The Supreme Court just stripped thousands of immigrants of their right to due process
In a short, one-paragraph order, the Republican justices ruled on Monday evening that President Donald Trump may effectively nullify a federal law and an international treaty that is supposed to protect immigrants from torture. The Court's order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. does not explain the GOP's justices' reasoning, although Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds to their silent decision in a 19-page dissent joined by her two Democratic colleagues.
The Court's order is only temporary, and will permit Trump to send immigrants to countries where they may be tortured while the D.V.D. case is fully litigated. It is possible that one or more of the Court's Republicans could reverse course at a later date. But it is hard to know what arguments might persuade them to do so because the justices in the majority did not explain why they decided this case the way they did.
SCOTUS, Explained
Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Federal law requires that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This statute implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified over three decades ago.
Trump's lawyers, however, claim that they uncovered a loophole that permits the Trump administration to bypass these laws, at least with respect to some immigrants.
Typically, before a noncitizen may be removed from the United States, they are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration judge will inform the person facing deportation which countries they might be sent to, allowing the noncitizen to object to any countries where they fear they may be tortured. If the immigration judge determines that these objections are sufficiently serious to trigger the Convention Against Torture's protections, the judge may still issue an order permitting the immigrant to be deported — but not to the nation or nations the immigrant raised objections about.
Related Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture
The D.V.D. case involves noncitizens who have already been through this process. In their case, an immigration judge determined that they may be deported, but not to specific countries. After the hearing process was complete, however, the Trump administration unexpectedly announced that it would deport the D.V.D. plaintiffs to other nations that were not previously under consideration.
That means that no immigration judge has determined whether these immigrants may be sent to those particular nations, and the immigrants have not been given a meaningful opportunity to object to the new countries where they are about to be deported. Using this loophole, the Trump administration seeks to deport them without a new hearing.
The Trump administration, moreover, appears to have intentionally selected countries where the noncitizens are likely to be unsafe. It wishes to deport many of these immigrants to South Sudan, for example, a country that was recently in a civil war, and where an uneasy peace appears to be collapsing. Others are slated for removal to Libya despite the fact that, according to Sotomayor's dissent, they 'would have landed in Tripoli in the midst of violence caused by opposition to their arrival.'
The Trump administration, in other words, appears to have created a deadly trap for immigrants who fear torture in their home nations. These noncitizens may object to being sent home under the Convention Against Torture, and an immigration judge may even rule in their favor. But the Trump administration may still send them somewhere else even more dangerous.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. What's happened in college sports that brought it to the federal government? The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. What are the key takeaways of the executive order? The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Gives a nod to protecting women's and Olympic sports by setting benchmarks for scholarships and opportunities based on the amount of money an athletic department makes. Bans 'pay-for-play' to athletes by schools, a bedrock principle of the NCAA and college sports that leaders are still clinging to. The order does try to carve out exceptions for endorsement and sponsorship deals with third-party businesses. Calls on the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes. Under a Republican administration, that likely decreases the chances athletes would have the right to organize. Directs the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to find ways to hand rule-making power back to the NCAA, conferences and other college sports governing bodies and away from courts and state legislatures. Who benefits from this? Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. Will this actually change anything? In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' What can the executive order do? It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. What power does the government have in these situations? The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. What is The SCORE Act? The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. What divides Republicans and Democrats? The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. What precedents are there involving federal legislation and higher education in sports? The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. What does this mean for the NCAA? The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. Why is the president getting involved? The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Women's College Basketball, College Sports 2025 The Athletic Media Company
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Elon Musk to blame for Tesla's struggles? Experts weigh in
Tesla, the electric carmaker led by Elon Musk, suffered a sharp drop in profits over a recent three-month period as car sales slowed and tariffs hiked costs, the company said this week. Shareholders envisioned a different outcome when Tesla stock surged more than 50% in the aftermath of the November 2024 election of President Donald Trump, then a close ally of Musk. Since a recent peak in December, the majority of those gains have been erased. Musk, the company's chief executive and the world's richest person, draws attention due in part to his outspoken presence on social media and divisive stint in the White House. The recent struggles at Tesla have coincided with increased competition in the electric vehicle (EV) industry, posing a question for analysts: Is Musk partially to blame? MORE: Tesla profits drop 16% as Elon Musk faces continued backlash Experts who spoke to ABC News acknowledged the surge of EV competition and credited Musk with pushing the company into potential growth areas like humanoid robots and self-driving taxis, the latter of which are being tested in Austin, Texas. The company's downturn in part reflects a transition from EVs to those new products, which have yet to generate meaningful revenue, they added. Still, the experts said, Musk bears some of the blame for the company's difficulty fending off other EV makers as well as a delayed rollout of alternate products. They also pointed to losses suffered as result of some of Trump's policies, which Musk struggled to mitigate while serving in the administration. "Musk is CEO -- the buck stops with him. As a CEO in a competitive environment, he's the one who has to have the vision and lead the troops," David Meier, a senior investment analyst at The Motley Fool, told ABC News. "But there's a lot going on in the world that impacts Tesla's business." Tesla did not immediately respond to ABC News' request for comment. Speaking on an earnings call on Wednesday, Musk said the company faces "a few rough quarters ahead." He added that, ultimately, humanoid robots and driverless taxis would make Tesla "the most valuable company in the world by far." The company's profits fell 16% over a three-month period ending in June that overlapped with the end of Musk's tenure in the White House and his ensuing public clash with Trump, an earnings release on Wednesday showed. Total revenue decreased by 12% from one year earlier, to $22.4 billion, while revenue derived from car sales dropped 16% over the second quarter of 2025 compared to a year ago, the earnings showed. In a statement, Tesla touted a "strong balance sheet," but acknowledged a "sustained uncertain macroeconomic environment resulting from shifting tariffs." The company also faces "unclear impacts from changes to fiscal policy and political sentiment," Tesla said. The company has faced heightened competition from domestic and foreign carmakers rolling out electric vehicles. Chinese EV-maker BYD outperformed Tesla in total car sales for the first time ever last year. BYD vehicles are essentially unavailable in the U.S. due to sky-high tariffs on Chinese EVs. "Part of it is outside of Tesla's control," Seth Goldstein, an analyst who studies the EV sector at research firm Morningstar, told ABC News. Goldstein cited an apparent dropoff in sales earlier this year among consumers awaiting a refresh of the company's popular Model Y. However, Goldstein added, the company has been slow to release an affordable EV model in response to a flurry of low-cost options among its rivals, which include China's BYD and traditional carmakers like Nissan and Hyundai. "Looking at Elon Musk, he's the leader of Tesla. It's fair to wonder if he was a little distracted with his political action in the first half of the year and that caused some production to slip, including production of an affordable model," Goldstein said. Musk's position at the White House, which ended in May, appeared to yield few benefits for Tesla. The company faces a pinch from several Trump policies, including the end of tax credits for EV buyers, the nixing of regulatory credits purchased from Tesla by other firms, as well as tariffs on cars and car parts. The CEO's political role also set off demonstrations at Tesla dealerships worldwide in protest of his effort to slash government spending as leader of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "It was a dark chapter and investors are glad to put it in the rear-view mirror," Dan Ives, a managing director of equity research at the investment firm Wedbush and a longtime Tesla bull, told ABC News. As car sales have slowed, Musk has touted a future autonomous car service, dubbed robotaxis, as a growth area for the business. Last month, Tesla launched a limited version of what it claimed is a self-driving taxi service in Austin, Texas. MORE: Trump admin live updates: Trump does not rule out pardon for Maxwell The rollout marked a milestone for the company's self-driving taxi aspirations, but limitations placed on the vehicles and a series of apparent miscues suggest the technology remains far from wide adoption, some analysts previously told ABC News. Musk has also touted humanoid robots as a future growth area for Tesla. While the product remains in an early phase, Musk expects the company to eventually produce more than a million robots each year, he said on this week's earnings call. Goldstein, of Morningstar, applauded Musk's effort to move Tesla away from the highly competitive auto market toward nascent tech sectors. "Musk's long-term goal is to transition from an automaker to an AI robotics company -- that's still on track and making progress," Goldstein said. "That's where it has greater opportunities to grow a competitive advantage." The ultimate outcome for Tesla's forthcoming products remains unclear but Musk has earned the benefit of the doubt, according to some analysts. "It might not be the conventional way but there's only one Elon Musk," Wedbush's Ives said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill': Here's when key tax laws go into effect
Americans may soon see a wave of tax changes — some as early as this year, others rolling out in future tax seasons. These updates stem from the massive tax bill recently signed into law by President Donald Trump. The new legislation includes several key tax rules: an extension of many of the provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), an expanded child tax credit, a larger standard deduction for seniors, tax breaks for workers who receive tips and overtime pay, and more. But not all of these provisions will take effect at the same time — and some are permanent while others are temporary. Learn more: Trump's tax law: 5 'big, beautiful bill' tax breaks that won't last long Here's a summary of when some of the key tax provisions go into effect — and expire. A timeline of key tax breaks Tax provision Effective date Temporary orpermanent SALT deduction cap raised to $40,000 2025 through 2029 Temporary(cap drops to $10,000 in 2030) Auto loan interest deduction of up to $10,000 2025 through 2028 Temporary Bonus deduction of $6,000 for people aged 65 and older 2025 through 2028 Temporary No tax on tips and overtime pay 2025 through 2028 Temporary New charitable contribution deduction for people who don't itemize 2026 Permanent Elimination of electric vehicle tax credits Sept. 30, 2025 Permanent Elimination of residential clean energy and energy efficient tax credits Dec. 31, 2025 Permanent Higher child tax credit of $2,200, with annual inflation adjustments 2025 Permanent Increased standard deduction (TCJA amounts made permanent, plus new inflation adjustment for 2025) 2025 Permanent Reduced income tax rates (TCJA rates made permanent, plus new inflation adjustment added) 2026 Permanent Qualified business income deduction of up to 20% made permanent (otherwise would have expired after 2025) 2026 Permanent 2025: Tax changes that could put more money in your pocket Beginning in 2025, millions of Americans could begin benefiting from a wide range of new tax breaks. One of the most notable changes is the expanded state and local tax (SALT) deduction, which increases the cap from $10,000 to $40,000. The change will provide meaningful relief to taxpayers in high-tax states such as New York, California, and New Jersey. The increased SALT cap will be adjusted annually for inflation but is set to drop back to $10,000 in 2030 unless extended by Congress. Another provision beginning in 2025 allows taxpayers to deduct up to $10,000 in auto loan interest for qualifying vehicles — new cars purchased for personal use and with final assembly in the U.S. The deduction applies to loans issued from 2025 through 2028. Seniors will be eligible for a bonus deduction of up to $6,000. Meanwhile, service workers could benefit from a new exclusion of up to $25,000 in reported tip income, while employees who work overtime may qualify for a deduction of up to $12,500, or up to $25,000 for married couples filing jointly. 'These new tax provisions could bring about meaningful changes for taxpayers starting in 2025,' says Tracey Carney, a certified public accountant in New Orleans. 'Now is the time to review how these updates might impact your finances and consider meeting with a qualified tax professional to plan ahead.' 2026: More changes ahead, including health care impacts Several tax changes, including extensions of TCJA provisions, are set to begin in 2026. That said, taxpayers may not notice some of these changes that much, because many of these new provisions are simply continuing what is already in effect for 2025. The 2017 TCJA, passed during Trump's first term, made sweeping changes to the tax code. However, many of its provisions were set to expire after 2025. The new law makes several of those provisions permanent and extends them beyond Dec. 31 of this year. Some of those tax rules include reduced income tax rates, the limit on deducting mortgage interest on debt up to $750,000 and the qualified business income deduction. The new law also makes two significant changes related to health care and taxes beginning in 2026. 'There are two overlooked elements of the big beautiful bill that can have major tax implications for your health care,' says Whitney Stidom, vice president of consumer enablement at eHealth, an independent insurance advisor. 'One impacts how health insurance subsidies are calculated, and the other changes who qualifies to use a health savings account.' The law modifies rules for Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies, which help reduce premiums for lower-income Americans. Under the new rules, individuals who earn more than 400 percent of the federal poverty level may still qualify for subsidies, but any excess subsidies received must be repaid in full when filing taxes. 'In the past, there was a cap on how much of the overpaid subsidies you had to return,' Stidom says. 'Now, you may have to repay the full amount.' The law also expands eligibility for health savings accounts (HSAs), allowing more health insurance plans — specifically, catastrophic and bronze-tier ACA marketplace plans — to qualify. An HSA allows people to stash money into a tax-advantaged account for qualified medical expenses, but you can only have an HSA if you also have a qualified high-deductible health plan. For 2025, people can contribute up to $4,300 for themselves into an HSA and the amount increases to $8,550 for families. People aged 55 or older can add a $1,000 catch-up contribution to those amounts. 'There are about 7 million Americans currently enrolled in bronze plans who haven't been able to use an HSA,' Stidom says. 'This change could offer significant new tax benefits.' Learn more: Medical expense deduction: How to claim medical costs on your taxes Some tax breaks will now expire this year The sweeping legislation also ends several clean energy tax credits, but on different timelines. The popular electric vehicle (EV) tax credit is set to expire on Sept. 30. After that date, the credit will no longer be available. Originally introduced in 2008, the credit was expanded under President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, offering up to $7,500 for new EVs and $4,000 for used models. 'If you're considering buying a vehicle, now is the time to buy an electric vehicle,' Carney says. 'Unless Congress extends the credit in the future, buyers won't have the chance to take advantage of it once it's gone.' Other credits — specifically, the energy efficient home improvement credit and the residential clean energy credit — are now scheduled to end after 2025. Until the end of the year, taxpayers can claim up to $3,200 per year for eligible improvements to their primary residence under the energy efficient home improvement credit. The credit covers 30 percent of qualified expenses, such as for installing energy efficient doors and windows. The residential clean energy credit allows taxpayers to claim 30 percent of the cost for new qualified clean energy property — including solar panels, solar water heating systems, geothermal heat pumps and more. These credits are nonrefundable, meaning they cannot reduce your tax bill below zero. Learn more: Tax credits are a valuable tool to trim your tax bill — here's how they work Bottom line Carney recommends that taxpayers review both expiring tax provisions and new ones that may apply to their situation. 'Whether it's making qualified home improvements to lower your tax liability or maximizing overtime pay this year, being strategic with your tax planning can lead to big savings when you file your 2026 return,' she says. More: These 9 states have no income tax — that doesn't always mean you'll save money Sign in to access your portfolio
