Kim’s constitutional rights.

President Donald Trump has made aggressive immigration enforcement a signature of his second term, promising to root out violent criminals who are in the country without authorization. But the crackdowns have in practice swept up undocumented immigrants with little or no criminal history, as well as documented immigrants, like Kim, who hold valid visas or green cards.

Lee, the attorney, said that with no details from immigration officials or direct access to Kim, he and Kim’s family could only speculate on the reason he was detained, though Lee had believed it is probably tied to the 2011 drug charge. But immigration law has a long-established waiver process that allows officials to overlook certain minor crimes that would otherwise threaten a legal permanent resident’s status. Lee said Kim easily meets the criteria for a waiver.

“Why detain him when he’s got this waiver that is available to him?” Lee said.

Other foreign-born researchers detained by the Trump administration have included scholars accused of being “national security threats” because they expressed views opposing U.S. foreign policy toward Israel. In another case, a Russian-born researcher studying at Harvard University was charged for allegedly smuggling frog embryos into the country.

At Texas A&M, Kim’s primary research has focused on finding a vaccine for Lyme disease, which is caused by bacteria spread through tick bites. He began his doctoral studies there in summer 2021 after earning a bachelor’s degree in ocean engineering from the university in 2007, Texas A&M said in a statement to The Post.

As Kim’s family waits for answers, his mother, Yehoon “Sharon” Lee, said she worries about his health and if he’s eating well — “mother’s concerns,” she said through an interpreter.

“I’m most concerned about his medical condition. He’s had asthma ever since he was younger,” Sharon Lee added. “I don’t know if he has enough medication. He carries an inhaler, but I don’t know if it’s enough, because he’s been there a week.”

Sharon Lee, 65, and her husband came to the U.S. on business visas in the 1980s, and she eventually became a naturalized citizen. But by then, Kim and his younger brother had aged out of the automatic citizenship benefit for minor children whose parents are naturalized. The brothers are legal permanent residents and have spent most of their lives in the United States.

“He’s a good son, very gentle,” Sharon Lee said of Tae Heung Kim, noting that he is a hard worker and known for checking on his neighbors. After his father died of cancer, Kim stepped up to help take care of his mother and the family’s doll-manufacturing business.

After more than three decades in the U.S., Sharon Lee said her son’s predicament has saddened and surprised her.

“I immigrated here to the States — I thought I understood it was a country of equal rights where the Constitution applies equally,” she said.

She still believes the U.S. is a country of opportunity and second chances. But she said vulnerable immigrants must learn about immigration law to protect themselves. In her son’s case, that was the hotline at the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium, an advocacy group for Koreans and Asian Americans.

Eric Lee, Kim’s attorney, said there’s a dark irony to the Trump administration’s detention of someone like him.

“This is somebody whose research is going to save countless lives if allowed to continue — farmers who are at risk of getting Lyme disease,” Lee said. “Trump always talks about how much he loves the great farmers of America. Well, Tae is somebody who can save farmers’ lives.”

Scientist on green card detained for a week without explanation, lawyer says
A Korean citizen studying in Texas on a green card was detained in San Francisco after a trip overseas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/07/29/korean-scientist-green-card-detained

Scientist on green card detained for a week without explanation, lawyer says

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/scientist-on-green-card-detained-for-a-week-without-explanation-lawyer-says/ar-AA1JuESE

AOL: Chokeholds, bikers and ‘roving patrols’: Are Trump’s ICE tactics legal?

Posted on by
Reply

An appellate court appears poised to side with the federal judge who blocked immigration agents from conducting “roving patrols” and snatching people off the streets of Southern California, likely setting up another Supreme Court showdown.

Arguments in the case were held Monday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the judges at times fiercely questioning the lawyer for the Trump administration about the constitutionality of seemingly indiscriminate sweeps by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

“I’m just trying to understand what would motivate the officers … to grab such a large number of people so quickly and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain,” said Judge Ronald M. Gould of Seattle.

Earlier this month, a lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order that has all but halted the aggressive operations by masked federal agents, saying they violate the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Justice Department called the block that was ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong “the first step” in a “wholesale judicial usurpation” of federal authority.

“It’s a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov M. Roth argued Monday. “We don’t think that happened, and we don’t think it’s fair we were hit with this sweeping injunction on an unfair and incomplete record.”

That argument appeared to falter in front of the 9th Circuit panel. Judges Jennifer Sung of Portland, Ore., and Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco heard the case alongside Gould — all drawn from the liberal wing of an increasingly split appellate division.

“If you’re not actually doing what the District Court found you to be doing and enjoined you from doing, then there should be no harm,” Sung said.

Frimpong’s order stops agents from using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The judge found that without other evidence, those criteria alone or in combination do not meet the 4th Amendment bar for reasonable suspicion.

“It appears that they are randomly selecting Home Depots where people are standing looking for jobs and car washes because they’re car washes,” Berzon said. “Is your argument that it’s OK that it’s happening, or is your argument that it’s not happening?”

Roth largely sidestepped that question, reiterating throughout the 90-minute hearing that the government had not had enough time to gather evidence it was following the Constitution and that the court did not have authority to constrain it in the meantime.

Read more:Trump administration asks appeals court to lift restrictions on SoCal immigration raids

Arguments in the case hinge on a pair of dueling Golden State cases that together define the scope of relief courts can offer under the 4th Amendment.

“It’s the bulwark of privacy protection against policing,” said professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford Law School, whose work on 4th Amendment injunctions was cited in the Justice Department’s briefing. “What the government can do depends on really specific details. That makes it hard for a court to say here’s the thing you can’t do.”

In policing cases, every exception to the rule has its own exceptions, the expert said.

The Department of Justice has staked its claim largely on City of Los Angeles vs. Lyons, a landmark 1983 Supreme Court decision about illegal chokeholds by the Los Angeles Police Department. In that case, the court ruled against a blanket ban on the practice, finding the Black motorist who had sued was unlikely to ever be choked by the police again.

“That dooms plaintiffs’ standing here,” the Justice Department wrote.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and its partners point to other precedents, including the San Diego biker case Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. vs. Hannigan. Decided in the 9th Circuit in 1996, the ruling offers residents of the American West more 4th Amendment protection than they might have in Texas, New York or Illinois.

In the Easyriders case, 14 members of a Southland motorcycle club successfully blocked the California Highway Patrol from citing almost any bikers they suspected of wearing the wrong kind of helmet, after the court ruled a more narrow decision would leave the same bikers vulnerable to future illegal citations.

“The court said these motorcyclists are traveling around the state, so we can’t afford the plaintiff’s complete relief unless we allow this injunction to be statewide,” said professor Geoffrey Kehlmann, who directs the 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic at Loyola Law School.

“In situations like this, where you have roving law enforcement throughout a large area and you have the plaintiffs themselves moving throughout this large area, you necessarily need to have that broader injunction,” Kehlmann said.

Frimpong cited Easyriders among other precedent cases in her ruling, saying it offered a clear logic for the districtwide injunction. The alternative — agents sweeping through car washes and Home Depot parking lots stopping to ask each person they grab if they are a plaintiff in the suit — “would be a fantasy,” she wrote.

Another expert, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the Los Angeles Police Department chokehold case set a standard that litigants “need to show it’s likely it could happen to you again in the future.”

But, he added: “The 9th Circuit has said, here’s ways you can show that.”

The tests can include asking whether the contested enforcement is limited to a small geographic area or applied to a small group of people, and whether it is part of a policy.

“After the injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said, ‘We’re going to continue doing what we’re doing,’” Berzon said. “Is that not a policy?”

Roth denied that there was any official policy driving the sweeps.

“Plaintiffs [argue] the existence of an official policy of violating the 4th Amendment with these stops,” Roth said. “The only evidence of our policy was a declaration that said, ‘Yes, reasonable suspicion is what we require when we go beyond a consensual encounter.'”

But Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California, part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests, argued that the federal policy is clear.

“They have said, ‘If it ends in handcuffs, go out and do it,'” he told the panel. “There’s been a wink and a nod to agents on the ground that says, ‘Dispatch with the rigors of the law and go out and snatch anybody out there.'”

He said that put his organization’s clients in a similar situation to the bikers.

“The government did not present any alternatives as to what an injunction could look like that would provide adequate relief to our plaintiffs,” Tajsar said. “That’s fatal to any attempt by them to try to get out from underneath this injunction.”

The Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics, he said, are “likely to ensnare just as many people with status as without status.”

The Justice Department said ICE already complies with the 4th Amendment, and that the injunction risks a “chilling effect” on lawful arrests.

“If it’s chilling ICE from violating the Constitution, that’s where they’re supposed to be chilled,” Chemerinsky said.

A ruling is expected as soon as this week. Roth signaled the administration is likely to appeal if the appellate panel does not grant its stay.

Chokeholds, bikers and ‘roving patrols’: Are Trump’s ICE tactics legal?
The appellate court battle over whether ICE can resume ‘roving patrols’ across the Los Angeles area hangs on dueling legal precedents that involve the LAPD and the CHP.

https://www.aol.com/chokeholds-bikers-roving-patrols-trumps-232936992.html

Daily Mail: Court rules on Trump’s birthright citizenship plan

Posted on by
Reply

A federal appeals court delivered a blow to Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, deeming it unconstitutional. It’s the latest step in an ongoing battle between Trump and various judges in states far over his plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal migrants.

The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after Trump´s plan was also blocked by a federal judge in New Hampshire. It brings the issue one step closer to coming back quickly before the Supreme Court.

The 9th Circuit decision keeps a block on the Trump administration enforcing the order that would deny citizenship to children born to people who are in the United States illegally or temporarily. ‘The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order´s proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree,’ the majority wrote.

The 2-1 ruling keeps in place a decision from U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour in Seattle, who blocked Trump´s effort to end birthright citizenship and decried what he described as the administration´s attempt to ignore the Constitution for political gain. The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The Supreme Court has since restricted the power of lower court judges to issue orders that affect the whole country, known as nationwide injunctions. But the 9th Circuit majority found that the case fell under one of the exceptions left open by the justices.

…

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment says that all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens. Justice Department attorneys argue that the phrase ‘subject to United States jurisdiction’ in the amendment means that citizenship isn´t automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone. The states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon – argue that ignores the plain language of the Citizenship Clause as well as a landmark birthright citizenship case in 1898 where the Supreme Court found a child born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen by virtue of his birth on American soil.

Appeals court finds effort to end birthright citizenship illegal
It’s the latest step in an ongoing battle between Trump and various judges in states far over his plan to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal migrants.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14934995/Court-decision-Donald-Trump-birthright-citizenship.html