Lawyers challenge customs officials' constitutional authority to deport Brown Medicine kidney doctor
Attorneys for Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a Brown Medicine kidney doctor deported to her native Lebanon in mid-March, continue to fight to bring her back.
An amended complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts Monday contends that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers who refused entry to Alawieh at Boston Logan International Airport lacked the constitutional authority to deport her back to Lebanon. The amended complaint, unavailable electronically due to federal court rules limiting public access to in immigration cases, was shared by Alawieh's attorneys Tuesday.
'The Constitution requires that federal officials with significant power over people's lives be appointed by the President or Department heads, to ensure oversight and accountability for their actions,' Golnaz Fakhimi, legal director of Muslim Advocates, which is co-representing Alawieh in the case, said in a statement. 'For Dr. Alawieh, a visibly Muslim woman, the government has thumbed its nose at these Constitutional requirements.'
Cambridge, Massachusetts-based immigration law firm Marzouk Law LLC is also representing Alawieh in the deportation case.
Alawieh, 34, was stopped by federal immigration authorities at Boston Logan International Airport on March 13 while heading back to Rhode Island after securing a coveted H-1B work visa from the U.S. Embassy in her native Beirut, according to court documents. An emergency petition filed by her cousin a day later sought to stop Alawieh from being deported from the airport, but Alawieh was already on a flight to Paris by the time the judge's emergency order was received by customs officials.
Her abrupt deportation drew a mass protest outside the Rhode Island State House days later, but there has been little public outcry in the nearly two months since she was sent back to Lebanon. An initial hearing scheduled before U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin on March 17 was canceled due to changes in Alawieh's legal representation.
The updated complaint asks U.S. District Court Judge Leo Sorokin to declare Alawieh's removal order unlawful, reinstate her H-1B work visa, and allow for removal proceedings before a federal immigration judge.
'For Dr. Alawieh — someone with over six-and-a-half years of lawful presence and ties to the United States, seeking to return from brief travel abroad — due process requires the opportunity to be heard by an immigration judge,' her lawyers said in a statement.
Ryan Brissette, a spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, declined to comment on the updated complaint Tuesday, saying the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Airport customs officials found photos of various Hezbollah leaders on Alawieh's phone, according to court documents filed by the federal administration. Excerpts from the filings were shared on social media by U.S. Homeland Security. She also told customs officials when questioned that she attended a funeral event for the Islamist group's late leader, Hassan Nasrallah, the administration alleged.
The stadium event held in Beirut on Feb. 23 drew hundreds of thousands of attendees.
Constitutional authority versus politics
Alawieh's lawyers acknowledged but gave little credence to Alawieh's religious and political beliefs as they pertain to her deportation. Instead, the updated complaint centers on whether customs officials had the power to decide whether she was allowed to enter the country or not.
'The claims in this case do not concern the questioning,' the amended complaint states. 'This case turns on whether the role and authority of CPB officers and the procedures they applied to their engagement with Dr. Alawieh violated the requirements of the Constitution.'
The three federal customs officers stationed at Logan, two of whom are identified by last name only in the amended complaint, were not directly appointed by the president or Congress. Therefore, they lack authority to deport her — violating the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit states.
'For well over a century the Supreme Court has made clear that the power 'to forbid the entrance of foreigners within its dominions, or to admit them only in such cases and upon such conditions as it may see fit to prescribe' is a sovereign responsibility, the 'final determination' of which is entrusted to 'executive officers,'' the complaint states. 'The unchecked devolution of this power to unappointed employees cannot be squared with the Appointments Clause.'
The lawsuit also identifies as defendants the anonymous Boston field office director for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Peter Flores, acting commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem; and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Alawieh is among a growing number of immigrants, including some U.S. citizens and other visa holders, who have been detained and deported since Trump took office. Her case drew public interest in part due to her medical training — Alawieh is one of three transplant nephrologists in Rhode Island, providing life-saving care to patients who now have no doctor, the lawsuit contends.
Court documents reveal the Lebanese doctor had been working and studying in the United States since 2018. After finishing her residency at the American University of Beirut, Alawieh completed a series of fellowships in nephrology at Ohio State University, University of Washington and, most recently, Yale University.
In June 2024, she was offered an assistant professorship through Brown Medicine Inc.'s Division of Nephrology. The nonprofit, physician-led practice, which is affiliated with the Brown University Warren Alpert School of Medicine, offered to sponsor Alawieh's H-1B visa for the job. While her petition for the specialty work visa was approved in June 2024, she was not able to obtain the visa itself from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut until March of this year — the purpose of her visit home.
In addition to her job at Brown Medicine, the nonprofit, physician-led practice, which is affiliated with the Brown University Warren Alpert School of Medicine, Alawieh also had a clinical fellowship at Brown University, and consulted on cases out of Rhode Island Hospital, which is owned by Brown University Health.
'Doctors, no matter where they're from, are an integral part of our communities,' Dr. Daniel Walden, a resident physician at Brown University who helped launch a petition to bring Dr. Alawieh back home, said in a statement Tuesday. 'Dr. Alawieh is a compassionate healthcare professional who provides much-needed care to our community. She has stood by her patients, her community, and her colleagues, and it's our turn to stand up for her. We urge the prompt return of Dr. Alawieh so she can continue providing crucial healthcare to Rhode Island.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Invivyd and Leading Researchers Form SPEAR (Spike Protein Elimination and Recovery) Study Group to Assess the Effects of Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for Long COVID and COVID-19 Post-Vaccination Syndrome
SPEAR Study Group initiated following multiple, independent reports of substantial clinical benefit associated with PEMGARDA® (pemivibart) therapy among people with Long COVID SPEAR Study Group collaborators Drs. Michael Peluso, Amy Proal, and David Putrino are key thought leaders in the clinical and translational biology of Long COVID and Post-Vaccination Syndrome Initial SPEAR clinical efforts to be aimed at rigorous, controlled assessment of monoclonal antibody safety, translational biology, and exploratory efficacy in relevant patient populations characterized by persistent virus or circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike protein WALTHAM, Mass., July 02, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Invivyd, Inc. (Nasdaq: IVVD), today announced that it has formed a best-in-class clinical and translational study group, the SPEAR Study Group, with leading investigators focused on the biology and clinical disease or injury associated with chronic exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus or mRNA vaccine-mediated spike protein. The SPEAR Study Group will structure and guide anticipated clinical trials evaluating the effects of broadly neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy in people suffering from Long COVID or Post-Vaccination Syndrome (PVS), conditions believed to be mediated by persistent viral reservoirs or circulating spike protein. Persistent SARS-CoV-2 spike protein has been identified in both populations, and both populations have overlapping manifestations of apparent clinical disease. As many as 5% or more of Americans have reported recent Long COVID symptoms, an extraordinary medical burden that will continue to evolve as infections continue in the SPEAR Study Group was initiated in response to a growing number of case reports and reported case series from across the U.S. suggesting meaningful symptom relief / remission of Long COVID following use of PEMGARDA® (pemivibart), a monoclonal antibody currently authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (prevention) of COVID-19 in certain immunocompromised individuals. PEMGARDA is not authorized for the treatment of Long COVID. While these emerging reports are anecdotal and uncontrolled, they collectively support a longstanding, mechanistically plausible hypothesis: that prolonged exposure to pathogenic SARS-CoV-2 spike protein or other forms of persistent virus or viral material may drive disease in some patients, and that reducing this burden through monoclonal antibody therapy may offer a promising therapeutic approach worthy of rigorous clinical investigation. Clinical research to be planned by the SPEAR Study Group is critical to exploring disease biology and evaluating efficacy endpoints that can enable registrational studies if appropriate in the future. The SPEAR Study Group includes the following investigators and researchers who, along with Invivyd, will collaborate on the design and anticipated execution of relevant clinical trials: Michael Peluso, M.D., MHS, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Division of HIV, Infectious Diseases, and Global Medicine, University of California, San Francisco Amy Proal, Ph.D., Co-Founder and CEO, Polybio Research Foundation and Scientific Director, Mount Sinai Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Diseases ('CoRE') David Putrino, Ph.D., Nash Family Director of the Mount Sinai Cohen Center for Recovery from Complex Chronic Diseases ('CoRE') and Professor, Department of Rehabilitation and Human Performance, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The SPEAR Study Group intends to launch collaborative, multi-center translational clinical research on Long COVID, including PVS, as soon as practicable, including use of next-generation monoclonal antibody candidates from Invivyd such as VYD2311. 'It is now clear from a growing body of high-quality, peer-reviewed research that persistent spike protein or viral reservoirs can be identified in a meaningful portion of people with Long COVID,' said Dr. Peluso. 'For the first time in years, there is a company with the capability to explore this space using active, broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. This research marks an essential step toward understanding what may cause debilitating COVID-driven chronic disease, and we hope will lay the groundwork for future efficacy studies that could deliver real therapeutic options to patients who have waited far too long.' 'Long COVID is a pervasive, debilitating, and underappreciated public health challenge affecting millions of adults and children in the U.S., with no approved treatments,' said Marc Elia, Chairman of the Board at Invivyd. 'Monoclonal antibodies have already demonstrated efficacy in preventing acute COVID-19 infections and treating acute COVID-19 infections, including long-term infections, and emerging anecdotal reports suggest pemivibart may have potential in addressing symptoms in some Long COVID patients. We believe that monoclonal antibodies are key to managing the ongoing burden of endemic COVID-19 disease in all forms, and as previously disclosed, we will be meeting with the FDA early in 3Q to discuss rapid approval pathways for COVID-19 mAbs. Meanwhile, our formation of the SPEAR Study Group is a critical step toward potentially unlocking a Long COVID treatment opportunity for patients in need by generating data needed to inform future studies and potential regulatory pathways. We look forward to sharing future milestones as we advance this important initiative.' About PEMGARDA PEMGARDA® (pemivibart) is a half-life extended investigational monoclonal antibody (mAb). PEMGARDA was engineered from adintrevimab, Invivyd's investigational mAb that has a robust safety data package and provided evidence of clinical efficacy in global Phase 2/3 clinical trials for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. PEMGARDA has demonstrated in vitro neutralizing activity against major SARS-CoV-2 variants, including JN.1, KP.3.1.1, XEC and LP.8.1. PEMGARDA targets the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD), thereby inhibiting virus attachment to the human ACE2 receptor on host cells. PEMGARDA (pemivibart) injection (4500 mg), for intravenous use is an investigational mAb that has not been approved, but has been authorized for emergency use by the U.S. FDA under an EUA for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (prevention) of COVID-19 in adults and adolescents (12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg) who have moderate-to-severe immune compromise due to certain medical conditions or receipt of certain immunosuppressive medications or treatments and are unlikely to mount an adequate immune response to COVID-19 vaccination. Recipients should not be currently infected with or have had a known recent exposure to an individual infected with SARS-CoV-2. PEMGARDA is not authorized for use for treatment of COVID-19, treatment of Long COVID, or post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19. Pre-exposure prophylaxis with PEMGARDA is not a substitute for vaccination in individuals for whom COVID-19 vaccination is recommended. Individuals for whom COVID-19 vaccination is recommended, including individuals with moderate-to-severe immune compromise who may derive benefit from COVID-19 vaccinations, should receive COVID-19 vaccination. In individuals who have recently received a COVID-19 vaccine, PEMGARDA should be administered at least 2 weeks after vaccination. Anaphylaxis has been observed with PEMGARDA and the PEMGARDA Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers includes a boxed warning for anaphylaxis. The most common adverse reactions included systemic infusion-related reactions and hypersensitivity reactions, local infusion site reactions, and infusion site infiltration or extravasation. For additional information, please see the PEMGARDA full product Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers, including important safety information and boxed warning. To support the EUA for PEMGARDA, an immunobridging approach was used to determine if PEMGARDA may be effective for pre-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19. Immunobridging is based on the serum virus neutralizing titer-efficacy relationships identified with other neutralizing human mAbs against SARS-CoV-2. This includes adintrevimab, the parent mAb of pemivibart, and other mAbs that were previously authorized for EUA. There are limitations of the data supporting the benefits of PEMGARDA. Evidence of clinical efficacy for other neutralizing human mAbs against SARS-CoV-2 was based on different populations and SARS-CoV-2 variants that are no longer circulating. Further, the variability associated with cell-based EC50 value determinations, along with limitations related to pharmacokinetic data and efficacy estimates for the mAbs in prior clinical trials, impact the ability to precisely estimate protective titer ranges. Additionally, certain SARS-CoV-2 viral variants may emerge that have substantially reduced susceptibility to PEMGARDA, and PEMGARDA may not be effective at preventing COVID-19 caused by these SARS-CoV-2 viral variants. The emergency use of PEMGARDA is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of the emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic under Section 564(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(b)(1), unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner. PEMGARDA is authorized for use only when the combined national frequency of variants with substantially reduced susceptibility to PEMGARDA is less than or equal to 90%, based on available information including variant susceptibility to PEMGARDA and national variant frequencies. About VYD2311 VYD2311 is a novel monoclonal antibody (mAb) candidate being developed for COVID-19 to continue to address the urgent need for new prophylactic and therapeutic options. The pharmacokinetic profile and antiviral potency of VYD2311 may offer the ability to deliver clinically meaningful titer levels through more patient-friendly means such as an intramuscular route of administration. VYD2311 was engineered using Invivyd's proprietary integrated technology platform and is the product of serial molecular evolution designed to generate an antibody optimized for neutralizing contemporary virus lineages. VYD2311 leverages the same antibody backbone as pemivibart, Invivyd's investigational mAb granted emergency use authorization in the U.S. for the pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) of symptomatic COVID-19 in certain immunocompromised patients, and adintrevimab, Invivyd's investigational mAb that has a robust safety data package and demonstrated clinically meaningful results in global Phase 2/3 clinical trials for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. About Invivyd Invivyd, Inc. (Nasdaq: IVVD) is a biopharmaceutical company devoted to delivering protection from serious viral infectious diseases, beginning with SARS-CoV-2. Invivyd deploys a proprietary integrated technology platform unique in the industry designed to assess, monitor, develop, and adapt to create best in class antibodies. In March 2024, Invivyd received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the U.S. FDA for a monoclonal antibody (mAb) in its pipeline of innovative antibody candidates. Visit to learn more. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as 'anticipates,' 'believes,' 'could,' 'expects,' 'estimates,' 'intends,' 'potential,' 'predicts,' 'projects,' and 'future' or similar expressions (as well as other words or expressions referencing future events, conditions or circumstances) are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning, among other things, expectations regarding the SPEAR Study Group and its anticipated goals; the plans of the SPEAR Study Group to structure and guide anticipated clinical trials evaluating the effects of broadly neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein mAb therapy in people suffering from Long COVID or PVS; expectations regarding Long COVID prevalence and burden in the U.S.; statements about the potential of mAb therapy to offer a therapeutic approach to Long COVID; expectations regarding the capability of Invivyd to explore the Long COVID space; whether pemivibart may have potential in addressing symptoms in some Long COVID patients; the potential of the SPEAR Study Group research to lay groundwork for future efficacy studies; the company's expectation to share future milestones regarding the SPEAR Study Group initiative; expectations regarding engagement between Invivyd and the FDA; the potential of PEMGARDA as a mAb for pre-exposure prophylaxis (prevention) of COVID-19 in certain adults and adolescents who have moderate-to-severe immune compromise; the potential of VYD2311 as a novel mAb candidate; the company's devotion to delivering protection from serious viral infectious diseases, beginning with SARS-CoV-2; and other statements that are not historical fact. The company may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in the company's forward-looking statements and you should not place undue reliance on the company's forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause the company's actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation: the timing, progress and results of the SPEAR Study Group, and the company's discovery, preclinical and clinical development activities; the risk that results of nonclinical studies or clinical trials may not be predictive of future results, and interim data are subject to further analysis; unexpected safety or efficacy data observed during preclinical studies or clinical trials; the predictability of clinical success of the company's product candidates based on neutralizing activity in nonclinical studies; potential variability in neutralizing activity of product candidates tested in different assays, such as pseudovirus assays and authentic assays; variability of results in models and methods used to predict activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants; whether the epitope that pemivibart and VYD2311 targets remains structurally intact; whether the company's product candidates are able to demonstrate and sustain neutralizing activity against major SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly in the face of viral evolution; whether mAb therapy is able to offer a therapeutic approach to Long COVID; the ability to gain alignment with the applicable regulatory authorities on clinical trial designs and regulatory pathways for COVID-19 mAbs, and the timing thereof; changes in the regulatory environment; uncertainties related to the regulatory authorization or approval process, and available development and regulatory pathways; future clinical trial site activation or enrollment rates; how long the EUA granted by the FDA for PEMGARDA will remain in effect and whether the EUA is revised or revoked by the FDA; the ability to maintain a continued acceptable safety, tolerability and efficacy profile of any product candidate following regulatory authorization or approval; changes in expected or existing competition; the company's reliance on third parties; complexities of manufacturing mAb therapies; macroeconomic and political uncertainties; the company's ability to continue as a going concern; and whether the company has adequate funding to meet future operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements. Other factors that may cause the company's actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements in this press release are described under the heading 'Risk Factors' in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024 and the company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2025, each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and in the company's other filings with the SEC, and in its future reports to be filed with the SEC and available at Forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of this date, and Invivyd undertakes no duty to update such information whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required under applicable law. This press release contains hyperlinks to information that is not deemed to be incorporated by reference in this press release. Contacts: Media Relations(781) 208-1747media@ Investor Relations(781) 208-1747investors@ 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
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
What's next for birthright citizenship
Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here The battle over birthright citizenship is just getting started. Challengers to President Trump's executive order view Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions as a setback, but not fatal, to their efforts. With the 30-day clock ticking until the Trump administration can try to start denying citizenship to newborns, the plaintiffs are already back in court mounting an aggressive push. William Powell, an attorney for one group of plaintiffs, said at a hearing he saw 'substantial outreach' since Friday's ruling from fearful and concerned parents seeking to join a class action effort. 'They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be,' said Powell, senior counsel at Georgetown's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that universal injunctions likely exceed federal courts' powers, delivering a key blow to efforts to topple Trump's agenda in dozens of lawsuits. But the high court's decision still leaves the birthright citizenship plaintiffs with tools in their toolbox, sparking a new phase of the legal battle. Class actions were one pathway floated by the court, and immigration groups quickly pounced, hoping to get the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction by certifying a class of migrants anywhere in the country impacted by Trump's order. The action is now playing out in federal courtrooms in Maryland, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman, an appointee of former President Biden, has set a written briefing schedule through July 9 on immigration groups' motion. Powell stressed at Monday's hearing that Boardman needs to rule quickly, previewing the case may quickly boomerang back to the Supreme Court. 'There may be appeals either on our side or on their side,' Powell said. 'And July 27th is just a pretty close date.' Justice Department lawyer Brad Rosenberg doubled down on Trump's order, insisting it's the government's position that birthright citizenship is 'not guaranteed by the Constitution' and an injunction 'does nothing' to change that view. However, he maintained that the executive order would not be operative until the 30-day clock runs out. 'That's your understanding or is that the position of the United States?' Boardman asked. 'That's my understanding,' Rosenberg said. 'And I can confirm that, but I have a high degree of confidence in that understanding.' DOJ confirmed that position in a Tuesday filing, which said the order won't be enforced until July 27, but the Trump administration may start developing and issuing public guidance about its plans to implement it. In New Hampshire, the American Civil Liberties Union is embarking on a similar effort before U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Laplante will hold a July 10 hearing on whether to grant a new injunction. Another group of private plaintiffs suing in the nation's capital amended their lawsuit on Tuesday to take the form of a class action, but no schedule is set yet. Meanwhile, the 22 Democratic-led states suing may have a different pathway. The Supreme Court's opinion stresses they still are entitled 'complete relief.' The states contend that allowing Trump's order to take effect in some parts of the country is unworkable, so they are still entitled to a nationwide injunction. 'I think we will very clearly be able to meet the standard that even this Supreme Court set out for states to meet,' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) said on CNN Monday. Welcome to The Gavel, The Hill's weekly courts newsletter from Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. Click above to email us tips, or reach out to us on X (@ByEllaLee, @ZachASchonfeld) or Signal (elee.03, zachschonfeld.48). What we learned from the justices this term Kavanaugh is ready to hear your emergencies If you ask Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court has a glowing 'OPEN' sign on its front door. Trump's second Supreme Court pick is signaling he still wants to get involved in controversial emergency disputes. And the ruling on nationwide injunctions did nothing to change that. Kavanaugh in a solo opinion Friday wrote that the justices will often still need to provide nationally uniform answers on whether a new federal statute or executive order can be enforced in the yearslong period before litigation is resolved. Rejecting the notion that those emergency decisions are a distraction, Kavanaugh called it a 'critical part of our job.' 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass,' Kavanaugh wrote. Kavanaugh's view would have the Supreme Court continue to play a dominating role in the legal battles surrounding Trump's agenda. Kavanaugh acknowledged his position will drag the court into controversy, but he warned that avoiding it 'is neither feasible nor appropriate.' 'Determining the nationally uniform interim legal status for several years of, say, the Clean Power Plan or Title IX regulations or mifepristone rules is a role that the American people appropriately expect this Court—and not only the courts of appeals or district courts—to fulfill,' Kavanaugh wrote. It's not just the court's emergency docket. Kavanaugh repeatedly indicates he wants to take up more cases on the court's merits docket. Just this week, Kavanaugh wanted to hear next term Oregon's defense of its 90-day limit to gather recall election signatures, American Airlines' bid to validate its Northeast Alliance with JetBlue and a constitutional challenge to California's pig welfare law. As is typical for him, Kavanaugh didn't explain his reasoning. But on occasion, the justice will speak out to send a signal to the parties. When Kavanaugh in early June declined to provide the crucial fourth vote needed to take up challenges to state bans on possessing AR-15 rifles, he told the challengers to come back in a year or two after other appeals courts weigh in. So buckle up. Because as Kavanaugh put it Friday, the Supreme Court is open '24/7/365.' Liberal justices splinter The Supreme Court's liberal justices may seem like an unwavering united front, but this term told a different story. A faint rift between the high court's left flank emerged in several decisions this spring, where Justice Elena Kagan broke ranks with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan was the sole Democratic-appointed justice to side with the court's conservative majority in four argued cases this term. Kagan also largely split from the other liberal justices in a fifth case, though that decision was deeply fractured. In a challenge brought by Food and Drug Administration, Kagan joined the court's six conservative justices in ruling for the vape industry. The majority broadened where companies can challenge product marketing denials, drawing a dissent from Jackson and Sotomayor. Kagan joined the conservatives again in a bid by the energy industry to revive its effort to axe California's stricter car emission standard. They ruled that fuel producers have standing to sue over the rule, again spurring pointed dissents from the other two liberal justices. Kagan has long held a reputation as a consensus builder. She was in the majority 83 percent of the time in all cases this term, according to an analysis by SCOTUSblog — more than Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. As Kagan splintered from her fellow liberal justices, the consensus between Jackson and Sotomayor also sometimes faltered. Neither of the more senior liberal justices joined several of Jackson's most pointed dissents. Most notably, both Kagan and Sotomayor declined to sign onto her scorching dissent in the birthright citizenship case, where she suggested the court's decision marked an 'existential threat to the rule of law.' Jackson issued a solo dissent of the court's decision in the California emissions case, as well, where she argued that the case 'gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.' And in another case, Sotomayor joined all of Jackson's dissent but distanced herself from a footnote where the court's most junior justice shaded the majority's 'unfortunate misunderstanding of the judicial role' and flimsy approach to textualism that is 'somehow always flexible enough to secure the majority's desired outcome.' There's no indication the apparent divides spell serious trouble for the court's liberal coalition; each issued fiery dissents this term, signed on to by the others, as well. But the convergence raises questions about just how in lockstep the justices really are. Clarence Thomas's wish list Justice Clarence Thomas is laying out his vision for the next phase of the conservative legal project. As the Supreme Court's longest-serving sitting justice, Thomas has found his moment on the 6-3 conservative supermajority after entering the court in 1991 on its ideological fringes. He unapologetically calls for overturning precedents and reconsidering legal approaches and has already been part of a massive shift toward an originalist vision on guns, abortion and other culture war issues. But Thomas made clear this term he still has a long wish list, on issues big and small. When the justices ruled in favor of a straight woman claiming employment discrimination, Thomas condemned a 1973 Supreme Court decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, for leading lower courts astray by creating a 'judge-made doctrine.' 'Atextual, judge-created legal rules have a tendency to generate complexity, confusion, and erroneous results,' Thomas noted. Known as the McDonnell Douglas framework, judges use it to resolve cases when an employee lacks direct evidence of discrimination. A lower court relied on the framework to rule that members of a majority group must clear a higher legal bar than minorities to prove their lawsuits — a contention the Supreme Court unanimously rejected. But Thomas wants to go further. 'In a case where the parties ask us to do so, I would be willing to consider whether the McDonnell Douglas framework is a workable and useful evidentiary tool,' Thomas wrote. Weeks later, Thomas called for cabining Section 1983, a statute that allows people to sue local and state officials for violating their federal or constitutional rights. The court ruled along ideological lines that Planned Parenthood couldn't invoke the statute to sue South Carolina for excluding the abortion provider from the state's Medicaid program. And in a case involving school disability claims, Thomas expressed an eagerness to clarify the appropriate legal standard to sue the government under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Thomas's vision is scattered across some of his dozen concurrences in argued cases this term, more than any of his colleagues. It only adds to his attention-grabbing calls over the years for overturning significant constitutional precedents. When the court overturned Roe v. Wade, Thomas wrote a solo opinion calling for all the court's substantive due process precedents to be reconsidered, including decisions that protect the right to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex intimacy. He has also called for reconsidering New York Times v. Sullivan, the landmark ruling that sets a high bar for public officials to win defamation lawsuits. 5 top docket updates In other news The court issued its remaining opinions in argued cases this term. Nationwide injunctions restricted In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Supreme Court curtailed federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions in Trump's challenge over his birthright citizenship executive order. But as we explained above, the cases are far from over. Louisiana redistricting case to be reheard The Supreme Court was expected to release an opinion regarding Louisiana's addition of a second majority-Black congressional district but instead announced it will hear a new round of arguments. The justices provided no reasoning or focus of the new argument, though Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would have decided the case. Until the court's ultimate decision, Louisiana's map will remain in effect. LGBTQ books, porn age verification and more The court issued a slew of other important decisions at the end of opinion season: IN: Campaign finance The Supreme Court took up seven new cases at its conference, filling up much of next term's docket. The biggest news came in NRSC v. FEC, where the Supreme Court agreed to take up Republicans' effort to strike down federal limits on political parties' spending made in coordination with campaigns. The case is brought by the National Republican Senatorial Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee, Vice President Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio). It's the latest major campaign finance case to reach the Roberts Court, which in 2010 upended campaign finance law under the First Amendment in Citizens United v. FEC. Here's a look at the other grants: Calling all actuaries: In M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund, the court will examine how withdrawal liability for multiemployer plans is calculated. Internet provider copyright: In Cox Communications, Inc v. Sony Music Entertainment, the court will decide whether Cox as an internet service provider can be held liable under federal copyright law for not kicking out subscribers who repeatedly steal music. Asylum: In Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, the justices will review a lower appeals court's finding that asylum seeker Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana, who reported threats and physical mistreatment, would not face 'persecution' if returned to El Salvador. Fund shareholder lawsuits: The Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA) regulates mutual funds and investment companies. Section 47(b) states that a contract that violates the ICA is unenforceable. In FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, the Supreme Court will decide whether Section 47(b) allows private parties, like fund shareholders, to sue to void such contracts. Michigan pipeline fight: In Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel, the court will decide whether the owner of the Line 5 pipeline in Michigan can move a lawsuit launched by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) to federal court. Enbridge didn't make its request within the 30-day statutory window, and the justices will examine whether judges have authority to excuse the deadline. Fugitives: In Rico v. United States, the Supreme Court will examine the 'fugitive tolling' doctrine, which prevents defendants from receiving credit toward their prison sentence for time they are a fugitive. The court will determine whether the doctrine extends to supervised release. OUT: Eviction moratorium After considering it at 10 consecutive conferences, the court denied a landlord's lawsuit over Los Angeles' pandemic-era eviction moratorium, GHP Management Corporation v. City of Los Angeles. The landlord argued it violated the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause, which bars the government from taking private property without just compensation. Thomas dissented, joined by Gorsuch, his fellow conservative justice. The duo expressed doubt about the moratorium and expressed a desire to resolve a split among the lower courts, warning the issue's importance 'has not diminished' despite the COVID-19 pandemic ending. 'Even if it were otherwise, we would do well to clarify our case law now, rather than in the heat of the next national emergency,' Thomas wrote. Thomas also penned a statement as the court declined to hear MacRae v. Mattos, a former Massachusetts teacher's First Amendment appeal after she was fired for posting anti-transgender and anti-DEI TikToks. Thomas said he agreed with turning away the case because of the posture of the teacher's petition. But he still raised concerns about the termination. 'It undermines core First Amendment values to allow a government employer to adopt an institutional viewpoint on the issues of the day and then, when faced with a dissenting employee, portray this disagreement as evidence of disruption,' Thomas wrote. When the court declined to take up Wiggins v. United States, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett jointly called on the U.S. Sentencing Commission to resolve the proper definition of a 'controlled substance offense.' Defendants with two such prior felony convictions are deemed career offenders who can face significantly higher sentences. But courts have split as to whether the offenses must involve drugs prohibited by state law, federal law or either. Three years ago, Sotomayor and Barrett made the same plea while acknowledging the commission lacked a quorum of voting members to take action. Now they do, and the duo isn't happy with the lack of progress. They reminded the commission of its responsibility to 'ensure fair and uniform application' of the guidelines. MAYBE: Cuba cruises The court asked for the Trump administration's views on three cases. Expect the administration to file its responses near the end of this year in time for the justices to consider adding the disputes to next term's docket. In Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., the justices are considering reviewing an appeals court ruling that tossed a $400+ million combined judgment against four major cruise lines for taking passengers to Cuba. A federal judge found the cruise lines — Carnival, Norwegian, Royal Caribbean and MSC — violated Title III of the LIBERTAD Act, which allows U.S. nationals whose property was expropriated by Cuba to sue companies that traffic in the property. The provision is controversial. Then-President Clinton suspended it when it was enacted in 1996, and administrations continued to do so until President Trump lifted the suspension in 2019. The cruise lines now face a lawsuit from Havana Docks Corporation, a U.S. company that built the port of Havana before Cuba's communist government extinguished its right to operate the docks. It seeks compensation for the hundreds of thousands of passengers the cruise lines disembarked in Havana. Meanwhile, in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, the administration will weigh in on an effort by Bayer, the maker of Roundup weedkiller, to block lawsuits claiming it failed to warn consumers that the product's active ingredient causes cancer. Bayer argues the suits are preempted by federal law, since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a pesticide label for Roundup omitting any health warning about purported cancerous impacts. And in Parker Hannifin Corp v. Johnson, the justices want the administration's views on the proper standard for lawsuits claiming a retirement plan fiduciary violated federal law by failing to remove 'imprudent investments' from a plan within reasonable time. The court will release one last order list before their summer recess on Thursday. Known as the 'clean-up' conference, the justices clear out any petitions that were held pending an opinion in a similar case. Justices also issue any remaining written dissents and statements they've been working on from a decision to turn away a petition (though this year, the court cleared much of the backlog in Monday's list). Here's what we're watching: Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: Today Thursday Friday Monday Tuesday
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Iran Ready to Enrich Uranium Up to Bomb-Grade Levels: 'We Can Do That'
Iran can now enrich uranium up to the 90 percent level required for nuclear weapons even though it has no desire to build them, a prominent member of the Iranian parliament said following Israeli and U.S. attacks on its nuclear program. Newsweek has reached out to the U.S. State Department and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for comment. The comments highlight Iran's toughened stance on enrichment following the Israeli and U.S. strikes targeting its nuclear facilities. Since the strikes, Iran and the United States have showed no interest in immediate diplomatic talks, raising the prospect that Iran will seek to accelerate its nuclear program - though questions remain over its ability to do so after the damage caused by the attacks. Going forward, Iran will enrich uranium according to its needs at any levels and without abiding by conditions, according to Alaeddin Boroujerdi's statements on Iranian TV, multiple Iranian media reported. "Iran may need to enrich uranium to 90% purity for fuel to power its ocean liner. We can do that. The only red line is the atomic bomb," the senior member of the Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission was quoted as saying by the UK-based Iran International English outlet. He described U.S. President Donald Trump's demands for zero enrichment as a "delusion". It is unclear to what extent the damage at Iran's underground nuclear facilities, acknowledged by Tehran, affected the program's development. Trump and administration officials have spoken of the "obliteration" of Iran's nuclear program by the attack but the leader of the IAEA Rafael Grossi estimated the setback for Iran was a matter of "months." The IAEA had assessed that Iran, enriching uranium at 60 percent, was close to the 90 percent level needed for weapons grade. The UN watchdog had also expressed concerns over undeclared nuclear material and activities, accusing Iran of failing to co-operate on implementing the Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement. Disputing the findings, the Iranian parliament called for suspending cooperation with IAEA inspectors, citing political bias. Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes. "There has never been weapons-grade enrichment in Iran. Please, you can go through the reports by the IAEA and show me one single clue or evidence of Iran's nuclear program deviating from peaceful purposes," Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baqaei was quoted as saying by Iranian media on Monday. Iran says its nuclear program is for civilian purposes. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had previously stated that he believes religion prohibits the development and use of nuclear weapons. U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters in Florida on Tuesday: "We had tremendous success with Iran... They're so bombed out. That place was decimated. It'll be years before anyone can even get down there." Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told CBS News: "We have also gone through 12 days of imposed war; therefore, people will not easily back down from enrichment." Israel's Ambassador to France Joshua Zarka told the Associated Press in June: "They were killed not because of the fact that they knew physics, but because of the fight that they were personally involved in, the creation and the fabrication and the production of (a) nuclear weapon." While Iran may seek to accelerate its nuclear program, its ability to do so depends on the extent of damage done. If it were to do so, it could also face further attacks. Italy and Oman, which hosted previous U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, are working on reviving the negotiations. Related Articles Iran Confirms Significant Nuclear DecisionWhile World Watches Iran, Putin Makes Headway in UkraineNew Satellite Image Shows U.S. Aircraft Carrier Deployed Near IranIran Suspect Preparing for Terror Attacks on Jews: Prosecutors 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
