update - pedophile Jan 6-er says Trump's pardon insulates him from subsequent child porn charges
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
President Donald Trump does not like being constrained, by laws, norms, or anyone else. That has been known for a long time, since long before he was elected president in 2016.
“[W]hen you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump infamously told Billy Bush in 2005.
Now in his second term in office and nearly 20 years later, Trump has not changed. In fact, he has clearly expanded his vision and is now seeking to apply his “anything goes” amorality to the presidency.
The problem with being a man who thinks he can do everything is that — in this country, for now — people can and do tell you that you’re wrong and that restrictions apply to you as well.
Trump does not like that.
In the wake of Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2024 decision for the U.S. Supreme Court holding that Trump has lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution for many — if not all — official presidential acts, Trump appears to feel empowered to act more aggressively and lawlessly this term.
More than that, he also is acting to dismantle, diminish, and demean those institutions, entities, and people left opposing him.
Over the past four weeks, Trump has taken increasingly disturbing actions each week to undermine lawyers who have been willing to oppose him — or even just defend people who have different views than him. In that time, Trump and allies have also gone after, with increasing vitriol, judges who have ruled against his new administration’s overreaching acts.
Looked at clearly, there can be little doubt: Donald Trump wants to, and is working to, destroy the rule of law.
In the course of a month, Trump went from pulling the security clearances of a few lawyers at a firm and reviewing their government contracts to issuing a broad threat to all lawyers that the Trump administration doesn’t like all these lawsuits it is facing and is going retaliate against the lawyers behind them whenever Trump officials decide they don’t like the claims being brought — or even the way they’re being brought.
It is a chilling escalation that is made only more chilling due to the relative silence from the BigLaw world — with a few notable exceptions.
The legal community needs to get its act together. Now.
In contrast to BigLaw’s silence, and setting a strong example for what we should expect from others, 20 civil rights organizations — including the ACLU and NAACP LDF — put out a joint statement on Saturday calling out Trump’s actions as “a dangerous tactic seeking to prevent the legal system from operating as an independent check on government authority.”
There will be no law firm business to save if Trump is allowed to render the law a nullity.
Law Dork brings you independent, in-depth legal and political journalism that seeks to hold government and other public officials accountable. Support Chris Geidner’s reporting by becoming a paid or free subscriber today.
A month ago, on February 25, Trump directed the suspension of security clearances held by lawyers at Covington & Burling “who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel.“ He also directed agency heads to “terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law” and to “review all Government contracts with Covington & Burling LLP.“ A major BigLaw firm, Covington & Burling has about 1,200 attorneys.
When the entire legal system didn’t rise up in opposition to this retaliatory act by a vengeful president, Trump looked around and assessed the situation: They let him do it.
Knowing that, Trump went after Perkins Coie the next week, on March 6, with a significantly more broad order that included language that could even be read to bar Perkins Coie employees from federal courthouses. Trump’s order was explicitly political — he didn’t even pretend to hide his personal reasons for going after the firm:
When Perkins Coie — another BigLaw firm with about 1,000 attorneys — fought back, sued, and won a temporary restraining order against enforcement of multiple provisions in the order, Trump and, ultimately, the Justice Department — which Attorney General Pam Bondi has made clear exists to advance Trump’s aims — went after the judge. Two of Bondi’s political appointees filed a motion on Friday calling of Howell to recuse herself from the case. Signed by Chad Mizelle and Richard Lawson, the filing alleges bias because Howell had ruled in ways Trump dislikes in a handful of cases over time, including this one, and came shortly after the final career DOJ lawyer on the case withdrew from representation.
In the meantime, though, Trump himself kept moving forward with his attacks on law firms. On March 14 — two days after Howell’s order — Trump issued a similar order against Paul Weiss, another BigLaw firm with about 1,000 attorneys.
Attacking Paul Weiss in part for having “brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General,“ Trump used this order to impugn pro bono actions of law firms more broadly:
This time, the firm blinked. As The New York Times reported, Brad Karp — the firm’s chair — went to the White House to negotiate his way out of the order. As would have been obvious to anyone who has been awake at any point over the past decade, Trump declared victory in a way that overstated what Karp believed he had agreed to in his Oval Office meeting. Issuing a new executive order on March 21 revoking the past week’s executive order, Trump stated that “Paul Weiss indicated that it will engage in a remarkable change of course.“
![Section 1. Background. On March 14, 2025, I signed Executive Order 14237 (Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss) to address certain issues related to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). I noted that “[g]lobal law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” Paul Weiss is one of many law firms that have participated in this harmful activity. Earlier this week, though, Paul Weiss indicated that it will engage in a remarkable change of course. Specifically, Paul Weiss has acknowledged the wrongdoing of its former partner Mark Pomerantz, and it has agreed to a number of policy changes to promote equality, justice, and the principles that keep our Nation strong, including: adopting a policy of political neutrality with respect to client selection and attorney hiring; taking on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum; committing to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, instead of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies; dedicating the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during my term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F99e8e751-2d9c-4ac0-bb65-7df242c780c2_1436x830.png "Section 1. Background. On March 14, 2025, I signed Executive Order 14237 (Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss) to address certain issues related to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). I noted that “[g]lobal law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” Paul Weiss is one of many law firms that have participated in this harmful activity. Earlier this week, though, Paul Weiss indicated that it will engage in a remarkable change of course. Specifically, Paul Weiss has acknowledged the wrongdoing of its former partner Mark Pomerantz, and it has agreed to a number of policy changes to promote equality, justice, and the principles that keep our Nation strong, including: adopting a policy of political neutrality with respect to client selection and attorney hiring; taking on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum; committing to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, instead of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies; dedicating the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during my term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives.")
The move is as embarrassing for Karp and Paul Weiss as it dangerous for the rule of law and the nation. Multiple lawyers who reached out to Law Dork in recent days and used to work at Paul Weiss but now work in government or at other firms have cited their concern about the effect of Paul Weiss’s capitulation on the rule of law.
“I am disgusted,” one lawyer who left Paul Weiss to go into government told Law Dork. A former Paul Weiss associate questioned “what kind of hope is there [for] smaller and less established outfits“ if a firm like Paul Weiss caves.
Sure enough, on Friday night — the day after Paul Weiss caved and hours after DOJ moved to disqualify Howell in the Perkins Coie case — Trump, yet again, went further: He issued a directive taking aim at all lawyers who litigate against the federal government.
Citing Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — the rule the sets forth the basic requirements for lawyers’ behavior in court and procedure for sanctions if those requirements are violated — Trump sent a memorandum to Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, telling them:
He also directed Bondi and Noem to refer attorneys for disciplinary actions where they decide conduct “appears to violate professional conduct rules” and recommend “reassessment of security clearances” and cancellation of contracts where deemed appropriate.
The order is nothing less than an open threat to all law firms that are litigating against the government.
The legal community in America has a greater responsibility now than it has had at any point in most lawyers’ working lives.
Marc Elias, the former Perkins Coie partner and prominent Democratic lawyer who left the firm several years ago to start Elias Law Group, was a named target of the Friday night order.1 Unlike Paul Weiss, here was Elias’s response:
Putting aside for a moment Paul Weiss’s capitulation itself, a paragraph in Karp’s follow-up email sent internally on Sunday and published in full by David Lat says much about how the BigLaw firms whose lawyers so often insist that they are the Leaders of The Profession are failing themselves, the broader legal profession, and America in this moment:
And yet. The problem is that their actions — their failure to rally to individual firms’ defense or, even now, to rally against Friday’s memorandum — are undermining the legal system in which they operate.
If the legal community — all of its self-appointed leaders — do not call out Trump’s disdain for the rule of law and actions to destroy it, Trump will keep escalating his attacks and eventually these BigLaw firms will be saving themselves for nothing.
What is a law firm if there is no law?
Share
DOJ is planning “Second Amendment rights litigation“
The Justice Department has announced internally that it is planning on “trying anticipated Second Amendment rights litigation” within the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. The information came in a “detail opportunity” — a job posting for a temporary reassignment — seen by Law Dork.
The relevant part of the announcement stated:
www.lawdork.com
“[W]hen you’re a star, they let you do it,” Trump infamously told Billy Bush in 2005.
Now in his second term in office and nearly 20 years later, Trump has not changed. In fact, he has clearly expanded his vision and is now seeking to apply his “anything goes” amorality to the presidency.
The problem with being a man who thinks he can do everything is that — in this country, for now — people can and do tell you that you’re wrong and that restrictions apply to you as well.
Trump does not like that.
In the wake of Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2024 decision for the U.S. Supreme Court holding that Trump has lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution for many — if not all — official presidential acts, Trump appears to feel empowered to act more aggressively and lawlessly this term.
More than that, he also is acting to dismantle, diminish, and demean those institutions, entities, and people left opposing him.
Over the past four weeks, Trump has taken increasingly disturbing actions each week to undermine lawyers who have been willing to oppose him — or even just defend people who have different views than him. In that time, Trump and allies have also gone after, with increasing vitriol, judges who have ruled against his new administration’s overreaching acts.
Looked at clearly, there can be little doubt: Donald Trump wants to, and is working to, destroy the rule of law.
In the course of a month, Trump went from pulling the security clearances of a few lawyers at a firm and reviewing their government contracts to issuing a broad threat to all lawyers that the Trump administration doesn’t like all these lawsuits it is facing and is going retaliate against the lawyers behind them whenever Trump officials decide they don’t like the claims being brought — or even the way they’re being brought.
It is a chilling escalation that is made only more chilling due to the relative silence from the BigLaw world — with a few notable exceptions.
The legal community needs to get its act together. Now.
In contrast to BigLaw’s silence, and setting a strong example for what we should expect from others, 20 civil rights organizations — including the ACLU and NAACP LDF — put out a joint statement on Saturday calling out Trump’s actions as “a dangerous tactic seeking to prevent the legal system from operating as an independent check on government authority.”
There will be no law firm business to save if Trump is allowed to render the law a nullity.
Law Dork brings you independent, in-depth legal and political journalism that seeks to hold government and other public officials accountable. Support Chris Geidner’s reporting by becoming a paid or free subscriber today.
A month ago, on February 25, Trump directed the suspension of security clearances held by lawyers at Covington & Burling “who assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith during his time as Special Counsel.“ He also directed agency heads to “terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law” and to “review all Government contracts with Covington & Burling LLP.“ A major BigLaw firm, Covington & Burling has about 1,200 attorneys.
When the entire legal system didn’t rise up in opposition to this retaliatory act by a vengeful president, Trump looked around and assessed the situation: They let him do it.
Knowing that, Trump went after Perkins Coie the next week, on March 6, with a significantly more broad order that included language that could even be read to bar Perkins Coie employees from federal courthouses. Trump’s order was explicitly political — he didn’t even pretend to hide his personal reasons for going after the firm:
When Perkins Coie — another BigLaw firm with about 1,000 attorneys — fought back, sued, and won a temporary restraining order against enforcement of multiple provisions in the order, Trump and, ultimately, the Justice Department — which Attorney General Pam Bondi has made clear exists to advance Trump’s aims — went after the judge. Two of Bondi’s political appointees filed a motion on Friday calling of Howell to recuse herself from the case. Signed by Chad Mizelle and Richard Lawson, the filing alleges bias because Howell had ruled in ways Trump dislikes in a handful of cases over time, including this one, and came shortly after the final career DOJ lawyer on the case withdrew from representation.
In the meantime, though, Trump himself kept moving forward with his attacks on law firms. On March 14 — two days after Howell’s order — Trump issued a similar order against Paul Weiss, another BigLaw firm with about 1,000 attorneys.
Attacking Paul Weiss in part for having “brought a pro bono suit against individuals alleged to have participated in the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, on behalf of the District of Columbia Attorney General,“ Trump used this order to impugn pro bono actions of law firms more broadly:
This time, the firm blinked. As The New York Times reported, Brad Karp — the firm’s chair — went to the White House to negotiate his way out of the order. As would have been obvious to anyone who has been awake at any point over the past decade, Trump declared victory in a way that overstated what Karp believed he had agreed to in his Oval Office meeting. Issuing a new executive order on March 21 revoking the past week’s executive order, Trump stated that “Paul Weiss indicated that it will engage in a remarkable change of course.“
![Section 1. Background. On March 14, 2025, I signed Executive Order 14237 (Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss) to address certain issues related to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). I noted that “[g]lobal law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” Paul Weiss is one of many law firms that have participated in this harmful activity. Earlier this week, though, Paul Weiss indicated that it will engage in a remarkable change of course. Specifically, Paul Weiss has acknowledged the wrongdoing of its former partner Mark Pomerantz, and it has agreed to a number of policy changes to promote equality, justice, and the principles that keep our Nation strong, including: adopting a policy of political neutrality with respect to client selection and attorney hiring; taking on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum; committing to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, instead of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies; dedicating the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during my term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives.](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F99e8e751-2d9c-4ac0-bb65-7df242c780c2_1436x830.png "Section 1. Background. On March 14, 2025, I signed Executive Order 14237 (Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss) to address certain issues related to Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul Weiss). I noted that “[g]lobal law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” Paul Weiss is one of many law firms that have participated in this harmful activity. Earlier this week, though, Paul Weiss indicated that it will engage in a remarkable change of course. Specifically, Paul Weiss has acknowledged the wrongdoing of its former partner Mark Pomerantz, and it has agreed to a number of policy changes to promote equality, justice, and the principles that keep our Nation strong, including: adopting a policy of political neutrality with respect to client selection and attorney hiring; taking on a wide range of pro bono matters representing the full political spectrum; committing to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, instead of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies; dedicating the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services during my term in office to support causes including assisting our Nation’s veterans, fairness in the justice system, and combating anti-Semitism; and other similar initiatives.")
The move is as embarrassing for Karp and Paul Weiss as it dangerous for the rule of law and the nation. Multiple lawyers who reached out to Law Dork in recent days and used to work at Paul Weiss but now work in government or at other firms have cited their concern about the effect of Paul Weiss’s capitulation on the rule of law.
“I am disgusted,” one lawyer who left Paul Weiss to go into government told Law Dork. A former Paul Weiss associate questioned “what kind of hope is there [for] smaller and less established outfits“ if a firm like Paul Weiss caves.
Sure enough, on Friday night — the day after Paul Weiss caved and hours after DOJ moved to disqualify Howell in the Perkins Coie case — Trump, yet again, went further: He issued a directive taking aim at all lawyers who litigate against the federal government.
Citing Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — the rule the sets forth the basic requirements for lawyers’ behavior in court and procedure for sanctions if those requirements are violated — Trump sent a memorandum to Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, telling them:
He also directed Bondi and Noem to refer attorneys for disciplinary actions where they decide conduct “appears to violate professional conduct rules” and recommend “reassessment of security clearances” and cancellation of contracts where deemed appropriate.
The order is nothing less than an open threat to all law firms that are litigating against the government.
The legal community in America has a greater responsibility now than it has had at any point in most lawyers’ working lives.
Marc Elias, the former Perkins Coie partner and prominent Democratic lawyer who left the firm several years ago to start Elias Law Group, was a named target of the Friday night order.1 Unlike Paul Weiss, here was Elias’s response:
Putting aside for a moment Paul Weiss’s capitulation itself, a paragraph in Karp’s follow-up email sent internally on Sunday and published in full by David Lat says much about how the BigLaw firms whose lawyers so often insist that they are the Leaders of The Profession are failing themselves, the broader legal profession, and America in this moment:
Assuming that what Karp wrote here is true, these are not the responses of a community of people who want to preserve the rule of law. They are the responses of people who believe that they will be the ones to find themselves spared from Trump’s vengeance. And they might. For a while.
And yet. The problem is that their actions — their failure to rally to individual firms’ defense or, even now, to rally against Friday’s memorandum — are undermining the legal system in which they operate.
If the legal community — all of its self-appointed leaders — do not call out Trump’s disdain for the rule of law and actions to destroy it, Trump will keep escalating his attacks and eventually these BigLaw firms will be saving themselves for nothing.
What is a law firm if there is no law?
Share
DOJ is planning “Second Amendment rights litigation“
The Justice Department has announced internally that it is planning on “trying anticipated Second Amendment rights litigation” within the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. The information came in a “detail opportunity” — a job posting for a temporary reassignment — seen by Law Dork.
The relevant part of the announcement stated:
Harmeet Dhillon is President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Civil Rights Division, but she is not yet confirmed, so it was not immediately clear if this “anticipated … litigation” is part of Dhillon’s plans for the Division; the plans of Attorney General Pam Bondi or one of her underlings; or a plan developed by the acting head of the division, Mac Warner. The announcement also provided no further information on the planned litigation.
Donald Trump wants to, and is working to, destroy the rule of law
Attn, BigLaw: There will be no law firm business to save if Trump succeeds. Also: DOJ is planning Second Amendment litigation. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.
www.lawdork.com
Law & Crime reports the DOJ told a three-judge panel that President Donald Trump’s federalization of militia can’t be second-guessed by the courts, not even if the president mobilizes forces from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., simultaneously.
The June 17 panel appeal follows a suit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and a ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer that Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution when he assumed control of the National Guard in California.
Trump’s argument before the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is that Breyer’s stay order “interferes with the president’s commander-in-chief powers based on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable statute” 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which says the president “may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” when there is a foreign invasion or a danger thereof. The statute also allows the president to assign members of national guard when there is “rebellion or a danger thereof,” or when the president is unable “to execute the laws of the United States” with local forces. White House attorneys argue Breyer “improperly second-guessed” Trump’s reasoning behind stationing troops in the state when he made his decision.
U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett asked the DOJ what the limits of Trump’s discretion are and what role the White House believes the courts have in adjudicating the statute.
DOJ Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued: “… [T]here’s no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision” because the statute says the president’s power is an “unreviewable discretion.”
Bennett, a Trump appointee, had follow-up questions.
“Is it your view that if the president or a future president simply invokes the statute, gives no reasons for doing it, provides no support for doing it, and there is nothing which would appear to a court to justify it, that the court still has no role at all in determining whether the president — this hypothetical future president — correctly invoked subsection 3 [of the statute], no role at all even if the president gives no reasons, and there are no facts offered by that president to support that’s president’s decision?” he asked.
“That’s correct,” Shumate replied.
It was also Bennett who prodded the administration to clarify their answer to a question from U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller about whether Trump or a future president could invade California with National Guard members from all 50 states, plus D.C., if it so chooses.
“Yes, because the statute says the president may call into federal service members and units of the Guard of any state in such numbers that he considers necessary,” Shumate responded.
The hearing, which was over Breyer’s stay order rather than the greater argument over Trump’s National Guard decision, ended without an immediate decision.
Trump-appointed judge spars with DOJ lawyer arguing judges can’t second-guess National Guard deployment
The June 17 panel appeal follows a suit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and a ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer that Trump violated the 10th Amendment of the Constitution when he assumed control of the National Guard in California.
Trump’s argument before the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is that Breyer’s stay order “interferes with the president’s commander-in-chief powers based on an erroneous interpretation of the applicable statute” 10 U.S. Code § 12406, which says the president “may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” when there is a foreign invasion or a danger thereof. The statute also allows the president to assign members of national guard when there is “rebellion or a danger thereof,” or when the president is unable “to execute the laws of the United States” with local forces. White House attorneys argue Breyer “improperly second-guessed” Trump’s reasoning behind stationing troops in the state when he made his decision.
U.S. Circuit Judges Mark Bennett asked the DOJ what the limits of Trump’s discretion are and what role the White House believes the courts have in adjudicating the statute.
DOJ Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued: “… [T]here’s no role for the court to play in reviewing that decision” because the statute says the president’s power is an “unreviewable discretion.”
Bennett, a Trump appointee, had follow-up questions.
“Is it your view that if the president or a future president simply invokes the statute, gives no reasons for doing it, provides no support for doing it, and there is nothing which would appear to a court to justify it, that the court still has no role at all in determining whether the president — this hypothetical future president — correctly invoked subsection 3 [of the statute], no role at all even if the president gives no reasons, and there are no facts offered by that president to support that’s president’s decision?” he asked.
“That’s correct,” Shumate replied.
It was also Bennett who prodded the administration to clarify their answer to a question from U.S. Circuit Judge Eric Miller about whether Trump or a future president could invade California with National Guard members from all 50 states, plus D.C., if it so chooses.
“Yes, because the statute says the president may call into federal service members and units of the Guard of any state in such numbers that he considers necessary,” Shumate responded.
The hearing, which was over Breyer’s stay order rather than the greater argument over Trump’s National Guard decision, ended without an immediate decision.
Trump-appointed judge spars with DOJ lawyer arguing judges can’t second-guess National Guard deployment
Judge finds Florida attorney general in contempt of court for flouting immigration order By Jay Weaver Updated June 17, 2025 7:39 PM
thmeier was held in contempt of court by a Miami federal judge on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, for violating her order to stop enforcing a law criminalizing undocumented immigrants who arrive in Florida.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier was held in contempt of court by a Miami federal judge on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, for violating her order to stop enforcing a law criminalizing undocumented immigrants who arrive in Florida. Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel TNS
A Miami federal judge overseeing a major immigration case found Attorney General James Uthmeier in contempt of court on Tuesday for violating her restraining order to stop enforcing a new state law that criminalizes undocumented immigrants when they arrive in Florida.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who strongly criticized Uthmeier’s conduct at a hearing last month, said the state attorney general crossed the line on April 23 when he informed police agencies “there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from” making arrests under Florida’s immigration statute. “Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order,” Williams wrote in her contempt order, citing a passage from Lewis Carroll’s classic, “Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There.”
“Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.”
Must file reports on immigrant arrests to judge
As punishment, Williams ordered Uthmeier to “file bi-weekly reports detailing whether any arrests, detentions, or law enforcement actions pursuant to [the statute] have occurred, and if so, how many, when, and by which law enforcement agency.” The judge said the first report must be filed by July 1. She added that if any defendants in the case challenging the state law learn of any arrests, the attorney general must notify the court of the details of the arrest immediately. She said Uthmeier can seek to modify or terminate her reporting requirements in six months.
Uthmeier, 37, is a Florida native who served as chief of staff for Gov. Ron DeSantis before he appointed him as the state’s 39th attorney general in February. He has not appeared at a series of hearings before Williams. In response to the judge’s finding, Uthmeier struck a defiant position, saying in a post on X: “If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
READ MORE: Courting controversy: Florida’s attorney general is no stranger to conflict
At first, Uthmeier seemed to obey the judge’s restraining order when he instructed the Florida Highway Patrol and other police agencies on April 18 that they had to refrain from enforcing the immigration statute — after Williams learned FHP officers had arrested more than a dozen people for illegally entering the state under the new misdemeanor law, including a U.S. citizen.
Told cops they didn’t have to abide by judge’s order
But five days later, the attorney general did an about-face in his follow-up letter to the agencies, drawing the judge’s wrath in a lawsuit brought by an immigration coalition and others challenging the constitutionality of the state law. The late May hearing set the stage for Williams’ decision on Tuesday, which could have led to a civil contempt fine up to $1,000 and/or jail time up to six months.
There’s no precedent for a state attorney general ignoring a federal judge’s order, certainly not in the Southern District of Florida.
Uthmeier’s defense lawyer, Jesse Panuccio, who formerly served in top positions in state government and the Justice Department under Republican administrations, said the judge was only focusing on a “snippet” of the attorney general’s April 23 letter to police agencies telling them they did not have to abide by the judge’s order, not the whole context of his message. At the hearing, Panuccio disputed the judge’s assertion that the attorney general violated her restraining order. “I don’t think this letter is saying that — there is no evidence,” he said, adding that state police agencies have not made any additional arrests since April 18, the date of her second restraining order. “There is no contempt.”
But a former federal prosecutor in Miami who specializes in civil litigation questioned the rationale of the attorney general’s lawyer after listening to his argument. “Half the parties in any proceeding think the court got it wrong when it rules against them,” attorney David S. Mandel told the Miami Herald. “That’s what the appellate court is there for. The losing party doesn’t get to ignore the ruling in the meantime. That’s ‘Law 101.’ ”
Appeals panel backs Miami judge
On June 6, a federal court appeals panel in Atlanta rejected the attorney general’s challenge to Williams’ injunction blocking the enforcement of the state law criminalizing undocumented immigrants when they arrive in Florida. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit kept in place her order temporarily preventing police and prosecutors from making arrests and pursuing charges under Florida’s SB-4, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in February. Uthmeier’s office generally opposed the judge’s injunction on enforcement. He specifically argued that it was too broad because it applied not only to the named defendants, the attorney general and various state prosecutors, but also to unnamed defendants, including local, county and state police agencies. In their ruling, the judges concluded that Uthmeier “may well be right that the district court’s order is impermissibly broad. But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.”
Uthmeier’s TV commentary
During the hearing last month, Williams expressed umbrage not only with Uthmeier’s letter to the state police agencies but also with his remarks in TV interviews and social media, as she paraphrased a few of his public comments: “I’m not going to rubber stamp her order. ... I’m not going to ask law enforcement to stand down.” “That’s Mr. Uthmeier saying what he meant,” Williams told his attorney. “It’s pretty clear what he’s saying.” Uthmeier also expressed his dissatisfaction with Williams in a recent interview with FOX 35 in Orlando: “This is Law 101,” he said. “She doesn’t have jurisdiction.” At the hearing, an attorney representing immigrant groups that sued the state in Miami federal court said Uthmeier’s letter was “an attempt to evade and undermine the court’s order.” “It’s clearly a contempt of court,” American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Cody Wofsy told Williams during the hearing.
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article307693765.html#storylink=cpy
Uthmeier, whose views have been publicly backed by DeSantis, said the judge had no authority to order him to instruct FHP, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and other police agencies to refrain from arresting illegal immigrants upon arrival in the state because law enforcement officers are not named as defendants in the federal immigration case under Williams’ review. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier Joel Kowsky NASA Jeremy Redfern, a spokesman for Uthmeier, characterized Williams’ position as “lawfare” by an “Obama-appointed judge” on the social media site X, suggesting she has used her power as a legal weapon to thwart the Republican-led government’s efforts to assist the Trump administration on immigration enforcement.
President Barack Obama appointed Williams to the Miami federal bench in 2010; the U.S. Senate confirmed her the following year.
Plaintiffs: State’s new law is unconstitutional
The showdown between Williams and the state attorney general’s office came nearly one month after the Florida Immigrant Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida and others represented by ACLU lawyers filed suit in early April, saying the new state law is unconstitutional because only federal authorities have the power to enforce immigration laws. Williams agreed on a preliminary basis, citing the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, which says federal law takes precedence over state and local laws. In late April, Williams said she was “surprised and shocked” to learn that Uthmeier first told state police officers to obey her order not to arrest undocumented immigrants entering Florida but later said he “cannot prevent” them from making arrests under the new state law.
Williams issued her preliminary injunction on April 29 prohibiting all state law enforcement official and police agencies, including FHP, from arresting undocumented immigrants who come into Florida.
thmeier was held in contempt of court by a Miami federal judge on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, for violating her order to stop enforcing a law criminalizing undocumented immigrants who arrive in Florida.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier was held in contempt of court by a Miami federal judge on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, for violating her order to stop enforcing a law criminalizing undocumented immigrants who arrive in Florida. Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel TNS
A Miami federal judge overseeing a major immigration case found Attorney General James Uthmeier in contempt of court on Tuesday for violating her restraining order to stop enforcing a new state law that criminalizes undocumented immigrants when they arrive in Florida.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who strongly criticized Uthmeier’s conduct at a hearing last month, said the state attorney general crossed the line on April 23 when he informed police agencies “there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from” making arrests under Florida’s immigration statute. “Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order,” Williams wrote in her contempt order, citing a passage from Lewis Carroll’s classic, “Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There.”
“Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.”
Must file reports on immigrant arrests to judge
As punishment, Williams ordered Uthmeier to “file bi-weekly reports detailing whether any arrests, detentions, or law enforcement actions pursuant to [the statute] have occurred, and if so, how many, when, and by which law enforcement agency.” The judge said the first report must be filed by July 1. She added that if any defendants in the case challenging the state law learn of any arrests, the attorney general must notify the court of the details of the arrest immediately. She said Uthmeier can seek to modify or terminate her reporting requirements in six months.
Uthmeier, 37, is a Florida native who served as chief of staff for Gov. Ron DeSantis before he appointed him as the state’s 39th attorney general in February. He has not appeared at a series of hearings before Williams. In response to the judge’s finding, Uthmeier struck a defiant position, saying in a post on X: “If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
READ MORE: Courting controversy: Florida’s attorney general is no stranger to conflict
At first, Uthmeier seemed to obey the judge’s restraining order when he instructed the Florida Highway Patrol and other police agencies on April 18 that they had to refrain from enforcing the immigration statute — after Williams learned FHP officers had arrested more than a dozen people for illegally entering the state under the new misdemeanor law, including a U.S. citizen.
Told cops they didn’t have to abide by judge’s order
But five days later, the attorney general did an about-face in his follow-up letter to the agencies, drawing the judge’s wrath in a lawsuit brought by an immigration coalition and others challenging the constitutionality of the state law. The late May hearing set the stage for Williams’ decision on Tuesday, which could have led to a civil contempt fine up to $1,000 and/or jail time up to six months.
There’s no precedent for a state attorney general ignoring a federal judge’s order, certainly not in the Southern District of Florida.
Uthmeier’s defense lawyer, Jesse Panuccio, who formerly served in top positions in state government and the Justice Department under Republican administrations, said the judge was only focusing on a “snippet” of the attorney general’s April 23 letter to police agencies telling them they did not have to abide by the judge’s order, not the whole context of his message. At the hearing, Panuccio disputed the judge’s assertion that the attorney general violated her restraining order. “I don’t think this letter is saying that — there is no evidence,” he said, adding that state police agencies have not made any additional arrests since April 18, the date of her second restraining order. “There is no contempt.”
But a former federal prosecutor in Miami who specializes in civil litigation questioned the rationale of the attorney general’s lawyer after listening to his argument. “Half the parties in any proceeding think the court got it wrong when it rules against them,” attorney David S. Mandel told the Miami Herald. “That’s what the appellate court is there for. The losing party doesn’t get to ignore the ruling in the meantime. That’s ‘Law 101.’ ”
Appeals panel backs Miami judge
On June 6, a federal court appeals panel in Atlanta rejected the attorney general’s challenge to Williams’ injunction blocking the enforcement of the state law criminalizing undocumented immigrants when they arrive in Florida. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit kept in place her order temporarily preventing police and prosecutors from making arrests and pursuing charges under Florida’s SB-4, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in February. Uthmeier’s office generally opposed the judge’s injunction on enforcement. He specifically argued that it was too broad because it applied not only to the named defendants, the attorney general and various state prosecutors, but also to unnamed defendants, including local, county and state police agencies. In their ruling, the judges concluded that Uthmeier “may well be right that the district court’s order is impermissibly broad. But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.”
Uthmeier’s TV commentary
During the hearing last month, Williams expressed umbrage not only with Uthmeier’s letter to the state police agencies but also with his remarks in TV interviews and social media, as she paraphrased a few of his public comments: “I’m not going to rubber stamp her order. ... I’m not going to ask law enforcement to stand down.” “That’s Mr. Uthmeier saying what he meant,” Williams told his attorney. “It’s pretty clear what he’s saying.” Uthmeier also expressed his dissatisfaction with Williams in a recent interview with FOX 35 in Orlando: “This is Law 101,” he said. “She doesn’t have jurisdiction.” At the hearing, an attorney representing immigrant groups that sued the state in Miami federal court said Uthmeier’s letter was “an attempt to evade and undermine the court’s order.” “It’s clearly a contempt of court,” American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Cody Wofsy told Williams during the hearing.
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article307693765.html#storylink=cpy
Uthmeier, whose views have been publicly backed by DeSantis, said the judge had no authority to order him to instruct FHP, Florida Department of Law Enforcement and other police agencies to refrain from arresting illegal immigrants upon arrival in the state because law enforcement officers are not named as defendants in the federal immigration case under Williams’ review. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier Joel Kowsky NASA Jeremy Redfern, a spokesman for Uthmeier, characterized Williams’ position as “lawfare” by an “Obama-appointed judge” on the social media site X, suggesting she has used her power as a legal weapon to thwart the Republican-led government’s efforts to assist the Trump administration on immigration enforcement.
President Barack Obama appointed Williams to the Miami federal bench in 2010; the U.S. Senate confirmed her the following year.
Plaintiffs: State’s new law is unconstitutional
The showdown between Williams and the state attorney general’s office came nearly one month after the Florida Immigrant Coalition, Farmworker Association of Florida and others represented by ACLU lawyers filed suit in early April, saying the new state law is unconstitutional because only federal authorities have the power to enforce immigration laws. Williams agreed on a preliminary basis, citing the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, which says federal law takes precedence over state and local laws. In late April, Williams said she was “surprised and shocked” to learn that Uthmeier first told state police officers to obey her order not to arrest undocumented immigrants entering Florida but later said he “cannot prevent” them from making arrests under the new state law.
Williams issued her preliminary injunction on April 29 prohibiting all state law enforcement official and police agencies, including FHP, from arresting undocumented immigrants who come into Florida.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.
The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since 1965.
In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.
It said that while presidents don’t have unfettered power to seize control of a state’s guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters.
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows,” the court wrote. “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”
apnews.com
The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor’s permission since 1965.
In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard.
It said that while presidents don’t have unfettered power to seize control of a state’s guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters.
“The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters ‘pinned down’ several federal officers and threw ‘concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects’ at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van’s windows,” the court wrote. “The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.”
Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
An appeals court is allowing President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids.
apnews.com
Federal appeals court keeps California National Guard in Trump's hands
A federal appeals court has ruled President Donald Trump "likely acted within his authority" in federalizing the California National Guard amid protests over immigration raids earlier this month -- indefinitely blocking a lower court order that would have returned control of the guard to the governor.
The three-judge panel disagreed with the Trump administration that president's decision was completely unreviewable by the courts, but concluded the president likely acted lawfully by invoking a section of the U.S. Code on Armed Services that authorizes federalization of the National Guard when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Marines and California National Guard soldiers guard an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building, while standing by a Marines tactical vehicle, June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
The judges said Trump had a basis for federalizing the guard, citing acts of violence during the protests.
"The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers," the judges wrote in the order. "Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building … The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant."
The judges said the law invoked by Trump does not require the president to obtain a governor's consent and concluded "Governor (Gavin) Newsom had no power to veto or countermand the President’s order."
The appeals court order puts on hold an order by a lower court judge, U.
A federal appeals court has ruled President Donald Trump "likely acted within his authority" in federalizing the California National Guard amid protests over immigration raids earlier this month -- indefinitely blocking a lower court order that would have returned control of the guard to the governor.
The three-judge panel disagreed with the Trump administration that president's decision was completely unreviewable by the courts, but concluded the president likely acted lawfully by invoking a section of the U.S. Code on Armed Services that authorizes federalization of the National Guard when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Marines and California National Guard soldiers guard an entrance to the Wilshire Federal Building, while standing by a Marines tactical vehicle, June 13, 2025, in Los Angeles.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
The judges said Trump had a basis for federalizing the guard, citing acts of violence during the protests.
"The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers," the judges wrote in the order. "Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building … The federal government’s interest in preventing incidents like these is significant."
The judges said the law invoked by Trump does not require the president to obtain a governor's consent and concluded "Governor (Gavin) Newsom had no power to veto or countermand the President’s order."
The appeals court order puts on hold an order by a lower court judge, U.
Judge rules Trump administration can't require states to help on immigration to get transport money
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don’t agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions.
Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved.
“The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants’ unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,” wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. “The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, in a statement posted on Bluesky, welcomed the ruling.
“The court granted a temporary order halting the Trump administration’s attempt to hold critical funding for states if they don’t comply with their cruel immigration policies,” Campbell said. This would have put critical funding for transportation in MA at risk. It’s not just wrong – it’s illegal."
In statement posted on X, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the ruling wasn't surprising.
“I directed states who want federal DOT money to comply with federal immigration laws,” Duffy said. “But, no surprise, an Obama-appointed judge has ruled that states can openly defy our federal immigration laws. This is judicial activism pure and simple and I will continue to fight in the courts.”
On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent.
Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called “Duffy Directive” put them in an impossible position.
“The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants’ willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,” the attorneys general wrote in court documents.
But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn’t cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed.
But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.
Michael Casey And Rebecca Boone, The Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday blocked the Trump administration from withholding billions of dollars in transportation funds from states that don’t agree to participate in some immigration enforcement actions.
Twenty states sued after they said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy threatened to cut off funding to states that refused to comply with President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. barred federal transportation officials from carrying out that threat before the lawsuit is fully resolved.
“The Court finds that the States have demonstrated they will face irreparable and continuing harm if forced to agree to Defendants’ unlawful and unconstitutional immigration conditions imposed in order to receive federal transportation grant funds,” wrote McConnell, the chief judge for the federal district of Rhode island. “The States face losing billions of dollars in federal funding, are being put in a position of relinquishing their sovereign right to decide how to use their own police officers, are at risk of losing the trust built between local law enforcement and immigrant communities, and will have to scale back, reconsider, or cancel ongoing transportation projects.”
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, in a statement posted on Bluesky, welcomed the ruling.
“The court granted a temporary order halting the Trump administration’s attempt to hold critical funding for states if they don’t comply with their cruel immigration policies,” Campbell said. This would have put critical funding for transportation in MA at risk. It’s not just wrong – it’s illegal."
In statement posted on X, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy said the ruling wasn't surprising.
“I directed states who want federal DOT money to comply with federal immigration laws,” Duffy said. “But, no surprise, an Obama-appointed judge has ruled that states can openly defy our federal immigration laws. This is judicial activism pure and simple and I will continue to fight in the courts.”
On April 24, states received letters from the Department of Transportation stating that they must cooperate on immigration efforts or risk losing the congressionally appropriated funds. No funding was immediately withheld, but some of the states feared the move was imminent.
Attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin and Vermont filed the lawsuit in May, saying the new so-called “Duffy Directive” put them in an impossible position.
“The States can either attempt to comply with an unlawful and unconstitutional condition that would surrender their sovereign control over their own law enforcement officers and reduce immigrants’ willingness to report crimes and participate in public health programs — or they can forfeit tens of billions of dollars of funds they rely on regularly to support the roads, highways, railways, airways, ferries, and bridges that connect their communities and homes,” the attorneys general wrote in court documents.
But acting Rhode Island U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom told the judge that Congress has given the Department of Transportation the legal right to set conditions for the grant money it administers to states, and that requiring compliance and cooperation with federal law enforcement is a reasonable exercise of that discretion. Allowing the federal government to withhold the funds while the lawsuit moves forward doesn’t cause any lasting harm, Bloom wrote in court documents, because that money can always be disbursed later if needed.
But requiring the federal government to release the money to uncooperative states will likely make it impossible to recoup later, if the Department of Transportation wins the case, Bloom said.
Michael Casey And Rebecca Boone, The Associated Press
Rubio Sanctions International Criminal Court Judges
CA)
Marco Rubio and the Trump administration have enacted sanctions against four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The sanctions target their involvement in the tribunal’s investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israel during the recent conflict with Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
Rubio’s Sanctions
The Trump administration targets members of the International Criminal Court (ICC). BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The State Department announced that it would freeze any assets belonging to ICC judges from Benin, Peru, Slovenia and Uganda within U.S. jurisdictions. This is just the latest dramatic step taken by the administration to punish the ICC and its officials for daring to investigate the actions against both Israel and the United States.
“As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel,” the Secretary of State fired back in a scathing statement.
“The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” Rubio continued. “This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.”
ICC’s Response
The new sanctions target ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
This latest escalation follows the earlier sanction placed on the Hague-based court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan.
Khan found himself on Washington’s “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” list back in February. It restricts him from conducting business with Americans. Consequently, he stepped aside in May amid swirling allegations of sexual misconduct.
In a swift rebuke, ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah proclaimed, “These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution.”
The Judges Targeted
Trump targeted the ICC with sanctions during his first term in office. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The new sanctions specifically target ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou from Benin, who was part of the chamber that issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year. She also helped greenlight the investigation into alleged Israeli crimes in the Palestinian territories in 2021.
At 69, Alapini-Gansou stands resilient, having also been part of the panel that issued the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023. She even has her own active arrest warrant in Moscow.
Rubio’s Other Targets
The court condemned the Trump administration’s actions. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Slovenia’s Beti Hohler is another reported target of the sanctions.
Elected in 2023, Hohler faced Israel’s ire for her past role in the prosecutor’s office. She defended herself, stating she had never worked on the Palestinian territories investigation during her eight years as a prosecutor.
CA)
Marco Rubio and the Trump administration have enacted sanctions against four judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The sanctions target their involvement in the tribunal’s investigation into alleged war crimes committed by Israel during the recent conflict with Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank.
Rubio’s Sanctions
The Trump administration targets members of the International Criminal Court (ICC). BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The State Department announced that it would freeze any assets belonging to ICC judges from Benin, Peru, Slovenia and Uganda within U.S. jurisdictions. This is just the latest dramatic step taken by the administration to punish the ICC and its officials for daring to investigate the actions against both Israel and the United States.
“As ICC judges, these four individuals have actively engaged in the ICC’s illegitimate and baseless actions targeting America or our close ally, Israel,” the Secretary of State fired back in a scathing statement.
“The ICC is politicized and falsely claims unfettered discretion to investigate, charge, and prosecute nationals of the United States and our allies,” Rubio continued. “This dangerous assertion and abuse of power infringes upon the sovereignty and national security of the United States and our allies, including Israel.”
ICC’s Response
The new sanctions target ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
This latest escalation follows the earlier sanction placed on the Hague-based court’s chief prosecutor, Karim Khan.
Khan found himself on Washington’s “Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons” list back in February. It restricts him from conducting business with Americans. Consequently, he stepped aside in May amid swirling allegations of sexual misconduct.
In a swift rebuke, ICC spokesperson Fadi El Abdallah proclaimed, “These measures are a clear attempt to undermine the independence of an international judicial institution.”
The Judges Targeted
Trump targeted the ICC with sanctions during his first term in office. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
The new sanctions specifically target ICC Judge Reine Alapini-Gansou from Benin, who was part of the chamber that issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year. She also helped greenlight the investigation into alleged Israeli crimes in the Palestinian territories in 2021.
At 69, Alapini-Gansou stands resilient, having also been part of the panel that issued the arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023. She even has her own active arrest warrant in Moscow.
Rubio’s Other Targets
The court condemned the Trump administration’s actions. BY: MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Slovenia’s Beti Hohler is another reported target of the sanctions.
Elected in 2023, Hohler faced Israel’s ire for her past role in the prosecutor’s office. She defended herself, stating she had never worked on the Palestinian territories investigation during her eight years as a prosecutor.
A federal judge is releasing Mahmoud Khalil on bail from an immigration detention center in Louisiana, where the Columbia University student activist has been locked up for more than three months for his campus activism against Israel’s war in Gaza.
During a bail hearing on Friday, New Jersey District Judge Michael Farbiarz said Khalil poses no danger to the community and is not a flight risk. “Period, full stop,” he said.
The judge said it is “highly, highly unusual” for Donald Trump’s administration to continue holding him in detention, with no evidence he committed any crime, and after the judge’s determination that his detention and threat of removal from the country over First Amendment-protected speech is unconstitutional.
The judge’s order is the latest in a string of high-profile losses for Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration in its campaign against international student activists arrested and threatened with removal from the country over their pro-Palestinian activism.
Khalil was stripped of his green card and arrested in front of his then-pregnant wife in their New York City apartment building on March 8. He was then sent to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana, roughly 1,300 miles away from their home in New York.
Following his arrest, Khalil was accused of “antisemitic activities” for his role as a Palestinian student activist that helped organize campus-wide demonstrations against Israel’s war. Officials concede that he did not commit any crime, but Rubio has sought to justify Khalil’s arrest by invoking a rarely used law claiming that Khalil’s presence in the United States undermines foreign policy interests of preventing antisemitism.
Khalil and his attorneys and critics have argued that the administration has broadly sought to conflate criticism of Israel’s war with antisemitism, dovetailing with the president’s threats to college campuses and an anti-immigration agenda.
“After more than three months we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home to me and Deen, who never should have been separated from his father,” Noor Abdalla, Khalil’s wife, said in a statement.
“We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others the government is trying to silence for speaking out against Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians,” she added. “But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family, and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom.”
Khalil’s wife Noor Abdalla, holding their son who was born while he was in ICE detention, said the family ‘can finally breathe a sigh of relief’ after a ruling on his release (REUTERS)
On June 11, Judge Farbiarz ruled that the administration had unconstitutionally wielded the law against Khalil, whose “career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” the judge wrote.
The government has “little or no interest in applying the relevant underlying statutes in what is likely an unconstitutional way,” Farbiarz added.
The judge said the government could not detain and deport him on those spurious legal grounds.
Khalil and his legal team argue his arrest and detention — and attempted removal from the country, which is currently blocked by court order — are retaliatory violations of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, among other claims.
His arrest sparked international outrage over the Trump administration’s attempts to crush campus dissent. Rubio has said he “proudly” revoked hundreds of student visas over campus activism, leading to several high-profile arrests of international scholars.
Khalil, who is Palestinian, grew up in a refugee camp in Syria. He entered the United States on a student visa in 2022 to pursue a master’s degree in public administration, which he completed last year.
He missed his graduation ceremony last month.
“As someone who fled persecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States,” Khalil wrote in a sworn declaration in court filings.
Khalil’s wife gave birth to their son in April. They met for the first and only time before an immigration court hearing last month.
“Instead of holding my wife’s hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,” Khalil wrote in court filings. “I listened to her pain, trying to comfort her while 70 other men slept around me. When I heard my son’s first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.”
Judge orders Columbia University student activist Mahmoud Khalil released after more than three months in ICE jail
During a bail hearing on Friday, New Jersey District Judge Michael Farbiarz said Khalil poses no danger to the community and is not a flight risk. “Period, full stop,” he said.
The judge said it is “highly, highly unusual” for Donald Trump’s administration to continue holding him in detention, with no evidence he committed any crime, and after the judge’s determination that his detention and threat of removal from the country over First Amendment-protected speech is unconstitutional.
The judge’s order is the latest in a string of high-profile losses for Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration in its campaign against international student activists arrested and threatened with removal from the country over their pro-Palestinian activism.
Khalil was stripped of his green card and arrested in front of his then-pregnant wife in their New York City apartment building on March 8. He was then sent to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana, roughly 1,300 miles away from their home in New York.
Following his arrest, Khalil was accused of “antisemitic activities” for his role as a Palestinian student activist that helped organize campus-wide demonstrations against Israel’s war. Officials concede that he did not commit any crime, but Rubio has sought to justify Khalil’s arrest by invoking a rarely used law claiming that Khalil’s presence in the United States undermines foreign policy interests of preventing antisemitism.
Khalil and his attorneys and critics have argued that the administration has broadly sought to conflate criticism of Israel’s war with antisemitism, dovetailing with the president’s threats to college campuses and an anti-immigration agenda.
“After more than three months we can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home to me and Deen, who never should have been separated from his father,” Noor Abdalla, Khalil’s wife, said in a statement.
“We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others the government is trying to silence for speaking out against Israel’s ongoing genocide against Palestinians,” she added. “But today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family, and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom.”
Khalil’s wife Noor Abdalla, holding their son who was born while he was in ICE detention, said the family ‘can finally breathe a sigh of relief’ after a ruling on his release (REUTERS)
On June 11, Judge Farbiarz ruled that the administration had unconstitutionally wielded the law against Khalil, whose “career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” the judge wrote.
The government has “little or no interest in applying the relevant underlying statutes in what is likely an unconstitutional way,” Farbiarz added.
The judge said the government could not detain and deport him on those spurious legal grounds.
Khalil and his legal team argue his arrest and detention — and attempted removal from the country, which is currently blocked by court order — are retaliatory violations of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech and his Fifth Amendment right to due process of law, among other claims.
His arrest sparked international outrage over the Trump administration’s attempts to crush campus dissent. Rubio has said he “proudly” revoked hundreds of student visas over campus activism, leading to several high-profile arrests of international scholars.
Khalil, who is Palestinian, grew up in a refugee camp in Syria. He entered the United States on a student visa in 2022 to pursue a master’s degree in public administration, which he completed last year.
He missed his graduation ceremony last month.
“As someone who fled persecution in Syria for my political beliefs, for who I am, I never imagined myself to be in immigration detention, here in the United States,” Khalil wrote in a sworn declaration in court filings.
Khalil’s wife gave birth to their son in April. They met for the first and only time before an immigration court hearing last month.
“Instead of holding my wife’s hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,” Khalil wrote in court filings. “I listened to her pain, trying to comfort her while 70 other men slept around me. When I heard my son’s first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.”
Judge orders Columbia University student activist Mahmoud Khalil released after more than three months in ICE jail
