update - blind detainee dropped off randomly by ICE freezes to death trying to find his way home

[mandrill]

Judges slam Trump officials' ever-changing story on lockup of pregnant women


Federal judges are losing patience with the Trump administration as they lock up pregnant and nursing women as part of their immigration sweeps — and refuse to be pinned down on whether or not they've changed a federal policy that limits this.

According to Politico, "courts are being confronted with harrowing stories about women being separated from their nursing infants or housed in cramped and ill-equipped ICE facilities while pregnant, in conditions that threaten their health and have, in some cases, been followed by miscarriages. That crystallized over the weekend in Massachusetts, when Djeniffer Benvinda Semedo, a Cape Verdean national who is six months pregnant, was rushed to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for emergency care. The woman claimed that ICE held her in a temporary holding facility for three days, exacerbating her medical distress."



Other incidents, according to the report, include "a Myanmar refugee, with a nursing five-month-old at home, whisked abruptly to Texas by Immigration and Customs Enforcement," and "an Indian national who is three months pregnant and whose weight dropped to 90 pounds while in an ICE facility."

Federal immigration policy enacted under the Biden administration says pregnant or nursing women should only be locked up in “exceptional circumstances” like a clear risk to national security. However, according to the report, the Trump administration isn't being clear with judges whether or not they have rescinded that policy, leading to frustration from courts.



"A Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in August that the policy had been effectively revoked by President Donald Trump’s Day One executive order requiring the administration to maximize its deportation and detention operations," said the report. However, "last month, another DOJ attorney said the policy was still in effect and binding on ICE" — and when a federal judge in Wisconsin demanded answers from DOJ on why a mother nursing a six-month-old was locked up, they said DHS could not find a reason to keep her detained.

The Trump administration has broadly come under fire for unreasonable detentions, as the number of habeas petitions since the start of his first term has soared to 18,000 — more than the prior three administrations combined. Some legal experts are fearful the administration is trying to dismantle habeas rights altogether.

 

[mandrill]

White House names new pick for Nevada top federal prosecutor after confirmation trouble


LAS VEGAS (AP) — The Trump administration has selected a new candidate for Nevada's top federal prosecutor after challenges to its first pick's eligibility, marking another setback in the president's efforts to appoint U.S. attorneys who can't win Senate approval.

Last week the White House announced its nomination of George Kelesis, a longtime criminal defense attorney in Nevada. If confirmed, he would replace Sigal Chattah, who was appointed to the position last March and whose eligibility to serve is now under review by an appeals court.



Chattah is one of several Trump nominees for U.S. attorney who was not confirmed and courts have determined cannot legally hold the job. Appointees in New Jersey and Virginia have recently left those jobs over similar eligibility questions, but another in California remains as the office's top prosecutor with a different title.

Chattah declined to comment.

Legal fights in several states

U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutors around the country, typically require Senate confirmation but the law does permit the U.S. attorney general to make temporary appointments.

In several cases, Attorney General Pam Bondi has maneuvered to keep appointees who do not have enough bipartisan support to win confirmation to stay in the jobs longer than typically allowed. That has invited court challenges from defendants with cases before federal prosecutors and drawn resistance from judges who say the appointments are unlawful.


A lower-court judge ruled in September that Chattah is not validly serving in the role but allowed her to continue overseeing several cases while the appeal moved ahead. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments last week but has not issued a ruling. After losing similar cases, the decision to tap Kelesis indicates the White House does not expect a ruling in Chattah's favor.

Another recent tussle culminated last month in the Eastern District of Virginia, when a hastily appointed Trump loyalist, Lindsey Halligan, announced her departure from the role as acting U.S. attorney. She had brought prosecutions against two Trump adversaries, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. In November, a court dismissed those cases and ruled her appointment illegal. The Justice Department has appealed the dismissal of those prosecutions.


The Trump administration lost a similar case in New Jersey after a federal judge ruled Alina Habba, was serving as U.S. attorney longer than allowed. Habba resigned from her post in December after an appeals court upheld the earlier ruling.

Bill Essayli, the Trump-chosen pick for U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California, was also disqualified by a judge from serving as acting U.S. attorney. But he is still the highest-ranking prosecutor in the office under the title First Assistant U.S. Attorney because the administration has not chosen another candidate for the top job. The administration has not signaled it plans to replace him.

Chattah serving while Kelesis awaits approval

Chattah is validly serving as the acting U.S. attorney and can continue while Kelesis goes through the nomination process, argued federal lawyer Tyler Anne Lee in the appeals hearing last week. If Kelesis is not approved or his nomination is withdrawn, Chattah can keep serving for 210 days, Lee argued.


But Kelesis may have an easier chance at Senate confirmation, which typically requires bipartisan support. Nevada Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, both Democrats, were staunchly opposed to Chattah's appointment, calling her an extremist. They have not yet expressed such clear opposition to Kelesis. Cortez Masto will conduct a “tough, thorough interview with Kelesis,” her spokesperson Lauren Wodarski said.

Kelesis is registered as a nonpartisan voter and has donated to both Democrats and Republicans over the years. He has practiced law in Las Vegas since 1981, and his expertise is on white collar criminal defense and civil and criminal tax litigation. He serves as chairman of the Nevada Tax Commission and has been an adjunct professor at the University of Nevada Las Vegas’ law school.

Like Chattah, he represented one of the Nevada Republicans accused of submitting certificates to Congress falsely declaring Trump the winner of the state’s presidential vote in 2020.


But she is widely viewed as more controversial. She unsuccessfully ran for state attorney general in 2022 and was accused of using racist language about her opponent, Democrat Aaron Ford, who is Black. She has repeatedly echoed Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. She also represented churches that challenged Nevada's COVID-19 restrictions.

——-

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

Jessica Hill, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Blue state victorious in another legal win against Trump


Ongoing legal fights over President Donald Trump’s attempt to send hundreds of Oregon, California and Texas National Guard troops to Portland last fall over the objections of residents and state and local leaders will come to an end.


Mary Helen Murguia, chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed Tuesday to let the federal government drop its appeal of a November decision from a lower court judge that barred the attempted Guard deployment.

Judge Karin Immergut, of the U.S. District Court in Portland and a Trump appointee, sided with Oregon and the city of Portland in their case against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Her November order barring guard deployment to the city stays in effect.

Immergut found Trump’s justification for the attempted deployment — that protests outside of a Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility since June constituted a “rebellion” against the federal government and significantly impeded its functions — was unfounded. She further found that the attempt to deploy guard troops violated the federal code and the U.S. Constitution.


Federal lawyers immediately appealed Immergut’s decision. But in late January, they reversed course, asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a single sentence to permit them to drop the case.

Lawyers for Oregon, the city of Portland and California — which joined Oregon’s lawsuit against Trump — agreed not to challenge the request for dismissal as long as the appeals court judges ensured Immergut’s decision would stand and the federal government would be required to comply with it.

“This is a win for Oregon, and it shows that no one is above the law. The federal government didn’t have a case — facts mattered. Our communities won’t be treated as a testing ground for unchecked federal power,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. “Judge Immergut’s injunction stands, and we’ll keep defending Oregon’s laws, our values, and the safety of our cities — and if the government tries to overstep, we won’t hesitate to go back to court.”


Willamette University professor Norman Williams, a constitutional law expert, echoed Rayfield, similarly calling it a “win for the state.” And not an unexpected win. The “handwriting was on the wall,” Williams said, when the U.S. Supreme Court in December ruled against Trump in his attempt to send National Guard troops to Illinois.

The Portland ICE facility at the heart of the case is now the subject of two court cases brought against federal officers by nearby residents and the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, on behalf of protesters and journalists, who claim ICE and federal officers have used excessive force and tear gas against them.

A judge recently temporarily barred the officers from deploying less-lethal munitions and chemicals at protesters unless the agents are in “imminent threat of physical harm.” The ruling came after agents used excessive force and heavily gassed crowds of nonviolent protesters that included children and seniors.


・2:53 pm Updated with comment from Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.

 

[mandrill]

Georgia officials batter Trump Admin's arguments for seizing voter files


The Daily Beast reports Georgia officials are “shredding” the FBI’s justification for seizing Fulton County’s 2020 voter rolls, writing in a new filing that their evidence fell “woefully short” of showing probable cause.

“In a petition demanding the return of 2020 election ballots, officials accused the FBI of having ‘serious’ omissions in its … petition for a search warrant to raid the county’s election office near Atlanta,” the Beast reports.


“Instead of alleging probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, the affidavit does nothing more than describe the types of human errors that its own sources confirm occur in almost every election — without any intentional wrongdoing whatsoever,” said the filing. The filing also argues that the federal government breached the Fourth Amendment protecting individuals against “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government.

“The Fourth Amendment demands ‘probable cause’ — not ‘possible cause,’” the filing argues.

A former special agent in charge of the FBI’s Atlanta field office had his own issues with the FBI’s rationalization for the seizure and was removed after he raised concerns. Prior probes for fraud had come up empty., and even conservative judges had shut down many of President Donald Trump’s arguments of fraud in 2020.


Fulton County officials told the courts in their Tuesday filing that the Trump administration dredging for evidence in Georgia’s most Democratic County was based on hypotheticals and conspiracy.

“Despite years of investigations of the 2020 election, the affidavit does not identify facts establishing probable cause that anyone committed a crime,” the filing said. “Instead, [the FBI] all but admits that the seizure will yield evidence of a crime only if certain hypotheticals are true.”

The Beast reports local officials also cited FBI witness statements alleging that the search was based on the hope of finding wrongdoing rather than on probable cause.

“It is woefully deficient for an affiant to say that if I develop additional evidence at some later point in time, the seized property would potentially be evidence of a crime,” the filing reads. “Probable cause requires more: a reasonable likelihood that a crime did, in fact, occur.”

“The newest filing … also poked holes in the FBI’s witnesses’ findings that supposedly prompted it to act,” reports the Beast. “’Witness 5’ claimed to have received data that may have shown proof of a crime ‘second hand,’ from an unidentified person, but not to the degree Trump has long alleged. In reality, Witness 5 said that the purported error added votes for Donald Trump—not the other way around.”

 

[mandrill]

DOJ lawyers admit court orders in immigration cases went ignored


Over the course of 10 weeks, lawyers for Justice Department violated roughly 50 orders from a judge overseeing an immigration case, a lawyer for the U.S. Attorney’s office in New Jersey said in a court filing last week.

Associate Deputy Attorney General Jordan Fox told New Jersey District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz that the violations ranged from missing hearing deadlines to late releases from custody and even one accidental removal to Peru, according to a document obtained by Politico.


In at least 17 instances Immigration and Customs Enforcement transferred a detainee out of New Jersey, despite judges issuing a no-transfer order, which require the detainee to remain in the state. Fox said these were done inadvertently due to “logistical delays in communicating.”

Fox said these violations were found across 547 habeas corpus petitions in immigration cases – or instances in which a person was challenging their detention.

Fox, who is reportedly the Trump administration’s pick to succeed ousted U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, was recognizant about the number of court violations in immigration cases and conveyed to the judge that the office, under her leadership, wanted to take a vigilant approach to complying with orders.

“We will continue to act with the utmost vigilance to prevent, self-report, and ensure compliance with court orders during this unprecedented period of immigration filings in one of the hardest hit districts in the country,” Fox wrote in a letter to the judge.



Most of the violations appear to paint a chaotic picture of attorneys and court staff trying to keep up with filing deadlines and communication – missing deadlines by hours, scheduling bond hearings days late, transferring detainees before a court orders a no-transfer order or forgetting to release a detainee on-time.

The acknowledgement of mistakes echoes similar remarks from judges or even Justice Department lawyers across the country who have described difficulty managing an overwhelming number of habeas cases amid the Trump administration’s mass deportation push.



One of the most common court order violations noted by the New Jersey attorney were transfers of detainees after a judge had ordered the detainee to remain in the state (REUTERS)
Earlier this month, a now-former federal prosecutor, Julie Le, described being on the brink of exhaustion while trying to keep up with immigration case in Minnesota.

“Sometime I wish you would just hold me in contempt, your honor, so that I can have a full 24 hours of sleep. I work days and night just because people (are) still in there,” Le told a federal judge during a hearing


“The system sucks. This job sucks. And I am trying every breath that I have so that I can get you what you need,” Le said. The administration later removed Le from her post.

Last month, a Minnesota federal judge found 96 violations of court orders across 74 cases in the first 28 days of the year.

The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting

 

[mandrill]

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s sweeping tariffs, upending central plank of economic agenda


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.


It's the first major piece of Trump's broad agenda to come squarely before the nation's highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.

The majority found that it's unconstitutional for the president to unilaterally set and change tariffs because taxation power clearly belongs to Congress. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Trump called the majority decision “a disgrace” when he was notified during his morning meeting with several governors, according to someone with direct knowledge of the president’s reaction who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation.


Related video: Supreme Court strikes down Trump's global tariffs (The Canadian Press)


View on Watch

Trump was meeting privately with nearly two dozen governors from both parties when the decision was released. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The court majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up in lower courts to demand refunds. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.

The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows. The impact over the next decade was estimated at some $3 trillion.

The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.


Still, the decision is a “complete and total victory" for the challengers, said Neal Katyal, who argued the case on behalf of a group of small businesses.

“It’s a reaffirmation of our deepest constitutional values and the idea that Congress, not any one man, controls the power to tax the American people,” he said.


It wasn’t immediately clear how the decision restricting Trump’s power to unilaterally set and change tariffs might affect trade deals with other countries.

“We remain in close contact with the U.S. Administration as we seek clarity on the steps they intend to take in response to this ruling,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill said, adding that the body would keep pushing for lower tariffs.

The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.

The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren't broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.


While the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs, the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set import duties. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.

“And the fact that no President has ever found such power in IEEPA is strong evidence that it does not exist,” Roberts wrote, using an acronym for the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Trump set what he called "reciprocal" tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.

A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.


The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump's use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden's $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.

The three conservative justices in the majority pointed to that principle, which is called the major questions doctrine. It holds that Congress must clearly authorize actions of major economic and political significance.

“There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes,” Roberts wrote. The three liberal justices formed the rest of the majority, but didn't join that part of the opinion.

The Trump administration had argued that tariffs are different because they’re a major part of Trump’s approach to foreign affairs, an area where the courts should not be second-guessing the president.

But Roberts, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, brushed that aside, writing that the foreign affairs implications don't change the legal principle.


Small businesses celebrated the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying it provides “much needed certainty.”

Ann Robinson, who owns Scottish Gourmet in Greensboro, North Carolina, said she was “doing a happy dance” when she heard the news.

The 10% baseline tariff on U.K. goods put pressure on Robinson’s business, costing about $30,000 in the fall season. She’s unsure about the Trump administration’s next steps, but said she’s overjoyed for now. “Time to schedule my ‘Say Goodbye to Tariffs' Sale!”

___

Associated Press writers Mae Anderson and Steve Peoples in New York, Mark Sherman in Washington and David McHugh in Frankfurt contributed to this report.

___

Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

Judge loses patience with Trump for not returning slavery exhibit


A federal judge appeared to lose her patience after President Donald Trump's administration did not follow an order to return a slavery exhibit to a Philadelphia museum.

In her order on Monday, Judge Cynthia Rufe invoked George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" to order the return of a slavery exhibit to the museum on the site of former President George Washington's home in Philadelphia.


"As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984 now existed, with its motto 'Ignorance is Strength,' this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims—to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not," Rufe said in her ruling.

The Trump administration responded by appealing the order without returning the exhibit.


In a late-Wednesday ruling, Rufe said she was giving Trump until Friday to restore the exhibit.

"AND NOW, this 18th day of February 2026, upon consideration of Defendant's failure to comply with this Court's February 16, 2026 Order to FORTHWITH follow terms and conditions of the Order, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall comply with the terms of this Court's February 16, 2026 Order by restoring the President's House site to its physical status as of January 21, 2026 by Friday, February 20, 2026 at 5:00 PM," the judge ordered.


Rufe noted that her court retained authority to enforce her orders despite the appeal.

"The Court is enforcing the deadline for FORTHWITH action, and this order does not modify the February 16, 2026 Order. Absent a stay granted by this Court or the Third Circuit, this Court must enforce its own order," she pointed out.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Justice Department swiftly fires lawyer chosen as top federal prosecutor for Virginia office


WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer picked by judges to serve as the top federal prosecutor for a Virginia office that pursued cases against foes of President Donald Trump was swiftly fired Friday by the Justice Department in the latest clash over the appointments of powerful U.S. attorneys.



Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced the firing of James Hundley on social media shortly after he was unanimously chosen by judges to replace former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. While the law says that the district court may choose U.S. attorneys when an initial appointment expires, the Trump administration has insisted that the power lies only in the hands of the executive branch.

“EDVA judges do not pick our US Attorney. POTUS does. James Hundley, you’re fired!” Blanche said in a post on X.

Hundley, who has handled criminal and civil cases for more than 30 years, didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment Friday evening.

The firing of Hundley is the latest reflection of tumult in one of the Justice Department’s most elite prosecution offices, which since September has been mired in upheaval following the resignation of a veteran prosecutor amid Trump administration pressure to prosecute two of the president’s biggest political foes, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.



That prosecutor, Erik Siebert, was effectively forced out and swiftly replaced by Halligan, a White House aide who secured indictments against Comey and James but was later deemed by a judge to have been unlawfully appointed. The cases were dismissed, but the Justice Department has appealed that decision.

Halligan resigned from the position last month after judges in the district signaled continued skepticism over the legitimacy of her appointment.

U.S. attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in regional Justice Department offices around the country, typically require Senate confirmation but the law does permit attorneys general to make temporary appointments for limited time periods. In several instances, though, the Justice Department has attempted to leave its temporary appointees in place in ways that have invited court challenges and drawn resistance from judges who have found the appointments unlawful.



Last week, a lawyer appointed by judges to be the U.S. attorney for northern New York was fired by the Justice Department after spending less than a day in the job. Judges in the district appointed Kinsella after declining to keep the Trump administration’s pick, John Sarcone, in place after his 120-day term elapsed.

Alanna Durkin Richer And Eric Tucker, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

https://x.com/JacobKinge/status/2024906835610710212

Howard Lutnick is arguably one of the slickest and most corrupt operators in modern finance. We now know he was close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, despite him previously denying it. That link was confirmed in the Epstein files. He also has documented ties to Tether and Bitcoin market manipulation.

Now a brand new scheme has surfaced involving Cantor Fitzgerald, run by one of his sons. The firm has been buying the rights to U.S. tariff refunds at massive discounts.

Here is how this scam works:
1. U.S. companies paid billions in tariffs that were later ruled illegal.
2. Cantor approaches those companies and offers immediate cash: 25 cents for every dollar they are owed.
3. Companies take the money to avoid waiting years for litigation and bureaucracy.
4. When refunds are issued, Cantor collects the full dollar. They bought claims at 25 cents on the dollar.

After today’s Supreme Court ruling, those claims could be worth 80 to 90 cents. It’s worth nothing that Lutnick also literally helped architect the tariff regime. He pushed Trump to implement it, likely knowing it would collapse and create this exact arbitrage opportunity. The potential payout is in the billions. This is insider-level extraction hiding in plain sight.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]