Latest news with #court ruling
Al Arabiya
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Germany's top court dismisses complaint against US drone missions
Berlin is not violating international law by allowing the United States to use a military base on German soil to conduct drone strikes without stricter monitoring, a top German court ruled Tuesday. The court ruling was in response to a constitutional complaint filed by Yemeni nationals whose relatives were killed in a US drone strike in 2012.
Bloomberg
13-07-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
UniCredit to Take ‘Timely' Steps on BPM After Court Decision
UniCredit SpA said it will assess the next steps on its takeover plan for Banco BPM SpA amid doubts over whether the deal will go ahead following a ruling by an Italian court over government requirements imposed on the transaction. UniCredit welcomed the decision as 'unequivocal proof that the way in which Golden Power was illegitimate,' the bank said in a statement Sunday, referring the process that allows authorities to block or impose conditions on transactions involving strategic assets. 'UniCredit will now evaluate all relevant steps in a timely manner,' it added.
The Independent
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Federal court stops Trump's bid to ban asylum entry at Mexican border
A federal judge has ruled President Donald Trump 's executive order suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border is unlawful. Federal District Judge Randolph Moss stated that the president cannot establish an alternative immigration system that bypasses existing congressional statutes. The ruling prevents the president from denying individuals the opportunity to apply for asylum and will take effect on July 16, allowing the administration two weeks to appeal. The American Civil Liberties Union and other immigrant advocacy groups successfully challenged the order, calling the decision 'hugely important'. The Trump administration, which has repeatedly attacked court rulings undermining its policies, is expected to appeal, despite recent significant drops in illegal border crossings.
The Guardian
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
‘A win for humanity': Trump's asylum ban at US-Mexico border ruled unlawful
A federal court has ruled that Donald Trump's proclamation of an 'invasion' at the US-Mexico border is unlawful, saying that the president had exceeded his authority in suspending the right to apply for asylum at the southern border. As part of his crackdown on immigration, Trump abruptly closed the southern border to tens of thousands of people who had been waiting to cross into the US legally and apply for asylum, signing a proclamation on the day of his inauguration that directed officials to take action to 'repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States'. In a ruling on Wednesday, US district judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 people seeking asylum in the US and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that it was unlawful to declare an invasion and unilaterally ban the right to claim asylum. Moss ruled that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or the US constitution 'grants the president or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the proclamation and implementing guidance'. He also asserted the constitution did not give the president the authority to 'adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted and the regulations that the responsible agencies have promulgated'. The ruling will not take effect immediately; rather Moss has given the Trump administration 14 days to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court. But if Moss's ruling holds up, the Trump administration would have to renew processing asylum claims at the border. 'This decision is a win for human dignity and the rule of law. It sends a clear message: the government cannot use cruelty as a weapon against people fleeing violence,' said Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project – one of several immigrant rights groups that are plaintiffs in the case. 'Today's ruling makes clear three salient points that transcend immigration at the border and speak to who we are as Americans. First, we are a nation of laws. Second, the Trump administration's sweeping invocation of executive branch authority transgresses the bounds established by our constitution and our legislative branch. And third, the judicial branch is what stands between us and anarchy,' said Javier Hidalgo, legal director at the immigrant rights group Raices. 'The Trump administration's prerogative is once again found to be unlawful. It is increasingly clear where the illegality lies, and it is not with the immigrant families upon whom this administration is inflicting unfathomable harm.' People fleeing persecution and danger in their home countries would still be subject to a slew of other measures that have restricted access to legal immigration pathways. But the ruling would require the homeland security department to offer people at the southern border at least some way to seek refuge in the US. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion For now, crossings at the US-Mexico border have dropped sharply since the administration cut off legal pathways to enter and ramped up the active military presence in the region. But many who had journeyed to the border – fleeing extreme violence, authoritarianism and poverty in Central and South America, as well as Africa and Asia – remained stranded on the Mexican side, holding out hope in shelters for migrants. Others have dispersed into Mexico, seeking work or residency there. Advocates have warned that many of the migrants left in the lurch by Trump's abrupt asylum ban have been put in vulnerable and dangerous situations. The plaintiffs in the case challenging Trump's ban had fled persecution in Afghanistan, Ecuador, Cuba, Egypt, Brazil, Turkey and Peru. Some have already been removed from the US. The district court ruling comes after a landmark supreme court decision last week in a case challenging Trump's attempt to unilaterally end the country's longstanding tradition of birthright citizenship. On Friday, the country's highest court ruled to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding the president's policies. But because the case challenging Trump's asylum ban was filed as a class-action lawsuit, it is not affected by the higher court's restriction. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and an architect of the Trump administration's immigration policy, on social media criticized the case for trying to 'circumvent' the supreme court ruling, even though the lawsuit had been filed as a class action months ago. He said the ruling created 'a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States'.
The Independent
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Judge blocks Trump's asylum ban at southern border saying he exceeded authority
A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's order suspending asylum access at the U.S.-Mexico border. In a day-one executive order, Trump declared the situation at the southern border constitutes what he called an invasion of America. The president said he was 'suspending the physical entry' of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over. Federal District Judge Randolph Moss has now blocked that order, writing, 'the President cannot adopt an alternative immigration system, which supplants the statutes that Congress has enacted.' Moss added that neither the Constitution nor immigration law gives the president 'an extra-statutory, extra-regulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum' or other humanitarian protections. The order will take effect July 16, giving the Trump administration two weeks to appeal. American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the merits of the case, called Moss's ruling 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,' Gelernt said in a statement. The Homeland Security Department did not immediately respond to a request but an appeal is likely. The president and his aides have repeatedly attacked court rulings that undermine his policies as judicial overreach. The ruling comes after illegal border crossings have plummeted. The White House said Wednesday that Border Patrol made 6,070 arrests in June, down 30 percent from May. On June 28, the Border Patrol made only 137 arrests, a sharp contrast to late 2023, when arrests topped 10,000 on the busiest days. Arrests dropped sharply when Mexican officials increased enforcement within its own borders in December 2023 and again when then-President Joe Biden introduced severe asylum restrictions in June 2024. They plunged more after Trump became president in January, deploying thousands of troops to the border under declaration of a national emergency. Trump and his allies say the asylum system has been abused. They argue that it draws people who know it will take years to adjudicate their claims in the country's backlogged immigration courts during which they can work and live in America. But supporters argue the right to seek asylum is guaranteed in federal law and international commitments — even for those who cross the border illegally. They say asylum is a vital protection for people fleeing persecution — a protection guaranteed by Congress that even the president doesn't have the authority to ignore. People seeking asylum must demonstrate a fear of persecution on a fairly narrow grounds of race, religion, nationality, or by belonging to a particular social or political group. In the executive order, Trump argued the Immigration and Nationality Act gives presidents the authority to suspend entry of any group that they find 'detrimental to the interests of the United States.' Groups which work with immigrants — the Arizona-based Florence Project, the El Paso, Texas-based Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and the Texas-based RAICES — filed the lawsuit against the government, arguing the president was wrong to equate migrants coming to the southern border with an invasion. They also argued Trump's proclamation amounted to the president unilaterally overriding '... the immigration laws Congress enacted for the protection of people who face persecution or torture if removed from the United States.' But the government argued that because both foreign policy and immigration enforcement fall under the executive branch of government, it was entirely under the president's authority to declare an invasion. 'The determination that the United States is facing an invasion is an unreviewable political question,' the government wrote in one argument.
