The Trump administration invoked the state secrets privilege late Monday in its court battle over its use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants, again refusing to provide more details about the flights to a judge. The invocation deems details about the flights a state secret — seeking to limit information to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has vowed to “get to the bottom” of whether the Trump administration violated his order to turn around or halt the flights. “The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it. Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) wrote in its filing. It adds that invoking the privilege will stop Boasberg from “colliding with the executive.” Boasberg has called for a review of flight information in his chambers — something the Trump administration wrote Boasberg should drop in the wake of its invocation, citing “the utter lack of 'need' for the information the Court seeks.” In its filing, the Trump administration again asserted that it complied with Boasberg's written order filed at 7:27 p.m. EDT on March 15. But Boasberg gave an oral order that day at approximately 6:45 p.m. that “any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States.” Both oral and written orders are binding. Boasberg on Tuesday set a deadline for plaintiffs to respond to DOJ's state secrets claim by March 31. The Trump administration continues to sidestep questions over whether it compiled with the oral order, saying only that it complied with the written one. “In any event, the government has already confirmed that ‘two flights carrying aliens being removed under the AEA departed U.S. airspace before the Court’s minute order of 7:25 PM EDT,’” the DOJ wrote Monday, using an abbreviation for Alien Enemies Act. The American Civil Liberties Union has questioned whether the government complied with the order, noting flight information shared with it by the Justice Department indicated flights left at 5:26 p.m. and 5:45 p.m., suggesting they could have been turned around, as directed. The group argues the Trump administration would have been able to comply with the order up until the moment the more than 200 Venezuelans were turned over to authorities in El Salvador, where they remain imprisoned. The Trump administration has repeatedly rebuffed Boasberg’s requests for information, with a DOJ attorney in court at one point telling the judge that he was “not authorized” to give details about the flights. The Trump administration has appealed an earlier order from Boasberg temporarily blocking the use of the Alien Enemies Act, appearing before the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. The act allows for the deportation of migrants from an “enemy nation,” and Trump invoked the wartime power to remove any Venezuelan the administration deems to be a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. During the appeal hearing, the Trump administration was taken to task for deporting the Venezuelans without giving them the opportunity to contest gang membership. “There were planeloads of people. There were no procedures in place to notify people. Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here,” U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett said. “Y’all could have put me up on Saturday and thrown me on a plane, thinking I’m a member of Tren de Aragua and giving me no chance to protest it and say somehow it’s a violation of presidential war powers,” the judge said. “For me to say, ‘Excuse me, no, I’m not, I’d like a hearing.’” Updated at 11:31 a.m. EDT Медиа: | ↑ |
A federal judge handed a preliminary victory Monday to an LGBTQ student group that sued the Texas A&M University System and its flagship over a policy effectively banning drag performances on each of its 11 campuses. The university system’s Board of Regents voted almost unanimously in February to adopt a resolution stating drag events are inconsistent with the system’s “mission and core values, including the value of respect for others.” “These events often involve unwelcome and objectively offensive conduct based on sex for many members of the respective communities of the universities, particularly when they involve the mockery or objectification of women,” states the resolution, adding that such performances may violate university-wide anti-discrimination policies and Title IX, the federal civil rights law against sex discrimination. The document cites an executive order President Trump signed on his first day back in office, which proclaims the government recognizes only two sexes, male and female, and broadly prevents federal funds from being used to promote what Trump and his administration have called “gender ideology.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) directed state agencies to implement Trump’s order in a letter in January. The resolution argues, “Given that both the System and the Universities receive significant federal funding, the use of facilities at the Universities for Drag Show Events may be considered promotion of gender ideology in violation of the Executive Order and the Governor’s directive.” The Queer Empowerment Council, a student organization at Texas A&M University, the system’s flagship institution, argued in a lawsuit this month that the resolution violates their free speech rights and the Texas Open Meetings Act, which requires governmental bodies to post a meeting’s location and agenda at least 72 hours in advance. In her ruling on Monday, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas said the group is likely to succeed in showing the ban on drag shows violates the First Amendment. “In recent years, the commitment to free speech on campuses has been both challenging and challenged,” wrote Rosenthal, an appointee of former President George H. W. Bush. “There have been efforts from all sides of the political spectrum to disrupt or prevent students, faculty, and others from expressing opinions and speech that are deemed, or actually are, offensive or wrong. But the law requires the recognition and application of speech rights and guardrails that preserve and protect all our treasured First Amendment rights.” The ruling means “Draggieland,” an annual drag competition at A&M, will go on as scheduled March 27 at the school’s Rudder Theatre. A spokesperson for the A&M University System said it had received the ruling and is evaluating next steps. “We’re overjoyed with today’s decision,” members of the Queer Empowerment Council said Monday in a joint statement. “This is another display of the resilience of queer joy, as that is an unstoppable force despite those that wish to see it destroyed. While this fight isn’t over, we are going to appreciate the joy we get to bring by putting on the best show that we can do.” This story was updated at 4:43 p.m. Медиа: | ↑ |
An attorney resigned from the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, posting a sharply critical resignation letter that called on the company to stand up to President Trump' amid a crackdown on law firms. Rachel Cohen, an associate at the firm, shared a strongly worded “conditional notice” of resignation with her colleagues on Thursday evening. She shared a screenshot of the letter in a LinkedIn post that went viral and has been reposted 1,145 times as of Saturday evening. “Please consider this email my two week notice revocable if the firm comes up with a satisfactory response to our current moment,” Cohen said in the email to her colleagues at the firm. In the LinkedIn post, she said this moment is "existential." "If being on this career path demands I accept that my industry—because this is certainly not unique to Skadden—will allow an authoritarian government to ignore the courts, I refuse to take it any further. As I have said before, others stand to lose far, far more than a paycheck," she said. Cohen's resignation was issued just hours after the Trump administration reversed an executive order that had removed the security clearances of attorneys at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. This reversal followed the firm's commitment to provide $40 million in free legal services for cases “that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society.” The executive order aimed at Paul Weiss was a response to the actions of a former employee, Mark Pomerantz, who had previously served as a prosecutor overseeing the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation into Trump’s alleged financial offenses. In yielding to Trump's demands, the firm conceded that Pomerantz had engaged in misconduct. On social media, critics say the law firm has given in to a “shakedown” by Trump. But the firm’s chair, Brad Karp, defended the deal he struck in an email to all employees, per the New York Times. The Hill reached out to Skadden for comment. Медиа: | ↑ |
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is planning hearings on judges who block Trump administration actions and eyeing legislation to place limits on judicial power as calls to impeach those judges ramp up. Those actions, Jordan suggested in a CNN interview on Wednesday, could be “another legislative remedy” to address the matter. Impeachments that President Trump, Elon Musk, and GOP lawmakers are calling for have virtually no chance of removing any of the judges. Even if the razor-thin House majority impeached a judge, it would take support from at least 14 Democrats to convict in the Senate. But Jordan is not completely ruling out impeachment, a process that has traditionally moved through the House Judiciary Committee. “Everything is on the table. We're considering all options. That's why we passed legislation,” Jordan said. “There may be a legislative — another legislative remedy we want to look at.” Trump called for District Court Judge James Boasberg’s impeachment this week, as the administration argues that his ruling blocking the president from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants was not lawful. Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) introduced a resolution to impeach Boasberg this week. And several other Republicans have introduced impeachment resolutions against other judges who blocked other Trump administration actions. Jordan said he plans to have hearings “over the next several weeks,” bringing in outside experts. And he pointed to a bill, the No Rogue Rulings Act, that would place limitations on district court judges issuing orders providing injunctive relief decisions that affect the entire country outside their districts. That bill advanced out of the Judiciary Committee after a markup earlier this month. Jordan said on CNN that nationwide injunctions have been far more common under Trump than under Biden. “It’s why two weeks ago, the Judiciary Committee, we passed legislation which said when a federal district judge in Timbuktu, Calif., issues an injunction, it should only apply to the parties of the case in that respective jurisdiction not apply nationwide,” Jordan said. “We passed it through the committee. We’ll try to look to pass it on the House floor and move it through the process.” Jordan said he has not talked to Trump about Boasberg, but that he expected to see the president later in the week. Asked if he thought Trump’s call for impeachment was personal, Jordan said: “I don't know.” “I think it's probably because President Trump is doing exactly what he told the voters he was going to do, and you got a judge who says, turn the plane around, bring the bad guys back to America. Maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard,” Jordan said. “And frankly, when the American people hear this, they're like, what is this judge doing? The president runs the executive branch. He's the one who put his name on a ballot, got elected. He's entitled to make these kind of decisions and not have some judge jump into the executive branch function and say that he can't do it,” Jordan added. Медиа: | ↑ |
Purdue Pharma has filed a new bankruptcy plan as part of a $7.4 billion settlement to resolve thousands of lawsuits over the company's alleged role in the opioid crisis, months after the Supreme Court blocked a prior deal. The bankrupt company announced Tuesday it had filed a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In June of last year, the Supreme Court blocked a settlement deal, finding that the Sackler family who previously controlled Purdue Pharma could not be released from liability under federal law, despite contributing $6 billion to the settlement. “Following the 2024 Supreme Court ruling, we doubled down on our commitment to work with our creditors to design a new Plan that delivers unprecedented value to those affected by the opioid crisis. Today’s filing is a major milestone in that effort,” Purdue Board Chair Steve Miller said in a statement. "We and our creditors have worked tirelessly in mediation to build consensus and negotiate a settlement that will increase the total value provided to victims and communities, put billions of dollars to work on day one, and serve the public good," Miller added. "I sincerely thank our stakeholders for their dedication and collaboration, and I look forward to having the plan confirmed and consummated as quickly as possible.” In January, Purdue Pharma and the Sacklers agreed in principle to pay a $7.4 billion settlement to resolve the multitude of lawsuits, raising the settlement by an additional $1.4 billion. Tuesday's court filing expands on this plan. Purdue Pharma argued this reorganization is likely to succeed, writing, "The Debtors’ reorganization is plainly in the public interest and favored by a balancing of the harms. The Debtors’ proposed plan will devote billions of dollars to public opioid abatement and creditor recoveries." Медиа: | ↑ |
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily barred the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from clawing back billions of dollars given out under the Biden administration to help finance climate friendly projects. The Trump administration sought to end the grants, which are part of a $20 billion climate program, claiming “waste, fraud and abuse.” But Judge Tanya Chutkan, an appointee of former President Obama, found that the agency was unable to provide evidence of wrongdoing. Specifically, she said officials offered “no specific information about such investigations, factual support for the decision, or an individualized explanation for each Plaintiff." "This is insufficient," the judge added. Chutkan ordered that the EPA’s decision to terminate the grants cannot take effect and that the agency and Citibank, which is holding the funds, can’t transfer them elsewhere. In a statement on the ruling posted to the social platform X, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin vowed to continue to fight to get the money back. “I will not rest until these hard-earned taxpayer dollars are returned to the U.S. Treasury,” he wrote. Meanwhile, Climate United Fund, one of the groups suing for the reinstatement of its grants, called the decision a step in the "right direction.” “Today’s decision is a strong step in the right direction. In the coming weeks, we will continue working towards a long-term solution that will allow us to invest in projects that deliver energy savings, create jobs, and boost American manufacturing in communities across the country,” CEO Beth Bafford said in a statement. Through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, Congress gave the EPA $20 billion to make grants to financial institutions to help them give out cash to deploy climate-friendly projects. The Biden administration gave that $20 billion out to eight institutions that are tasked with dispersing it to finance projects that aim to mitigate climate change. For weeks, Zeldin has railed against the program and said he would work with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Court filings indicate that DOJ and the FBI have launched criminal probes. Last week, the EPA issued contract termination notices to the eight grantees, which the judge halted late Tuesday. Zach Schonfeld contributed. Updated at 12:35 p.m. EDT Медиа: | ↑ |
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty sued Kari Lake and the Trump administration Tuesday over efforts to defund the organization. Last week, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at eliminating the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), which funds the radio station and Voice of America (VOA). Filed in federal court in Washington, D.C., the lawsuit says the radio station's funding immediately froze and it has not been paid a $7.4 million invoice submitted Monday. The station claims the freeze undermines Congress’s power of the purse. “Whether to disburse funds as directed by appropriations laws, and whether to make those funds available through grants as directed by the International Broadcasting Act, is not an optional choice for the agency to make. It is the law. Urgent relief is needed to compel the agency to follow the law,” the lawsuit states. The lawsuit warns the network will soon have to lay off staff if the funding does not resume flowing. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty publishes content in 27 languages for 23 countries across Europe and Asia, reaching a weekly audience of more than 47 million people. “This is not the time to cede terrain to the propaganda and censorship of America’s adversaries,” Stephen Capus, the network’s CEO, said in a statement. “We believe the law is on our side and that the celebration of our demise by despots around the world is premature.” Trump picked Lake, a former television anchor in Arizona who later ran for governor and senator, to lead the VOA as the administration looks to effectively dismantle USAGM, its parent agency. Lake has been installed as a senior adviser at USAGM. The Hill has reached out to USAGM for comment. Медиа: | ↑ |
Liz Oyer, a former pardon attorney for the Department of Justice (DOJ), said she believes President Trump is “determined” to “demolish the rule of law.” Oyer, who was ousted from the DOJ earlier this month after she refused to restore gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, joined CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Tuesday to discuss Trump’s call to void the preemptive pardons issued by former President Biden because he used an autopen. “I think we could have a legitimate debate about whether the president should or should not have the power to issue preemptive pardons like that one, but what is established is that the president does, in fact, have that power and once the president makes the decision to do that, it is unprecedented, there is no authority for a subsequent president to try to undo the pardon,” Oyer said. She pointed to Trump’s Truth Social post, where he said Biden’s pardons should be void due to autopen use, and said she thinks it’s a distraction. “It’s really just one small example of the fact that the president is determined to demolish the rule of law,” she said. Biden pardoned several of Trump’s political enemies before the administration change. The pardons included lawmakers who sat on the House panel that investigated Trump's role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Biden’s family, Anthony Fauci and Gen. Mark Milley. Trump argued Monday that Biden didn’t sign the papers or know “anything about them!” He said those on the House committee should expect to be investigated “at the highest level," even though it's unknown whether Biden used an autopen or Trump can reverse a pardon. Oyer noted that on Friday, Trump visited with DOJ employees and Attorney General Pam Bondi. “She essentially endorsed the idea that she’s not going to be independent of the president,” Oyer said about Bondi, noting a major Democratic concern in her confirmation process. “She does not have an agenda of her own. She’s not going to stand up to him. She is there to facilitate the president’s agenda.” Oyer later added that Trump seeking retribution on attorneys he doesn’t like is another way he is attacking the rule of law. “It’s a very scary, alarming situation for all Americans and should be to everyone, regardless of their politics,” she said. The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment. Медиа: | ↑ |
The Justice Department (DOJ) once again rebuffed a federal judge’s demands to provide a rationale for why it was declining to provide information about deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants. The Tuesday filing escalates the battle between the Trump administration and Judge James Boasberg after he convened a hearing to determine whether officials violated his order by continuing deportation flights he ordered to be halted. After a remarkable exchange Monday evening in which a DOJ attorney said he was “not authorized” to provide more information on the flights, Boasberg ordered the Justice Department to detail what legal authorities it was relying on in declining to provide evidence it complied with his order. “The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate,” the Justice Department wrote in the filing Tuesday. It went on to call the flight information “neither material nor time sensitive” and said the information should only be shared privately within the judge's chambers “in order to protect sensitive information bearing on foreign relations.” The Trump administration has been arguing that it complied with Boasberg’s written order on halting deportations. However, Boasberg said the migrant flights should have been turned around or halted in a verbal order he issued 45 minutes earlier. The Justice Department has argued it did not have to comply with Boasberg’s oral order even though any ruling given from the bench is legally binding. “There was no violation of the Court’s written order (since the relevant flights left U.S. airspace, and so their occupants were removed, before the order issued), and the Court’s earlier oral statements were not independently enforceable as injunctions,” the Justice Department wrote in the filing. Boasberg has temporarily barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans connected with the Tren de Aragua gang. The wartime power allows for the removal of any citizen of an enemy nation without a hearing, sparking concern it could be used for widespread deportation of Venezuelans with little review. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued over the move, but the organization also raised concerns the government violated Boasberg’s order, sharing flight information indicating the government refused to turn around its planes. Outside of the courtroom, White House officials have made a number of statements indicating they disregarded Boasberg or feel he has no authority over the case despite his role as a federal judge. “The president will always follow the law, but this judge was too slow. We played a little game of ‘catch me if you can,’ and guess what, the judge wasn’t able to catch us on this one,” White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said on NewsNation’s “Morning in America.” The Trump administration has appealed the judge's orders while simultanously pushing to have the case reassigned. Медиа: | ↑ |
A federal judge lashed out at the Trump administration Monday for refusing to answer questions about flights deporting Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act after he ordered them to turn around the planes. It was a remarkable hearing in which a Justice Department attorney repeatedly declined to provide details about the flights that landed in El Salvador on Saturday evening, saying he was “not authorized” to do so, a rare instance of an attorney rebuffing a judge’s questions. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg called the hearing after a Monday morning filing from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arguing the government may have violated a court order halting the flights — apparently refusing to turn them around after the judge barred them. At Monday’s hearing, Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli contended the judge’s oral command wasn’t binding because the judge didn’t include the instruction about airborne flights in his written order. “I memorialize it in shorthand, but you're telling me that very clear point, that you could disregard it, because it wasn’t in the written order?” pressed Boasberg, an appointee of former President Obama. “Wouldn’t it have been a better course to return the planes around the United States as opposed to going forward and saying, ‘We don’t care, we’ll do what we want’?” Boasberg asked later in the hearing. “Your Honor, that’s not the approach that we’ve taken in this argument,” Kambli responded. The arguments from Kambli were in lockstep with assertions from the White House earlier in the afternoon. “All of the planes subject to the written order of this judge departed U.S. soil, U.S. territory before the judge’s written order,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters. She added the White House has "questions about whether a verbal order carries the same weight as a written order, and our lawyers are determined to ask and answer those questions in court." Judges routinely give oral orders from the bench, and they are binding, just like written orders posted to a court’s docket. The ACLU on Monday said Boasberg issued an oral order to turn around the planes at approximately 6:45 p.m. EDT. Those instructions were also posted to the court’s docket at 7:26 p.m. EDT. The ACLU included flight information it received from the government, indicating the planes did not land in Honduras until 7:36 p.m. EDT and 8:02 p.m. EDT on Saturday. The group suggested the planes later took off again before ultimately landing in El Salvador, arriving hours after each of Boasberg’s orders. The ACLU has also disputed the Justice Department’s insistence that none of the flights took off from the U.S. after Boasberg’s rulings, citing a media report. At one point in the hearing, Boasberg questioned why the flights were arranged at all, noting that the government knew Saturday morning they would face a hearing on the legality of the flights at 5 p.m. The Trump administration on Saturday invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which it said grants the power to deport without hearing any Venezuelan it deems to be a member of the Tren de Aragua gang. El Salvador has agreed to house the 361 deported migrants removed on the flight, though 137 were deported under the Alien Enemies Act. At various points during his exchange with Kambli, Boasberg expressed surprise at the refusal to answer questions or disclose the information to a jurist. He noted if the flight information couldn't be shared publicly they could use the “husher” to block out sound when he approached the bench. He also noted that Kambli did not seem to assert the information was classified, pointing to his background on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and offered the chance to share the information with him in a secure setting. As the administration simultaneously seeks to appeal Boasberg’s ruling, it has looked to remove the judge from the case, saying he has employed “unusual and improper” procedures. At the end of Monday’s hearing, the judge ordered the administration to provide information about the flight timelines, or provide justification for refusing to do so, by noon EDT on Tuesday. “I’m going to detail this in a written order since apparently my oral orders don’t carry much weight,” the judge quipped. Медиа: | ↑ |
The Trump administration is pushing to change the judge overseeing a challenge to the president’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to carry out swift deportations. The Justice Department made the request in a new filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, where the administration is appealing U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s Saturday order blocking the administration’s plan nationwide. “This Court should also immediately reassign this case to another district court judge given the highly unusual and improper procedures — e.g. certification of a class action involving members of a designated foreign terrorist organization in less than 18 hours with no discovery and no briefing from the Government — that have been employed in the district court proceedings to date,” wrote Drew Ensign, deputy assistant attorney general for immigration litigation. The request came ahead of a 5 p.m. EDT hearing in the case, where Boasberg is set to consider whether the administration violated his court order by sending planes to El Salvador on Saturday evening. Boasberg is an appointee of former President Obama. Boasberg on Monday denied the government's motion to cancel the hearing. “The district court’s hasty public inquiry into these sensitive national security matters — with no contemplated protections against disclosure of operational details — underscores the urgency of immediate relief from this Court, including an immediate administrative stay that would allow further briefing to unfold in an orderly and appropriate manner and prevents the district court from further efforts to interfere with President Trump’s core Article II authorities, including the conduct of foreign policy," Ensign wrote in the new filing. The Trump administration says the planes were carrying suspected members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, and argues officials did not violate the judge’s order because the planes were already out of U.S. territory by that time. Like other judges who have ruled against the Trump administration, Boasberg has faced intense online criticism since his Saturday rulings. Earlier on Monday, Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) said he was launching an effort to impeach the judge. Медиа: | ↑ |
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency intervention Thursday limiting lower court rulings that are blocking President Trump's plans to restrict birthright citizenship. The Justice Department’s ask comes after three federal appeals courts blocked the administration from moving forward. The administration is not yet asking the justices to rule on the constitutionality of Trump's order but instead is seeking to limit the lower rulings' nationwide impact, insisting those courts went too far. “At this stage, the government comes to this Court with a ‘modest’ request: while the parties litigate weighty merits questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purpor[t] to cover every person * * * in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power,” acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in court filings. Trump signed the executive order narrowing birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House. It purports to limit the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee to exclude children born on U.S. soil to parents without permanent legal status. The move has been met with 10 lawsuits that assert the administration’s interpretation runs up against longstanding Supreme Court precedent on the 14th Amendment. The other cases not yet at the high court remain in earlier stages. Though the Trump administration’s new applications at the Supreme Court address those immigration issues, they mainly address lower courts’ decisions to block Trump’s order nationwide rather than merely the plaintiffs in a case, known as a “universal injunction.” “Universal injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current Administration,” the government wrote. “Courts have graduated from universal preliminary injunctions to universal temporary restraining orders, from universal equitable relief to universal monetary remedies, and from governing the whole Nation to governing the whole world.” Though some of the Supreme Court justices have raised concerns about such injunctions, the court has declined previous opportunities to lay down firm rules over if they are permitted. Most recently, the court refused an invitation to do so from the Biden-era Justice Department in its waning days. This also marks the third time that the Trump administration has turned to the Supreme Court seeking an emergency intervention. The administration previously asked for an order greenlighting Trump's firing of an independent agency leader, a request that was punted and ultimately denied as moot, and one permitting the administration to freeze roughly $2 billion in foreign aid payments, which was rejected in a 5-4 vote. Медиа: | ↑ |
The U.S. government is seeking to move Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil’s case from New York, where a hearing into his status happened Wednesday, to Louisiana or New Jersey. Khalil is a Palestinian activist who is a permanent legal resident of the U.S. in the country on a green card, but the Trump administration is seeking to revoke his green card on its accusations that he is “Pro-Hamas” and engaged in “pro-terrorist," antisemitic activity. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Khalil at his university residence on Saturday, but U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman blocked efforts to deport him, leading to the Wednesday hearing in New York. But prosecutors requested that the case be moved from New York to New Jersey or Louisiana, where Khalil is currently being held, in a letter sent Tuesday. Khalil was first held in New Jersey but was moved to an immigration detention center in Louisiana. The 30-year-old did not attend Wednesday’s hearing. Khalil’s attorneys are pushing for him to be returned to New York and released under supervision, while attorney Brandon Waterman, representing the Justice Department, argued that the case should be moved to New Jersey or Louisiana because that’s where Khalil has been held. If Khalil’s case is transferred to Louisiana, it would go through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, the most conservative court in the country. Furman ruled that the DOJ should file its motion to move the venue before midnight Wednesday. Ramzi Kassem, an attorney for Khalil, raised during the hearing that the legal team hasn’t yet been able to have an attorney-client-protected phone call with the client. Furman ruled that Khalil’s attorneys must be allowed to speak with him at least once, for a period of at least an hour, on Wednesday and Thursday. Furman also directed both sides to submit a joint letter by Friday at noon EDT detailing when they plan to submit written arguments in the case. Khalil’s arrest has sparked widespread protests among critics of the administration’s move and stirred progressive calls for his immediate release. The Associated Press contributed. Медиа: | ↑ |
More Americans than not say Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn’t disrespectful to President Trump during their contentious Oval Office meeting late last month, according to a poll. The survey from The Economist/YouGov released Wednesday found that 46 percent of U.S. adults surveyed said Zelensky wasn’t disrespectful, while 32 percent said he was. Meanwhile, most respondents said Trump was disrespectful to Zelensky, with 51 percent saying so and 29 percent saying he wasn’t. About 20 percent on both questions said they weren’t sure. The results were clearly split along party and ideological lines. More than 7 in 10 Trump 2024 voters said Zelensky was disrespectful, while 85 percent of voters for former Vice President Kamala Harris said he wasn’t. Almost 9 in 10 Harris voters said Trump was disrespectful, while 68 percent of Trump voters said he wasn’t, though 17 percent said he was. The results come after the U.S. resumed military aid and intelligence sharing with Ukraine on Tuesday after a temporary suspension of assistance following the tense meeting between Trump and Zelensky. The meeting with the two leaders and Vice President Vance in February began cordially but became confrontational after Vance suggested that Zelensky reach a diplomatic solution with Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war. Vance challenged Zelensky over whether he expressed thanks to the U.S. for its support, and Zelensky maintained that he had expressed gratitude on many occasions, including that day. Trump called Zelensky “disrespectful” and declared that he could cause World War III and was “not ready for peace.” A scheduled press conference with Trump and Zelensky planned for after their meeting was canceled, and Zelensky left the White House, signaling an end to negotiations. The suspended aid and intelligence sharing was restored after bilateral talks took place in Saudi Arabia and Ukraine expressed “readiness” to accept a 30-day ceasefire proposal. A joint statement said the U.S. would express to Russia that it must also agree to the proposal. The developments of the past few weeks come after months of mounting tensions between Zelensky and Trump and others in the GOP who have become increasingly skeptical of continued U.S. aid for Ukraine. The poll found a plurality of respondents had a favorable opinion of Zelensky, with 43 percent viewing him positively and 36 percent viewing him negatively. But respondents were split on the best path forward with supporting Ukraine. A quarter said the U.S. should increase the amount of aid to Ukraine, 22 percent said it should stay the same, 15 percent said it should decrease and 21 percent said all aid should stop. The poll was conducted March 9-11 among 1,699 U.S. adults. The margin of error was 3.2 points. Медиа: | ↑ |
Secretary of State Marco Rubio knocked the notion that Mahmoud Khalil’s federal court case is about First Amendment rights but rather his legal standing to remain in the U.S. after he led pro-Palestinian demonstrations. “This is not about free speech. This is about people that don't have a right to be in the United States to begin with,” Rubio said during a Wednesday briefing with reporters. “No one has a right to a student visa. No one has a right to a green card,” he added. Khalil’s detainment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has drawn widespread attention and objections from lawmakers who claim he was illegally arrested. The former Columbia University student is a green card holder who helped organize campus protests against Israel in support of Palestine. Rubio told reporters the country retains the right to deny visas for “virtually any reason.” “If you tell us, when you apply, 'Hi, I'm trying to get into the United States on a student visa, I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous, barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that allows them to die in captivity, that returns more bodies than live hostages,'" he said. "If you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us, when you apply for your visa, and by the way, 'I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities, I intend to shut down your universities,'" "If you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa,” Rubio continued. “I hope we would. If you actually end up doing that, once you're in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it.” Khalil’s legal battle is a test case in the Trump administration’s new approach to crackdown on immigration. The case fulfills a campaign promise made by President Trump that he would arrest and deport foreign students who participated in the pro-Palestinian encampments last year. A federal judge blocked efforts to deport Khalil, who has not been charged with a crime, amid the ongoing court deliberations. Медиа: | ↑ |
