Lawfare

Source Link
Excerpt:

A Massachusetts federal judge stopped the Trump administration late Monday from yanking legal status from more than 530,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan nationals who were brought into the US under a controversial Biden administration parole program. Boston US District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, ruled that the migrants are entitled to a case-by-case review and declined to put her decision on hold while the Trump administration appeals it.

Biden’s  parole program was granted by executive order, so the program can be terminated by executive order. If the Democrats wanted it to be permanent, they needed to go through Congress and get it signed into law.

Furthermore, the  Supreme court just ruled that a district judge cannot issue a nationwide injunction.

Source Link
Excerpt:

President Donald Trump has issued an avalanche of executive actions since returning to the White House, but not all of them have held up to initial judicial scrutiny.

While Trump has been successful with several of his actions, others have been struck down by federal courts. The Trump administration still has avenues to appeal all of the negative rulings, but these are the orders currently paused by the courts.

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