Latest news with #DueProcess
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump administration appeals order protecting Harvard's foreign students
International students make up more than 27 percent of Harvard's total enrollment. Advertisement Harvard argued that Trump was unlawfully using his power to 'pursue a government vendetta' against the school. It has two lawsuits pending against the administration; one over foreign students and the other focused on billions of dollars in government-funded research cuts. Burroughs, who is presiding over the lawsuit related to foreign students filed in May, issued another preliminary injunction on June 20 halting the administration's effort to prevent Harvard from enrolling foreign students. Yet, later that day, the president The president's announcement came after the Trump administration announced in May it was immediately revoking Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students, and ordered those already attending the school to either transfer or leave the country. Advertisement Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said the punishment was in response to Harvard's failure to provide information the administration had demanded on April 16 about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. However, in its lawsuit, Harvard called it 'the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' The administration has been locked in an escalating legal and financial battle with Harvard since April when the elite school rejected a list of demands to address what the administration says is a longstanding culture of antisemitism, racial discrimination, and political bias at the school. Harvard's suit alleges that the administration demanded an unprecedented amount of information related to international students, then claimed Harvard's response was 'insufficient,' without explaining why or citing any regulation that Harvard had failed to comply with. Harvard alleges that the revocation of its ability to enroll international students is 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and Due Process rights and argues it would have an immediate and devastating impact on the university Trump has accused Harvard and other elite universities of fomenting anti-American ideology and failing to Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Clarence Thomas Decries Supreme Court Intervention
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decried the Supreme Court's involvement in a death row case in his dissent from the case on Thursday. The court determined that Texas death row inmate Ruben Gutierrez has a right to sue a local district attorney with a civil rights complaint for failing to do a DNA test at the scene of the murder for which he was convicted, but insists he did not commit. Dissenting against the court's majority opinion, Thomas said, "Intervention serves no purpose other than to exacerbate the already egregious delays endemic to capital litigation," and said the court did not stick to the original interpretation of the Due Process clause to come to this conclusion. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is seen before swearing in Pam Bondi as attorney general in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 5, 2025. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is seen before swearing in Pam Bondi as attorney general in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., on February 5, 2025. Francis Chung/POLITICO via AP Images Why It Matters Several cases on the Due Process clause are in the courts right now based on the Trump administration's assertions that undocumented migrants do not have the right to due process, and will likely end up in front of the Supreme Court. If Justice Thomas does not see having access to DNA testing in a trial as a part of due process, he may also side with the Trump administration's limited interpretation of the clause. What To Know Gutierrez was found guilty in 1999 of the murder of 85-year-old Escolastica Harrison. He confessed he had been planning on robbing her house, but insists to this day he did not kill her, and that DNA evidence will show he was not at the scene of the crime. His lawyers successfully argued to the court that he could sue District Attorney Luis Saenz. This is due to Texas's Article 64, which says that convicts are allowed to request DNA samples if they can establish they "would not have been convicted if exculpatory results had been obtained through DNA testing." This undated photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows inmate Ruben Gutierrez. This undated photo provided by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice shows inmate Ruben Gutierrez. Texas Department of Criminal Justice via AP The case was brought to the Supreme Court, as Gutierrez's lawyers said he had been denied federal civil rights by being denied the right to sue under Texas's Article 64. However, Justice Thomas disagreed. In his dissent, Thomas said, "The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect Gutierrez's asserted 'liberty interest.' As originally understood, 'liberty' in the Fourteenth Amendment likely referred only to freedom from physical restraint. It did not include entitlements to government-created benefits." He said that this ruling creates a "tool for obstruction," which is getting in the way of Gutierrez's sentence, and slowing down capital punishment in the state of Texas, adding, "There is every reason to think that the ultimate claim of actual innocence on which Gutierrez's case rests is baseless." Thomas is referred to as a textualist, and often rules based on interpretations of the Constitution as of when it was written, lending to more conservative rulings. What People Are Saying Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent: "The Due Process Clause protects an individual's natural liberty from government interference. It does not guarantee entitlements to government benefits like Texas's voluntarily adopted post-conviction procedures. By intervening to revive this suit, the Court facilitates precisely the 'unjustified delay' that it is supposed to prevent in capital cases." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her ruling in favor of Gutierrez: "Gutierrez has standing to challenge Texas's DNA testing procedures under the Due Process Clause." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is set to rule on several landmark cases on June 27, but these cases do not involve the Trump administration's interpretation of due process. These cases will arrive at the Supreme Court either later in 2025 or in 2026.
CBS News
17-06-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Afghan ally detained by ICE after attending immigration court hearing
An Afghan man who worked alongside U.S. troops in Afghanistan was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers last week in San Diego. In a video obtained by CBS News, two unidentified ICE agents put Sayed Naser in handcuffs and escorted him from the federal courthouse in downtown San Diego after he attended a mandatory immigration hearing on Wednesday, June 11. "For more than three years I worked for the U.S. military back in my home country," Naser said in the video as the masked officers took him into custody. "I came here to make a better life. I didn't know this was going to happen like this for me." An Afghan ally who served alongside U.S. forces was legally paroled into the U.S. and showed up for his first hearing.@DHSGov detained him anyway—using a vague 'improvidently issued' excuse. He followed the rules. We have the video. This must stop.#AfghanEvac #DueProcess — #AfghanEvac (@afghanevac) June 13, 2025 Naser was legally paroled into the U.S in 2024, according to his lawyer, Brian McGoldrick. In addition to an active asylum case, he has a pending Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) case because of his long history supporting the U.S. military. SIVs are provided to foreign nationals who worked with U.S. military forces in war zones including Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Naser has no criminal record in the U.S. or Afghanistan, according to court records reviewed by CBS News. "This man served with our troops. He came through the front door. He followed every rule. And we locked him up anyway," said Shawn VanDiver, executive director for #AfghanEvac, a nonprofit that advocates for U.S. wartime allies. He said it's unknown how many Afghan allies have been detained by ICE officials. The Department for Homeland Security and ICE did not respond to a request for comment. Naser served as a civilian interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan from 2015 to 2018. He and his brothers also co-owned a logistics company that provided anti-mining support to American troops, according to employment records viewed by CBS News. "This individual was an important part of our Company commitment to provide the best possible service for our clients, who were the United States Military in Afghanistan," says one employment document submitted as part of Naser's SIV application. But after the U.S. withdrew from the country in August 2021, his partnership with American forces put targets on the backs of Naser and his family. In 2023, Taliban fighters killed his brother and abducted his father at a family wedding. The attack drove Naser out of the country and forced his wife and children to flee their home. "I cannot return to Afghanistan under any circumstances because I am accused of collaborating with U.S. forces. From the Taliban's perspective, anyone who worked with foreign forces during the past 20 years is a spy, an infidel, and must be killed," Naser wrote in his asylum declaration. His family remains in hiding outside of Afghanistan. After his brother was killed, Naser fled to Brazil, where he was granted a humanitarian visa. He then made the more than 6,000 mile journey on foot through the Darién Gap before reaching Mexico. In 2024, he set up an appointment with U.S. Customs and Border Protection through the app formerly known as CBP One — which allowed migrants to schedule appointments at legal ports of entry — where he was granted lawful parole into the U.S. As part of his asylum process, Naser was required to attend an in-person hearing last week in front of a judge and a lawyer from the Department of Homeland Security. But when Naser showed up to court, the DHS lawyer said that his case was "'improvidently issued." "Nobody knows what that means," said McGoldrick, who tried to dispute the ruling. When pressed, the DHS lawyer refused to clarify further. "'Improvidently issued' is becoming ICE's new catch-all — a vague, unchallengeable justification being used to clear dockets and meet removal and detention quotas," said VanDiver. "It's being weaponized to put lawful, parole-compliant asylum-seekers in cells." When Naser left the courtroom after his hearing ended, he was immediately detained by ICE agents. Sayed Naser, an Afghan man who worked with U.S. troops in Afghanistan, is taken into custody by ICE officers at a courthouse in San Diego, California, on June 11, 2025. Image from video/@AfghanEvac Naser is now being held in the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego. According to McGoldrick, he could be kept there for up to three months while his asylum case is adjudicated. If he is denied asylum, Naser will be put on an expedited removal list and likely deported. His lawyer does not know where he would be deported to, and DHS did not respond to our request for more information. "He's still in shock. He cannot believe this is happening to him," McGoldrick said. Naser's wife, who remains in hiding with their children, found out about her husband's detention when she saw the video of his detainment on social media. Increase in arrests in courthouses The last few weeks have seen an increase in ICE arrests outside of immigration hearings in courthouses around major American cities. In May, CBS News reported that the Trump administration was launching an operation to expedite the deportation of certain migrants by dismissing their cases and subsequently arresting them at courthouses around the country. The move shocked immigration advocates, as their clients are legally required to show up at their hearings. Public arrests outside courts in Los Angeles led to more than a week of demonstrations as protesters faced off against thousands of law enforcement officials, including the National Guard. On Sunday, Mr. Trump called on ICE to increase arrests in order to achieve his goal of the "largest Mass Deportation Operation of Illegal Aliens in History," according to a post on Truth Social, the social media platforms he owns. Reports from within the administration say that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem have been pushing agencies since late May to meet a higher quota of deportations — including as much as 3,000 immigration-related arrests per day. Typically, ICE agents need probable cause in order to detain someone to check their immigration status. This requires a higher standard of evidence pointing to an individual's alleged violation of immigration law. It's not clear in Naser's case what evidence there is that he was violating the law, his lawyer said. ICE provided a warrant for Naser's arrest to his attorney outside the courtroom after he was detained. "It's really shocking what's happening in courthouses in San Diego and around the country," said McGoldrick. "You walk down the hall and it's like you're walking down executioner's row. There's all these armed personnel just eyeballing everybody as we come down. It's just so intimidating that our clients are terrorized." Uncertain future for thousands of Afghans The Trump administration has demonstrated a sharp turn away from supporting Afghans who worked with the U.S. government in the military's two-decade-long conflict with the Taliban. In May, Noem announced that the administration was terminating Temporary Protected Status for Afghans. TPS is an immigration designation that allows people from countries deemed dangerous by the U.S. to live and work in the United States without being detained by DHS. Nearly 11,000 Afghans who are in the U.S. under TPS will be at risk of deportation when the change in policy comes into effect in mid-July, said VanDiver. Earlier this month, the Trump administration also instituted a travel ban on nationals from Afghanistan and 11 other countries, citing a need to address security concerns. Ahead of this announcement, over 100,000 Afghan wartime allies and their families had been vetted and cleared to enter the U.S., says #AfghanEvac. They are now unable to travel to the U.S. unless they are granted an SIV visa and can fund their own travel, without government support. Many live in danger of retribution from the Taliban. "Afghanistan remains under the control of the Taliban. There are still assassinations, arbitrary arrests, and ongoing human rights abuses, especially against women and ethnic minorities," said VanDiver. "The United States cannot abandon its allies and call that immigration policy."
Boston Globe
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Harvard says fallout from Trump ban on international students already taking a toll
And on Thursday morning, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs will hear arguments over Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction that would continue to prohibit the Department of Homeland Security from revoking the school's ability to enroll international students while a Harvard officials argued in court records that the short window during which the directive went into effect before the temporary restraining order was granted underscored the harm that Harvard and its students will face if it's allowed to stand. Advertisement As of Wednesday, it didn't appear that any of the students denied visas at the embassies last week Advertisement Students and faculty 'have expressed profound fear, concern and confusion,' Martin wrote. She said too many international students to count have inquired about the possibility of transferring to another school. And at least a half dozen foreign consulates in the U.S. have reached out to Harvard for information about how the proposed revocation affects the welfare of students and scholars from their countries. Dozens of incoming international students have asked about deferring their admission or obtaining Harvard's assistance in enrolling elsewhere, according to Martin. Burroughs, who will oversee Thursday's hearing, is the same judge who issued the temporary restraining order last Friday, the same day Harvard filed its suit against the government and a day after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that Harvard's certification to enroll student visa holders was revoked 'effective immediately.' Noem said the directive means that international students already attending the school would have to transfer or lose their legal status to remain in the country. Noem accused Harvard of failing to provide information the administration had demanded about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students, and also of 'fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinatiing with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.' However, in its lawsuit, Harvard called it 'the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' The suit alleges that the administration demanded an unprecedented amount of information related to international students, then claimed Harvard's response was 'insufficient,' without explaining why or citing any regulation that Harvard had failed to comply with. Advertisement Harvard alleges that the revocation of its ability to enroll international students is 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and Due Process rights and argues it would have an immediate and devastating impact on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders. 'With the stroke of a pen — and without any legal justification — the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard's student body,' Harvard's attorneys wrote. 'Without those students, Harvard is not Harvard.' On Wednesday, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell filed an amicus brief in federal court supporting Harvard's request for a preliminary injunction, citing vital contributions that international students make to the state. 'It's clear that by revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students — and by threatening the legal status of current students — the Trump Administration is seeking political retribution against an institution that rightly refuses to give up its academic independence,' Campbell said in a statement. In her brief, Campbell wrote, 'The Trump Administration's actions targeting international students and academics sends a chilling message to talented students and academics around the world: that they risk an end to their academic career in the United States (and potentially also risk detention and deportation) at the whims of the federal government. This message weakens the Commonwealth's position in the global competition for talent and is antithetical to American values.' In court filings, Harvard wrote that it has admitted thousands more international students who are scheduled to come to campus for the upcoming summer and fall terms. 'By forbidding Harvard from enrolling foreign students and arbitrarily terminating the ability of existing students to complete coursework and degrees, the government does long-lasting harm to Harvard's 'goodwill and reputation,'' Harvard's lawyers wrote. 'Moreover, the government's action will immediately cripple Harvard's day-to-day functioning and ability to both advance academic inquiry and provide an excellent education.' Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Boston Globe
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
What's the status of Harvard's lawsuits against the Trump administration?
On Thursday, both sides are Advertisement US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued an emergency order last Friday temporarily blocking the government from removing Harvard from the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, which allows universities to enroll student visa holders. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The order was issued the same day Harvard filed its suit against the government and a day after Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced that Harvard's certification to enroll student visa holders was revoked 'effective immediately.' She said it means that international students already attending the school would have to transfer or lose their legal status to remain in the country. Noem said the punishment was in response to Harvard's failure to provide information the administration had demanded on April 16 about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Advertisement ' This administration is Noem accused Harvard's leadership of creating 'an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment.' However, in its lawsuit, Harvard called it 'the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students.' The suit alleges that the administration demanded an unprecedented amount of information related to international students, then claimed Harvard's response was 'insufficient,' without explaining why or citing any regulation that Harvard had failed to comply with. Harvard alleges that the revocation of its ability to enroll international students is 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and Due Process rights and argues it would have an immediate and devastating impact on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders. The visa programs, which allow international students to enter the United States and attend Harvard and thousands of other schools, 'have boosted America's academic, scientific, and economic success and its global standing,' the suit says. The loss of visa holders at Harvard would impact countless academic programs, research laboratories, clinics, and courses supported by international students, the suit says. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the suit says. In issuing the temporary restraining order last week, Burroughs ruled that Harvard had shown it could suffer 'immediate and irreparable injury' if it lost its ability to enroll international students. Advertisement What about the other case? Burroughs is also presiding over a case involving a separate lawsuit Harvard filed last month alleging the Trump administration The Trump administration said it was freezing Harvard's grants — much of them for medical and scientific research — because the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by f Harvard alleges the action came without notice or explanation. It also argues the administration's goal is to exert improper influence over the school as part of a sweeping crackdown on elite universities to squelch ideological dissent, a violation of schools' First Amendment rights. In its suit, Harvard said it has been taking steps Those demands included cutting diversity programs and submitting to an audit assessing the 'viewpoint diversity' of its faculty, student body, staff, and leadership. Shelley Murphy can be reached at
