O Canada!
Life in Post Democracy Era: The Trump 2/Elon Dictatatorship
-
The Evil Genius
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2025 4:03 pm
- Reactions score: 306
- Location: Gallifery
-
The Evil Genius
- Posts: 586
- Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2025 4:03 pm
- Reactions score: 306
- Location: Gallifery
-
CobraCommander
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2025 11:50 am
- Reactions score: 106
Judge orders release of Venezuelan couple accused of being ‘alien enemies’
A U.S. district court judge has ordered two Venezuelan nationals living in D.C. to be released from immigration custody, saying the federal government has failed to provide substantial evidence to declare either of them was an “alien enemy” warranting removal under President Donald Trump’s order invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
The decision, issued Friday by El Paso-based Senior U.S. District Judge David Briones, marks the first time a judge has ruled that the Trump administration had erred in classifying someone as an “alien enemy” and ordered a release. Many of the relatives and attorneys for men the Trump administration has sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act have strongly denied that they are Tren de Aragua gang members. The Supreme Court ruled that the government needed to give anyone labeled an “alien enemy” a chance to contest that designation.
The judge in El Paso also went a step further in specifying that going forward, the government must provide detainees 21 days to contest their status, and they must be given a notice in a language they can understand. The Trump administration, in a separate case, recently shared a sample notification form, in which those labeled “alien enemies” were given 12 hours to state whether they planned to contest that designation.
Briones also barred the removal of any noncitizen being held in federal immigration custody within his district — a jurisdiction that includes El Paso and several counties along the U.S.-Mexico border eastward into San Antonio and Austin — under Trump’s order.
Briones, a Clinton appointee, said in the strongly worded order that representatives for the federal government failed to provide the court with the evidence required to substantiate the claim that the couple “are members of Tren de Aragua” and criticized their “shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony.”
Federal representatives, Briones said, “have been unable to convince the court by even a preponderance of evidence required, let alone clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence required,” that the two were members of the gang.
“Even assuming President Trump’s TdA [Tren de Aragua] Proclamation is lawful, the Government fails to prove Petitioners could be properly designated alien enemies under the TdA Proclamation,” he added.
Shebaya said that the husband and wife were released from custody following Briones’s order but that ICE “illegally” placed ankle monitors on them after their release.
Click on the link for the full article
A U.S. district court judge has ordered two Venezuelan nationals living in D.C. to be released from immigration custody, saying the federal government has failed to provide substantial evidence to declare either of them was an “alien enemy” warranting removal under President Donald Trump’s order invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
The decision, issued Friday by El Paso-based Senior U.S. District Judge David Briones, marks the first time a judge has ruled that the Trump administration had erred in classifying someone as an “alien enemy” and ordered a release. Many of the relatives and attorneys for men the Trump administration has sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act have strongly denied that they are Tren de Aragua gang members. The Supreme Court ruled that the government needed to give anyone labeled an “alien enemy” a chance to contest that designation.
The judge in El Paso also went a step further in specifying that going forward, the government must provide detainees 21 days to contest their status, and they must be given a notice in a language they can understand. The Trump administration, in a separate case, recently shared a sample notification form, in which those labeled “alien enemies” were given 12 hours to state whether they planned to contest that designation.
Briones also barred the removal of any noncitizen being held in federal immigration custody within his district — a jurisdiction that includes El Paso and several counties along the U.S.-Mexico border eastward into San Antonio and Austin — under Trump’s order.
Briones, a Clinton appointee, said in the strongly worded order that representatives for the federal government failed to provide the court with the evidence required to substantiate the claim that the couple “are members of Tren de Aragua” and criticized their “shoddy affidavits and contradictory testimony.”
Federal representatives, Briones said, “have been unable to convince the court by even a preponderance of evidence required, let alone clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence required,” that the two were members of the gang.
“Even assuming President Trump’s TdA [Tren de Aragua] Proclamation is lawful, the Government fails to prove Petitioners could be properly designated alien enemies under the TdA Proclamation,” he added.
Shebaya said that the husband and wife were released from custody following Briones’s order but that ICE “illegally” placed ankle monitors on them after their release.
Click on the link for the full article
Judge restricts Border Patrol in California: ‘You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin’
A federal court on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the Border Patrol from conducting warrantless immigration stops throughout a wide swath of California.
The ruling came in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed after the El Centro Border Patrol traveled to Kern County to conduct a three-day sweep in January, detaining day laborers, farm workers and others in a Home Depot parking lot, outside a convenience store and along a highway between orchards.
The ruling prohibits Border Patrol agents from taking similar actions, restricting them from stopping people unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in violation of U.S. immigration law. It also bars agents from carrying out warrantless arrests unless they have probable cause that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
“You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston said during a Monday hearing in Fresno that featured moments of heated exchange between government attorneys and the judge.
The ACLU filed suit on behalf of United Farm Workers, arguing that the stops violated the Fourth Amendment. The judge has not decided on the totality of the case, but on Tuesday granted the ACLU’s motion to stop the Border Patrol from conducting similar operations while the case moved through the courts.
Click on the link for the full article
A federal court on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the Border Patrol from conducting warrantless immigration stops throughout a wide swath of California.
The ruling came in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed after the El Centro Border Patrol traveled to Kern County to conduct a three-day sweep in January, detaining day laborers, farm workers and others in a Home Depot parking lot, outside a convenience store and along a highway between orchards.
The ruling prohibits Border Patrol agents from taking similar actions, restricting them from stopping people unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in violation of U.S. immigration law. It also bars agents from carrying out warrantless arrests unless they have probable cause that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
“You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston said during a Monday hearing in Fresno that featured moments of heated exchange between government attorneys and the judge.
The ACLU filed suit on behalf of United Farm Workers, arguing that the stops violated the Fourth Amendment. The judge has not decided on the totality of the case, but on Tuesday granted the ACLU’s motion to stop the Border Patrol from conducting similar operations while the case moved through the courts.
Click on the link for the full article