Talking Points Memo: More Than 50 Men Entered The US Legally Only To Later Be Sent To CECOT, Report Finds

More than two months after the Trump administration flew more than 200 people to a detention camp in El Salvador, there’s still a lot that remains unclear.

We still don’t know who, exactly, the government sent there. We don’t know how many people were aboard each plane that went from Texas to El Salvador on March 15; we don’t know who was removed under the wartime Alien Enemies Act, and who was removed under more standard immigration authorities. The question of whether non-citizens that the U.S. government is paying El Salvador to hold are entitled to habeas corpus protections is also, somewhat ominously, unanswered.

It’s shocking given the lawlessness of the operation: the Trump administration sought to shield these removals from judicial scrutiny from the start, and, per the finding of one federal judge, sought to delay a court hearing until the airplanes could depart for El Salvador.

report published this week by the Cato Institute adds another egregious fact to this story: many of those sent to El Salvador entered the United States legally.

The researchers behind the study attempted to learn as much as they could about a list of 238 men rendered to CECOT, the El Salvador prison, on March 15, obtained and reported by CBS News. They found that at least 50 of the more than 200 men sent to El Salvador complied with U.S. immigration law as they entered the country.

Their resulting removal and indefinite confinement in El Salvador has been a betrayal, David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute and the author of the study, told TPM.

So much for due process and the Bill of Rights in Trump’s Amerika!

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/more-than-50-men-entered-the-us-legally-only-to-later-be-sent-to-cecot-report-finds

Talking Points Memo: GAO Makes Official What’s Been Obvious: Trump Admin Is Breaking Impoundment Control Act

The independent agency embedded within the legislative branch that is designed to review federal spending and make recommendations to Congress on cost savings and waste, as well as investigate policy implementation (the real one, not DOGE), has released a new finding that none of us will find surprising.

As part of its 39 different investigations into various actions the Trump administration has taken in the last four months that could qualify as Impoundment Control Act violations, the Government Accountability Office determined this afternoon that the Trump administration has, in fact, done just that.

Big picture, the non-partisan congressional watchdog is expected to issue more rulings in coming months as it works its way through nearly 40 other similar investigations into whether the Trump administration has violated the 51-year-old law in other ways. The Trump White House has already called the GAO finding “wrong” and GAO opinions are, in general, considered nonbinding recommendations to Congress. Such a finding might matter more in an era where congressional Republicans were not already so willing to choke down all of Trump’s DOGE cuts.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/where-things-stand/gao-makes-official-whats-been-obvious-trump-admin-is-breaking-impoundment-control-act

Alternet: ‘Taunt the judiciary’: Legal scholars slam ‘invalid’ MAGA lawsuit against John Roberts

On April 22, according to Talking Points Memo (TPM) reporter Josh Kovensky, the America First Legal Foundation filed a “little-known lawsuit” against U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and the head of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts — accusing the federal courts of undermining his presidential powers.

“The case ostensibly proceeds as a FOIA lawsuit, with the Trump-aligned group seeking access to judiciary records,” Kovensky explains. “But, in doing so, it asks the courts to cede massive power to the White House: the bodies that make court policy and manage the judiciary’s day-to-day operations should be considered independent agencies of the executive branch, the suit argues, giving the president, under the conservative legal movement’s theories, the power to appoint and dismiss people in key roles.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/taunt-the-judiciary-legal-scholars-slam-invalid-maga-lawsuit-against-john-roberts/ar-AA1E3Z7a