A divided appeals court panel overturned a contempt finding against the Trump administration regarding deportations to an El Salvador prison, deeming the lower court judge had overstepped his authority. The decision followed the arrival of Venezuelan migrants at the prison despite a judge’s order for their return to the U.S. The majority opinion, written by judges nominated by Trump, argued the lower court intruded on executive branch foreign affairs powers. This ruling came after the Attorney General celebrated the win on social media.
Read More
An appeals court has intervened to maintain work and deportation protections for nearly 12,000 Afghan nationals in the U.S., which were slated to expire under the Department of Homeland Security’s decision. The court’s stay, prompted by a lawsuit from a non-profit immigrant advocacy group, will remain in effect for one week while the court considers the case. The lawsuit challenged the revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Afghans, who were initially deemed safe to return to their home country. The decision to end TPS has faced criticism, especially considering that many of the Afghans provided assistance to U.S. forces during the war in Afghanistan.
Read More
In a recent development, a federal appeals court in New York has affirmed the civil jury verdict against former President Donald Trump. The court upheld the decision that found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll, and which ordered him to pay $5 million in damages. The three-judge panel’s unanimous ruling stated Trump had not proven any errors from the district court that would warrant a new trial. This decision stems from the May 2023 verdict issued by a jury in Manhattan federal court.
Read More
A federal appeals court temporarily blocked a lower court’s order requiring President Trump to relinquish control of approximately 4,000 California National Guard members he federalized. The appeals court found it likely that the President lawfully exercised his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406, rejecting Governor Newsom’s claims of legal violations. While the court acknowledged some procedural irregularities, it deemed them inconsequential given the deferential standard of review afforded to the President’s actions regarding national security. The ruling, however, did not fully accept the Justice Department’s arguments regarding judicial oversight.
Read More
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied Donald Trump’s request to reconsider the $5 million verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse and defamation case. The court upheld its December 2024 decision affirming the jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll. Trump’s arguments for reconsideration centered on the admission of the “Access Hollywood” tape and testimony from other women alleging similar misconduct. This ruling comes separate from a pending appeal of an $83.3 million defamation verdict against Trump in the same case, where he invokes Supreme Court precedent on presidential immunity.
Read More
The appeals court’s rejection of Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the $5 million judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle. Trump had requested a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit after a three-judge panel refused to overturn the verdict. This action, effectively denying his plea for a rehearing, solidifies the lower court’s decision finding him liable for sexual abuse.
This refusal to overturn the lower court’s decision reinforces the serious nature of the allegations against Trump. The considerable resources invested in this and numerous other Trump-related lawsuits are a cause for concern, raising questions about the allocation of public funds and the legal system’s capacity to address such high-profile cases efficiently.… Continue reading
A recent court ruling against Donald Trump’s tariffs has sparked outrage among his MAGA allies. The decision exposed significant flaws in the legal arguments supporting the tariffs, according to a lawyer for the opposing side. This legal setback represents a significant blow to Trump’s trade policies. The ruling’s implications are far-reaching and will likely impact future trade disputes.
Read More
A federal court blocked President Trump’s widespread tariffs, deeming them beyond his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court rejected the administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted such broad tariff powers, finding the levies on various countries (including a global 10% tariff) addressed trade imbalances rather than genuine emergencies. The ruling specifically targeted tariffs imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada, deemed unrelated to stated justifications of drug trafficking and illegal immigration. The Trump administration plans to appeal the decision.
Read More
A federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to revoke the temporary legal status of approximately 400,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This decision upholds a lower court ruling that blocked the Department of Homeland Security’s termination of a Biden-era parole program. The lower court found that DHS had improperly revoked the migrants’ status without individual reviews, based on a misinterpretation of the law. The Trump administration may appeal to the Supreme Court.
Read More
The Trump administration revoked over 1,500 student visas, citing national security concerns related to political activities like pro-Palestinian protests. Subsequently, many universities disenrolled affected students based on terminated SEVIS records. However, a Michigan court ruling and DHS court filings confirmed that SEVIS termination does not automatically revoke legal immigration status. This revelation exposes the universities’ actions as potentially unlawful, as the basis for disenrollment was faulty. Despite this, the DHS website still incorrectly implies that SEVIS termination ends legal status, leaving many students and institutions in uncertainty.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood