Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares147 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge dismisses trespassing charges against immigrants crossing US-Mexico border

      by

      A federal judge in New Mexico on Thursday dismissed trespassing charges against dozens of immigrants caught in a new military zone on the US-Mexico border, marking a setback for Trump administration efforts to raise penalties for unlawful crossings into the US.Chief US magistrate judge Gregory Wormuth began filing the dismissals late on Wednesday, ruling that immigrants did not know they were entering the military zone in New Mexico and therefore could not be charged, according to court documents and a defense attorney.Assistant federal public defender Amanda Skinner said Wormuth dismissed trespassing charges against all immigrants who made initial court appearances on Thursday. The immigrants still face charges accusing them of crossing the border illegally.“Judge Wormuth found no probable cause,” Skinner said in an email.New Mexico US attorney Ryan Ellison, who filed the first trespassing charges against migrants on 28 April, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The so-called New Mexico national defense area was established in April along 180 miles (290km) of the border, and US army troops were authorized to detain immigrants entering the area from Mexico.A second buffer zone was set up in Texas this month. Defense secretary Pete Hegseth said in a social media post the military would continue to expand the zones to gain “100% operational control” of the border.US attorneys charged over 100 immigrants with crossing the border illegally and trespassing in the military zones in New Mexico and Texas. Potential combined penalties were up to 10 years imprisonment, according to Hegseth.But Wormuth pushed back against the charges for the immigrants in New Mexico, ordering Ellison on 1 May to show proof they were aware they entered the military zone unlawfully.Defense attorneys argued warning signs in the area were inadequate to inform immigrants they were committing a crime, a position Wormuth agreed with.“The criminal complaint fails to establish probable cause to believe the defendant knew he/she was entering” the military zone, Wormuth wrote in his orders dismissing charges.The Department of Defense did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment. More

    • 188 Shares128 Views

      in US Politics

      Newark mayor says prosecutors tried to ‘humilate’ him by forcing redo of fingerprints and mugshot

      by

      Ras Baraka, the Democratic mayor of Newark, said federal prosecutors were seeking to “humiliate and degrade” him by making him give fingerprints and have a mugshot taken for a second time on Thursday.The move came after a court appearance on a trespassing charge stemming from his arrest at an immigration detention center where he was protesting with several members of Congress.The charges against Baraka have unfolded amid fears that the Trump administration is seeking to prosecute Democratic politicians, judges or others who have opposed its policies.Baraka appeared in court for a roughly 15-minute procedural hearing before magistrate judge André Espinosa. The hearing covered mostly scheduling for discovery in the case, which stemmed from an encounter on Friday outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention center.Assistant prosecutor Stephen Demanovich said the government disputed Baraka’s claims that he committed no crime and was invited on to the facility’s property. Confusion over whether Baraka had been fingerprinted and processed after his arrest unfolded after the judge brought the proceedings to a close.As the parties began to walk away, the judge added that the mayor would need to be processed by the US Marshals Service and that it would take 10 minutes. Baraka, looking confused, said he had already been processed after his arrest. The judge said “agents” had processed him but not the marshals.“Let’s go,” Baraka said, before indicating he would go with the marshals.Speaking to a crowd of supporters outside court, Baraka addressed why it took him a while to emerge from the building.“They’re trying their best to humiliate and degrade me as much as they possibly can,” he said. “I feel like what we did was completely correct. We did not violate any laws. We stood up for the constitution of this country, the constitution of the state of New Jersey.”The trespassing charge against Baraka carries a maximum sentence of 30 days in prison.One of Baraka’s attorney’s, Rahul Agarwal, said the defense expected to seek to dismiss the charges because the mayor was arrested by federal agents on private property. He added that it was a “selective prosecution” and that only the mayor had been arrested.Demanovich said the government disputed that but did not go into detail.Baraka has been an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and a vocal opponent of the facility’s opening.In video of the Friday altercation shared with the Associated Press, a federal official in a jacket with the homeland security investigations logo can be heard telling Baraka he could not enter because “you are not a Congress member”.Baraka then left the secure area, rejoining protesters on the public side of the gate. Video showed him speaking through the gate to a man in a suit, who said: “They’re talking about coming back to arrest you.”“I’m not on their property. They can’t come out on the street and arrest me,” Baraka replied.Minutes later, several Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents, some wearing face coverings, surrounded him and others on the public side. Baraka was dragged back through the gate in handcuffs.Delaney Hall is a two-storey building next to a county prison and formerly operated as a halfway house. In February, Immigration and Customs Enforcement awarded a 15-year contract to the Geo Group Inc to run the detention center.Politicians and activists have said facility has been reopened in contravention of local ordinances and without the necessary permits. It is the largest such facility in the north-eastern US, and the first to open during Trump’s second term, according to Ice.A trial date for Baraka has not yet been set.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 188 Shares147 Views

      in US Politics

      This pregnant woman sued Trump over birthright citizenship. Now it’s up to the supreme court

      by

      With the highest court in the US poised to hear her case – and decide her family’s future – Monica was keeping busy babyproofing her house.Monica is a plaintiff in one of three lawsuits challenging Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship order, a case that is being heard before the nation’s highest court on Thursday. She’s expecting her first child in early August.The Guardian first spoke with her in January, not long after Trump took office and signed an executive order seeking to end the constitutionally recognized right of birthright citizenship. Since then, she said, her belly has grown bigger, her feet more swollen. And she is still waiting to see whether her baby will be born as a citizen, or stateless.“We can only wait and hope,” she said. “Let’s wait in faith and trust in the laws of this country.”The Guardian is not publishing Monica’s surname, to protect her from retribution. She and her husband fled political persecution in Venezuela in 2019, and came to the US seeking asylum. The couple had been waiting for their immigration court hearing when they found out, in early January, that Monica was pregnant.“We were so excited,” she said. Just two weeks later, news of Trump’s executive order landed like a blow. Acquiring Venezuelan citizenship for their child would be impossible – both Monica and her husband were outspoken critics of their country’s autocratic leader, Nicolás Maduro – and contacting the government could put them in danger.“I had to fight for my baby,” she said.She had been a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project (Asap), a non-profit group that advocates for immigrant rights, and when lawyers from the group reached out to expecting parents to see if any would like to join a lawsuit challenging Trump’s order, Monica felt compelled to respond.Two immigration advocacy groups, Asap and Casa, are named as plaintiffs alongside Monica and four other mothers in one of three cases challenging the executive order. A second case was filed by four states and pregnant women, and a third by 18 states, the District of Columbia and San Francisco. The supreme court is hearing these cases consolidated as one.Other than her mother and a few close relatives, nobody knows that she is involved in one of the most closely watched cases to come before the supreme court this year. She has concealed her identity and tried to maintain a low profile, to avoid biasing her family’s asylum case, and to protect her family in Venezuela.But the topic of birthright citizenship and the administration’s intention to end it often comes up in her conversations with friends – especially with immigrant mothers who, like her, worry about their babies’ futures. “We are all on standby,” she said.They worry, too, about news that mothers are being separated from their babies – or being deported alongside their children. “Every day there are new changes, there are new executive orders about us immigrants,” she said. “Every day there is more fear in immigration conditions.”In the meantime, she said, there’s nothing to do but focus on the day to day. Monica and her husband have kept busy getting their home baby-ready, purchasing and assembling cribs and car seats. Now that she’s in her third trimester, she’s packed a go-bag with a change of clothes and other essentials – ready in case she needs to rush to the hospital. “We’re really down to the last few weeks already,” she said.Recently, they settled on a name. More

    • 150 Shares147 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court to hear birthright citizenship dispute that could expand Trump’s power

      by

      The US supreme court will hear arguments on Thursday in a dispute that could significantly expand presidential power despite ostensibly focusing on Donald Trump’s contentious executive order ending birthright citizenship.The trio of cases before the court stem from the president’s January executive order that would deny US citizenship to babies born on American soil if their parents aren’t citizens or permanent residents. The plan is likely to be ultimately struck down, as it directly contradicts the 14th amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”.But Trump’s legal team isn’t asking the supreme court to rule on whether his policy is constitutional. Instead, they are challenging whether lower court judges should be able to block presidential orders nationwide – a move that could overall weaken judicial checks on executive power.Three federal judges have blocked the policy nationwide, including US district judge Deborah Boardman, who ruled that “no court in the country has ever endorsed the president’s interpretation.”But the justice department argues these “nationwide injunctions” unfairly tie the president’s hands. “These injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the Trump Administration,” the department wrote in a March filing. The administration is asking for the scope of the injunctions to be narrowed, so they only apply to the people, organizations or states that sued.If Trump prevails, his administration could potentially enforce his desired citizenship policy in parts of the country where specific courts haven’t blocked it – creating different citizenship rules in different states while legal challenges continue.The supreme court’s conservative majority, which includes three Trump appointees, has previously signaled skepticism about nationwide injunctions. Justice Neil Gorsuch called the issue a “question of great significance” requiring the court’s attention.Critics warn that limiting judges’ power to block policies nationwide would force people to file thousands of individual lawsuits to protect their rights.“If you literally have to bring separate cases for every single plaintiff, you are limiting the ability of courts to declare what the law is and protect people,” Colorado attorney general Phil Weiser, who joined legal challenges to Trump’s order, told NBC News.By the end of March, Trump had faced at least 17 nationwide injunctions since returning to office in January, according to the Congressional Research Service. His first term saw 86 such rulings – far more than other presidents including Joe Biden, who saw 28; Barack Obama who saw 12; and George W Bush who saw six. Trump has also faced at least 328 lawsuits nationwide as of 1 May, with judges blocking his actions more than 200 times, according to a Bloomberg analysis.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe administration has said that universal injunctions “have reached epidemic proportions since the start of” Trump’s second term, and claims they have prevented the executive branch “from performing its constitutional functions before any courts fully examine the merits of those actions”.Several Democratic attorneys general urged the court not to restrict judicial power at a time when “the government is aggressively issuing executive orders of dubious legality”.Three separate lawsuits have been consolidated into one challenge before the court on Thursday, which came via an emergency appeal in the court’s so-called “shadow docket”. The court’s ruling is expected by early July. More

    • 125 Shares162 Views

      in US Politics

      Federal grand jury indicts Wisconsin judge over alleged Ice obstruction

      by

      A federal grand jury has indicted a Wisconsin judge who was arrested by the FBI last month on allegations that she helped an undocumented immigrant avoid federal authorities.Hannah Dugan, a county circuit court judge in Milwaukee, was charged on Tuesday with concealing a person from arrest and obstruction of proceedings, the New York Times reported on Tuesday.Dugan was apprehended in the courthouse where she works in April, sparking public protests and rebukes from lawmakers. Her arrest has escalated a clash between Donald Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republicans’ sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition to the crackdown.“Let’s be clear. Trump’s arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration,” said US senator Bernie Sanders at the time. “It has everything to do with [Trump] moving this country towards authoritarianism.”Prosecutors charged Dugan in April with concealing an individual to prevent arrest and obstruction. In the federal criminal justice system, prosecutors can initiate charges against a defendant directly by filing a complaint or present evidence to a grand jury and let that body decide whether to issue charges.A grand jury still reviews charges brought by complaint to determine whether enough probable cause exists to continue the case as a check on prosecutors’ power. If the grand jury determines there’s probable cause, it issues a written statement of the charges known as an indictment. That’s what happened in Dugan’s case.Dugan faces up to six years in prison if she’s convicted on both counts. Her team of defense attorneys responded to the indictment with a one-sentence statement saying that she maintains her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court.Prosecutors say Dugan escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back jury door on 18 April after learning that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents were in the courthouse seeking his arrest.According to court documents, Flores-Ruiz illegally re-entered the US after being deported in 2013. Online state court records show he was charged with three counts of misdemeanor domestic abuse in Milwaukee county in March. He was in Dugan’s courtroom the morning of 18 April for a hearing.Court documents suggest Dugan was alerted to the agents’ presence by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that the agents appeared to be in the hallway. An affidavit says Dugan was visibly angry over the agents’ arrival and called the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. She and another judge later approached members of the arrest team in the courthouse with what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor”.After a back-and-forth with the agents over the warrant for Flores-Ruiz, Dugan demanded they speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, according to the affidavit.She then returned to the courtroom and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” and ushered Flores-Ruiz and his attorney out through a back jury door typically used only by deputies, jurors, court staff and in-custody defendants, according to the affidavit. Flores-Ruiz was free on a signature bond in the abuse case at the time, according to online state court records.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFederal agents ultimately captured him outside the courthouse after a foot chase.The state supreme court suspended Dugan from the bench in late April, saying the move was necessary to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. A reserve judge is filling in for her.Dugan’s case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out of a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.She was scheduled to enter a plea on Thursday.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 125 Shares118 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge orders White House to temporarily halt sweeping government layoffs

      by

      Donald Trump’s administration must temporarily halt its sweeping government overhaul because Congress did not authorize it to carry out large-scale staffing cuts and the restructuring of agencies, a federal judge in California said on Friday.US district judge Susan Illston in San Francisco sided with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments in blocking large-scale mass layoffs known as “reductions in force” for 14 days.“As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,” Illston said.The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The ruling is the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul that has been led by Elon Musk, the world’s richest person who is also the chief executive officer of electric vehicle maker Tesla.Dozens of lawsuits have challenged the work of the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) on various grounds including violating privacy laws and exceeding its authority, with mixed results.Trump directed government agencies in February to work with Doge to identify targets for mass layoffs as part of the administration’s restructuring plans.The president urged agencies to eliminate duplicative roles, unnecessary management layers and non-critical jobs while automating routine tasks, closing regional field offices and reducing the use of outside contractors.“The Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation,” said a statement from the coalition of plaintiffs.“Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government – laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that.”Illston scheduled a hearing for 22 May to consider a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.She said that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on merits of some of their claims in their lawsuit, which was filed on 28 April and alleged Trump exceeded his authority. It also alleged the office of management and budget, Doge and the office of personnel management exceeded their authority and violated administrative law.Illston said plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm without the temporary restraining order, which she said preserves the status quo.Illston said the plaintiffs submitted more than 1,000 pages of evidence and 62 sworn declarations, and she highlighted some of the material.For example, she said the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and its Pittsburgh office, which researches health hazards facing mineworkers, had 221 of the department’s 222 workers terminated, citing the union. She gave similar examples at local offices of the Farm Service Agency, the Social Security Administration and Head Start, which supports early learning.“The court here is not considering the potential loss of income of one individual employee, but the widespread termination of salaries and benefits for individuals, families and communities,” Illston wrote in her ruling. More

    • 138 Shares118 Views

      in US Politics

      Lawyer who prosecuted Trump hauled in front of House judiciary committee

      by

      The former special counsel prosecutor Jay Bratt is scheduled to appear before the Republican-led House judiciary committee next week as it attempts to find instances of politicization in the federal criminal cases brought against Donald Trump, according to three people familiar with the matter.The deposition of Bratt, who led the criminal case over Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents as a top deputy to the former special counsel Jack Smith, has been scheduled for 10am ET next Wednesday, according to a notice reviewed by the Guardian.Bratt’s appearance is the first known instance of a special counsel prosecutor being hauled before the judiciary committee since Trump took office vowing revenge and personally directing the firings of more than a dozen prosecutors who worked for Smith within days of his inauguration.It was not clear how long the deposition might last and whether Bratt planned to invoke any privileges to avoid testifying. A spokesperson for the judiciary committee did not immediately respond to questions about the deposition.Smith charged Trump in two cases: in Florida, for mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and defying a subpoena commanding their return; and in Washington, for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The classified documents case was dismissed before it went to trial by the US district judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith had been unlawfully appointed because he was acting with the powers of a “principal officer” at the justice department, which requires confirmation by the US Senate.The topics that House investigators have prepared for Bratt were also not clear. But the judiciary committee, led by Republican chair Jim Jordan, has long believed that the special counsel cases were the result of political animus against Trump at the justice department.In repeated letters to the former special counsel last year, House investigators demanded information from Smith about contacts between the Biden White House and the justice department about the criminal cases, including when Bratt once travelled to the White House.They also sought documents and communications about meetings between FBI and justice department officials before the decision was made to ask a magistrate judge for a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. Bratt is widely understood to have encouraged FBI leaders to obtain a warrant.The warrant later proved to be the basis for the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice charges against Trump; the FBI retrieved 101 classified documents despite Trump’s lawyers having previously claimed that they had complied with an earlier subpoena to return all classified materials.The House judiciary committee has also taken a special interest in a fraught and disputed meeting between then-Trump legal team attorney Stanley Woodward and Bratt at justice department headquarters during the height of the classified documents case in November 2022.The Guardian previously reported on the complaint that Woodward filed in federal district court in Washington about the meeting, where he alleged Bratt discussed Woodward’s application to be a judge while trying to get the cooperation of Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet and Woodward’s client.In the filing, Woodward alleged that Bratt told him he did not think Woodward was a “Trump guy” and that “he would do the right thing” and get Nauta to testify against Trump in the classified documents case.The allegation was that Bratt had engaged in possible misconduct by suggesting Woodward’s judgeship application might be considered more favorably if he convinced his client to flip. The matter was referred to the justice department’s office of professional responsibility but it does not appear as though any action was taken.The extent of any potential impact on the case was unclear, since the meeting did not appear to have directly affected any testimony Nauta gave to prosecutors, and Bratt would not have had the ability to influence such an application, which is handled by the White House counsel’s office. More

    • 138 Shares198 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration mulling end to legal right to challenge one’s detention

      by

      The Trump administration is considering suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the legal right to challenge one’s detention, Stephen Miller, a top White House adviser, said on Friday.“The constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended in time of invasion. So that’s an option we’re actively looking at. A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not,” Miller said to a group of reporters at the White House.The US constitution says: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” The writ of habeas corpus has only been suspended four times in US history, most notably by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war. It was also suspended during efforts to fight the Ku Klux Klan in the 19th century in South Carolina, in the Philippines in 1905 and after Pearl Harbor.Suspending habeas corpus would be an extremely aggressive move that would dramatically escalate the Trump administration’s efforts to attack the rule of law in American courts as it tries to deport people without giving them a chance to challenge the basis of their removals.Miller, long known for his far-right positions on immigration, has sought to deploy a maximalist approach in carrying out mass deportations. The US government has already produced little evidence to justify immigrant deportations and in some cases has sought to remove students in the United States legally for expressing their views, specifically support for Palestinians.Many of the immigrants that the Trump administration has moved aggressively to deport – including Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk – have filed habeas petitions challenging efforts to deport them.The administration has already attempted to deport people without due process by invoking the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that allows the president to do so in a time of war.The Trump administration has justified its actions by arguing that the US is under “invasion” by Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Multiple judges have rejected the idea that the United States is under invasion and tried to halt the removals.But, while courts have tried to stop the administration’s efforts to unlawfully deport people, Trump has attacked judges for ruling against him and in some cases openly defied the courts. More