federal appeals court - Global pulse News

Tag: federal appeals court

  • Appeals court panel declines to postpone Trump ally Steve Bannon’s 4-month contempt jail sentence

    Appeals court panel declines to postpone Trump ally Steve Bannon’s 4-month contempt jail sentence

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court panel on Thursday declined longtime Donald Trump ally Steve Bannon‘s quote to avoid of jail while he battles his conviction for defying a subpoena from your house committee that examined the U.S. Capitol attack.

    Bannon is expected to report to jail by July 1 to start serving his four-month sentence for contempt of Congress.

    U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was chosen to the bench by Trump, previously this month gave district attorneys’ demand to send out Bannon to jail after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit supported his conviction.

    Bannon’s legal representatives had actually asked the appeals court to permit him to stay totally free while he continues to combat the conviction all the method as much as the Supreme Court, if needed. However in a 2-1 vote, the D.C. Circuit panel stated Bannon’s case “does not require a departure from the basic guideline” that accuseds start serving their sentence after conviction.

    Judge Justin Walker dissented, composing that Bannon needs to not need to go to jail before the Supreme Court chooses whether to use up his case.

    Bannon is anticipated to ask the Supreme Court to ward off his jail sentence. His lawyers didn’t right away react to an e-mail looking for remark Thursday.

    He was founded guilty almost 2 years ago of 2 counts of contempt of Congress: one for declining to sit for a deposition with the Jan. 6 Home Committee and the other for declining to supply files associated with his participation in efforts by Trump, a Republican politician, to reverse his 2020 governmental election loss to Joe Biden, a Democrat.

    Bannon’s legal representative at trial argued that the previous Trump consultant didn’t neglect the subpoena however was still participated in good-faith settlements with the congressional committee when he was charged. The defense has actually stated Bannon had actually been counting on the recommendations on his lawyer, who thought that Bannon couldn’t affirm or produce files due to the fact that Trump had actually conjured up executive advantage.

    Attorneys for Bannon state the case raises major legal concerns that will likely require to be dealt with by the Supreme Court however he will have currently completed his jail sentence by the time the case arrives.

    In court documents, Bannon’s legal representatives likewise argued that there is a “strong public interest” in permitting him to stay totally free in the run-up to the 2024 election due to the fact that Bannon is a leading consultant to Trump’s project.

    Bannon’s legal representatives stated the Justice Department, in attempting to imprison him now, is “offering a look that the federal government is attempting to avoid Mr. Bannon from completely helping with the project and speaking up on crucial concerns, and likewise making sure the federal government exacts its pound of flesh before the possible end of the Biden Administration.”

    District attorneys stated in court documents that Bannon’s “function in political discourse” is unimportant.

    “Bannon likewise cannot reconcile his claim for unique treatment with the bedrock concept of equivalent justice under the law,” district attorneys composed. “Even-handed application of the bail statute needs Bannon’s ongoing detention.”

    A 2nd Trump assistant, trade consultant Peter Navarro, is currently serving his four-month jail sentence for contempt of Congress. Navarro, too, has actually stated he couldn’t comply with the committee due to the fact that Trump had actually conjured up executive advantage. The judge disallowed him from making that argument at trial, nevertheless, discovering that he didn’t reveal Trump had really invoked it.

    Your House Jan. 6 committee’s last report asserted that Trump criminally participated in a “multi-part conspiracy” to reverse the legal outcomes of the 2020 election and stopped working to act to stop his fans from assaulting the Capitol, concluding a remarkable 18-month examination into the previous president and the violent insurrection.

  • Supreme Court guidelines California male can’t hallmark ‘Trump too little’

    Supreme Court guidelines California male can’t hallmark ‘Trump too little’

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled versus a male who wishes to hallmark the suggestive expression “Trump too little.”

    The justices supported the federal government’s choice to reject a hallmark to Steve Elster, a California male looking for unique usage of the expression on Tee shirts and possibly other product. It is among a number of cases at the court connecting to previous President Donald Trump. Recently, the court set out requirements for when public authorities can be demanded obstructing critics from their social networks accounts. These cases were likewise connected to Trump.

    The Justice Department supported President Joe Biden’s predecessor and presumptive challenger in the 2024 election. Federal government authorities stated the expression “Trump too little” might still be utilized, simply not trademarked since Trump had actually not granted its usage. Certainly, “Trump too little” Tee shirts can currently be acquired online.

    Elster’s attorneys had actually argued that the choice breached his complimentary speech rights, and a federal appeals court concurred.

    At arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that if Elster were to win, individuals would race to hallmark “Trump too this, Trump too that.”

    Two times in the previous 6 years, the justices have actually overruled arrangements of federal law rejecting hallmarks viewed as outrageous or unethical in one case and disparaging in another.

    Elster’s case handled another step requiring a hallmark demand to be declined if it includes a name, picture or signature “determining a specific living person” unless the individual has actually offered “composed approval.”

    The expression at the heart of the case is a referral to an exchange Trump had throughout the 2016 governmental project with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was then likewise running for the Republican governmental election.

    Rubio started the spoken jousting when he informed advocates at a rally that Trump was constantly calling him “little Marco” however that Trump — who states he is 6 feet and 3 inches high — has disproportionately little hands. “Have you seen his hands? … And you understand what they state about males with little hands,” Rubio stated. “You can’t trust them.”

    Trump then raised the remark at a televised argument on March 3, 2016.

    “Take a look at those hands. Are they little hands? And he described my hands — if they’re little, something else should be little. I ensure you there’s no issue. I ensure you,” he stated.

  • Steve Bannon’s conviction for contempt of Congress upheld

    Steve Bannon’s conviction for contempt of Congress upheld

    A federal appeals court has upheld Steve Bannon’s conviction for defying a Jan. 6 House committee subpoena.

    In a 20-page ruling Friday, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed each of Bannon’s four challenges to his conviction as without merit. Judge Bradley Garcia wrote in the ruling:

    Bannon, a Trump White House senior aide who has continued to spread election-denying conspiracy theories on his podcast, was convicted of two counts of contempt of Congress in 2022 for failing to comply with a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot. He was sentenced to four months in prison, but his sentence has been suspended as his appeal proceeded.

    Still, Bannon likely won’t be reporting to prison right away. He has seven days to ask the full D.C. Circuit to hear his appeal or take his case to the Supreme Court.

    Another Trump adviser, Peter Navarro, was sentenced last year to four months in prison after similarly defying a subpoena by the Jan. 6 select committee. Navarro reported to prison in March, having repeatedly appealed his case to the Supreme Court to no avail.

    This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

    Source link

  • Supreme Court rejects Peter Navarro’s long-shot prison release bid

    Supreme Court rejects Peter Navarro’s long-shot prison release bid

    Peter Navarro is staying locked up, after the Supreme Court rejected his bid to stay out while he appeals his contempt conviction. It’s the former Trump White House adviser’s second such rejection in as many months.

    How is that even possible, you might wonder?

    Recall that Navarro was sentenced in January to four months’ imprisonment for contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with a subpoena from the House Jan. 6 committee. Trying to stay free pending appeal, he filed an application to Chief Justice John Roberts, who handles emergency requests from Washington courts. In a March 18 opinion, Roberts wrote that he saw no basis to side with Navarro, who then reported to prison. Though he could have done so, the chief justice apparently didn’t feel the need to involve his colleagues, which prolonged the matter in retrospect.

    That’s because Navarro subsequently asked for a redo at the beginning of this month — from a different justice, Neil Gorsuch. He was allowed to try, but the odds of success were low, to put it generously.

    Those long odds were confirmed Monday morning, when his bid was rejected again. This time, unlike Roberts, Gorsuch referred the matter to the full court, setting up for a definitive resolution. And this time, there was no explanation accompanying Navarro’s loss. Roberts’ colleagues likely felt that the chief justice already said all that needed to be said, or perhaps that nothing needed to be said in the first place.

    To be sure, this doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court is done with Navarro. His underlying appeal attacking his conviction is still pending in the Washington federal appeals court. If he loses there, he may press on to the justices. By then, of course, he’ll have long been released. The Federal Bureau of Prisons lists his release date as July 17. Navarro said in his bid to Gorsuch that the briefing alone in his D.C. Circuit appeal won’t be done until July 19.

    Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.

    This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

    Source link

  • NC health plan discriminates against transgender workers, federal appeals court rules

    NC health plan discriminates against transgender workers, federal appeals court rules

    A federal appeals court ruled that North Carolina’s state health insurance plan discriminated against transgender patients by not covering gender-affirming care.

    Transgender state workers sued the state in 2019 over a coverage exclusion in the State Health Plan for treatments for gender dysphoria, the medical term for distress occurring when someone’s physical sex doesn’t match their gender identity.

    The 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with the workers on Monday, finding that the exclusion violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sex.

    The case could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Defendants in the case, which included state Treasurer Dale Folwell, argued that the exclusion did not specifically target transgender people because it applied to everyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

    “In this case, discriminating on the basis of diagnosis is discriminating on the basis of gender identity and sex,” Judge Roger Gregory wrote in the majority opinion.

    “Gender dysphoria is so intimately related to transgender status as to be virtually indistinguishable from it,” Gregory wrote. “The excluded treatments aim at addressing incongruity between sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the very heart of transgender status.”

    The State Health Plan covers over 740,000 public employees and their dependents.

    The North Carolina General Assembly passed several laws targeting transgender people last year, including a ban on gender-affirming care for minors and a ban on transgender women’s participation in women’s sports.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court tackles Trump’s broad claim of presidential immunity in election interference case

    Supreme Court tackles Trump’s broad claim of presidential immunity in election interference case

    WASHINGTON — Tackling an unprecedented and politically fraught issue, the Supreme Court on Thursday considers former President Donald Trump’s assertion of total immunity from criminal charges over his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.

    The court will take on the novel legal question of whether a former president can be prosecuted for what Trump’s attorneys say were “official acts” taken in office, though much of the focus remains on whether the justices will rule quickly so a trial could take place before the November election.

    With most legal experts questioning Trump’s broad argument that the entire election interference indictment should be dismissed based on immunity, the court’s eventual ruling on the extent to which official acts are protected and how quickly it rules will be of equal importance.

    The case puts considerable scrutiny on the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority that includes three justices Trump appointed. The court already handed Trump an election-year boost when it ruled last month that Colorado could not kick him off the ballot.

    The justices have also come under criticism for their delay in taking up Trump’s appeal, which some view in itself as a victory for him.

    The Supreme Court announced Feb. 28 that it would hear the case, saying it would examine “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” The decision immediately put the prospect of a pre-election trial in jeopardy.

    A federal appeals court had ruled Feb. 6 that Trump was not immune from prosecution, writing that “former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” and that while executive privilege may have protected him during his presidency, it no longer protected him against prosecution.

    “It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,” the federal appeals court ruled.

    Under the original schedule laid out by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, Trump’s trial had been set to begin March 4, and the jury might have even reached a verdict by this point. Instead, the first of the four criminal cases against Trump to go to trial was the prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg in New York, where Trump was indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records tied to a hush money payment in the lead-up to the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

    The federal indictment returned by a grand jury in Washington, D.C., in August consisted of four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The Supreme Court has already heard arguments in another Jan. 6 case that could affect two of the charges against Trump involving obstruction of an official proceeding.

    Trump, according to the indictment, conspired to “overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the government function by which those results are collected, counted and certified.”

    The indictment focuses on Trump’s involvement in a scheme to submit fake election certificates to Congress in the hope that they would nullify President Joe Biden’s victory. The chain of events culminated in the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

    Federal prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith say Trump’s actions constituted a series of crimes. Trump says he was merely expressing his concerns, which were not based on any evidence, that the election was plagued with fraud. He has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges.

    While numerous Jan. 6 defendants have acknowledged that they were duped and manipulated or that they lacked the critical thinking skills to recognize the lies about the 2020 election for what they were, Trump and his lawyers have insisted that he sincerely believed the election was stolen.

    Smith, meanwhile, has argued in court papers that Trump has no immunity and that the case should go to trial immediately — whether or not his conduct at the time involved official acts.

    Trump’s lawyers cite, among other things, a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that said presidents are immune from civil suits when the alleged conduct falls within the “outer perimeter” of their official duties. That case has never been applied in the criminal context.

    A key issue, as yet unresolved, is whether any of Trump’s actions mentioned in the indictment were official acts. Even if some conduct is off-limits, it would not necessarily mean that any charges are dismissed.

    Smith’s team previously estimated it would need “no longer than four to six weeks” to present its case to a jury; potential jurors were told the trial “may last approximately three months after jury selection is completed.” At the time the case was put on hold in December, when the federal appeals court agreed to take it up, 88 days were left in the trial preparation schedule.

    That timeline — nearly three more months of trial prep before jury selection begins — makes a verdict before Election Day unlikely, although Chutkan has indicated that the case would proceed like any other criminal prosecution and that Trump’s campaign schedule would not have an impact on the court.

    The Supreme Court has various options in deciding the case, with both sides accepting that the ruling might not completely resolve the immunity issue. One scenario is that the justices could reject Trump’s broadest arguments while remanding the case back to Chutkan to resolve whether any of the conduct in question involved official acts. Such an outcome could further delay a trial.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • New trial in Elk Grove police death case ordered over ‘false or misleading’ testimony

    New trial in Elk Grove police death case ordered over ‘false or misleading’ testimony

    A federal appeals court has ordered a new trial for the family of a man who sued Elk Grove police after he died in officers’ custody in November 2016, citing “false or highly misleading” testimony from a pathologist who performed an autopsy of the man.

    The opinion from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came over a lawsuit filed by the family of Daniel Landeros, a 41-year-old tile layer and father of five who was the first person to die in Elk Grove police custody since the department’s founding in 2006.

    Landeros died after fleeing a traffic collision and being subdued by officers who handcuffed him and held him face down.

    His family sued and the case went to trial in the summer of 2022, with lawyers Dale Galipo and Stewart Katz arguing for an award of millions of dollars because they said police used unreasonable and excessive force that led to Landeros’ death.

    The attorney for Elk Grove police, Bruce Praet, argued instead that Landeros had a toxic level of methamphetamine in his system, had a history of heart trouble and died of cardiac arrest.

    Dr. Jason Tovar, a forensic pathologist who conducted the autopsy for the Sacramento County Coroner’s Office, testified that he believed cardiac arrest led to Landeros’ death, court records say.

    After a seven-day trial before Senior U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb, a jury rejected claims that Elk Grove police were responsible for Landeros’ death.

    But the appellate panel ordered the case remanded for a new trial after concluding that Tovar had not been forthcoming about his involvement with the defense prior to trial.

    “In this case, false testimony prevented plaintiffs from fully and fairly presenting their case,” the panel wrote. “Dr. Jason Tovar, the forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Daniel Landeros, made several statements at trial about his purported independence from defendants.

    “These statements were either false or highly misleading. Dr. Tovar testified that he ‘(a)bsolutely’ was ‘not affiliated with the defense … in this case’ and did not ‘have any affiliation with the Elk Grove Police Department.’

    “He told the jury that he considered himself ‘independent and impartial,’ had ‘met’ defense counsel ‘for the first time out in the hallway (that) morning,’ and was testifying ‘by way of subpoena.’

    “Yet nearly two years prior to trial, defense counsel signed an undisclosed fee agreement to pay Dr. Tovar $400 per hour for his time ‘in expert consultation and/or legal proceedings’ in the case. Defense counsel agreed to pay Dr. Tovar directly rather than reimburse his employer, the county of Sacramento.

    “Dr. Tovar viewed the arrangement as ‘working privately … outside of (his) job scope at the … Coroner’s Office.’”

    Tovar did not immediately respond to a request for comment sent Friday through the Coroner’s Office, and Praet did not return a phone call made to his Orange County office.

    Katz said he was pleased with the panel’s opinion and expected the case to move forward to a new trial.

    “It’s great news for the family,” Katz said. “Frankly, it’s almost a little reassuring. I’ve become pretty cynical, and it’s really gratifying that a court can do the right thing.”

    The appellate panel found that Tovar spoke with the Elk Grove police attorney a “handful of times” and also had “some email communications” with him.

    “Defense counsel told Dr. Tovar which materials to review and, because Dr. Tovar was ‘not using any coroner resources,’ provided him with the autopsy report and just two of the ‘numerous’ available bodycam and dashcam videos,” the panel wrote. “After trial, the city of Elk Grove issued a check to Dr. Tovar for $4,000 pursuant to the fee agreement.”

    The panel wrote that Tovar’s “false and misleading testimony prejudiced plaintiffs’ case.”

    “The cause of Landeros’ death was a critical issue in the case, and the evidence regarding causation was subject to interpretation,” the panel wrote, noting that the plaintiffs relied on testimony from Dr. Ronald O’Halloran, an expert who testified that “Landeros died of asphyxia brought on by the defendant officers compressing his chest with their body weight.”

    “Other evidence — such as Landeros telling the officers, ‘I can’t breathe,’ and his turning blue — supported that theory,” the panel wrote.

    The panel noted that a defense expert, Dr. Theodore Chan, testified that “Landeros died of a methamphetamine-induced cardiac arrest,” and that although “the autopsy report did not mention cardiac arrest, Dr. Tovar testified that he believed it to be the cause of death.”

    “Whether the officers used excessive force thus turned on which experts the jury credited,” the panel found. “The defense relied heavily on its portrayal of Dr. Tovar as an independent and trustworthy public servant and of Dr. O’Halloran as a paid expert who would say anything for his clients.”

    The panel noted that the attorney for Elk Grove police described Tovar to the jury as “the completely independent chief medical examiner, Dr. Tovar.”

    “If the jury had known that Dr. Tovar was being paid as a private expert by defendants, it may have viewed his opinion more critically,” the panel concluded.

    Source link

  • US court rejects transfer of credit card fees rule case amid focus on ‘judge shopping’

    US court rejects transfer of credit card fees rule case amid focus on ‘judge shopping’

    By Nate Raymond

    (Reuters) – A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that a Texas judge wrongly transferred to another court in Washington, D.C., an industry-backed lawsuit challenging an agency rule on credit card late fees, highlighting the debate over “judge shopping” in the U.S.

    The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals on a 2-1 vote sided with business and banking groups who last month filed the lawsuit in Fort Worth, Texas, a city whose federal courthouse has become a favorite venue for litigants challenging President Joe Biden‘s administration’s policies.

    The ruling was a jurisdictional victory for business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Bankers Association amid a broader debate over how and whether to rein in “judge shopping” by litigants who sue over government policies in courts with one or two sympathetic judges.

    The U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), whose rule was the subject of the lawsuit, and business groups did not respond to requests for comment.

    At issue was the CFPB rule targeting what the government agency has called “excessive” fees credit card issuers charge for late payments, which it estimated costs consumers $12 billion per year.

    Under that rule, credit card issuers with more than 1 million open accounts can only charge $8 for late fees, unless they can prove higher fees are necessary to cover their costs. Issuers previously could charge up to $30 or $41 for subsequent late payments.

    Rather than rule on the business group’s request to block the rule, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, an appointee of Republican former President Donald Trump, last week concluded the lawsuit should instead be heard by a judge in Washington.

    His decision came after the U.S. Judicial Conference, the judiciary’s policymaking body, announced a new policy aimed at curbing “judge shopping” in cases challenging federal or state laws.

    Before he transferred the case, the groups filed an appeal of what they said was Pittman’s earlier effective denial of their request to block the rule, stripping him of jurisdiction over the case and ability to transfer it.

    U.S. Circuit Judge Don Willett, in a Friday opinion joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, agreed, saying once a party appeals a trial judge’s decision, that judge has “zero jurisdiction to do anything that alters the case’s status.”

    U.S. Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, dissented, saying its holding was “incompatible with district court discretion over docket management and prudent policing of forum shopping.”

    The case has already been transferred to a judge in Washington, who the 5th Circuit has no jurisdiction over. Willett directed Pittman to give that judge notice his transfer “should be disregarded.”

    (Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Muralikumar Anantharaman)

    Source link

  • Former Justice Stephen Breyer plans return to the bench as visiting judge on appeals court

    Former Justice Stephen Breyer plans return to the bench as visiting judge on appeals court

    Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is aiming to get back on the bench, this time as a visiting judge on a federal appeals court.

    Breyer, who retired from the high court in 2022, said on a podcast this week that he’s looking at a potential start date in the fall with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

    “I’m a judge. If you take senior status, you remain a judge, and not only you remain a judge in terms of status, but probably next fall I will go over and sit with the First Circuit,” he said on the Thursday release of “Politics War Room” with journalist Al Hunt and Democratic strategist James Carville. “So I’m still an active judge.”

    In an email Friday, an official with the appeals court confirmed Breyer’s plans.

    “Justice Breyer has expressed interest in sitting with the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the Court is thrilled to have him,” Circuit Executive Susan Goldberg said. “Precise dates have not been set yet.”

    The court encompasses the districts of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico.

    Breyer, 85, would not be the first former justice to hear cases after leaving the Supreme Court.

    David Souter, who retired from the high court in 2009, has served as a visiting judge on the First Circuit, while the late Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006, was a visiting judge with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Breyer, a liberal justice, served more than 27 years on the high court. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

    After retiring, President Joe Biden nominated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to succeed him. Breyer recently authored a new book titled, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.”

    In a March interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Breyer talked about one of the biggest rulings by the Supreme Court, which came at the end of his tenure as a justice. He called the leak of the court’s draft decision in the Dobbs abortion case “unfortunate,” while adding that that he would be “amazed” if the source of the leak was one of the justices.

    Breyer also said in the interview that it was possible Dobbs could be overturned. He was one of the three justices who dissented in the Dobbs case, which led to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • Divided appeals court extends block on Texas immigration law

    Divided appeals court extends block on Texas immigration law

    A federal appeals court early on Wednesday extended its hold on a new Texas immigration law, meaning the measure cannot go into effect while litigation continues.

    A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote said in a decision issued overnight that the statute, known as Senate Bill 4, should remain blocked. The same court temporarily froze the law March 19, just hours after the Supreme Court said it could go into effect.

    “For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens—is exclusively a federal power,” Judge Priscilla Richman wrote for the majority.

    She cited in part a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that invalided a similar law in Arizona.

    Whatever the state’s criticisms about the federal government’s “actions and inactions” on immigration, it is the president’s role “to decide whether, and if so, how to pursue noncitizens illegally present in the United States,” Richman wrote.

    The state law would allow police to arrest migrants suspected of illegally crossing the border from Mexico and impose criminal penalties. It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico.

    The dispute is the latest clash between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Texas could potentially now ask the Supreme Court to allow the law to go into effect. In the meantime, the appeals court holds another hearing on April 3.

    Richman and Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez voted to block the law. Judge Andrew Oldham voted for it to go into effect.

    Richman and Oldham are both Republican appointees, while Ramirez was appointed by President Joe Biden.

    It was the same lineup of judges that issued the temporary block.

    Oldham wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion saying the law should not be blocked in full because of hypothetical concerns about how it would be enforced.

    Because of the federal government’s struggles to control immigration, “the state is forever helpless” to respond if it cannot legislate on the issue, he said.

    “Texas can do nothing because Congress apparently did everything, yet federal non-enforcement means Congress’s everything is nothing,” Oldham wrote.

    A federal judge blocked the law after the Biden administration sued, but the appeals court initially said in a brief order that it could go into effect March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene. In the meantime, the appeals court delayed a decision on whether to impose a more permanent block during Texas’ appeal.

    The Supreme Court initially put the law on hold while it determined what steps to take, but on March 19 said it would allow the measure to go into effect, with the understanding that the appeals court would act quickly on the underlying case.

    The Supreme Court’s order prompted alarm among immigrant rights activists amid confusion on the ground about whether the law could be enforced immediately.

    The appeals court appeared to get the message and immediately imposed the new hold on the law while it considered Texas’ appeal of the district court injunction.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • Federal appeals court keeps Texas immigration law SB4 temporarily blocked

    Federal appeals court keeps Texas immigration law SB4 temporarily blocked

    Texas still cannot temporarily enforce a controversial new law that would authorize police to arrest and detain migrants suspected of illegally crossing the border from Mexico, a federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday.

    The panel split, 2-1, on the decision for Texas’ request for a stay of a U.S. district judge’s preliminary injunction of the law pending appeal.

    Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Judge Irma Ramirez, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, joined in the order Tuesday night ruling against Texas’ request. Richman wrote for the majority that it is the president’s role “to decide whether, and if so, how to pursue noncitizens illegally present in the United States.”

    Judge Andrew Oldham, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, dissented.

    “The State is forever helpless: Texas can do nothing because Congress apparently did everything, yet federal non-enforcement means Congress’s everything is nothing,” Oldham wrote in his 70-page dissent. “And second, while the dispute before us is entirely hypothetical, the consequences of today’s decision will be very real.”

    Texas attorneys can return to the Supreme Court to challenge the 5th Circuit’s ruling but haven’t indicated yet that they would do so.

    The ruling from a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court is a win for the Biden administration and immigration advocacy groups, who initially challenged the law in January.

    They argued that the state law, known as Senate Bill 4, conflicts with the federal government’s immigration policy and violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says that federal laws preempt conflicting state laws.

    In court filings, Texas contends that the state “is the nation’s first-line defense against transnational violence and has been forced to deal with the deadly consequences of the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to protect the border.”

    Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in December signed the law that, when in effect, would authorize state police to arrest migrants and charge them with a misdemeanor on the first offense if they are suspected of crossing the border illegally. During the court process, migrants could be ordered to return to Mexico or face prosecution if they didn’t agree to return.

    The law was supposed to go into effect on March 5 but has been delayed by a whirlwind of court orders.

    The Supreme Court set it on ice for two weeks while the justices considered emergency requests from the Biden administration and immigrant rights groups to keep it paused while legal challenges proceed.

    When it did rule two weeks later, the high court effectively gave Texas the green light to enforce the new state law effective immediately. But hours later, the appeals court reinstated an injunction blocking the law’s implementation.

    The 5th Circuit is set to hear arguments on April 3 over the constitutionality of the law.

    The legal showdown over the Texas law is part of a broader fight between the Biden administration and Texas, who continue to clash on border policy as the influx of migrants has sparked nationwide controversy.

    Texas is embroiled in two other major court battles with the DOJ, over the state’s use of razor wire and floating buoys along the border designed to block migrants from entry. In May, the full bench of the 5th Circuit will rehear the case involving access and river border buoys, allowing the floating barrier to remain in place in the meantime.

    Source link

  • Here’s what to know about SB 4

    Here’s what to know about SB 4

    Texas lawmakers in 2023 approved Senate Bill 4, which allows Texas police to arrest people for illegally crossing the Mexico border. It was expected to go into effect in early March, but legal challenges from the U.S. Justice Department and immigration advocacy organizations have repeatedly prevented the law from going into effect as litigation makes its way through federal courts.

    A federal appeals court on late Tuesday night once again blocked the state of Texas from enforcing the law — hours after the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed the law to go into effect while the federal court case continued.

    What is Senate Bill 4?

    This new law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. If a police officer believes they have evidence that a person illegally crossed the Rio Grande, that person could be charged with a Class B misdemeanor, which carries a punishment of up to six months in jail. For subsequent offenses, the person could be charged with a second-degree felony and face up to 20 years in prison.

    If the migrant is convicted and has served their sentence, a judge would be required to order police to transport them to a port of entry. A judge could drop the charges if a migrant agrees to return to Mexico, and police could turn over migrant families to Border Patrol agents to avoid separating children from their parents instead of arresting them.

    Is the law being enforced?

    A federal appeals court order has blocked the law ahead of a scheduled hearing in the lawsuit brought forward by immigrant rights advocates and the federal government. This came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court on March 19 issued an order allowing the state of Texas to enforce SB 4 as challenges to the law proceed in federal court. Just one day before, the high court had extended a temporary court order blocking the law from going into effect.

    Could any undocumented immigrant be arrested?

    The bill allows police to question and arrest anyone they believe entered Texas through Mexico illegally and is currently without legal immigration status. However, the author of the law has said it is meant to target people who recently crossed the border, not undocumented immigrants who have been living in Texas for years. Texas’ statute of limitations blocks legal proceedings for misdemeanors two years after an offense has occurred. The statute of limitations is three years for many felonies.

    SB 4 prohibits police from arresting migrants in public or private schools; churches and other places of worship; health care facilities; and facilities that provide forensic medical examinations to sexual assault survivors. The bill doesn’t prohibit arrests on college or university campuses.

    Why is the law being challenged?

    Immigration advocacy organizations and the Department of Justice say the law encroaches on the federal government’s sole authority over immigration and will lead to racial profiling by police. Texas officials have argued the state needs to step in because the federal government isn’t doing enough to stop illegal immigration.

    Can Texas enforce immigration laws?

    Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have previously ruled that immigration laws can only be enforced by the federal government. Texas has argued the law follows federal immigration laws, and that the state has a right to defend itself under Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from engaging in war on their own “unless actually invaded.” A federal judge who blocked the law in February said he didn’t see evidence of a war in Texas and that the federal government would “suffer irreparable harm” under the law because it could inspire other states to pass their own immigration laws.

    How could this affect asylum seekers?

    Anyone who enters the U.S., legally or illegally, has up to one year to request asylum.

    The federal government is asking migrants to not show up at a port of entry and instead make an appointment to meet with an immigration officer. But available appointments fill quickly and many migrants opt to cross the border away from ports of entry and surrender to U.S. authorities.

    Under SB 4, if Texas police arrest a migrant before they surrender to Border Patrol, immigrants who apply for asylum and are researched by federal agents for criminal histories could be subject to removal from the United States if charged with the new state crime.

    Where can I find more information?

    Consulates in the U.S. for countries like Mexico could provide their citizens with more information. Immigrant rights groups, such as American Gateways, are also trying to inform people who could be affected by the law. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which is one of the groups suing Texas over SB 4, has published information about people’s rights when it comes to the law and interactions with Texas police.

    Source link