Latest news with #activistJudges
BBC News
06-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
US deports eight men to South Sudan after legal battle
The US has deported eight people to South Sudan following a legal battle that saw them diverted to Djibouti for several men - convicted of crimes including murder, sexual assault and robbery - had either completed or were near the end of their prison sentences. Only one of the eight is from South Sudan. The rest are nationals of Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Mexico. US officials said most of their home countries had refused to accept Trump administration is working to expand its deportations to third countries. It has deported people to El Salvador and Costa Rica. Rwanda has confirmed discussions and Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini and Moldova have been named in media reports as potential McLaughlin from the department of homeland security called the South Sudan deportation a victory over "activist judges". A photo provided by homeland security to CBS News, the BBC's US partner, showed the men shackled by both hands and feet on the did not say whether the South Sudanese government had detained them or what their fate would be. The country remains unstable and is on the brink of civil war, with the US State Department warning against travel because of "crime, kidnapping and armed conflict".The eight had initially been flown out of the US in May, but their plane was diverted to Djibouti after US district judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts blocked the deportation. He had ruled that migrants being deported to third countries must be given notice and a chance to speak with an asylum last week, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and overturned Murphy's ruling. On Thursday, the Supreme Court confirmed that Murphy could no longer require due process hearings, allowing the deportations to then asked another judge to intervene but he ultimately ruled that only Judge Murphy had jurisdiction. Judge Murphy then said he had no authority to stop the removals due to the Supreme Court's "binding" this year, secretary of state Marco Rubio revoked all visas for South Sudanese passport holders, citing the country's past refusal to accept deported nationals.
Fox News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump has a secret weapon to defeat activist judges on immigration
The Harvard Business Review found that two-thirds of good strategies fail due to poor execution. The same is true in politics. The Trump administration has bold immigration policies, but they are being smothered under an avalanche of lawsuits. Denouncing activist judges only gets you so far. Ultimately, you just have to be smarter. The administration should use what it can control as leverage over what it cannot. The president is at the apex of his power in deciding which foreigners to admit. This is true from both a legal and practical standpoint. He should issue a proclamation under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) declaring that no new immigrants will get in until everyone who should be deported is gone. It is a drastic solution. It is also the only thing that will work because liberal activists, rogue bureaucrats and complicit courts, refuse to honor Congress's sensible policy bargains. For example, it is obviously irrational to import welfare cases. That is why, since 1882, the Immigration Act has prohibited anyone who is "likely at any time to become a public charge" from getting a green card. Yet, 54% of immigrant-headed households are on at least one form of public assistance. Today, over 11% of welfare benefits are claimed by immigrants who were admitted on the explicit premise that they would never claim welfare. How is this possible? Bureaucrats subverted Congress's intent by interpreting the law narrowly. They insist it applies only if the alien is "primarily dependent" on the benefit and it is paid in cash, meaning taking Medicaid, public housing or food stamps does not count. Merely enforcing the public charge ban would save at least $109 billion per year. But even modest attempts by the first Trump administration to restore the original meaning of the law were tied up in court for years and then abandoned by the Biden administration. There is no legislative fix either, because activists will subvert the new law just as they did the old law. This is not speculation, it was tried. In 1996, Congress passed an immigration reform package which requires family-based immigrants, 68% of the total, to obtain affidavits of support from a sponsor. The sponsor agrees to maintain the applicant at 125% of the poverty line and to reimburse the government if the immigrant winds up on welfare. Applicants without an affidavit are automatically disqualified. This seemed like an excellent way to deter welfare cases from immigrating and to reimburse the government if any slip in. Again though, activists subverted the will of Congress with narrow interpretations and inaction. The implementing regulations do not require welfare agencies to sue, and using an expensive benefit like Medicaid does not require reimbursement. So, in practice, there are "few documented cases" of the government ever suing sponsors to recover taxpayer funds and deter reckless sponsorships. Another way the bureaucracy frustrates enforcement is by hiding data. A DHS study found that 70% of asylum applications were either fraud or suspected fraud. The Obama administration did not release it, until a whistleblower testified to Congress. Asylum is one of the major ways that illegal aliens fend off deportation. Over 1 million claims were filed in 2023. Voters pity asylum seekers, unaware it's mostly a scam. Clearer laws? Useless. Activists will always invent some sophistry to defy even the tightest drafting. Consider the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. Congress struck a clear deal: TPS could shield foreigners from deportation during crises, but in exchange, courts were barred from reviewing decisions to end it. The law explicitly states "no judicial review" for terminations. Yet, a judge blocked Trump from canceling TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans granted relief by Biden. The only solution is to shut the border until the people we want out are gone. This will force activists to choose between helping criminals stay in the country and reopening the gates. It's also easier legally. It's well-settled that foreigners living abroad cannot challenge a visa denial because admission is a privilege, not a right. Even when denying their entry would burden the rights of a U.S citizen, the government need only articulate a "facially legitimate" justification to prevail. A mere statutory citation suffices, and Trump holds an ace. Eight U.S.C. 1182(f) authorizes the president to "suspend the entry of all aliens," or class of aliens, if he finds their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." It is detrimental to America's interest to admit more immigrants when our mechanisms for filtering out welfare cases and asylum fraud are so broken. It might not be so bad if we could quickly fix mistakes, but it now takes forever to deport anyone. The 1182(f) authority is crystal clear. Every president since Ronald Reagan has invoked it at least once. The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to it in 2019, noting that it "exudes deference to the President." Recently, a district court opined the law "would certainly seem to authorize the President to close the border to arriving aliens" if it became apparent that the influx would overwhelm government facilities. Activists will still sue, but the government can demand a prohibitive injunction bond by pointing to the welfare costs and the mandatory language of Rule 65(c). Also, it is well worth litigating because once a blanket pause is upheld, President Trump has a policy nuke. Another way the bureaucracy frustrates enforcement is by hiding data. A DHS study found that 70% of asylum applications were either fraud or suspected fraud. In the meantime, all final decisions about whether to grant immigration benefits should be made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem herself. Currently, the secretary delegates that authority to immigration officers, but Congress gave the power to her. Simply rescinding those delegations will slow immigration to a trickle while following the law to the letter. Strong medicine, yes. But after decades of activist sabotage, it's the only cure.
Fox News
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Chief Justice Roberts doubles down on defense of courts as SCOTUS gears up to hear key Trump cases
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used a public appearance Wednesday to stress the importance of an independent judiciary, doubling down on defense of the courts under fire by President Donald Trump and his allies, who have accused so-called "activist judges" of overstepping their bounds. Asked during a fireside chat event in Buffalo, New York, about judicial independence, Roberts responded in no uncertain terms that the role of the federal courts is to "decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive." That role, he added, "does require a degree of independence." Roberts' remarks are not new. But they come as Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges who have paused or halted key parts of the president's agenda. (Some of the rulings they've taken issue with came from judges appointed by Trump in his first term.) The Supreme Court is slated to hear a number of high-profile cases and emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration in the next few months, cases that are all but certain to keep the high court in the spotlight for the foreseeable future. Among them are Trump's executive orders banning transgender service members from serving in the U.S. military, restoring fired federal employees to their jobs and a case about whether children whose parents illegally entered the U.S. and were born here should be granted citizenship. Oral arguments for that last case kick off next week. Just hours before Roberts spoke to U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo, a high-stakes hearing played out in federal court in Washington, D.C. There, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg spent more than an hour grilling Justice Department lawyers about their use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport hundreds of migrants to El Salvador earlier this year. Boasberg's March 15 order that temporarily blocked Trump's use of the law to send migrants to a Salvadoran prison sparked ire from the White House and in Congress, where some Trump allies had previously floated calls for impeachment. Roberts, who put out a rare public statement at the time rebuking calls to impeach Boasberg or any federal judges, doubled down on that in Wednesday's remarks. "Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with a decision," Roberts said, adding that he had already spoken about that in his earlier statement. In the statement, sent by Roberts shortly after Trump floated the idea of impeaching Boasberg, said that "for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," he said. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," he said in the statement.
Fox News
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Speaker Johnson gives verdict on House plan to impeach judges blocking Trump
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., signaled there is little appetite for judicial impeachments among House Republican leaders. He said a bill passed by the House earlier this year, aimed at limiting federal district judges from issuing nationwide injunctions in most cases, was a "silver bullet" against activist judges. Johnson refused to pull impeachment off the table indefinitely when pressed by Fox News Digital, but he cautioned that there was a high bar for such maneuvers, while noting that getting enough votes to impeach in the House and remove in the Senate is an uphill battle in itself. REPUBLICANS ADVANCE TRUMP ALLY'S GULF OF AMERICA BILL TO FULL HOUSE VOTE DESPITE DEM OPPOSITION "Look, impeachments are never off the table if it's merited. But in our system, we've had 15 federal judges impeached in the entire history of the country. I mean, there may be some that I feel merit that, but you've got to get the votes for it, right? And it's a very high burden," Johnson said. "And by the way, even if we could get an impeachment article through the House on a federal judge, it's unlikely that they would be tried and convicted in the Senate on that, with the divided number we have. So, short of that, what can we do?" The speaker said House Republicans had "done everything within our power to solve that problem." GOP LEADERS FIND NEW MAJOR HOLIDAY DEADLINE FOR TRUMP'S 'BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL' AMID MEDICAID TAX DIVISIONS "Darrell Issa's bill is a great response: The No Rogue Rulings Act would prohibit a single individual judgment issuing a nationwide injunction like that to stop the entire policy of an administration," Johnson said. "We passed it to the House, we sent it to the Senate with every expectation that they should be able to take that up. And I certainly hope they can, because, again, shouldn't be a partisan issue." Some conservatives, however, are still hungry to pursue the impeachment route. They could force the House to do so by introducing a "privileged" resolution, meaning Johnson would need to take it up within two legislative days. However, it is a politically risky undertaking that is ultimately guaranteed to fail in the Senate, where at least several Democrats would be needed to meet the two-thirds threshold for removal. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP It comes amid the Trump administration's continued standoff with the courts over a litany of the new White House's policies — from deportation flights to the Department of Government Efficiency. Republicans have dismissed the rulings as political decisions by activist judges, while Democrats accuse the White House of waging war on a co-equal branch of government. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has consistently said it is complying with all lawful court orders while denouncing activist judges in court and in the media sphere.
