In October 2017, FBI agents mistakenly raided Trina Martin’s home, causing significant trauma to her, her boyfriend, and her son. Martin subsequently filed a lawsuit against the government, but a federal judge and appeals court dismissed it, arguing courts shouldn’t second-guess police “honest mistakes.” The Supreme Court will now decide whether the Federal Tort Claims Act allows such lawsuits against the government for wrong-house raids, a question with conflicting precedent across different circuit courts. The case highlights the need for clarity on holding law enforcement accountable for such errors.
Read More
During an interview, the President contradicted his prior commitment to comply with all Supreme Court orders. Despite a unanimous Supreme Court ruling mandating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the President claimed his legal team interpreted the order differently and he had not personally intervened, citing Garcia’s alleged MS-13 affiliation and violent past. He further stated that he hadn’t directly asked El Salvador’s President for Garcia’s release, attributing his inaction to a lack of instruction from his lawyers. The President ultimately expressed his belief that Garcia is not deserving of a trial.
Read More
Following the unlawful deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, the Supreme Court mandated his repatriation, an order echoed by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis. Despite these rulings, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has failed to act, citing unsubstantiated claims of gang affiliation based on his tattoos. The DOJ’s response to subsequent inquiries was dismissive, refusing to answer questions and incorrectly identifying El Salvador while dismissing the court orders as a “false premise.” This inaction directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s directive to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.
Read More
The Supreme Court narrowly ruled 5-4 that immigrants voluntarily departing the U.S. are granted deadline extensions for weekend or holiday deadlines. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Gorsuch, cited standard legal principles extending deadlines to the next business day. This decision reversed a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. Dissenting justices argued the Court lacked jurisdiction or that such an extension lacked justification. The case involved Hugo Abisai Monsalvo Velázquez, a Mexican national facing deportation.
Read More
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked Trump’s deportation of Venezuelan immigrants, citing a lack of due process, a ruling that followed an earlier mandate requiring notification and a reasonable opportunity to seek legal recourse before deportation. Trump criticized this decision, claiming the inability to provide trials for all immigrants slated for deportation. He argued that affording due process to every individual would be impractical, despite the Court’s order stemming from an emergency petition alleging violations of that very process. This action comes despite Trump previously praising the conservative-leaning Supreme Court for its rulings in his favor.
Read More
Senator Amy Klobuchar warned of an impending constitutional crisis, but believes that a functioning judiciary, engaged citizenry, and a resistant Congress are preventing it. She urged the Supreme Court to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for defying a court order regarding the wrongful deportation of a Maryland resident. This follows Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion on a Supreme Court decision blocking further Venezuelan deportations, criticizing the majority’s late-night ruling as procedurally flawed and lacking sufficient explanation. Alito argued the court lacked jurisdiction and failed to consider the government’s perspective before issuing the order.
Read More
The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to President Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, focusing on injunctions against his executive order. This order, based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, seeks to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen mothers. Several lower courts swiftly issued nationwide injunctions against the order, which the administration unsuccessfully attempted to overturn. The Court must decisively reject the administration’s arguments to uphold birthright citizenship and maintain the integrity of the judicial system.
Read More
A 7-2 Supreme Court decision temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan men, halting a policy relying on the Alien Enemies Act and prompting outrage from MAGA figures. High-ranking officials, including Stephen Miller and Karoline Leavitt, accused the court of prioritizing the rights of “terrorist aliens” over Americans, while others suggested extreme measures like suspending habeas corpus. The ruling, which even saw Trump-appointed justices dissenting, is viewed as a significant setback for the administration’s immigration agenda. This legal challenge continues as the Supreme Court considers the case further.
Read More
In *A.A.R.P. v. Trump*, the Supreme Court issued a late-night order halting the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. The administration allegedly moved these immigrants to a Texas facility, provided inadequate notice of deportation in English to primarily Spanish-speaking individuals, and planned immediate removal under the Alien Enemies Act, potentially violating a prior Supreme Court ruling. This action seemingly circumvented the Court’s previous mandate for due process before deportation. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented, with a further statement expected from Justice Alito.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvadoran prison before they could challenge their deportation. This late-night intervention, a highly unusual rebuke, stemmed from the administration’s alleged violation of a previous court order and its deceptive actions toward multiple courts. The Court’s swift action, bypassing lower courts and even a dissenting justice’s full opinion, suggests a lack of trust in the administration’s claims. The 7-2 vote, including Chief Justice Roberts and other typically more conservative justices, signals a potential shift in the Court’s approach towards the administration’s actions.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker