Tag Archives: U.S. Court of Appeals

Washington Post: Senators ramp up pressure on Trump to abandon threats to send troops into U.S. cities

Posted on by
Reply

A group of Democratic senators is filing a friend of the court brief Tuesday in California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s lawsuit against President Donald Trump, stepping up pressure to keep Trump from overriding Democratic leaders and sending National Guard troops into Democrat-led cities like Chicago.

The 19 senators are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to overturn a temporary order issued by a three-judge panel in June that found that Trump had the authority to send National Guard troops into Los Angeles this summer over Newsom’s objections. The Democratic senators argue that the issue has gained greater salience since then, as Trump began threatening to go into other states and cities against the wishes of their governors and mayors.

The senators are amplifying Newsom’s argument that the president’s use of the federal troops — at a moment when local law enforcement officials said they did not need federal support — violated the separation of powers doctrine by usurping Congress.

A federal district court judge initially sided with Newsom on June 12. Then, on June 19, the three-judge panel issued their temporary ruling siding with Trump. California is waiting on a final ruling from the appeals court.

Led by California Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, the group includes senators who represent Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, and Portland — all cities that Trump has threatened to send in National Guard troops to “straighten it out” as he ramps up enforcement on crime and immigration. Schiff said in a statement that he hoped the Newsom case would become “the line drawn in the sand to prevent further misuse of our service members on the streets of American cities.”

The senators argue in their brief that by federalizing 4,000 California National Guard troops for domestic law enforcement over Newsom’s objections “without showing a genuine inability to enforce federal laws with the regular forces,” Trump violated the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering mandate and contravened the provisions of the Constitution assigning power over militias to Congress.

“Our concern that President Trump will continue to act in bad faith and abuse his power is borne out by his recent deployment of state militias to Washington, D.C. and his stated intent to deploy state militias elsewhere (like Chicago and Baltimore),” the senators wrote in the brief obtained by The Washington Post that will be filed in court Tuesday. They warned that courts are the last resort to “prevent the President from exceeding his constitutional powers” and that failing to do so could “usher in an era of unprecedented, dangerous executive power.”

In court filings this summer, the administration argued that Trump was compelled to send the National Guard to protect federal personnel and property because numerous “incidents of violence and disorder” posed unacceptable safety risks to personnel who were “supporting the faithful execution of federal immigration laws.” Department of Justice lawyers argued that Trump was within his rights to mobilize the National Guard and Marines “to protect federal agents and property from violent mobs that state and local authorities cannot or choose not to control.”

Before Trump sent National Guard troops into Los Angeles this summer in the midst of protests against his administration’s immigration raids, prior presidents had deployed Guard troops on American soil primarily to assist after natural disasters or to quell unrest.

The senators write that the last instance in which a president federalized the National Guard without consent from the state’s governor is when Alabama Gov. George Wallace (D) ordered the Alabama Highway Patrol to prevent the Rev. Martin Luther King, Rep. John Lewis and others from marching from Selma to Montgomery. President Lyndon B. Johnson intervened to protect the marchers.

Our arguments to the court make clear that Trump’s unprecedented militarization of Los Angeles should not be used as a playbook for terrorizing other cities across America,” Padilla said in a statement.

Last month, the president deployed National Guard troops and federal agents to D.C., arguing that they needed to tackle a “crime emergency” that local officials say does not exist. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb, a Democrat, last week sued the Trump administration, seeking to force it to withdraw troops from the city.

In recent days, Trump has escalated his warnings to intervene in Chicago, posting on his social media site that the city is “about to find out why it’s called the Department of WAR,” a reference to the Defense Department.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) said on social media Monday that Trump’s threats were not “about fighting crime,” which would require “support and coordination” from the administration that he had not yet seen.

The Department of Homeland Security announced Monday that it had launched an operation to target immigrants in Chicago as the president vowed a broader crackdown on violent crime. A spokesperson for Pritzker said Monday that the governor’s office has not received any formal communication from the Trump administration or information about its plans.

Senators ramp up pressure on Trump to abandon threats to send troops into U.S. cities
Democratic senators are filing a brief in support of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s suit against the Trump administration.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/senators-ramp-up-pressure-on-trump-to-abandon-threats-to-send-troops-into-u-s-cities/ar-AA1Mb9dp

NBC News: New tariff rules bring ‘maximum chaos’ as surprise charges hit consumers

Posted on by
Reply

The bills are sudden and jarring: $1,400 for a computer part from Germany, $620 for an aluminum case from Sweden and $1,041 for handbags from Spain.

Some U.S. shoppers say they are being hit with surprise charges from international shipping carriers as the exemption on import duties for items under $800 expires as a part of President Donald Trump’s tariff push.

That’s leading to some frustration and confusion as shoppers and shippers both try to navigate a new reality for anybody ordering goods from abroad.

“It’s maximum chaos,” said Nick Baker, co-lead of the trade and customs practice at Kroll, a firm that advises freight carriers.

Thomas Andrews, who runs a business in upstate New York restoring vintage computers from the 1980s and 1990s, said he was shocked to receive a tariff bill from UPS for approximately $1,400 on a part worth $750. He said he assumed there must have been a mistake.

“That’s extortion,” Andrews said.

Late Friday, a representative for UPS told Andrews that the initial charge was indeed incorrect: The tariff bill should have only been for about $110. But it was too late: Andrews had already refused shipment to avoid paying the charge. Soon after learning about the corrected charge, he realized UPS had already begun sending the item back to Germany.

The final annoyance, Andrews said: He’s being charged for the return shipping — about $50.

In a statement, UPS said it has solutions available to merchants designed to navigate the new environment. It did not address the customer-billing situation.

On Aug. 29, for the first time in nearly a century, small-dollar items coming into the U.S. — also called de minimis goods — began facing import duties. That means even small, personal orders now face the sizable tariffs placed on U.S. trading partners. While a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found many of Trump’s duties unconstitutional, they remain in effect while Trump appeals the case to the Supreme Court.

To comply with the new de minimis rules, a wave of countries have halted shipments to the U.S. That’s caused postal traffic into the U.S. to decline by some 80%, according to a United Nations agency.

But many orders are still flowing. And since the new de minimis rule began taking effect, social media platforms have been filled with accounts of U.S. customers receiving shock bills from major shippers like DHL, FedEx and UPS, having received no notice about the charges from the foreign merchant they’d ordered from.

The shippers, in turn, are being inundated with messages from customers disputing the charges, along with return-to-sender requests as the customers refuse shipments to avoid having to pay the bills.

A representative for DHL said the firm “is committed to supporting customers through the recent tariff changes and ensuring their shipments are managed efficiently.”

“We encourage customers to take note of the shipping policies of the brands they shop with and to also remember that tariffs are payable to the U.S. government,” it said.

The Trump administration has heralded the billions in revenues the tariffs are bringing in — and in the case of the new de minimis rule, argued the change is essential to halting the flow of small-sized illicit drug packages and drug ingredients. In a statement posted the day the new de minimis rules took effect, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the logistics industry “has already adapted to the changes with minimal interruption.”

“This change has been months in the making, and we are fully prepared to implement it,” said Susan S. Thomas, acting executive assistant commissioner for CBP’s Office of Trade. “Foreign carriers and postal operators were given clear timelines, detailed guidance, and multiple options to comply. The only thing ending on August 29 is the pathway that has been used by criminals to exploit America’s borders.”

Baker said foreign merchants are obligated to provide information to the shipper about the classification of the item, which is key to the tariff calculation — but from a regulatory perspective, the customer, as the importer of record, is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of that information.

But many people are still getting caught off guard.

After receiving a tariff bill for $620 on a $300 aluminum computer case from Sweden, Robert Wang decided to turn the shipment away.

A software engineer in the San Francisco Bay Area, Wang said he placed his order Aug. 22 with Louqe, a high-end Swedish merchant. More than a week later, he received notice from UPS about the bill.

“Confusion transitioned into a late-night panic,” Wang said, as he frantically researched the situation. Eventually UPS confirmed he’d been charged the 200% tariff Trump has slapped on certain aluminum goods.

Wang said he tried to reach out to Louqe about the charge, but did not hear back. The company did not respond to a request for comment from NBC News.

Baker said many foreign businesses that rely on U.S. customers now face the dilemma of eating the tariff cost — assuming they are properly accounting for it in the first place — or passing it on to their customers, which could scare off business. Many merchants abroad have posted to social media to alert U.S. customers that they are suspending shipments there.

Some U.S. small businesses are also paying a price. A day after receiving a shipment from Spain for handbags he said were worth about $600, Herm Narciso said he and his wife, who run a brick-and-mortar shop in Dunedin, Florida, that resells goods from Europe, got a tariff invoice for $1,041.44 from DHL.

“We can’t understand how it’s possible to assess us with that level of tariffs,” Narciso said.

They said that they plan to file a dispute, but that the response could take two to four weeks. Narciso is worried their shop won’t survive the recent changes if they start getting similar bills going forward.

“This last quarter is probably going to tank us,” Narciso said. “The margins on this type of business are slim to begin with.”

He added: “It just doesn’t feel like the American way to me.”

New tariff rules bring ‘maximum chaos’ as surprise charges hit consumers
The end of the de minimis exemption is wreaking havoc on U.S. consumers, small businesses and major carriers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/surprise-tariff-bills-de-minimis-rcna229375

Newsweek: Donald Trump suffers big legal blow over migrant deportations

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump was blocked by a federal appeals court from using an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport Venezuelan migrants his administration says belong to the criminal gang Tren de Aragua.

Newsweek contacted the White House for comment by email after office hours.

Why It Matters

Trump has, through executive order, invoked the Alien Enemies Act by arguing that there is an invasion of the U.S. by foreign criminal gangs that his administration has now designated as terrorist groups.

The court decision bars deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

What To Know

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that there was not an “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign power as required by the 1798 statute to justify its invocation in the case of this group of migrants.

The Alien Enemies Act is a wartime law passed in 1798 as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts under President John Adams. It grants the U.S. president the authority to detain, restrict or deport foreign nationals from a country that is at war with the United States.

Unlike other provisions in the Alien and Sedition Acts, which expired or were repealed, the Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today.

The act was only used three times before in U.S. history, all during declared wars: in the War of 1812 and the two World Wars.

On April 19, the Supreme Court instructed the Trump administration to pause the deportation of a number of Venezuelan men in custody using the 1798 law.

The Trump administration unsuccessfully argued that courts cannot second-guess the president’s determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela’s government and represented a danger to the United States, meriting use of the act.

In the majority were U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, a Joe Biden appointee. Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee, dissented.

“A country encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the judges wrote.

In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.

What People Are Saying

Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: “The Trump administration’s use of a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court. This is a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts.”

What Happens Next

The case appears set to return to the Supreme Court in what is shaping up to be a decisive battle over Mr. Trump’s ability to use the Alien Enemies Act, the New York Times reported.

Donald Trump suffers big legal blow over migrant deportations
The Alien Enemies Act was only used three times before in U.S. history, all during declared wars—in the War of 1812 and the two World Wars.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-legal-blow-deportation-migrants-alien-enemies-act-2123573

Daily Beast: Trump, 79, Ends Bedtime Truth Social Rant by Yelling Two Words

Posted on by
Reply

Rumors of the president’s death escalated over the weekend.

Donald Trump ended his proof of life Truth Social posting spree with a two-word and triple exclamation point sign off, “GOOD NIGHT!!!”

The 79-year-old president assured his MAGA followers and Never Trumpers he had “NEVER FELT BETTER IN MY LIFE” after a debate raged online about his health.

Rumors of his death escalated over the weekend after Trump had not been seen in public for most of the week, speculation fueled by his mysterious bruised hands and bulging cankles.

Trump’s health update responded to a post that said, “Joe Biden would go multiple days at a time without any public appearances and the media would say he’s `sharp’ and `top of his game’… Meanwhile he was wearing diapers and napping.”

Trump swamped his Truth Social account on Saturday with AI-generated content, and returned to the familiar ground of crime and all caps on Sunday.

He mentioned his crackdown in Washington twice in a row, posting, “DC IS NOW A CRIME FREE ZONE, IN JUST 12 DAYS!!! President DJT.”

Trump then shared what he claimed were crime stats from a “list I get every single day,” documenting the number of arrests made, offenses, and how many firearms were seized. He posted that there was one arrest over “assault on a federal officer and threats to the President.”

Switching topics, the president reposted a letter from Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, which supported Lisa D. Cook. Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud in his attempt to get her fired from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

“We also see a troubling pattern of efforts to discredit leaders and experts who are eminently qualified and prepared to lead and to serve,” the letter from International President Cheryl W. Turner noted.

Trump ranted, “This is a total Conflict of Interest. The Judge must RECUSE, IMMEDIATELY!!! President DJT.” He also found time to slam U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who blocked his fast-deportation process.

“Same Judge as on Fed Case,” Trump posted. “I wonder how that happened??? Must recuse!!! President DJT.”

He then pivoted to another presidential passion project, the mean streets of Chicago, shouting, “CRIME IS TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL IN CHICAGO. 6 DEAD, 24 BADLY WOUNDED, LAST WEEK ALONE!!!”

Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the president had not ruled out potentially deploying National Guard troops in Chicago.

“That always is a prerogative of President Trump,” Noem said.

Just before he logged off for the night, Trump found time to return to his beloved tariffs, claiming they would bring “more than 15 trillion dollars” into the U.S.

He stated, “If a Radical Left Court is allowed to terminate these Tariffs, almost all of this investment, and much more, will be immediately cancelled! In many ways, we would become a Third World Nation, with no hope of GREATNESS again. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!!! President DJT.”

His concerns follow the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling on Friday that most of his tariffs are illegal. They found that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) statute used by Trump to impose international tariffs did not “explicitly include the power to impose tariffs.”

After that, the president tapped out with his “GOOD NIGHT!!!” post.

But is the creepster still alive?

Trump, 79, Ends Bedtime Truth Social Rant by Yelling Two Words
Rumors of the president’s death escalated over the weekend.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-79-calls-it-an-early-night-after-exhausting-truth-social-rant

Forbes: Trump Says His Tariffs Collected ‘Trillions’ In Revenue—Here’s The Real Figure

Posted on by
Reply
  • “Without tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
  • Trump claimed earlier this month that “trillions of dollars are being taken in on tariffs” and his levies have “not caused inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers.”
  • Trump leaves out that tariffs are paid by U.S. companies to import foreign goods, with those costs eventually paid by U.S. consumers.
  • Trump’s latest comments on his tariffs follow a ruling late Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals, as the court wrote Trump overstepped his authority by issuing his reciprocal tariffs, a power the majority opinion said was “vested exclusively” as a “core Congressional power.”
  • The ruling prohibiting Trump’s tariffs won’t take effect until Oct. 14, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The truth: Trump’s tariffs have only “generated about $96 billion in revenue”.

Trump Claims Tariffs Earned U.S. ‘Trillions Of Dollars.’ Federal Data Says Otherwise.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has projected tariff revenue would reach $300 billion per year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/08/31/trump-says-his-tariffs-collected-trillions-in-revenue-heres-the-real-figure

Newsweek: Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump after tariff plan struck down

Posted on by
Reply

California Governor Gavin Newsom took a swipe at President Donald Trump on Friday after an appeals court struck down his sweeping plan on global tariffs.

Why It Matters

The decision undercut a central element of President Trump’s unilateral trade strategy and could potentially raise the prospect of refunds if the tariffs are ultimately struck down.

The ruling set up an anticipated legal fight that could reach the Supreme Court.

What To Know

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Trump had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act IEEPA to declare national emergencies and impose broad import taxes on most trading partners, the Associated Press reports.

The legal challenge centered on two sets of actions: reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2—including up to 50 percent on some goods and a 10 percent baseline on most imports—and earlier tariffs announced February 1 targeting selected imports from Canada, China and Mexico tied to drug and migration concerns.

Newsom’s press office reacted to the ruling on X on Friday, saying, “If it’s a day ending in y, it’s a day Trump is found violating the law!”

The rebuke comes amid weeks of back-and-forths from the pair as Newsom has taken aim at Republicans‘ redistricting efforts and Trump’s implementation of national guard troops in U.S. cities.

Taking to his social media platform Truth Social, reacting to the ruling, the president vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, saying in part that: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else.”

What People Are Saying

Republicans Against Trump reacting to the president’s vow to appeal to the Supreme Court on X: “Grandpa is mad”

Retired U.S. Air Force General Robert Spalding reacting to Trump’s post on X: “Thank god”

William and Mary Law School Professor Jonathan Adler on X reacting to the ruling: “Whoa”

Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, on X: “BOOM. The federal appeals court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal, because they are. There’s no national emergency, and so the power to tariff a country rests with Congress. Trump admin has lost at every stage of the process, but stay tuned for the Supremes to chime in.”

Wolfers in a follow-up post: “This won’t end all tariffs. This ruling applies to tariffs applied to entire countries (which is most of the tariff agenda). The industry-specific tariffs use a different legal authority, and will remain. The White House has other (more limited) tariff powers it’ll dust off.”

What Happens Next

The appeals court did not immediately block the tariffs, however, allotting the Trump Administration until October 14 to appeal the decision.

Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump after tariff plan struck down
The rebuke comes as Newsom has taken aim at Republicans’ redistricting efforts and Trump’s implementation of national guard troops in U.S. cities.

https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-mocks-donald-trump-tariff-plan-struck-down-2121980

Washington Post: Two Virginia school districts sue Education Dept. in fight over gender policies

Posted on by
Reply

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools sued the U.S. Department of Education, seeking to bar it from freezing funds to the Virginia districts amid a fight over a policy supportive of transgender students.

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools filed lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Education on Friday, seeking to bar the federal agency from freezing funds to the districts in response to an ongoing debate over a policy supportive of transgender students.

The move is the latest in a fight between the Education Department and five Northern Virginia school districts over policies that allow students to use facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

Earlier this month, school officials in Arlington, as well as Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, declined to comply with a call from the Education Department to rescind the gender policies after an investigation determined they violate Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination.

In response, the Education Department said it would start the process to “suspend or terminate” funding from the five districts. The following week, the department announced it placed the school districts on “high-risk” status, which would make it harder for the systems to receive future federal funds.

“States and school districts cannot openly violate federal law while simultaneously receiving federal funding with no additional scrutiny. The Northern Viriginia[sic] School Divisions that are choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law must now prove they are using every single federal dollar for a legal purpose,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a statement.

The new complaints from the Arlington and Fairfax school district, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seek immediate relief from the court to reverse that decision.

In a news release, Arlington schools said the federal money supports academics, counseling, and free and reduced meals for students.

Leaders from the Northern Virginia districts have stood behind policies they say satisfy state and federal antidiscrimination laws and create welcoming environments for students. Revoking their transgender student policies, the school districts argue, would put them in violation of the law.

The Education Department launched its investigations after a Title IX complaint was filed by America First Legal — a conservative group founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/08/29/virginia-school-district-sues-education-department-transgender-policy

No paywall:

Two Va. school districts sue U.S. Education Dept. in fight over gender policies

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/two-virginia-school-districts-sue-education-dept-in-fight-over-gender-policies/ar-AA1LvdIK

Kansas City Star: Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a civil judgment issued against her for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her actions, which took place shortly after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, have continued to spark legal debate. While plaintiffs and LGBTQ advocates have criticized the move as an attempt to undermine established rights, conservative activists have rallied behind Davis.

Davis argued that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause shielded her from personal liability while in office. She urged the Court to overturn Obergefell.

Attorney Mathew Staver wrote, “The mistake must be corrected.” Staver argued that Davis is “the first individual in the Republic’s history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it.”

Lower courts rejected her defenses and affirmed liability for state action in her role. A federal appeals panel concluded that she may not invoke the First Amendment against such claims.

Attorneys for David Ermold and David Moore have urged the Court to deny review. They noted that no appellate judge supported rehearing.

Attorney William Powell said, “Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis’s rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis’s arguments do not merit further attention.”

The petition has arrived amid efforts in several states to limit recognition of same-sex marriages. Public support has remained high, but partisan divides have notably widened.

If the Supreme Court hears the case, it could revisit same-sex marriage precedents, though existing marriages remain protected under the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act.

Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling
Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a civil judgment issued against her for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Her actions, which took place shortly after the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, have continued to spark legal debate. While plaintiffs and LGBTQ advocatesContinue reading “Supreme Court Asked to Review Marriage Ruling”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-asked-to-review-marriage-ruling/ar-AA1KMc10

Washington Examiner: Federal court halts Trump’s asylum crackdown at US-Mexico border

Posted on by
Reply

A panel of federal judges blocked President Donald Trump‘s day-one proclamation restricting asylum claims at the United States-Mexico border.

One of the first proclamations of Trump’s second term was Proclamation 10888—Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion. The move forbade migrants from claiming asylum when crossing the border at any place outside a port of entry, and restricted requirements to claim asylum for those entering through said ports of entry. In July, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee, ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority with the move.

The 3-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit put an administrative pause on Moss’s ruling, which was lifted after their decision Friday.

In his 128-page ruling, Moss argued that Trump’s unilateral moves violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides the “sole and exclusive” means for deporting illegal immigrants. Trump’s proclamation had set up “an alternate immigration system” that violated the law, he claimed, rejecting the government’s argument that an out-of-control border necessitated the move.

“Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President … the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance,” Moss wrote. “An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void.”

Though he argued that an emergency doesn’t excuse the move, he seemed to cede that there was, in fact, an emergency.

“The Court recognizes that the Executive Branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country,” Moss wrote. “But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country.”

The White House was quick to respond, arguing that the ruling violated the recent Supreme Court decision limiting the ability of district judges to issue nationwide injunctions on federal government policies.

“A local district court judge has no authority to stop President Trump and the United States from securing our border from the flood of aliens trying to enter illegally. The judge’s decision — which contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling against granting universal relief — would allow entry into the United States of all aliens who may ever try to come to in illegally,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement obtained by Politico.

Department of Homeland Security Spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin derided Moss as a “a rogue district judge” who was “threatening the safety and security of Americans.”

The Washington Examiner reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for further comment.

Moss’s ruling is the latest of several major legal moves against Trump’s immigration agenda. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb of the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration’s use of expedited removal exceeded the Department of Homeland Security’s legal authority.

Cobb blocked three actions from the Trump administration: a Jan. 23 DHS memo directing immigration officials to apply expedited removal as broadly as possible; a Feb. 18 ICE directive authorizing officers to consider expedited removal for “paroled arriving aliens”; and a March 25 DHS notice terminating the Biden-era parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans.

Federal court halts Trump’s asylum crackdown at US-Mexico border
A district judge blocked Trump’s day-one proclamation cracking down on asylum claims at the southern border.
Federal court halts Trump’s asylum crackdown at US-Mexico border

Newsweek: Trump admin ordered to return man deported to El Salvador

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump‘s administration has been ordered to return a Salvadoran man who was deported minutes after a federal appeals court blocked his removal.

Jordin Melgar-Salmeron was deported to El Salvador on May 7 despite an order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, New York, blocking it.

On Tuesday, the appeals court ordered the administration to “facilitate the return” of Melgar-Salmeron as soon as possible to “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

It also directed the government to return to court within one week to provide details on the current location of Melgar-Salmeron and how it planned to return him to the United States.

Trump admin ordered to return man deported to El Salvador
The Trump administration was ordered to return a Salvadoran man deported minutes after a federal appeals court blocked his removal.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-ordered-return-man-deported-el-salvador-2090058