Latest news with #Cubans
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's winning at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson warns about 'troubling message'
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is on a winning streak of getting quick assistance from the Supreme Court after lower courts have put the brakes on his policies. That's prompted one of the three liberal justices to write that the court is sending a 'troubling message" that it's departing from basic legal standards for the administration. 'It is particularly startling to think that grants of relief in these circumstances might be (unintentionally) conveying not only preferential treatment for the Government but also a willingness to undercut both our lower court colleagues' well-reasoned interim judgments and the well-established constraints of law that they are in the process of enforcing,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote. Jackson was dissenting from the conservative majority's decision to give Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency complete access to the data of millions of Americans kept by the U.S. Social Security Administration. Once again, she wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, "this Court dons its emergency responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them." A district judge had blocked DOGE's access to 'personally identifiable information' while assessing if that access is legal. Jackson said a majority of the court didn't require the administration to show it would be 'irreparably harmed' by not getting immediate access, one of the legal standards for intervention. "It says, in essence, that although other stay applicants must point to more than the annoyance of compliance with lower court orders they don't like," she wrote, "the Government can approach the courtroom bar with nothing more than that and obtain relief from this Court nevertheless." A clock, a mural, a petition: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's chambers tell her story In a brief and unsigned decision, the majority said it weighed the 'irreparable harm' factor along with the other required considerations of what's in the public interest and whether the courts are likely to ultimately decide that DOGE can get at the data. But the majority did not explain how they did so. Jackson raised a similar complaint when the court on May 30 said the administration can revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans living in the United States. Jackson wrote that the court "plainly botched" its assessment of whether the government or the approximately 530,000 migrants would suffer the greater harm if their legal status ends while the administration's mass termination of that status is being litigated. Jackson said the majority undervalued "the devastating consequences of allowing the Government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending." The majority did not offer an explanation for its decision. In addition to those interventions, the Supreme Court recently blocked a judge's order requiring DOGE to disclose information about its operations, declined to reinstate independent agency board members fired by Trump, allowed Trump to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans and said the president can enforce his ban on transgender people serving in the military. Jackson disagreed with all of those decisions. The court's two other liberal justices – Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – disagreed with most of them. More: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson can throw a punch. Literally. The court did hand Trump a setback in May when it barred the administration from quickly resuming deportations of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two of the court's six conservative justices – Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – dissented. Decisions are expected in the coming weeks on other Trump emergency requests, including whether the president can dismantle the Education Department and can enforce his changes to birthright citizenship. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Justice Jackson warns Supreme Court is sending a 'troubling message'
UPI
a day ago
- Politics
- UPI
Rubio nominates Rosa Maria Paya for OAS human rights commission
Cuban activist Rosa Maria Paya (C) and members of the Cuban exile and freedom activists participate in a Miami demonstration supporting Cubans protesting against the government of Cuba on November 14, 2021. File Photo by Cristobal Herrera-Ulashkevich/EPA-EFE June 26 (UPI) -- The Organization of American States is scheduled to elect new members of its Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Friday, and the United States wants Rosa Maria Paya on it. The IACHR is the OAS's primary body for defending human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Western Hemisphere, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio. "Rosa Maria Paya is a principled, courageous and deeply committed human rights and democracy defender," Rubio said on Thursday in a news release. "Her record of fearless leadership and moral clarity -- particularly in confronting authoritarianism and promoting democratic values -- reflects the very ideals upon which the IACHR was founded," he said. "Rosa Maria brings the dignity and resolve to tackle the commission's greatest challenges with innovative solutions, all while keeping a focus on serving the people of the Americas," Rubio added. "I have full confidence in her ability to make the commission more effective, efficient and relevant." Paya is a Cuban human rights and democracy activist and the daughter of Oswaldo Paya, who was a Cuban democracy activist who was killed, according to the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Paya is a graduate of the University of Havana and Georgetown University's Global Competitive Leadership Program. She founded Cuba Decide, which is a grassroots organization seeking to foster democracy in Cuba, and is president of the Latin American Youth Network for Democracy. The 55th OAS General Assembly started on Wednesday and runs through Friday.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court's deference to Trump is astounding
The nation's federal judges — including appointees of presidents of both parties, Donald Trump's among them — have been the bulwark against Trump's reign of lawlessness on deportations, spending, federal appointments and more. Repeatedly, lower courts have been standing up for the Constitution and federal law, trying to constrain a president contemptuous of both, at demonstrable danger to themselves. But too often, the administration disregards their orders. You'd think the Supreme Court — in particular Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the overseer of the judicial branch — would have the lower courts' backs. But no, as the high court's conservative majority shamefully showed in a ruling on Monday. That decision in one of many deportation challenges wasn't the court's first such display of deference to a president who doesn't reciprocate. And, safe bet, it won't be the last. The court allowed the Trump administration to at least temporarily continue deporting migrants to countries not their own, unsafe ones at that, with little or no notice and no chance to legally argue that they could face torture or worse. No matter that lives are at stake — the justices blithely lifted an injunction by Judge Brian E. Murphy, of the U.S. District Court in Boston, that had blocked the administration's slapdash deportations while legal challenges wend through the courts. In a blistering 19-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, marshaled legal arguments, damning examples of Trump administration dissembling and defiance of lower courts, and warnings of more defiance of federal courts from an emboldened president. In contrast, the ruling from the Supreme Court majority was just one paragraph — unsigned legal mumbo-jumbo, its decision wholly unexplained, as is typical in the cases that the court takes all too frequently on an emergency basis, the aptly named 'shadow docket.' (In two other shadow docket rulings in May, Trump was allowed to revoke the legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians, many of whom were here under programs created to protect refugees from violent, impoverished and repressive countries. Why? Who knows?) What's all the more maddening about the Supreme Court's opacity in overriding both Judge Murphy and an appeals court that backed him is that its preliminary support for Trump in this case contradicts the plain language of the justices' unanimous ruling in April that people subject to deportation 'are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.' 'Fire up the deportation planes,' crowed a spokeswoman for the Homeland Security Department. Such callous gloating surely didn't surprise Sotomayor. Her dissent began, 'In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach.' And so did her conservative colleagues. As Sotomayor wrote, historically the Supreme Court stays a lower court order only 'under extraordinary circumstances.' Typically it doesn't grant relief when, as in this case, both district and appeals courts opposed it. And certainly it doesn't give the government a W when the record in the case, like this one, is replete with evidence of its misconduct, including openly flouting court orders. Examples: A judge agreed a Guatemalan gay man would face torture in his home country, yet the man was deported there anyway. The administration violated Judge Murphy's order when it put six men on a plane to civil-war-torn South Sudan, which the U.S. considers so unsafe that only its most critical personnel remain there. And in a third case, a group was unlawfully bound to Libya before a federal judge was able to halt the flight. Thus, Sotomayor said, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration 'relief from an order it has repeatedly defied' — an order that didn't prohibit deportations but only required due process in advance. As she put it, the decision to stay the order was a 'gross' abuse of the justices' discretion. It undermines the rule of law as fully as the Trump administration's lawlessness, especially given that Americans look to the nation's highest court as the last word on the law. 'This is not the first time the Court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,' Sotomayor said. As if on cue, the Supreme Court's decision was followed on Tuesday by news that underscored just how dangerously misplaced the conservative justices' deference toward Trump is. A former Justice Department official, who was fired for truthfully testifying in court that Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia had been wrongly deported to El Salvador, blew the whistle on his former colleagues — all Trump appointees — confirming in a 27-page document that they'd connived to defy court orders. Emil Bove, Trump's former defense lawyer and now his nominee for a federal appeals court seat, allegedly advised a group of DOJ lawyers in March to tell the courts 'f— you' if — when — they tried to stop Trump's deportations. Bove on Wednesday told the Senate he had 'no recollection' of saying that; he might have denied it, as a DOJ associate did to the media, but Bove was under oath. And the alleged phrase captures the administration's attitude toward the judiciary, a coequal branch of government, though you'd hardly know it by the justices' kowtowing to the executive branch. The message, while more profane, matches Trump's own take on lower-court judges. 'The Judges are absolutely out of control,' he posted in May. 'Hopefully, the Supreme Court of the United States will put an END to the quagmire.' For the sake of courageous judges who follow the law, and the rest of us, we can hope otherwise — even if the justices' early record is mixed at best. @Jackiekcalmes @ @jkcalmes
Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Supreme Court allows Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries
The Trump administration can deport migrants to third countries other than their homeland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a federal judge's decision in Massachusetts that had stopped such deportations. The high court's ruling paves the way for the administration to transfer deported men currently held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan. It also strips away protection for migrants to challenge their removal to a country other than their own based on a claim that they might face the risk of persecution, torture and possibly death. The court's brief order provided no explanation. However, it was consistent with prior rulings by the majority of justices in allowing the administration to deport hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals with Temporary Protected Status and other immigrants, such as Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguajns, while they sue the administration to reverse its deportation policies. The nine-member court's stay will remain in effect while the Department of Homeland Security appeals U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy's decision in Boston — a dispute that may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, saying, 'in matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution.' 'In this case, the Government took the opposite approach,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there. 'Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court's timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya.'
Kuwait Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Kuwait Times
‘Survive, nothing more': Cuba's elderly live hand to mouth
HAVANA: With a monthly pension barely sufficient to buy 15 eggs or a small bag of rice, Cuba's elderly struggle to make ends meet in one of Latin America's poorest and fastest-aging countries. As the communist island battles its deepest economic crisis in three decades, the state is finding it increasingly hard to care for some 2.4 million inhabitants - more than a quarter of the population - aged 60 and over. Sixty is the age at which women - for men it's 65 - qualify for the state pension which starts at 1,528 Cuban pesos per month. This is less than $13 at the official exchange rate and a mere $4 on the informal street market where most Cubans do their shopping. 'Fight for life, for death is certain,' vendor Isidro Manuet, 73, told AFP sitting on a sidewalk in the heart of Havana, his skin battered by years in the sun, several of his front teeth missing. 'I manage to live, survive, nothing more,' he said of his meager income that allows him to buy a little food, and not much else. As he spoke to AFP, Manuet looked on as small groups of people walked by his stall carrying bags full of food. They were coming out of Casalinda, one of several part government-run megastores that sells goods exclusively to holders of US dollars - a small minority of Cubans. Most rely instead on informal stalls such as the ones Manuet and other elderly Cubans set up on sidewalks every morning to sell fruit, coffee, cigarettes, candy, used clothes and other second-hand goods. Near Manuet's stall, 70-year-old Antonia Diez sells clothing and makeup. 'Things are bad, really bad,' she sighs, shaking her head. Many of Cuba's elderly have been without family support since 2022, when the biggest migratory exodus in the country's history began amid a crisis marked by food, fuel and medicine shortages, power blackouts and rampant inflation. More beggars can be seen on Havana's streets - though there are no official figures - and every now and then an elderly person can be spotted rummaging through garbage bins for something to eat, or sell. The Cuban crisis, which Havana blames on decades of US sanctions but analysts say was fueled by government economic mismanagement and tourism tanking under the Covid-19 pandemic, has affected the public purse too, with cuts in welfare spending. As a result, the government has struggled to buy enough of the staples it has made available for decades to impoverished Cubans at heavily subsidized prices under the 'libreta' ration book system. It is the only way many people have to access affordable staples such as rice, sugar and beans - when there is any. Diez said she used to receive an occasional state-sponsored food package, 'but it's been a while since they've sent anything.' 'No future' This all means that many products can only be found at 'dollar stores' such as Casalinda, or private markets where most people cannot afford to shop. According to the University of Havana's Center for Cuban Economic Studies, in 2023 a Cuban family of three would have needed 12 to 14 times the average minimum monthly salary of 2,100 pesos (around $17) to meet their basic food needs. Official figures show about 68,000 Cubans over 60 rely on soup kitchens run by the state Family Assistance System for one warm meal per day. At one such facility, 'Las Margaritas,' a plate of food costs about 13 pesos (11 dollar cents). Pensioner Eva Suarez, 78, has been going there daily for 18 months. 'The country is in such need. There's no food, there's nothing,' she told AFP, adding her pension is basically worthless 'because everything is so expensive.' Inflation rose by 190 percent between 2018 and 2023, but pensions have not kept pace. Some are losing faith in communism, brought to the island by Fidel Castro's revolution, and its unfulfilled promises such as a liter of subsidized milk for every child under seven per day. 'I have nothing, my house is falling apart,' said Lucy Perez, a 72-year-old economist who retired with 1,600 pesos (about 13 dollars) a month after a 36-year career. 'The situation is dire. The nation has no future.' It's not just the elderly suffering. Cuba was rocked by unprecedented anti-government protests in 2021, and students have been rebelling in recent months due to a steep hike in the cost of mobile internet - which only arrived on the island seven years ago. In January, the government announced a partial dollarization of the economy that has angered many unable to lay their hands on greenbacks. — AFP
