Trump's DHS Asks Supreme Court to Intervene in Deportation Case
The emergency request stems from a case before a Massachusetts federal judge, who last week said that the administration violated his earlier order by attempting to send eight migrants convicted of crimes to South Sudan.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
A DACA recipient made a wrong turn at the border. Now he faces deportation
Erick Hernandez-Rodriguez said he took the wrong freeway exit and accidentally crossed over into Mexico from San Diego. Now the U.S. government says he 'self-deported' and illegally tried to re-enter the U.S. He has been detained and is slated for deportation to El Salvador, a country he has not lived in since he was 14. Hernandez-Rodriguez, 34, was in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, or DACA, which grants work permits and deportation protections to certain immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. But Hernandez-Rodriguez is currently in a detention facility in Otay Mesa, slated for expedited removal. His wife is expected to give birth in California to their second child before the end of the month. The federal government is not showing any leniency in his case, according to his attorney Valerie Sigamani. Hernandez-Rodriguez works part-time as an Uber driver and was trying to drop off a passenger near the border but missed his exit. He then drove into Mexico, but when he tried to circle back into California, he was arrested. Sigamani estimates he was out of the U.S. for less than 30 minutes. Hernandez-Rodriguez's status under DACA provided some protection to undocumented immigrants in the past, but that has changed under the Trump administration. 'DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country,' Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 'Any illegal alien who is a DACA recipient may be subject to arrest and deportation.' Sigamani said her client's DACA status should show that Hernandez-Rodriguez had been working in the U.S. and not trying to sneak in. 'It seems like at this moment, there isn't that much mercy towards people who make mistakes,' she said. 'I would hope that CBP agents would still understand and know that this is an accident, that this person didn't intend to abandon their claims, but they are a good person, and they accidentally exited the U.S.' His story was first reported by NBC News. California is home to about 150,000 DACA recipients. The Hernandez-Rodriguez case is the latest example of the Trump administration's hard-line immigration policies. Ahead of his second term in office, Trump said he would 'work with Democrats on a plan' to help DACA recipients remain in the country. But once elected president, Trump quickly moved to end DACA. The program narrowly survived when the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that his administration had done so improperly. A case that challenges DACA's legality is expected to reach the Supreme Court, where some legal experts predict the conservative majority may strike it down. In early June, Javier Diaz Santana, 32, another DACA recipient, was detained while working at a car wash. Despite explaining his situation, he was taken to a federal detention facility in Texas and granted bond by an immigration judge. In a handwritten declaration to the court and provided to The Times by his attorney, Hernandez-Rodriguez said he was working as a rideshare driver on May 31 and picked up some fares after a soccer game ended in Los Angeles. He followed his GPS directions and it told him he was approaching his exit from the freeway, but he missed it. He tried to get off at the next exit, but it was blocked by police due to a car accident. He thought he would have another chance to turn around, but then he was in line to cross the U.S./Mexico border in San Ysidro. 'I asked some Mexican officers and I explained to them what had happened,' Hernandez-Rodriguez said in his declaration. 'They told me that they would help me so I could get back in.' The officers directed him to the border, but he still was lost. He spoke to American officials at the border and showed them his DACA documentation, and they let him through one checkpoint. His attorney said he had a picture of his employment authorization document that legally allows him to work in the U.S. According to his declaration, border officials then asked him to park his car and go into an office to check in with border officials. They took his fingerprints, Sagamani said, and put Hernandez-Rodriguez in a room with three border officers. One of the officials said he could go back into the U.S. if he paid them $800, according to his declaration and his attorney. Sagamani said that the officials were asking for a bribe. Hernandez-Rodriguez said he didn't have the money. 'They told him, 'You can call somebody and ask them for the money and then they can give it to us,'' Sigamani said. When it was clear that he could not pay them, another official handcuffed him and took him into custody, Sigamani said. In a statement, McLaughlin said, 'Erick Hernandez Rodriguez, an illegal alien from Mexico, self-deported and then tried to illegally re-enter the U.S. On June 1, 2025, CBP officers arrested Rodriguez as he tried to illegally cross the southern border.' Hernandez-Rodriguez is originally from El Salvador, not Mexico, according to a copy of his tourist visa. In response to the claim that a border official asked Hernandez-Rodriguez for a bribe, McLaughlin said, 'CBP takes all allegations of misconduct seriously, investigates thoroughly, and holds employees accountable when policies are violated. This matter has been referred to the CBP Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for review.' On July 14, an immigration judge ordered Hernandez-Rodriguez to be removed from the country after considering a credible fear determination, a screening process given to asylum seekers who may face persecution in their home country based on their race, religion or political opinion. Hernandez-Rodriguez said he is worried that he will be singled out for discussing his political beliefs. The court considered testimony and evidence submitted, but Sigamani said that her client did not get to speak with the judge. 'They're not even letting him see a judge,' Sigamani said. 'I think that's intentional.'
New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Allow N.I.H. to Cut D.E.I.-Related Grants
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to allow the National Institutes of Health to cancel millions of dollars in grants linked to diversity initiatives. In the emergency application, lawyers for the Trump administration asked the justices to block a ruling by a federal judge in Boston. In June, Judge William G. Young of the Federal District Court of Massachusetts had declared some of the administration's cuts to the N.I.H. 'void and illegal.' Judge Young, a Reagan appointee with 40 years of experience as a federal judge, had accused the Trump administration of prejudice against L.G.B.T.Q. people and of racial discrimination in targeting hundreds of grants that supported research into topics such as gender identity and equity in health care. The judge said that during his career, he had 'never seen government racial discrimination like this.' In March, the Trump administration began to cut N.I.H. grants that focused on research on health equity, racial disparities, vaccine hesitancy and maternal health in minority communities, sometimes by scanning for certain terms. A coalition of Democratic-led states, researchers and unions, led by the American Public Health Association, had brought legal challenges to stop a raft of cuts at the N.I.H., arguing that they endangered scientific progress. The justices have not called for a response from the groups challenging the Trump administration cuts.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Supreme Court temporarily pauses rollbacks to Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court paused a lower court's ruling that would have weakened the Voting Rights Act on Thursday, granting Native American groups that brought the suit a temporary win. Why it matters: If the Supreme Court ultimately sides with the lower court, the legal battle could further diminish the landmark voting rights law when the Trump administration is already moving away from bringing civil rights cases in court. Had the lower court's decision been permitted to take effect, it would have prevented private groups in seven states from challenging race discrimination in election maps perceived to be violating the 1965 law. The intrigue: None of the justices provided reasoning for their votes, but the order did note that Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch would have denied the tribal nations' application. Catch up quick: The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, Spirit Lake Tribe and three Native American voters filed a lawsuit against North Dakota's Secretary of State in 2022, claiming that the state's redistricting plan unfairly diluted Indigenous voting power. The groups brought a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to allow voters to sue if they think the government has diluted or denied their voting rights on the basis of race or color, according to SCOTUSblog. A district court sided in favor of the Indigenous groups and ruled that the redistricting maps violated this section of the act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case after the district court, and ruled 2-1 that only the government can bring challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. What we're watching: The two tribal nations are preparing to ask the Supreme Court to complete a full review of their case so that North Dakota can finalize which redistricting plan the state should use for elections in 2026. The intrigue: The ruling comes just weeks before the 60th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 signed by President Johnson following the bloody beatings of civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama. Since the signing of that law, the number of Black Americans elected in the U.S. has shot up from just a few in 1964 to about 9,000. A majority of Black Americans are aligned with the Democratic Party, but Black Republicans have won high-profile races in Kentucky, New Mexico and California. The bill also helped elect Native Americans, but Indigenous leaders say Native communities continue to face voter suppression, racial discrimination and systemic barriers to the ballot box. Context: A number of states with GOP-controlled legislatures have passed bills in recent years that critics argue impose new restrictions on Indigenous voters. Some GOP proposals seek to impose new address requirements despite many Native Americans lacking addresses.
