Courts and the Judiciary

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares42 Views

    Attacks on Judges Undermine Democracy, Warns Ketanji Brown Jackson

    by

    Speaking to a judicial conference, the Supreme Court justice said attacks were designed to intimidate and influence.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court’s newest member, denounced on Thursday what she described as “relentless attacks” on judges, and an environment of harassment that “ultimately risks undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”“ Across the nation, judges are facing increased threats of not only physical violence, but also professional retaliation just for doing our jobs,” said Justice Jackson, speaking at a conference for judges held in Puerto Rico. “And the attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity.”Justice Jackson did not mention President Trump by name nor cite any specific attacks against the nation’s judges. However, her remarks came as Mr. Trump and his allies have repeatedly targeted judges who have blocked key pieces of his agenda, even calling for judges who have ruled against him to be impeached.Those calls drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in March, who described them as “not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”Threats of physical violence against judges have also been on the rise, with judges facing bomb threats and a rash of delivery of anonymously dispatched pizzas, a prank apparently designed to send a message that their home addresses can be found.The forceful comments by Justice Jackson were rare for the justice. Since joining the court in 2022, she has focused many of her public appearances on telling the personal story of her rise to become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares66 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says He Could Free Abrego Garcia From El Salvador, but Won’t

      by

      Trump’s comments undermined previous statements by his top aides and were a blunt sign of his administration’s intention to double down and defy the courts.President Trump, whose administration has insisted it could not bring Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador to the United States, said he does have the ability to help return the wrongly deported Maryland man, but is not willing to do so because he believes he is a gang member.“You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent, noting a Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia.“I could,” Mr. Trump replied.Mr. Moran said Mr. Trump could call Mr. Bukele and get Mr. Abrego Garcia back immediately.“And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Mr. Trump said. “But he is not.” Mr. Trump added that government lawyers do not want to help bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States.Mr. Trump’s comments not only undermined previous statements by his top aides, but were a blunt sign of his administration’s intention to double down and defy the courts. Before the interview with ABC News, the administration had dug in on its refusal to heed the Supreme Court order to help return Mr. Abrego Garcia, who is a Salvadoran migrant. Trump officials have said that because he was now in a Salvadoran prison, it was up the Salvadoran government to release him.The Justice Department has argued that it can respond to the Supreme Court’s demand that the administration “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release by doing little more than letting him enter if he manages to present himself at a port of entry.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares52 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Temporarily Blocks Border Patrol’s Stop-and-Arrest Tactics in California

      by

      Border Patrol agents carried out sweeps in California’s Central Valley. Lawyers argued that people were stopped and arrested based on their skin color.In January, Border Patrol agents conducted sweeps through immigrant communities in California’s Central Valley, arresting nearly 80 individuals the agency said were unlawfully present in the United States.Officials said the operation, named “Return to Sender,” was intended to target undocumented immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds. But lawyers for those arrested argued that the agents had simply rounded up people who appeared to be day laborers and farm workers, regardless of their actual immigration status, without having a legally sound reason to suspect they were in the country illegally.On Tuesday, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction barring Border Patrol agents from stopping individuals without having a reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, as required by the Fourth Amendment.The judge also blocked agents from making warrantless arrests unless they have probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.The Trump administration has adopted increasingly aggressive tactics in pursuit of its goal of mass deportations, but has faced pushback from the judiciary. The California ruling marks the latest attempt by courts to rein in enforcement actions that appear to conflict with long-established constitutional and legal protections.Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California noted in her ruling that the government did not “dispute or rebut” the “significant anecdotal evidence” from the plaintiffs regarding Border Patrol’s stop-and-arrest practices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares88 Views

      in Elections

      What We Know About Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan’s Arrest

      by

      Judge Hannah Dugan is accused of obstructing justice after directing a migrant out of her courtroom as federal agents waited to arrest him. Her arrest has raised several questions.F.B.I. agents arrested on Friday a Milwaukee judge accused of obstructing justice by directing an undocumented immigrant out of her courtroom through a side door while federal immigration agents waited in a hallway to arrest him.The arrest of the judge, Hannah C. Dugan, quickly drew condemnation from Democratic leaders and prompted protests in the Wisconsin city.But the U.S. attorney general, Pam Bondi, defended the move, saying Judge Dugan’s arrest sent a “strong message” to judges that the Trump administration will prosecute them if they obstruct justice by “escorting a criminal defendant out a back door.”A protest was held in front of the Milwaukee County Courthouse to support Judge Dugan on Friday.Scott Olson/Getty ImagesAnd after the arrest, the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, posted a photo of her in handcuffs on X, adding, “No one is above the law.”The arrest has raised several questions — many of which remain unanswered. Here’s what we know so far.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares65 Views

      in Elections

      Judges Worry Trump Could Tell U.S. Marshals to Stop Protecting Them

      by

      The marshals are in an increasingly bitter conflict between two branches of government, even as funding for judges’ security has failed to keep pace with a steady rise in threats.On March 11, about 50 judges gathered in Washington for the biannual meeting of the Judicial Conference, which oversees the administration of the federal courts. It was the first time the conference met since President Trump retook the White House.In the midst of discussions of staffing levels and long-range planning, the judges’ conversations were focused, to an unusual degree, on rising threats against judges and their security, said several people who attended the gathering.Behind closed doors at one session, Judge Richard J. Sullivan, the chairman of the conference’s Committee on Judicial Security, raised a scenario that weeks before would have sounded like dystopian fiction, according to three officials familiar with the remarks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations: What if the White House were to withdraw the protections it provides to judges?The U.S. Marshals Service, which by law oversees security for the judiciary, is part of the Justice Department, which Mr. Trump is directly controlling in a way that no president has since the Watergate scandal.Judge Sullivan noted that Mr. Trump had stripped security protections from Mike Pompeo, his former secretary of state, and John Bolton, his former national security adviser. Could the federal judiciary, also a recent target of Mr. Trump’s ire, be next?Judge Sullivan, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and then elevated to an appellate judgeship by Mr. Trump, referred questions about his closed-door remarks to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which stated its “complete confidence in those responsible for judicial security.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Executive Order Makes It Easier to Fire Probationary Federal Workers

      by

      The order declares that employees will only attain full employment status if their managers review and sign off on their performance, adding a new obstacle for probationary workers to clear.President Trump issued an executive order on Thursday making it easier for the government to fire federal employees who are in a probationary period.Probationary government workers already have far fewer job protections than their established colleagues, and they were the Trump administration’s first targets for mass firings earlier this year. At least 24,000 of those terminations have led to court-ordered reinstatements that were overturned on appeals.Normally, probationary federal employees attain full status in one or two years, depending on the job — unless the agency they work for takes steps to dismiss them, which usually involves citing poor performance.Under the executive order, whose implications were outlined in a White House fact sheet, probationary employees will only attain full status if their managers review and sign off on their performance.“This is a very big step,” said Donald F. Kettl, professor emeritus and the former dean of the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. “The administration has been looking for ways to cut probationary employees, and this puts more power in the hands of agency managers.”Probationary workers can range from young people entering the work force to longtime employees promoted to new positions. Many probationary employees are highly skilled, were recruited for specific roles and have been vetted throughout the government’s hiring process.Tens of thousands of probationary workers targeted by the Trump administration’s cuts have been in limbo for months. Most are on administrative leave and are getting paid, but have no indication of how long that will continue.Mr. Kettl said that the executive order Mr. Trump issued on Thursday suggested that the administration had learned some lessons from the court challenges to its mass firings.Once the Office of Personnel Management, the government’s human resources arm, formally issues the new policy, the government will be in a better legal position to fire probationary employees, he said. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      An Urgent Supreme Court Order Protecting Migrants Was Built for Speed

      by

      There are sculptures of tortoises scattered around the Supreme Court grounds. They symbolize, the court’s website says, “the slow and steady pace of justice.”But the court can move fast when it wants to, busting through protocols and conventions. It did so around 1 a.m. on Saturday, blocking the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members under a rarely invoked 18th-century wartime law.The court’s unsigned, one-paragraph order was extraordinary in many ways. Perhaps most important, it indicated a deep skepticism about whether the administration could be trusted to live up to the key part of an earlier ruling after the government had deported a different group of migrants to a prison in El Salvador.That unsigned and apparently unanimous ruling, issued April 7, said that detainees were entitled to be notified if the government intended to deport them under the law, “within a reasonable time,” and in a way that would allow the deportees to challenge the move in court before their removal.There were indications late Friday that the administration was poised to violate both the spirit and letter of that ruling. Lawyers for the detainees said their clients were given notices that they were eligible to be deported under the law, the Alien Enemies Act. The notices were written in English, a language many of them do not speak, the lawyers said. And they provided no realistic opportunity to go to court.The American Civil Liberties Union, racing against the clock, filed its emergency application to the Supreme Court on Friday evening — Good Friday, as it happened — and urged the court to take immediate action to protect the detainees as part of a proposed class action.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares84 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Temporarily Halts Mass Firings at Consumer Bureau

      by

      One day after the Trump administration sent layoff notices to the vast majority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s workers, a federal judge temporarily blocked the action and ordered a hearing to determine whether the attempted mass firing violated an injunction she imposed last month.In a brief court session Friday morning, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington pressed Justice Department lawyers for details about layoff notices sent Thursday to nearly 1,500 of the consumer bureau’s 1,700 workers. The messages told workers that they would lose access to their email accounts and work systems on Friday evening.Judge Jackson issued an oral order, followed by a written one, barring the government from carrying out that plan until at least April 28, when she plans to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Her ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the consumer bureau’s staff union and other parties.“Once again, the court is confronted with evidence that gives rise to concerns that there will be no agency standing by the time it gets to consider the merits,” she said in her written order.Russell T. Vought, director of the White House budget office, became the consumer bureau’s acting director in early February and immediately began dismantling the agency — which cannot be closed without congressional action. Judge Jackson issued an injunction last month freezing those actions, saying that she wanted to make sure the agency existed long enough for courts to evaluate whether Mr. Vought’s actions were lawful.One week ago, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pared back Judge Jackson’s order and said Trump officials could fire workers whom they decided — after a “particularized assessment” — were not needed to fulfill the agency’s legally mandated responsibilities.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares112 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Says One DOGE Member Can Access Sensitive Treasury Dept. Data

      by

      Nineteen state attorneys general had sued to block Elon Musk’s government efficiency team from accessing Treasury systems that include Americans’ bank account and Social Security information.A Manhattan federal judge ruled on Friday that one member of Elon Musk’s government efficiency program could have access to sensitive payment and data systems at the Treasury Department, as long as that person goes through appropriate training and files disclosures.The order by the judge, Jeannette A. Vargas, came nearly two months after she had ruled that Mr. Musk’s team, members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, would be banished from the agency’s systems until the conclusion of a lawsuit that claims the group’s access is unlawful.Friday night’s order partly dissolves the earlier preliminary injunction by granting Ryan Wunderly, who was hired as a special adviser for information technology and modernization, access to the Treasury systems in dispute, Judge Vargas wrote.To gain the access, however, Mr. Wunderly will have to complete hands-on training “typically required of other Treasury employees granted commensurate access” and submit a financial disclosure report, the judge wrote.The case stems from a lawsuit filed in February by 19 state attorneys general, led by Letitia James of New York, who sued to block the Trump administration’s policy of allowing political appointees and “special government employees” who work with Mr. Musk to access the systems. The systems contain some of the country’s most sensitive information, including Americans’ bank account and Social Security data.The attorneys general argued that only career civil servants who have received training and security clearances should have access. The untrained members of Mr. Musk’s team should not have “unfettered access,” they said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More