By Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld | Wednesday, February 11 |
|
|
By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee Wednesday, February 11 |
|
|
© Photo by Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images |
Trump's detention policy gets legal win |
President Trump's mandatory detention policy for apprehended migrants has claimed its biggest legal victory yet. Is it a turning point? Only time will tell, but the ever-growing swarm of more than 1,000 cases has now entered a new chapter — one that could prompt the Supreme Court to get involved. The Trump administration's policy keeps unadmitted migrants who are arrested during enforcement operations locked up without bond, regardless of how long they've lived in the U.S. It leaves no discretion. It upends how past administrations have interpreted federal immigration law for roughly three decades. It has also created a tsunami in the courts. As migrants line up to demand bond hearings, judges have largely ruled in their favor. For months, the Trump administration racked up relatively few wins. Things changed Friday night. The Trump administration struck gold with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, regarded as the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. The panel split 2-1. The two Republican-nominated judges sided with Trump, while the lone Democratic-nominated judge sided against him. "After reviewing carefully the relevant provisions and structure of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, the statutory history, and Congressional intent, we conclude that the government's position is correct," the majority opinion reads. Most immediately, it hands a victory to the administration in its bid to detain Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias. Both are Mexican citizens who entered the U.S. illegally more than 15 years ago and weren't discovered by federal authorities until last year. The 5th Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, meaning the decision will impact others detained there. Notably, the Trump administration has moved many migrants to the region apprehended elsewhere. But even though the 5th Circuit agreed with the government's interpretation of federal law, some migrants have a plan B. On Monday, U.S. District Judge David Briones acknowledged the new ruling but found an Ethiopian national detained in Texas was still entitled to a bond hearing. That migrant argues accepting the government's interpretation would violate his constitutional due process rights. Briones agreed. "Buenrosto-Mendez does not change this case's outcome," the judge wrote. Briones was appointed by former President Clinton. As the battle continues to engulf courtrooms across the country, visible signs of a strained system are increasingly showing. It hit a breaking point during a hearing in St. Paul, Minn., last week, when prosecutor Julie Le expressed exasperation at her crushing workload. "Sometime I wish you would just hold me in contempt, Your Honor, so that I can have a full 24 hours of sleep," Le told the judge. The judge was frustrated with a lack of compliance with his orders. "What do you want me to do?" Le said moments later. "The system sucks. This job sucks. And I am trying every breath that I have so that I can get you what you need." The Justice Department has since removed Le from her post. |
|
|
Reagan judge in hot water; GOP wins revolt; DOJ reviving Comey, James |
A wolf in sheep's clothing? |
A senior federal judge in Massachusetts resigned in November, pinning his departure on a desire to speak out against Trump. But new court filings and an NPR investigation have cast doubt on the judge's reasoning. Former U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf penned an essay in The Atlantic in November saying he was departing from the bench because he could "no longer...bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom." "The White House's assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out," Wolf said. "Silence, for me, is now intolerable." He later told PBS NewsHour that he feared the guardrails on presidential power might not hold due to the "abuse that's been showered on the courts and the judges is causing people to lose confidence in the integrity and the impartiality of the judicial process." However, Wolf's resignation coincided with an inquiry into an unnamed judge's potential misconduct — and, according to NPR, that judge was Wolf himself. The misconduct inquiry was revealed in a Nov. 24, 2025, order in which U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron acknowledged his "limited" probe of the allegations. The inquiry included interviews with the unnamed judge and the judge's former law clerk, according to the court filing, and though it did not detail the alleged misconduct, it said it could include "treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees or others in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner" or creating a hostile work environment. But Barron's inquiry was concluded because of "intervening events" — Wolf's retirement, an anonymous source familiar with the inquiry told NPR. The Gavel requested comment from Wolf. Wolf was nominated to the bench by former President Reagan in 1985. The Gavel wrote about him, and other Reagan judges, speaking out against the Trump administration with unfiltered assessments. His piece in The Atlantic drew sharp scrutiny from allies to the president, who have argued that the Senate's "blue slip" practice, which lets home-state senators weigh in on presidential nominations to district courts, has encouraged partisan judges. For example, when Reagan — a Republican — tapped Wolf to be a district judge in Massachusetts, it was only because the state's two Democratic senators allowed his nomination to proceed. However, the blue slip practice has long been bipartisan and has strong defenders in the Senate from both sides of the aisle. At the time of Wolf's retirement, the chief judge of the Massachusetts court Denise Casper sung his praises, saying he served on the court with "distinction" for more than four decades. |
GOP wins in revolt against judge climate guide |
Republican-led states are taking a victory lap after the federal judiciary's research arm agreed to drop a controversial climate science chapter from a newly updated judges' manual. Led by West Virginia Attorney General J.B. McCuskey, 27 Republican states had demanded the Federal Judicial Center drop the chapter, saying it was biased towards left-leaning policies. The states won. "I write to inform you that the Federal Judicial Center has omitted the climate science chapter from the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Fourth Edition," U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg wrote in a Friday letter shared by McCuskey's office. Rosenberg, who was nominated to the bench by former President Obama in 2014, was tapped to lead the center last year by a panel of judges. Her letter contained no further explanation. Want to see the climate science chapter? Read it here. "I'm glad the Center heard our rational and commonsense argument for removing the chapter," McCuskey said in a statement. "It's a win for domestic energy production, American prosperity and security, and West Virginia." The climate fight is the latest operational facet of the legal system to come under fire from conservatives over accusations of bias. Some Republican states are pushing to reduce the American Bar Association's long domination in accrediting law schools. Last month, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said he was investigating an environmental legal group's training initiative for judges. And even though the climate chapter now may be gone, the states have threatened to go after the Federal Judicial Center itself. McCuskey said he anticipated working with Congress to examine if the center "has exceeded its mandate." "If the Center can predetermine scientific questions in climate cases, what prevents it from doing the same for pharmaceutical liability, election disputes, or Second Amendment cases?" the states wrote in their letter. "The precedent is dangerous regardless of one's views on climate change." The decision to remove an entire chapter after publication was notable. The climate science section had been billed as one of the major additions to the new update. Justice Elena Kagan even gave it a nod in her foreword. "In the coming years, judges will confront lawsuits relating, for example, to artificial intelligence, climate science, and epidemiology. Even disputes not about science may involve statistical, survey, or other technical evidence of novel kinds," Kagan wrote. "Enter this manual." The reference manual doesn't just sit on the shelf. Even Supreme Court justices invoke it from time to time. In 2021, Justice Samuel Alito quoted the manual in his 6-3 majority opinion upholding two Arizona voting restrictions. Kagan quoted it, too, in dissent. |
DOJ's new bid to revive Comey, James cases |
The Justice Department is urging a federal appeals court to revive its criminal prosecutions against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), two of Trump's most prominent adversaries. The government on Monday made its opening plea to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to bring the cases back to life after a lower judge dismissed them upon finding that the U.S. attorney who sought charges, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed. Halligan, who has since left the Justice Department, was tapped for the position after her predecessor was pushed out over his refusal to indict the Trump foes. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that her appointment skirted the authority of the district's federal judges to appoint a replacement, since a 120-day clock on interim appointments expired during the previous top prosecutor's tenure. "That holding mistakenly aggrandizes the district court's appointment authority at the expense of the Executive Branch's, which is where the Constitution assigns authority to prosecute crime," Henry Whitaker, counselor to the attorney general, wrote in DOJ's opening brief. The government argued that Congress created a "series of overlapping statutory tools" to address U.S. attorney vacancies. Attorney General Pam Bondi's appointment of Halligan invoked but one of them, Whitaker said. He said that the appointment error then "boils down" to the notion Bondi cited the wrong statute to let Halligan seek and obtain the indictments against Comey and James. "Even if that paperwork mistake was legal error, it was not one that prejudiced defendants; and it has in any event been cured several times over by Attorney General orders ratifying Halligan's actions before the grand juries and her signature on the indictments," Whitaker said. "The Court should reverse." The Justice Department's appeal of Currie's ruling followed weeks of unsuccessful efforts by prosecutors to revive the cases another way. Two federal grand juries in different Virginia courthouses refused to reindict James, and prosecutors attempted to persuade a grand jury to tack a third felony charge onto the second failed indictment — but fell short. A key figure in Comey's prosecution also successfully blocked prosecutors from accessing his emails and data that were key to the charges the former FBI director faced. Both Comey and James have denied wrongdoing, calling the charges a selective and vindictive prosecution at the president's direction. They mounted parallel bids to disqualify Halligan, the sole prosecutor to pursue their indictments before grand juries, and their cases have been consolidated on appeal. Their response to the government is due March 3. |
|
|
- Maxwell pleads the 5th: Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and close associate of Jeffrey Epstein, refused to answer questions during a deposition with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asserting her Fifth Amendment right.
- Benghazi suspect charged: Federal authorities arrested and charged Zubayr al-Bakoush as a suspect in connection with the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans.
- SCOTUS rules on CA map: The Supreme Court cleared the way for California to use its new congressional map that adds up to five Democratic-leaning seats for the midterms, rejecting Republicans' emergency bid to block it.
- Routh sentenced: Ryan Routh, the man convicted of trying to kill President Trump while he golfed in Florida during his 2024 presidential campaign, was sentenced to life in prison.
- ICE warrantless arrests limited: Federal immigration officers in Oregon may not make arrests without warrants unless a person represents a flight risk, a federal judge ruled
|
In other news: Congrats to the Seahawks.
In honor of the Super Bowl, we'll focus on what was also a whirlwind week in football-related legal news: |
- Super Bowl streaker charged: We've got an update on the Super Bowl streaker who ran shirtless on the field (video here from Sports Business Journal's Harrison Rich). The Santa Clara Police Department tells The Gavel that 25-year-old Alex Gonzalez and 24-year-old Sebastian Rivera Jimenez were arrested for "two separate field incursions" during the game. Both are charged with trespassing and field incursion. Gonzalez also rushed the Super Bowl field two years ago, which he said on Instagram cost him $42,000.
- Patriots' Diggs gears up for arraignment: New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs will be arraigned Friday in Massachusetts on strangulation and assault charges stemming from an alleged Dec. 2 incident with his former private chef. Diggs' arraignment was originally slated for last month, but it was postponed as the Patriots advanced through the playoffs. Diggs denies wrongdoing.
- Cardi B threatens lawsuit against TMZ: Rapper Cardi B (who welcomed a child with Diggs in November) threatened TMZ with a lawsuit after it published a video of a robot falling on her while she was in San Francisco ahead of her cameo in the Super Bowl halftime show. "Delete or I will sue …immediately," the rapper wrote on X.
- Falcons' Pearce charged: The day of the Super Bowl, Atlanta Falcons rookie star James Pearce Jr. made his first court appearance on six criminal charges that include aggravated stalking and battery. Arrest records allege Pearce's ex-girlfriend called police Saturday morning after Pearce began following her in his Lamborghini. Pearce allegedly struck an officer with his car, attempted to evade capture and ultimately crashed the vehicle. Pearce's attorney didn't return a request for comment.
- Polymarket sues Mass: Polymarket, the fast-growing prediction market, sued Massachusetts on Monday after Attorney General Andrea Campbell's (D) office convinced a federal judge to block the company's rival, Kalshi, from operating in the state. Polymarket hopes the suit will preemptively prevent Massachusetts from doing the same to its platform.
|
|
|
Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: |
- A federal judge in California is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's refusal to enforce a rule requiring financial institutions to collect and report data on loan applications from women-owned, minority-owned and small businesses.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the murder convictions and life sentences faced by Alex Murdaugh, accused of killing his wife and younger son, should be overturned.
|
- A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hear 12 House Democrats' bid to block the Department of Homeland Security's latest policy requiring lawmakers to give a seven-day notice before visiting some ICE facilities.
- Zubayr al-Bakoush, a suspect in connection with the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans, is set to appear for a detention hearing before a federal judge in Washington, D.C.
|
- A federal judge in Oregon is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the chemical munitions and gases that have infiltrated homes because of federal agents' tactics at protests, brought by a housing development across the street from Portland's ICE facility.
- Former CNN anchor Don Lemon is set to be arraigned before a federal judge in Minnesota on federal civil rights charges related to his coverage of a protest inside a church in the state last month.
- New England Patriots wide receiver Stefon Diggs is set to be arraigned before a Massachusetts state judge on felony strangulation and misdemeanor assault charges.
|
- Federal courts are closed for Presidents' Day.
|
- New Jersey is due to respond to a new Supreme Court emergency appeal filed by a group of small towns in the state. They seek to halt an upcoming rezoning deadline under an affordable housing law New Jersey enacted in 2024.
|
|
|
We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. |
400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001
Copyright © 1998 - 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.