The Justice Department appealed a court order mandating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a prior ruling granting him protection from deportation. The government argues the order to compel action from a foreign sovereign is unconstitutional, and it suspended the attorney who admitted the deportation was an error. The appeals court requested a response from Abrego Garcia’s lawyers. The White House maintains Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member, a claim his lawyers deny. Abrego Garcia’s deportation has raised concerns about the handling of non-citizens granted permission to remain in the U.S.
Read More
A federal judge ordered the US government to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by April 7th after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador due to an administrative error. The judge ruled the deportation illegal, citing a prior grant of withholding of removal and the lack of legal basis for his apprehension and removal. The government admitted the error but initially claimed inability to retrieve Abrego Garcia from Salvadoran custody, a claim the judge questioned given US contractual control over the prison where he is held. Despite a government appeal, the judge’s order highlights the contentious legal battle surrounding recent US deportations to El Salvador.
Read More
A federal judge sharply questioned a Trump administration lawyer regarding the administration’s alleged disregard of an oral court order halting migrant deportations to El Salvador. The lawyer, claiming only written orders are binding, argued the administration complied with the subsequent written order, despite acknowledging non-compliance with the prior oral directive. The judge expressed astonishment at the administration’s invocation of national security concerns to justify withholding information, even from the court. Consequently, the judge ordered sworn declarations detailing the events and reasons for the secrecy.
Read More
Brown University medical professor Rasha Alawieh was deported to Lebanon despite possessing a valid US work visa and a judge’s order preventing her removal. The government cited “sympathetic photos and videos” related to Hezbollah and attendance at a Hezbollah leader’s funeral as justification. This deportation, alongside the deportation of over 250 immigrants to El Salvador, occurred despite judicial orders halting the removals, demonstrating a pattern of defiance towards court rulings. Alawieh’s case underscores escalating immigration policies targeting universities, particularly following pro-Palestinian protests.
Read More
The Trump administration defied a federal court order, deporting over 200 Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law intended for wartime use. Top officials, including the president and vice president, celebrated the deportations, claiming the individuals were criminals, despite lacking due process. This action was met with widespread condemnation, with critics citing the administration’s disregard for the rule of law and judicial authority. Simultaneously, the administration also deported Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University professor, in violation of a separate court order, further highlighting the administration’s disregard for legal process.
Read More
On Saturday, citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, the Trump administration deported 261 individuals, claiming they were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua posing an imminent threat. While 137 deportations were explicitly linked to the Act, the basis for the remaining removals remains unclear, with family members disputing gang affiliations for some deportees. A federal judge subsequently issued a temporary restraining order halting further deportations, though the administration claims the order was moot as the flights had already departed. This action has sparked debate surrounding the administration’s compliance with judicial orders and the constitutional implications of the mass deportation.
Read More
Judge Alsup denied the Trump administration’s request to stay his order reinstating thousands of unlawfully fired probationary federal employees. The judge cited the increasing difficulty of reinstatement with each passing day and the government’s attempts to obstruct the legal process. Alsup deemed the administration’s mass firings a sham, designed to circumvent statutory requirements, and rejected the DOJ’s arguments regarding administrative burdens and speculative harm claims. He emphasized that OPM cannot direct agencies to fire employees under the guise of guidance, and the administration’s refusal to provide testimony further demonstrated its obstructive tactics. The DOJ intends to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
Read More
Following a court order to cease pausing federal grant programs, a FEMA official directed a freeze on funding for numerous programs, defying the judge’s mandate. This action, affecting programs ranging from emergency preparedness to tribal security, followed the firing of four FEMA officials allegedly for circumventing leadership and making payments for migrant housing in New York City. The firings stem from claims by Elon Musk and President Trump that FEMA illegally spent millions on migrant housing, violating an executive order. The White House maintains that the president’s executive authority will ultimately prevail over judicial blocks.
Read More
A temporary restraining order (TRO) by Judge Engelmayer prevents Elon Musk’s team from accessing Treasury Department data without proper security clearances, citing violations of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Tax Reform Act of 1976. The government opposes the TRO, arguing it restricts executive branch power, while critics like Musk and JD Vance falsely claim judicial overreach. This controversy highlights the ongoing debate over executive authority versus judicial oversight and the potential for disregard of court orders. The core issue is whether the administration can circumvent established laws and regulations regarding data access, not whether the executive branch can obtain the data itself.
Read More
Following recent court losses, Trump condemned judicial rulings against him, asserting widespread fraud and abuse necessitate investigation, regardless of judicial decisions. This defiance, echoed by JD Vance, threatens the separation of powers, as it suggests disregard for judicial oversight of executive actions. The situation is further complicated by Musk’s significant campaign funding, raising concerns about undue influence. This escalating disregard for judicial authority risks a constitutional crisis with seemingly no effective check on the executive branch.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker