Latest news with #appointee
The Hill
10-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
ICE official says no plan yet on Abrego Garcia deportation
A senior Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official on Thursday testified under oath that the agency has not yet decided where Kilmar Abrego Garcia would be deported if he is released from criminal custody next week. 'We don't work cases not in ICE custody preemptively because our docket officers are worried about the cases they have now,' Thomas Giles, who manages ICE's 25 field offices across the country, told a federal judge. Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States last month after being mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. He has been detained on human smuggling charges since his return, but he could be released ahead of his trial as soon as Wednesday. A frustrated U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had ordered the government to produce a witness to provide answers about the next steps for the man, as his lawyers push Xinis to issue an order preventing the administration from swiftly deporting their client again. Xinis is an appointee of former President Obama. Giles finished testifying after several hours, but the judge has yet to hear the lawyers' legal arguments before she issues a ruling. The hearing will resume Friday morning, a court official told reporters. Giles testified that ICE has already issued an immigration detainer requesting custody if he's released, which is expected to be honored. That would enable the transfer to happen in a 'secure environment' within the Tennessee jail, Giles said. But until that happens, Giles said ICE does not determine how to proceed with an individual's immigration case. 'No decision has been made,' Giles said. The administration has outlined two potential options for deporting him. Officials could look to lift the 2019 immigration ruling protecting Abrego Garcia from removal to El Salvador, which was issued over gang threats to his family's pupusa business. Or, the administration may try to deport him to a country where he has no ties, known as a third country removal. 'It can be a few days to a few weeks' before the country is identified, Giles said. In their latest attempt to stave off Xinis from taking any action, government attorneys hours before the hearing agreed to abide by certain procedures before deporting him to a third country. But Abrego Garcia's lawyers said those guarantees don't alleviate their concerns. 'It leaves open the critical question of whether my client will receive effective notice and an opportunity to be heard in a court before he is removed to an as-yet unidentified third country,' attorney Jonathan Cooper said. The procedures provide two tracks. If a foreign government agrees to take in migrants and assures they won't face persecution, and the State Department finds the assurances credible, the migrant can be removed without any further procedures. Giles testified that is the situation for Mexico and appears to be so for South Sudan, where eight migrants with serious criminal records were deported on Independence Day. For other countries, the migrant upon raising claims of persecution is entitled to a credible fear interview with an immigration officer. Abrego Garcia's lawyers also raised concerns about where he would be held in ICE custody before any deportation. After his March arrest in Maryland, officials swiftly moved him to a Louisiana facility before deporting him to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia's lawyers want him returned to Maryland this time if he's placed in ICE custody. Giles testified the decision is made based on bed space availability, which changes every day, so there's no indication of where Abrego Garcia would end up. On cross-examination, Giles conceded he did not ask the relevant field office whether they had made any preparations given the high-profile nature of the case. And answering questions from the judge, Giles acknowledged ICE does have some discretion and may take into account the fact that Abrego Garcia still has a pending criminal case in Tennessee. 'It's a possibility it could be anywhere in the United States,' Giles said.
Time of India
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Federal judge blocks President Trump's asylum ban at the Southern border
Washington: A federal judge on Wednesday blocked United States President Donald Trump 's asylum ban at the Southern border, as reported by The Hill. This decision blocks a Day 1 order from Trump seeking to end asylum for all but those who entered the US at ports of entry, arguing the move was needed to prevent an "invasion" at the border. However, the US District Court Judge Randolph Moss said that Trump stepped beyond his authority in drastically limiting asylum for those fleeing persecution and danger. Additionally, Moss also found that these orders violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This outlines strict guidelines for who qualifies for asylum and how they can seek the necessary protections. This included crossing between ports of entry. On the social media platform X, Stephen Miller, the architect of the White House's immigration policy, responded to the ruling government. He wrote, "The West will not survive if our sovereignty is not restored." Live Events In a 123-page opinion written by Moss, he mentioned, "Nothing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementation guidance," as stated by The Hill. Following this, the judge also rejected Trump's assertion of inherent presidential authority over admission decisions into the country, even though federal law did not grant him this power. Moss, also an appointee of former President Barack Obama , wrote, "To hold otherwise would render much, if not most, of the INA simply operational." Immediately after Trump's presidency, the legal battle began in early February, and soon after he signed the proclamation on Inauguration Day. According to The Hill, 13 anonymous asylum seekers, along with three immigration nonprofits -- The Refugee and Immigrant Centre for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigration Advocacy Centre, and The Florence Project -- were sued and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The administration had agreed not to deport any of the 13 people as the litigation progresses; however, Wednesday's ruling now covers anyone affected by Trump's proclamation nationwide. In a statement, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said, "This is a hugely important decision. Not only will it save the lives of families fleeing grave danger, it reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers." Asylum seekers cannot be granted the protections if they are fleeing what is deemed "generalised violence", and many who seek the status do not receive it when their case is considered by the Department of Homeland Security or in immigration court. During the first Trump administration, he used Title 42 to block migrants from seeking asylum at the border, closing off the process and allowing them to be swiftly expelled instead. Former President Joe Biden maintained those same limitations for over two years.
CNBC
16-06-2025
- Health
- CNBC
Judge deems Trump's cuts to National Institutes of Health illegal
A federal judge in Boston on Monday said the termination of National Institutes of Health grants for research on diversity-related topics by President Donald Trump's administration was "void and illegal," and accused the government of discriminating against racial minorities and LGBT people. U.S. District Judge William Young during a non-jury trial said the NIH violated federal law by arbitrarily canceling more than $1 billion in research grants because of their perceived connection to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Young said he was reinstating grants that had been awarded to organizations and Democratic-led states that sued over the terminations. And the judge indicated that as the case proceeds he could issue a more sweeping decision. "This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community," said Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan. "Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires the court to enjoin it and at an appropriate time, I'm going to do it." Referring to the termination of grants for research related to issues involving racial minorities, the judge said he had in four decades on the bench "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable." "You are bearing down on people of color because of their color," the judge said, referring to Trump's administration. "The Constitution will not permit that." Representatives of the NIH and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Rachel Meeropol of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the grant recipients who sued, said Young's ruling applies to hundreds of grants. The plaintiffs include the American Public Health Association, a membership organization for public health researchers, and 16 states led by Massachusetts. The NIH, the world's leading funder of biomedical and behavioral research, has terminated 2,100 research grants totaling about $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts since Trump took office in January, according to a letter that dozens of NIH employees signed onto last week protesting the cuts. The funding cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the government, slash federal spending and end government support for DEI programs and transgender healthcare. The administration's plans to cut 10,000 jobs at health agencies including NIH have been temporarily blocked by another federal judge. Trump also has signed a series of executive orders requiring agencies to ensure grant funds do not promote "gender ideology" and to end support of what it sees as "discriminatory" DEI programs. Conservative critics of DEI programs have portrayed them as discriminatory against white people and certain others. In line with Trump's policy agenda, the NIH has instructed staff to terminate grant funding for studies related to DEI programs, transgender issues, COVID-19 and ways to curb vaccine hesitancy, and grants that could potentially benefit Chinese universities. The trial that Young held on Monday concerned only some of the claims in the consolidated lawsuits over the cuts. The judge will consider others later. Young said he would give the parties an opportunity to present further evidence before he rules on those claims and decides whether to reinstate grants beyond those awarded to the plaintiffs. The NIH grant terminations, as well as a slowdown in approving and renewing grants, have reverberated through universities across the nation, many of which have faced losing the vast majority of their research budgets. In response, universities implemented hiring freezes, travel restrictions, class size reductions, furloughs and layoffs. Many colleges depend on NIH grants for the majority of their research budgets. The University of Washington, a top public university for biomedical research, for example, said it had received about 1,220 grants from NIH and about $648 million in funding last fiscal year, according to court filings. Students and faculty at the university said the disruption to grant funding has touched off a brain drain from the U.S., as researchers are increasingly leaving for positions abroad. The slowdown have also endangered long-running studies, including a program to bank and study Alzheimer's patients' brains. The Trump administration has tried to cut other key sources of research funding. In February, Angel Kelley, a U.S. district judge, blocked a rule that would have vastly limited how much the government paid out for the indirect costs of research like equipment, maintenance, utilities and support staff. The administration had estimated that the move would cut about $4 billion in funding to research centers.
NBC News
16-06-2025
- Health
- NBC News
Judge deems Trump's cuts to National Institutes of Health illegal
A federal judge in Boston on Monday said the termination of National Institutes of Health grants for research on diversity-related topics by President Donald Trump' s administration was 'void and illegal,' and accused the government of discriminating against racial minorities and LGBT people. U.S. District Judge William Young during a non-jury trial said the NIH violated federal law by arbitrarily canceling more than $1 billion in research grants because of their perceived connection to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Young said he was reinstating grants that had been awarded to organizations and Democratic-led states that sued over the terminations. And the judge indicated that as the case proceeds he could issue a more sweeping decision. 'This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' said Young, an appointee of Republican former President Ronald Reagan. 'Any discrimination by our government is so wrong that it requires the court to enjoin it and at an appropriate time, I'm going to do it.' Referring to the termination of grants for research related to issues involving racial minorities, the judge said he had in four decades on the bench 'never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable.' 'You are bearing down on people of color because of their color,' the judge said, referring to Trump's administration. 'The Constitution will not permit that.' Representatives of the NIH and its parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Rachel Meeropol of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the grant recipients who sued, said Young's ruling applies to hundreds of grants. The plaintiffs include the American Public Health Association, a membership organization for public health researchers, and 16 states led by Massachusetts. The NIH, the world's leading funder of biomedical and behavioral research, has terminated 2,100 research grants totaling about $9.5 billion and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts since Trump took office in January, according to a letter that dozens of NIH employees signed onto last week protesting the cuts. The funding cuts are part of Trump's wide-ranging actions to reshape the government, slash federal spending and end government support for DEI programs and transgender healthcare. The administration's plans to cut 10,000 jobs at health agencies including NIH have been temporarily blocked by another federal judge. Trump also has signed a series of executive orders requiring agencies to ensure grant funds do not promote 'gender ideology' and to end support of what it sees as 'discriminatory' DEI programs. Conservative critics of DEI programs have portrayed them as discriminatory against white people and certain others. In line with Trump's policy agenda, the NIH has instructed staff to terminate grant funding for studies related to DEI programs, transgender issues, COVID-19 and ways to curb vaccine hesitancy, and grants that could potentially benefit Chinese universities. The trial that Young held on Monday concerned only some of the claims in the consolidated lawsuits over the cuts. The judge will consider others later. Young said he would give the parties an opportunity to present further evidence before he rules on those claims and decides whether to reinstate grants beyond those awarded to the plaintiffs. The NIH grant terminations, as well as a slowdown in approving and renewing grants, have reverberated through universities across the nation, many of which have faced losing the vast majority of their research budgets. In response, universities implemented hiring freezes, travel restrictions, class size reductions, furloughs and layoffs. Many colleges depend on NIH grants for the majority of their research budgets. The University of Washington, a top public university for biomedical research, for example, said it had received about 1,220 grants from NIH and about $648 million in funding last fiscal year, according to court filings. Students and faculty at the university said the disruption to grant funding has touched off a brain drain from the U.S., as researchers are increasingly leaving for positions abroad. The slowdown have also endangered long-running studies, including a program to bank and study Alzheimer's patients' brains. The Trump administration has tried to cut other key sources of research funding. In February, Angel Kelley, a U.S. district judge, of research like equipment, maintenance, utilities and support staff. The administration had estimated that the move would cut about $4 billion in funding to research centers.
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump appointee grilled in court about shuttering Homeland Security offices tasked with civil rights oversight
A federal judge said that she had concerns about being 'hoodwinked' by plans put forward in her courtroom Monday by a Trump appointee to rebuild three offices focused on civil rights oversight within the Department of Homeland Security that were eviscerated with mass layoffs set to take effect this week. US District Judge Ana Reyes said that she found the three-plus hours of testimony from the appointee, US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman Ronald Sartini, to be 'credible.' The judge believed he was working in 'good faith' to come up with proposals for restaffing his office and the two others offices in the case before her, and that if those plans came to quick fruition, there would not be irreparable harm that would justify a court's intervention. The administration's gutting of those offices comes as President Donald Trump is pushing – and at times overstepping – the law in his efforts to quickly fulfill his campaign promise to deport millions of immigrants. Reyes also said that a 'cynical view' of the state of play in the legal challenge was that the administration did not actually intend to restore those offices to their congressionally mandated functions, because their work might slow Trump's mass deportation agenda. She raised the possibility that Sartini's testimony was 'window dressing for the court' to head off the legal case, brought by advocacy groups that work on civil rights issues on behalf of migrants and are challenging the dismantling of those offices. Sartini, who spent 16 years in various career positions within the federal government before his May appointment as CIS ombudsman, told the judge he believed DHS leadership when it told him that the offices would be up and running again. Legal arguments in the case will continue on Tuesday. More than 300 total employees at the CIS ombudsman office, the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman were put on administrative leave on March 21, in terminations that will take effect on Friday. Just a handful people – all at the executive level – are currently working across the three offices, Sartini testified Monday. He acknowledged that, particularly at the two offices he does not lead, statutorily mandated work is not being performed. Sartini, however, defended the monthslong shutdown in work that is required by Congress. There was 'nothing' in law 'to preclude' a new administration from 'taking a beat,' he said, to decide whether there was a better way for those offices to operate. Days before its workforce was put on leave, the Office of Civil Rights and Liberties opened an investigation into the controversial arrest of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, who remains in detention while a separate court reviews the constitutionality of the administration's efforts to deport him. The challengers in the case before Reyes – the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights foundation, Urban Justice, and the Southern Border Communities Coalition – have put forward examples of complaints they've filed with the oversight offices alleging sexual assault, medical neglect, abuse of force and other alleged civil rights violations by DHS officials. The complaints prompted investigations that apparently halted with the rollout of the mass terminations, according to the court filings, or were filed around the time of the closures, including a complaint alleging due process violations with the administration's deportation of a 10-year-old citizen suffering brain cancer with her undocumented parents. Sartini was pressed Monday about statements made by the administration in March – including in the layoff notices that went out to employees – that those oversight offices were being dissolved entirely. Though he has since been told internally that the administration intended to reopen those offices, Sartini said he was not aware of DHS communicating that change of plans to the public, stakeholders or even the fired employees. He said, that before his formal appointment as CIS ombudsman, he was brought on around the time of the March 21 layoffs to review what duties those offices should be carrying out going forward. 'These offices were not the model of efficiency,' Sartini said, testifying that, before the layoffs, there was mismanagement, dysfunction and a bloated operation that duplicated work that was being done elsewhere in the agency. Sartini is prepared to present to DHS leadership a proposal for rebuilding the offices with new hires, detailees and contractors. But, he said, it would be up to leadership whether his ideas were put into action and there was no meeting scheduled yet for leadership to hear his recommendations. Reyes quizzed the official on how quickly the work could restart once his plans were presented and approved. She also asked a DHS lawyer present at the proceedings to call Sartini's point of contact in leadership mid-hearing to get a date on the books for such a meeting to happen. The lawyer later told Reyes that the leadership official, DHS acting general counsel Joseph Mazzara, was about to get on plane, and so the administration will be filing a response to the judge's query on Tuesday morning, ahead of more arguments on the legal issues in the case. CNN's Angélica Franganillo Díaz contributed to this report.
