Latest news with #courtdecision
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority
WASHINGTON, July 2 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, saying Trump exceeded his authority when he issued a proclamation declaring illegal immigration an emergency and setting aside existing legal processes. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss said in a 128-page opinion that Trump's January 20 proclamation blocking all migrants "engaged in the invasion across the southern border" from claiming asylum or other humanitarian protections went beyond his executive power. The ruling is a setback for Trump, a Republican who recaptured the White House promising a vast immigration crackdown. Since Trump took office, the number of migrants caught crossing illegally has plummeted to record lows. The American Civil Liberties Union brought the challenge to Trump's asylum ban in February on behalf of three advocacy groups and migrants denied access to asylum, arguing the broad ban violated U.S. laws and international treaties. Trump's border restrictions went beyond a similar ban put in place by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat, in 2024. Key parts of the Biden ban were blocked by a separate federal judge in May in a lawsuit also led by the ACLU. Moss said he would stay the effective date of a related order for 14 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies to migrants who were subject to Trump's ban or could be in the future, part of a certified class in the litigation. Such class certifications remain unaffected by last week's Supreme Court decision reining in nationwide injunctions. Moss ruled that neither federal immigration law nor the U.S. Constitution gave Trump the authority to disregard existing laws and regulations governing the asylum process even if stopping illegal immigration presented "enormous challenges." "Nothing in the [Immigration and Nationality Act] or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance," wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "An appeal to necessity cannot fill that void." The White House, Justice Department and U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
CBS News
4 hours ago
- Politics
- CBS News
Federal judge blocks Trump's plan to limit access to asylum at southern border
Washington — A federal judge on Wednesday blocked President Trump's plan to sharply restrict access to the nation's asylum system, a blow to the president's sweeping crackdown on immigration into the United States. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled in favor of 13 individuals seeking asylum in the U.S. and three immigrants' rights groups who argued that a proclamation on immigration signed by Mr. Trump on his first day back in office is unlawful. In his decision, Moss ruled that neither the Immigration and Nationality Act nor the Constitution give the president and administration officials "the sweeping authority" asserted in his proclamation and subsequent guidance implementing the directive. "The court recognizes that the executive branch faces enormous challenges in preventing and deterring unlawful entry into the United States and in adjudicating the overwhelming backlog of asylum claims of those who have entered the country," he wrote. "But the INA, by its terms, provides the sole and exclusive means for removing people already present in the country." Moss said that a pair of provisions of federal immigration law do not provide "the president with the unilateral authority to limit the rights of aliens present in the United States to apply for asylum." He further found that the Constitution does 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." In addition to finding Mr. Trump's plan to limit access to asylum, the judge granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a class of all people covered by the president's proclamation or its implementation who are or will be in the U.S. The judge postponed the effective date of his class-wide order for 14 days to give the Trump administration time to seek emergency relief from the federal appeals court in Washington. He also put off a decision on whether to certify a class of individuals who were subject to Mr. Trump's new asylum rules and are no longer in the U.S. Since returning to the White House for a second term, Mr. Trump has rolled out a series of plans aimed at targeting migrants in the U.S. His efforts began on the first day of his second term, when Mr. Trump took unilateral action to prevent most migrants crossing the southern border from applying for asylum or withholding of removal, a type of relief that prevents the Department of Homeland Security from deporting a migrant to their home country because of likely persecution. Mr. Trump's proclamation cited an alleged "invasion" at the U.S.-Mexico border and directed administration officials to take action to "repel, repatriate, or remove any alien engaged in the invasion across the southern border of the United States." The migrants and immigrants' rights groups sued the Trump administration in early February and sought to block enforcement of the president's proclamation, arguing it is "as unlawful as it is unprecedented." Moss, appointed by former President Barack Obama, held a hearing in April to consider their bid to invalidate the plan. In his decision, the judge found that neither the Constitution nor the Immigration and National Act authorize the changes in immigration law that Mr. Trump has sought to make. He wrote that the president "lacks the inherent constitutional authority" to supplant federal statutes governing removals. "To hold otherwise would render much, if not most, of the INA simply optional," Moss wrote. As with his first term, immigration has remained a focal point of the president's second term, and he has undertaken a number of actions that he says are aimed at targeting the purported "invasion" at the southern border. Many aspects of Mr. Trump's immigration agenda have sparked legal battles. Mr. Trump has invoked a 1798 wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants he claims are members of the gang Tren de Aragua and has ended programs put in place by former President Joe Biden that shielded nearly 1 million migrants from the threat of deportation.
Reuters
13 hours ago
- Automotive
- Reuters
UK's Secure Trust Bank to stop new lending in vehicle finance
July 2 (Reuters) - Britain's Secure Trust Bank (STBS.L), opens new tab said on Wednesday it would stop new lending in vehicle finance, signalling a strategic shift as the bank withdraws from an underperforming segment amid industry-wide uncertainty after a court ruling on motor finance. London's Court of Appeal ruled in October that motor finance brokers must fully inform customers about commissions on new car loans, leading some lenders to temporarily pause writing and collecting such loans. Shares of key motor finance providers Close Brothers (CBRO.L), opens new tab, Lloyds (LLOY.L), opens new tab and others fell sharply after the ruling and Secure Trust Bank shares plunged to a record low of roughly 348 pence in November. The company warned about profit in November and said the pause in loan collections led to a higher volume of loans reaching default status and added that while it had restored collections to normal levels, it was taking longer than expected to recover funds. Since then, its shares have recovered. Early on Wednesday, the shares jumped nearly 5% to 836 pence. The lender's vehicle finance segment accounted for about 30% of its adjusted operating costs in 2024 and posted a loss before tax and pre-exceptional items of 21.8 million pounds ($29.9 million). On Wednesday, it said it will continue to support its existing customers and loan portfolio in vehicle finance, adding that it expects 284 roles to be at risk by 2030, including 78 roles in 2025. As at June 30, the average consumer loan length outstanding for vehicle finance was 37 months and the longest contractual loan agreement was 60 months, Secure Trust Bank said. The firm expects to incur restructuring costs of about 5 million pounds and said it will streamline its cost base as the loan book runs down, enabling more than 25 million pounds of operating costs to be removed by 2030. ($1 = 0.7286 pounds)
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
US judge orders Argentina, facing $16.1 billion judgment, to give up YPF stake
By Jonathan Stempel NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. judge on Monday ordered Argentina to give up its 51% stake in oil and gas company YPF to partially satisfy a $16.1 billion court judgment, handing a defeat to the cash-strapped country. U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska in Manhattan said Argentina must transfer its YPF shares within 14 days to BNY Mellon, and instruct it to transfer the shares within one business day to the plaintiffs. On X, Argentina's President Javier Milei vowed to appeal to "defend national interests." The case arose from Argentina's 2012 seizure of the 51% YPF stake held by Spain's Repsol, without tendering for shares held by minority investors Petersen Energia Inversora and Eton Park Capital Management. Argentina has been appealing Preska's September 2023 decision to award $14.39 billion to Petersen and $1.71 billion to Eton Park. The plaintiffs are represented by litigation funder Burford Capital, which has said it expected to receive 35% and 73% of Petersen's and Eton Park's respective damages. Shares of Burford soared in New York after the decision, closing up 22%, while YPF shares closed down 5.6%. BLOW TO MILEI Preska's decision is a blow to Milei, whose government must urgently build up foreign currency reserves to pay its debts while fighting inflation. The country in April obtained a $20 billion loan program from the International Monetary Fund. In a statement, Argentina said the decision was "wrong on the law" and would interfere with U.S. foreign policy. It will ask Preska to put her decision on hold during the appeal. The U.S. Department of Justice had sided with Argentina in opposing a turnover of the YPF shares. Burford and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Preska ruled on the same day that Argentina asked London's High Court to block enforcement of the judgment. JUDGE REJECTS COMITY ARGUMENT Argentina had argued that the YPF shares were immune from turnover under the federal Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). Burford countered that a commercial activity exception to immunity, together with Argentina's "many years" of evasion, justified a turnover. In her 33-page decision, Preska said Argentina's control over YPF triggered the exception, and the shares could be transferred despite being located outside the United States. She also rejected Argentina's suggestion that comity, or the respect that countries afford each other by limiting how far their laws reach, weighed against her getting involved. "Comity is not a one-way street," Preska wrote. "The United States has a strong interest in enforcing its judgments," she added. "Foreign governments cannot simply override the exceptions to the FSIA by invoking its own law to shield its assets from execution in the United States." Argentina previously sought to limit overall damages to about $4.9 billion. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CBC
a day ago
- General
- CBC
Iconic Sauble Beach welcome sign changed to reflect First Nation ownership
A landmark sign that's welcomed beach-goers to a popular strip of sand on the Lake Huron shoreline for decades looked a little different this Canada Day. Reflecting a court decision last year that solidified ownership of a roughly two-kilometre section of land to the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation, the iconic Sauble Beach sign was quietly changed overnight. It now reads "Welcome to Saugeen Beach" in the same red lettering that's marked the cut off from pavement to sand at the end of Main Street. "What some see as just a sign change is, for us, a symbol of truth, resilience and the reclamation of what has always been ours," wrote Saugeen First Nation Councillor Cheree Urscheler on social media Tuesday. "Welcome to Saugeen Beach—-where the land remembers, and so do we." The First Nation spent years in court fighting for ownership of the beach, with the Municipality of South Bruce Peninsula, the Ontario government, and several local families taking issue with the claim. Last December, the Ontario Court of Appeal sided with the First Nation, saying the federal government had breached the treaty it signed in 1854. In it, the First Nation and neighbouring Chippewas of Nawash surrendered Saugeen Peninsula, excluding five reserve territories. In 1856, the Crown surveyed the land improperly, the court ruled. As a result, roughly 2.2 kilometres of land promised under the treaty was removed from the reserve. The federal government recognized the mistake in the 1970s and had supported Saugeen First Nation in its claim. Today, the land covers an area west of Lakeshore Boulevard from Main Street and 7th Street North. Municipality surprised by sign change While many people were surprised to see the new sign Tuesday morning, elected officials said they were taken aback. In a statement, the municipality said it was not notified, and while it respects that the land now belongs to Saugeen First Nation, it was disappointed not to have been made aware. "The Sauble Beach sign is a well-known landmark with deep meaning for many people," Mayor Jay Kirkland said. "While we respect Saugeen First Nation's right to make changes on their land, we believe open communication is important—especially when it involves something so symbolic to the broader community. We remain committed to respectful dialogue and working together in the spirit of mutual understanding," Kirkland added. CBC News has reached out to the First Nation to better understand how it will proceed with the name change, including how it's used on maps and tourism materials. This story will be updated when that information is received. When it first regained title to the land, Chief Conrad Richie said the beach was an important tourist destination and the First Nation would work with residents to maintain that. The court had ordered the municipality to pay $1.67 million in legal fees to the First Nation, and ordered the province to pay $1.28 million, and the federal government $322,000. The town was also ordered to pay 50 per cent of the federal government's $486,784 legal costs.
