Four Seattle police officers, who attended the January 6th, 2021, Capitol rally, are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain their anonymity in public court records. The Washington State Supreme Court previously ruled against the officers, finding that their right to privacy was not violated by disclosure. The officers argue that revealing their identities would create a chilling effect on free speech and subject them to unwarranted vilification, despite facing no misconduct charges. A response to their petition is expected next week.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s plan to deport Texas migrants to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. This action prevents the removal of detainees within the Northern District of Texas pending further court review, reversing lower court decisions that refused to halt the deportations. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from the majority opinion. The ruling follows the ACLU’s appeal after a lower court judge found he lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The stay applies only to migrants detained in the specified district.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a temporary stay, preventing the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan men detained in Texas and alleged to be gang members, pending further court order. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented from this decision, which comes after a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a similar request to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The ACLU, representing the detainees, argued for maintaining the status quo to ensure due process before deportation. The Supreme Court’s action follows an earlier ruling requiring habeas corpus petitions for deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, highlighting concerns about the administration’s use of this law and compliance with court orders.
Read More
The ACLU is urgently petitioning the Supreme Court, sounding the alarm that more deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are on the verge of happening. This isn’t just a legal matter; it’s a race against time to prevent what many perceive as imminent human rights violations.
The urgency of the situation is palpable. The fear is that these deportations will happen swiftly and secretly, perhaps even under the cover of a weekend, furthering concerns about due process. This clandestine approach fuels the perception of a deliberate attempt to circumvent judicial oversight and public scrutiny.
The Supreme Court has already issued an order temporarily halting these deportations, a move met with dissent from Justices Thomas and Alito.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court temporarily halted the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan nationals detained under the rarely used 1798 Alien Enemies Act. This act, previously invoked only during wartime, allows for the detention and deportation of citizens from “enemy” nations without standard legal processes. A lower court initially blocked the deportations, citing a lack of due process for the detainees, who were allegedly not given adequate notice or opportunity to challenge their removal. The Supreme Court’s ruling mandates that the government provide detainees with a chance to contest their deportation before removal, while Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
Read More
The US Supreme Court’s order temporarily halting the deportations of Venezuelan migrants represents a significant development, one that carries considerable weight and potential consequences. This ruling, unlike previous pronouncements on similar matters, is exceptionally clear and unambiguous in its directive. The court explicitly instructs the government to refrain from removing any Venezuelan migrants currently detained, pending further court orders. The order’s straightforward language leaves little room for the kind of technical maneuvering or interpretation that has characterized past responses from the administration.
The potential for a constitutional crisis is undeniable should the administration choose to ignore this order. Past instances of the administration’s disregard for Supreme Court decisions raise serious concerns about the court’s authority and the very principle of the separation of powers.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s decision to consider former President Trump’s attempt to ban birthright citizenship via executive order is deeply troubling. The very notion that such a fundamental right, enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, could be overturned through an executive action, rather than the constitutionally mandated process of amendment, is alarming. This isn’t just a legal battle; it’s a direct challenge to the bedrock principles of American citizenship.
The sheer audacity of attempting to circumvent the Constitution through an executive order is astounding. The established legal framework for altering constitutional rights is clear and deliberate, yet this attempt seeks to bypass it entirely.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling ordering the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Salvadoran national Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the US has been ignored by the president. This defiance stems from conflicting justifications, ranging from claims of judicial overreach in foreign policy matters to assertions of El Salvador’s sole responsibility. Trump’s actions represent a significant departure from established norms, potentially undermining the system of checks and balances intended to prevent executive overreach. The precedent set by ignoring a Supreme Court order raises concerns about the future of American governance.
Read More
Senator Chuck Grassley faced intense constituent criticism at a town hall meeting regarding the Trump administration’s defiance of a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of a wrongly deported Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Angry citizens directly questioned Grassley’s inaction, drawing parallels between the administration’s disregard for the court order and potential consequences for ordinary citizens. Grassley defended his inaction, claiming it was beyond Congress’s power, despite the administration’s financial contribution to Abrego Garcia’s imprisonment in El Salvador. Further complaints focused on Trump-era policies, including immigration, tariffs, and budget cuts impacting social security. A judge has since ordered government officials to testify and will determine whether contempt of court occurred.
Read More
The Trump administration argues that facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, mistakenly imprisoned in El Salvador, only requires removing domestic obstacles to his return, not actively securing his release from Salvadoran authorities. This position, supported by El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, is deemed by legal experts as a violation of a Supreme Court order mandating the administration’s cooperation. Experts predict this defiance will lead to a Supreme Court challenge, potentially involving the question of American citizens’ rights and the administration’s compliance with court orders. Trump’s suggestion of sending American citizens to the same prison further escalates the legal and constitutional implications.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood