Administrative State

Source Link
Excerpt:

White House Homeland Security advisor Stephen Miller on Monday called the Justice Department attorney who was handling the Abrego Garcia deportation case a Democrat “saboteur” and accused him of falsely claiming Garcia was mistakenly removed.

On April 4, DOJ attorney, Erez Reuveni, told U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis that Garcia “should not have been removed,” and that he didn’t know why the alleged MS-13 member was even arrested. “I am also frustrated that I also have no answers for you on a lot of these questions,” he said.

After that court appearance, Reuveni was placed on leave. “At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement on April 5. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

A federal judge has upheld a Trump Administration policy that allows U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry out enforcement operations at churches and other places of worship, representing another major court victory for the administration as it seeks to accelerate its mass deportation operations.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who was appointed by Trump during his first term in the White House, denied a request from more than two dozen Jewish and Christian organizations to block the policy. In a lawsuit brought forward by the groups, they argued that the policy infringes on religious freedom and was causing a drop in attendance at religious services, especially among illegal aliens who fear potential deportation.

“That evidence suggests that congregants are staying home to avoid encountering ICE in their own neighborhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk,” Friedrich wrote in her ruling.

The Washington-based judge found that the plaintiffs lack standing after finding little evidence that the administration was singling out places of worship. She also rejected the claim that the policy could be blamed for drops in attendance, noting that only a handful of immigration enforcement operations have taken place in and around churches or other places of worship.

Source Link
Excerpt:

The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump. Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government. And now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices’ latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday.

On Thursday last, in Noem v. Garcia, the Supreme Court issued a short two-page order on President Trump’s application asking the justices to vacate an injunction issued by Maryland federal judge Paula Xinis. That injunction, issued on April 4, 2025, ordered the Trump Administration “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.” The lower court further held that the “preliminary relief is issued to restore the status quo and to preserve Abrego Garcia’s access to due process in accordance with the Constitution and governing immigration statutes.”

After the Fourth Circuit refused to stay Judge Xinis’ order, the Trump Administration filed an application with the Supreme Court seeking an immediate stay followed by vacatur of the injunction. In its application, the Trump Administration acknowledged that Garcia had been wrongly removed to El Salvador, agreeing that there was an order barring Garcia’s return to his native homeland. However, the Trump Administration stressed that the order also concluded Garcia, as an alien illegally present in the United States, was subject to removal under federal law — just not to El Salvador. The immigration judge also rejected Garcia’s petition for asylum and for withholding of removal under CAT, or the Convention Against Torture. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld those decisions.

Further, while Garcia had been wrongly removed to El Salvador, the Trump Administration argued that Judge Xinis lacked the authority to order him to “facilitate and effectuate” Garcia’s return. First, it was not for a federal judge to tell the Executive branch how to engage in diplomatic relations. And second, the president lacks the ability to control a foreign sovereign, making it impossible for him to “effectuate” Garcia’s return to the United States. Finally, Judge Xinis’ order improperly directs the Trump Administration to admit Garcia even though he is a member of MS-13, which has been designated a terrorist organization.

Source Link
Excerpt:

How was she not required to recuse herself? Clearly it is naked conflict of interest.

CONFIRMED: Araceli Martinez-Olguin to the Northern District of California.

Dedicating her career as a public interest attorney to protecting immigrant and worker rights, she brings professional diversity to the bench and will serve Californians with distinction. pic.twitter.com/H50rG57ObV

— Senate Judiciary Democrats 🇺🇸 (🦋 now on bsky) (@JudiciaryDems) February 28, 2023

Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin To Resume Funding Left-Wing Immigration Groups—Including Her Former Employer

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin’s work for Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto could fuel calls for her recusal

Source Link
Excerpt:

During an interview with Thursday on FNC’s “Fox & Friends,” Vice President JD Vance said the Trump administration was prepared for liberal judges at the federal level interfering with deportation efforts.

Vance said the Trump administration was willing to litigate all the way to the Supreme Court.

“We can limit the jurisdiction of certain courts,” Vance said. “Even when certain courts make a ruling, say that you’re not allowed to deport a person for a certain reason, we can still deport that person for another reason. So it’s not like deportations have stopped, but yes, the radical courts are a problem. But our view here is we knew we were going to have this fight. We were prepared for it.”

Source Link
Excerpt:

 

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich testified before a House panel on Tuesday to warn of the “constitutional crisis” being forced on America thanks to the radical, out-of-control judges illegally attempting to crush a duly elected president.

Issa’s subcommittee held a joint hearing with the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government on Tuesday where Gingrich appeared.

“Fifteen district judges effectively seized control of various executive branch duties in the first six weeks of the current presidency through nationwide injunctions,” Gingrich explained. “This is potentially a judicial coup d’état and clearly violates the Constitution and more than 200 years of American history.”

I need every single person who actually cares about the constitution and preserving this constitutional republic to listen to Newt Gangrich’s opening statement at this hearing on judicial overreach.

The way I see it, if chief justice Roberts refuses to do his damn job and if… pic.twitter.com/zXFsyiONuJ

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) April 1, 2025

Source Link
Excerpt:

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled in a March 28 opinion that the Trump administration couldn’t unilaterally shut down the CFPB, with the prospect being out of its jurisdiction. On Thursday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit paused Jackson’s halt. It clarified that its ruling didn’t regard the argument’s merits but rather allowed the courts more time to consider the matter.

“The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,” the panel wrote.

The CFPB will remain open and operative during the period of review.

The bureau was one of the earliest and most controversial targets of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) founded the bureau after the 2008 financial crisis to help consumers. Critics argued that it drifted from its original purpose, becoming an opaque agency that abused its authority, pursuing targets such as a community-focused financial lending company.

One of its critics, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), introduced legislation in February to abolish it altogether, saying it had gone “rogue.”