Latest news with #dueProcess
CBC
2 days ago
- Politics
- CBC
Suspended regional directors defiant in fight against Métis Nation-Saskatchewan
A pair of suspended Métis Nation-Saskatchewan (MN-S) regional directors are not backing down from their fight with the organization. On Tuesday, Sherry McLennan and Wendy Gervais were barred from the room at the Dakota Dunes conference centre south of Saskatoon where newly elected members of the MN-S government were being sworn in. They arrived to find the agenda already listed them as "not in attendance." The two regional directors were both re-elected in the MN-S election on May 24 — McLennan in Western Region 2 and Gervais in Western Region 3. McLennan and Gervais were barred from attending meetings of the Provincial Métis Council (PMC) after a harassment complaint against them and two other people. The two regional directors said they are limited in what they can publicly share about the process, but that they didn't receive due process and the PMC has no right to bar them from their governance roles. "The constitution of the Métis-Nation Saskatchewan is very clear," Gervais said Thursday, standing beside McLennan at a news conference in Prince Albert that was packed with about 100 supporters. "Regional representatives hold constitutionally protected roles, and there is no mechanism that allows for our removal without due process. "Further, as our legal counsel has noted, any attempt to remove us must originate from the citizens of our regions, not from political actors behind closed doors." MN-S responded with a statement. "The complaint was the culmination of the ongoing harassment of the PMC's sole employee, MN–S Chief Executive Officer Richard Quintal, by McLennan, Gervais, and two other previously elected individuals," the statement said. "In response to the CEO's complaint, the four individuals filed counter complaints against the CEO." MN-S said an investigation into the complaints sided with Quintal and that his human rights had been violated. The investigator also said the four counter-claims were unfounded and "they will not be permitted to attend any PMC meetings until such apology is provided." At the time, McLennan, Gervais and the other two people accused of harassment said in a statement that they were "unilaterally sanctioned" and that the harassment investigation was "improperly conducted." On Thursday, McLennan laid some actions they want MN-S leadership to commit to: Acknowledge procedural failings in the handling of the complaint. Commit to an approach that respects the rights and dignity of all complainants, especially women. Ensure that the harassment complaints are taking seriously and reinvestigated through a fair, independent and respectful process. Guarantee that all future investigations adhere strictly to the policy, including mutual agreement on a third-party investigator and timelines that allow for safe and supported participation. Reaffirm a commitment to the safety and inclusion of Métis women within all levels of the MN-S. Restore McLennan and Gervais's seats at the table immediately and allow them to take their oaths of office. Gervais said this controversy is bigger than the suspension. "This is about the integrity of our governance, about the right of elected representatives to do their job they were chosen to do, about ensuring that Métis women are no longer silenced for speaking up, and that internal grievances, however valid they are, are handled through fair and culturally respectful processes, not through political punishment." McLennan said the suspensions are an attempt to stifle their voices. "I believe my voice has been shut out because I'm a woman and I really support my Western Region 2 and I bring their voices to the table," McLennan said. The MN-S response statement said the sanctions against the women will remain in effect until they publicly apologize. MN–S president Glen McCallum said it is a human rights issue. "One of our staff was harassed in a very public forum and our government prides itself on being able to provide a safe work environment, free of that kind of treatment by elected [officials] or otherwise, and have taken the necessary steps to address the situation," he said.
Independent Singapore
4 days ago
- Politics
- Independent Singapore
US Supreme Court clears path for rapid deportations without hearings
UNITED STATES: In an important legal triumph for the Trump administration, the US Supreme Court on Monday revoked a jurisdictional block that had provisionally stopped extraditions of refugees to third countries without initially offering them an opportunity to appeal and informing them that they might face torture or harassment. In a recent Reuters report, the court's unspecified emergency directive, issued without clarification, permits immigration officials to continue expulsions while legal complications continue to unfold. Migrants lose due process protections under emergency ruling The Supreme Court ruling directly impacts an earlier decision by US District Judge Brian Murphy, who prohibited the government from implementing such exclusions without due process of law. The court's conservative majority succeeded in the 6-3 decision, with the three liberal justices delivering a scathing and unequivocal dissent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor panned the ruling as a 'gross abuse' of judicial power. 'Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers,' she wrote. Third-country deportations under fire The decision focuses on the Trump administration's use of 'third-country' deportations, relocating migrants to countries other than their own, frequently volatile and risky. The Department of Homeland Security contended that the procedure is essential to exclude migrants found guilty of grave crimes when their home countries decline deportation. Refugees set aside for extradition to countries like South Sudan have purportedly committed offences including manslaughter and armed robbery, the administration maintained. But Judge Murphy had earlier found that the administration desecrated the US Constitution's due process defences by not permitting migrants a reasonable opportunity to raise safety concerns before extradition. He mentioned an attempt to send them to South Sudan — a country which the State Department warns poses life-threatening risks — as an example of the plan's irresponsible implementation. While Monday's Supreme Court decision rescinded the April 18 sanction, Murphy later explained that a distinct May 21 directive concerning deportations to South Sudan 'remains in full force and effect'. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, called the Supreme Court's move 'horrifying', cautioning that it takes away fundamental legal protections. 'These protections have been the last defence against torture and death,' she said. White House cheers win, critics sound alarm The White House and Trump bureaucrats rejoiced at the decision. 'The Supreme Court's stay of a left-wing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again,' said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. 'Fire up the deportation planes,' added DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. But the court's action also triggered alarm within the immigration advocates' circle and legal academics. Sotomayor, in her dissenting statement, reproached the administration for 'openly flouting' court directives in numerous cases, including the contentious employment of Guantanamo Bay as a transfer point for expulsions to El Salvador. 'This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance,' Sotomayor warned. 'Nor, I fear, will it be the last.' See also Shock, fear and sadness grip Australia's 'bushfire refugees' In the meantime, information has emerged of probable future extraditions to Libya, another nation long disapproved by the U.S. for its handling of captives and convicts, driving additional apprehension about where this legal precedent could lead.
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Outrage as federal judge orders release of 'Maryland man' migrant accused of shocking criminal past
A Tennessee judge sparked outrage after ordering human smuggling- accused migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to be released from detention ahead of his hearing. Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes said the federal government failed to prove that Abrego 'poses an irremediable danger to the community or is not likely to appear' at court. Abrego, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador by the Trump Administration in March, was arrested on charges of human smuggling upon his return. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. The Tennessee case goes back to November 2022 when he was pulled over for a traffic stop in Putnam County with nine 'Hispanic males' in his vehicle. This lead a state trooper to suspect him of human trafficking, according to Department of Homeland Security records. However, the 29-year-old was allowed to go free without charge. He was subsequently deported back to El Salvador after being accused of being a member of the notorious MS-13 gang - an allegation he denies - despite a 2019 federal order saying he couldn't be deported to the country over fears of prosecution. 'Abrego, like every person arrested on federal criminal charges, is entitled to a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial,' Holmes argued in her memorandum. 'The Court will give Abrego the due process that he is guaranteed.' Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes said the federal government 'failed to meet its burden of showing a properly supported basis for detention on grounds that Abrego poses an irremediable danger to the community or is not likely to appear' The Tennessee judge also argued that the likelihood Abrego would be free before trial were slim, as he would likely be in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 'Perhaps the sole circumstance about which the government and Abrego may agree in this case is the likelihood that Abrego will remain in custody regardless of the outcome of the issues raised in the government's motion for detention,' she wrote. Holmes also criticized the Trump Administration for interchangeably using the terms 'human trafficking' and 'human smuggling,' as they are two distinctly different things under the law and Abrego has only been charged with the latter. The conditions of his release will be determined on Wednesday. The federal government quickly filed a request to stay the order to keep the Maryland resident behind bars so the court could, 'conduct meaningful review' of the custody order. 'He will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes' release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance,' the Sunday request said. Despite the government's continued efforts to keep him locked up, Abrego's lawyer, Sean Hecker, said they were, 'pleased by the court's thoughtful analysis'. 'And its express recognition that Mr. Abrego Garcia is entitled both to due process and the presumption of innocence, both of which our government has worked quite hard to deny him,' Hecker said, according to The New York Times. Abrego's Tennessee charges came as the Justice Department began working to find a reason to justify the migrant's deportation to El Salvador. The government later admitted his deportation was a mistake. Prosecutors accuse Abrego of lying to police during the 2022 incident, claiming he told them he and the nine other men were coming home from doing construction work in St. Louis, Missouri. However, phone records showed the Maryland resident was in Texas that morning. Prosecutors allege the father made $100,000 per year illegally transporting migrants across the country. They also alleged he transported guns and drugs as well. Holmes doubted the argument and said the government had contradictory evidence, including about whether or not Abrego is apart of the MS-13 gang. 'The government alleges that Abrego is a longtime, well-known member of MS-13,'s she wrote. 'But Abrego has no reported criminal history of any kind. And his reputed gang membership is contradicted by the government's own evidence.' Holmes' memorandum comes days before the Justice Department is supposed to determine if Trump officials should face penalties for contempt after ignoring a court order to free Abrego from El Salvador.
New York Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Returning to Supreme Court, Trump Accuses Judge of Lawless Defiance
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the case of eight men it seeks to deport to South Sudan, asking the justices to make clear that an order they issued on Monday was intended to apply to the group. The clarity was apparently needed because the Supreme Court on Monday had issued only a brief order letting the government send migrants to countries with which they have no connection without giving them a chance to argue they would face torture. The court provided no explanation of its reasoning. The Supreme Court's order paused an injunction issued by Judge Brian E. Murphy, of the U.S. District Court in Boston, who had forbidden the deportations of all migrants to third countries unless they were afforded due process. Soon after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the men filed an emergency motion with Judge Murphy asking him to continue blocking the deportations of eight men currently held in Djibouti. In a brief order Monday night, the judge denied the motion as unnecessary. He said that he had issued a separate ruling last month, different from the one the Supreme Court had paused, protecting the men in Djibouti from immediate removal. That left the fate of the men unclear, as President Trump and a top aide cried foul. Judge Murphy 'knew absolutely nothing about the situation' and was 'absolutely out of control,' Mr. Trump wrote on social media. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Herald
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Herald
Abrego Garcia ordered released pending trial on migrant smuggling charges
A US judge on Sunday ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the migrant returned to the US earlier this month after being wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, released on bail pending his criminal trial on migrant smuggling charges. However, the decision by US magistrate judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee does not necessarily mean Abrego, as he prefers to be known, will go home to his family. The judge had acknowledged at a June 13 court hearing that Abrego was likely to be placed in immigration detention even if he is released. Abrego, a Maryland resident whose wife and young child are US citizens, was deported on March 15 to El Salvador, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that he not be sent there because he could be persecuted by gangs. Officials called his removal an 'administrative error', but for months said they could not bring him back. Critics of US President Donald Trump pointed to Abrego's case as evidence his administration was prioritising increased deportations over due process, the bedrock principle people in the US, whether citizens or not, can contest governmental actions against them in the courts. Trump, who has pledged to crack down on illegal immigration, said Abrego belongs to the MS-13 gang, an accusation his lawyers deny. The justice department brought Abrego back to the US on June 6 after earlier securing an indictment charging him with working with at least five co-conspirators as part of a smuggling ring to bring immigrants to the US illegally. Prosecutors said Abrego, 29, picked up migrants from the US-Mexico border more than 100 times, and transported firearms and drugs. Abrego has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers said the Trump administration brought the charges to cover up their violations of Abrego's rights, and said the alleged co-conspirators cooperating with prosecutors should not be trusted because they are seeking relief from deportation and criminal charges of their own. In her ruling on Sunday, Holmes said the government failed to show Abrego posed a danger to the community or was unlikely to appear in court, scheduling a hearing for Wednesday. In a separate civil case, Greenbelt, Maryland-based US district judge Paula Xinis is investigating whether the Trump administration violated her order to facilitate Abrego's return from El Salvador. The US Supreme Court unanimously upheld the order. Reuters
