Latest news with #legalChallenges
Arab News
06-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
US completes deportation of 8 men to South Sudan after weeks of legal wrangling
WASHINGTON: Eight men deported from the United States in May and held under guard for weeks at an American military base in the African nation of Djibouti while their legal challenges played out in court have now reached the Trump administration's intended destination, war-torn South Sudan, a country the State Department advises against travel to due to 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' The immigrants from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan arrived in South Sudan on Friday after a federal judge cleared the way for the Trump administration to relocate them in a case that had gone to the Supreme Court, which had permitted their removal from the US Administration officials said the men had been convicted of violent crimes in the US 'This was a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people,' said Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin in a statement Saturday announcing the men's arrival in South Sudan, a chaotic country in danger once more of collapsing into civil war. The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the transfer of the men who had been put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan. That meant that the South Sudan transfer could be completed after the flight was detoured to a base in Djibouti, where they men were held in a converted shipping container. The flight was detoured after a federal judge found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow the men a chance to challenge the removal. The court's conservative majority had ruled in June that immigration officials could quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger. A flurry of court hearings on Independence Day resulted a temporary hold on the deportations while a judge evaluated a last-ditch appeal by the men's before the judge decided he was powerless to halt their removals and that the person best positioned to rule on the request was a Boston judge whose rulings led to the initial halt of the administration's effort to begin deportations to South Sudan. By Friday evening, that judge had issued a brief ruling concluding the Supreme Court had tied his hands. The men had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands.
CBC
02-07-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Amid new infrastructure bills, First Nations are concerned about the environment and their rights
Social Sharing A lawyer in British Columbia says three recent bills that aim to fast-track infrastructure and energy projects are deeply flawed and could face legal challenges. B.C.'s Bill 15, the Infrastructure Projects Act, is aimed at fast-tracking public sector projects like schools and hospitals, as well as private projects, such as critical mineral mines, that are deemed provincially significant. Bill 14, the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlined Permitting) Act, aims to speed up clean energy projects across the province. The federal Bill C-5 aims to remove interprovincial trade barriers while another, more controversial, part of the law aims to speed up projects of national interest, including energy development projects, by allowing special "designated projects" to bypass some federal laws. "My prediction is that eventually we are going to find all three pieces of legislation in the courts," said Hugh Braker, a B.C. lawyer who sits on the First Nations Summit's political executive. He said First Nations in B.C. are particularly concerned about mining and pipeline developments being pushed through their territories without consent. "First Nations people don't have the money for these court cases, but neither do they have the luxury of sitting back and not doing anything about it," he said. He said that First Nations oppose the power to pursue infrastructure and energy projects without proper consultation or environmental assessments. The controversial bills are now law despite pushback from environmental groups and several First Nations. Braker said the Supreme Court of Canada, through numerous court cases, has affirmed that First Nations have a right to be consulted, and proper consultation with nations on the bills did not take place. WATCH | Carney on controversial Bill C-5 Carney says Indigenous rights are central to Bill C-5 13 days ago Duration 2:01 Bowinn Ma, the Minister of Infrastructure in B.C., said in an email to CBC News that the provincial government is fully committed to its obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which mandates the province to align laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). "I acknowledge that our engagement process for the Infrastructure Projects Act [Bill 15] was shorter than we would have liked," Ma said. "But I want to be very clear, the Act can't be used to shortcut Indigenous participation or reduce environmental standards." Bill C-5 grants the Carney government and future governments the authority to exempt pipelines, mines and other infrastructure projects from government regulation. Near the end of the 18-page bill, it states that cabinet can exempt national-interest projects from environmental laws. WATCH | B.C. NDP government faces backlash over Bill 15 Eby's mining announcement overshadowed by backlash to controversial Bill 15 1 month ago Duration 2:07 FPIC amendment to Bill C-5 turned down The 2019 passing of DRIPA made B.C. the first province or territory in Canada to enshrine UNDRIP into law. The Canadian Museum for Human Rights describes UNDRIP as an international human rights instrument that sets out the rights of Indigenous peoples globally. The Canadian government followed suit in 2021, signing onto the United Nations Declaration Act (UNDA), as federal law on June 21, National Indigenous Peoples Day. Under UNDA federally, and DRIPA provincially in B.C., all levels of government have a duty to consult with Indigenous peoples and obtain their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) before pursuing projects in their territories. Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, said in a statement that her office was given one week to review Bill C-5. "Seven days for us is not very much time at all," said Woodhouse Nepinak. "It's tough, I feel for First Nations and Canadians, ramming a bill that big through. They should have taken the summer to do it properly," she said, noting that many First Nations have been dealing with wildfires and were unable to review the bill before it passed in Parliament. She said the creation of an Indigenous advisory council to advise the Carney government on Bill C-5 should not impact consultation with First Nations. "You can't be using some body somewhere that's picked by the government to say that that's enough consultation for the Government of Canada with First Nations, that's insufficient," she said. A statement from her office thanked Paul Prosper, a Mi'kmaw senator from Nova Scotia, who proposed an amendment to have FPIC included in Bill C-5, though it was voted down. The Assembly of First Nations said in a statement that they are hosting a virtual forum with chiefs on July 10 to discuss amendments made to Bill C-5, ahead of the prime minister's planned meeting with First Nations on July 17. "It's disheartening that First Nations were not invited to committees, I think that was a major oversight. I think the government should speak to the chiefs about that on the 17th of July," said Woodhouse Nepinak. Ahead of the meeting, Braker said "the fire [has] already started, I don't know if [Carney] is going to be able to put it out."
Irish Times
26-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on public transport in Dublin: keep pushing forward
It has been eight years since Ireland last delivered a fixed rail project – the Luas cross-city line, which was delivered efficiently, albeit with inevitable disruption. Since then headlines have been dominated by plans for new projects – including the giant Metrolink – but little enough by way of construction work. In this context, the expansion of the Dart network is a a vital element. It may not be as dramatic as the Metro, but it could offer better connectivity to a host of areas around Dublin and beyond into some of the commuter counties. Like all major infrastructure plans, various aspects of this strategy have been proceeding slowly through the planning and in some cases a procurement process. The announcement this week that two legal challenges to the Dart+West project will be avoided due to agreements being reached with two businesses in the Ashtown area is welcome. While the details of these agreements have not been revealed, studies had shown that the two businesses would be the most seriously affected in the area from work on the new line. Now a way has been found to deliver the huge advantages to the public, while avoiding the uncertainties of the legal process. New planning laws can help to lessen spurious objections, but it is also necessary to deal with genuine ones – like those held by the two businesses – if vital projects like this are to proceed. And ideally without recourse to the courts. READ MORE The Dart project is also proceeding on other fronts, too, with an announcement this week of a proposed new station in Cabra on the Dart+ South West project. Strikingly, 26,000 people live within 1Km of the chosen location. The idea emerged from a public consultation process. The Dart expansion is part of a complex web of projects planned for Dublin, also including Bus Connects and the Metro. Progressing these is vital to get people out of their cars, cut emissions and open up new land for housing. We must presume that the necessary funds will be set aside in the revised National Development Plan, which is due shortly.
New York Times
04-06-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Tariffs Are a Step Toward Unbridled Presidential Power
Are President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs on, or are they off? And, more important, will legal challenges to these levies put the brakes on the seizure by presidents of both parties of ever-increasing unilateral power? Two federal courts recently ruled that Mr. Trump lacks authority to impose them, but a specialized federal court with authority over tariff cases, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, paused the enforcement of those decisions, ordering lawyers to submit legal briefs before a hearing on Monday. One or both cases is likely to land at the Supreme Court in short order. Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president's trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution's architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government's three branches from becoming all powerful. The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the 'steel seizure' case in 1952. There, President Harry Truman assumed control over the nation's steel mills to ensure the continued supply of armaments needed for the Korean War. The Supreme Court rebuffed Truman, establishing the principle that, even in an emergency, the president cannot take upon himself powers that are granted neither by the Constitution nor by congressional statute. The case has been cited in court decisions repeatedly since then, and is central to most law school courses on constitutional law. It is clear that the president has no inherent constitutional authority to set or change tariffs or any other taxes. That authority is expressly given to Congress in the first clause of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. And it is also clear that Congress has not expressly delegated any power to the president to impose tariffs on his own say-so. The question is whether vague language in a 50-year-old statute, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, gives the president the tariff-setting power. That act delegates various powers to the president 'to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat' to U.S. national security, foreign policy or economy. The statute makes no mention of tariffs or other taxes, and before Mr. Trump, no president ever interpreted it to include such a power. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
03-06-2025
- General
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Newark's Mayor Sues Over Arrest Near Immigration Jail
The entrance to the Salvadoran prison where Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is being held. The tensions between the court and the Trump administration over the case could soon come to a head. In case after case, the Trump administration has taken a similar approach to the numerous legal challenges that have emerged in recent weeks to President Trump's aggressive deportation plans. Over and over, officials have either violated orders or used an array of obfuscations and delays to prevent federal judges from deciding whether violations took place. So far, no one in the White House or any federal agency has had to pay a price for this obstructionist behavior, but penalties could still be in the offing. Three judges in three different courthouses who have been overseeing deportation cases have said they are considering whether to hold the administration in contempt. All of this first came to the fore when Judge Paula Xinis opened an investigation in mid-April into whether Trump officials had violated her order to 'facilitate' the release of a Maryland man who had been wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador. In a sternly worded ruling in Federal District Court in Maryland, Judge Xinis instructed the Justice Department to tell her what steps the White House had taken, and planned to take, to free the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, from Salvadoran custody. And she wanted answers quickly, declaring that her inquiry would take only two weeks. That was seven weeks ago, and lawyers for Mr. Abrego Garcia say they are no closer now than they were then to understanding why their client was sent to El Salvador or what the government has done to fix what officials have acknowledged was an 'administrative error.' Image Chris Newman, right, a lawyer for Mr. Abrego Garcia's family, with Senator Chris Van Hollen in El Salvador in April. Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers have accused the Trump administration of 'a pattern of deliberate delay.' Credit... Daniele Volpe for The New York Times Instead, the lawyers say, the Justice Department has hidden what it knows about Mr. Abrego Garcia's deportation behind repeated claims of privilege. They have also said that the department has offered witnesses for depositions who have little firsthand knowledge of the case and has sought at every turn to slow-walk disclosing documents and responding to questions. 'It is reflective of a pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders,' they wrote in a filing late last week. 'The patina of promises by government lawyers to do tomorrow that which they were already obligated to do yesterday has worn thin.' Such recalcitrance has left lawyers in the Justice Department who are working on these cases in a difficult position. Several times during hearings in the past few months, the lawyers have had to admit to federal judges that their 'clients' in agencies like the Department of Homeland Security have simply refused to provide the information they were asked for. After one of those lawyers, Erez Reuveni, admitted to Judge Xinis during a hearing in April that he was frustrated by how he could not fully answer her questions, the Justice Department responded to his candor by suspending and then firing him. His dismissal prompted a spate of resignations from the department's Office of Immigration Litigation, which has effectively been hollowed out by the administration's give-no-ground approach. In many ways, the intransigent tactics used in these deportation cases echo those employed by the defense lawyers who represented Mr. Trump in the four criminal cases he faced before he was re-elected. In those cases, only one of which survived to go to trial, the lawyers used every means at their disposal to gum up the works: They challenged minor matters, filed appeals at every turn and repeatedly asked judges for delays. Two of those lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove III, now occupy top positions in the Justice Department. Last week, Mr. Trump said he would nominate Mr. Bove to be an appeals court judge. Image The government's tactics in the deportation cases echo those used by President Trump's former defense lawyers, including Todd Blanche, left, and Emil Bove III, center, who are now high-ranking officials at the Justice Department. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times It remains unclear for now how Judge Xinis intends to handle the department's stubbornness in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case, but the tensions could soon come to a head. Just last week, one day before it was supposed to submit its final answers to her questions, the administration asked for a two-week extension, saying that lawyers for the Justice Department had 'expended significant resources' going through the materials she requested. Responding to her demands, the lawyers wrote, had been 'extremely burdensome,' especially, they noted, because the department — the government equivalent of a giant white-shoe law firm — was hindered by 'limited staff available for document review.' Judge Xinis denied the request on the same day it was made. She is not the only judge to have faced obstructions by the Trump administration. One day after Judge Xinis began her investigation in Maryland, a federal judge in Washington, James E. Boasberg, threatened to open a similar inquiry into a violation of an order he had issued in a different deportation case. In that case, Judge Boasberg said he was considering contempt proceedings to punish the administration for failing to comply with his instructions in March to stop planes of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador. One week later, another federal judge in Maryland, Stephanie A. Gallagher, issued a ruling that echoed what Judge Xinis had decided in the Abrego Garcia case. Judge Gallagher told the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of a different immigrant — a young Venezuelan man known only as Cristian — who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador on the same set of flights as Mr. Abrego Garcia. But in the days that followed, Judge Gallagher confronted a familiar pattern of evasion and delay. First, the judge looked on as the Justice Department lost its bid to have a federal appeals court put her order on hold. Then, in the wake of that defeat, she ordered the administration to give her an update on the steps it had taken to seek Cristian's release. Image Recalcitrance from the Justice Department has left its lawyers who are working on deportation cases in a difficult position. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times When the Justice Department filed its update last week (late, as it turned out), it was largely based on a declaration by a federal immigration official that included no new details about the case. The declaration merely repeated facts that everyone already knew: that Cristian was in the custody of El Salvador and that homeland security officials had asked the State Department for help in complying with the judge's initial order. Displeased by all of this, Judge Gallagher fired off a new decision on Wednesday, accusing the administration of having 'utterly disregarded' her order for an update. She gave Trump officials until 5 p.m. on Monday to send another version. And just before that deadline, the Justice Department filed a new declaration from the same immigration official, asserting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was 'personally handling discussions with the government of El Salvador' concerning Cristian. 'Secretary Rubio has read and understands this court's order,' the declaration said, 'and wants to assure this court that he is committed to making prompt and diligent efforts on behalf of the United States to comply with that order.' But in a dueling submission to Judge Gallagher, Cristian's lawyers said the Trump administration had yet to take any steps to bring their client back. The lawyers asked her to hold a hearing with testimony from 'key decision maker(s)' as to why and to punish officials, if needed, with a finding of contempt. Less than two weeks ago, a federal judge in Boston, Brian E. Murphy, said he might seek contempt sanctions himself against the administration after determining that Trump officials had violated one of his orders by putting a group of immigrants on a deportation flight to Africa with less than one day's notice. In April, Judge Murphy expressly forbade such a move, issuing a ruling that barred officials from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them a 'meaningful opportunity' to object. Judge Murphy stopped short of following the path his colleagues took and ordering the government to 'facilitate' the return of the deported men. Instead, he took the advice of a Justice Department lawyer who suggested the administration could fix the problem it had created by providing the men with hearings in Africa at which they could challenge their removal. Not surprisingly, Judge Murphy seemed a bit confused and more than a little outraged just days later when department lawyers asked him to reconsider this solution, claiming that he had imposed it on the White House and that it was more cumbersome than they had initially imagined. Judge Murphy had to remind the lawyers that the whole proposal had been their idea, not his. 'Defendants have mischaracterized this court's order,' he wrote last week, 'while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry.'
