judicial

CHICAGO — During Donald Trump’s campaign for president last year, he sought to ease the concerns of voters alarmed that the Supreme Court he helped shape during his first term had overturned the constitutional right to abortion, saying that he did not oppose abortion but thought the issue should be decided by individual states.

More than six months into Trump’s second term in the White House, a review by the Associated Press shows that several of his nominees to the federal courts have revealed antiabortion views, been associated with antiabortion groups or defended abortion restrictions.

Several have helped defend their state’s abortion restrictions in court, and some have been involved in cases with national impact, including on access to medication abortion.

The nominees, with lifetime appointments, would be in position to roll back abortion rights long after Trump leaves the White House.

Trump’s shifting positions

Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion, often giving contradictory or vague answers.

In the years before the 2024 campaign, Trump had voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks in pregnancy and said he might support a national ban around 15 weeks. He later settled on messaging that decisions about abortion access should be left to the states.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe vs. Wade and striking a more neutral tone. That’s been an effort to navigate the political divide between his base of antiabortion supporters and the broader public, which largely supports access to abortion.

Nominees’ views

One Trump nominee called abortion a “barbaric practice,” while another referred to himself as a “zealot” for the antiabortion movement. A nominee from Tennessee said abortion deserves special scrutiny because “this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.”

One from Missouri spread misinformation about medication abortion, including that it “starves the baby to death in the womb” in a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone.

Legal experts and abortion rights advocates warn of a methodical remaking of the federal courts in a way that could pose enduring threats to abortion access nationwide.

Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial appointments “are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.”

“It’s a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,” she said.

White House’s position

Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said that “every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.”

“The Democrats’ extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump’s commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion,” Fields said in a statement to the AP.

Trump focused primarily on the economy and immigration during his 2024 campaign, the issues that surveys showed were the most important topics for voters.

Views across the abortion divide

Antiabortion advocates say it’s premature to determine whether the nominees will support their objectives, but they’re hopeful based on the names put forth so far.

“We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,” said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national antiabortion organization SBA Pro-Life America.

Abortion-rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time.

“This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion, saying he’s going to leave it to the states, while simultaneously appointing antiabortion extremists at all levels of government,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, formerly known as NARAL Pro-Choice America,

Fernando writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official nominated to become a federal appeals court judge said Wednesday that he never told department attorneys to ignore court orders, denying the account of a whistleblower who detailed a campaign to defy judges to carry out President Trump’s deportation plans.

Emil Bove, a former criminal defense attorney for the Republican president, forcefully pushed back against suggestions from Democrats that the whistleblower’s claims make him unfit to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bove’s nomination has come under intense scrutiny after the whistleblower, a fired department lawyer, claimed in a complaint made public Tuesday that Bove used an expletive when he said during a meeting that the Trump administration might need to ignore judicial commands.

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He added: “I don’t think there’s any validity to the suggestion that that whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge.”

Bove was nominated last month by Trump to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Bove was on the defense team during Trump’s New York hush money trial and defended Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.

The White House said Bove “is unquestionably qualified for the role and has a career filled with accolades, both academically and throughout his legal career, that should make him a shoo-in for the Third Circuit.”

“The President is committed to nominating constitutionalists to the bench who will restore law and order and end the weaponization of the justice system, and Emil Bove fits that mold perfectly,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email.

The whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, was fired in April after conceding in court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison. Reuveni sent a letter on Tuesday to members of Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general seeking an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Bove and other officials in the weeks leading up to his firing.

Reuveni described a Justice Department meeting in March concerning Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni says Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used profanity in saying the department would need to consider telling the courts what to do and “ignore any such order,” Reuveni’s lawyers said in the letter.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche called the allegations “utterly false,” saying that he was at the March meeting and “at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”

“Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,” Blanche wrote in a post on X on Tuesday.

Bove has been at the center of other moves that have roiled the Justice Department in recent months, including the order to dismiss New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ federal corruption case. Bove’s order prompted the resignation of several Justice Department officials, including Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, who accused the department of acceding to a quid pro quo — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official suggested the Trump administration might have to ignore court orders as it prepared to deport Venezuelan migrants it accused of being gang members, a fired department lawyer alleged in a whistleblower complaint made public Tuesday.

The whistleblower’s claims about Principal Assistant Deputy Atty. Gen. Emil Bove come a day before Bove is set to face lawmakers Wednesday for his confirmation hearing to become a federal appeals court judge.

In a letter seeking a congressional and Justice Department watchdog investigation, the former government lawyer, Erez Reuveni, alleges he was pushed out and publicly disparaged after resisting efforts to defy judges and make arguments in court that were false or had no legal basis.

The most explosive allegation in the letter from Reuveni’s lawyers centers on a Justice Department meeting in March concerning President Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni says Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used a profanity, saying the department would need to consider telling the courts “f— you,” and “ignore any such order,” according to the filing.

“Mr. Reuveni was stunned by Bove’s statement because, to Mr. Reuveni’s knowledge, no one in DOJ leadership — in any Administration — had ever suggested the Department of Justice could blatantly ignore court orders, especially with” an expletive, the filing says. In the weeks after the meeting, Reuveni says he raised concerns in several cases about efforts to violate court orders through “lack of candor, deliberate delay and disinformation.”

Reuveni’s claims were first reported Tuesday by the New York Times.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche called the allegations “utterly false,” saying that he was at the March meeting and “at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”

“Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,” Blanche wrote in a post on X.

Reuveni had been promoted under the Trump administration to serve as acting deputy director of the Office of Immigration Litigation after working for the Justice Department for nearly 15 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

Reuveni’s firing came after he acknowledged in an April court hearing that a Salvadoran man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, should not have been deported to an El Salvador prison, and expressed frustration over a lack of information about the administration’s actions. After that hearing, Reuveni says, he refused to sign on to an appeal brief in Abrego Garcia’s case that included arguments that were “contrary to law, frivolous, and untrue.”

“The consequences of DOJ’s actions Mr. Reuveni reports have grave impacts not only for the safety of individuals removed from the country in violation of court orders, but also for the constitutional rights and protections of all persons — citizen and noncitizen alike — who are potential victims of flagrant deliberate disregard of due process and the rule of law by the agency charged with upholding it,” Reuveni’s lawyers wrote.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg in April found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating his order to not deport anyone in its custody under the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg had told the administration to turn around any planes that already headed to El Salvador, but that did not happen.

The administration has argued it did not violate any orders, saying the court decision didn’t apply to planes that had lready left U.S. airspace by the time Boasberg’s command came down.

Trump nominated Bove last month to fill a vacancy on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. He was already expected to face tough questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee given his role in some of the department’s most scrutinized actions since Trump’s return to the White House in January.

The top Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dick Durbin, said Tuesday that the allegations from Reuveni are part of a “broader pattern by President Trump and his allies to undermine the Justice Department’s commitment to the rule of law.”

“I want to thank Mr. Reuveni for exercising his right to speak up and bring accountability to Mr. Bove,” Durbin said in a statement. “And I implore my Senate Republican colleagues: do not turn a blind eye to the dire consequences of confirming Mr. Bove to a lifetime position as a circuit court judge.”

Democrats have raised alarm about several other actions by Bove, including his order to dismiss New York Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case that led to the resignation of a top New York federal prosecutor and other senior Justice Department officials. Bove also accused FBI officials of “insubordination” for refusing to hand over the names of agents who investigated the U.S. Capitol riot, and ordered the firings of a group of prosecutors involved in the Jan. 6 criminal cases.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

President Sheinbaum labels vote a ‘success’, but experts warn criminals could use it to infiltrate judiciary.

A landmark vote to select judges in Mexico has been labelled a “success” by the president despite a sparse turnout and widespread confusion.

Just 13 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in Sunday’s vote to overhaul the court system. President Claudia Sheinbaum proclaimed that the election would make Mexico more democratic, but critics accused her of seeking to take control of the judiciary, while analysts warned it could open the way for criminals to seize influence.

The vote, a cornerstone policy of Sheinbaum and predecessor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, aimed to fill about 880 federal judicial positions, including Supreme Court justices, as well as hundreds of local judges and magistrates.

But many voters said they struggled to make informed choices among a flood of largely unknown candidates, who were barred from openly disclosing party affiliations or engaging in widespread campaigning.

‘Largely empty’ polling stations

Al Jazeera’s John Holman reported from Mexico City that polling stations were “largely empty”.

“On what the government planned to be a historic day, the majority of Mexicans prefer to do something else,” he said.

Still, Sheinbaum hailed the election as “a complete success” that makes the country a democratic trailblazer.

“Mexico is a country that is only becoming more free, just and democratic because that is the will of the people,” the president said.

The reform, defended by supporters as necessary to cleanse a corrupt justice system, was originally championed by Sheinbaum’s predecessor, Lopez Obrador, who frequently clashed with the old judiciary.

‘Painstaking process’

Experts had warned that turnout would be unusually low due to the sheer number of candidates and the unfamiliarity of judicial voting.

To be properly informed, voters “would have to spend hours and hours researching the track record and the profiles of each of the hundreds of candidates”, said David Shirk, a professor at the University of San Diego.

That concern was echoed by voters at the polls.

“We are not very prepared,” said Lucia Calderon, a 63-year-old university teacher. “I think we need more information.”

Francisco Torres de Leon, a 62-year-old retired teacher in southern Mexico, called the process “painstaking because there are too many candidates and positions that they’re going to fill”.

Beyond logistical challenges, analysts and rights groups raised fears that powerful criminal groups could use the elections to further infiltrate the judiciary.

While corruption already exists, “there is reason to believe that elections may be more easily infiltrated by organised crime than other methods of judicial selection”, said Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Although all candidates were supposed to have legal experience, no criminal record and a “good reputation”, several have been linked to organised crime and corruption scandals.

Rights group Defensorxs identified about 20 candidates it considers “high risk”, including Silvia Delgado, a former lawyer for Sinaloa cartel cofounder Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman.

Another candidate, in Durango state, previously served nearly six years in a US prison for drug offences.

Election results are expected in the coming days. A second round of judicial elections is scheduled for 2027 to fill hundreds more positions.

May 30 (UPI) — Nearly 100 million Mexicans are set to take part in an unprecedented election on June 1 that will reshape the country’s judiciary.

Voters will elect 881 judicial officials, including Supreme Court justices, electoral magistrates, district judges and circuit court magistrates, under a sweeping reform originally pushed by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and backed by current President Claudia Sheinbaum.

Initially presented in 2014 as a step toward democratizing justice and combating corruption, the reform has drawn mounting criticism from legal experts, academics and civil society organizations. Many warn it could erode judicial independence, increase political interference, and weaken the rule of law.

An analysis by Stanford Law School’s Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Association warns that electing judges by popular vote compromises their independence and impartiality by aligning judicial decisions with public opinion rather than strictly with the law.

It also highlights the risk that judicial rulings will be influenced by judicial election campaign donors.

Academics, legal experts and civil society organizations have raised concerns about the complexity of the electoral process, highlighting several key issues.

First, the proposed reform has been criticized for a lack of clear criteria to assess candidates’ qualifications.

Candidates are only required to hold a law degree, have at least five years of professional experience, no criminal record, and a good reputation. Candidates are also asked to submit a legal essay and letters of recommendation.

Studies show that the selected candidates have, on average, 20 fewer years of experience than the judges they are replacing under the reform. Many of the candidates also come from outside the judiciary and lack the training and background needed to carry out judicial duties effectively.

Second, voters in Mexico have received limited information despite the complexity of the process, which includes six ballots and more than 7,000 candidates competing for 2,600 local and federal judicial seats.

The Judicial Electoral Observatory, or OEJ, has warned that voters are not receiving adequate information, compromising electoral fairness. One factor is that the National Electoral Institute, or INE, received 52% less funding than it requested, limiting its ability to provide outreach and education.

The OEJ also criticized the ballot design and inconsistent selection standards across the evaluation committees, saying these issues undermine the legitimacy of the process and make it difficult for voters to make informed choices.

Third, the judicial reform has raised serious concerns about the influence of political actors and power groups in the process. The complexity of the changes and the short, eight-month timeline to organize the election may have created openings for political parties to assert control in parts of the country.

Organizations including México Evalúa, the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics, or CIDE, and the National Autonomous University of Mexico, or UNAM, have warned that the system could allow political, economic or criminal interests to infiltrate the judiciary, especially in regions where organized crime is strong.

Many of the candidates have ties to the ruling party, said Luis F. Fernández, executive director of Practica: Laboratorio para la Democracia, in an interview with CNN en Español.

“We’ve identified others linked to the country’s 10 wealthiest businessmen, and more than 15 candidates connected to drug trafficking,” he said.

The popular election of judges is rare internationally and, where it exists, is usually limited to local or mid-level courts.

In most democratic countries, judges are appointed by technical committees, the judiciary or the executive branch with legislative approval. The goal is to preserve judicial independence and prevent politicization.

Mexico’s proposed model — a direct, large-scale, nationwide election of judges at all levels, including the Supreme Court — is unprecedented.

From the beginning, the reforms were controversial. Thousands of court workers went on strike to protest the constitutional amendment. Some protesters even stormed the Senate building.

Critics accused the Morena party of seeking to strengthen its grip on power by electing sympathetic judges. Already, the party holds majorities in both chambers of Congress, as well as the presidency.

Opponents also feared the elections would lead to unqualified candidates taking office.

Under the new regulations, candidates must have a law degree, experience in legal affairs, no criminal record and letters of recommendation.

Candidates also had to pass evaluation committees, comprised of representatives from the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

And yet, some of the final candidates have nevertheless raised eyebrows. One was arrested for trafficking methamphetamine. Another is implicated in a murder investigation. Still more have been accused of sexual misconduct.

Arias suspects that some candidates slipped through the screening process due to the limited resources available to organise the election.

She noted that the National Election Institute had less than 10 months to arrange the elections, since the reforms were only passed in September.

“The timing is very rushed,” she said.

One of the most controversial hopefuls in Sunday’s election is Silvia Delgado, a lawyer who once defended the cofounder of the Sinaloa Cartel, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman.

She is now campaigning to be a judge in Ciudad Juarez, in the border state of Chihuahua.

Despite her high-profile client, Delgado told Al Jazeera that the scrutiny over her candidacy is misplaced: She maintains she was only doing her job as a lawyer.

“Having represented this or that person does not make you part of a criminal group,” she said.

Rather, she argues that it is Mexico’s incumbent judges who deserve to be under the microscope. She claimed many of them won their positions through personal connections.

“They got in through a recommendation or through a family member who got them into the judiciary,” she said.

President Sheinbaum has likewise framed the elections as part of the battle against nepotism and self-dealing in the judicial system.

“This is about fighting corruption,” Sheinbaum said in one of her morning news briefings. “This is the defence of the Mexican people for justice, for honesty, for integrity.”