individual

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport “alien terrorists” from the United States.

The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court’s website.

The chief judge of the five-member court, Joan Ericksen, said in a written response to the petition that a hearing was held Thursday during which the court had “questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions.”

“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” wrote Ericksen, a federal judge in Minnesota.

She directed the Justice Department to provide more information by Wednesday.

The court’s authorities emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which permits the attorney general to file under seal applications for the deportation of a suspected “alien terrorist.” If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing at which the government has the burden to prove that the individual satisfies that definition. Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general.

Federal law says that an individual could qualify as an “alien terrorist” by, among other factors, having “engaged in a terrorist activity,” endorsing or espousing terrorist activities and by belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorist activity.

The court has been dormant since its creation, having received — until last week — no applications and conducting no hearings, according to a summary posted on the Federal Judicial Center website. It comprises five judges selected by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

The Trump administration has moved aggressively over the last year to carry out deportations, including invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to remove Venezuelan migrants who officials accuse of being part of a terrorist gang. During a hearing in that case last year, the Washington judge presiding over it, James Boasberg, indicated that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be the natural forum to consider a request for deportation on national security grounds.

“In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” he said. “So if there’s a national security concern with having these hearings … you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that’s what it’s there for, right?”

The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Disability rights advocates on Monday gathered outside the state Capitol to push back on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed cuts to in-home supportive services.

“These aren’t just numbers in a budget; these are real people,” said Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez (R-Indio). “These are children, seniors, veterans and individuals with disabilities whose independence and quality of life depend on these services every single day.”

The In-Home Supportive Services program helps disabled and elderly people remain in their houses by providing in-home care. It pays assistants to help with tasks such as showering, cooking or attending doctor appointments. Newsom’s revised budget proposal, which was unveiled last month, would cut $367.7 million from the program and shift some of that financial burden onto counties.

Gonzalez explained that the issue hits close to home for his family. He said his son has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder, and relies on assistance to live with dignity.

“Families should not have to wonder every budget season whether the support they rely on will be taken away,” Gonzalez said. “These services should not be treated as bargaining chips in budget negotiations.”

Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) questioned why a successful state like California would need to enact such cuts.

“It’s hard to go a day without hearing the governor or the administration brag about how we are the fourth-largest economy in the world and yet we can’t fully fund [this program for] the most vulnerable?” Davies said.

The governor has previously explained that difficult decisions must be made as the state could soon face an economic downturn. The budget proposal relies on a tax windfall, largely attributed to the stock market success of artificial intelligence companies, to erase California’s deficit — but some analysts have warned that the AI bubble could burst.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the California Department of Finance, on Monday said some of the proposed cuts are a byproduct of the federal government’s changes in funding and eligibility for health and human services programs.

The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” signed by President Trump last year shifted federal funding away from safety-net programs, he said.

Palmer stressed that state budget negotiations are ongoing.

“Until we land on an agreement, speculation regarding the resolution of any specific differences between the Governor’s budget plan or the Legislature’s respective budget proposals would be premature,” he stated by email.

Monday’s event drew some bipartisan support. Brody Fernandez, communications director for Assemblymember Esmeralda Z. Soria (D-Fresno), said the legislator had been fighting for In-Home Supportive Services funding since she was elected.

Fernandez said his daughter has special needs and her mother had to give up her career to become a full-time caregiver. “This is personal for us and for many of the incredible individuals standing behind me,” he said.

Graham Knaus, chief executive of the California State Assn. of Counties, told The Times that he appreciated efforts to raise awareness about the burden these changes would place on counties.

“We applaud the Senate and Assembly for recognizing counties’ concerns and rejecting this proposal,” he said. “We ask them to hold the line in final negotiations.”

Elizabette Guecamburu, a bookkeeper who has a rare neuromuscular disorder, spoke at Monday’s rally and implored the governor to remember the teachings of their shared alma mater Santa Clara University, a Jesuit-led private school.

“I want him to remember where he came from,” she said, adding that students were taught to value compassion and community. “Don’t forget your Jesuit roots.”

SACRAMENTO — The debate over immigration issues has reached a fever pitch nationwide, and Angelica Salas said it’s putting her employees at risk.

Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, said her staff experiences harassment and death threats.

“They ask themselves, what if someone who disagrees with our work can find where I live, will my family be safe?” Salas said, addressing state lawmakers at a recent legislative hearing.”People begin to self-censor; they step away from their work and some leave the field entirely.”

Salas was speaking in support of Assembly Bill 2624, which would provide privacy protections for those facing harassment for working or volunteering with organizations that offer legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants. The bill would create an address confidentiality program, like the one already offered to reproductive healthcare workers, and prohibit people and businesses from selling or posting images or personal information about the protected individuals on the internet.

The measure has drawn ire from Republicans, who argue it could have a chilling effect on free speech and the media. Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) dubbed it the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” and said it would prevent right-wing social media influencers like Shirley from conducting immigrant-related investigations in California.

Assemblymember Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who authored the legislation, said the proposed law would help keep people safe — but several 1st Amendment experts this week told The Times the bill could have unintended consequences.

“There could be grounds for concern,” said Jason Shepard, a media law and communications professor at California State Fullerton. “It reflects a legitimate and important state interest in protecting people from harassment and threats. But at the same time, this bill punishes the publication of information.”

The legislation defines “personal information” as anything that identifies, describes or relates to the protected individuals, including their names, addresses, telephone numbers, physical descriptions, driver’s licenses, financial information, license plate numbers and places of employment.

Shepard said the potential new law could be applied unevenly, and the language could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism.

Given the polarized political environment, Shepard said the legislation also could prompt other groups to request similar protections, as those working in a range of professions are facing increasingly heated rhetoric or attacks.

“This is not unique to people who are working in immigration support services; this really could apply to anybody engaged in public debate today,” he said.

Carolyn Iodice, the policy director for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as FIRE, said the organization has noted an uptick in laws nationwide implementing privacy protections for those in certain professions.

She pointed to a statute enacted a few years ago in New Jersey that protects the addresses of judges, prosecutors and police officers. The law was used in 2023 to block an editor with New Brunswick Today from publishing an article about the police chief living two hours outside of the city.

“It was obviously newsworthy, but this officer was able to wield the law against this journalist, and that is the kind of thing we are worried about,” Iodice said. “When you think about handing what could be a huge number of people the ability to just block anything from being posted about them online — it could easily be abused.”

David Loy, the legal director for the nonpartisan First Amendment Coalition, said the measure would censor the free speech of all citizens, not just those who defamed or threatened immigrant aid workers.

“Someone might have a legitimate dispute with them and wants to refer to it online,” he said. “But they could then basically silence [that person] from referring to them on a Yelp review or Facebook posts that has nothing to do with threatening them — and that is going way beyond the narrow exceptions of the 1st Amendment.”

Loy said the coalition reached out to Bonta’s office and hopes to help tweak the bill.

Meanwhile, the legislation continues to face scrutiny from Republicans.

“We exposed CA Democrats for the ‘Stop Nick Shirley’ Act that silences citizen journalists who expose their fraud and corruption,” DiMaio wrote this week on social media.

Shirley released a viral video last year alleging fraud in Somali-run immigrant daycare centers in Minneapolis. He recently shared videos of himself in Sacramento confronting Democrats who support Bonta’s bill.

“The enemy is truly within,” Shirley wrote on Instagram. “When our politicians would rather protect fraudsters and illegal migrants, it’s time for us to stand up or face mass oppression from the traitors.”

Bonta dismissed the assertion that the bill is intended to deter journalists, stating in a news release that “right-wing agitators” and “ineffective legislators” were intentionally spreading misinformation.

Bonta spokesperson Daniel McGreevy said the bill has a straightforward goal of protecting immigrant service providers. He said the office is working to refine the legislation to address concerns and welcomes good-faith dialogue.

The bill is progressing through the state Legislature and most recently was referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.