Law (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    188 Shares12 Views

    What is a ‘criminal’ immigrant? The word is an American rhetorical trap | Jonathan Ben-Menachem

    by

    Last month, the Trump administration flew 238 Venezuelan immigrants to a brutal prison in El Salvador. Federal officials alleged that the detainees were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, calling them “heinous monsters” ,“criminal aliens”, “the worst of the worst”. The federal government has also revoked visas for a thousand international students over their alleged participation in protests against Israel’s genocide in Palestine. Some were abducted, like Mahmoud Khalil, who has spent more than a month incarcerated in one of the worst jails in the US. Officials alleged that Mahmoud “sided with terrorists … who have killed innocent men, women, and children”.Media reports quickly revealed that the Trump administration is lying about “innocent” people to justify abducting them. But this raises a more important question: if Trump’s victims weren’t “innocent”, does that make them disposable? I worry that emphasizing the innocence of victims creates a rhetorical trap. It’s like carefully digging a pit that the fascists can shove us into.Instead, we should interrogate the fact that the Trump administration chose to target “gang members” and “terrorist supporters” in the first step of its ethnic cleansing project. Criminals and terrorists are the bogeymen animating bipartisan racism against Black, Latino and Arab people, and Trump is weaponizing these myths because many liberals have already written them off as less than human. The political context that enabled US residents to be shipped to El Salvador’s Cecot facility is a bipartisan project more than 50 years in the making, largely unquestioned by people who are rightfully horrified by recent escalations.Allegations of criminality have long been an effective pretext for anti-Black violence in the US – this is the “war on crime”. So long as there are “criminals” to fight, vicious police brutality becomes politically palatable. This is true in blue and red states alike. The gang member is the latest symbol used to dehumanize Black and Latino people, replacing the “superpredator”. In practice, police and prosecutors invoke the specter of monstrous gangs to continue targeting entire neighborhoods while evading allegations of explicit discrimination.You can be added to a gang database because of your tattoos, the color of the clothing you wear or even for using certain emojis on social media. These lists are riddled with errors, sometimes naming toddlers and elders. More commonly, gang databases index the thousands of people – often children – swept up by police because of where they live or whom they socialize with. The consequences of gang policing are devastating: it can lead to federal prosecution or potential deportation, not to mention a lifetime of state harassment.Gang membership isn’t the only tool the Trump administration can use to portray its victims as guilty. When the “war on crime” morphed into the “war on terror”, Arab and Muslim residents suffered from discriminatory surveillance and repression – the “terrorist” category matches the “gang member” category in that it justifies racist dragnet policing practices. The “counter-terrorism” net has already widened, targeting Stop Cop City activists in Atlanta. This problem is not limited to Republicans – liberal politicians and university stakeholders laid the groundwork for Trump’s deportation efforts. Last year, the Anti-Defamation League’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, called student Palestine activists proxies for Iran, and New York City’s mayor, Eric Adams, smeared us as terrorist supporters to justify an incredibly violent police raid.The widening net of who is considered a criminal not only chills dissent among immigrants and activists. It further dehumanizes and renders disposable people who have genuinely committed harm.We must defend the rights of people who do have criminal records. No one deserves to be whisked away to a brutal prison that deprives them of basic human rights – no matter if it’s in El Salvador, Louisiana, California, Pennsylvania or New York. Criminal records and bona fide gang membership don’t turn human beings into monsters. If Trump goes through with his plan of sending citizens to El Salvador, he could initially target people convicted of heinous crimes. This would allow federal officials to ask: “Why do liberals care about pedophiles and murderers?”We should be prepared to defend the basic rights of all of Trump’s targets with our full strength. If a single person becomes disposable, anyone could become the next target. Last week, Trump said he “loved” the idea of sending American “criminals” to El Salvador, and law professors are sounding the alarm about citizen student activists being subjected to terrorism prosecutions. First it will be the “migrant gang member” or “terrorist on a student visa” sent to Cecot. Next it will be the domestic gang member and the terrorist-supporting citizen. Eventually, perhaps any political opponent could be construed as a criminal-terrorist.Trump may not even need to rely on the justice department to criminalize his enemies – dozens of local cops joined the 6 January 2021 putsch at the US Capitol, and local prosecutors have eagerly charged student activists with felonies. This is another reason to avoid the innocence trap: many police love Trump, and law enforcement can very easily make their adversaries seem like criminals.The innocence trap is dangerous because allegations of criminality have always been deployed to justify state violence. If we only defend the “innocent”, the fascists will argue that their victim “was no angel”. An anti-fascist rhetoric that carves out exceptions for imperfect victims is a gift to our opponents.

    Jonathan Ben-Menachem is a PhD candidate in sociology at Columbia University, where he researches the politics of criminalization More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Bad for democracy’: North Carolina could throw out valid ballots in tight election

      by

      More than five months after the 2024 election, a swath of voters in North Carolina are still unsure whether their votes will count in an unprecedented effort to overturn a valid US election.Democrat Allison Riggs defeated Republican Jefferson Griffin in a contest for the state supreme court. But after the election, Griffin challenged the eligibility of tens of thousands of voters. A ruling from the North Carolina supreme court on Friday paved the way for as many as 1,675 voters to have their ballots thrown out in the election – more than double Riggs’s margin of victory.The challenged voters include someone who grew up in the state, a professor who was there for two decades, a lifelong resident studying abroad, and someone who still owns a home there and plans to move back, according to Guardian interviews.But Griffin claims they are “never-residents”, people who voted in North Carolina who had no previous residency in or attachments to the state.The Guardian spoke with several voters, first identified by the publication Anderson Alerts with their list later expanded upon by Popular Information, who were all living overseas when they cast their ballots in the North Carolina state supreme court race.At risk are two groups: 1,409 overseas voters from Guilford county, a Democratic-leaning area, who voted without showing photo ID – something that the law allows. Then, there are 266 overseas voters whom Griffin alleges have never lived in North Carolina, according to the North Carolina state board of elections.View image in fullscreenThe court gave 30 days for elections officials to get more information from the overseas voters. It said that the 266 voters suspected of never being residents in the state should have their ballots thrown out.That would mean that the vote cast by Josey Wright, a 25-year-old PhD student studying in the UK, wouldn’t count.Wright lived in North Carolina from early childhood until age 18. Her parents still live there, and she visits most years, typically spending summers there. She voted from abroad using a web portal available to US citizens who now live overseas, as she has done in several local and national elections since she moved to the UK to study.She found out her vote may not be counted after a reporter contacted her in recent days.“It’s a bit frustrating because it’s already a bit more difficult, I think, to vote as an overseas voter,” Wright said. “You have to be paying attention to US elections and also submit quite a bit of paperwork in order to get your ballot and to sign up for the portal. It’s a bit disheartening that, after all that effort, my vote actually might not be counted.”The legal battle has drawn attention nationwide and protests locally because the courts could potentially overturn Riggs’s victory by changing the rules of election procedure after the election happened. It’s a road map that election challengers in other states, and in much bigger contests, could use in the future, if it’s successful. If Trump had lost North Carolina, he was expected to make similar arguments.The ruling also set off a scramble to figure out next steps for the unprecedented election challenge. There’s confusion over how to find these voters, how to cure their ballots, and what next steps will look like.The state board of elections said in a court filing yesterday that these voters would be reviewed by elections officials to see whether they have claims of residency in North Carolina, and whether, if they were found to be one-time residents and otherwise valid, their ballots would count.Multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court to stop the ruling from taking effect. Plaintiffs in one of the cases include a military spouse living in Italy who was born and raised in North Carolina; a lifelong resident who moved to Switzerland for her husband’s PhD program who is in the process of moving back to the state; a North Carolinian teaching English abroad on a one-year contract and a teacher at an air force base in Japan who lived in the state until last year.A federal court in North Carolina said elections officials should begin the ballot curing process but otherwise hold off on certifying any results pending the court process. The judge in that case, a Trump appointee, would not issue a stay of the case.State law has long allowed overseas voters who claim North Carolina residency to vote in the state.But in interviews, several of those voters said they actually had lived in the US and were confused about the challenge to their eligibility and unsure how, or whether, they could fix it.Josiah Young, 20, was studying abroad in Spain when he cast an absentee ballot online, voting in his first presidential election. He is a freshman at American University in Washington DC, but a lifelong North Carolinian. He voted in his home state, which he still has listed as his permanent residence.Young found out his vote had been challenged a couple of months ago, after one of his father’s colleagues shared a PDF that included voters challenged by Jefferson Griffin in a lawsuit. “Lo and behold, at the bottom of the list is a couple pages dedicated just to me. I was definitely surprised,” he said.“It’s pretty disappointing. As a first-time voter, I feel like I pretty much did everything that I was supposed to do. I cast my ballot legally, and then just to find out that someone, or anyone, is challenging my vote is pretty disappointing,” Young said.He believes he accidentally checked a box that said he had never lived in the US and didn’t plan on returning. He’s not sure there’s any way to remedy the situation and get his vote counted. He has not been notified about his inclusion on the list by any elections officials or challengers, he said. He could have remedied the problem quickly, as he voted early, so he wishes he had known.One North Carolina voter who requested to speak anonymously said they believed they had accidentally checked the wrong box on the form to request a ballot. Instead of saying that they intended to return to the US or were uncertain whether they would return, the voter said they had never lived in the US.The voter, who was abroad for six years but has since returned to the US, first learned about the challenge last fall and tried to notify their local election office, but never heard back. “I’m really upset that he would try to change the rules after losing the election,” the voter said. “I think that’s just very bad form for democracy.”Another challenged voter, Neil McWilliam, taught at Duke University for two decades before moving to France with his family in 2023. Originally from the UK, McWilliam, his wife and his son were naturalized in 2013, and he has voted in every state and federal election since. He is a Democrat, and his wife is registered as an independent. His vote was challenged, and hers was not.“Political operatives like Griffin hope to instill cynicism and hopelessness in those who oppose them,” McWilliam said. “The answer is not to reject voting as a waste of time, but to redouble efforts to ensure that everybody who is eligible can and does vote in fair elections free from partisan manipulation.”David Eberhard, also challenged by Griffin, is a former North Carolina resident who moved to Italy for his son’s education but still owns his home in the state and intends to return. He voted while living in Italy in 2024 using the online forms provided by local officials, he said. He found out he had been challenged in January, has no idea why, and updated his information with North Carolina local officials. He’s unsure of exactly what he’s supposed to do.“If I am supposed to present my credentials to a local official in person, I will have to travel at considerable expense and inconvenience, just because Griffin couldn’t bother with the inconvenience of ensuring that the names on his list were in fact improperly registered,” he said. More

    • 188 Shares20 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge finds probable cause to hold Trump officials in contempt over alien act deportations

      by

      A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that there was probable cause to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt for violating his temporary injunction that barred the use of the Alien Enemies Act wartime power to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.In a scathing 46-page opinion, James Boasberg, the chief US district judge for Washington, wrote that senior Trump officials could either return the people who were supposed to have been protected by his injunction, or face contempt proceedings.The judge also warned that if the administration tried to stonewall his contempt proceedings or instructed the justice department to decline to file contempt charges against the most responsible officials, he would appoint an independent prosecutor himself.“The court does not reach such conclusions lightly or hastily,” Boasberg wrote. “Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to explain their actions. None of their responses have been satisfactory.”The threat of contempt proceedings marked a major escalation in the showdown over Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members, without normal due process, in his expansive interpretation of his executive power.It came one day after another federal judge, in a separate case involving the wrongful deportation of a man to El Salvador, said she would force the administration to detail what steps it had taken to comply with a US supreme court order compelling his return.In that case, US district judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to answer questions in depositions and in writing about whether it had actually sought to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Ábrego García, who was protected from being sent to El Salvador.Taken together, the decisions represented a developing effort by the federal judiciary to hold the White House accountable for its apparent willingness to flout adverse court orders and test the limits of the legal system.At issue in the case overseen by Boasberg is the Trump administration’s apparent violation of his temporary restraining order last month blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act – and crucially to recall planes that had already departed.The administration never recalled the planes and argued, after the fact, that they did not follow Boasberg’s order to recall the planes because he gave that instruction verbally and it was not included in his later written order.In subsequent hearings, lawyers for the Trump administration also suggested that even if Boasberg had included the directive in his written order, by the time he had granted the temporary restraining order, the deportation flights were outside US airspace and therefore beyond the judge’s jurisdiction.Boasberg excoriated that excuse and others in his opinion, writing that under the so-called collateral-bar rule, if a party is charged with acting in contempt for disobeying a court order, it cannot raise the possible legal invalidity of the order as a defense.“If Defendants believed – correctly or not – that the Order encroached upon the President’s Article II powers, they had two options: they could seek judicial review of the injunction but not disobey it, or they could disobey it but forfeit any right to raise their legal argument as a defense,” Boasberg wrote.Boasberg also rejected the administration’s claim that his authority over the planes disappeared the moment they left US airspace, finding that federal courts regularly restrain executive branch conduct abroad, even when it touches on national security matters.“That courts can enjoin US officials’ overseas conduct simply reflects the fact that an injunction … binds the enjoined parties wherever they might be; the ‘situs of the [violation], whether within or without the United States, is of no importance,’” Boasberg wrote.Boasberg added he was unpersuaded by the Trump administration’s efforts to stonewall his attempts to date to establish whether it knew it had deliberately flouted his injunction, including by invoking the state secrets doctrine to withhold basic information about when and what times the planes departed.“The Court is skeptical that such information rises to the level of a state secret. As noted, the Government has widely publicized details of the flights through social media and official announcements thereby revealing snippets of the information the Court seeks,” Boasberg wrote. More

    • 125 Shares23 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration sued over tariffs in US international trade court

      by

      A legal advocacy group on Monday asked the US court of international trade to block Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs on foreign trading partners, arguing that the president overstepped his authority.The lawsuit was filed by the Liberty Justice Center, a legal advocacy group, on behalf of five US businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the tariffs.“No one person should have the power to impose taxes that have such vast global economic consequences,” Jeffrey Schwab, Liberty Justice Center’s senior counsel, said in a statement. “The Constitution gives the power to set tax rates – including tariffs – to Congress, not the President.”The Liberty Justice Center is the litigation arm of the Illinois Policy Institute, a free market thinktank. It was instrumental in the supreme court case Janus v AFSCME in which it successfully fought to weaken public labor unions collective bargaining power.According to the group’s statement, the tariffs case was filed on behalf of five owner-operated businesses who have been severely harmed by the tariffs. The businesses include a New York-based company specializing in the importation and distribution of wines and spirits, an e-commerce business specializing in the production and sale of sportfishing tackle, a company that manufactures ABS pipe in the United States using imported ABS resin from South Korea and Taiwan, a small business based in Virginia that makes educational electronic kits and musical instruments, and a Vermont-based brand of women’s cycling apparel.Representatives of the White House did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.The Trump administration faces a similar lawsuit in Florida federal court, where a small business owner has asked a judge to block tariffs imposed on China. More

    • 138 Shares45 Views

      in US Politics

      The Trump administration trapped a wrongly deported man in a catch-22

      by

      It is difficult to find a term more fitting for the fate of the Maryland father Kilmar Abrego García than Kafkaesque.Abrego García is one of hundreds of foreign-born men deported under the Trump administration to the Cecot mega-prison in El Salvador as part of a macabre partnership with the self-declared “world’s coolest dictator”, Nayib Bukele.The US government has admitted it deported Abrego García by mistake. But instead of “facilitating” his return as ordered by the supreme court, the administration has trapped Abrego García in a catch-22 by offshoring his fate to a jurisdiction beyond the reach of legality – or, it would seem, basic logic or common decency.The paradox is this: the Trump administration says it cannot facilitate the return of Abrego García because he is in a prison in El Salvador. El Salvador says it cannot return him because that would be tantamount to “smuggling” him into the US.The absurdity of the position played out on Monday during an Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump and Bukele where the two men appeared to enjoy mocking the powerlessness of the US courts to intervene in the fate of anyone caught in the maws of the Trump administration’s deportation machine.“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I’m not going to do it,” Bukele said when asked about whether he would help to return Abrego García.There is no evidence that Abrego García is a terrorist or a member of the gang MS-13 as the Trump administration has claimed. But that is not really important here.“I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele said during a meeting with the US president on Monday. “They’d love to have a criminal released into our country,” Trump added.Trump’s lieutenants also jumped in on Monday, arguing that they could not intervene in the case because Bukele is a foreign citizen and outside of their control.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“He is a citizen of El Salvador,” said Stephen Miller, a top Trump aide who regularly advises the president on immigration issues. “It’s very arrogant even for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens.”A district court injunction to halt the deportation was in effect, he added, an order to “kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here”.Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, repeated one of the Trump administration’s mantras: that US courts cannot determine Trump’s foreign policy. Increasingly, the administration is including questions of immigration in that foreign policy in order to defy the courts.Monday’s presentation was in effect a pantomime. Both sides could quickly intervene if they wanted to. But this was a means to an end. Miller said this case would not end with Abrego García living in the US.More broadly, it indicates the Trump administration’s modus operandi: to move quickly before the courts can react to its transgressions and, when they do, to deflect and defy until the damage done cannot be reversed. More

    • 175 Shares66 Views

      in US Politics

      The case against Mahmoud Khalil is meant to silence American dissent | Moustafa Bayoumi

      by

      On Friday afternoon, a federal immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, the lawful permanent resident who was arrested last month for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University, was removable – that is to say, deportable – under the law.Let’s be absolutely clear about how outrageous this decision is. The judge, Jamee Comans, had given the Trump administration a deadline to produce the evidence required to show that Khalil should be deported. In a functional state, such evidence would rise to a standard of extreme criminality necessitating deportation.But not in this case and certainly not with the Trump administration, which has summarily deported hundreds of Venezuelan men based not on any verifiable criminal activity but simply on the basis of their body art. In response to the judge’s order, the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, produced a flimsy one-and-a-half-page memo that admits that Khalil engaged in no criminal conduct. Instead, the memo, citing an arcane law, stated that Khalil’s “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful … compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest”. In other words, the government was saying that Khalil’s views – including even his future views – were sufficient grounds for his deportation.Make no mistake. The government is seeking to deport Khalil solely for his constitutionally protected speech, a protection that applies to everyone in the United States. If the government succeeds, you could well be next. And don’t think that your citizenship will protect you. If the government can deny the basic right of freedom of speech to lawful permanent residents, what’s to stop them from going after citizens next? (The administration already has a plan to denaturalize US citizens.)Do we really want to live in a country where the government can decide which ideas are allowed to be heard and which cannot? I’m surprised that I even have to write these words. In an open society, free debate is encouraged and needed, while in a closed society, lists of proscribed ideas circulate and proliferate, and it’s frighteningly clear which way we’re headed. The Trump administration has already banned the use of words and phrases such as “equity”, “women” and “Native American” from government websites and documents, showing us how the open door of American democracy is slamming shut faster and louder than we could have imagined. And Khalil’s case is the test of what this government can achieve.Rubio alleges that Khalil engaged in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States”. But he provides no evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, here’s what Khalil told CNN last year: “As a Palestinian student, I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand, and you cannot achieve one without the other. Our movement is a movement for social justice and freedom and equality for everyone.”It would seem that Rubio believes the phrase “freedom and equality for everyone” undermines US foreign policy interests. He may finally be right about something. But he’s wrong about Khalil, who clearly is not antisemitic. If Rubio wanted to cleanse the country of the noxious hatred of Jewish people, he could start by examining members of his own party. Marjorie Taylor Greene once speculated publicly that California wildfires were started by a beam from “space solar generators” linked to “Rothschild, Inc”, a disgusting nod to bizarre antisemitic conspiracy theories. Robert F Kennedy Jr said that the coronavirus had been manipulated to make “Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people” the most immune to Covid-19. Elon Musk can barely keep his arm from extending into a salute, Dr Strangelove-style.It’s not some illusory antisemitism that has brought the wrath of the Trump administration raining down on Khalil. It’s the fact that he was standing up for Palestinian rights and calling out Israel’s actions, labelled genocidal by jurists, experts and international human rights organizations alike. But the US government does not want the American people to even entertain this discussion, which includes American complicity in this human catastrophe that is also US foreign policy, and so it will use every means at its disposal to forestall the possibility, including the bluntest instrument in the political book: mass fear.The attempt to deport Khalil is meant primarily to discipline the people of the United States into silence and conformity. For that reason alone, the government’s actions must be resisted. Healthy societies are based on free thinking and dissent. Unhealthy societies mobilize fear and intimidation to regulate opinion and manufacture consent. Today, that consent is about Israel. Tomorrow, it will be about something else. Either way, it will never be your choice, and it will always be theirs.Many legal observers were anticipating today’s ruling by Comans. Immigration judges are appointed by the Department of Justice. As such, they are employees of the executive branch and not the federal judiciary. The New York Times even noted that, had Comans dissented from the government, she would also have “run the risk of being fired by an administration that has targeted dissenters”. The ACLU speculated that the decision to deport Khalil had been “pre-written”, as it was delivered so fast. And Comans stated that the constitutional questions raised by the case will be heard in federal court in New Jersey and not in immigration court in Louisiana.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThat doesn’t mean that Judge Comans couldn’t have ruled otherwise. On the contrary, the decision is another dangerous illustration of how much power the executive branch in the United States always wields, how much more power the Trump administration is willing to assume, and how deferential the institutions that could rein in this administration have become.This structural cowardice on the part of these institutions is doing great harm to the integrity of American democracy, often expressed in some sort of embarrassed whisper. Khalil, on the other hand, speaks loudly and eloquently for his position. At the end of his hearing in Louisiana, Khalil asked to address the court. “You said last time that there’s nothing that’s more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness,” he said. “Neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process. This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family. I just hope that the urgency that you deemed fit for me are afforded to the hundreds of others who have been here without hearing for months.”Mahmoud Khalil is clearly a remarkable, principled man. He doesn’t deserve this unjust detention the US government is subjecting him to. The irony is that this United States doesn’t deserve a Mahmoud Khalil.

      Moustafa Bayoumi is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 175 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump DoJ unable to tell court where man wrongly deported to El Salvador is

      by

      Lawyers for the Trump administration were unable on Friday to tell a federal court exactly where the Maryland resident who was wrongly deported to El Salvador last month is or how he is, as the judge admonished the government at a heated hearing.The US district judge Paula Xinis said it was “extremely troubling” that the Trump administration failed to comply with a court order to provide details on the whereabouts and status of the Salvadorian citizen Kilmar Abrego García and she wanted daily updates on what the government is doing to bring him home.“Where is he and under whose authority?” Xinis asked in a Maryland courtroom.“I’m not asking for state secrets,” she said. “All I know is that he’s not here. The government was prohibited from sending him to El Salvador, and now I’m asking a very simple question: where is he?”The government side responded that it had no evidence that he is not still in El Salvador. “That is extremely troubling,” Xinis said.As Newsweek reported, Xinis added: “We’re not going to slow-walk this … We’re not relitigating what the supreme court has already put to bed.”The US supreme court on Thursday upheld the judge’s order to facilitate Abrego García’s return to the US, after a lawsuit filed by the man and his family challenging the legality of his summary deportation on 15 March.Abrego García has had a US work permit since 2019 but was stopped and detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) officers on 12 March and questioned about alleged gang affiliation. He was deported on one of three high-profile deportation flights to El Salvador made up chiefly of Venezuelans whom the government accuses of being gang members and assumed special powers to expel without a hearing.Xinis on Friday repeatedly pressed a government attorney for answers but the administration defied her order for details on how or when it would retrieve Abrego García and claimed she had not given them enough time to prepare.“I’m not sure what to take from the fact that the supreme court has spoken quite clearly and yet I can’t get an answer today about what you’ve done, if anything, in the past,” Xinis said.Drew Ensign, an attorney with the Department of Justice, repeated what the administration had said in court filings, that it would provide the requested information by the end of Tuesday, once it evaluated the supreme court ruling.“Have they done anything?” Xinis asked. Ensign said he did not have personal knowledge of what had been done, to which the judge responded: “So that means they’ve done nothing.”The administration said in a court filing earlier on Friday that it was “unreasonable and impracticable” to say what its next steps are before they are properly agreed upon and vetted.“Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review,” the filing said.Abrego García’s lawyers said in a Friday court filing: “The government continues to delay, obfuscate, and flout court orders, while a man’s life and safety is at risk.”The case highlights the administration’s tensions with federal courts. Several have blocked Trump policies, and judges have expressed frustration with administration efforts – or lack of them – to comply with court orders.Abrego García’s wife, US citizen Jennifer Vásquez Sura, has not been able to speak to him since he was flown to his native El Salvador last month and imprisoned. She has been rallying outside court and has urged their supporters to keep fighting for him “and all the Kilmars out there whose stories are still waiting to be heard”.The family sued to challenge the legality of his deportation and on 4 April Xinis ordered the administration to “facilitate and effectuate” his return. The administration challenged that order at the supreme court, which upheld Xinis’s order but said the term “effectuate” was unclear and might exceed the court’s authority.The justice department in a supreme court filing on 7 April stated that while Abrego García was deported to El Salvador through “administrative error”, his actual removal from the United States “was not error”. The error, department lawyers wrote, was in removing him specifically to El Salvador despite the deportation protection order.Asked at the White House media briefing on Friday if Donald Trump wants the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, to bring Abrego García with him when he visits the US on Monday, the press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said the supreme court’s ruling “made it very clear that it’s the administration’s responsibility to ‘facilitate’ the return, not to ‘effectuate’ the return”.Similarly, the administration’s court filing said: “The court has not yet clarified what it means to ‘facilitate’ or ‘effectuate’ the return as it relates to this case, as [the] plaintiff is in the custody of a foreign sovereign. Defendants request – and require – the opportunity to brief that issue prior to being subject to any compliance deadlines.”Maya Yang, Reuters and the Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 150 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Ice can conduct enforcement actions in places of worship, US judge says

      by

      A federal judge on Friday sided with the Trump administration in allowing immigration agents to conduct enforcement operations at houses of worship despite a lawsuit filed by religious groups over the new policy.Dabney Friedrich, a US district judge in Washington, refused to grant a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, more than two dozen Christian and Jewish groups representing millions of Americans.She found that only a handful of immigration enforcement actions had been conducted in or around churches or other houses of worship and that the evidence did not show “that places of worship are being singled out as special targets”.The groups argued the policy violated the right to practice their religion. Since Donald Trump retook the presidency in January, attendance has declined significantly, with some areas showing double-digit percentage drops, they said.The judge, though, found that the groups had not shown their drops were definitively linked to the church policy specifically, as opposed to broader increased actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) or other agencies.“That evidence suggests that congregants are staying home to avoid encountering ICE in their own neighborhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk,” wrote Friedrich, who was appointed by the Republican president during his first term.That means that simply reversing the policy on houses of worship would not necessarily mean immigrants would return to church, she found.On 20 January, his first day back in office, Trump’s administration rescinded a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy limiting where migrant arrests could happen. Its new policy said field agents using “common sense” and “discretion” could conduct immigration enforcement operations at houses of worship without a supervisor’s approval.Plaintiffs’ attorneys claimed the new DHS directive departs from the government’s 30-year-old policy against staging immigration enforcement operations in “protected areas” or “sensitive locations”.The ruling comes as Trump’s immigration crackdown hits courtrooms around the country. On Thursday alone, another judge cleared the way for the administration to require people in the country illegally to register with the government even as the US supreme court ordered the administration to work to bring back a man mistakenly deported to prison in El Salvador.There have been at least two other lawsuits over that sensitive locations policy. One Maryland-based judge agreed to block immigration enforcement operations for some religious faiths, including Quakers.A judge in Colorado, though, sided with the administration in another lawsuit over the reversal of the part of the policy that had limited immigration arrests at schools. More

    • 138 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      Fear spreads as Trump targets lawyers and non-profits in ‘authoritarian’ takedown

      by

      As Donald Trump dismantles federal agencies, his administration is also creating a chill among non-governmental groups, cowing non-profits, intimidating universities and extracting commitments from law firms to support his aims.Officials have launched investigations into progressive and climate organizations, colleges and recipients of government grants. Experts worry that if nongovernmental groups are frightened into silence, US democracy may not weather the strain.“Trump has a strikingly authoritarian instinct,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political science professor who co-authored the book How Democracies Die. “This is what authoritarians do, they go after civil society,” he added, referring to organizations that exist outside the government and often seek to hold it to account.Some institutions are caving to the president’s demands, or staying quiet about their work in the hope of evading his attention.But others facing attacks have solidified their resolve, doubling down on their missions and even directly taking on the administration.“We will continue to vindicate the rights of our clients, and we do so without fear, because we know that we’re right,” said attorney Eric Lee, who represents a student facing deportation.Attacks on lawyersThe administration has cracked down in particular on lawyers, especially those who have investigated Trump or represented those who oppose him.Trump has targeted individual law firms and collectively attacked immigration attorneys, who he alleges engage in “unscrupulous behavior”. Some Biden-era officials told the Washington Post they have been unable to find representation because of the menacing effect Trump has had on the field. Some law firms have caved to the president’s demands, obeying his orders as a way to stay in business.Paul Weiss agreed to $40m in free legal services to the Trump administration. Willkie Farr & Gallagher committed to spending $100m in pro bono work to causes the firm and Trump support, and Milbank struck a similar deal for $100m in pro bono services.The onslaught prompted Democratic attorneys general to write a letter to the legal community, saying Trump’s goal was to “deter lawyers from representing politically disfavored clients”.The American Bar Association (ABA) has rejected the president’s attempts to undermine lawyers and the courts, saying in a statement that these actions show a “clear and disconcerting pattern”.“If a court issues a decision this administration does not agree with, the judge is targeted,” the statement said. “If a lawyer represents parties in a dispute with the administration, or if a lawyer represents parties the administration does not like, lawyers are targeted.” After issuing the missive, the association said it was “targeted” by a Trump official who told lawyers not to attend its meetings.Eric Lee, a lawyer for Momodou Taal, the British Gambian Cornell University student who faces deportation for participating in a pro-Palestinian demonstration, said it is “shameful, pathetic, feckless, cowardly” for major law firms and universities to acquiesce to Trump’s demands.It is also “historically uninformed” to believe giving in to these demands will get an authoritarian to moderate his positions, he said, encouraging lawyers to stand up for their profession.“We certainly are concerned about what is taking place,” Lee said. “But what can we do? If we stop fighting, then all is lost.”Chris Godshall-Bennett, the legal director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said that while the chilling effect is real, he doesn’t want people to believe they can’t get help. A lot of the attacks are “bluster”, he said, and there are lawyers willing to take a stand.“We have nothing to be afraid of, compared to the folks that we’re trying to help,” he said.Threatening non-profitsThe Trump administration is taking aim at non-profit advocacy groups, particularly if it sees their goals as antithetical to his aims. An array of non-profit employees told the Guardian that they are not willing to speak publicly about their work for fear of ending up on the administration’s radar.Some of the work in question was once seen as bipartisan or noncontroversial but is being treated as radical by the Trump administration, such as alleviating poverty, lowering utility bills or providing people with food.“I’m worried that the Trump administration is really intent on punishing who they perceive as their political opponents, even when those people, like, us are not at all political,” said one representative from a climate-focused organization, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of garnering attention from federal officials.Some advocates feel threatened for adhering to principles that were prioritized by the Biden administration.“Under Biden, we were asked to articulate the ways in which we would be using grant funds to live out environmental justice principles,” a representative from one grassroots non-profit in the north-east said. “Those are the values that are currently under attack.”In certain cases, groups who previously received federal money for their work are not only losing their funding, but also being targeted and demonized by administration officials.The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for instance, recently decided to terminate green grants worth $20bn, clawing back the money from Citibank, which was tasked with disbursing the funds. The justice department and FBI have launched a criminal investigation into three grantees, alleging possible legal violations including “conspiracy to defraud the United States”.Agencies have so far failed to legally support their claims of malfeasance, but have wrought havoc on the groups, with two non-profits exiting one of the coalitions being investigated.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe three grantees – Climate United Fund, the Coalition for Green Capital and Power Forward Communities – are suing EPA and Citibank in an effort to restore the funding.The Trump administration’s “unprecedented and unfounded actions” have put grantees “in impossible positions”, said a representative from Power Forward Communities.Organizations that received grants from Fema’s shelter and services program, are also being investigated, raising fear of additional crackdowns.“They’re not arresting people yet who work at non-profits, but everybody’s concerned that that is something that they might eventually do,” one person who works at an immigration non-profit told the Guardian.Many groups also worry that the Trump administration could seek to revoke their non-profit 501c3 status.In November, the House passed the “non-profit killer bill”, which would hand the executive branch broad powers to do so in the name of fighting “terrorism”. Many are concerned it will also pass the Senate if put up for a vote. But even in the absence of such legislation, advocates fear the administration will strip non-profits’ legal status on technical grounds.“We’re being especially careful to dot our Is and cross our Ts when it comes to meeting [501c3 legal] requirements,” said the north-east environmental justice advocate. The group is ensuring strict adherence to legal lobbying caps, and are being more cautious when using language criticizing the Trump administration – or even using politicized terms such as “environmental racism” – in written communications, the person said.If the attacks on 501c3 status come to fruition, non-profits may struggle to find legal representation and, given the attacks on the legal profession, be left to defend themselves in court.“There are so many organizations and charities that have benefited from the help of law firms, often pro bono assistance from firms that want to do good in their community, and the way they have to do that is through assisting with their legal services,” one non-profit executive told the Guardian. “The fact that firms now may no longer be able to do that leaves many organizations wondering if we are unprotected.”Trump’s attacks have also forced groups to be more cautious when considering filing or joining lawsuits that would make them more visible to federal officials, a worker at another immigration non-profit said, noting that non-profits’ ability to keep their tax legal status may depend on their shying away from their missions.Defunding universitiesUniversities, which are often hotbeds of progressive politics and dissent, are also facing repression. In early March, the administration announced the cancelation of $400m in grants and loans to Columbia University, alleging the school has failed to protect students from antisemitic harassment. In response, school officials yielded to a series of changes demanded by federal officials, sparking outrage from advocates.Weeks later, officials went after Harvard University, announcing a plan to review some $9bn in contracts and multiyear grants over accusations that the university also did not protect Jewish students and promoted “divisive ideologies over free inquiry”. The following day, Princeton University said dozens of its federal research grants were suspended over allegations of the promotion of antisemitism.The administration also paused $175m in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its inclusion of transgender athletes in women’s college sports.“I’ve studied authoritarianism and authoritarian regimes for more than 30 years [and] authoritarian regimes tend to go after universities because they are usually very influential centers of dissent,” said Harvard’s Levitsky, who was among the 700 who signed a letter calling for the university to resist pressure to capitulate to Trump’s demands.The Trump administration also announced a task force on alleged antisemitism at 10 major universities, placed 60 colleges and universities under investigation for allegations of antisemitic harassment and discrimination, and arrested current and former college students for participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.Jerry Nadler, a member of Congress from New York, said Trump is taking advantage of “the real pain American Jews face” in order to “wield control over the truth-seeking academic institutions that stand as a bulwark against authoritarianism”.Jason Stanley, a Yale professor who studies fascism, announced in March that he would be leaving the university to work at the University of Toronto, in part because of the US political climate. Columbia University’s decision to give in to Trump’s demands played a pivotal role in his decision to accept an offer from Toronto, he told the Guardian.Other academics are more hopeful. Michael Crow, the president of Arizona State University, said he is not giving into pressure because “if we get intimidated then imagine what happens in the society as a whole”. Instead, the university is attempting to defend itself, showing its record of success on the four dozen projects from which officials have pulled federal funding.“There is of course concern everywhere,” Crow said, “but now is the time to make your case stronger than ever”. More