'Bad and dangerous day for America': Trump blasts SC verdict on Venezuelan deportations
The US Supreme Court has blocked President Donald Trump's effort to quickly resume deportations of Venezuelan migrants, dealing a fresh blow to his administration's immigration agenda.
The justices ruled against the use of a rarely invoked 1798 wartime law, the
Alien Enemies Act
, which the Trump administration sought to apply to alleged members of the Venezuelan
Tren de Aragua gang
. This law would have allowed the government to deport individuals without following the usual legal procedures.
The court's decision came in a 7-2 vote on Friday, indefinitely halting the deportations from a detention centre in north Texas and sending the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The justices ruled that detainees must be given more time to legally challenge their removal, finding that the administration's notice period of roughly 24 hours was insufficient. The unsigned opinion stressed that the court was not deciding on the legality of using the Alien Enemies Act itself, only on the requirement for due process protections.
Trump responded immediately on his Truth Social platform, blasting the decision.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Giao dịch vàng với sàn môi giới tin cậy
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
He wrote, 'THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!' He criticised the ruling, saying it prevents the forced removal of 'the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally.'
According to Trump, the court's ruling 'will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public' and will encourage 'other criminals to illegally enter our Country, wreaking havoc and bedlam wherever they go.'
He accused President Joe Biden of allowing 'MILLIONS of Criminal Aliens' to enter without any legal process and lamented that his own administration is now bound by 'a long and extended PROCESS' to deport them.
Trump expressed appreciation for Justices Alito and Thomas, who dissented, thanking them for 'attempting to protect our Country,' but called the ruling 'a bad and dangerous day for America.'
The Supreme Court's intervention follows a string of legal setbacks for the Trump administration's efforts to accelerate deportations.
The government has labelled members of the Tren de Aragua gang as foreign terrorists and has sought to deport them rapidly under the Alien Enemies Act, bypassing normal immigration procedures. However, several federal judges have pushed back, ruling that the administration's use of the centuries-old law is improper.
The court emphasised that national security concerns must be balanced with constitutional protections, recognising 'the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution.'
The ruling makes clear that while the government can still pursue deportations, it must allow detainees reasonable time to contest their removal. This remains a complicated legal patchwork, with various courts issuing differing orders on how and when deportations under the law can proceed.
Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, with Alito sharply criticising the majority for intervening without awaiting further review from lower courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the majority but expressed a preference for a quicker, definitive ruling from the Supreme Court rather than sending the case back to the appeals court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump says June jobs data 'rigged', Wall Street and economists disagree
The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were "RIGGED" to make him and other Republicans "look bad". Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labour Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large -- the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that has not led most economists to doubt them. "The bottom line for me is, I would not take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable," Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. "We are having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. "Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labour market." Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labour Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who does not see the data until it is finalised, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says "it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid". The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers -- when they are good. These are the figures Trump is attacking Trump has focussed on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5 per cent. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged that the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to "boost" Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory", yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they have already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95 per cent of US businesses and are not derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which has not? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or do not have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations -- including multiple locations for the same business -- covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely will not fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labour market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic, there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest -- outside recessions -- since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday and said, "What we have seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers." Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: "When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed." Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60 per cent of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40 per cent do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year, the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. US government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16-per cent drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. "We are at an inflection point," the report said. "To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
India Today
23 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump's name blacked out in Epstein files after FBI review: Report
The FBI redacted US President Donald Trump's name, along with those of other high-profile individuals, from internal records related to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a large-scale review earlier this year, according to a Bloomberg 1,000 agents were instructed to flag any reference to Trump while combing through more than 100,000 pages of documents in March, the report said citing sources. Trump's name was blacked out by FBI agents as it constituted an 'unwarranted invasion of privacy'.advertisementThe internal directive was part of a Justice Department-led reassessment of the Epstein files, which concluded that there was no evidence of criminal activity by Trump. This comes against the backdrop of mounting pressure from Trump's MAGA base to release the remaining Epstein files. The President and senior White House officials have pushed back, insisting there is no need for further disclosures, and that they are eager to move on from the NAME REDACTED FROM EPSTEIN FILESBack in February, the White House distributed binders of largely public Epstein-related materials to far-right influencers, claiming it was part of a broader transparency push. US Attorney General Pam Bondi, at the time, described it as a 'first phase' of document release and told Fox News that additional files — including the much-speculated client list — were 'sitting on my desk.'Prior to that, Bondi had written to FBI Director Kash Patel expressing frustration over delays in receiving requested files. She then reportedly 'pressured' the FBI to reassign hundreds of agents to the a result, nearly 1,000 FBI agents were pulled from field offices for intensive 24-hour shifts in March to comb through a mountain of documents to prepare them for potential public release. These teams were told specifically to flag any mention of found 'numerous references to Trump' in the documents, Bloomberg reported. The names of many prominent figures were also of their potential public disclosure, the flagged documents were processed by FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) officers, who applied redactions using exemptions meant to protect personal privacy. Trump's name was withheld because he was a private citizen when the Epstein investigation began in cited FOIA provisions that prohibit disclosing information that could represent an 'unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'TRUMP BRIEFED ON MENTIONS IN EPSTEIN FILESBondi told Trump during a Justice Department briefing in May that his name appeared multiple times in the Epstein files, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported earlier. Bondi also informed the President that other prominent figures were named, but that no so-called 'client list' was uncovered by the WSJ report, the White House dismissed the article as 'fake news.' However, an unnamed official later admitted to Reuters that Trump's name did appear in some files, but that it didn't indicate any July, the administration backpedalled and said that 'no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.' The Justice Department cited a lack of new findings and concerns over privacy in deciding not to move TIES TO EPSTEINTrump and Epstein were friendly with one another in the 1990s and early 2000s. 'I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,' Trump said in a 2002 interview with New York records show Trump flew on Epstein's private plane at least once, and the real estate magnate's contact information appeared in Epstein's address book alongside many other public Trump has said the friendship ended long before Epstein's 2019 arrest, claiming they had not spoken in over a decade. Epstein, a convicted sex offender, died by suicide in a federal detention facility in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking death during Trump's first term in office has for years fuelled conspiracy theories alleging a high-level government cover-up to shield prominent individuals tied to Epstein's alleged trafficking ring.- EndsMust Watch
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
23 minutes ago
- First Post
'Ready to resist': Russia blasts Trump over 'unlawful' US tariffs on Global South nations
Russia has described the Trump administration's tariff policies as a 'direct encroachment' on national sovereignty and an 'attempt to interfere' in the internal affairs of other countries read more This combination photo shows President Donald Trump in a business roundtable, May 16, 2025, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, left, and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a signing ceremony at the Kremlin in Moscow, May 10, 2025. AP In a sharp rebuke, Russia on Monday (August 4) accused the US of clinging to global dominance through a 'neocolonial' strategy, particularly targeting nations in the Global South with economic pressure. The criticism follows President Donald Trump's recent announcement of new tariffs on countries like India and Russia. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that the US is grappling with the decline of its global hegemony and resorting to 'politicised economic pressure' against nations that refuse to align with its foreign policy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Zakharova described the Trump administration's tariff policies as a 'direct encroachment' on national sovereignty and an 'attempt to interfere' in the internal affairs of other countries. She warned that such measures threaten global trade and economic stability. Zakharova then reiterated Russia's commitment to fostering a fair and multipolar world order, expressing readiness to collaborate with Global South partners, including BRICS nations and new members like Egypt, Iran, and Indonesia, to counter unilateral sanctions and promote a balanced international system. She also criticised Western 'protectionism,' noting that the imposition of tariffs contradicts the free trade principles once championed by the West. Addressing Washington's tariff policies targeting key Global South partners, Zakharova remarked, 'Sanctions and restrictions have unfortunately become a defining feature of the current historical period, impacting countries across the globe. Unable to accept the erosion of its dominance in an emerging multipolar international order, Washington continues to pursue a neocolonial agenda, employing politically motivated economic pressure against those who choose an independent course on the international stage.' She further elaborated, 'This approach runs counter to the very principles of free trade once championed by Western nations. Instead, we now witness politically driven protectionism and the arbitrary imposition of tariff barriers. Brazil, our strategic partner in Latin America and the Caribbean, is one of the main victims of this policy. Such actions by the United States represent a direct infringement on the sovereignty of other nations and an attempt to interfere in their internal affairs. Beyond these concerns, this policy risks slowing global economic growth, disrupting supply chains, and deepening the fragmentation of the international economic system.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Zakharova underscored Russia's resilience, stating, 'We firmly believe that no tariff wars or sanctions can halt the natural course of history. We are supported by a vast number of partners, like-minded states, and allies, particularly among the countries of the Global South and, above all, within #BRICS, who share this perspective.' She concluded by affirming Russia's readiness to deepen cooperation with these nations to resist 'unlawful unilateral sanctions' and shape a 'genuinely multipolar, just, and equitable international order.' Trump's threat to India The tensions intensified with Trump's latest statement on Monday, posted on Truth Social, where he announced plans to 'substantially raise' tariffs on India for purchasing 'massive amounts of Russian Oil' and selling it on the open market 'for big profits.' Trump claimed India's actions disregard the human cost of the Ukraine conflict, stating, 'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!' India, in response, staunchly defended its energy policy. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) on Monday rejected criticism from the US and the European Union as 'unjustified and unreasonable.' The MEA stressed that India's oil imports from Russia are driven by the need to ensure affordable and predictable energy costs for its consumers, asserting the country's sovereign right to prioritise national interests and economic security. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
