court

A United States judge has rebuked the administration of President Donald Trump, saying that reports of deportations to South Sudan appear to violate his previous court order.

On Tuesday in Boston, Massachusetts, US District Court Judge Brian Murphy held a virtual hearing to weigh an emergency motion on behalf of deported migrants reportedly on board a flight to South Sudan.

He asked lawyers for the Trump administration to identify where the migrants were. He also indicated that he could ask for the flight to be turned around.

“Based on what I have been told, this seems like it may be contempt,” Judge Murphy told Elianis Perez, a lawyer for the Trump Justice Department.

In a recent annual report, the US Department of State accused South Sudan of “significant human rights issues”, including torture and extrajudicial killings.

But the Trump administration has been looking abroad for destinations to send undocumented immigrants currently detained in the US, particularly those whose home countries will not accept them.

In Tuesday’s hearing, Judge Murphy said the flight to South Sudan appeared to violate a preliminary injunction he issued on April 18, which prohibited migrants from being deported to third-party countries that were not their own.

That injunction required the Trump administration to give the migrants an adequate opportunity to appeal their removal.

The migrants, Judge Murphy ruled, were simply seeking “an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death”.

He cited the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to due process: in other words, a fair hearing in the US court system.

Earlier this month, on May 7, lawyers for the migrants had indicated that their clients were slated to be sent to Libya, another country with significant human rights concerns.

Judge Murphy, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled that such a deportation would be in violation of his injunction.

In Tuesday’s emergency court filing, the lawyers for those migrants emphasised how close a call that incident was. The migrants in question were already on a bus, sitting on the tarmac of an airport, when they were ordered to be returned.

The emergency motion identifies the migrants only by their initials and countries of origin, Myanmar and Vietnam among them.

But it explains what allegedly happened to them over the last 24 hours and seeks immediate action from the court.

The lawyers allege that one migrant from Myanmar, called NM in the court filings, received a notice of removal on Monday. It identified the destination as South Africa. Within 10 minutes, the court filing said the email was recalled by its sender.

A couple of hours later, a new notice of removal was sent, this time naming South Sudan as the destination.

In both instances, NM refused to sign the document. Lawyers in the emergency petition indicate that NM has “limited English proficiency” and was not provided a translator to understand the English-language document.

While one of NM’s lawyers stated her intention to meet with him on Tuesday morning, by the time their appointment time came, she was informed he had already been removed from his detention facility, en route to South Sudan.

The emergency filing includes a copy of an email sent to the lawyers from the family members of those deported.

“I believe my husband [name redacted] and 10 other individuals that were sent to Port Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, TX were deported to South Africa or Sudan,” the email begins.

“This is not right! I fear my husband and his group, which consist of people from Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, Korea, and Mexico are being sent to South Africa or Sudan against their will. Please help! They cannot be allowed to do this.”

President Yoweri Museveni’s government has frequently defended military trials, citing national security concerns.

Uganda’s parliament has passed a controversial bill authorising military tribunals for civilians, drawing condemnation from opposition figures and rights groups, who accuse the government of trying to silence opponents, which it denies.

The practice has long been used in Uganda, but was struck down by the country’s top court in January. The Supreme Court had ruled that the military tribunals lacked legal competence to try civilians and failed to meet fair trial standards.

Despite that ruling, lawmakers moved ahead Tuesday with the legislation, which permits civilians to be tried in military courts.

“Today, you proved you are fearless patriots! Uganda will remember your courage and commitment,” said General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, head of the military and son of President Yoweri Museveni, in a post on X.

Earlier this month, Kainerugaba said that he was holding a missing opposition activist in his basement and threatened violence against him, after the man’s party said he was abducted.

Museveni’s government has frequently defended military trials as necessary for national security amid concerns about armed opposition and alleged threats to state stability.

Military spokesperson Chris Magezi said the legislation would “deal decisively with armed violent criminals, deter the formation of militant political groups that seek to subvert democratic processes, and ensure national security is bound on a firm foundational base”.

But critics say the move is part of a broader pattern of repression. “There’s no legal basis to provide for the trial of civilians in the military court,” opposition MP Jonathan Odur told parliament during debate on the bill. He described the legislation as “shallow, unreasonable and unconstitutional”.

Uganda has for years used military courts to prosecute opposition politicians and government critics.

In 2018, pop star-turned-opposition-leader Bobi Wine was charged in a military court with illegal possession of firearms. The charges were later dropped.

Kizza Besigye, a veteran opposition figure who has challenged Museveni in multiple elections, was arrested in Kenya last year and returned to Uganda to face a military tribunal.

Following the Supreme Court’s January ruling, his trial was moved to a civilian court. His party, the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), has denounced the charges as politically motivated.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has previously criticised Uganda’s military courts for failing to meet international standards of judicial independence and fairness.

Oryem Nyeko, senior Africa researcher at HRW, said earlier this year: “The Ugandan authorities have for years misused military courts to crack down on opponents and critics”.

A federal judge will decide later this week whether to allow an L.A. County sheriff’s deputy to take a plea deal that would spare him from prison time months after he was convicted of punching and pepper spraying an unarmed woman who filmed him during a 2023 arrest.

In a Monday court hearing, Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Assistant U.S. Atty. Rob Keenan sparred for more than two hours over the federal government’s highly unusual legal maneuver to offer L.A. County sheriff’s Deputy Trevor Kirk a misdemeanor plea deal just two months after he was convicted of a felony in the excessive force case.

Kirk was convicted in February of one count of deprivation of rights under color of law after he was caught on camera rushing at the victim, hurling her to the ground and then pepper spraying her in the face while planting a knee on her neck during a 2023 incident outside of a Lancaster supermarket.

Wilson said he would rule on the motion to accept the plea in the next “three or four days.”

He faced up to a decade in prison at sentencing.

But that was upended after the Trump administration last month appointed Bill Essayli, a former California assemblyman, as U.S. attorney for Los Angeles. On May 1, prosecutors reached a rare post-trial plea agreement with Kirk.

The government recommended a one-year term of probation for Kirk and moved to strike the jury’s finding that Kirk had injured the victim, which made the crime a felony. Kirk agreed to plead guilty to a lesser-included misdemeanor violation of deprivation of rights under color of law.

The agreement caused turmoil in the U.S. attorney’s office, with assistant U.S. attorneys Eli A. Alcaraz, Brian R. Faerstein, Michael J. Morse and Cassie Palmer, chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section, all withdrawing from the case. Keenan, the only assistant U.S. attorney who signed off on the plea agreement, was not previously involved in the case.

Alcaraz, Faerstein and Palmer submitted their resignations following the “post-trial” plea agreement offer, sources previously confirmed to the Times. A filing submitted in the case last week also confirmed Palmer is departing the federal prosecutor’s office.

The incident mirrored turmoil at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan that followed pressure by Trump Administration officials to drop a corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams.

Essayli, a former California assemblyman, is a staunch Trump ally and hard line conservative appointed at a time when the President has sought to weaken the independence of the Department of Justice. He made the post-conviction plea offer to Kirk the same week Trump issued an executive order vowing to “unleash” American law enforcement.

In court Monday, Wilson grilled Keenan, appearing increasingly perplexed at the government’s logic in offering Kirk a deal. He questioned if prosecutors had a “serious and significant doubt” as to the deputy’s guilt and continually pushed Keenan to justify the deal.

“If the government hasn’t offered any explanation for its change of course, the court must grant the motion?” Wilson asked.

Keenan said he believed the court was legally obligated to do so, claiming the deal was “a pure exercise of prosecutorial discretion.”

In June 2023, Kirk was responding to a reported robbery when he threw a woman to the ground and pepper-sprayed her in the face while she filmed him outside a Lancaster WinCo. The woman — who is only identified in federal court filings as J.H. but named as Jacey Houston in a separate civil suit — matched a dispatcher’s description of a female suspect she was not armed or committing a crime at the time Kirk first confronted her, court records show.

But in a 31-page position statement filed May 13, Keenan dissected the victim’s actions leading up to and during the confrontation with Kirk. Keenan said Kirk used the pepper spray after “continued resistance by J.H.”

“In contrast to other excessive-force cases, defendant did not use pepper spray after J.H. was cuffed or otherwise secured,” Keenan wrote.

Keenan said the evidence didn’t show that Kirk sprayed Houston in the face with an intent to cause bodily injury. He also described her injuries as “limited in duration and severity” and said they did not constitute “serious bodily injury.”

In the filing, Keenan appeared to question the government’s evidence relating to a reported “blunt head injury,” calling it “vague and ill-defined even at trial.”

In court Monday, Keenan described Kirk’s use of force as “excessive, but just “barely so,” at one point attacking the credibility of the victim in the case, suggesting she exaggerated her injuries in a victim impact statement she made before the court.

Wilson did not accept that analysis.

“The jury was completely justified in finding he used excessive force in taking her to the ground and pepper spraying her,” the judge said. “Had he ordered her to be handcuffed … that would be a different case,” the judge said.

Earlier in the morning, Houston said Kirk should never be allowed to be a police officer or own a firearm again, given the “uncontrollable rage” he aimed at her on the day of the incident.

“I was certain that I was going to die,” she said, describing the moment Kirk grabbed her.

Houston’s attorney, Caree Harper, has said Keenan’s filing distorts the reality of what happened in the parking lot that day.

“J.H. is a senior citizen. She committed no crime. She had no weapon. She did not try to flee. She did not try to resist. J.H. sustained a black eye, a fractured bone in her right arm, multiple bruises, scratches, and significant chemical burning from the pepper-spray,” Harper wrote in a court filing. “J.H. screamed in pain and struggled to fill her lungs with oxygen.”

Wilson had previously denied a motion from Yu for an acquittal, finding that footage of the incident was sufficient evidence for a jury to find Kirk had used “objectively unreasonable force.”

“J.H. did not have a weapon, did not attack Defendant, was not attempting to flee, and was not actively committing a crime,” Wilson wrote in his ruling last month.

The judge also noted that, while Kirk acted aggressively toward Houston from the outset, his partner managed to lead the arrest of the other robbery suspect without using force.

Keenan painted the concessions Kirk made in the post-trial agreement as “significant.” He said Kirk was agreeing to admit that he “used unnecessary force” while attempting to detain Houston and that he did so “willfully.”

In early 2024, shortly after the Winco incident, Kirk was arrested by his own department on suspicion of domestic violence against his wife. His attorney dismissed it as a non-issue, noting the victim did not want Kirk to be prosecuted, contending the alleged abuse was reported by a third party. A spokesman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office said the case was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

In her filing last week, Harper also said Kirk was arrested on allegations he threw his wife on the ground in January 2023. Harper alleged Kirk “threatened to bury [his wife] in the desert,” records show.

Sheriff’s department arrest logs only display the 2024 arrest. A sheriff’s department spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Support for Kirk began gaining steam on social media after his indictment last September. In January, Nick Wilson, founder of a first responder advocacy group and spokesperson for the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Professional Assn., wrote a letter to Trump urging him to intervene before the case went to trial.

Former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who has become increasingly popular in right-wing circles online, has also championed Kirk’s case, posting an Instagram video of himself and Wilson consoling the deputy at the courthouse after trial. Both Villanueva and Wilson have insisted Kirk did nothing wrong.

Villanueva, Wilson and Essayli were all present in court Monday. At one point Harper approached Essayli directly and asked about the legality of the plea deal he was offering.

Essayli, seated in a plastic chair because all of the benches in the courtroom were filled, threatened to have Harper removed from the courtroom. Harper noted that only judges and federal marshals have the right to remove someone from a courtroom. A U.S. Attorney’s office spokesman declined to comment.

Some deputies have also blamed current Sheriff Robert Luna for pushing federal prosecutors to go after Kirk, a fact Luna has denied. Some deputy groups have staged forms of protest against Luna as a result.

But in a sentencing recommendation obtained by The Times, Luna asked Wilson to sentence Kirk to probation, blaming his actions that day on poor training.

He noted prior department leaders had effectively ignored a monitoring agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that was meant to mandate reform policies on use-of-force issues at the Lancaster and Palmdale stations. Luna’s letter did not address whether or not Wilson should act on Essayli’s request to vacate the jury verdict.

“I’m not suggesting that the failures of the Department should immunize Deputy Kirk or any other deputy taking responsibility for their actions,” Luna wrote. “No deputy who is found by a jury to have used excessive force or who has agreed to a plea deal should have such immunity.”

US Supreme Court lets Trump terminate Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela.

Washington, DC – The United States Supreme Court has enabled the administration of President Donald Trump to revoke the protected immigration status of about 350,000 Venezuelans.

The top court’s justices issued a brief order on Monday, granting the administration’s request for lifting the suspension that had been placed by a lower court in March.

In February, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem terminated a 2023 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuelans that had been issued by the administration of former President Joe Biden.

TPS is a programme that shields noncitizens already in the US on a temporary basis from deportation and allows them to seek a work permit if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) deems their home country to be unsafe to return to.

Millions of people have fled Venezuela in recent years due to political repression and a crippling economic crisis spurred in part by US sanctions against the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

The Supreme Court did not elaborate on why it sided with the Trump administration on Monday. The ruling simply added that liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson “would deny” the government’s request.

The DHS had argued that TPS designations are not subject to judicial review.

Noem had declared the 2023 designation for Venezuela “contrary to the national interest”, citing gang membership and “adverse effects on US workers”. However, she kept a previous TPS issued for Venezuelans in place.

DHS welcomed the ruling on Monday, saying without evidence that the Biden administration granted TPS to “gang members” and “known terrorists and murderers”.

“The Trump Administration is reinstituting integrity into our immigration system to keep our homeland and its people safe,” the agency said in a social media post.

Several Democrats described the push to deport Venezuelans – part of a border immigration crackdown – as cruel, rejecting the Trump administration’s allegation that people under the TPS designation are criminals and “terrorists”.

“Venezuelans face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and torture,” Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal said in a statement.

“Poverty levels are surging, and essentials like electricity, water and medical care are scarce. The dire circumstances in Venezuela make it clear that this is exactly the type of situation that requires the government to provide TPS.”

May 19 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to revoke special legal protections for nearly 350,000 Venezuelan nationals living in the United States temporarily.

Homeland Security had asked the justices to lift a lower court’s injunction that blocked Secretary Kristi Noem’s revocations of the Temporary Protected Status program, or TPS.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she would deny emergency relief.

The brief order said Northern California district court order is “stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.”

The TPS program, created in 1990, provides temporary legal status and work authorization to nationals from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary conditions.

On Feb. 3, Noem terminated the designation, which began in March 2021 and was extended by the Biden administration in October 2023. On April 7, protected Venezuelans were to lose their government-issued work permits and deportation protections.

Another 250,000 immigrants from the Central American country who arrived before 2023 will lose their status in September.

In all, about eight million people have left Venezuela since 2014 due to political persecution, violence, and a lack of food and access to essential services. In 2023, Nicolás Maduro was elected in a race contested as fraudulent by the opposition and outside observers.

The Venezuelan program is the largest TPS designation.

At least 60 days before a TPS designation expires, the agency’s secretary is required to review the conditions in a country designated for TPS to determine whether the conditions supporting the designation continue to be met.

On March 30, District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco blocked the action and said the decision to terminate the TPS program for the Venezuelans appeared to be “predicated on negative stereotypes.” The appointee of President Barack Obama said the order was “motivated by unconstitutional animus” and unlikely to prevail in a court’s final decision.

On April 15, Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, also appointed by Obama, separately temporarily blocked a TPS revocation of about 532,000 people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela in the United States. It was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the administration’s emergency appeal of the decision by Chen: “So long as the order is in effect, the secretary must permit hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan nationals to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so is ‘contrary to the national interest.'”

Seven Venezuelan nationals covered by TPS and a group that represents others challenged the change.

Lawyers for TPS beneficiaries told the Supreme Court in a filing: “Staying the district court’s order would cause far more harm than it would stop. It would radically shift the status quo, stripping plaintiffs of their legal status and requiring them to return to a country the State Department still deems too dangerous even to visit.”

The U.S. State Department advises Americans not to travel to Venezuela, the highest travel advisory level.

At the end of Trump’s first term, officials described Venezuela as “the worst humanitarian crisis in the Western Hemisphere.” A different form of temporary relief to some of its migrants was granted.

This litigation is separate from lawsuits involving Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The Supreme Court ruled Friday again against the administration, saying more notice is needed for people to challenge their removal under the act, which has been used during wars. In April, the justices paused deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Trump administration may seek to deport nearly 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted “temporary protected status” under the Biden administration to live and work in the United States.

In a brief order, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside the decision of a federal judge in San Francisco who had blocked the repeal announced by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to deny the appeal.

Trump’s lawyers said the law gave the Biden administration the discretion to grant temporary protection to Venezuelans, but also gave the new administration the same discretion to end it.

The court’s decision does not involve the several hundred Venezuelans who were held in Texas and targeted for speedy deportation to El Salvador because they were alleged to be gang members. The justices blocked their deportation until they were offered a hearing.

But it will strip away the legal protection for an estimated 350,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2023 and could not return home because of the “severe humanitarian” crisis created by the regime of Nicolas Maduro. An additional 250,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2021 remain protected until September.

“This is an abuse of the emergency docket,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor who is representing the Venezuelan beneficiaries of the temporary protected status, or TPS.

He added: “It would be preposterous to suggest there’s something urgent about the need to strip immigration status of several hundred thousand people who have lived here for years.”

It was one of two special authorities used by the Biden administration that face possible repeal now.

Last week, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to also revoke the special “grant of parole” that allowed 532,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States on personally financed flights.

A judge in Boston blocked Noem’s repeal of the parole authority.

The Biden administration granted the TPS under a 1990 law. It said the U.S. government may extend relief to immigrants who cannot return home because of an armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Shortly before leaving office, Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s Homeland Security secretary, extended the TPS for the Venezuelans for 18 months.

While nationals from 17 countries qualify for TPS, the largest number from any country are Venezuelans.

The Trump administration moved quickly to reverse course.

“As its name suggests,” TPS provides “temporary — not permanent — relief to aliens who cannot safely return to their homes,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal last week.

Shortly after she was confirmed, Noem said the special protection for the Venezuelans was “contrary to the national interest.”

She referred to them as “dirtbags.” In a TV interview, she also claimed that “Venezuela purposely emptied out their prisons, emptied out their mental health facilities and sent them to the United States of America.”

The ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California and the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law filed suit in San Francisco. Their lawyers argued the conditions in Venezuela remain extremely dangerous.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen agreed and blocked Noem’s repeal order from taking effect nationwide. He said the “unprecedented action of vacating existing TPS” was a “step never taken by any administration.”

He ruled Noem’s order was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it did not offer a reasoned explanation for the change in regulations. It was also “motivated by unconstitutional animus,” he said.

The judge also found that tens of thousands of American children could be separated from their parents if the adults’ temporary protected status were repealed.

When the 9th Circuit Court refused to lift the judge’s temporary order, the solicitor general appealed to the Supreme Court on May 1.

Last week, the State Department reissued an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately or to “prepare a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries and/or power of attorney.”

“Do not travel to or remain in Venezuela due to the high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure,” the advisory states.

Trump’s lawyers downplayed the impact of a ruling lifting TPS. They told the justices that none of the plaintiffs is facing immediate deportation.

Each of them “will have the ability to challenge on an individual basis whether removal is proper — or seek to stay, withhold or otherwise obtain relief from any order of removal — through ordinary” immigration courts, he said.

Arulanantham said the effect will be substantial. Many of the beneficiaries have no other protection from deportation. Some have pending applications, such as for asylum. But immigration authorities have begun detaining those with pending asylum claims. Others, who entered within the last two years, could be subject to expedited deportation.

Economic harm would be felt even more immediately, Arulanantham said. Once work permits provided through TPS are invalidated, employers would be forced to let workers go. That means families would be unable to pay rent or feed their children, as well as result in economic losses felt in communities across the country.

WASHINGTON — An appeals court has cleared the way for President Trump’s executive order aimed at ending collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal employees while a lawsuit plays out.

The Friday ruling came after the Trump administration asked for an emergency pause on a judge’s order blocking enforcement at roughly three dozen agencies and departments.

A split three-judge panel in the nation’s capital sided with government lawyers in a lawsuit filed by unions representing federal employees. The majority ruled on technical grounds, finding that the unions don’t have the legal right to sue because the Trump administration has said it won’t end any collective bargaining agreements while the case is being litigated.

Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Justin Walker, appointed by Trump, sided with the government, while Judge Michelle Childs, appointed by Democratic President Biden, dissented.

The government says Trump needs the executive order so his administration can cut the federal workforce to ensure strong national security. The law requiring collective bargaining creates exemptions for work related to national security, as in agencies like the FBI.

Union leaders argue the order is designed to facilitate mass firings and exact “political vengeance” against federal unions opposed to Trump’s efforts to dramatically downsize the federal government.

His order seeks to expand that exemption to exclude more workers than any other president has before. That’s according to the National Treasury Employees Union, which is suing to block the order.

The administration has filed in a Kentucky court to terminate the collective bargaining agreement for the Internal Revenue Service, where many workers are represented by the National Treasury Employees Union. They say their IRS members aren’t doing national security work.

Other union employees affected by the order include the Health and Human Services Department, the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Communications Commission.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

May 17 (UPI) — A federal appeals court reversed a lower court decision, allowing President Donald Trump to move ahead with a directive to end collective bargaining rights for thousands of federal workers.

“The Government is likely to prevail in its appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction. To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm while the case is pending. The National Treasury Employees Union failed to establish irreparable harm,” the U.S. Court of Appeals For The District of Columbia wrote in its 2-1 ruling this week.

Trump in March issued an executive order directing several federal departments and agencies to cease collective bargaining.

Later that month, the National Treasury Employees Union filed a lawsuit in federal court, arguing the government’s move to direct its 150,000 employees to “cease participating in grievance procedures” was unlawful.

“The Union says it will suffer two irreparable harms. Neither qualifies,” Judges Karen Henderson and Justin Walker wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

Henderson was appointed by former president George H.W. Bush, while Walker was appointed by Trump during his first term.

The court rejected the National Treasury Employees Union’s argument that it would lose bargaining power “and suffer reputational harm that will deter present and future membership,” arguing the government put off any decertification until after all litigation is settled.

“The Union claims that a stay will ‘nullify the collective-bargaining rights of over one-hundred thousand NTEU-represented federal workers.’ But that ignores the Government’s self-imposed restrictions, so it misses the mark,” the court wrote.

“Second, the Union says it will suffer an irreparable financial injury from the loss of automatically withheld union dues. But such ‘financial injuries are rarely irreparable because they are presumptively remediable through monetary damages,'” the court wrote, pointing to the union’s ability to recover any potentially lost dues in future Federal Labor Relations Authority proceedings.

Trump’s executive order applies to more than 12 agencies, exempting them from any requirements to engage in collective bargaining with employees and unions.

The Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services are all covered by the order.

“How can the Government argue that the district court injunction will cause irreparable injury when the Government itself voluntarily imposed that same constraint?” Judge Michelle Childs, who was appointed by former president Joe Biden, wrote in the dissenting opinion.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an emergency petition from a group of migrants in Texas, barring the use of an 18th-century wartime law to expedite their removals.

Friday’s unsigned decision (PDF) is yet another blow to the administration of President Donald Trump, who has sought to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport undocumented immigrants out of the US.

Only two conservative justices dissented: Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the high court has yet to rule on the merits of Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, it did issue “injunctive relief” to Venezuelan migrants faced with expulsion under the centuries-old law.

“We have long held that ‘no person shall be’ removed from the United States ‘without opportunity, at some time, to be heard’,” the court majority wrote in its ruling.

It reaffirmed a previous opinion that migrants in the US are entitled to due process – in other words, they are entitled to a fair hearing in the judicial system – before their deportation.

Friday’s case was brought by two unnamed migrants from Venezuela, identified only by initials. They are being held in a detention centre in north Texas as they face deportation.

The Trump administration has accused them, and others from Venezuela, of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. It has further sought to paint undocumented migration into the US as an “invasion” and link Tren de Aragua’s activities in the US to the Venezuelan government, an assertion that a recently declassified intelligence memo disputes.

That, the Trump administration has argued, justifies its use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has only been used three times prior in US history – and only during periods of war.

But Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act has spurred a legal backlash, with several US district courts hearing petitions from migrants fearing expulsion under the law.

Multiple judges have barred the law’s use for expedited removals. But one judge in Pennsylvania ruled the Trump administration could deploy the law – provided it offer appropriate notice to those facing deportation. She suggested 21 days.

The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh in on whether Trump’s use of the law was merited. Instead, its ruling – 24 pages in total, including a dissent – hewed closely to the issue of whether the Venezuelans in question deserved relief from their imminent deportation under the law.

The majority of the nine-justice bench noted that “evidence” it had seen in the case suggested “the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18” to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, even transporting the migrants “from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them”.

The justices asserted that they had a right to weigh in on the case, in order to prevent “irreparable harm” to the migrants and assert their jurisdiction in the case. Otherwise, they pointed out a deportation could put the migrants beyond their reach.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh went a step further in a separate opinion, calling on the Supreme Court to issue a final and binding ruling in the matter, rather than simply grant this one petition.

“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court,” he said, agreeing with the majority’s decision.

Thomas and Alito, in their dissent, argued the Supreme Court had not afforded enough time to a lower court to rule on the emergency petition.

In the aftermath of the ruling, Trump lashed out on Truth Social, portraying the Supreme Court’s majority as overly lax towards migrants.

“THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” Trump wrote in the first of two consecutive posts.

In the second, he called Friday’s decision the mark of a “bad and dangerous day in America”. He complained that affirming the right to due process would result in “a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person”.

He also argued that the high court was preventing him from exercising his executive authority.

“The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do,” he wrote, imagining a circumstance where extended deportation hearings would lead to “bedlam” in the US.

His administration has long accused the courts of interference in his agenda. But critics have warned that Trump’s actions – particularly, alleged efforts to ignore court orders – are eroding the US’s constitutional system of checks and balances.

In a statement after the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised the court’s decision as a bulwark against human rights abuses.

“The court’s decision to stay removals is a powerful rebuke to the government’s attempt to hurry people away to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

“The use of a wartime authority during peacetime, without even affording due process, raises issues of profound importance.”

The Supreme Court currently boasts a conservative supermajority, with six right-leaning judges and three left-leaning ones.

Three among them were appointed by Trump himself. Those three sided with the majority.

May 16 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked the administration of President Donald Trump from using the rare wartime Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan detainees accused of being members of violent gangs.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, also rebuked judges from a U.S. District Court in North Texas for waiting too long to act on urgent requests related to the impending deportations.

The decision, which sent the case for deliberation back to the Fifth Circuit court, effectively blocks any removals under the Alien Enemies Act until the case can be properly reviewed.

The case is rooted in an April 17 request from two Venezuelan detainees for a temporary restraining order to stop their removal from the United States, which the district court denied that evening.

Later that night, the two detainees were given notice of their imminent removal, leading their lawyers to file a second, emergency request for a temporary restraining order to halt their deportation just after midnight.

“The named applicants, along with putative class members, are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice prior to any removal, in order to pursue appropriate relief,” the Supreme Court wrote in its latest ruling.

The lawyers asked the court to rule on the second request or hold a status conference by 1:30 p.m. The district court failed to rule on the request or hold a status conference that day, with their inaction becoming central to the Supreme Court’s rebuke.

“A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of ‘serious, perhaps irreparable,’ consequences may have the effect of refusing an injunction,” the Supreme Court ruled.

By 3 p.m. on April 18, the lawyers for the detainees appealed to the Fifth Circuit, claiming that the district court’s inaction amounted to a constructive denial — which is when a court does not officially decline a request but acts, or fails to act, in a way that is effectively a denial.

The Supreme Court previously ruled in this case, ordering an emergency injunction that evening to stop the deportations before midnight. That ruling was a procedural hold, not a final ruling, and did not weigh in on the legality of the deportations.

In the days following the emergency injunction, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal, reasoning that the detainees had not given the district court enough time to respond before escalating the case.

This prompted the process for the case to return before the Supreme Court as the detainees asked the high court to treat their emergency application as a formal petition for the court to hear the case, review the lower court’s rulings and to settle the constitutional questions raised by their deportations.

The Supreme Court has vacated the Fifth Circuit court’s dismissal and sent it back to the lower court for a proper legal review, preventing the government from further deportations until the case can be properly decided.

The high court clarified that, as on April 19, its ruling does not address the underlying merits of each side regarding removals under the Alien Enemies Act.

“We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution,” the Supreme Court wrote. “In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.”

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Clarence Thomas, arguing that the Supreme Court never had the legal authority to step in because there was no valid appeal since the district court never actually denied the temporary restraining order request.

SOME of London’s biggest festivals face an uncertain future after residents won a court battle to block a major park from hosting events. 

Backed by Oscar winning actor Mark Rylance, the campaign has ordered the council to confirm that events will be cancelled this summer.

6

6

6

Brockwell Park in Lambeth has long been a popular site for some of the UK’s biggest festivals. 

Hundreds of thousands of Brits flock to the park every summer to attend events including Mighty Hoopla – which was set to host both Kesha and Jade Thirwall this year. 

However, residents decided to fight back against the festivals after the park was left in a state they described as a “mud-bath”. 

Rebekah Shaman, a member of the Protect Brockwell park group, successfully brought legal action against Lambath Council over the use of the area for events season – which kicks off on May 23. 

The High Court was told that the challenge was over the council’s decision to certify the use of the land as lawful, since a change of the park’s use is allowed for 28 days per year. 

Mr Justice Mold rule in Rebekah’s favour, since the park would be used as an event space for more than 28 days. 

Now, events such as Brockwell Live and the Mighty Hoopla could be banned from setting up in the park.

Rebekah and her lawyers wrote a letter addressed to the council which asked if the “event has been cancelled” and ordered them to clear any fencing or infrastructure. 

The draft letter from Goodenough Ring solicitors said that Brockwell Live does not have planning permission and cannot benefit from permitted development rights, and that a planning application could not be decided for at least three weeks.

The letter read: “It follows that not only do the Brockwell Live events not have planning permission, but permission cannot be obtained until after they are concluded.”

It continued: “As there is no planning permission for the Brockwell Live event, the event has to be cancelled.”

Goodenough Ring has asked for a response by 10am on May 19.

A Lambeth Council spokesperson responded by saying: “We are currently assessing the impact of this judgement and determining next steps.”

The court ruling recieved a cheer from Dunkirk actor Mark Rylance. 

6

6

The Oscar nominated performer said: “Wonderful news. Brockwell park will be open to all for free again this summer. No walls. No trucks.

“The grass, and trees, and plants will have a chance to recover from the years of abuse.

“Now let’s help revive the beloved Lambeth country fair as it used to be, open to all. Congratulations to all who worked so devotedly to achieve this decision.

“Every small victory for nature makes a difference.”

However, the event’s cancellation is a blow to London’s beleaguered events industry. 

Critics of residents’ associations have said that noise complaints have led to the closure of several major London locations. 

However, in April, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan was awarded increased powers to protect the capital’s pubs. 

The Mayor will be able to block councils and residents from shutting down late-night pub and club openings. 

The increased powers had support from Chancellor Rachel Reeves who said that “unnecessarily burdensome red tape” was choking London’s events industry.

6

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday told conservative judges in Texas they must offer a hearing to detained Venezuelans whom the Trump administration wants to send to a prison in El Salvador.

The justices, over two dissents, rebuked Texas judges and Trump’s lawyers for moving quickly and secretly on a weekend in mid-April to put these men on planes.

That led to a post-midnight order from the high court that told the administration it may “not remove any member of the putative class of detainees.” The administration had argued it had the authority to deport the men as “alien enemies” under a wartime law adopted in 1798.

On Friday, the court issued an unusual eight-page order to explain their earlier decision. In doing so, the justices faulted a federal judge in Lubbock, Texas, and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for taking no action to protect the due process rights of the detained men.

The order carries a clear message that the justices are troubled by the Trump administration’s pressure to fast-track deportations and by the unwillingness of some judges to protect the rights to due process of law.

On a Saturday in mid-March, Trump’s immigration officials sent three planeloads of detainees from Texas to the maximum-security prison in El Salvador before a federal judge in Washington could intervene. The prisoners included Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who had an immigration order that was supposed to protect him from being sent back to his native El Salvador.

Afterward, Trump officials said the detained men, including Abrego Garcia, could not be returned to this country. They did so even though the Supreme Court had said they had a duty to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return.

The same scenario was nearly repeated in mid-April, but from a different prison in Texas.

ACLU lawyers rushed to file an emergency appeal with U.S. District Judge James Hendrix. They said some of the detained men were on buses headed for the airport. They argued they deserved a hearing because many of them said they were not members of a crime gang.

The judge denied the appeals for all but two of the detained men.

The 5th Circuit Court upheld the judge’s lack of action and blamed the detainees, saying they gave the judge “only 42 minutes to act.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with both on Friday and overturned a decision of the 5th Circuit.

“A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of serious, perhaps irreparable consequences” for the detained men, the justices wrote. “Here, the district court’s inaction — not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes — had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm.”

“The 5th Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings. Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property,” the majority said. “We have long held that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.”

Justices Samuel A. Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented last month, and they did the same on Friday.

Epic Games on Friday said that its popular game “Fortnite” will be offline on Apple devices because the iPhone maker blocked its recent app update.

The dispute comes just weeks after Epic Games and other app developers cheered a judge’s ruling that limited the commissions that Apple makes through third party apps distributed through its app store.

Apple received a scathing rebuke from U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sided with Epic Games, which alleged that the Cupertino, Calif., tech giant ran afoul of an order she issued in 2021 after finding the company engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

Under the ruling, Apple can’t collect commissions on purchases U.S. customers make through links inside iPhone apps that direct them to outside websites. Developers, which make money by selling digital goods and services via their apps and games, want to avoid giving Apple a cut of their revenue by sending customers to other websites.

“That [Apple] thought this court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation,” the judge wrote in her ruling.

Many developers applauded the court’s ruling, which limits what they call the Apple tax, and said they would pass on the savings to customers.

Epic Games’ Chief Executive Tim Sweeney earlier this month said “Fornite” would return to the App Store in the U.S. and possibly worldwide if Apple extends “the court’s friction free, Apple tax-free framework” globally. But on Friday, the “Fortnite” X account said that Apple blocked its submission.

“Now, sadly, Fortnite on iOS will be offline worldwide until Apple unblocks it,” the account posted. Epic Games did not return requests for further comment.

Apple said on Friday that it asked that “Epic Sweden resubmit the app update without including the U.S. storefront of the App Store so as not to impact Fortnite in other geographies.”

“We did not take any action to remove the live version of Fortnite from alternative distribution marketplaces,” Apple said in a statement.

Rob Enderle, principal analyst with advisory services firm Enderle Group, said the recent ruling applies to the U.S. and Apple wants to retain the rest of its control worldwide. Apple makes significant money through apps.

“Apple is using their monopoly strength to prevent ‘Fortnite’ from benefiting globally from their core win,” Enderle said.

Epic Games filed its lawsuit against Apple in 2020. “Fornite” generates revenue by letting people buy digital goods, such as “skins,” in the game, and Epic wanted to let users buy items outside the Apple system to avoid the company’s commission.

The court ordered Apple to let app developers put links in its apps so customers could make outside purchases and bypass the company’s commission fee. Apple, however, defied the order, the court said.

Apple limited the ways that developers could communicate with its customers about out-of-app purchases and used wording that discouraged users from clicking on those links, the judge wrote. Apple would charge a commission fee for any goods or services purchased within seven days of a consumer clicking on a link that took them out of the app, the ruling said.

Apple is appealing the ruling and has said it strongly disagreed with the judge’s decision.

Decorated veteran Ben Roberts-Smith failed to have reports that he ‘murdered four Afghan men’ quashed.

Australia’s most decorated living war veteran has lost an appeal against a civil court ruling that implicated him in war crimes while serving in Afghanistan.

Australia’s Federal Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Ben Roberts-Smith on Friday, in the latest setback for the 46-year-old’s fight to salvage a reputation tattered by reports that he took part in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners.

Three federal court judges unanimously rejected his appeal of a judge’s ruling in 2023, which said Roberts-Smith was not defamed by newspaper articles published in 2018 that accused him of a range of war crimes.

In the earlier ruling, a judge had found that the accusations were substantially true to a civil standard and Roberts-Smith was responsible for four of the six unlawful deaths of noncombatants he had been accused of.

Delivering the appeal court’s verdict, Justice Nye Perram explained that the reasons for the decision are being withheld due to national security implications that the government must consider.

The marathon 110-day trial is estimated to have cost 25 million Australian dollars ($16m) in legal fees that Roberts-Smith will likely be liable to pay.

He has however said he will fight to clear his name in Australia’s High Court, his last avenue of legal appeal.

“I continue to maintain my innocence and deny these egregious spiteful allegations,” Roberts-Smith said in a statement. “We will immediately seek to challenge this judgement in the High Court of Australia.”

Tory Maguire, an executive of Nine Entertainment that published the articles Roberts-Smith claimed were untrue, welcomed the ruling as an “emphatic win”.

“Today is also a great day for investigative journalism and underscores why it remains highly valued by the Australian people,” Maguire said.

Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of United States and NATO-led operations against the Taliban and other armed groups.

Perth-born Roberts-Smith, a former SAS corporal, had won the Victoria Cross – Australia’s highest military honour – for “conspicuous gallantry” in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander.

An Australian military report released in 2020 found evidence that Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghan prisoners and civilians. The report recommended 19 current and former soldiers face criminal investigation.

It’s not clear whether Roberts-Smith was one of them.

Police have been working with the Office of the Special Investigator, an Australian investigation agency established in 2021, to build cases against elite SAS and Commando Regiments troops who served in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times said in a series of reports in 2018 that Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him.

He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Trump vs. CASA Inc. Though the case arises out of President Trump’s January executive order on birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment, Thursday’s oral argument had very little to do with whether everyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen. Instead, the argument mostly focused on a procedural legal issue that is just as important: whether lower-court federal judges possess the legitimate power to issue nationwide injunctions to bring laws or executive orders to a halt beyond their districts.

There is a very straightforward answer to this question: No, they don’t. And it is imperative for American constitutionalism and republican sef-governance that the justices clearly affirm that.

Let’s start with the text. Article III of the Constitution establishes the “judicial Power” of the United States, which University of Chicago Law School professor Will Baude argued in a 2008 law review article “is the power to issue binding judgments and to settle legal disputes within the court’s jurisdiction.” If the federal courts can bind certain parties, the crucial question is: Who is bound by a federal court issuing an injunction?

In our system of governance, it is only the named parties to a given lawsuit that can truly be bound by a lower court’s judgment. As the brilliant then-Stanford Law School professor Jonathan Mitchell put it in an influential 2018 law review article, an “injunction is nothing more than a judicially imposed non-enforcement policy” that “forbids the named defendants to enforce the statute” — or executive order — “while the court’s order remains in place.” Fundamentally, as Samuel L. Bray observed in another significant 2017 law review article, a federal court’s injunction binds only “the defendant’s conduct … with respect to the plaintiff.” If other courts in other districts face a similar case, those judges might consider their peer’s decision and follow it, but they are not strictly required to do so. (For truly nationwide legal issues, the proper recourse is filing a class-action lawsuit, as authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.)

One need not be a legal scholar to understand this commonsense point.

Americans are a self-governing people; it is we the people, according to the Constitution’s Preamble, who are sovereign in the United States. And while the judiciary serves as an important check on congressional or executive overreach in specific cases or controversies that come before it (as Article III puts it), there is no broader ability for lower-court judges to decide the law of the land by striking down a law or order for all of the American people.

As President Lincoln warned in his first inaugural address: “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by” the judiciary, “the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Simply put, the patriots of 1776 did not rebel against the tyranny of King George III only to subject themselves, many generations later, to the black-robed tyranny of today. They fought for the ability to live freely and self-govern, and to thereby control their own fates and destinies. Judicial supremacy and the concomitant misguided practice of nationwide injunctions necessarily deprive a free people of the ability to do exactly that.

It is true that Chief Justice John Marshall’s landmark 1803 ruling in Marbury vs. Madison established that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” But it is also true, as Marshall noted in the less frequently quoted sentence directly following that assertion: “Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Note the all-important qualifier of “apply the rule to particular cases.” Marbury is often erroneously invoked to support judicial supremacy, but the modest case- and litigant-specific judicial review that Marshall established has nothing to do with the modern judicial supremacy and nationwide injunctions that proliferate today. It is that fallacious conception of judicial supremacy that was argued Thursday at the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., one of the swing votes in CASA, is not always known for judicial modesty. On the contrary, in clumsily attempting to defend his institution’s integrity, he has at times indulged in unvarnished judicial supremacist rhetoric and presided over an unjustifiable arrogation of power to what Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 78, referred to as the “least dangerous” of the three branches.

If Roberts and his fellow centrist justices — namely, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — have any sense of prudence, they must join their more stalwart originalist colleagues in holding that nationwide injunctions offend the very core of our constitutional order. Such a ruling would not merely be a win for Trump; it would be a win for the Constitution and for self-governance itself.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. @josh_hammer

Washington, DC – Justices at the US Supreme Court have questioned lawyers representing the administration of US President Donald Trump and those challenging his effort to end birthright citizenship in the country.

The hearing on Thursday represented the first time the top court in the United States has heard a case related to Trump’s January 20 order seeking to do away with the more-than-century-old policy, which grants citizenship to nearly all infants born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

It was not immediately clear when the court would issue a ruling in the case, although an outcome could take weeks. It also remained unclear if the justices would address the underlying constitutionality of Trump’s order, or if they would only rule on the narrower question of whether lower federal court justices are empowered to block the implementation of the order nationwide.

Still, demonstrators and lawmakers who gathered outside of the Washington, DC courthouse said any ruling challenging birthright citizenship would corrode the national fabric of the US.

“We are here at the highest court in the land because a fundamental promise of America is under attack. And we are here to say not on our watch,” Ama Frimpong, the legal director of CASA, told those gathered in protest.

“All persons born in the US are citizens of the US,” Frimpong said.

Legal experts have also said a ruling limiting federal courts’ ability to order a “national” or “universal” injunction to block Trump’s executive actions would in and of itself be transformative.

“That question, in a normal sense, would already shake the legal foundation of the country: whether lower courts have the right to order nationwide injunctions,” said Al Jazeera’s Heidi Zhou-Castro from outside the courthouse.

“But it’s the second question that really people are focused on, and that is if Trump has the power to cancel birthright citizenship for the children born to undocumented immigrants and certain visa holders visiting the US,” she said.

“Now it is up to the justices whether they want to go in either of those directions.”

‘Catch me if you can kind of regime’

Over two hours of questioning, lawyers for the Trump administration, as well as those representing states and individuals who have challenged Trump’s order, addressed matters both of constitutional grandeur and legal minutia.

Solicitor General John Sauer began by laying out the Trump administration’s broad argument that the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, has been incorrectly interpreted since then. The amendment, Sauer argued, “guarantees citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors”.

Trump also reiterated that position in a Truth Social post ahead of the hearing, saying birthright citizenship makes the US a “STUPID Country” that incentivises people to visit to have children.

Sauer also took aim at the three federal judges who have ruled in favour of separate lawsuits challenging the law’s constitutionality. Plaintiffs in those cases include 22 state attorneys general, immigrant rights organisations, and individuals affected by the rule. Sauer argued that the judges’ decisions should only apply to the plaintiffs in the cases, and not the entire nation.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the broader constitutional question could be unpicked from the narrower question of the judges’ reach, saying the president’s order violates “by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents”.

That included the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, which first established that the 14th Amendment applies to immigrants, she said.

Other justices questioned the implications of a scenario where the court ruled that the judges could not issue “national injunctions” in the case, without answering the underlying constitutional question.

Legal scholars have noted that this could create a situation where Trump’s end to birthright citizenship would not apply to states and individuals who successfully challenged his order in court. That would mean birthright citizenship – at least temporarily – would end in 28 other states if they do not launch their own challenges.

“Does every single person that is affected by this EO [executive order] have to bring their own suit?” Justice Elena Kagan questioned.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration’s argument turns the US justice system into a “catch me if you can kind of regime”.

Under that, “everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights”.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Thursday to a lawyer for President Trump who was appealing rulings that blocked his plan to deny citizenship to newborns whose parents were in this country illegally or temporarily.

None of the justices spoke in favor of Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship, and several were openly skeptical.

“Every court is ruling against you,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “There’s not going to be a lot of disagreement on this.”

If his plan were to take effect, “thousands of children will be born and rendered stateless,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Thursday’s hearing was devoted to a procedural question raised by the administration: Can a single federal judge issue a nationwide order to block the president’s plan?

Shortly after Trump issued his executive order to limit birthright citizenship, federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state declared it unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement nationwide.

In response, Trump’s lawyers asked the court to rein in the “epidemic” of nationwide orders handed by district judges.

It’s an issue that has divided the court and bedeviled both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Trump’s lawyers argued that on procedural grounds the judges overstepped their authority. But it is also procedurally unusual for a president to try to revise the Constitution through an executive order.

Thursday’s hearing did not appear to yield a consensus on what to do.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs should be required to bring a class-action claim if they want to win a broad ruling. But others said that would lead to delays and not solve problem.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he was looking for a way to decide quickly. “How we get to the merits expeditiously?” he asked.

One possibility was to have the court ask for further briefing and perhaps a second hearing to decide the fundamental question: Can Trump acting on his own revise the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment?

Shortly after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, which begins with the words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Prior to that time, Americans were citizens of their states. Moreover, the Supreme Court in the infamous Dred Scott decision said Black people were not citizens of their states and could not become citizens even if they were living in a free state.

The amended Constitution established U.S. citizenship as a birthright. The only persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the laws of the United States were foreign diplomats and their families and, in the 19th century, Indians who were “not taxed” and were treated as citizens of their tribal nations.

However, Congress changed that rule in 1924 and extended birthright citizenship to Native Americans.

Since 1898, the Supreme Court has agreed that birthright citizenship extended to the native-born children of foreign migrants living in this country. The court said then “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth, notwithstanding the alienage of parents” had been established by law.

The decision affirmed the citizenship of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were living and working there, but who were not U.S. citizens.

But several conservative law professors have disputed the notion that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means simply that people living here are subject to the laws here.

Instead, they say it refers more narrowly to people who owe their undivided allegiance to this country. If so, they contend it does not extend broadly to illegal immigrants or to students and tourists who are here temporarily.

On Jan. 20, Trump issued an executive order proclaiming the 14th Amendment does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

Immigrants rights groups sued on behalf of several pregnant women, and they were joined by 22 states and several cities.

Judges wasted no time in declaring Trump’s order unconstitutional. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

In mid-March, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.” Rather than decide the “important constitutional questions” involving birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.

A month later, and without further explanation, the court agreed to hear arguments based on that request.

The justices are likely to hand down a decision in Trump vs. CASA, but it may not come until late June.

It was one of US President Donald Trump’s most ambitious executive orders, and it came just hours after he took office for his second term: ending the United States’ decades-long policy of birthright citizenship.

And just three days after Trump issued the order, a federal judge in Washington state blocked the decree from going into effect. In the months that followed, two other federal judges joined in issuing nationwide injunctions.

On Thursday, the issue will reach the US Supreme Court, with the 6-3 conservative dominated bench set to hear oral arguments in the case. What the court decides could be transformative.

Proponents have long argued that the practice of granting citizenship to all those born on US soil is woven into the national fabric.

American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero did not mince words in January, when he called Trump’s order a “reckless and ruthless repudiation of American values”, destined to create a “permanent subclass of people born in the US who are denied full rights as Americans”.

Meanwhile, a smaller but vocal contingency, empowered by Trump, has maintained that the practice is based on faulty constitutional interpretation and serves as an incentive for undocumented migration. The Trump administration has called it “birth tourism”.

Here’s what to expect from Thursday’s hearing:

What time will it start?

The hearing will start at 9am local (14:00 GMT).

What is at stake?

The most fundamental question that could be answered by the top court is whether birthright citizenship will be allowed to continue.

Proponents point to the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

A subsequent 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the language as applying to all immigrants, creating a precedent that has since stood.

Some studies estimate that about 150,000 immigrant infants are born with citizenship every year under the policy.

The Trump administration, in contrast, has embraced the theory that babies born to noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US, and therefore are not constitutionally guaranteed citizenship.
Speaking to reporters in April, Trump described a scenario of “tourists coming in and touching a piece of sand and then all of a sudden, there’s citizenship”. He has embraced the theory that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply only to former slaves, and not newly arriving immigrants

At the time, Trump predicted it would be “easy” to win the case based on that logic.

Could the outcome be more complicated?

Yes. The Trump administration has taken a strategically unique tack in the case.

In their emergency filing to the Supreme Court, they have focused on the actions of the three judges who blocked Trump’s order from going into effect nationwide.

They argue the orders extend beyond the judges’ authorities and should only apply to the plaintiffs or jurisdictions directly connected to Trump’s executive order.

Theoretically, the Supreme Court could rule on whether the judges can issue nationwide injunctions, without ruling on whether birthright citizenship is, in fact, protected by the Constitution.

For example, if the justices rule that the lower judges exceeded their power, but do not make a determination on the constitutional merits of birthright citizenship, the executive order would only be blocked in the 22 states that successfully challenged Trump’s order.

Attorneys General in those states had challenged the order in a joint lawsuit, with a federal judge in Massachusetts ruling in their favour in February.

Birthright citizenship would effectively be banned in 28 other states unless they also successfully challenge the order or until the Supreme Court makes a future ruling.

The possibility has split legal scholars, with some arguing it is unlikely the Supreme Court would make the narrower decision on the scope of the lower judges’ power without also ruling on the underlying constitutional merits of birthright citizenship.

Could the ruling extend beyond birthright citizenship?

Yes. If the justices do decide to only address the scope of the lower judges’ power, the implications could extend far beyond the birthright citizenship question.

It would also apply to several other Trump executive orders that have been blocked by a federal judge’s national injunction, also called “universal injunctions”. Those include several Trump executive orders seeking to unilaterally transform the federal government, the military, and how funding is disbursed to states, to name a few.

In a written filing in the birthright citizenship case, the Department of Justice pointed to the wider implications, saying the need for the Supreme Court’s “intervention has become urgent as universal injunctions have reached tsunami levels”.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the Maryland case that successfully challenged Trump’s birthright order said doing away with national injunctions would create different tiers of rights depending on an individual’s geographical location.

“An infant would be a United States citizen and full member of society if born in New Jersey, but a deportable noncitizen if born in Tennessee,” they wrote in a court filing.

Singer says on day three of trial Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs routinely beat her and threatened to ruin her career with videos of sexual encounters.

Casandra Ventura, the singer popularly known as Cassie and former girlfriend of rap mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, has taken to the witness stand on the third day of his trial to portray a relationship defined by physical abuse and routine humiliation.

Testifying before the court on Wednesday, Ventura said Combs, who faces sex trafficking and racketeering charges, beat her and threatened to release compromising videos that could damage her career.

“He would grab me up, push me down, hit me in the side of the head, kick me,” Ventura, a rhythm and blues singer, told jurors in Manhattan federal court.

“It would just make him more violent, make him stronger, make him want to push me harder,” Ventura said of efforts to resist Combs’s violent behaviour during their decadelong relationship.

Prosecutors have alleged that Combs used his wealth and control of an entertainment empire to manipulate and coerce women, sometimes through physical violence, into participation in drug-fuelled sex parties known as “freak-offs” and then used videos of sexual encounters as blackmail.

“He said that it would ruin everything that I had worked for, that it would make me look like a slut, that I would be shamed,” Ventura said. “Nobody should do that to anyone.”

She stated participation in the “freak-offs” started to feel like “a job where there was no space to do anything else but to recover and just try to feel normal again” and she developed an opioid addiction to cope.

On one occasion in 2013, Ventura sent Combs pictures of injuries she sustained when he threw her into a bed frame so he could “remember” what he had done.

“You don’t know when to stop. You pushed it too far and continued to push,” he responded. “Sad.”

Combs’s lawyers have conceded that the rapper has an aggressive temperament and has physically assaulted people but state he has been incorrectly charged with racketeering and sex trafficking and a freewheeling sexual lifestyle is being misconstrued by prosecutors.

Combs has pleaded not guilty to five counts of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. If he is convicted on all charges, he faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison.