Judge considers whether 'Alligator Alcatraz' challenge was filed in wrong venue
Any decision by US District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami about whether to move the case could also influence a separate lawsuit brought by civil rights advocates who say that detainees at Alligator Alcatraz have been denied access to attorneys and immigration courts. The federal and state government defendants in the civil rights case also argue that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong venue. At the request of a judge, the civil rights groups on Tuesday filed a revised class-action complaint arguing that the detainees' constitutional rights were being violated.
Environmental groups filed their lawsuit against federal and state officials in Florida's southern district last month asking for the project being built on an airstrip in the heart of the Florida Everglades to be halted because the process didn't follow state and federal environmental laws. Besides Wednesday's hearing over venue, a second hearing has been scheduled for next week on the environmental groups' request for temporary injunction. The first of hundreds of detainees arrived a few days after the lawsuit was filed, and the facility has the capacity to hold 3,000 people. The detention center was opened by Florida officials, but critics said it's unclear whether federal immigration officials or state officials are calling the shots. Deportation flights from Alligator Alcatraz started last week. Williams on Monday ordered that any agreements be produced in court between the US Department of Homeland Security and the Florida Department of Emergency Management, a move that could shed some light on the relationship between federal and state agencies in running the facility.
Critics have condemned the facility as cruel and inhumane as well as a threat to the ecologically sensitive wetlands, while Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and other Republican state officials have defended it as part of the state's aggressive push to support President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
28 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
Columbia University deal with Trump admin sets dangerous precedent, academics warn
Columbia University's $200 million agreement with President Donald Trump's administration marks the end of a months-long showdown, but academics warn it is just the first round of a government 'assault' on higher education. Academics from Columbia and beyond have expressed concerns that the deal -- which makes broad-ranging concessions and increases government oversight -- will become the blueprint for how Trump brings other universities to heel. The New York institution was the first to be targeted in Trump's war against elite universities, for what the US president claimed was its failure to tackle antisemitism on campus in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests. It was stripped of hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funding and lost its ability to apply for new research grants. Labs saw vital funding frozen, and dozens of researchers were laid off. But Columbia last week agreed to pay the government $200 million, and an additional $21 million to settle an investigation into antisemitism. According to Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, the lack of due process -- with the government slashing funding before carrying out a formal investigation -- left Columbia in an 'untenable position.' Columbia law professor David Pozen agreed, saying the 'manner in which the deal was constructed has been unlawful and coercive from the start' and slamming the agreement as giving 'legal form to an extortion scheme.' Federal oversight The deal goes beyond addressing antisemitism and makes concessions on international student admissions, race and ethnicity considerations in admissions and single-sex spaces on campus, among other issues. Columbia also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to implement the deal, share ethnicity admissions data with the government and crack down on campus protests. Many of the provisions 'represent significant incursions onto Columbia's autonomy,' said Pozen. 'What's happened at Columbia is part of a broader authoritarian attack on civil society,' he said, pointing to similar pressures on law firms and media organizations to fall in line. According to the law professor, the deal 'signals the emergence of a new regulatory regime in which the Trump administration will periodically and unpredictably shake down other schools and demand concessions from them.' In the coming weeks, Pozen said he expected the 'administration will put a lot of pressure on Harvard and other schools to follow suit.' Harvard University has pushed back against the government, filing a lawsuit in a bid to reverse sweeping funding cuts. But Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard, said that 'in terms of academic freedom and in terms of democracy, the (Columbia) precedent is devastating.' 'First round' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said she hoped the Columbia deal would be a 'template for other universities around the country.' On Wednesday, McMahon announced a deal with Brown University to restore some federal funding and end ongoing investigations after the Ivy League school agreed to end race considerations in admissions and adopt a biological definition of gender. Brown President Christina Paxson admitted 'there are other aspects of the agreement that were not part of previous federal reviews of Brown policies' but were 'priorities of the federal administration.' Harvard is reportedly considering forking out $500 million to settle, according to the New York Times. Others have made smaller concessions to appease the government, with Trump's alma mater the University of Pennsylvania banning transgender women from competing in women's sports, and the University of Virginia's head resigning after scrutiny over its diversity programs. Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who researches the history and governance of higher education, said government interference in universities 'has not happened at scale like this, probably ever in American history.' While some university staff see striking an agreement as the quickest way to reopen the federal funding spigot, Cantwell warned that concessions such as sharing ethnicity data from admissions could be 'weaponized' and provide fodder for future probes. Levitsky agreed, saying: 'Extortionists don't stop at the first concession. Extortionists come back for more.' 'There's a very high likelihood that this is just the first round,' he said. Pozen noted that it will be harder for 'major research universities to hold the line' compared to smaller colleges which are less reliant on federal funding. But Levitsky still urged Harvard to stand its ground and 'fight back,' including in the courts. 'Fighting an authoritarian regime is costly, but that's what we have to do,' he said. 'This is an unprecedented assault, and universities need to work together.'
Al Arabiya
28 minutes ago
- Al Arabiya
US court keeps bar on Los Angeles federal immigration arrests
A federal appeals court late on Friday affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled that the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on peoples' appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge last month blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on 'apparent race or ethnicity,' speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a 'bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.' The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. 'The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now,' she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, welcomed the ruling in statement: 'This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region.'
Al Arabiya
an hour ago
- Al Arabiya
Bid to relocate iconic US Space Shuttle Discovery faces museum pushback
Tucked inside President Donald Trump's flagship tax and spending bill last month was a little-noticed provision to relocate the iconic Space Shuttle Discovery from a museum outside Washington to Houston. The plan now faces legal uncertainty, with the Smithsonian Institution arguing Congress had no authority to give away what it considers private property -- even before accounting for the steep logistical and financial challenges. 'The Smithsonian Institution owns the Discovery and holds it in trust for the American public,' the museum network, which receives substantial federal funding yet remains an independent entity, said in a statement to AFP on Friday. 'In 2012, NASA transferred 'all rights, title, interest and ownership' of the shuttle to the Smithsonian,' the statement continued, calling Discovery one of the museum's 'centerpieces' that welcomes millions of visitors a year. The push to move Discovery from the Air and Space Museum's site in northern Virginia began in April, when Texas Senator John Cornyn, a Republican who faces a tough primary challenge next year by state attorney general Ken Paxton, introduced the 'Bring the Space Shuttle Home Act,' naming Discovery. The legislation stalled until it was folded into the mammoth 'Big Beautiful Bill,' signed into law on July 4. Its passage allocated $85 million for the move, though the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has projected a far higher cost of $325 million, adding that the NASA administrator's power over non-NASA entities is 'unclear.' To comply with Senate rules, the bill's language was modified such that Discovery is no longer named directly. Instead, the bill refers to a 'space vehicle,' though there is little doubt as to the target. NASA's administrator -- currently Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, serving in an acting capacity -- was given 30 days to identify which spacecraft is to be relocated, a deadline coming up on Sunday. End of an era NASA's Space Shuttle program ended in 2011, after a 30-year run that carried America's post-Apollo space ambitions. The four surviving orbiters -- Atlantis, Endeavour, prototype Enterprise, and Discovery -- were awarded to Florida, California, New York, and Virginia through a ranked selection process. Discovery, the most flown, was chosen as a vehicle-of-record in a near-complete state, intended for study by future generations. 'There was not a lot of support within Houston to want a shuttle,' space historian Robert Pearlman told AFP, adding that a proposal to house it at Space Center Houston was relatively weak. But after the announcement, Texas -- home to the Johnson Space Center, which oversees NASA's human spaceflight -- felt snubbed, and allegations of political interference by then-president Barack Obama swirled. A NASA inspector general probe found no evidence of foul play. Enormous challenges Relocating Discovery now would pose major technical hurdles. NASA had modified two Boeing 747s to ferry retired shuttles -- one is now a museum piece, and the other is out of service. That leaves land and water transport. 'The nearest water entrance to the Potomac River is about 30 miles away,' Pearlman said -- but it may be too shallow for the orbiter and required barge, requiring a 100-mile journey instead. A water transport would require a massive enclosed barge, he added. The US government owns only one such vessel, controlled by the military. Loaning it to a civilian agency would require another act of Congress, and the alternative would involve building one from scratch. Dennis Jenkins, a former shuttle engineer who oversaw the delivery of retired orbiters to their new homes, told the Collect Space outlet he could see costs reach a billion dollars. Nicholas O'Donnell, an attorney at Sullivan & Worcester with expertise in art and museum law, told AFP that assuming Smithsonian has valid paperwork, 'I don't think Secretary Duffy or anyone in the federal government has any more authority to order the move of Discovery than you or I do.' The government could invoke eminent domain -- seizing private property for public use -- but it would have to pay fair market value or try to sue. The Smithsonian is unlikely to want a court battle, and while it's legally independent, its financial reliance on federal funds leaves it politically vulnerable, said O'Donnell.
