Latest news with #DueProcessClause
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS allows Trump to resume 3rd-country removals without due process requirements
The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday delivered a significant win for the Trump administration's immigration policy, clearing the way for officials to resume deportation of migrants to third countries without additional due process requirements imposed by a district court judge. The nation's hight court did not explain the decision, but it said the stay of Judge Brian Murphy's mandate would terminate should the administration ultimately lose an appeal on the merits. Litigation is ongoing, but is expected to take years to complete. The case was brought by a group of detainees said to be headed to South Sudan who alleged they were never given a chance to raise fears of torture. Judge Murphy last month issued a preliminary injunction halting any future removals unless detainees were given notice of their destination, at least 10 days to raise concerns for their safety and 15 days to contest an adverse finding by an immigration officer. MORE: Judge orders Trump administration to maintain 'custody and control' of any migrants deported to South Sudan The effective impact of the Supreme Court's order on Monday is a resumption of expedited removals of dozens of unauthorized immigrants to countries other than their own. The Trump administration has sent plane loads to El Salvador, Guatemala, South Sudan and Libya. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a biting dissent, accusing her colleagues of condoning "lawless" behavior by the administration in "matters of life and death." "This Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied," Sotomayor wrote. "I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court's equitable discretion." "The Due Process Clause represents 'the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules,'" Sotomayor wrote. "By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle." "Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable. Respectfully, but regretfully, I dissent." MORE: 'Have mercy': Families plead as migrants arrested at routine DHS check-ins Immigrant advocates had asked the justices to keep in place the nationwide injunction requiring "meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard" before any person is sent unwillingly by the U.S. government to a country other than their place of birth or citizenship. Trump officials had called the court-ordered requirements "onerous" and illegal. The high court had unanimously indicated in a prior case that potential deportees must be given due process protections. But the justices have not yet spelled out in detail what exactly that requires in each case. Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on X that the court's decision is a "MAJOR win for the safety and security of the American people." The plaintiffs in the case criticized the Supreme Court's granted stay and vowed to keep fighting. "The ramifications of Supreme Court's order will be horrifying; it strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death," said Trina Realmuto, the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. "Importantly, however, the Court's ruling only takes issue with the court's authority to afford these protections at this intermediate stage of the case -- we now need to move as swiftly as possible to conclude the case and restore these protections."
NBC News
20-06-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Supreme Court allows terrorism victims to sue Palestinian entities
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that victims of terrorism can sue Palestinian entities in U.S. courts, upholding a law passed by Congress that allows such claims to be brought. The court held unanimously that the 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not violate the due process rights of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority. The law reasonably took account of "sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. As such, the law "comports with the Due Process Clause," he added. It was an unusual case in which Congress stepped in to legislate on specific litigation after the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that U.S. courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims. The lawsuits, brought under a law called the Anti-Terrorism Act, were filed by various victims, including the family of Ari Fuld, an American citizen who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist at a West Bank shopping mall in 2018. Other plaintiffs involved in the litigation had previously won a $655 million judgment that the lower court threw out. The technical legal question was whether the defendants 'consented' to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Congress concluded in the 2019 law that they had consented if two conditions were met: that the defendants paid a terrorist convicted of or killed while committing a terrorist attack, and that the organization in question conducted any activity within the U.S. within 15 days after the law was enacted. The Palestine Liberation Organization represents the Palestinian people internationally, while the Palestinian Authority exercises partial domestic government authority in the West Bank.
Business Wire
18-06-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Xlear Sues FTC for Unlawful Scientific Censorship
SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Today, Xlear, a consumer hygiene products company, filed a ' Loper lawsuit' in Utah Federal District Court against the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The lawsuit seeks declarative relief holding that the FTC cannot require entities to have substantiation for marketing claims under the FTC Act. Rob Housman, Xlear's lead lawyer explained: 'Under the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) a Federal agency applying a statute is limited to what the specific language of the law says on its face. And, Loper goes on to require that if the agency is interpreting the statute, its interpretation must be the 'best' reading of law. The FTC Act says nothing about requiring substantiation. And, for a host of reasons—most importantly violations of the First Amendment and Due Process Clause—the FTC's interpretation of the FTC Act is far from the 'best'. As such, we are petitioning the Utah District Court to invalidate the FTC's substantiation requirement.' In 2021, the FTC sued Xlear alleging that the company lacked sufficient substantiation for statements the company made its Xlear Nasal Spray was an effective added layer of protection against the COVID-19 virus. Throughout the lawsuit, Xlear maintained that the science supported Xlear's COVID claims. On March 10, 2025, the Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the FTC, asked the court to drop the lawsuit with prejudice (Xlear joined in the motion). About this new lawsuit, Nate Jones, Xlear's CEO, said: 'We agreed with the Government to drop the prior lawsuit because we wanted to get back to the business of helping Americans get and stay healthy through great oral and nasal hygiene products. However, we very much wanted our day in court. We wanted to stop the FTC's illegal misuse of the FTC Act to censor science. The effect of this is to stifle health innovation—which benefits Big Pharma over cutting-edge smaller companies with new approaches. We wanted to protect the right of all Americans to have access to science-based health information. By filing this lawsuit, we are pushing ahead with combating the Government's censorship of science.' Jones added, 'Ironically, while the FTC demands substantiation from companies, they really don't care about science. Before the FTC sued us for substantiation, we sent them scores of studies that backed our claims. During the lawsuit the FTC admitted that not one single doctor or medical researcher had looked at the data we provided before they filed the suit.' Xlear manufactures a suite of hygiene products ranging from Xlear nasal sprays to Spry toothpaste, which are sold at leading retailers across the country and online through The company's is based in American Fork, Utah. More information about Xlear and its products, as well as the complaint can be found at
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Yahoo
Oklahoma to retry Richard Glossip for noncapital murder after Supreme Court threw out conviction
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday that the state intends to retry Richard Glossip for murder but seek only a life sentence, after the Supreme Court threw out the death row inmate's capital conviction. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) supported Glossip's bid to overturn his conviction in a 1997 murder-for-hire plot, agreeing he received an 'unfair and unreliable' trial. However, he maintained he does not believe Glossip is innocent. The justices in February ruled Glossip's due process rights were violated, tossing his conviction and ordering a new trial in a rare victory for a death row inmate at the high court, which typically does not intervene in such cases. 'While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence,' Drummond said in a statement on Monday. 'After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction. 'The same United States Constitution that guarantees our rights also ensures the rights of the accused,' he continued. 'Unlike past prosecutors who allowed a key witness to lie on the stand, my office will make sure Mr. Glossip receives a fair trial based on hard facts, solid evidence and truthful testimony.' Glossip was convicted for the 1997 killing of his former boss, Barry Van Treese. The motel owner was beaten to death by maintenance worker Justin Sneed, but state prosecutors said Glossip ordered him to carry out the crime in a murder-for-hire scheme. Sneed evaded the death penalty by agreeing to plead guilty and testify against Glossip, earning a life sentence in prison instead. Glossip was found guilty and given a death sentence in 1998, but that conviction was overturned due to ineffective counsel on appeal. He was retried in 2004 and again convicted and sentenced to death. However, Glossip said the state denied him due process by withholding evidence from the defense and knowingly letting the jury hear false testimony from Sneed, a key witness. Drummond emerged as an unlikely ally to Glossip during his appeal. 'We conclude that the prosecution's failure to correct Sneed's trial testimony violated the Due Process Clause,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. Sotomayor's majority opinion was joined by four other justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, which Justice Samuel Alito joined. And Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case, likely because he participated in one of Glossip's earlier appeals while serving on a lower court. Drummond said his office would not seek the death penalty against Glossip because Sneed, who admitted to killing Van Treese, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Glossip's next court date is set for June 17. 'The Van Treese family has endured grief, pain and frustration since the murder of their loved one, and my heart goes out to them,' Drummond said. 'The poor judgment and previous misconduct of past prosecutors have only compounded that pain and frustration. 'While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today,' he said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10-06-2025
- The Hill
Oklahoma to retry Richard Glossip for non-capital murder after Supreme Court threw out conviction
Oklahoma's top prosecutor said Monday that the state intends to retry Richard Glossip for murder but seek only a life sentence, after the Supreme Court threw out the death row inmate's capital conviction. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) supported Glossip's bid to overturn his conviction in a 1997 murder-for-hire plot, agreeing that the prisoner received an 'unfair and unreliable' trial. However, he maintained that he does not believe Glossip is innocent. The justices in February ruled that Glossip's due process rights were violated, tossing his conviction and ordering a new trial in a rare victory for a death row inmate at the high court, which typically does not intervene in such cases. 'While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence,' Drummond said in a statement on Monday. 'After the high court remanded the matter back to district court, my office thoroughly reviewed the merits of the case against Richard Glossip and concluded that sufficient evidence exists to secure a murder conviction. 'The same United States Constitution that guarantees our rights also ensures the rights of the accused,' he continued. 'Unlike past prosecutors who allowed a key witness to lie on the stand, my office will make sure Mr. Glossip receives a fair trial based on hard facts, solid evidence and truthful testimony.' Glossip was convicted for the 1997 killing of his former boss, Barry Van Treese. The motel owner was beaten to death by maintenance worker Justin Sneed but state prosecutors said Glossip ordered him to carry out the crime in a murder-for-hire scheme. Sneed evaded the death penalty by agreeing to plead guilty and testify against Glossip, earning a life sentence in prison instead. Glossip was found guilty and given a death sentence in 1998, but that conviction was overturned due to ineffective counsel on appeal. He was retried in 2004 and again convicted and sentenced to death. However, Glossip said the state denied him due process by withholding evidence from the defense and knowingly letting the jury hear false testimony from Sneed, a key witness. Drummond emerged as an unlikely ally to Glossip during his appeal. 'We conclude that the prosecution's failure to correct Sneed's trial testimony violated the Due Process Clause,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority. Sotomayor's majority opinion was joined by four other justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, which Justice Samuel Alito joined. And Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the case, likely because he participated in one of Glossip's earlier appeals while serving on a lower court. Drummond said his office would not seek the death penalty against Glossip because Sneed, who admitted to killing Van Treese, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Glossip's next court date is set for June 17. 'The Van Treese family has endured grief, pain and frustration since the murder of their loved one, and my heart goes out to them,' Drummond said. 'The poor judgment and previous misconduct of past prosecutors have only compounded that pain and frustration. 'While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today,' he said.
