update - USSC allows Trump to rely on AEA pending full decision, but mandates habeas corpus be made available
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to enforce the Alien Enemies Act for now, handing the White House a significant victory that will let immigration officials rely on a sweeping wartime authority to rapidly deport alleged gang members.
The unsigned decision in the case, the most closely watched emergency appeal pending at the Supreme Court, lets Trump invoke the 1798 law to speed removals while litigation over the act’s use plays out in lower courts. The court stressed that people deported going forward should receive notice they are subject to the act and an opportunity to have their removal reviewed.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the court’s conservative wing, partially dissented.
Related article Supreme Court pauses midnight deadline to return man mistakenly deported to El Salvador
Trump framed his emergency appeal as a fight over judicial power and, specifically, US District Judge James Boasberg’s order that temporarily blocked the president from enforcing the Alien Enemies Act against five Venezuelans who sued and a broader class of people who might be affected — in other words, anyone else. By granting the president’s request, the Supreme Court has tossed out Boasberg’s orders.
Critically, the court made clear in its unsigned order that officials must give migrants subject to Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation adequate notice that they are being removed pursuant to the wartime authority so that they have time to bring habeas complaints.
A key concern among attorneys representing the migrants has been that the government’s rush to remove migrants under the act leaves them with little to no time to file such legal claims.
“The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs,” the justices wrote, adding: “The detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”
CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.
This story has been updated with additional information.
The unsigned decision in the case, the most closely watched emergency appeal pending at the Supreme Court, lets Trump invoke the 1798 law to speed removals while litigation over the act’s use plays out in lower courts. The court stressed that people deported going forward should receive notice they are subject to the act and an opportunity to have their removal reviewed.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a member of the court’s conservative wing, partially dissented.
Related article Supreme Court pauses midnight deadline to return man mistakenly deported to El Salvador
Trump framed his emergency appeal as a fight over judicial power and, specifically, US District Judge James Boasberg’s order that temporarily blocked the president from enforcing the Alien Enemies Act against five Venezuelans who sued and a broader class of people who might be affected — in other words, anyone else. By granting the president’s request, the Supreme Court has tossed out Boasberg’s orders.
Critically, the court made clear in its unsigned order that officials must give migrants subject to Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation adequate notice that they are being removed pursuant to the wartime authority so that they have time to bring habeas complaints.
A key concern among attorneys representing the migrants has been that the government’s rush to remove migrants under the act leaves them with little to no time to file such legal claims.
“The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs,” the justices wrote, adding: “The detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”
CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.
This story has been updated with additional information.
The judge overseeing the corruption case against Eric Adams has dismissed the charges against the New York City mayor, and in a split with the Trump Justice Department, ordered that the charges cannot be brought again.
Judge Dale Ho said his hands were essentially tied – even though he has concerns about the Justice Department’s reasons to dismiss the case – he could not force them to prosecute a defendant.
Ho’s ruling criticized the Trump administration’s motives for dropping the case at a time when the White House is seeking to bolster its authority over the Justice Department and federal prosecutors.
DOJ’s effort to drop the case and retaining the ability to restore charges resulted in the mass resignation of several Justice Department officials, including the acting US attorney in the Southern District of New York and the top career prosecutors overseeing public corruption cases.
In a strongly-worded opinion, Ho rejected the Justice Department’s core argument – that New York prosecutors were politically motivated in bringing the case and that the charges were impacting the mayor’s ability to carry out Trump’s immigration agenda.
“Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions,” he wrote in a 78-page opinion. He said DOJ’s position is “disturbing” because it implies public officials may receive special treatment if they go along with political priorities. “That suggestion is fundamentally incompatible with the basic promise of equal justice under the law.”
A spokesman for the Justice Department said, “This case was an example of political weaponization and a waste of resources. We are focused on arresting and prosecuting terrorists while returning the Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans safe.”
Alex Spiro, an attorney for Adams, said the case “should have never been brought in the first place – and finally today that case is gone forever. From Day 1, the mayor has maintained his innocence and now justice for Eric Adams and New Yorkers has prevailed.”
“In light of DOJ’s rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents,” the judge wrote Wednesday.
In remarks to reporters at his New York City home, the mayor reiterated his claim that the case should never have been brought and that he did nothing wrong. He made no mention of Trump, although he did hold up a copy of “Government Gangsters”– a book written by FBI Director Kash Patel.
Adams, who is up for reelection this fall, was indicted in September on charges related to bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy and soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals in exchange for political favors. He pleaded not guilty.
The indictment alleged Adams’ illegal actions stretched back to 2014, when he was Brooklyn Borough president. Prosecutors said Adams received luxury travel benefits including hotel room upgrades, meals and other perks from a Turkish official. In exchange, prosecutors say Adams pressured a New York City Fire Department official to grant permits to open a Turkish consular building that had failed to pass inspection.
In February, Trump’s DOJ recommended the case be dropped following a meeting with the mayor’s lawyers in Washington. Then-acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove said, “The pending prosecution has unduly restricted Mayor Adams’ ability to devote full attention and resources to the illegal immigration and violent crime that escalated under the policies of the prior Administration.”
Bove’s letter spurred several DOJ prosecutors to resign rather than carry out his order. In her resignation letter, then-acting US attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, wrote that during the meeting Adams’ attorneys “repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the Department’s enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed.”
Both Adams and Bove appeared in court and denied the existence of any quid pro quo.
The judge then asked Paul Clement, a well-known conservative attorney, to advise him on DOJ’s request. In his report, Clement said the complete dismissal of the case would resolve any taint over the issue.
“A dismissal without prejudice creates a palpable sense that the prosecution outlined in the indictment and approved by a grand jury could be renewed, a prospect that hangs like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused,” Clement wrote. “Dismissal with prejudice avoids those concerns and promotes another important separation-of-powers virtue – namely, accountability.”
On Wednesday, Ho explained his reasons for dismissing the charges permanently and denying the Justice Department’s full request.
“In light of DOJ’s rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents,” the judge wrote.
“It ensures that, going forward, the charges in the Indictment cannot be used as leverage over Mayor Adams or the City of New York,” the judge added.
Rev. Al Sharpton, one of several key leaders who met with New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul when she was deciding on using her power to remove the mayor, says that the perception that Adams is controlled by the White House should now be gone.
“It takes away the felling that he was under the thumb of the president,” Sharpton told CNN. “It clearly says that now whatever he does, now he’ll be judged on his own decisions.”
The judge said his decision should not be read as an opinion on the allegations against the mayor. Ho added that it’s ultimately the public’s opinion, not his, that matters. With limited options, the judge said one that he has is to provide transparency.
“Bringing these decisions into the open may, in turn, lead to attempts by the public to influence these decisions through democratic channels,” the judge wrote.
CNN’s Mark Morales contributed to this report.
A federal judge sharply rejected a Trump administration request that she recuse herself from a case challenging an executive order targeting Democratic-tied law firm Perkins Coie, accusing the Justice Department of attacking the messenger because it could not attack the message.
“When the U.S. Department of Justice engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge,” District Judge Beryl Howell wrote on Wednesday.
“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented,” she added.
In its disqualification request, the Justice Department had made a variety of accusations about Howell’s conduct in other cases, as well as comments she made at a recent hearing in the law firm case, that the administration claimed amounted to a bias against President Donald Trump.
Howell’s defense of the role of the judiciary comes as Trump and his allies have gone beyond just criticizing rulings against his policies by going after the judges themselves. They have called for the impeachment of multiple judges, including Howell’s colleague at the DC federal courthouse, Chief Judge James Boasberg, who is overseeing a high-stakes deportation case. Trump in a social media post earlier this month called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic, a troublemaker and agitator.” The rhetoric prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an extraordinary rebuke of the impeachment calls.
Both Howell and Boasberg were appointed by President Barack Obama.
Howell’s new opinion responded to each of those allegations, but not before making a larger point about the department’s rationale for why she should step aside from the case.
While it’s not surprising that Howell rejected the request for her to step aside, as such motions rarely succeed, she notably used her opinion to weigh in on the larger attacks on the judiciary as it navigates dozens of legal challenges brought against Trump policies.
Howell pointed to the opening line in DOJ’s disqualification motion, in which the department expressed “the need to curtail ongoing improper encroachments of President Trump’s Executive Power playing out around the country.”
“This line, which sounds like a talking point from a member of Congress rather than a legal brief from the United States Department of Justice, has no citation to any legal authority for the simple reason that the notion expressed reflects a grave misapprehension of our constitutional order,” the judge wrote.
“Adjudicating whether an Executive Branch exercise of power is legal, or not, is actually the job of the federal courts, and not of the President or the Department of Justice,” Howell wrote, adding, “though vigorous and rigorous defense of executive actions is both expected and helpful to the courts in resolving legal issue.”
Howell’s opinion rejecting the disqualification request took issue with the Justice Department’s “blanket denigration of the merits of all the lawsuits” filed against Trump’s agenda, while noting that courts have warned that motions for disqualification should not be taken lightly.
“This larger concern about the overall damage to the rule of law and the federal judicial system from the feckless impugning of the decision-making process of individual federal judges has prompted Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., to criticize ‘regrettabl[e] … attempts’ by “[p]ublic officials … to intimidate judges,’ including by ‘suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations,’” she wrote.
Two federal judges in separate rulings late Friday froze parts of President Donald Trump’s executive orders targeting the law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale, both firms linked to the Robert Mueller investigation Trump has sought to punish.
There have now been direct and separate rebukes by three judges of the Trump administration’s retaliatory policies toward law firms. All three judges have said core constitutional protections are likely violated by the orders – for people and companies to choose their own attorneys and for firms to be shielded from political retribution because of their speech.
The temporary restraining order in the Jenner & Block case, announced by Judge John Bates at the end of a hastily scheduled Friday hearing, pauses parts of the order instructing agencies to terminate contracts with the firm and its clients, as well as the order’s directives seeking to limit the firm’s access to federal officials and buildings.
Bates said those directives, as well as another he paused aiming to crack down on former Jenner employees being hired for government jobs, were likely unconstitutional because they retaliated against protected speech and were a form of view point discrimination. Language in Trump order’s expressing his desire to sanction the firm for pro bono work for causes the president disagrees with was “disturbing” and “troubling,” Bates said.
The Jenner & Block hearing began minutes after a different judge in the same courthouse heard a similar request from WilmerHale, which was also targeted by Trump in an executive order issued this week.
Judge Richard Leon issued his order late Friday blocking parts of Trump’s executive order that denied attorneys for the law firm WilmerHale access to federal buildings and retaliated against firm clients with government contracts.
The measures in the executive order are “threatening plaintiffs’ very existence,” the judge said.
“There is no doubt this retaliatory action chills speech and legal advocacy, and that is qualified as a constitutional harm,” the judge wrote Friday night, a few hours after the hearing.
Leon declined to step into the White House decision to suspend firm lawyers’ security clearances, saying those types of decisions are made by the executive branch.
“We appreciate the court’s swift action to preserve our clients’ right to counsel and acknowledgement of the unconstitutional nature of the executive order and its chilling effect on the legal system. The court’s decision to block key provisions of the order vindicates our and our clients’ foundational First Amendment rights,” the firm said in a statement Friday night.
In his executive orders, Trump also said he was taking aim at Jenner & Block and WilmerHale because of their work on political causes he disagreed with and because of their ties to the Mueller probe, as both firms previously or currently employed veterans of that investigation.
Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, expressed concern at various points in the earlier hearing about how the president’s order could cause some clients to go elsewhere for legal representation if they had concerns with how effectively WilmerHale’s attorneys could provide legal services.
Trump’s order directs federal agencies to suspend the security clearances and access to federal buildings of lawyers for the law firm and to curtail hiring people from the firm. Additionally, it directs agencies to review any contracts they may have with the firm and make efforts to terminate them.
“Wouldn’t that uncertainty have a chilling effect?” Leon asked DOJ attorney Richard Lawson at one point, adding that the order was “like a sword of Damocles hanging over (the firm’s) head.”
Leon seemed particularly concerned with a section of the executive order that barred the firm from entering government buildings.
“This is a government building. The Supreme Court is a government building,” Leon pointed out.
When Lawson said he couldn’t speak to whether prospective clients of WilmerHale would worry about whether their lawyers could enter courthouses, the judge appeared incredulous.
“Have you practiced law? Have you had clients?” he asked. “Then use your common sense.”
Earlier this month, a third judge in the courthouse issued an order temporarily blocking another executive order from Trump that went after the law firm Perkins Coie.
In court on Friday, Clement told Leon that those three cases “are some of the most important cases for the First Amendment and for the rule of law,” adding later that barring certain law firms “is not the tradition in our country.”
“If lawyers are looking over their shoulder to decide if they should take the case or if they do, deciding ‘How do I argue this? Do I walk on eggshells … or defend my client zealously?’” Clement said.
This story and headline been upd
