Latest news with #Deadline:LegalNewsletter
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil denied release by judge
Mahmoud Khalil was denied release on Friday by a judge who, earlier in the week, had rejected the Trump administration's main legal basis for seeking to deport and detain the pro-Palestinian activist. When he issued a preliminary injunction in Khalil's favor Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said the government can't deport him under Secretary of State Marco Rubio's claim that the former Columbia University student's presence and activities put U.S. interests at risk. The New Jersey judge added that, since Khalil can't be deported on that basis, he can't be detained on that basis, either. But the Biden appointee said in a new order against Khalil on Friday that the Trump administration now says it's holding him on a separate basis, not the one Farbiarz preliminarily enjoined earlier in the week. The judge noted that he had previously said Khalil failed to successfully challenge that secondary basis and had never appealed that ruling. The judge noted in his order that Khalil still has 'a number of avenues' available to him, such as asking an immigration judge for bail. Khalil's case gained national attention in the administration's immigration and deportation crackdown, which has featured arrests followed by court-ordered releases upholding free speech rights. The lawful U.S. resident has argued that his March arrest at student housing in New York City was 'retaliation against his protected speech.' He said he's not a flight risk or danger to the community, and he cited family hardship during his detention in Louisiana; his wife gave birth in April. He was born in Syria and is a citizen of Algeria. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge grants California's request for a temporary restraining order against Trump troop deployment
A federal judge on Thursday granted a temporary restraining order against President Donald Trump's deployment of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer deemed Trump's actions 'illegal' and wrote that he 'must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.' Breyer, sitting in California, issued the order after holding a hearing earlier Thursday, but he put his order on hold until noon Friday. The Trump administration has already filed a notice that it's appealing his order to the federal appeals court that covers California. The appeal could quickly reach the Supreme Court. Breyer said his task at this early stage in the litigation was to determine whether the president followed proper procedures. 'He did not,' wrote Breyer (who is the brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer). 'His actions were illegal,' the judge wrote, 'both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.' Breyer wrote that it's 'well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.' State officials had argued in an urgent motion Tuesday that the Trump administration's use of the military and the federalized National Guard for general law enforcement activities 'creates imminent harm to State Sovereignty, deprives the State of vital resources, escalates tensions and promotes (rather than quells) civil unrest.' California officials emphasized that the police — not the military — enforce the law in the United States. They criticized the federal government for seeking to bring the military and a 'warrior culture' to American cities and towns. 'Now, they have turned their sights on California with devastating consequences, setting a roadmap to follow across the country,' they wrote in their motion for a temporary restraining order. California officials said the protests have largely been peaceful and that when they haven't been, local and state law enforcement have been able to handle it. The Trump administration argued that granting a restraining order 'would judicially countermand the Commander in Chief's military directives' and that it would be 'unprecedented' and 'dangerous.' California's restraining order motion Tuesday followed its initial complaint, filed Monday in the same case, against Trump's invocation of the military authority Saturday. The state said Trump 'used a protest that local authorities had under control to make another unprecedented power grab, this time at the cost of the sovereignty of the State of California and in disregard of the authority and role of the Governor as commander-in-chief of the State's National Guard.' Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Justice Department submits sloppy filing in California military litigation
The Justice Department might be stretched a little thin these days in President Donald Trump's second term. In its court filing opposing California's request for a temporary restraining order against the military deployment in Los Angeles, the government left the second page's table of contents blank, and the third page's table of authorities only says '[INSERT],' seemingly an unresolved note to fill out the page with legal authorities that would normally signal what's ahead. To be sure, the DOJ did cite various legal authorities within the filing Wednesday, but it's not a great way to start an important argument to the judge handling this crucial litigation. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer (brother of the retired Supreme Court justice) is set to hold a hearing Thursday afternoon on the state's restraining order request. Getting to what the DOJ did include in the filing, its lawyers wrote that the president 'has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law.' They complained that 'instead of working to bring order to Los Angeles, California and its Governor filed a lawsuit in San Francisco seeking a court order limiting the federal government's ability to protect its property and officials.' Notably, the state's motion said that's what it's not trying to do. 'This motion does not seek to prevent any of those forces from protecting the safety of federal buildings or other real property owned or leased by the federal government, or federal personnel on such property,' it said. California's lawyers said they're seeking 'narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law that is likely to result if [federal government] Defendants are allowed to proceed with their plans to use Marines and federalized National Guard to enforce immigration laws and other civil laws on the streets of our cities.' They said the state wants to 'prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city.' Whether California can prevail should become clearer at Thursday's hearing. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump-appointed judges save Trump admin from due process deadline in El Salvador case
Wednesday was supposed to be the Trump administration's deadline to explain how it's going to give due process to scores of Venezuelan immigrants it shipped to a Salvadoran prison under dubious legal authority. But a panel of judges appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump saved his administration from having to take that step toward complying with the law. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had ruled last Wednesday that the government must facilitate the ability of a class of plaintiffs to challenge their removals. But he left it up to the government how exactly it would do so, giving officials a deadline of one week to tell the Obama-appointed judge their plan. Apparently, their plan was to wait until the last minute to seek an appellate escape hatch from Boasberg's order. A three-judge panel of Washington, D.C.'s federal appeals court obliged — at least temporarily. Trump appointees Gregory Katsas, Neomi Rao and Justin Walker granted an 'administrative stay' Tuesday. They emphasized that their temporary measure 'is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.' It's true that the appeals court could rule against the government at a later point. But the practical effect of this temporary block of Boasberg's order is that due process will at least be further delayed. Per the panel, litigation will continue over the next week, concluding Wednesday, June 18. After that, we should get a better sense of how much longer the delay will be — or whether due process will come at all. In the meantime, people are sitting in a foreign prison funded by the United States, having been sent there by the Trump administration in March without having been able to challenge their removals, under a legal authority that judges around the country have since rejected. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Mike Lindell testifies in defamation case over 2020 election fraud lies
Litigation fallout from the 2020 election continues, with one of the latest examples being a defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell. But unlike the mass clemency that President Donald Trump issued for scores of Jan. 6 criminal defendants, the president can't similarly save the MyPillow founder from the civil suit stemming from the lie that the election Trump lost to Joe Biden was stolen. The suit comes from Eric Coomer, a former director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems. In 2020, the voting machine company was the target of election conspiracy theories — of which Lindell was a prominent purveyor — and has played a key role in post-election litigation, including winning a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News. As Coomer put it in his suit, filed in Colorado, his case arises 'from efforts by a wealthy businessman and his multiple media and business entities to target a private individual with false allegations of criminal conduct on a scale unprecedented in American history.' He said Lindell and his related companies 'have been among the most prolific vectors of baseless conspiracy theories claiming election fraud in the 2020 election.' He said Lindell has publicly accused him of being 'a traitor to the United States' and has claimed, without evidence, that he committed treason and should turn himself in to the authorities. Claiming Lindell caused immense damage, Coomer said he can no longer work in the elections industry after more than 15 years at the top of the field. He said he 'endures frequent credible death threats and the burden of being made the face of an imagined criminal conspiracy of unprecedented scope in American history.' Nonetheless — or perhaps because he feels he can't concede fault for legal and/or business reasons — Lindell reportedly held to his fraud claims on the stand this week. The Associated Press reported that he 'stuck by his false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen'; The Denver Post reported that he 'remained committed to his crusade against voting machines and his widely debunked conspiracy that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.' It remains to be seen what the jury makes of the pillow executive's testimony. But if Lindell loses this case, not only could it compound his several financial losses in court, but he'll need to appeal to courts for relief. Unlike the federal criminal cases sparked by the 'big lie,' Trump can't make this one disappear with the stroke of a pardon pen. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
