Latest news with #5thAmendment
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
Mother of 6-year-old L.A. boy battling leukemia files lawsuit to stop immediate deportation
A Central American asylum applicant arrested outside an L.A. immigration court is suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security and the Trump administration for her immediate release and that of her two children, including her 6-year-old son stricken with cancer. The Honduran woman, not named in court documents, filed a petition for writs of habeas corpus, challenging the legality of her and her family's detention at a Texas facility. She is also asking for a preliminary injunction that would prevent her family's immediate deportation to Honduras, as her children cry and pray nightly to be released from a Texas holding facility, according to court documents. She and her two children, including a 9-year-old daughter, are facing two removal proceedings concurrently: a previous removal proceeding involving their asylum request and this recent expedited removal process. The woman claims the government violated many of their rights, including the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. Her attorneys noted that DHS determined she was not a flight risk when she was paroled into the country and that her detention was unjustified. The woman's lawyers also argued that she was not given an opportunity to contest her family's detention in front of a neutral adjudicator. They also argue that the family's 4th Amendment right to not be unlawfully arrested were violated. The Honduran mother is being represented by several groups, including attorney Kate Gibson Kumar of the Texas Civil Rights Project, the San Antonio-based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Service and the immigrant advocacy group Raices Texas. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in San Antonio on Tuesday. An after-hours email to the Department of Homeland Security was not immediately answered. One of the focal points of the lawsuit is the fate of the woman's son. The youth was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at the age of 3 and has undergone chemotherapy treatments, including injecting chemotherapeutic agents into his cerebrospinal fluid, according to court documents. He began treatment in Honduras and completed two years of chemotherapy, at which point the mother believes he no longer has leukemia cells in his blood, according to court documents. The son, however, needs regular monitoring and medical care for his condition, according to court documents. Last year, the family fled to the United States to 'seek safety' after they were subject to 'imminent, menacing death threats' in Honduras, according to court documents. They applied for entrance while waiting in Mexico and received a CBP One app appointment in October to apply for asylum. They presented themselves at an undisclosed border entry, were processed and were paroled in the U.S., according to court documents. They were scheduled to appear before a Los Angeles immigration court and moved to the area to live with family. Both children enrolled in local public schools, attended Sunday church and were learning English, according to court documents. The trio arrived at court May 29 for a hearing for their asylum request and were caught off guard when a Homeland Security lawyer asked for their case to be dismissed, according to court documents. The woman told an immigration judge 'we wish to continue [with our cases],' according to court documents. The judge granted the dismissal and the Honduran mother and two children were immediately arrested by plainclothes ICE agents upon leaving the courtroom in the hallway, according to court documents. The woman had a June 5 medical appointment scheduled for her son's cancer diagnosis, which he couldn't attend because of the arrest. The family was detained for hours on the first floor before being taken to an undisclosed immigration center in the city, according to court documents. All three 'cried in fear' and the young boy urinated on himself and remained in wet clothing 'for hours,' according to court documents. The trio were placed on a flight to San Antonio along with several other families. The date of the flight was not available. After landing, the family was transported to a detention center in Dilley, Texas, where they have since resided. The children have cried each night and prayed 'for God to take them out of the detention center,' according to court documents. The mother claims that the federal government did nothing to monitor her son's leukemia for days. Her lawyers have also sought the boy's release for medical treatment, a request that was not fulfilled.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Senator Nicole Mitchell's trial for 2024 burglary charge starts Monday
The Brief Minnesota Senator Nicole Mitchell's trial for a burglary charge starts Monday morning in Becker County. Mitchell, a DFL lawmaker representing Woodbury, is accused of breaking into her stepmother's home in Detroit Lakes in April of 2024. She said her father had just died, and wanted some of his personal belongings her stepmother wouldn't give her. Mitchell was supposed to go to trial in January, but it got pushed back so she could finish her work with the Minnesota Legislature. BECKER CO., Minn. (FOX 9) - A Minnesota senator accused of breaking into her stepmother's Detroit Lakes home in April 2024 heads to trial on Monday. What we know Nicole Mitchell, a DFL Senator who represents Woodbury, pleaded not guilty to one count of burglary after she was arrested inside her stepmother's Detroit Lakes home back in April 2024. On Feb. 6. 2025, an additional charge for possession of burglary or theft tools was added. Mitchell was originally scheduled for trial in January, but got it pushed back so she could finish out the legislative session. That ended earlier this week in a special session. The trial starts Monday morning at 8:30 a.m. in Becker County, and cameras are being allowed in the courtroom. That means you can see daily clips of the trial on and on FOX 9's YouTube page. Timeline A criminal complaint states Detroit Lakes police responded to a reported burglary at a home around 4:45 a.m. on April 22, 2024. At the scene, police found Mitchell in the home's basement dressed in all black. Officers say they also found a flashlight covered with a black sock on Mitchell. Officers searched for a black backpack that was stuck in a window at the scene and recovered two laptops, a cellphone, a driver's license, Senate identification and miscellaneous Tupperware, according to the complaint. Mitchell reportedly told investigators she was "just trying to get some of my dad's things" and added "clearly, I'm not good at this." The complaint states that Mitchell explained to police that her father had just died, and she wanted sentimental items her stepmother refused to give to her. Mitchell said those include her father's ashes, pictures, clothes and other sentimental items. What they're saying In May of 2024, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and democratic leaders called for Mitchell to resign after she was charged with the burglary. She appeared before the Senate's Ethical Conduct Subcommittee in May of 2024 as members considered whether the lawmaker adhered to the highest standards of ethical conduct required of a state senator. However, she refused to answer questions and invoked her 5th Amendment rights. While Democrats have previously argued to allow for due process before taking action, the Minnesota DFL Chairman Ken Martin released a statement Thursday morning calling for her resignation. "The Minnesota DFL believes that all elected officials should be held accountable, including members of our own party. While Sen. Mitchell is entitled to her day in court, her continued refusal to take responsibility for her actions is beneath her office and has become a distraction for her district and the Legislature. Now that her constituents have had full representation through the end of the legislative session, it is time for her to resign to focus on the personal and legal challenges she faces," said Martin.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit.
First the government seized Kenneth Michael Sikorsky's home and all of its equity over a tax debt worth far less than what it took. Now a federal court has ruled that Sikorsky has successfully stated a claim for a taking—an early sign that the legal landscape is shifting since the Supreme Court weighed in on these sorts of seizures two years ago. In 2012, the city of Newburgh, New York, foreclosed on Sikorsky's house after he fell behind on his property taxes. The parties were later able to broker an agreement that allowed him to repurchase the home for the price of his outstanding debt. But he was unable to satisfy those regular installments, prompting the city to cancel the sale. The government later found another buyer who could pay much more than the value of Sikorsky's debt, which with penalties, interest, and fees stood at $92,786.24. The sale went through in June 2021 for $350,500. The city then pocketed the profit: $257,713.76. Sikorsky is far from the first person to experience this nightmare scenario. But his case coincided with a petition that would upend the practice nationwide. Geraldine Tyler argued that the practice was unconstitutional after Hennepin County, Minnesota, seized her Minneapolis condo over a modest tax debt, sold it, and kept the profit. This worked its way through the court system until 2023, when the Supreme Court sided with Tyler. "A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts for the unanimous Court. "The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more." The decision centered around the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, which says the government cannot take private property without providing "just compensation." So foreclosing on a property to collect a debt is constitutional, but pocketing the profit is not. Sikorsky's suit made it to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York shortly after that ruling. Sounds like perfect timing, yet the court ruled against him. But now the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has ruled that he can, in fact, sue for his equity under the Takings Clause, resuscitating his suit and sending it back to the district court for review. While the high court ruled the practice unconstitutional, several states—including Arizona, Alabama, New Jersey, and Sikorsky's home of New York—responded by passing labyrinthine debt collection statutes that seek to technically comply with the law while simultaneously making it difficult for property owners to collect their surplus equity. Michigander Chelsea Koetter, for example, lost her house in 2021 over a $3,863.40 tax debt. Manistee County, Michigan, then auctioned it off and kept the $102,636 profit. But the state's supreme court had already ruled the practice illegal in 2020—after which the Legislature approved a debt-collection law that sends owners on an obstacle course should they want to get their leftover equity back. Koetter, according to her complaint, submitted a form 8 days late, which the government said justified its decision to keep her six figures of equity. In Sikorsky's case, New York's new statute applies only to people whose properties were sold on or after May 25, 2023, so he will get to proceed under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution instead. But future plaintiffs who lose everything after falling on hard times may find it much harder to recover their money. The post He Fell Behind on His Taxes. So the Government Seized His Home, Sold It, and Kept the $258,000 Profit. appeared first on
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000.
Years after a SWAT team in Texas destroyed an innocent woman's home while trying to apprehend a fugitive, the local government will have to pay her $60,000 in damages plus interest, a federal judge ruled Thursday. That decision may sound like common sense. But the ending was far from guaranteed in a legal odyssey that saw Vicki Baker of McKinney, Texas, left with a dilapidated house—and the bill for the damages—even though she was never suspected of wrongdoing. "I've lost everything," she told Reason in 2021. "I've lost my chance to sell my house. I've lost my chance to retire without fear of how I'm going to make my regular bills." In July 2020, law enforcement detonated about 30 tear gas grenades inside Baker's home, blew off the garage entryway with explosives, and careened a BearCat armored vehicle through her backyard fence. They smashed the windows and drove through her front door. (Baker's daughter, Deanna Cook, had given them a garage door opener and the code to enter the home.) Police were in search of Wesley Little, who was on the run after kidnapping a teenage girl. Upon arriving at Baker's home, Little—who had formerly worked for Baker as a handyman—encountered Cook, who called law enforcement. Little released the girl unharmed but refused to exit himself, prompting the SWAT team to destroy the home. He was ultimately found dead from suicide. "The tear gas was everywhere," Baker, who is now in her 80s, said. "It was on the walls. It was on the floors. It was on the furniture. It was everywhere." Her daughter's dog was rendered deaf and blind. Baker told Reason she has "a very high regard for the police," and she did not challenge that they acted in the best interest of the community that day. But not long after they ravaged her home, things began to fall apart even more, metaphorically speaking. Her home insurance would not cover the damages, citing a clause that protects them from having to reimburse people for damages caused by the government. But the government would not help either, telling Baker she did not meet its definition of a victim. That general excuse often works—as this is not the first such story. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises the government cannot take private property without "just compensation." But some governments have managed to evade that pledge by claiming there is an exception to that rule if the property was destroyed via police power. Judge Amos Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2021 ruled Baker could sue, ultimately calling that interpretation of the law "untenable." In June 2022, a jury awarded her $59,656.59 in damages. Yet that victory would be short-lived. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that judgment in 2023, ruling she was foreclosed from relief under federal law because police acted out of "necessity during an active emergency." The Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year. So Baker pivoted back to the Texas Constitution. Attorneys for McKinney argued that Baker's state law claim died with her federal one, an argument Mazzant rejected in his opinion published Thursday. "The [5th Circuit] specifically noted in its Summary Judgment Order that 'the Texas Constitution's Takings Clause differs from the Takings Clause set forth in the United States Constitution,'" writes Mazzant. "It is entirely possible for a defendant to violate the Texas Takings Clause—a clause more protective than its federal analog—without violating the Fifth Amendment." "Regarding future victims, this should help in Texas," says Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented Baker. "As far as we can tell, municipalities in Texas have just been ignoring this binding decision from the Texas Supreme Court about SWAT damage, but hopefully some publicity around the result will spur change." At the federal level, however, the issue remains an open question. "Whether any such exception exists (and how the Takings Clause applies when the government destroys property pursuant to its police power)," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a statement after the Supreme Court denied Baker's case, "is an important and complex question that would benefit from further percolation in the lower courts prior to this Court's intervention." While some municipalities opt to pay innocent property owners in such cases, many treat victims like McKinney treated Baker. It doesn't have to be that way. "Paying these kinds of claims is not going to bankrupt cities," says Redfern. "Raids like this aren't an everyday occurrence in most jurisdictions, and the damage is usually in the five figures. Ruinous for many property owners, but an easy check to cut for municipalities." The post Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000. appeared first on
Yahoo
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
5 Points On Boasberg's Big Alien Enemies Act Ruling
After being mostly scuttled by the Supreme Court, the original Alien Enemies Act case has re-entered the conversation. While the high court took most of the Alien Enemies Act challenges out of the hands of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of D.C. and distributed them to the individual judicial districts where Venezuelan nationals are being detained under the act, it left unresolved the fate of the deportees already removed to CECOT in El Salvador. In a significant ruling yesterday, Boasberg concluded that the CECOT detainees were denied due process when they were removed March 15. He ordered the Trump administration to propose a plan within a week for how to 'facilitate' giving the detainees the due process they were denied. While President Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was itself historic and the cases challenging his proclamation are testing the robustness of due process, the real import of these cases is that they are where the executive branch is threatening to and in fact is running roughshod over the judicial branch. In defying court orders, including to 'facilitate' the return of other wrongfully deported foreign nationals, the Trump administration has provoked a constitutional clash, practically daring the judicial branch to try to stop it. Boasberg's decision sets up another potential focal point for that constitutional clash. Here are 5 points on how Boasberg's ruling anticipates that confrontation: Boasberg's ruling wasn't a complete victory for the CECOT detainees. He found it unlikely that they would win their habeas corpus claims. For the detainees to prevail on the habeas claim, they had to show that they were in the 'constructive custody' of the United States, meaning under U.S. control or held at its behest. It's troubling that Boasberg was unconvinced on this point and even he seemed troubled by it, but by taking it off the table, he eliminates one ripe avenue of appeal for the government. By grounding his ruling in the due process clause of the 5th Amendment instead, he aligned with the Supreme Court's recent strong defense of due process in this very case. And in the end, he winds up at roughly the same place because he concluded that the remedy for violating the detainees due process was to allow them the chance to pursue the habeas claims they were denied in the first place. Boasberg seems keenly aware that this Supreme Court is going to give maximum deference to the executive branch. I suspect that's one reason he effectively sidestepped the 'constructive custody' issue. The Roberts Court isn't going to get involved in foreign policy by ordering the administration to make demands on El Salvador, and so Boasberg is walking a fine line. 'Although the Court is mindful that such a remedy may implicate sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns within the exclusive province of the Executive Branch, it also has a constitutional duty to provide a remedy that will 'make good the wrong done,'' Boasberg wrote. In open court previously, Boasberg had mused about how due process could be provided without having to return the detainees to the United States. In his written opinion, Boasberg said that facilitating a return of the CECOT detainees is 'not necessarily' the only presumed remedy for the due process violation. Boasberg was vague about what kind of process he was looking for to provide the detainees with their denied due process. 'Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings,' he wrote. His invitation to the government to propose a process invites some sort of remote habeas proceeding. But in the short term it may not matter because the Trump administration will almost certainly appeal Boasberg's preliminary injunction to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ask it to pause the case so that it doesn't have to propose a plan for giving the detainees belated due process, before the deadline Boasberg set for next week. From there, the case is a sure bet to go to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the CECOT detainees, who are approaching the three-month mark of their confinement there, will remain in indefinite custody. Plaintiffs typically must post an Injunction bond, which is intended to make defendants whole if it turns out the injunction was improperly granted. It's common for judges to waive an injunction bond when the injunction is against the federal government. I was left wondering whether Boasberg set a nominal bond of $1 here to sidestep the yet-to-pass House GOP's reconciliation bill which contains a provision that would prohibit federal judges from enforcing contempt citations unless a bond was posted when an injunction was issued. No way to confirm Boasberg's intentions, but it caught my eye. In his opinion, Boasberg highlights more than once the Trump administration's poor conduct in this case from the beginning. You'll recall he already found probable cause that the administration violated his order when it proceeded with the deportations on March 15 and didn't turn the planes around. He references his contempt of court inquiry in the opinion. All of which serves as good reminder that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals placed an administrative stay on the contempt of court inquiry more than six weeks ago. It's been fully briefed since April 28. And still no ruling from the appeals court. Meanwhile, several other courts have begun incipient contempt of court proceedings against the administration in other Alien Enemies Act cases and adjacent 'facilitate' cases. It's not at all clear what is taking the D.C. Circuit so long.
