Latest news with #Deadline:LegalNewsletter
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration ordered to fix yet another illegal removal of immigrant
Just when the Trump administration might've thought it was out of having to rectify its illegal removals of immigrants, yet another court pulled it back into compliance. It's the latest instance of a court ordering a legal remedy for something that should never have happened in the first place but, in fact, has happened several times so far in President Donald Trump's second term. It follows the government's reluctant return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom U.S. officials illegally sent to a Salvadoran prison in March and only got him back earlier this month. In this latest case in a genre that shouldn't exist, a 'confluence of administrative errors' is what the government blamed for the illegal removal of Jordin Alexander Melgar-Salmeron to El Salvador on May 7. The problem is that the government had told the court that it 'would forebear removal until May 8.' That led a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Tuesday to order the government to facilitate Melgar-Salmeron's return 'as soon as possible.' The panel cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Abrego's case, in which the justices approved a judge's facilitation order 'to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.' That high court order came in April and was followed by defiance and obfuscation from the administration, until officials finally got Abrego back (to face criminal charges they had waiting for him). The government had similarly said that Abrego's illegal removal was the result of an 'administrative error.' How drawn out this latest case gets remains to be seen. The panel gave the government a week to update the court with Melgar-Salmeron's (1) current physical location and custodial status, and (2) what steps the government will take, and when, to facilitate his U.S. return. His lawyers can respond to the government's filing within three days of its submission, after which we should have a better idea of where this one is headed. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Trump administration's MS-13 case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia crumbled in court
Before the Trump administration finally returned Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. this month, officials kept claiming he belonged to the deadly MS-13 gang. Even if true, that wouldn't have been a valid reason for the government to avoid compliance with a court order for his return after illegally sending him to El Salvador in March. But in any event, it shouldn't escape notice that a federal judge just picked apart the gang claim that the Justice Department has continued to push since his return. That picking-apart came in Sunday's ruling that rejected the DOJ's bid to detain Abrego ahead of trial on criminal charges the government had waiting for him upon his return. He pleaded not guilty to allegations of illegally transporting undocumented immigrants. (U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes' opinion Sunday noted that his preferred surname is 'Abrego,' after he has been consistently referred to in court documents and reports as 'Abrego Garcia.') Abrego's criminal charges don't hinge on whether he's a gang member. But the issue arose in Holmes' detention ruling because the government argued that his alleged gang membership supported his detention. 'The Government's investigation has revealed that the defendant has a long history and association with MS-13,' prosecutors wrote ahead of a June 13 hearing. But in her ruling following the hearing, Holmes said the government's evidence of Abrego's MS-13 membership 'consists of general statements, all double hearsay, from two cooperating witnesses.' She said those statements, in turn, are contradicted by another witness who, the judge wrote, said that 'in ten years of acquaintance with Abrego, there were no signs or markings, including tattoos, indicating that Abrego is an MS-13 member.' Given the conflicting evidence, the judge wrote, 'the government's evidence of Abrego's alleged gang membership is simply insufficient.' So, after months of the administration insisting on Abrego's gang membership (again, not that it would excuse failing to return him as required by court order issued in April), there was a clear chance to prove it in court. The government failed to do so. That doesn't mean prosecutors won't be able to prove their underlying criminal case against Abrego or that he can't be legally deported in the future. It doesn't even mean that Holmes' release order will stand, given the government's pending motion to halt it and keep him in criminal custody. And if he is released from criminal custody, the government has indicated it will seek to hold him in immigration custody. So Holmes' ruling could wind up being an 'academic exercise,' as she noted while emphasizing the importance of providing due process in the meantime. But the failure to support the MS-13 claim is indicative of an amateurishness that has marked the government's conduct throughout this sordid affair. If it's a sign of things to come, it could bode well for Abrego's legal fight. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil denied release by judge
Mahmoud Khalil was denied release on Friday by a judge who, earlier in the week, had rejected the Trump administration's main legal basis for seeking to deport and detain the pro-Palestinian activist. When he issued a preliminary injunction in Khalil's favor Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said the government can't deport him under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that the former Columbia University student's presence and activities put U.S. interests at risk. The New Jersey judge added that, since Khalil can't be deported on that basis, he can't be detained on that basis, either. But the Biden appointee said in a new order against Khalil on Friday that the Trump administration now says it's holding him on a separate basis, not the one Farbiarz preliminarily enjoined earlier in the week. The judge noted that he had previously said Khalil failed to successfully challenge that secondary basis and had never appealed that ruling. The judge noted in his order that Khalil still has 'a number of avenues' available to him, such as asking an immigration judge for bail. Khalil's case gained national attention in the administration's immigration and deportation crackdown, which has featured arrests followed by court-ordered releases upholding free speech rights. The lawful U.S. resident has argued that his March arrest at student housing in New York City was 'retaliation against his protected speech.' He said he's not a flight risk or danger to the community, and he cited family hardship during his detention in Louisiana; his wife gave birth in April. He was born in Syria and is a citizen of Algeria. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge grants California's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump troop deployment
A federal judge on Thursday granted a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer deemed Trump's actions 'illegal' and wrote that he 'must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.' Breyer, sitting in California, issued the order after holding a hearing earlier Thursday, but he put his order on hold until noon Friday. The Trump administration has already filed a notice that it's appealing his order to the federal appeals court that covers California. The appeal could quickly reach the Supreme Court. Breyer said his task at this early stage in the litigation was to determine whether the president followed proper procedures. 'He did not,' wrote Breyer (who is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer). 'His actions were illegal,' the judge wrote, 'both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Breyer wrote that it's 'well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.' State officials had argued in an urgent motion Tuesday that the Trump administration's use of the military and the federalized National Guard for general law enforcement activities 'creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest.' California officials emphasized that the police — not the military — enforce the law in the United States. They criticized the federal government for seeking to bring the military and a 'warrior culture' to American cities and towns. 'Now, they have turned their sights on California with devastating consequences, setting a roadmap to follow across the country,' they wrote in their motion for a temporary restraining order. California officials said the protests have largely been peaceful and that when they haven't been, local and state law enforcement have been able to handle it. The Trump administration argued that granting a restraining order 'would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives' and that it would be 'unprecedented' and 'dangerous.' California's restraining order motion Tuesday followed its initial complaint, filed Monday in the same case, against Trump's invocation of the military authority Saturday. The state said Trump 'used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in-chief of the State's National Guard.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Justice Department submits sloppy filing in California military litigation
The Justice Department might be stretched a little thin these days in President Donald Trump's second term. In its court filing opposing California's request for a temporary restraining order against the military deployment in Los Angeles, the government left the second page's table of contents blank, and the third page's table of authorities only says '[INSERT],' seemingly an unresolved note to fill out the page with legal authorities that would normally signal what's ahead. To be sure, the DOJ did cite various legal authorities within the filing Wednesday, but it's not a great way to start an important argument to the judge handling this crucial litigation. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer (brother of the retired Supreme Court justice) is set to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon on the state's restraining order request. Getting to what the DOJ did include in the filing, its lawyers wrote that the president 'has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law.' They complained that 'instead of working to bring order to Los Angeles, California and its Governor filed a lawsuit in San Francisco seeking a court order limiting the federal government's ability to protect its property and officials.' Notably, the state's motion said that's what it's not trying to do. 'This motion does not seek to prevent any of those forces from protecting the safety of federal buildings or other real property owned or leased by the federal government, or federal personnel on such property,' it said. California's lawyers said they're seeking 'narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law that is likely to result if [federal government] Defendants are allowed to proceed with their plans to use Marines and federalized National Guard to enforce immigration laws and other civil laws on the streets of our cities.' They said the state wants to 'prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city.' Whether California can prevail should become clearer at Thursday's hearing. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
