Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

[admin]

Part 3 of 3

Implementation of the Proclamation and Subsequent Litigation

65. Upon information and belief, prior to the public issuance of the Proclamation, Respondents developed a memorandum for federal law enforcement officers with guidance on implementation of the Proclamation.

66. Prior to the public issuance of the Proclamation, ICE had moved Venezuelan detainees into position such that, when the Proclamation was made public, the detainees were already being transported to the airport and loaded onto planes.

67. Those flights took off quickly and, despite this Court’s order to return individuals on the flights who were being removed pursuant to the AEA, the planes continued to El Salvador where the individuals were promptly detained in that country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (“CECOT”).

68. The government also sent eight Venezuelan women to CECOT, presumably pursuant to the Proclamation. However, upon landing, Salvadoran officials informed U.S. officials that CECOT does not imprison women. The government returned the eight Venezuelan women to the United States, along with a Nicaraguan man whom they also attempted to send to CECOT.

69. Petitioners received no advance notice of the basis for their removal. Neither Petitioners nor their attorneys were told that they had been designated “alien enemies.” They were not told that they could challenge that designation. Nor were they given an opportunity to do so. They were not even told where the plane was going when they boarded.

70. It later emerged that Respondents had a notice form asserting that an individual is an “alien enemy” and stating that they are “not entitled to a hearing, appeal, or judicial review of this notice and warrant of apprehension and removal.” But the CECOT Subclass received no such notice. Nor did their lawyers.

71. It also emerged that Respondents used a checklist to identify alleged TdA members. The checklist gave points for certain characteristics. Eight points meant the individual was “verified” as TdA. The checklist included characteristics such as “subject has tattoos denoting membership/loyalty to TDA” and “subject possesses written rules, constitution, membership certificates, bylaws, etc. indicating . . . membership of or allegiance to TDA.”

72. Whether most (or perhaps all) of the class members lack ties to TdA remains to be seen, because the government secretly rushed the men out of the country and has provided Petitioners with no information about the class. But evidence since the flights on March 15 increasingly shows that many members of the CECOT Subclass removed to El Salvador are not “members” of TdA as is required to fall within the Proclamation; many have no ties to TdA at all.

73. Respondents’ errors are unsurprising because the methods they employ in the checklist are flawed. For example, the checklist relies on indicators like tattoos or other iconography, despite the fact that TdA does not have common tattoos or symbols. It also relies on possessing an official “indicia” of the organization, like membership certificate or written rules—but the government’s own declarants have conceded that TdA is “decentralized” and “loosely organized.”

74. These mistakes are devastating. Individuals who are wrongly designated are deported to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, as has already occurred to a number of class members. Respondents have repeatedly taken the position that they cannot or will not take any meaningful steps to facilitate the return of individuals from CECOT.

75. Since March 15, Respondent DOD has operated at least one flight transporting individuals from the United States to CECOT in El Salvador. Several of those individuals were alleged to be affiliated with TdA.

76. Respondents have custody or constructive custody over the individuals designated under the AEA, including those detained at CECOT. Respondents are responsible for the restraints on the liberty of these individuals.

77. Individuals detained at CECOT are detained at the behest of Respondents, and Respondents are paying El Salvador millions of dollars to detain them, as Respondent Secretary Rubio has publicly explained.

78. Respondents are outsourcing part of the United States’ prison system to El Salvador. Respondent Secretary Noem has publicly described the transfer of U.S. residents to CECOT as “one of the tools” in the United States’ “toolkit” “that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people.”

79. Upon information and belief, Respondents are aware that the Salvadoran government mistreats and tortures individuals detained in CECOT.

80. Respondents are attempting to deliberately prevent individuals designated under the AEA, including individuals detained at CECOT, from seeking judicial review.

81. Respondents have also taken the position that noncitizens subject to the Proclamation are not be afforded credible fear interviews, nor will claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) be recognized.

82. Petitioners obtained a TRO against Respondents’ unlawful action from this Court on March 15. Respondents sought a stay of the TRO in the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit denied the motions for stay in a per curiam opinion. J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025). Judge Henderson, concurring, found that the orders were appealable but that Respondents had failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits because, in her preliminary view, that the AEA’s statutory predicates of “invasion” and “predatory incursion” were not met. Id. at *1–13 (Henderson, J., concurring). Judge Millett, also concurring, wrote that the order was not appealable and that if the court were to reach the merits, Respondents were unlikely to prevail on their jurisdictional arguments and that the balance of equities weighed against Respondents. Id. at *13–31 (Millett, J., concurring). Judge Walker dissented, acknowledging that Petitioners had a right to contest their designation as enemy aliens under the Proclamation but contending that those claims must be brought in habeas in the district of confinement. Id. at *31–40 (Walker, J., concurring).

83. Respondents then sought a stay in the Supreme Court. The Court held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025).

84. Despite the Supreme Court’s clear instructions, Respondents again attempted to remove individuals under the AEA with inadequate process. On April 16, within hours of a district court in the Northern District of Texas denying a TRO and deferring decision on class certification, the government gave detainees a Bluebonnet Detention Center in Texas an English-only form, not provided to any attorney, which nowhere mentioned the right to contest the designation or removal, much less explained how detainees could do so. ICE officers told detainees that they would be removed within 24 hours.

85. Petitioners’ counsel sought relief at the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court. Petitioners’ counsel also sought relief in this court, in the form of a request to expedite their TRO regarding notice. This Court held a hearing in which Respondents stated that they would not remove anyone that same day, but Respondents reserved the right to remove people under the AEA the following day.

86. At 12:51 a.m. EDT on Saturday, April 19., the Supreme Court directed the government not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of the Court.

87. On April 23, 2025, Respondents submitted a declaration in the Southern District of Texas, under seal, with information about the notice process that the government had for individuals designated for removal under the AEA. See Cisneros Decl., J.A.V. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-072 (S.D. Tex. filed Apr. 23, 2025), ECF No. 45, Exhibit D. That declaration and its accompanying exhibit were unsealed the next day. Oral Order, J.A.V. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-072 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2025). The declaration states that individuals are given 12 hours’ notice ahead of scheduled removal and that if they express an intent to file a habeas petition, they are given 24 hours to actually file that petition. Cisneros Decl. ¶ 11. The notice process is patently inadequate as a matter of due process.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

88. Petitioners and Plaintiffs bring this action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) on behalf of themselves and a class of all other persons similarly situated.

89. This Court has already certified a class of “All noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025, Presidential Proclamation entitled ‘Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua’ and its implementation.”

90. Petitioners and Plaintiffs seek to amend the class definition to: “All noncitizens who have been, are or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled ‘Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua’ and/or its implementation.”

91. Petitioners further seek to certify the following subclasses under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2):

a. “CECOT Subclass”: All noncitizens in custody at the Terrorism Confinement Center (“CECOT”) in El Salvador who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua” and/or its implementation.

b. “Criminal Custody Subclass”: All noncitizens in criminal custody who were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua” and/or its implementation.

92. Petitioners and Plaintiffs, together, seek to represent the class, and seek injunctive and declaratory relief for Claims I–VIII, as specified below.

93. Petitioners Frengel Reyes Mota, Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, J.A.B.V., M.A.O.R., G.A.A.A., and M.R.M. are currently detained in CECOT and also seek to represent the CECOT Subclass. They seek habeas, injunctive, and declaratory relief for Claims I–XIII, as specified below.

94. Petitioner T.C.I. is currently detained in criminal custody and also seeks to represent the Criminal Custody Subclass. He seeks habeas, injunctive, and declaratory relief for Claims I–IX, as specified below, in addition to Claims X–XIII, as specified below, insofar as the Criminal Custody Subclass face an imminent risk of removal and detention at CECOT or a facility with equivalent conditions.

95. Plaintiffs are the original Plaintiffs in J.G.G. v. Trump: J.G.G., G.F.F., J.G.O, W.G.H., and J.A.V. Because Plaintiffs have filed habeas actions in their districts of confinement and do not seek relief in this Court through the writ of habeas corpus, they continue to be designated as “Plaintiffs,” not “Petitioners.” Among other things, Plaintiffs continue to seek—as a matter of due process—meaningful notice of the government’s intent to remove them. See J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025) (per curiam) (due process requires government to provide detainees notice that they are subject to removal “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue”). Because this claim is a precondition to the effective exercise of habeas rights, it lies outside of habeas. In addition, Plaintiffs continue to advance their original claims in equity and under the Administrative Procedure Act. See Claims, infra.

96. The proposed class and subclasses satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).

97. The proposed class and both subclasses satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) because they are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Besides the five originally named petitioners who were nearly removed on March 15, 2025, there are at least 137 individuals were actually removed to the CECOT prison on March 15 pursuant to the AEA. After those removals, on March 18, 2025, the government identified 54 members of TdA in detention, 32 in criminal custody and 172 on its nondetained docket. That means there were roughly nearly 400 people in the entire class as of mid-March 2025, of whom at least 137 were in the CECOT subclass and 32 in Criminal Custody subclass. The government also confirmed that it continues to monitor and identify more TdA members. On April 18, 2025, the government attempted to remove dozens more Venezuelan men pursuant to the AEA.

98. Joinder is also impracticable because class members are largely detained and unrepresented, in addition to being geographically spread out. Joinder is also impracticable because many in the proposed class and subclasses are pro se, indigent, have limited English proficiency, and/or have a limited understanding of the U.S. judicial system. Despite over 130 subclass members at CECOT, Respondents have not provided information about the individuals detained there and are holding them incommunicado, without any access to the outside world, let alone the ability to communicate with any existing or potential counsel. Due to their imprisonment and isolation from the world, the CECOT subclass members cannot practically bring their own challenges. Similarly, Respondents will not provide information about any of the class members in the United States, even to their immigration counsel. Because of the swift timeline for notice and removals, class and subclass members are not able to effectively seek judicial review on an individual basis.

99. The proposed class and both subclasses satisfy the commonality requirements of Rule 23(a)(2). The members of the proposed class and subclasses are subject to a common practice: designation under the Proclamation and either the threat or actual summary removal pursuant to the AEA. The suit raises at least one question of law common to the entire class: what notice and process is due for those who are designated under the Proclamation. The suit also raises other questions of law common to members of the proposed class and both subclasses, including whether the Proclamation and its implementation violate the AEA, the INA, and the statutory protections for asylum seekers. Moreover, the subclasses share common questions of law and fact regarding the conditions of confinement at CECOT, and whether their current or imminent imprisonment there violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

100. The proposed class and both subclasses satisfy the typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(3), because the claims of the representative Plaintiffs and Petitioners are typical of the claims of the class. Each proposed class member, including the Plaintiffs, has experienced the same principal injury (inability to challenge their designation), based on the same government practices (the implementation of the Proclamation without meaningful notice), which is unlawful as to the entire class. Each proposed CECOT subclass member, including the proposed CECOT subclass representatives, Frengel Reyes Mota, Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, J.A.B.V., M.A.O.R., G.A.A.A., and M.R.M., has experienced or faces the same principal injury (unlawful removal to CECOT), based on the same government practice (the Proclamation and its implementation), which is unlawful as to the entire subclass because it violates the AEA, the INA, the APA, and various provisions of the Constitution. Similarly, each proposed Criminal Custody subclass member, including the proposed Criminal Custody subclass representative, T.C.I., also faces the same principal injury (imminent removal to CECOT), based on the same government practice (the Proclamation and its implementation), which is unlawful as to the entire subclass because it violates the AEA, the INA, the APA, and various provisions of the Constitution.

101. The proposed class and both subclasses satisfy the adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a)(4). The representative Plaintiffs and Petitioners seek the same relief as the other members of the class, including a meaningful procedure for notice and opportunity to be heard that comports with due process. The representative Petitioners seek the same relief as the other members of both subclasses—among other things, an order declaring the Proclamation unlawful and an injunction preventing enforcement of the Proclamation and to facilitate their return to the United States. In defending their rights, Plaintiffs and Petitioners will defend the rights of all proposed class members and subclass members fairly and adequately.

102. Both the class and subclasses are represented by experienced attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Democracy Forward Foundation. Proposed Class Counsel have extensive experience litigating class action lawsuits and other complex systemic cases in federal court on behalf of noncitizens.

103. The class and subclasses also satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). Respondents have acted (or will act) on grounds generally applicable to the class and subclasses by subjecting them to summary removal under the Proclamation rather than affording them the protection of immigration laws. Injunctive and declaratory relief is therefore appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. Habeas, injunctive and declaratory relief is also appropriate with respect to both subclasses as a whole.

HARM TO PLAINTIFFS AND PETITIONERS

104. Countless Venezuelans fear imminent removal under the Proclamation based on flimsy allegations that they will have no change to rebut. And named Plaintiffs J.G.G., J.A.V., G.F.F., W.G.H. and J.G.O. all fear removal under the Proclamation because the government has previously attempted to remove them as alien enemies. While the named Plaintiffs as of today have obtained temporary relief in other proceedings, that relief is temporary and in the absence of it, they are at imminent risk of unlawful removal.

105. For the Plaintiffs, Petitioners, and putative class members who have not yet been removed to El Salvador, they face serious harm if they are removed to El Salvador, where they will be subject to egregious conditions at CECOT. Many Plaintiffs and Petitioners also fear return to Venezuela, where they have a well-founded fear of persecution.

106. Petitioner T.C.I. also fears removal under the Proclamation because the government has previously pressured him to sign a paper stating that he was a member of Tren de Aragua and subject to removal. He has not obtained any temporary relief and is at imminent risk of unlawful removal.

107. Petitioner T.C.I. also fears removal to Venezuela, where he will be targeted by gang members, as with many putative subclass members.

108. Petitioners Frengel Reyes Mota, Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, J.A.B.V., M.A.O.R., G.A.A.A., and M.R.M. are already facing serious harm after being removed to El Salvador, where they are currently subject to egregious conditions at CECOT.

CAUSES OF ACTION

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Ultra Vires, Violation of 50 U.S.C. § 21
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents)

109. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

110. The AEA does not authorize the removal of noncitizens from the United States absent a “declared war” or a “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” “invasion or predatory incursion” into the United States by a “foreign nation or government.” See 50 U.S.C. § 21. The Proclamation mandates Petitioners’ and Plaintiffs’ removal under the AEA where those preconditions have not been met, and Petitioners imprisoned at CECOT have already been removed under the AEA where those preconditions were not met.

111. The AEA also does not authorize the removal of noncitizens from the United States unless they “refuse or neglect to depart” from the United States. See 50 U.S.C. § 21. The Proclamation mandates Petitioners’ and Plaintiffs’ removal under the AEA where those preconditions have not been met, and Petitioners have been removed under the AEA where those preconditions were not met.

112. The AEA Process, which was purportedly established pursuant to the authority of 50 U.S.C. § 21, was not authorized by that law.

113. The application of the AEA Process to Petitioners and Plaintiffs is therefore ultra vires.

114. The application of the AEA Process to Petitioners and Plaintiffs is contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq.
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents)

115. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

116. The INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., sets out the sole mechanisms established by Congress for the removal of noncitizens.

117. The INA provides that a removal proceeding before an immigration judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a is “the sole and exclusive procedure” by which the government may determine whether to remove an individual, “[u]nless otherwise specified” in the INA. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3).

118. The AEA Process creates an alternative removal mechanism outside of the immigration laws set forth by Congress in Title 8.

119. The INA’s “exclusive procedure” and statutory protections apply to any removal of a noncitizen from the United States, including removals authorized by the AEA. Because the AEA Process provides for the removal of Petitioners and Plaintiffs without the procedures specified in the INA, it violates 8 U.S.C. § 1229a and the INA.

120. As a result, the application of the AEA to Petitioners and Plaintiffs, which will result or has resulted in their removal from the United States, is contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

121. In addition, by refusing to grant Petitioners and Plaintiffs access to the procedures specified in the INA, Respondents have withheld and unreasonably delayed actions mandated by the statute. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1158, Asylum
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents)

122. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

123. The INA provides, with certain exceptions, that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1).

124. Respondents’ application of the AEA Process to Petitioners and Plaintiffs prevents them from applying for asylum in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1), and is therefore contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), Withholding of Removal
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents)

125. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

126. The “withholding of removal” statute, INA § 241(b)(3), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), bars the removal of noncitizens to a country where it is more likely than not that they would face persecution.

127. Respondents’ AEA Process and regulations violate the withholding of removal statute because they do not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that Petitioners and Plaintiffs are not returned to a country where it is more likely than not that they would face persecution. As a result, Respondents’ actions against Petitioners and Plaintiffs are contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

128. In addition, by refusing to grant Petitioners and Plaintiffs the procedural protections to which they are entitled, Respondents have withheld and unreasonably delayed actions mandated by the statute. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents)

129. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

130. FARRA prohibits the government from returning a noncitizen to a country where it is more likely than not that he would face torture.

131. Respondents’ AEA Process and regulations violate FARRA because they do not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that Petitioners and Plaintiffs are not returned to a country where it is more likely than not that they would face torture. As a result, Respondents’ actions against Petitioners and Plaintiffs are contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

132. In addition, by refusing to grant Petitioners and Plaintiffs the procedural protections to which they are entitled, Respondents have withheld and unreasonably delayed actions mandated by the statute. 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents except Respondent Trump)

133. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

134. The APA provides that courts “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

135. Respondents’ actions are arbitrary and capricious. Respondents have failed to consider relevant factors in applying the AEA Process, including the risk of torture and other inhumane treatment at CECOT, and Venezuelans’ fear of persecution and torture in their home country. Respondents also relied on factors Congress did not intend to be considered, and offered no sufficient explanation for their decision to remove them from this country.

136. The subjection of Petitioners and Plaintiffs to the AEA Process is arbitrary and capricious because it also departs from existing agency policies prohibiting the return of individuals who fear persecution or torture, without providing a reasoned explanation for departing from these policies.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Ultra Vires, Violation of 50 U.S.C. § 22
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents)

137. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

138. The APA provides that courts “shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action” that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

139. The AEA requires that noncitizens whose removal is authorized by the AEA, unless “chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety,” be allowed the full time stipulated by treaty to depart or a reasonable time in which to settle their affairs before departing. See 50 U.S.C. § 22. The Proclamation denies Petitioners and Plaintiffs any time under Section 22 to settle their affairs, because it declares everyone subject to the Proclamation to be “chargeable with actual hostility” and to be a “danger to public safety,” without any kind of individualized determination.

140. The AEA Process thus contravenes 50 U.S.C. § 22 and is ultra vires.

141. The application of the AEA Process to Petitioners and Plaintiffs is contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Due Process Under the Fifth Amendment
(Class and Subclasses against All Respondents)

142. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

143. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides in relevant part that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.

144. In denying Petitioners and Plaintiffs adequate notice and meaningful procedural protections to challenge their removal, the Proclamation violates due process.

145. The Proclamation also denies Petitioners and Plaintiffs the opportunity to voluntarily depart and any time to settle their affairs before departing and thus violates the due process.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Habeas Corpus
(Subclasses against All Respondents)

146. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

147. Detainees have the right to file petitions for habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their detention and raise other claims related to their detention or to the basis for their removal.

148. The ongoing or imminent detention of Petitioners under the Alien Enemies Act has violated, continues to violate, and will violate their right to habeas corpus. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2 (Suspension Clause); 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Ultra Vires, Post-Removal Imprisonment in Violation of 50 U.S.C. § 21
(Subclasses against All Respondents)

149. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

150. When the AEA’s conditions have been met, the AEA authorizes a series of actions the executive branch may take with respect to alien enemies residing in the United States: in particular, alien enemies are liable to be “apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. But the AEA does not authorize the detention of alien enemies after they have been removed from the United States.

151. The ongoing or imminent imprisonment of Petitioners in El Salvador, following their removal, contravenes the AEA and is ultra vires.

152. The ongoing or imminent imprisonment of Petitioners in El Salvador, following their removal, is contrary to law. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Punitive Civil Detention in Violation of the Fifth Amendment
(Subclasses against All Respondents)

153. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

154. Detention under the auspices of the AEA, like other forms of immigration detention, is civil detention. Civil detention is subject to due process constraints and must therefore be justified by a regulatory, nonpunitive purpose. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 538-39 (1979). Those held in such detention have a due process right not to be subjected to any condition, practice, or policy that constitutes punishment.

155. Respondents are detaining or will imminently detain Petitioners at CECOT for the purpose of punishment and with the expressed intent to punish.

156. Respondents have identified no legitimate reason for transferring and holding detainees at the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador, other than to deter future migration to the United States, induce self-deportation, and coerce people into giving up claims and accepting deportation. These are impermissible justifications for civil immigration detention.

157. Respondents’ ongoing or imminent detention of Petitioners at CECOT also subjects them to punitive conditions that violate their due process rights as civil detainees. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321-22 (1982).

158. Respondents’ ongoing or imminent detention of Petitioners at CECOT subjects them to harsher detention conditions than they would face in U.S. prisons and immigration detention facilities—hallmarks of punitive detention.

159. For these reasons, detention at CECOT constitutes unlawful punishment, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Criminal Punishment in Violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments
(Subclasses against All Respondents)

160. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

161. Imprisonment at CECOT, based on unproven accusations of criminal conduct, constitutes criminal punishment in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Respondents’ intent to criminally punish Petitioners is plain from the circumstances of their confinement at CECOT and from Respondents’ own statements. Hallmarks of criminal punishment include a finding that a person committed acts in violation of a criminal law, the stigma inherent in such a determination, and a resulting deprivation of liberty.

162. Respondents have made or will imminently make summary determinations that Petitioners are “terrorists” and members of a “criminal organization,” with no due process.

163. Senior U.S. government officials, including President Trump, have made statements reiterating these accusations and conclusory findings that Petitioners are “criminals,” making their intent to punish clear and amplifying the resulting stigma.

164. Respondents have deprived or will imminently deprive Petitioners of their liberty, subjecting them to criminal detention at CECOT in some of the most punitive conditions imaginable.

165. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee fundamental protections in connection with criminal punishment, including the right to notice of the government’s allegations, the right to counsel, the right to trial by a jury, the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the protection against double jeopardy.

166. Respondents have not afforded Petitioners any of these protections, despite subjecting them to ongoing or imminent criminal punishment.

167. By the actions described above, Respondents have denied or will imminently deny Petitioners the process they are due with regard to their ongoing seizure and detention, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

168. By the actions described above, Respondents have denied or will imminently deny Petitioners the fundamental protections of the Sixth Amendment.

169. For these reasons, the ongoing or imminent imprisonment of Petitioners at CECOT constitutes criminal punishment that violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Conditions of Confinement in Violation of the Eighth Amendment
(Subclasses against All Respondents)

170. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

171. The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

172. Under the Eighth Amendment, Respondents must provide for Petitioners’ basic human needs, including food, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Svcs., 489 U.S. 189, 199-200 (1989). Respondents must also avoid the use of excessive physical force.

173. In subjecting Petitioners to ill treatment, unsafe conditions, inadequate subsistence, inadequate medical care, and excessive physical force at CECOT, Respondents are violating or will imminently violate Petitioners’ Eighth Amendment rights to decent and humane treatment in criminal confinement.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioners and Plaintiffs respectfully pray this Court to:

a. Certify this action as a class action on behalf of the proposed class and subclasses, appoint the Petitioners and Plaintiffs as class representatives; Petitioners as subclass representatives; and undersigned counsel as class counsel;

b. Order Respondents to provide notice of AEA designation to Plaintiffs, Petitioners, and class counsel, and an opportunity to challenge such designation at least 30 days prior to the removal date;

c. Grant a writ of habeas corpus that (1) enjoins Respondents from removing Petitioners pursuant to the Proclamation or, in the event they have already been removed to CECOT, that orders Respondents to facilitate their return to the United States; and (2) enjoins Respondents from detaining Petitioners or otherwise regulating them pursuant to the Proclamation;

d. Enjoin Respondents from removing Petitioners and Plaintiffs from the United States pursuant to the Proclamation;

e. Enjoin Respondents from detaining or otherwise regulating Petitioners and Plaintiffs pursuant to the Proclamation;

f. Declare unlawful the Proclamation and the AEA Process, including detention of Petitioners at CECOT;

g. Order Respondents to facilitate the return of the CECOT Subclass to the United States;

h. Award Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and any other applicable statute or regulation; and

i. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.

Dated: April 24, 2025

Noelle Smith
Oscar Sarabia Roman
My Khanh Ngo
Cody Wofsy
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
425 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 343-0770
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt (D.D.C. Bar No. NY0408)
Daniel Galindo (D.D.C. Bar No. NY035)
Ashley Gorski
Patrick Toomey
Sidra Mahfooz
Omar Jadwat
Hina Shamsi (D.D.C. Bar No. MI0071)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2660
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945)
Aditi Shah (D.C. Bar No. 90033136)*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722
Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 457-0800
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

*Admission to DDC Bar pending

Somil B. Trivedi (D.C. Bar No. 1617967)
Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar No. 1033743)
Michael Waldman (D.C. Bar No. 414646)
Sarah Rich
Skye Perryman (D.C. Bar No. 984573)
Audrey Wiggins (DC Bar No. 482877)
Christine L. Coogle (DC Bar No. 1738913)
Pooja Boisture
DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: (202) 448-9090
Fax: (202) 796-4426
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

_______________

Notes:

1 Plaintiffs are the original Plaintiffs in J.G.G. v. Trump. Because Plaintiffs have filed habeas actions in their districts of confinement and do not seek relief in this Court through the writ of habeas corpus, they continue to be designated as “Plaintiffs,” not “Petitioners.” Petitioners-Plaintiffs (“Petitioners”) refer to the newly amended individuals who are designated under the Proclamation and detained in El Salvador or criminal custody in the United States. Petitioners are pursuing their claims through habeas in addition to APA and equity.

2 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... -de-aragua.

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .102.0.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al.,

Petitioners–Plaintiffs,

J.G.G., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al.,

Respondents–Defendants.

Case No: 1:25-cv-00766-JEB

PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Petitioners-Plaintiffs (“Petitioners”) hereby move for a preliminary injunction to prevent further harm to Petitioners and two subclasses who are already facing or imminently face grave and irreparable harm from the government’s unlawful use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily expel individuals from the United States and imprison them in El Salvador.

First, for the CECOT subclass, Petitioners move for an Order requiring Respondents to immediately request and take all reasonable steps to facilitate the return of the subclass to the United States from Respondents’ jailer in El Salvador. This includes immediately requesting that Respondents’ agents and contractors in El Salvador, including any counterparty to an agreement or contract concerning detention at CECOT, transfer the CECOT Subclass to the physical custody of the United States. It further includes enjoining payment of Respondents’ agents and contractors in El Salvador, including any counterparty to an agreement or contract concerning detention at CECOT, to detain the CECOT subclass.

Second, for the Criminal Custody Subclass, Petitioners seek an Order enjoining Respondents from removing any subclass member from the United States under the President’s Proclamation, and requiring Respondents to provide adequate notice of designation to each subclass member and class counsel, and a reasonable opportunity to challenge their designation, detention, and removal under the AEA, consistent with due process. Petitioners also seek an Order providing for immediate, adequate notice of designation to each member of the Criminal Custody Subclass and class counsel, including no less than 30 days to challenge their designation, detention, and removal under the AEA.

As further explained in the accompany Memorandum, Respondents’ invocation and application of the AEA is unlawful and Petitioners will suffer—and, as to the CECOT class, have already suffered—severe and irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction in the form of an indefinite sentence in a Salvadoran prison without adequate notice and opportunity to contest the government’s designation.

In support of the Motion, Petitioners rely on the accompanying Memorandum and declarations. A proposed order is attached for the Court’s convenience.

Dated: April 24, 2025

Noelle Smith
Oscar Sarabia Roman
My Khanh Ngo Evelyn Danforth-Scott
Cody Wofsy Cecillia D. Wang (D.D.C. Bar No. CA00042)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
425 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 343-0770
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt (D.D.C. Bar No. NY0408)
Daniel Galindo (D.D.C. Bar No. NY035)
Ashley Gorski
Patrick Toomey
Sidra Mahfooz
Omar Jadwat
Hina Shamsi (D.D.C. Bar No. MI0071)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2660
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945)
Aditi Shah (D.C. Bar No. 90033136)*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722
Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 457-0800
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

*Admission to DDC Bar pending

Somil B. Trivedi (D.C. Bar No. 1617967)
Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar No. 1033743)
Michael Waldman (D.C. Bar No. 414646)
Sarah Rich
Skye Perryman (D.C. Bar No. 984573)
Audrey Wiggins (DC Bar No. 482877)
Christine L. Coogle (DC Bar No. 1738913)
Pooja Boisture
DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: (202) 448-9090
Fax: (202) 796-4426
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

**************************

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .102.1.pdf

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LIYANARA SANCHEZ, as next friend on behalf of FRENGEL REYES MOTA, et al.,

Petitioners–Plaintiffs,

J.G.G., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al.,

Respondents–Defendants.

Case No: 1:25-cv-00766-JEB

PETITIONERS-PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

INTRODUCTION

Petitioners–Plaintiffs (“Petitioners”) file this motion seeking urgent preliminary relief on behalf of two subclasses who are already facing or imminently face grave and irreparable harm from the government’s unlawful use of the Alien Enemies Act (“AEA”) to summarily expel individuals from the United States and imprison them in El Salvador. The two subclasses include: (1) individuals whom the government has already unlawfully removed under the AEA and are imprisoned in El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (“CECOT”) (the “CECOT Subclass”); and (2) individuals who are currently in criminal custody in the United States but have been or will be designated under the AEA (the “Criminal Custody Subclass”). For reasons explained below, the Court has jurisdiction over Petitioners’ claims, including their habeas claim, and venue is proper in this District.

Petitioners seek two primary forms of preliminary relief. First, for the CECOT Subclass, Petitioners seek an Order requiring Respondents to immediately request and take all reasonable steps to facilitate the return of the subclass to the United States from Respondents’ jailer in El Salvador. See Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S. ---, 2025 WL 1077101 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025) (per curiam); Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-00951, ECF No. 79 at 4 (D. Md. Apr. 15, 2025); J.O.P. v. DHS, No. 8:19-CV-01944, ECF No. 253 at 12–15 (D. Md. Apr. 23, 2025). That includes, but is not limited to, requiring Respondents to request that their contractors and agents in El Salvador transfer the CECOT Subclass to the physical custody of the United States, and requiring Respondents to cease paying their contractors and agents in El Salvador to detain the CECOT Subclass. Second, for the Criminal Custody Subclass, Petitioners seek an Order enjoining Respondents from removing any subclass member from the United States under the President’s AEA Proclamation; and requiring Respondents to provide immediate, adequate notice of designation to each subclass member and class counsel, and a reasonable opportunity of no less than 30 days to challenge their designation, detention, and removal under the AEA, consistent with due process. See Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. ---, 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (Apr. 7, 2025) (per curiam); see also J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682, at *14–15 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (Millett, J., concurring).

As to the preliminary injunction factors, the unprecedented Proclamation at the heart of this case is unlawful because the AEA is a wartime measure that cannot be used where, as here, there is neither an “invasion or predatory incursion” nor such an act perpetrated by a “foreign nation or government.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. And even if it could be used against a non-military criminal “gang” during peacetime, targeted individuals must be provided with a meaningful chance to contest that they fall within the Proclamation’s scope. That is particularly so given the increasing number of class members who dispute the government’s allegations of gang affiliation. For these and other reasons, Petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits. The remaining factors also decidedly tip in Petitioners’ favor. In the absence of an injunction, the government will be free to send hundreds more individuals to the notorious Salvadoran prison where they may be held incommunicado for the rest of their lives. The government will suffer no comparable harm given that the injunction would not prevent it from prosecuting anyone who commits a criminal offense, detaining anyone under the Act or other authority, or removing anyone under the immigration laws—and the Supreme Court has already ruled that due process requires reasonable notice and the opportunity to obtain judicial review. A preliminary injunction is warranted to preserve the status quo.

LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As described more fully in the prior preliminary injunction motion, ECF No. 67-1, the President has invoked the AEA on the theory that Tren de Aragua (“TdA”), a Venezuelan gang, is “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion” against the United States. See Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua (Mar. 15, 2025) (“Proclamation”).1 This is despite the fact that experts—and the government’s own intelligence agencies and declarants in this case—characterize TdA as a loose, decentralized group without a clear hierarchy or membership. ECF No. 67-1 at 7; ECF No. 77 at 13 & nn.8–9. Experts also maintain that there is no evidence of direct and stable links between the Maduro regime and TdA or evidence of a coordinated TdA presence in the United States. ECF No. 67-1 at 7–8.

As this Court is aware from prior hearings, the government has twice attempted to remove Petitioners under this unlawful Proclamation, both times with inadequate notice. The first time, the government began staging Petitioners on planes in the Southern District of Texas before the Proclamation was even issued and gave them no notice or opportunity to contest their designation. ECF No. 67-1 at 2. It unlawfully removed more than 130 class members to the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (“CECOT”), a notorious prison in El Salvador. Those individuals remain imprisoned at CECOT.

After this first wave of removals, the Supreme Court clarified that individuals “must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act,” and such “notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2.

But the government continued its pattern of inadequate notice. Stymied by a subsequent TRO in the Southern District of Texas, the government moved a large group of Venezuelans to the Northern District of Texas. After a judge in that district denied a TRO as to the named petitioners and deferred decision on class certification—based on his understanding that the government’s representations “strongly suggest[ed]” it would not seek to remove class members under the Proclamation without adequate notice, W.M.M. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00059, ECF No. 27 at 8–9 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2025)—the government quickly distributed AEA notices to detainees and not long after began loading them onto vehicles, W.M.M. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00059, ECF No. 30 at 1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2025). The English-only form, not provided to any attorney, nowhere mentioned the right to contest the designation or removal, much less explained how detainees could do so. ECF No. 92-1. It also did not provide a timeline by which designees needed to seek habeas relief. Id.

The government later informed a judge in the Southern District of Texas—in a declaration initially filed under seal and later unsealed by the court—that designees have 12 hours to indicate or express an intent to file a habeas petition (despite no reference to that option in the notice). Cisneros Decl. ¶ 11 & Notice Form (ECF Nos. 49 & 49-1), J.A.V. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-72 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2025) (ordered unsealed per Apr. 24, 2025 Minute Order). If the designee does not express any such intention, ICE may proceed with the removal. Id. Once a designee expresses an intent to file a habeas petition, they have 24 hours to do so. If no petition is filed within 24 hours, ICE can proceed with the removal. Id. While designees are permitted a phone call, Respondents do not explain how pro se detained individuals, who often do not speak English, could reasonably file a habeas petition in under 24 hours.

The lack of adequate notice is all the more concerning because, as explained in the prior preliminary injunction motion, ECF No. 67-1, designees are at grave risk of erroneous removal due to the government’s dubious methods for identifying alleged TdA members. Indeed, family members of those in CECOT maintain that they have no connection at all to TdA. Exh. F (Sanchez Decl.) ¶ 14; Exh. G (D.A.R.H. Decl.) ¶ 11; Exh. H (M.Z.V.V. Decl.) ¶ 10; Exh. I (M.Y.O.R. Decl.) ¶ 11; Exh. J (M.M.A.A. Decl.) ¶ 10; Exh. K (Mendoza Decl.) ¶ 10. These errors are particularly devastating because many class members came to the United States precisely because of arbitrary arrests and detention by their government, and have strong claims for relief under our immigration laws. See, e.g., Exh. F (Sanchez Decl.) ¶ 2; Exh. G (D.A.R.H. Decl.) ¶ 3; Exh. H (M.Z.V.V. Decl.) ¶ 3; Exh. I (M.Y.O.R. Decl.) ¶ 3; Exh. J (M.M.A.A. Decl.) ¶ 4.

The group of men sent to El Salvador is already suffering extreme harm due to Respondents’ actions. The conditions the members of the CECOT Subclass are facing in El Salvador are horrific. See ECF No. 53 at 34; see also Exh. D (Bishop Decl.); Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.). Absent a preliminary injunction, the same fate awaits the members of the Criminal Custody Subclass, who currently remain in the United States.

LEGAL STANDARD

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the party must show that (1) it is “likely to succeed on the merits”; (2) it is “likely to suffer harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “the balance of equities tips in its favor”; and (4) the issuance of a preliminary injunction is “in the public interest.” Alpine Secs. Corp. v. Fin. Indus. Regul. Auth., 121 F.4th 1314, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).

ARGUMENT

I. The Court Can Reach the Merits of Petitioners’ Claims.

A. Jurisdiction and Venue Are Proper in this District.

a. CECOT Subclass

i. The Court has habeas jurisdiction because the CECOT Subclass is in the constructive custody of Respondents.

As other courts have recently held, the United States government plainly “exerts control over each of the nearly 200 migrants sent to CECOT.” Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-CV-00951-PX, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 1014261, at *5 (D. Md. Apr. 6, 2025), denying stay pending appeal, No. 25-1345, 2025 WL 1021113, at *4 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2025) (Thacker, J., with King, J., concurring) (district court properly determined that the U.S. government has power over CECOT detainees), denying in part application to vacate, 604 U.S. ---, 2025 WL 1077101 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025) (per curiam). Thus, this Court possesses jurisdiction because the CECOT subclass members are in Respondents’ constructive custody and can challenge their unlawful removal to and detention in El Salvador.

To maintain a habeas corpus action, the petitioner must be “in custody,” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), but the Supreme Court “has given the custody requirement a liberal construction, and it is not necessary that the petitioner be in physical control of the respondent.” Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, 610 F.2d 449, 453 (6th Cir. 1979) (citing, inter alia, Braden v. 30th Judicial Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 498–99 (1973)); see also, e.g., Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 239, 242–43 (1963) (holding that parolee was “in custody” of parole board because of the “significant restraints” on his liberty; explaining that habeas “has not been restricted to situations in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody”). Indeed, “courts have universally held that actual physical custody of an individual by the respondent is unnecessary for habeas jurisdiction to exist.” Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, 350 F. Supp. 2d 28, 47 (D.D.C. 2004) (collecting cases). Rather, habeas jurisdiction exists “where the official possesses either actual or ‘constructive’ custody of the petitioner.” Id. (citing LoBue v. Christopher, 82 F.3d 1081, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1996)).

A petitioner can establish constructive custody where, as here, “the respondent was responsible for significant restraints on the petitioner’s liberty.” Id. at 48 (holding that individual detained in Saudi Arabia, allegedly at the behest of U.S. officials, may establish habeas jurisdiction). Courts have also found actual or constructive custody where respondents are “working through an intermediary or an agent to detain the prisoner.” See id. at 48–49 (citing Braden, 410 U.S. at 489 n.4, 498–99); see also Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 686 (2008) (“An individual is held ‘in custody’ by the United States when the United States official charged with his detention has ‘the power to produce him,’” even if such custody “could be viewed as ‘under . . . color of’ another authority, such as [multinational forces].”

Respondents plainly have custody over the CECOT Subclass. There is no question that the U.S. government is responsible for the imprisonment of the CECOT Subclass in El Salvador: it removed these Petitioners to El Salvador for the purpose of detention at CECOT. Nor is there any question that the U.S. government is working through an intermediary or agent to detain the CECOT Subclass: El Salvador is detaining these individuals at the behest of the U.S. government, and the U.S. government is paying El Salvador to house them. See Abrego Garcia, 2025 WL 1021113, at *4 (Thacker, J., with King, J., concurring) (“the district court properly determined that ‘just as in any other contract facility, Defendants can and do maintain the power to secure and transport their detainees’”); see, e.g., Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exhs. 7, 11 (social media posts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio discussing U.S. agreement with Salvadoran government to detain individuals in exchange for payment); id. Exh. 6 (White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt stating the detention cost “approximately $6 million, to El Salvador”).

As the Abrego Garcia district court found, “the federal government struck an agreement with El Salvador whereby it would pay the Salvadoran government six-million dollars for placement of the detainees in ‘very good jails at a fair price that will also save our taxpayer dollars.’” 2025 WL 1014261, at *3 (quoting post by Secretary Rubio). The Salvadoran President, Nayib Bukele, “has publicly touted the agreement terms,” while the El Salvador Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published its memorandum reflecting the agreement for that country to hold detainees for one year, pending the United States’ decision on their “long term disposition.” Id. President Bukele has posted on social media that El Salvador “offered the United States of America the opportunity to outsource part of its prison system,” and that the United States “will pay a very low fee” to detain alleged TdA members at CECOT. See Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exhs. 8, 10. In addition, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has personally toured the CECOT facility and declared that transferring those previously on U.S. soil to CECOT is “one of the tools in our [the United States’] toolkit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people.” Id. at Exh. 9. Thus, “all publicly available information . . . indicates that the [U.S.] Government has ‘outsource[d] part of the [United States’] prison system’” to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia, 2025 WL 1021113, at *4 (Thacker, J., with King, J., concurring); see also Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exhs. 4–11.

Finally, the fact that Respondents have sought to “deliberately shield” the CECOT Subclass from seeking judicial review further supports habeas jurisdiction here. Abu Ali, 350 F. Supp. 2d at 54 ((petitioner “being held indefinitely, and without benefit of any legal proceeding,” weighs in favor of habeas jurisdiction) (citing Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 487–88 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring))).

ii. Venue is proper in this District because the CECOT Subclass is being detained abroad and outside any judicial district.

This Court is the proper venue for habeas petitions from class members detained in CECOT. See, e.g., Rasul, 542 U.S. at 484 (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “confers on the [D.C.] District Court jurisdiction to hear [noncitizens’] habeas corpus challenges to the legality of their detention at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base”). As a general rule, when a detainee is confined within the United States, his petition for writ of habeas corpus must name as a respondent the immediate custodian of the detainee, and the petition must be filed in the district where the detainee is confined. See, e.g., Gherebi v. Bush, 338 F. Supp. 2d 91, 95 (D.D.C. 2004). However, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rasul, 542 U.S. at 484, and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 n.16 (2004), “recognize an exception to the ‘immediate custodian’ and ‘district of confinement’ rules” where, as here, “the petitioner and his immediate custodian are outside the territory of any district court.” Abu Ali, 350 F. Supp. 2d at 44 (cleaned up). In these circumstances, “the petitioner may name as respondents any of his custodians (not just the immediate custodians) and may file the claim in the court that has jurisdiction over those respondents.” Id. Venue is proper here because the CECOT Subclass is in U.S. custody overseas, and Respondents, based in D.C., are responsible for outsourcing U.S. detention to CECOT.

iii. In the alternative, the Court has non-habeas jurisdiction to order Respondents to facilitate Petitioners’ return to the United States, just as the Supreme Court ordered in Abrego Garcia.

Regardless of whether the claims of the CECOT Subclass proceed in habeas or in equity and under the APA, this Court has the authority to order Respondents to facilitate their return. As demonstrated in Abrego Garcia, courts have the authority to order the government to “facilitate” Case 1:25-cv-00766-JEB Document 102-1 Filed 04/25/25 Page 10 of 43 10 the return of individuals who were “improperly sent to El Salvador.” 2025 WL 1077101 at *1; see also, e.g., Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) (removed individuals “can be afforded effective relief by facilitation of their return”); Abrego Garcia, 2025 WL 1021113, at *4 & n.7 (Thacker, J., with King, J., concurring) (observing that the government “can—and does—return wrongfully removed migrants as a matter of course” and collecting cases); Pls. Reply at 6–9 (ECF No. 70) (discussing courts’ power to fashion equitable remedies that extend extraterritorially and collecting cases).

b. Criminal Custody Subclass

i. Venue is proper in this District.

This Court is also the proper habeas venue for individuals in criminal custody to challenge their AEA designation. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 444 (immediate custodian rule does not apply when “challeng[ing] . . . future confinement”) (emphasis added); Braden, 410 U.S. at 495 (“So long as the custodian can be reached by service of process, the court can issue a writ[.]”). As part of the expansion of the “custody” requirement for habeas, courts “made it possible for prisoners in custody under one sentence to attack a sentence which they had not yet begun to serve.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 498. Such a habeas claim also “enable[s] a petitioner held in one State to attack a detainer lodged against him in another State.” Id.; see also Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 805 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc) (federal prisoner incarcerated outside the District of Columbia could maintain habeas action to determination of parole eligibility date by respondents in this District).

Over a month ago, the government stated that approximately 32 alleged members of Tren de Aragua subject to the Proclamation are in “criminal custody” with detainers on them. Cerna Decl. ¶ 6 (ECF No. 28-1). One such person is Petitioner T.C.I., who has received an AEA notice and is awaiting sentencing while in federal criminal custody in New Jersey. Exh. L (Schulman Decl.) ¶¶ 2-4. He and the rest of the Criminal Custody Subclass are challenging Respondents’ future exercise of AEA removal authority. Thus, regardless of where they are presently detained in criminal custody, members of this subclass may seek habeas relief from the Court here because it has jurisdiction over the Respondents who are responsible for implementing the AEA process. See Chatman-Bey, 864 F.2d at 813 (“[T]he physical presence of [the petitioner] within this district is not required for the federal court of this district to have jurisdiction over his habeas claim. Braden holds as much.”).

B. Petitioners’ Claims Are Justiciable.

The Court can resolve all of Petitioners’ claims in this case. As the Supreme Court recently confirmed, courts can review not only whether an individual “is in fact an alien enemy” under the AEA, but also “‘questions of interpretation and constitutionality’ of the Act.” J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 163, 172 n.17 (1948)). Thus, Petitioners’ claims that the AEA’s statutory predicates have not been met—because TdA is not a “nation or government,” and is not engaged in an “invasion” or “predatory incursion”—are fully within this Court’s jurisdiction.2

Ludecke itself reached the merits of the statutory question presented there: whether a “declared war” no longer existed within the meaning of the Act when “actual hostilities” had ceased—i.e., the “shooting war” had ended. 335 U.S. at 161, 166–70. The Court concluded, on the merits, that the statutory term “declared war” did not mean “actual hostilities,” and that once Congress declares war, the war continues for purposes of the AEA until the political branches declare it over. Id. at 170 & n.15. The “political judgment” that Ludecke declined to revisit, id. at 170, was simply the decision of Congress and the President not to formally declare the war over, id. at 169. Nowhere did Ludecke suggest that questions of statutory interpretation are beyond the courts’ competence. Indeed, four years later, the Court reversed a government World War II removal decision because “[t]he statutory power of the Attorney General to remove petitioner as an enemy alien ended when Congress terminated the war.” U.S. ex rel. Jaegeler v. Carusi, 342 U.S. 347, 348 (1952).

Consistent with Ludecke’s recognition (twice in the opinion) that questions about the “construction,” “interpretation,” and “validity” of the AEA are justiciable, 335 U.S. at 163, 171, courts have reviewed a range of issues concerning the meaning and application of the AEA’s terms. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Kessler v. Watkins, 163 F.2d 140, 143 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting the meaning of “foreign nation or government”); U.S. ex rel. Zdunic v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 858, 860–61 (2d Cir. 1943) (“[t]he meaning of [native, citizen, denizen, or subject] as used in the statute . . . presents a question of law”; interpreting meaning of “denizen” and remanding for hearing on disputed facts); U.S. ex rel. Gregoire v. Watkins, 164 F.2d 137, 138 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting the meaning of “native”; discussing alternatives to attain a “logically consistent construction of the statute”); U.S. ex rel. D’Esquiva v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 903, 905–07 (2d Cir. 1943) (interpreting the meaning of “native” and reviewing executive branch’s position on legal status of Austria); U.S. ex rel. Schwarzkopf v. Uhl, 137 F.2d 898, 903 (2d Cir. 1943) (interpreting the meaning of “citizen” and legal effects of Germany’s annexation of Austria); Bauer v. Watkins, 171 F.2d 492, 493 (2d Cir. 1948) (holding that the government bears the burden of proof of establishing the citizenship of “alien enemy”); Citizens Protective League v. Clark, 155 F.2d 290, 292, 295 (D.C. Cir. 1946) (reviewing whether Proclamation was within “the precise terms” of the AEA, and whether AEA was impliedly repealed); U.S. ex rel. Von Heymann v. Watkins, 159 F.2d 650, 653 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting “within the United States”; requiring executive branch to show that the petitioner “refuse[d] or neglect[ed] to depart” under Section 21); U.S. ex rel. Ludwig v. Watkins, 164 F.2d 456, 457 (2d Cir. 1947) (interpreting “refuse or neglect to depart” in Section 21 as creating a “right of voluntary departure” that functions as a “statutory condition precedent” to the government’s right to deport enemy aliens); U.S. ex rel. Hoehn v. Shaughnessy, 175 F.2d 116, 117–18 (2d Cir. 1949) (interpreting “reasonable time” to depart under Section 22). These kinds of questions—concerning the “construction” and “interpretation” of the AEA, Ludecke, 335 U.S. at 163, 171—are squarely at issue here.

Nor does the political question doctrine pose any barrier to this Court interpreting the statutory terms of the AEA. The Supreme Court foreclosed that possibility in J.G.G. and Ludecke, by instructing courts to resolve questions of the AEA’s “construction and validity” and “interpretation and constitutionality.” Id. at 163, 171; J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2; see also, e.g., J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682, at *6–8 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (Henderson, J., concurring) (rejecting government’s political-question arguments).

More generally, the political question doctrine is a “narrow exception” to courts’ jurisdiction, Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 195 (2012), and exists primarily to reinforce the separation of powers, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 210 (1962). But applying the doctrine here would undermine Congress’s constitutional authority, because it would render the limits that Congress wrote into the statute unenforceable. Petitioners are not aware of any Supreme Court decision that has found a statutory claim non-justiciable. See El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836, 855–56 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“The Supreme Court has never applied the political question doctrine in a case involving alleged statutory violations.”). Here, judicial review of Petitioners’ challenge preserves the separation of powers by ensuring that the President does not exceed the specific authority Congress delegated in the AEA. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637–38 (Jackson, J., concurring). Indeed, the AEA states that the President has the power to detain and remove alien enemies when there “is” a declared war or where there “is” an invasion or predatory incursion, thereby making clear that the President cannot simply find or deem there to be a war, invasion, or incursion. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) (allowing the President to suspend entry of noncitizens into the country where he “finds” it not in the “interests of the United States”).3

II. Petitioners Are Likely to Succeed on the Merits.

A. The Proclamation Is Unlawful.

i. Summary Removals Without Notice and a Meaningful Opportunity to Challenge “Alien Enemy” Designations Violate the AEA, Due Process, and the Supreme Court’s Ruling.

As the Supreme Court has now made clear, both the AEA and Due Process require Respondents to provide Petitioners with notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge their designation as alien enemies before removal is permissible under the Proclamation. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (“The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow [AEA detainees] to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”); see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *14–15 (Millett, J., concurring) (“At its most basic, due process requires notice of adverse governmental action, an opportunity to be heard, and the right to an unbiased decisionmaker.”).

As described above, Respondents have now disclosed that they give class members only 12 hours to express an intent to file a habeas petition, and only an additional 24 hours to actually file such a petition. Cisneros Decl. ¶ 11 & Notice Form (ECF Nos. 49 & 49-1), J.A.V. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-72 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2025) (ordered unsealed). That is patently insufficient. Indeed, a federal court in Colorado recently ordered that individuals detained under the Proclamation receive at least 21 days notice of the government’s intent to remove them. D.B.U. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-1163, 2025 WL 1163530, at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 22, 2025). That order further required that the notice be provided in a language the individual understand, inform the individual of their right to judicial review and to consult with counsel, and explain that the government seeks to remove them under the Proclamation. Id. That relief accords with longstanding principles of due process and reinforces that Respondents may not shortcut these requirements.

As during World War II, Defendants must provide notice to individuals at least 30 days before any attempt to remove them under the AEA. Notice must also be provided in a language that the individual understands, must state that they may seek judicial review, and must simultaneously be provided to undersigned class counsel. The notice must additionally include the factual basis for the individual’s alien enemy designation. See Ralls Corp. v. Comm. on Foreign Inv. in U.S., 758 F.3d 296, 318 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“Both the Supreme Court and this Court have recognized that the right to know the factual basis for [government] action and the opportunity to rebut the evidence supporting that action are essential components of due process.”). Especially given the possibility that Defendants may seek to remove individuals with as little as 24 hours’ notice, a preliminary injunction is warranted to ensure that Defendants do not remove individuals before they receive adequate notice and a reasonable opportunity to obtain judicial review, consistent with due process. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (“‘It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles [noncitizens] to due process of law’ in the context of removal proceedings.”).

The notice requirement flows not only from due process but from the AEA itself. That is clear from the Supreme Court’s understanding of the AEA in Ludecke, which recognized that individuals would have the opportunity to seek court review of their designation under the Act. See, e.g., 335 U.S. at 171 n.17. And it is clear from the statute, which affords individuals designated as alien enemies an opportunity to voluntarily depart the United States and to settle their affairs. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 21–22. Among other things, the President may lawfully remove noncitizens under the AEA only when those designated noncitizens “refuse or neglect to depart” voluntarily. See J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-766, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2025 WL 89040130, at *14 (D.D.C. Mar. 25, 2025) (citing 50 U.S.C. § 21). Indeed, even during World War II, courts interpreting the AEA consistently recognized that “alien enemies” retained the right to voluntary departure. See U.S. ex rel. Ludwig, 164 F.2d at 457 (Section 21 establishes a “right of voluntary departure”); U.S. ex rel. Von Heymann, 159 F.2d at 653 (similar); United States ex rel. Dorfler v. Watkins, 171 F.2d 431, 432 (2d Cir. 1948) (“An alien must be afforded the privilege of voluntary departure before the Attorney General can lawfully remove him against his will.”). Under Section 21, there is no exception to the general right of voluntary departure; it is a “statutory condition precedent” to removal. U.S. ex rel. Ludwig, 164 F.2d at 457. Section 22 establishes separate rights concerning the particular conditions for departure, with an exception for those “chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety.” 50 U.S.C. § 22. However, that exception cannot be invoked categorically. It instead requires individualized assessments: each noncitizen must specifically be “chargeable” to lose eligibility for the rights described in Section 22. Defendants have made no such individualized assessments here—much less provided any opportunity to contest such findings.

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

ii. The Proclamation Does Not Fall within the Statutory Bounds of the AEA.

The AEA has only ever been invoked in times of declared war: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. The government seeks to invoke this limited wartime authority to execute removals wholly untethered to any actual or imminent war or to the specific conditions Congress placed in the statute.

First, as Judge Henderson explained, J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *8–10, there is no “invasion” or “predatory incursion” upon the United States. Starting with contemporaneous dictionary definitions, as Judge Henderson did, id. at *8, it is clear that Congress understood those terms to mean a military intrusion into the territory of the United States. See Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. 69, 74 (2023) (“We start where we always do: with the text of the statute.”); see also Webster’s Dictionary, Invasion (1828) (underscoring that “invasion” is “particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force”); Johnson’s Dictionary, Invasion (1773) (“invasion” is a “[h]ostile entrance upon the right or possession of another; hostile encroachment” such as when “William the Conqueror invaded England”); Webster’s Dictionary, Predatory (1828) (“predatory” underscores that the purpose of a military party’s incursion was “plundering” or “pillaging”); Johnson’s Dictionary, Incursion (1773) (“[a]ttack” or “[i]nvasion without conquest”).

Other contemporary founding era usages of the terms are in accord. The Founders frequently used both “invasion” and “predatory incursion” in the military sense. See, e.g., Letter from Timothy Pickering to Alexander Hamilton (June 9, 1798) (reporting that “predatory incursions of the French” might result in “great destruction of property” but that the militia could repel them);4 Letter from George Washington to Thomas Jefferson (Feb. 6, 1781) (describing a British raid that destroyed military supplies and infrastructure in Richmond as a “predatory incursion”);5 Letter from George Washington to Nathanael Greene (Jan. 29, 1783) (“predatory incursions” by the British could be managed with limited cavalry troops);6 John Jay, Con’t Cong., Draft of an Address of the Convention of the Representatives of the State of New York to Their Constituents (Dec. 23, 1776) (describing the goal of British invasion as “the conquest of America”).7 Courts did the same. Huidekoper’s Lessee v. Douglass, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 1, 11 (1805) (“predatory incursions” by Native American nation led to “an Indian war”); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 10 (1831) (“incursions” by Native American nations led to retaliatory “war of extermination”); Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 545 (1832) (explaining that Pennsylvania’s royal charter included “the power of war” to repel “incursions” by “barbarous nations”). And “in every instance” that the term “invasion” or “invade” appears in the Constitution, it “is used in a military sense.” J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *9 (Henderson, J., concurring).

The interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis confirms Petitioners’ interpretation. That canon “avoid[s] ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.” Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528, 543 (2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts thus look to “[t]he words immediately surrounding” the language to be interpreted to ascertain the “more precise content” of that language. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, in this case, “invasion” and “predatory incursion” should be read in light of the immediately neighboring term, “declared war.” See Jarecki v. G.D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961) (term “gathers meaning from the words around it”). Doing so highlights the express military nature of their usage here—they are more specific than just any hostile entrance. Cf. Office of Legislative Affairs, Proposed Amendment to AEA, at 2 n.1 (Aug. 27, 1980) (AEA contemplates use by the President only “in situations where war is imminent”). This also comports with the common law understanding of the term “alien enemy” as subject of a foreign state at war with the United States. See Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 769 n.2 (1950) (collecting cases).

Indeed, the same Congress that passed the AEA also passed another law with strikingly similar statutory bounds. In response to concerns about impending war with France, the 1798 Congress authorized the President to raise troops “in the event of a declaration of war against the United States, or of an actual invasion of their territory, by a foreign power, or of imminent danger of such invasion.” Act of May 28, 1798, ch. 47, 1 Stat. 558. This language, which, as Judge Henderson noted, “bears more than a passing resemblance to the language of the AEA,” J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *9, makes plain that Congress was concerned about military incursions by the armed forces of a foreign nation.

Tellingly, the AEA requires that the predicate invasion or predatory incursion be “against the territory of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. And at the time of founding, actions “against the territory of the United States” were expressly understood to be military in nature. See Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 75, 131 (1807) (describing levying war against the United States as “a military enterprize [sic] . . . against any of the territories of the United States”); Wiborg v. United States, 163 U.S. 632, 633 (1896) (explaining that a group of seamen were charged with preparing for a “military expedition . . . against the territory and dominions of a foreign prince”).

If any doubt were left about the military nature of the terms, the historical context dispels it. See Truck Ins. Exch. v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc., 602 U.S. 268, 279 (2024) (considering the “historical context” of statute for purposes of interpretation). At the time of passage, the United States was preparing for possible war with France and already under attack in naval skirmishes. French ships were attacking U.S. merchant ships in United States waters. See, e.g., 7 Annals of Cong. 58 (May 1797) (promoting creation of a Navy to “diminish the probability of . . . predatory incursions” by France while recognizing that distance from Europe lessened the chance of “invasion”). Congress worried that these attacks against the territory of the United States were the precursor to all-out war with France. J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *1 (Henderson, J., concurring) (“In 1798, our fledgling Republic was consumed with fear . . . of external war with France.”). This “predatory violence” by a sovereign nation led, in part, to the AEA. See Act of July 7, 1798, ch. 67, 1 Stat. 578, 578 (“[W]hereas, under authority of the French government, there is yet pursued against the United States, a system of predatory violence”).

Under the statutory text, canons of construction, and historical context, then, “invasion” or “predatory incursion” are military actions by foreign governments that constitute or imminently precede acts of war. “Mass illegal migration” or criminal activities, as described in the Proclamation, plainly do not fall within the statutory boundaries. On its face, the Proclamation makes no findings that TdA is acting as an army or military force. Nor does the Proclamation assert that TdA is acting with an intent to gain a territorial foothold in the United States for military purposes. And the Proclamation makes no suggestion that the United States will imminently be at war with Venezuela. The oblique references to the TdA’s ongoing “irregular warfare” within the United States do not suffice because the Proclamation makes clear that it is referring to “mass illegal migration” and “crimes”—neither of which constitute war within the founding era understanding. The Proclamation asserts that TdA “commits brutal crimes” with the goal of “harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and . . . destabilizing democratic nations.” But these military actions are simply not “against the territory” of the United States. Indeed, if mass migration or criminal activities by some members of a particular nationality could qualify as an “invasion,” then virtually any group, hailing from virtually any country, could be deemed enemy aliens.

Second, by no stretch of the statutory language can TdA be deemed a “foreign nation or government.” Those terms refer to an entity that is defined by its possession of territory and legal authority. See Johnson’s Dictionary, Nation (1773) (“A people distinguished from another people; generally by their language, original, or government.”); Webster’s Dictionary, Nation (1828) (“A body of people inhabiting the same country or united under the same sovereign government; as the English nation”); Johnson’s Dictionary, Government (1773) (“An established state of legal authority.”). Applying the whole-text canon again, see supra, confirms that Congress had in mind state actors. First, the AEA presumes that a designated nation possesses treaty-making powers. See 50 U.S.C. § 22 (“stipulated by any treaty . . . between the United States and the hostile nation or government”). Nations—not criminal organizations—are the entities that enter into treaties. See, e.g., Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 505, 507 (2008) (treaty is “a compact between independent nations” and “agreement among sovereign powers”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540, 570–72 (1840) (similar). Second, when a “nation or government” is designated under the AEA, the statute unlocks power over that nation or government’s “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. Countries have “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects.” By contrast, criminal organizations, in the government’s own view, have “members.” Proclamation § 1 (“members of TdA”).

Historical context also reflects Congress’s intent to address conflicts with foreign sovereigns, not criminal gangs. See 5 Annals of Cong. 1453 (Apr. 1798) (“[W]e may very shortly be involved in war . . .”); John Lord O’Brian, Special Ass’t to the Att’y Gen., N.Y. State Bar Ass’n Annual Meeting: Civil Liberty in War Time, at 8 (Jan. 17, 1919) (“The [AEA] was passed by Congress . . . at a time when it was supposed that war with France was imminent.”). This comports with the founding-era, common law understanding of the term “alien enemy” as subject of a foreign state at war with the United States. See Johnson, 339 U.S. at 769 n.2 (collecting cases).

On this statutory element, the Proclamation again fails on its face. It never asserts that TdA is a foreign “nation” or “government.” For good reason. As a criminal gang, TdA possesses neither a defined territory nor any legal authority. Exh. A (Hanson Decl.) ¶¶ 13, 16; Exh. B (Antillano Decl.) ¶¶ 11, 13; Exh. C (Dudley Decl.) ¶ 22. The Proclamation asserts that “[o]ver the years,” the Venezuelan government has “ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations.” But the Proclamation notably does not say that TdA operates as a government in those regions. In fact, the Proclamation does not even specify that TdA currently controls any territory in Venezuela. And even as the Proclamation singles out certain Venezuelan nationals, it does not claim that Venezuela is invading the United States.8

Moreover, the Proclamation designates TdA “members” as subject to AEA enforcement—but “members” are not “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects” within the meaning of the statute. That glaring mismatch underscores that Defendants are attempting not only to use the AEA in an unprecedented way, but in a way that Congress never permitted—as a mechanism to address, in the government’s own words, a non-state actor. Venezuela has natives, citizens, and subjects, but TdA (not Venezuela) is designated under the proclamation. No amount of wordplay can avoid the obvious fact that Venezuela is the relevant country for statutory purposes here—and TdA is a non-state criminal organization.

The Court need go no further than finding that the Proclamation fails on its face. But even if this Court were going to look at the Proclamation’s conclusory “findings,” those findings cannot survive even the most minimally searching inquiry because they are simply incorrect as a factual matter.9 Experts who have spent years studying TdA are in accord that Venezuela is not directing, controlling, or otherwise influencing TdA’s actions in the United States. Exh. A (Hanson Decl.) ¶ 17 (“absolutely implausible” that Maduro regime controls TdA or that the two are intertwined); Exh. B (Antillano Decl.) ¶ 13 (no evidence that TdA “maintains stable connections with the Venezuelan state or that the Maduro regime directs its actions toward the United States”); Exh. C (Dudley Decl.) ¶¶ 23 (“no evidence that the Maduro regime has directed Tren de Aragua to migrate to the United States or to commit any crimes within the United States”). As one expert who has done numerous projects for the U.S. government, including on the topic of TdA, explained, the Proclamation’s characterization of the relationship between the Venezuelan state and TdA with respect to TdA’s activities in the United States is “simply incorrect.” Exh. C (Dudley Decl.) ¶¶ 5, 17–18. The President’s own intelligence agencies reached that same conclusion prior to his invocation of the AEA. See Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 17 (“shared judgment of the nation’s spy agencies” is “that [TdA] was not controlled by the Venezuelan government”).

The courts’ role in enforcing the bounds of congressional statutory predicates, like “predatory invasion” and “incursion” is critical. Congress passed the AEA within weeks of the Alien Friends Act (“AFA”). That second law gave the President broader discretion to deport any noncitizen who he considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” regardless of whether an invasion or war had occurred. An Act Concerning Aliens § 1, 1 Stat. 571 (“Alien Friends Act” or “AFA”). As such, the 1798 Congress clearly meant to grant the President two distinct powers—the power to remove the nationals of foreign enemy sovereign countries in times of a war or imminent war, and the power to remove particular dangerous noncitizens in times of war or peace. The government’s preferred interpretation of the AEA—where the President can remove allegedly dangerous people by deciding that virtually anything qualifies as a predatory incursion or invasion and any entity qualifies as a foreign nation or government, and no court can review those determinations—conflates the different statutory powers Congress conferred separately in the AEA and the AFA. But it would have made little sense for Congress to pass two laws within weeks of each other, unless those laws were meaningfully different. And the critical difference is, of course, the statutory limitations on when the President can use the AEA—it is a particular tool for a particular situation, namely the presence of nationals of a belligerent country during wartime, which simply does not apply to present circumstances. Moreover, treating the AEA like the AFA is especially untenable given that the AFA was “widely condemned as unconstitutional by Madison and many others” and quickly allowed to lapse. Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148, 185 (2018) (Gorsuch, J., concurring) (the AFA “is one of the most notorious laws in our country’s history”); see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *1 (Henderson, J., concurring) (AFA was “widely derided as unconstitutional”).

Finally, the government cannot elide these statutory bounds by pointing to the President’s inherent Article II power. The President has no constitutional power to unilaterally remove people. Under Article I, Congress holds plenary power over immigration, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983). The AEA operates as a specific delegation of authority from Congress to the President, a delegation that Congress limited to instances of war or imminent war by a foreign nation or government. Cf. Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 635–38 (Jackson, J., concurring). The President is not at liberty to exceed those statutory powers.

Under Justice Jackson’s Youngstown framework, the President is taking measures incompatible with the expressed will of Congress, and accordingly, he is acting as his “lowest ebb” of power. Id. at 637. Because he has no inherent constitutional power to unilaterally remove people, Congress’s powers prevail. Courts “can sustain exclusive Presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id. at 637–38. But there is simply no ground for ignoring the statutory constraints that Congress has established, nor for disabling Congress’s constitutional authority to legislate with respect to immigration and its own war powers. See Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940; Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 591 (2006) (discussing Congress’s distinct war powers).

iii. The Proclamation Violates the Specific Protections that Congress Established under the INA for Noncitizens Seeking Humanitarian Protection.

Summary removal under the AEA is unlawful for an additional independent reason: it fails to provide designated individuals with an opportunity to seek protection from persecution and torture. Congress enacted the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act (“FARRA”) to codify the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”) and to ensure that noncitizens have meaningful opportunities to seek protection from torture. See U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, art. 3, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, at 20 (1988); Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 § 2242(a), Pub. L. No. 105-277, Div. G. Title XXI, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1231 notes) (implementing CAT); C.F.R. §§ 208.16 to 208.18 (FARRA procedure). CAT categorically prohibits returning a noncitizen to any country where they would more likely than not face torture. See 8 U.S.C. §1231 note. These protections apply regardless of the mechanism for removal.

The D.C. Circuit recently addressed a similar issue in Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, reconciling the Executive’s authority under a public-health statute, 42 U.S.C. § 265, with CAT’s anti-torture protections. 27 F.4th 718 (D.C. Cir. 2022). That case is “on all fours” with this one. J.G.G., 2025 WL 890401, at *15. The D.C. Circuit held that because § 265 was silent about where noncitizens could be expelled, and CAT explicitly addressed that question, no conflict existed. Both statutes could—and therefore must—be given effect. Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 721, 731–32 (citing Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497, 510 (2018) (“When . . . confronted with two Acts of Congress allegedly touching on the same topic,” a court “must strive to give effect to both.”) (cleaned up)).

The AEA can similarly be harmonized with other subsequently enacted statutes specifically designed to protect noncitizens seeking asylum and withholding because of feared persecution. See Refugee Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-212, 94 Stat. 102 (1980) (asylum and withholding); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 (asylum), 1231(b)(3) (withholding of removal). Congress has unequivocally declared that “[a]ny alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States . . . irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1). Similarly, the withholding of removal explicitly bars returning a noncitizen to a country where their “life or freedom” would be threatened based on a protected ground. Id. § 1231(b)(3)(A). “In understanding this statutory text, ‘a page of history is worth a volume of logic.’” Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 472 (2023) (quoting New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921)). These humanitarian protections were enacted in the aftermath of World War II, when the United States joined other countries in committing to never again turn our backs on people fleeing persecution and torture. Sadako Ogata, U.N. High Comm’r for Refugees, Address at the Holocaust Memorial Museum (Apr. 30, 1997).10 A President invoking the AEA cannot simply sweep away these protections.

Indeed, the AEA must be read in the context of the INA. Since the last invocation of the AEA more than eighty years ago, Congress carefully specified the procedures by which noncitizens may be removed from the United States. And the INA leaves little doubt that its procedures must apply to every removal, unless otherwise specified by that statute. See NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 580 U.S. 288, 305 (2017) (“specific governs the general” in statutory construction). It directs: “Unless otherwise specified in this chapter,” the INA’s comprehensive scheme provides “the sole and exclusive procedure for determining whether an alien may be admitted to the United States, or if the alien has been so admitted, removed from the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3); see also United States v. Tinoso, 327 F.3d 864, 867 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Deportation and removal must be achieved through the procedures provided in the INA.”). This language makes clear that Congress intended for the INA to “supersede all previous laws with regard to deportability.” S. Rep. No. 82-1137, at 30 (Jan. 29, 1952).11

Congress enacted these procedures with the full awareness that alien enemies were subject to removal in times of war or invasion—in fact, the AEA had been invoked just a few years prior to passage of the 1952 INA. See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990) (courts presume Congress drafts statutes with full knowledge of existing law). But Congress declined to carve out AEA removals as an exception from standard immigration procedures, even as it expressly provided exceptions for other groups of noncitizens, including noncitizens who pose security risks. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. (establishing fast-track proceedings for noncitizens posing national security risks).

Ignoring the INA’s role as the “sole and exclusive” procedure for determining whether a noncitizen may be removed, Respondents have refused to commit to providing class members—many of whom have strong claims—with an opportunity to assert their rights under any humanitarian statute, as required under the INA. See, e.g., G.F.F. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-2886, ECF No. 41 at *1 (“Petitioners are not entitled to seek asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or voluntary departure, and this Court cannot review a determination that removal will not violate the Convention Against Torture.”). And even if Petitioners could apply, the opportunity is meaningless insofar as Respondents withhold information about the country to which they will be removed. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 890401, at *15. But summary removals to the horrific conditions in Salvadoran prisons are precisely what Congress enacted these protections to prevent.

B. Petitioners’ Detention at CECOT Violates the Constitution and the AEA.

i. The AEA Does Not Permit Petitioners’ Post-Removal Imprisonment.

Class members’ post-removal detention in El Salvador violates the AEA. The statute does not authorize the President to imprison alien enemies once they have been removed from the United States. The statute’s text, structure, and history make this clear.

The statute’s text indicates that the President’s power culminates with removal. The AEA authorizes a series of actions the executive branch may take with respect to alien enemies residing in the United States: alien enemies are liable to be “apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. The statute goes on to describe these escalating steps—the President may first “direct the conduct to be observed” by alien enemies in the United States; then set “the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject” and “upon what security their residence shall be permitted”; and finally, “provide for the removal” of those who refuse or neglect to depart. Id. Removal is the culminating action—once an alien enemy is removed from the United States, there is no longer any basis to detain them under the Act.

The AEA’s structure confirms this reading. See Mont v. United States, 587 U.S. 514, 524 (2019) (“whole-text canon” requires consideration of “the entire text”). Section 24 permits U.S. marshals to “caus[e] a removal of such alien [enemy] outside of the territory of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 24. It does not contemplate that the marshal can detain the individual once he is deposited outside of the territory of the United States. Similarly, the right of voluntary departure inherent in Section 21, see supra, confirms that Congress authorized only measures to control the actions of alien enemies within the United States—not their imprisonment abroad. Congress specifically provided that alien enemies must be afforded the opportunity to depart the country voluntarily, free of further restraint, and gave the executive branch no power to restrain or confine them once they are no longer in the country.

The AEA’s historical context leads to the same conclusion. The AEA reflected contemporaneous fears that alien enemies present in the United States would foment discord or otherwise support the enemy state. See 5 Annals of Cong. 1575 (citing fear of “the crowd of spies and inflammatory agents” present in the United States); Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson (June 14, 1813) (“French spies then swarmed in our cities and in the country” and that “to check these was the design of the [AEA].”)12; see also 65 Annals of Cong. 4279, 4425 (expressing concern about the “expressions and activities” of German-born female spies living in the United States in amending the AEA to cover women). These fears were ultimately about “the residence of alien enemies existing in the bosom of the country”—not outside of it. 5 Annals of Cong. 1581. Once removed, the risk posed by alien enemies dissipated. Indeed, the Act has never been used to detain anyone after removal outside of the United States, even during an actual war.

At bottom, the AEA authorizes the President to apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove alien enemies when the statute’s conditions are met—but it does not authorize the President to imprison alien enemies in foreign prisons after their removal.

ii. Petitioners’ Imprisonment in CECOT Violates Their Substantive Due Process Rights.

The government’s imprisonment of Petitioners in CECOT, detaining them under extreme conditions of isolation and completely cut off from the world, constitutes impermissible punishment in violation of the Due Process Clause. Immigration detention, including detention under the AEA, is supposed to be “undisputedly civil—i.e., non-punitive in nature.” R.I.L-R. v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 187 (D.D.C. 2015); United States ex rel. Jaegeler v. Carusi, 342 U.S. 347 (1952) (per curiam) (President’s AEA powers end when Congress terminates war). Those held in such detention therefore have a due process right not to be subjected to any “condition, practice, or policy [that] constitutes punishment.” Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 583 (1984).

The test of whether civil detention “amount[s] to punishment” is if it is “imposed for the purpose of punishment,” or is not “rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose,” or “appears excessive in relation to that purpose.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 538, 561 (1979); see Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 398–99 (2015). Here, the government’s continued detention of the CECOT Subclass constitutes punishment in at least three ways.

First, the U.S. government is detaining people at CECOT for the purpose of punishment—indeed, with “an expressed intent to punish.” Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 398 (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 538)); see also Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168 (1963) (“punitive nature of the sanction” comes into play “on a finding of scienter”). For instance, during her tour of CECOT in late March 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem recorded and aired a video of herself from inside the prison, standing in front of a crowded cell, to project this message: “If you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face. . . . Know that this facility is one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use.” Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 19. Her accompanying post on X.com stated: “President Trump and I have a clear message to criminal illegal aliens: LEAVE NOW. If you do not leave, we will hunt you down, arrest you, and you could end up in this El Salvadoran prison.” Id.; see also infra Section II.B(iii) (U.S. government statements characterizing CECOT Subclass as criminals and CECOT detention as a means of accountability).

Second, and relatedly, there is no legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose behind the detention of Petitioners at CECOT. Officials make no attempt to hide the fact that this detention is designed to frighten immigrants, deter migration, induce self-deportation, and punish those at the facility. See, e.g., Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 19 (Secretary Noem stating that the purpose of detention at CECOT is “to incarcerate them and have consequences”); id. at Exh. 14 (President Trump thanking Bukele for “taking the criminals” and describing CECOT, sarcastically, as “a wonderful place to live”); id. at Exh. 17 (White House press release quoting that “President Trump gave illegal gang members a one-way ticket to the world’s more feared prison”); id. (White House press release quoting “Salvadoran prisons . . . are much worse for them than anything they faced in Venezuela”). But multiple courts have held that detaining people to send a message of deterrence and to encourage self-deportation are impermissible purposes in the civil context, not rationally related to any non-penological goal. See Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407, 412 (2002) (explaining that civil detention cannot be a “mechanism for retribution or general deterrence—functions properly those of criminal law”); R.I.L.-R, 80 F. Supp. 3d at 188–89 (striking down detention policy where “justification urged by the Government” was “deterrence of mass migration” because the lack of connection between the government’s interest and person’s detention “was out of line with analogous Supreme Court decisions”); Aracely R. v. Nielsen, 319 F. Supp. 3d 110, 153 (D.D.C. 2018) (holding that policy of considering immigration deterrence when making parole decisions violated the agency’s own directive); Jacinto-Castanon de Nolasco v. U.S.I.C.E., 319 F. Supp. 3d 491, 502 (D.D.C. 2018) (“no compelling or legitimate governmental objective” served by detaining parents away from their children to “deter[] immigration”). Because frightening immigrants, deterring migration, inducing self-deportation, and punishing immigrants are not legitimate grounds for civil detention, the detention of the CECOT Subclass violates due process.

Third, the government has subjected immigrant detainees at CECOT to “excessive” punitive conditions, in violation of their due process rights as civil detainees. Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 398 (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 561). See generally Exh. D (Bishop Decl.); Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.). Civil immigrant detainees “are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish.” Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 322 (1982); C.G.B. v. Wolf, 464 F. Supp. 3d 174, 210 (D.D.C. 2020) (“Because civil immigration detainees . . . have not been convicted of any present crime, they may not be subjected to punishment of any description.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); D.A.M. v. Barr, 474 F. Supp. 3d. 45, 63 (D.D.C. 2020) (same). But the individuals detained at CECOT have been subjected to conditions that are much worse than those at ICE detention facilities in the United States and indeed, those for prisoners serving criminal sentences in most places in the world. The government is thus acting with deliberate indifference with knowledge and disregard of the excessive risk to the safety of detainees at CECOT. Kingsley, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objectively unreasonable use of force is unconstitutional punishment).

As described below, detainees at CECOT are subject to torture—including regular beatings, waterboarding, and use of implements on fingers to force confessions—in addition to ill treatment, overcrowding, lack of access to counsel, lack of access to healthcare and food, and physical abuse by both prison personnel and gangs. Exh. D (Bishop Decl.) ¶¶ 21-22, 25-35, 37, 40-41; Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.) ¶¶ 2-6, 8-12, 15-17. That is more than sufficient to establish a due process violation. Moreover, detainees’ complete lack of access to the outside world, especially counsel, is indisputably worse than the level of access to legal resources provided in ICE detention facilities, federal prisons, or to law-of-war detainees at Guantánamo. Conditions in civil detention that are equivalent to or more restrictive than detention in criminal custody, like they are here, are presumptively unconstitutional. See Ams. for Immigrant Just. v. DHS Sec., No. 22-3118, 2023 WL 1438376, at *11–12 (D.D.C. Feb. 1, 2023) (collecting cases). Beyond the complete lack of access to counsel, the conditions at CECOT plainly do not meet the minimum standards for an individual serving a criminal sentence, let alone a civil immigration detainee. See, e.g., Inmates of Attica v. Rockefeller, 453 F.2d 12, 22–23 (2d Cir. 1971) (abusive conduct by prison guards “far exceeded” what is tolerated for “defenseless prisoners” and violated Eighth Amendment); Baker v. Dist. of Columbia, 326 F.3d 1302, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (deliberate indifference to prisoner’s serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment); C.G.B. v. Wolf, 464 F. Supp. 3d 174, 210 (D.D.C. 2020) (Constitution requires government to ensure “reasonable safety” of civil immigration detainees); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994) (“prison officials have a duty . . . to protect prisoners from violence at the hands of other prisoners”); Harris v. Angelina Cnty., 31 F.3d 331, 335 (5th Cir. 1994) (“overcrowding had resulted in a denial of basic human needs of the jail population”); Caldwell v. Caesar, 150 F. Supp. 2d 50, 65 (D.D.C. 2001) (finding the “depriv[ation] . . . of adequate food necessary to maintain [a prisoner’s] health” could “constitute cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment).

iii. Petitioners’ Imprisonment at CECOT Constitutes Criminal Punishment in Violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.

In addition, imprisonment at CECOT, based on unproven accusations of criminal conduct, constitutes criminal punishment in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. As a result, the inhumane conditions Petitioners face at CECOT also violate the Eighth Amendment.

Confinement at CECOT is an “infamous punishment”—the kind the Supreme Court long ago found to be criminal in nature. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 234, 237 (1896). Moreover, in assessing whether a sanction is civil or criminal, if the intent is to impose punishment, “that ends the inquiry.” Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 92 (2003).13 Other hallmarks of criminal punishment can include a finding that a person “committed acts that violate a criminal law,” “the stigma inherent in such a determination,” and a resulting “deprivation of liberty.” Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 529 (1975).

Respondents’ intent to punish is unmistakable—based on their choice of CECOT, which is a maximum security prison not a civil detention center, and based on their own statements. For example, President Trump has accused Petitioners of being “vicious, violent, and demented criminals, many of them deranged murderers,” and he thanked President Bukele for “taking the criminals that were so stupidly allowed, by the Crooked Joe Biden Administration, to enter our Country.”14 Similarly, the White House Press Secretary has described detention of Petitioners in El Salvador as costing “pennies on the dollar in comparison to the cost of life, and the cost it would impose on the American taxpayer to house these terrorists in maximum security prisons here in the United States of America.” Louis Casiano, US Paid El Salvador to Take Venezuelan Tren de Aragua Members: ‘Pennies on the Dollar,’ White House Says, Fox News (Mar. 17, 2025).15 And the CECOT Subclass’s ongoing imprisonment in El Salvador has been expressly justified by claims that they must be punished as alleged criminals. Tom Homan, the current administration’s “border czar,” bluntly acknowledged that Respondents’ purpose is to punish Petitioners for allegedly “killing thousands of Americans” through drug trafficking and violence: “I see the video that President Bukele put out. It was a beautiful thing. These people are going to be held accountable.16 See also Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 19 (thanking El Salvador for accepting alleged TdA members and for “incarcerat[ing] them and to have consequences for the violence that they have perpetuated”).

The other hallmarks of criminal punishment are obvious as well. Respondents have made summary determinations that the CECOT Petitioners are “terrorists” and members of a “criminal organization,” with no due process. See AEA Proclamation. The weight and stigma of those conclusory findings have only been amplified by repeated accusations of criminality by officials including President Trump. See supra. And Petitioners face a dire—and potentially indefinite—loss of liberty. Under these circumstances, Petitioners are functionally criminal detainees, subject to a one-year, renewable term of imprisonment in some of the most punitive conditions imaginable.17

Yet Petitioners have not been afforded any of the fundamental constitutional protections that accompany the imposition of criminal punishment—such as the right to notice of the government’s allegations, the right to counsel, the right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the protection against double jeopardy. See, e.g., In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 12–14, 36, 42–57 (1967); Breed, 421 U.S. at 528–31; In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 365–66 (1970). When a person has not been convicted of a crime, “he may not be punished.” Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992) (citing Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 369 (1983)). But the government’s own statements leave no question that Petitioners’ imprisonment at CECOT is intended to inflict “an infamous punishment, and hence conflicts with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution, which declare that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, and that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Wong Wing, 163 U.S. at 234, 237.

Finally, because the CECOT Subclass is subject to criminal confinement, the horrific conditions they face violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 833. Under the Eighth Amendment, officials have duties, ranging from avoiding the “use of excessive physical force” to “provid[ing] humane conditions of confinement” including “adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care,” as well as ensuring “reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates.” Id. at 833 (citing cases). But as discussed above, the extreme conditions and abuse that Petitioners face at CECOT fall well below the constitutional floor for those serving criminal sentences. As such, Respondents have violated the CECOT Subclass’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

III. Respondents’ Abuse of the AEA Has Caused and Will Continue to Cause Petitioners Irreparable Harm.

In the absence of preliminary relief, Petitioners will face—or will continue to face—life-threatening conditions, persecution, and torture in places like El Salvador. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *5 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (“[I]nmates in Salvadoran prisons are ‘highly likely to face immediate and intentional life-threatening harm at the hands of state actors.’”). And while removal does not by itself necessarily constitute irreparable harm, Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009), these are hardly run-of-the-mill removals. Petitioners’ removals constitute grave and immediate irreparable harm because of what they are already enduring or what awaits them in a Salvadoran prison. See generally Exh. D (Bishop Decl.); Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.). Prison conditions in El Salvador are “harsh and life threatening.” Bishop Decl. ¶ 21; see also Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.) ¶ 4. Prison officials there engage in widespread physical abuse, including waterboarding, electric shocks, using implements of torture on detainees’ fingers, forcing detainees into ice water for hours, and hitting or kicking detainees so severely that it causes broken bones or ruptured organs. Exh. D (Bishop Decl.) ¶¶ 21, 33, 37, 39, 41; Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.) ¶¶ 8, 10, 17.

People in detention in El Salvador also face psychological harm, including solitary confinement in pitch dark cells or being forced to stay in a cell with the body of a fellow prisoner who was recently beaten to death. Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.) ¶ 3; Exh. D (Bishop Decl.) ¶ 39. In fact, El Salvador creates these horrific conditions intentionally to terrify people. Exh. D (Bishop Decl.) ¶ 22; See also Huisha-Huisha, 27 F.4th at 733 (irreparable harm exists where petitioners “expelled to places where they will be persecuted or tortured”); Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that removal to a country where one faces harm constitutes irreparable injury); Tesfamichael v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 169, 178 (5th Cir. 2005) (“irreparable harm” where petitioners face “forced separation and likely persecution” “if deported”); Demjanjuk v. Holder, 563 F.3d 565, 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (granting stay for noncitizen who asserted removal would violate CAT). And Petitioners may never get out of these prisons. See Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 20; see also Exh. E (Goebertus Decl.) ¶ 3 (quoting the Salvadorean government that people held in CECOT “will never leave”); id. (“Human Rights Watch is not aware of any detainees who have been released from that prison.”).

And even if Respondents instead remove Petitioners to Venezuela, they face serious harm there, too. In fact, many Petitioners fled Venezuela for the very purpose of escaping the persecution they faced in Venezuela and have pending asylum cases on that basis. For example, Petitioner Hernandez Romero has already been targeted for both his sexual orientation and his refusal to promote government propaganda. Exh. G (D.A.R.H. Decl.) ¶ 2. And returning to Venezuela labeled as a gang member by the United States government only increases the danger, as they will face heightened scrutiny from Venezuela’s security agency, and possibly even violence from rivals of TdA. Exh. A (Hanson Decl.) ¶ 28.

Not only do Petitioners face grave harm, they do so without having received adequate notice and due process. See Huisha-Huisha, 560 F. Supp. 3d at 172 (finding irreparable harm where plaintiffs “face the threat of removal prior to receiving any of the protections the immigration laws provide”); P.J.E.S. ex rel. Escobar Francisco v. Wolf, 502 F. Supp. 3d 492, 517 (D.D.C. 2020) (irreparable injury exists where class members were “threatened with deportation prior to receiving any of the protections the immigration laws provide”); see also supra (discussing the lack of notice and meaningful process). Critically, moreover, without meaningful process, there is a dangerously high risk that the government will continue to deport class members who are not in fact members of TdA to foreign prisons and locations where they face grave harm.

IV. The Balance of Equities and Public Interest Weigh Decidedly in Favor of a Preliminary Injunction Order.

The balance of equities and the public interest factors merge in cases against the government. Nken, 556 U.S. at 435. Here, the balance of hardships overwhelmingly favors Petitioners. The public has a critical interest in preventing wrongful removals to places where individuals will face persecution and torture. Id. at 436 (describing the “public interest in preventing aliens from being wrongfully removed, particularly to countries where they are likely to face substantial harm”). Conversely, Respondents can make no comparable claim to harm from an injunction. League of Women Voters v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (describing the “substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations” (citation omitted)); Minney v. U.S. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 130 F. Supp. 3d 225, 236 (D.D.C. 2015) (“The public interest is, of course, best served when government agencies act lawfully,” and “the inverse is also true”, explaining that the public interest is harmed when the government acts unlawfully). Respondents, moreover, will retain the ability to prosecute criminal offenses, detain noncitizens, and remove noncitizens under existing statutory immigration laws. See e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii) (noncitizens barred from asylum if convicted of particularly serious crime or if “serious reasons to believe” they “committed a serious nonpolitical crime” outside the U.S.); 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii)-(iii) (same for withholding); see also 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c), 1231(a)(6). And fundamentally, the public maintains a strong interest in avoiding overbroad and vague invocations of the AEA that reach outside its scope and history to curtail the most the most basic liberties of the population. See Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464 (2020).

V. The Court Should Not Require Petitioners to Provide Security.

The Court should not require a bond under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The “courts in this Circuit have found the Rule ‘vests broad discretion in the district court to determine the appropriate amount of an injunction bond,’ including the discretion to require no bond at all.” Simms v. Dist. of Columbia, 872 F. Supp. 2d 90, 107 (D.D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted). District courts routinely exercise this discretion to require no security in cases brought by indigent and/or incarcerated people, and in the vindication of immigrants’ rights. See, e.g., P.J.E.S., 502 F. Supp. 3d at 520.

CONCLUSION

The motion for a preliminary injunction should be granted.

Dated: April 24, 2025

Noelle Smith
Oscar Sarabia Roman
My Khanh Ngo Evelyn Danforth-Scott
Cody Wofsy Cecillia D. Wang (D.D.C. Bar No. CA00042)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
425 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 343-0770
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lee Gelernt Lee Gelernt (D.D.C. Bar No. NY0408)
Daniel Galindo (D.D.C. Bar No. NY035)
Ashley Gorski
Patrick Toomey
Sidra Mahfooz
Omar Jadwat
Hina Shamsi (D.D.C. Bar No. MI0071)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2660
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Arthur B. Spitzer (D.C. Bar No. 235960) Scott Michelman (D.C. Bar No. 1006945)
Aditi Shah (D.C. Bar No. 90033136)*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
529 14th Street, NW, Suite 722
Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 457-0800
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

*Admission to DDC Bar pending

Somil B. Trivedi (D.C. Bar No. 1617967)
Bradley Girard (D.C. Bar No. 1033743)
Michael Waldman (D.C. Bar No. 414646)
Sarah Rich
Skye Perryman (D.C. Bar No. 984573)
Audrey Wiggins (DC Bar No. 482877)
Christine L. Coogle (DC Bar No. 1738913)
Pooja Boisture
DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION
P.O. Box 34553
Washington, DC 20043
Phone: (202) 448-9090
Fax: (202) 796-4426
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Petitioners-Plaintiffs

_______________

Notes:

1 Available at https://perma.cc/ZS8M-ZQHJ.

2 The Supreme Court also held that noncitizens subject to the AEA must receive certain procedural protections. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1–2 (addressing plaintiffs’ “due process rights”). Petitioners’ substantive and procedural claims are therefore all justiciable.

3 As noted at the TRO hearing, Petitioners do not seek to enjoin the President, but he remains a proper defendant because, at a minimum, Petitioners may obtain declaratory relief against him. See, e.g., Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. Nixon, 492 F.2d 587, 616 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (concluding that court had jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus against the President but “opt[ing] instead” to issue declaration).

4 https://perma.cc/H2UY-XTTK.

5 https://perma.cc/6UBY-6PRB.

6 https://perma.cc/TY8Y-MTMA.

7 https://perma.cc/K4SX-4KYB.

8 And, as the President’s own CIA Director recently testified, the intelligence community has no assessment that says the U.S. is at war with or being invaded by Venezuela. See National Security and Intelligence Officials Testify on Global Threats at 57:59–58:10, C-SPAN (Mar. 26, 2025), https://www.cspan.org/program/house-com ... ats/657380 (Q: “Does the intelligence community assess that we are currently at war or being invaded by the nation of Venezuela?” A: “We have no assessment that says that.”); also available at https://www.cspan.org/program/house-com ... ats/657380.

9 Where necessary, courts during World War II routinely examined the facts to ensure that the AEA’s statutory limits on presidential power were observed. See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Kessler, 163 F.2d at 143 (reviewing petitioner’s factual contention that the German government had ceased to exist after it surrendered and thus was no longer a “foreign nation or government” under the AEA); United States ex rel. D’Esquiva, 137 F.2d at 905–07 (reviewing the U.S. government’s full course of conduct to ascertain whether and when it had officially recognized Austria’s annexation by Germany; remanding for additional factfinding); U.S. ex rel. Zdunic, 137 F.2d at 860–61 (remanding for fact-finding on statutory predicate; cf. Al-Alwi v. Trump, 901 F.3d 294, 298–300 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (evaluating whether “active hostilities” continued under the AUMF after September 11th; concluding that “[t]he record so manifests here”).

10 https://perma.cc/X5YF-K6EU.

11 One of the processes otherwise specified in the INA is the Alien Terrorist Removal Procedure at 8 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. The Attorney General may opt to use these proceedings when he or she has classified information that a noncitizen is an “alien terrorist.” Id. § 1533(a)(1). But even that process requires notice, a public hearing, provision of counsel for indigents, the opportunity to present evidence, and individualized review by an Article III judge. Id. § 1532(a), 1534(a)(2), (b), (c)(1)-(2). And the government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the noncitizen is subject to removal as an “alien terrorist.” Id. § 1534(g).

12 https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22ali ... =&r=38&sr=.

13 Moreover, even if the stated intent is civil, courts must further examine whether the scheme is “so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State's] intention to deem it civil.” Smith, 538 U.S. at 92.

14 Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 16; id. at Exh. 14.

15 Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 7.

16 Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Decl.), at Exh. 21.

17 Exh. M (Sarabia Roman Dec.), at Exh. 20.

[admin]

Daily Show Mon, Apr 28, 2025
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
Apr 28, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/shows/2025/4/28

Headlines:
HeadlinesApril 28, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/4/28/headlines

U.S. Airstrike Kills 68 African Migrants Jailed in Yemen; 800 U.S. Strikes Since March 15
Apr 28, 2025

At least 68 African migrants have been killed in a U.S. airstrike in Yemen. Houthi media outlets report the U.S. bombed a detention center in the western province of Saada. Another 47 migrants were injured in the attack. A separate U.S. attack killed at least eight people in Sana’a. The Pentagon says it had carried out 800 strikes on Yemen since March 15 after Houthi fighters vowed to resume targeting ships in the Red Sea in an attempt to pressure Israel to end its war and blockade on Gaza.

At Opening of ICJ Hearing, Israel Accused of Using Aid as “Weapon of War”
Apr 28, 2025

In Gaza, Israeli attacks have killed 23 Palestinians so far today after Israeli forces killed at least 53 people on Sunday, including six who were killed when Israel bombed a cafe near the Nuseirat and Bureij refugee camps. Meanwhile, the World Food Programme has announced it has run out of food to distribute in Gaza due to Israel’s two-month-long blockade.

Earlier today, the International Court of Justice began a five-day hearing on Israel’s obligations to provide aid to Gaza. Palestinian envoy Ammar Hijazi accused Israel of using humanitarian aid as “weapons of war.”

Ammar Hijazi: “That’s really the heart of why Palestine and over 40 other states are addressing the court today. It is not about the number of aid trucks Israel is or is not allowing into the Occupied Palestinian Territories, especially Gaza. It is not about Israel destroying the — it is about Israel destroying the fundamentals of life in Palestine while it blocks U.N. and other humanitarians from providing lifesaving aid to the population. It is about Israel unraveling fundamental principles of international law, including their obligations under the U.N. Charter. It is about Israel turning Palestine, and particularly Gaza, into a mass grave for Palestinians and those coming to their aid.”

Lebanon Warns Israel Is Undermining Regional Stability After Attack on Beirut Suburb
Apr 28, 2025

On Sunday, Israeli fighter jets bombed Beirut’s southern suburbs again. The U.N. and Lebanese officials condemned the strike, with Lebanon’s president warning Israel’s actions are undermining stability in the region.

Suspect Charged in Vancouver Car Ramming That Killed 11 People at Filipino Culture Festival
Apr 28, 2025

In Canada, police have charged a man with murder for the car-ramming death of 11 people during a music festival in Vancouver Saturday evening. It took place during the annual Lapu Lapu festivities, which celebrates the Filipino community and culture. The victims ranged in age from 5 to 65 years old. Dozens of people were wounded. This is a local community member.

Community member: “It’s kind of like you can be strong and weak at the same time, and, you know, the efforts with gathering with not just the Filipino community, but everybody. And if you’ve been to a Filipino event or organizer, there is a saying called Isang Bagsak, and it means when one falls, we all fall. But again, when one rises, we all rise.”

No motive for the mass killing has been identified, but authorities say the suspect, 30-year-old Kai-Ji Adam Lo, has a history of mental health-related interactions with Vancouver police.

Canada Votes in Pivotal Snap Elections, with Liberal Mark Carney Expected to Remain in Power
Apr 28, 2025

Canadian voters today will decide between the ruling Liberal Party, now led by Justin Trudeau’s successor, Prime Minister Mark Carney, and Pierre Poilievre, who leads the Conservatives. Poilievre had been leading in the polls when Trudeau stepped down in January, but Carney’s defiant response to Trump’s tariffs and his threats to annex Canada have helped propel the Liberals’ chances of staying in power.

Pope Francis Remembered for His Antiwar Messages During Vatican Funeral
Apr 28, 2025

On Saturday, hundreds of thousands of mourners gathered at the Vatican for the funeral of Pope Francis, who died last week at the age of 88. During the eulogy, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re remembered Pope Francis as a pope of the people and a peacemaker.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re: “Faced with the raging wars of recent years, with their inhuman horrors and countless deaths and destruction, Pope Francis insistently raised his voice, imploring peace and calling for reason and honest negotiation to find possible solutions. War, he said, is only the death of people and the destruction of homes, hospitals and schools.”

Putin Announces Unilateral 3-Day Ceasefire; Trump and Zelensky Meet Ahead of Pope Francis Funeral
Apr 28, 2025

More than 50 world leaders attended the pope’s funeral, including President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The two met at the Vatican prior to the funeral. The meeting came a day after Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. On Sunday, Trump expressed disappointment with Putin for continuing to attack Ukraine while refusing to agree to a U.S.-brokered deal to end the war in Ukraine.

Earlier today, Putin announced a unilateral three-day ceasefire in Ukraine beginning on May 8. On Sunday, Russia fired nearly 150 drones at Ukraine, killing at least four people. Meanwhile, North Korea has confirmed for the first time that it had sent combat troops to fight alongside Russian forces.

FBI Arrests Milwaukee Judge Accused of Helping an Immigrant Evade Authorities
Apr 28, 2025

The Trump administration is escalating its attacks on judges. On Friday, FBI agents arrested a county judge in Milwaukee, Hannah Dugan, who was charged with obstruction and concealing an individual from arrest. The FBI accused her of allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant avoid arrest inside a Wisconsin courthouse. The judge’s arrest was widely criticized. Wisconsin Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin said, “This action fits into the deeply concerning pattern of this president’s lawless behavior and undermining courts and Congress’s checks on his power.”

FBI Director Kash Patel is facing accusations he broke DOJ policy by posting a photo online of Judge Dugan in handcuffs.

On Saturday, protesters rallied in Milwaukee to protest the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants and the arrest of Judge Dugan.

Casey Serrano: “We are out here today with a message for the FBI, for the DOJ, for President Trump himself. And that message is: Drop the charges, stop the raids, stop the deportations. We are also out here with a message for Judge Hannah Dugan. And that message is: We have your back.”

In related news, federal agents in New Mexico have arrested former Judge Jose Luis Cano and his wife. They have been accused of tampering with evidence linked to a former tenant who the government claims is a member of a Venezuelan gang.

U.S. Deports Three U.S. Citizen Children to Honduras
Apr 28, 2025

The Trump administration has deported to Honduras three U.S. citizen children, including a 4-year-old who is actively receiving treatment for a rare form of stage 4 cancer. The boy was removed with his 7-year-old sister, who is also a U.S. citizen, and their mother. In a separate case, the U.S. removed a 2-year-old U.S. citizen along with her mother. In that case, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty said the girl was sent away “with no meaningful process.”

ICE Raids in Florida and Colorado End with 900 Arrests
Apr 28, 2025

ICE has conducted a number of high-profile immigration raids. In Florida, ICE worked with local officials to detain nearly 800 people. Meanwhile, in Colorado Springs, ICE agents raided a nightclub and made over 100 arrests.

In other immigration news, protesters rallied outside the Charles Schulz Airport in Santa Rosa, California, Saturday to protest Avelo Airlines, which recently signed a deal to work with ICE on deportation flights.

White House Restores Status of Thousands of International Students
Apr 28, 2025

In a major reversal, the Trump administration has restored the ability of thousands of international students to study in the United States — at least for now. The Trump administration had been sued at least 65 times for terminating the status of students in a database called SEVIS, the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. It is unclear how many students may have already left the country after the government changed their status. ABC reports some of the targeted students had supported pro-Palestine protests, but many had not.

Major Blast at Iranian Port Kills at Least 46, Injures 1,000+
Apr 28, 2025

At least 46 people have died after a massive explosion at one of Iran’s main ports on Saturday. The blast injured over 1,000 people. Iranian authorities have not said yet what caused the blast. In January, the Financial Times reports, ships carrying missile fuel were headed to the port from China. The blast occurred as the U.S and Iran were holding a third round of talks over Iran’s nuclear program.

India Detains 1,500 People in Kashmir in Wake of Pahalgam Massacre
Apr 28, 2025

Indian authorities have detained at least 1,500 people in India-administered Kashmir and razed the homes of suspected Kashmiri militants, as fears mount over a larger conflict between India and Pakistan following the massacre last week of 26 people in the resort town of Pahalgam. India has accused the Pakistani government of backing the perpetrators of the massacre, but Islamabad has rejected any involvement. Soldiers from India and Pakistan have continued to exchange gunfire along the barrier separating Kashmir between the two nuclear-armed powers.

RSF Kill 31 People in Suspected “War Crime” in Omdurman Amid Mounting Tragedies in Sudan
Apr 28, 2025

The Sudan Doctors Network reports at least 31 people, including children, were executed by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in Omdurman, in what the group called a “war crime and a crime against humanity.” Omdurman is the sister city to the capital Khartoum, which the Sudanese army reclaimed control over last month after two years of a devastating civil war. Separately, at least 11 people were killed in an RSF drone attack Friday at a displacement camp in River Nile state.

Meanwhile, the U.N. reports at least 480 civilians were killed in Sudan’s North Darfur over the two-week period starting April 10, though the actual number is expected to be much higher. The U.N. also reports widespread sexual violence, including during the deadly attack on the Zamzam displacement camp between April 11 and 13. Many rape victims are children. Numerous deaths have also been caused by hunger, shortages of water or lack of medical care. The U.N. has described Sudan as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Far-Right Backers of Itamar Ben-Gvir Attack Palestinian Rights Protesters in New York
Apr 28, 2025

Protests continued Sunday in New York over a visit by Israel’s far-right security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was once convicted for incitement to racism and support for a terrorist organization. On multiple occasions, supporters of Ben-Gvir attacked protesters and bystanders while chanting “death to Arabs” in Hebrew. On Thursday, a mob of over 100 men surrounded and attacked a Brooklyn woman who lived nearby, after they assumed she was a pro-Palestinian protester.

Occidental Students End Hunger Strike, Decry Brutal Crackdown on Protest
Apr 28, 2025

In Los Angeles, student activists at Occidental College ended their hunger strike Friday after the school’s administrators called in LAPD and campus security to violently crack down on peaceful protesters outside the inauguration of Occidental President Tom Stritikus. Students had been demanding Occidental protect its students from immigration authorities and renounce any ties to Israel’s war on Gaza. The hunger strikers say Occidental has agreed to certain measures supporting immigrant and international students.

DOJ Rescinds Journalist Protections in Leak Investigations
Apr 28, 2025

In a setback for press freedom, Attorney General Pam Bondi has rescinded a Biden-era policy that aimed to protect journalists in most cases from being forced to hand over their phone records in leak investigations. In a memo, Bondi described the conduct of government leakers as “treasonous.”

“Paramount Began to Supervise Our Content”: “60 Minutes” Reporter Scott Pelley Speaks Out on Air
Apr 28, 2025

In other media news, longtime “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley rebuked CBS’s parent company Paramount at the end of Sunday night’s broadcast. This came days after the show’s top producer, Bill Owens, resigned, saying he could no longer make independent decisions about the show. This is part of Pelley’s remarks.

Scott Pelley: “Stories we pursued for 57 years are often controversial — lately, the Israel-Gaza war and the Trump administration. Bill made sure they were accurate and fair. He was tough that way. But our parent company, Paramount, is trying to complete a merger. The Trump administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways. None of our stories has been blocked, but Bill felt he lost the independence that honest journalism requires.”

George Santos Sentenced to 7+ Years in Prison
Apr 28, 2025

Expelled Republican Congressmember George Santos was sentenced Friday to more than seven years in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. The disgraced former New York congressmember was ousted from the House in 2023 after less than a year in office. His brief political career was defined by numerous fabrications about his personal and professional lives, and campaign finance fraud.

Virginia Giuffre, Prominent Epstein Accuser and Survivor Advocate, Has Died
Apr 28, 2025

Virginia Giuffre, an outspoken survivor of sex trafficking by Jeffrey Epstein, has died by suicide at age 41. Giuffre was the first survivor to come out publicly against Jeffrey Epstein, as well as his co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. She also sued Prince Andrew for sexually assaulting her when she was 17. The disgraced prince was forced to step away from his royal duties and settled with Giuffre in 2022. In a statement, Giuffre’s family said, “Virginia was a fierce warrior in the fight against sexual abuse and sex trafficking. She was the light that lifted so many survivors.”

*********

Three U.S. Citizen Children, Including 4-Year-Old Battling 4th Stage Cancer, Deported to Honduras
April 28, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/4/28/ ... transcript



The Trump administration has deported three U.S. citizen children to Honduras: a 4-year-old who was actively receiving treatment for a rare form of stage 4 cancer, his 7-year-old sister, and a 2-year-old girl who was separated from her father and expelled with her undocumented pregnant mother. The mothers were coerced into taking their U.S. citizen children and prohibited from communicating with other family members or their lawyers until they arrived in Honduras. Attorney Gracie Willis, who is representing the 2-year-old girl, says the deportation of a U.S. citizen not given “any way to contest that or express the option to stay in the United States” is unprecedented.

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: As President Trump marks 100 days since returning to office this week, protests have continued nationwide against his mass deportations and rising concerns of due process violations. On Friday, the Trump administration deported three U.S.-citizen children to Honduras, including a 4-year-old boy who was actively receiving treatment for a rare form of stage 4 cancer. The boy and his 7-year-old sister, who’s also a U.S. citizen, were deported along with their undocumented mother. That same day, another child with U.S. citizenship, a 2-year-old girl, was also sent to Honduras with her mother, who’s pregnant, and her undocumented 11-year-old sibling. In that case, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, who’s a Trump appointee, said the girl was deported, quote, “with no meaningful process,” unquote. The judge added, quote, “I’ve never seen anything like it. There is just no good-faith interpretation for what happened to these children,” the Trump-appointed judge said.

The two mothers and their children were detained last week after attending routine check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Louisiana. Lawyers for both families say the mothers were coerced into taking their U.S. citizen children with them when they were deported. In the case of the 2-year-old girl, her father is still in the United States. A federal judge in Louisiana raised concerns about Trump officials removing her from the country against the wishes of her father. The mothers were reportedly prohibited from communicating with other family members or their lawyers after they were detained, and their relatives did not know of their whereabouts until the mothers arrived in Honduras.

The cases have further raised questions of the harmful impacts of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies will have on mixed-status families in the U.S. The Brookings Institution’s Center for Migration Studies estimates nearly 5 million U.S. citizen children have at least one undocumented parent.

For more, we go to Gracie Willis, an attorney with the National Immigration Project representing the 2-year-old U.S. citizen girl who was deported from Louisiana early Friday morning.

Gracie Willis, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you first describe what happened to your client? And then we’ll go on to the 4-year-old boy suffering 4th stage cancer.

GRACIE WILLIS: Yes. Good morning, Amy. Thank you so much for having me.

What happened is that in the early-morning hours on Friday, the United States government, after having detained U.S. citizen children, flew them out of the country with no eyes on these families. We have two families here, as you mentioned, and there are really striking similarities between these families in what they went through. In both, there were sort of two stories unfolding simultaneously. There was the outside and the inside. Outside, there were lawyers, loved ones, family members who were persistently trying to find these families and get contact with them. The asks were really simple: Where are they? And can we speak with them? Inside, both of the mothers had the same request. Both of the mothers were trying to get in touch with anyone — a lawyer, family members — who could help them either figure out their immigration cases or help take care of their children.

In both cases, ICE was speaking to both parties, telling the same lies that prevented communication between the mothers and the people who were trying to assist them outside. And this was to achieve ICE’s ultimate aim, which was to send these parents and their children out of the country on a flight out of a rural airport under the cover early-morning hours without any access.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to go to CBS’s Face the Nation, where Trump’s so-called border czar Tom Homan claimed there were no due process violations when your client, a 2-year-old U.S. citizen, was deported to Honduras with her mom.

TOM HOMAN: I’m not aware of the specific case, but no U.S. citizen child was deported. “Deported” means you’ve got to be ordered deported by an immigration judge. We don’t deport U.S. citizens. These children were —

MARGARET BRENNAN:: The mother was deported along with the children.

TOM HOMAN: The children aren’t deported. The mother chose to take the children with her. When you enter the country illegally, and you know you’re here illegally, and you choose to have a U.S. citizen child, that’s on you. That’s not on this administration. If you choose to put your family in that position, that’s on them. But having a U.S. citizen child after you enter this country illegally is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It doesn’t make you immune from our laws.

AMY GOODMAN: And this is the Secretary of State Marco Rubio being questioned on NBC’s Meet the Press, defending the Trump administration’s decision to [deport] U.S. citizen children.

SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: If someone’s in his country unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported. If that person is with a 2-year-old child or has a 2-year-old child and says, “I want to take my child with you — with me,” well, then what — you have two choices. You can say, yes, of course, you can take your child, whether they’re a citizen or not, because it’s your child, or you can say, yes, you can go, but your child must stay behind. And then your headlines would read, “U.S. holding hostage 2-year-old, 4-year-old, 7-year-old, while mother deported.” So, the mother, the parents make that choice. I imagine those three U.S. citizen children have fathers here in the United States. They can stay with their father. That’s up to their family to decide where the children go. Children go with their parents. Parents decide where their children go. The U.S. deported their mothers, who were illegally in America.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s the U.S. secretary of state, Gracie Willis. The parents get to decide, he said. Can you respond to both him and Tom Homan?

GRACIE WILLIS: Absolutely. First of all, whether or not these were technically deportations is beside the point. The point is that these children were taken without any choice, by their caregivers or them, out of the country by ICE, which is an immigration agency.

In terms of the parents’ choice, Secretary Rubio’s comments are incredibly misleading and disingenuous. At no point did these parents have any choice. They were not offered a choice: What do you want for your children? There weren’t offered the kind of opportunity to speak with each other and make what would have been a very difficult decision, but one that two parents are entitled to make together about what’s in the best interest of their family and what’s in the best interest of their children. These mothers were told, “Your children will be deported with you.” In our case, the government filed what was purported to be a handwritten note by our client’s mother that said, “I am bringing — I will bring my child with me.” That’s not a statement of wish. It’s not a statement of desire, of choice. It’s a statement that she was told, and that she was told to write.

AMY GOODMAN: So, at this point, what happens? I mean, it’s very interesting that you have the judge, Judge Doughty, Trump-appointed, who said there was no due process here.

GRACIE WILLIS: At this point, the families — the first thing that the families need to do is process what they’ve been through, the trauma they’ve been through, and attend to the safety and health of the family. There are safety and security concerns for some members of the family in Honduras, and so the families are making sure that they are somewhere safe. Secondly, attending to the health of the mother who’s pregnant, who’s in the early stages of a pregnancy, who’s been through a significant trauma, ensuring that she and her unborn child are as well as possible, and attending to health and well-being of the 4-year-old, who desperately needs medication and to continue treatment for his cancer. We have this —

AMY GOODMAN: Gracie, I want to ask you about this 4-year-old boy. He’s in fourth — he has 4th stage rare form of cancer. He is in the midst of his treatment. He is deported out of the country without medication. Can you explain his case, though you are not officially representing this U.S. citizen?

GRACIE WILLIS: That’s correct. We’re not attorneys on that case, but we’re working closely with the attorneys representing that family. This family was brought into detention less than 24 hours before the plane took off in the midmorning on Thursday. And the attorney who’s working with that family was actually with them at the ICE appointment where they were checking in. The kids were ready for school. They were expecting to go to school later that day. The family was taken into custody, asked for communication with their lawyer, who was outside, and were denied that.

That attorney filed what’s called an administrative stay of removal, which is a request for ICE to just temporarily halt any deportation in the interest of something happening. And in this case, the lawyer requested the opportunity to file paperwork, complicated paperwork, with the court to provide immigration options to the mother and especially to allow this 4-year-old to continue treatment. The attorney filed paperwork with ICE explaining what this child’s medical situation was, explaining the diagnosis, and didn’t receive any kind of a response until the family was already on a plane on Friday morning.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, it seems important to the Trump administration to keep maintaining that these kids, the child with 4th stage rare cancer, the 2-year-old, the 7-year-old, were not deported; they were simply attached to their mothers who were deported. Can you explain the difference between talking about deported and removed, when we’re talking about U.S. citizens?

GRACIE WILLIS: Absolutely. We’re in a situation with these two cases where we almost don’t have the right word for it. ICE has the authority to deport people who are deportable, who are removable, whether that’s because of finding of a judge or because somebody has accepted something called voluntary departure — anything that relates to somebody who’s not a citizen of the United States and is either inadmissible to the United States or deportable from the United States. We don’t really have great language around what it is to have an immigration agency send U.S. citizen people out of the country without any access to any way to contest that or express the option to stay in the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: Gracie Willis, we’ll closely follow these cases. Thanks so much for being with us from Austin, Texas, attorney with the National Immigration Project, representing the 2-year-old U.S. citizen who was deported from Louisiana early Friday morning to Honduras.

When we come back, the Trump administration escalates its attack on judges. On Friday, FBI agents arrested a Milwaukee judge. Stay with us.

************

“Abuse of Power”: Trump Admin’s “Bizarre” Arrest of Milwaukee Judge Shocks Legal Community
April 28, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/4/28/ ... transcript



On Friday, FBI agents arrested a county judge in Milwaukee and charged her with obstructing justice and concealing an individual from arrest. After an undocumented immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, appeared before her in court on an unrelated misdemeanor charge, Judge Hannah Dugan learned that ICE agents were waiting in the hallway outside her courtroom to arrest him. Dugan told the agents they could not perform the arrest without a judicial warrant and adjourned the hearing, directing Flores-Ruiz to leave her courtroom into a public hallway. Milwaukee-based attorney Ann Jacobs says it appears that two DEA agents who remained in the hallway as Flores-Ruiz left did not take any action toward an arrest while he was still inside the courthouse. He was later pursued and arrested outside. One week later, FBI agents arrested Dugan, accusing her of helping Flores-Ruiz avoid arrest. “The message is crystal clear: ‘If you cross the Trump administration, we will arrest you,’” says Jacobs. “The goal is to chill judges from ruling against the Trump administration,” with “the hopes that they can cudgel the judiciary into simply becoming meekly obedient to the executive branch.” Dugan’s longtime friend Emilio De Torre, who spoke at protests held this week at the FBI’s offices in Wisconsin, says FBI Director Kash Patel’s public celebration of her arrest is “absolutely disgusting and damaging,” and slams the effects of Trump’s attacks on civil society. “People here in Milwaukee are not taking kindly to the fact that our community, our economy, our family, now our courthouses and our schools are being disrupted by the heavy-handed overreach that we see.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.

We look now at how the Trump administration is escalating its attacks on judges. On Friday, FBI agents arrested a county judge in Milwaukee, Judge Hannah Dugan, and charged her with obstructing justice and concealing an individual from arrest. The FBI accuses her of helping an undocumented immigrant leave her courtroom in her Wisconsin courthouse April 18th to avoid arrest by agents waiting in the hallway.

That day, a Mexican immigrant named Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was before her in a hearing on battery charges he faced stemming from an argument over loud music with his roommate, the roommate’s girlfriend and her cousin. Flores-Ruiz had been working in the U.S. for about 12 years as a cook in Milwaukee after he was first deported in 2013. The day before the hearing, an immigration judge had issued a warrant for his arrest.

After he left Judge Dugan’s courtroom, agents reportedly saw Flores-Ruiz walking down the hallway to the elevator and leave the courthouse. They arrested him minutes later outside.

Judge Dugan’s arrest just this past Friday came a week after all this unfolded, has drawn massive backlash across the country. Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin said, quote, “This action fits into the deeply concerning pattern of this president’s lawless behavior and undermining courts and Congress’s checks on his power,” unquote.

FBI Director Kash Patel is facing accusations he broke DOJ policy by posting a photo online of Judge Dugan in handcuffs.

On Saturday, protesters rallied outside the FBI building in St. Francis, Wisconsin, to protest the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants and the arrest of Judge Dugan.

PROTESTER: [inaudible] to do what she did and respect everything she tried to do. People think — people think we are not near fascism, but we are. They think it can’t happen here, but it can, and is happening here right now. And if we don’t stop it before it gets too far along, we’re going to be no better than Germany was in the ’30s and ’40s.

AMY GOODMAN: Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan was released Friday after her arrest by the FBI. On Sunday, reporters asked President Trump about the case.

REPORTER: What’s next for cleaning up the courts after Judge Dugan’s arrest?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Oh, it’s terrible. What happened there is terrible. That that could happen with a judge is so a shame. And we have to — look, we have to bring our country back from all these criminals that Biden allowed to come in. These are world-class criminals and people that are insane, people from jails, murderers, drug addicts, drug dealers. And, you know, we have a country. We have to be proud of our country. We can’t let these people stay, and the courts are allowing them to stay. And we’re not going to — we’re just not going to allow it. So, hopefully, the Supreme Court will come to the rescue of our country.

AMY GOODMAN: For more, we’re joined in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, by Ann Jacobs, a Milwaukee-based attorney who personally knows Judge Hannah Dugan, has appeared before her in court. Jacobs is also chair of the Wisconsin Elections Commission.

Ann Jacobs, welcome to Democracy Now! What happened here?

ANN JACOBS: It’s a fascinating story, isn’t it? And thank you for highlighting the fact that the director of the FBI made a photograph of Judge Dugan being taken away in handcuffs, which is just appalling and such an abuse of power.

What happened here was the, according to the complaint, immigration authorities, six people — two FBI, two ICE and a couple of DEAs — I may have the numbers exactly wrong, but six people go to pick up this gentleman in court. Like courthouses across the country, we have metal detectors, so no guns allowed. And they come into the courthouse, and they say — they go to Judge Dugan’s courtroom, and they say, “We’re here to arrest this guy.” And she says, “We’ve got a protocol. You have to go talk to the chief judge,” whose courtroom is some distance away. And they say, “Fine.” And she goes back in.

The interesting part of all this is, apparently, four of the six go off to the chief judge’s office, leaving the two DEA agents behind in the hallway. There’s some lengthy discussion in the complaint about what happens in the courtroom, but I think it’s undisputed, which is that she allows the public defender and the gentleman at issue to go out a side door. And from that side door, they exit on to the public hallway. In the public hallway are the two DEA agents sitting there, ostensibly waiting for him. The attorney and the gentleman come out into the hallway, and they look around. This is in the complaint. They look around. Nothing happens to them. So they walk to the elevators, and they go downstairs to leave the courthouse. The DEA agents — we don’t know why — don’t arrest him. One of them gets into the elevator with them, and they go downstairs. And then, eventually, he is arrested.

That’s the sum total of what really the accusations are against Judge Dugan. There’s a lot of very breathless — “she was stern,” “she walked quickly,” “she appeared angry.” There’s a lot of those sort of salacious tidbits. But in the end, the sum total of what she did is direct him to a side door and send him out to the public hallway.

AMY GOODMAN: To a public hallway, where the agents —

ANN JACOBS: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: — could have gotten him there. But she did express anger — right? — to the agents before he appeared in court, that they were — concerned that they would arrest him in her courtroom. Is that right?

ANN JACOBS: That’s certainly what the complaint says. And I want you to think about a couple of things. First of all, if you’ve ever met a judge, they’re not always very happy when their courtroom is being disturbed. Secondly, and the assumption is that the only reason she’s upset is that ICE is there to arrest him in her courtroom — in other words, that there’s something about him that she is upset about. In her courtroom, she’s in misdemeanor court. In her courtroom are witnesses, victims and the like, for whom an ICE going around — ICE agent going around arresting people can really impede the justice for those folks. So, it’s not only the fact that somebody who’s charged with a crime is getting arrested — and I am simply reading into the complaint. It is equally logical to be upset about the fact that they’re coming into a courtroom where you need to have everyone in the community, documented or not, be able to feel safe.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Pam Bondi, the attorney general of the United States.

ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI: No one is above the law in this country. And if you are destroying evidence, if you are obstructing justice, when have you victims sitting in a courtroom of domestic violence, and you’re escorting a criminal defendant out a back door, it will not be tolerated, and it is a crime in the United States of America.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaking on Fox News. Ann Jacobs, your response?

ANN JACOBS: As lawyers, we have really strong ethical rules on what we’re allowed to say and what we’re not allowed to say, in part to prevent impacting a court case, and especially for government attorneys, who are required to be honest and accurate and everything else. And I think those sort of comments that she’s making are unfortunate and designed to sort of taint the view of what happened here. It also makes it sound like this was going to be a trial and what have you.

This is a pretrial hearing in misdemeanor court with an out-of-custody defendant. This is not some day of justice, as it were. It’s a pretty ordinary day in a pretty ordinary court, where you’re going to have lots and lots of misdemeanor misdemeanants, persons charged with misdemeanors in the courtroom. And adjourning the case is not a denial of justice. It’s a pretty ordinary thing. And she sent him out to a public corridor, where law enforcement was waiting. And law enforcement looked at him and watched him walk to the elevators. It’s just a bizarre story.

AMY GOODMAN: What message do you think the Trump administration is trying to send to judges as it loses one case after another, scores of cases around the country, whether we’re talking about Trump-appointed judges, conservative judges or not?

ANN JACOBS: The message is crystal clear: “If you cross the Trump administration, we will arrest you.” I mean, I think that’s literally what they are trying to do. So, I think the goal is to chill judges from ruling against the Trump administration, requiring that they follow applicable laws and procedures when it comes to detentions, arrests, to require them to have valid warrants and the like. So, certainly, that’s the intention of this, with the hopes that they can cudgel the judiciary into simply becoming meekly obedient to the executive branch.

AMY GOODMAN: Ann Jacobs, we want to thank you so much for being with us, an attorney based in Milwaukee, knows Judge Hannah Dugan well, has appeared before her in court.

This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. We’re staying in Milwaukee now, where on Friday FBI agents arrested a Milwaukee county judge, Judge Hannah Dugan, after they accused her of obstructing justice and concealing an immigrant from arrest, when, in fact, the federal agents very soon after arrested the immigrant who had appeared in her court.

We’re speaking now with Emilio De Torre, the executive director of Milwaukee Turners, which was founded by immigrants and refugees in 1853. He’s a longtime friend of Judge Dugan, spoke at both the Friday afternoon protest outside Milwaukee County Courthouse and at a Saturday protest in front of the FBI headquarters in St. Francis, Wisconsin, which was held to protest her arrest. Judge Dugan is a former board member of Milwaukee Turners.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Emilio. Start off by explaining what Milwaukee Turners is and your response to the judge’s arrest.

EMILIO DE TORRE: Well, thank you for inviting me, Amy.

The Milwaukee Turners is a 171-year-old civic society, founded, as you said, by immigrants and refugees. We operate out of an historic landmark in downtown Milwaukee. The longest continuously running gymnasium is there. We teach yoga, gymnastics, rock climbing, have trained Olympians there. There’s a concert hall there. We do a variety of programs across two counties.

In regards to the arrest, this is devastating. It’s affecting folks all over, especially as it’s rolled into the wake of the confusion of some almost a hundred students in Wisconsin who face the retraction of their F-1 and J-1 visas. This is just upsetting people all over the county.

AMY GOODMAN: You were one of the —

EMILIO DE TORRE: I think the fact that —

AMY GOODMAN: You were one of the first people to protest her arrest, to get copies of the complaints against the judge and share them with the public. Can you talk more about what we know about her arrest and how this has affected the judge and the overall Milwaukee community, and her long history in Milwaukee?

EMILIO DE TORRE: Sure. People were tremendously upset. I had folks calling early in the morning alerting me to what had happened. As we shared copies of the complaints on Facebook, we had people reaching out who had gone to grade school with her, high school with her. She is a well-known and respected person, a former executive director of Catholic Charities, worked for Legal Aid, Legal Action, a former Milwaukee Bar Association president. She’s not just some secluded figure in a courthouse. She is an active part of the community. She’s known for giving out copies of the Constitution and flags on Constitution Day and Flag Day. This is somebody who is well respected in multiple communities across the city.

And this has a devastating effect on our social fabric, and also this sends a ripple of fear. This affiliate here, where I’m speaking to you from, is on MATC’s campus. And with students being threatened in Marquette, at UWM, UW-Madison, MATC, Concordia, people with visas, people who may be undocumented are now frightened to even come to the courts to pay municipal citations or to bear witness to a crime or to file for licensing. They don’t understand what’s going to happen if they feel as though a judge who is an integral part of the community can be picked up for what is seemingly nonsense, especially if it just appears to be a photo op to frighten other judges.

AMY GOODMAN: And can you respond to Kash Patel, to say the least, breaking with convention, the head of the FBI, tweeting out, using words like “perp walk” and showing a picture of the judge in handcuffs, and writing, “No one is above the law”?

EMILIO DE TORRE: It’s absolutely disgusting and damaging. I think it sends an incorrect message to all of these armchair quarterbacks who are just going to believe a short-character tweet. And locally, it has devastated many communities, not only just immigrant communities, but all folks who have known Judge Dugan for the decades of her selfless involvement here in the county. I personally find it disgusting that he would use such terminology for somebody so well respected.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think this has anything to do with the major Republican defeat over the special election for a judge, where Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, spent I don’t know how many millions on that race and even came out to Wisconsin and spoke, and still lost? Do you think this is retribution for that?

EMILIO DE TORRE: I think it can surely be connected to that. I think it’s a part of an attempt to stifle the judges. Like Ann Jacobs said, it’s an attempt to cudgel folks into submission. Hannah is known for elevating the rule of law and for honoring due process. And to make this statement against somebody who has been so admirable in her practice for so many years is ridiculous. And the fact that Kash Patel would add this terribly insulting photo and statements to it has actually had a reverse effect here in Milwaukee. I think people are more strongly supporting the judge, more strongly coming out on behalf of immigrants, and more strongly rejecting this message. And certainly, you can connect it to the amount of money that they attempted to dump into the state Supreme Court race.

AMY GOODMAN: And finally, in related news, federal agents in New Mexico have arrested a former judge, Jose Luis Cano, and his wife. They’ve been accused of tampering with evidence linked to a former tenant who the government claims was a member of a Venezuelan gang. That was another judge, a former judge, who was arrested. The overall message being sent, and what’s happening on the ground now around organizing?

EMILIO DE TORRE: The overall message being sent is being linked to the same types of statements that were made in 1930s Germany and 1940s Russia. Folks were actively comparing the recent federal statements from the United States to Stalin’s statements about repressing the judiciary. I think these are just underscoring it.

People here in Milwaukee are not taking kindly to the fact that our community, our economy, our family, now our courthouses and our schools are being disrupted by the heavy-handed overreach that we see. It really seems like an unjust and, perhaps, quite illegal grab into our courthouses. And it is having the opposite effect, I think, that the federal government had intended it to have.

AMY GOODMAN: Emilio De Torre is the executive director of Milwaukee Turners, longtime friend of Judge Hannah Dugan.

When we come back, we speak with Martin O’Malley, former head of the Social Security Administration. He’s issued a dire warning that Social Security could collapse due to sweeping Trump cuts. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: “Heart of Darkness” by Pere Ubu. The band’s leader David Thomas died last week at the age of 71.

**************

Former Social Security Chief Martin O’Malley Warns of “Collapse of the Entire System” Under Trump
April 28, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/4/28/ ... transcript



Social Security recipients could soon see their benefits interrupted or delayed as a flood of cuts hits the agency, thanks to the efforts of Elon Musk and DOGE. Martin O’Malley, the former Maryland governor who served as Social Security commissioner under President Biden, says the system is on the brink of collapse as the Trump administration pushes out thousands of staffers and peddles lies about who actually benefits from its services. The former commissioner adds that he believes “they’re trying to wreck Social Security’s reputation, wreck its ability to serve its customers, wreck its unbeaten string of regular monthly payments, so that, having wrecked it, then they have an emergency under which they can rob it.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

Our next guest, former Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley, is warning Social Security recipients could soon see their benefits interrupted or delayed. In a recent interview, O’Malley said moves by the Trump administration to cut costs at the Social Security Administration could, quote, “crater the agency and lead to a system collapse.”

The Washington Post recently reported a flood of cuts pushed by the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, and DOGE are already leading the Social Security system to breaking down. The Post reports, in March, Social Security website crashed four times in a 10-day span, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from logging in to their online accounts. Phone lines have also been overwhelmed due to staffing cuts.

According to the group Social Security Works, around half of all seniors rely on Social Security for most of their income, while 25% of seniors rely on it for virtually all of their income. The average annual payout to these seniors is just $20,000 a year.

Last month, Trump’s commerce secretary, billionaire Howard Lutnick, sparked outrage after suggesting only fraudsters would complain if Social Security checks don’t go out on time.

COMMERCE SECRETARY HOWARD LUTNICK: Let’s say Social Security didn’t send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who’s 94, she wouldn’t call and complain. She just wouldn’t. She’d think something got messed up, and she’ll get it next month. A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming, yelling and complaining.

AMY GOODMAN: Trump adviser Elon Musk recently described Social Security as a Ponzi scheme during an interview with Joe Rogan.

ELON MUSK: Well, I mean, the government is one big Ponzi scheme, if you ask me.

JOE ROGAN: Yeah, well, you could tell better than anybody.

ELON MUSK: Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.

AMY GOODMAN: Elon Musk’s attacks on Social Security come as the Trump administration is moving to cut off benefits to more than 6,000 immigrants who had lawfully obtained Social Security numbers, were paying into the system for years. The administration is doing this by falsely labeling them as dead to cut off their benefits.

We’re joined now by Martin O’Malley, who served as Social Security commissioner under President Biden. He’s also the former governor of Maryland and the former mayor of Baltimore.

It’s great to have you with us, Governor O’Malley, Commissioner O’Malley. If you can start off by explaining why you say that you think the Social Security system in this country is on the brink?

MARTIN O’MALLEY: Well, because of all of the things that Elon Musk and the DOGE team and Donald Trump have been doing to Social Security, with a speed and a virulence that I think is stunning, shocking. I mean, they have, Amy, actually been paying people, with our money, at an agency that was already at a 50-year low of staffing and all-time high beneficiary customers — they’ve been paying them to leave. They have created a hostile work environment. They have engaged in wholesale, like, firing entire offices and divisions. They have driven out almost, by now, 10,000 people out of the agency. They say 7,000. It’s going to go down to 10,000.

And part of that is a 50% reduction in the people that keep the IT systems going, the same IT systems that never missed a beat and sent out the checks, the right amount to the right person at the right time, every month all through COVID. They have cut the IT department in half. You’re seeing, as you just mentioned, outages in some of the customer-facing aspects of it. Those outages are going to become more regular, rather than intermittent. They’re going to happen for longer durations. And ultimately, you’re going to see that cascade into a collapse of the entire system and an interruption for some time of benefits. I don’t see — with the path that they’re on, I believe they’ve taken probably 90% of the actions necessary to accomplish that aim.

AMY GOODMAN: So, can you explain this master death list and putting 6,000 people who’ve paid into Social Security on the list that says they are dead — we’re talking about immigrants — and where this master list goes?

MARTIN O’MALLEY: Sure. That’s an operational question rather than a question about what their intent is. I mean, this is some really chilling stuff. By law, Congress requires that the Social Security Administration, which maintains a lot of personal data on all of us, from our first summer job, from the first moment we’re born, actually — and so, Social Security is required to keep what Congress has dubbed the master death file. And so, Social Security has contracts with all 50 states, the territories. And the second that a death certificate is recorded, Social Security lists that in the master death file, and then a lot of other entities ping off of that — in other words, our banking systems, credit companies, the IRS. And so, if you list somebody as deceased, when clearly they’re not deceased, it has the effect — as their puppet acting commissioner of Social Security said, it has the effect of terminating the financial lives of people here in the United States.

It is a stunning, willful, criminal act, any one of those counts to put a false information into a federal record, and in particular a Social Security record. And yet they’re doing it with a breadth in total violation — a breadth and a scope and a depth way beyond anything that’s happened before, and actually in direct contravention and direct — exactly opposite of what a federal judge ordered them to do, which was stay the hell out of our personal data.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, you have, at the same time that all of this is happening, the degrading of the system, President Trump insisting that he’s not planning to cut Social Security. But can you talk about what you see as Trump and Musk’s ultimate vision for Social Security? Do they just want to make it unworkable so that it’s privatized? And in this, talk about the history of Social Security. How many people get it, Social Security and disability benefits, as well?

MARTIN O’MALLEY: Sure. For 90 years, Social Security has never, ever missed a monthly payment. And right now there are approximately 73 million Americans who are in pay status, who are beneficiaries, whether in the survivor and old age aspect and widows and orphans, or whether it’s people with disabilities who can no longer work.

Now, the question you ask, Amy, about what their ultimate goal is, it’s hard to — hard to figure. Social Security, as you probably know and many of your viewers know, is not a Ponzi scheme. It is a pay-as-you-go program. Americans working this year pay in $1.3 trillion, and Social Security pays out those same dollars to beneficiaries. And when, as now, with baby boomers moving through the system, Social Security makes up any difference from its large surplus reserve. And many people believe it is that large surplus reserve — the only agency that runs a large surplus reserve — of $2.6 trillion that Donald Trump and Elon Musk have their eyes on.

I don’t know what they want to do with that money, but it does appear that they’re trying to precipitate an emergency situation, knowing that Congress would never allow them to touch it, absent an emergency. I do believe that they’re trying to wreck Social Security’s reputation, wreck its ability to serve its customers, wreck its unbeaten string of regular monthly payments, so that, having wrecked it, then they have an emergency under which they can rob it.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you can talk about what has happened when it comes to — first they said they were going to cut off the phone ability to call a helpline, which for so many Social Security recipients is the only way they could communicate with Social Security. That would force them to satellite offices, of which they closed many. What is happening right now? And what do you say has to happen to fix this system at this point?

MARTIN O’MALLEY: Well, it is going to take years now to build back Social Security. In our last year, the men and women of the Social Security Administration achieved some of the best customer service timeliness achievements, and certainly since before COVID, some of them, you know, the best timeliness in 10 years. For example, answering that phone used to be an average — average — wait of 42-and-a-half minutes. They got that down to just over 12 minutes. But now all of those things are going in the wrong direction.

Social Security is one of the most trusted brands in the entire federal government, second only to the National Park Service and Smokey the Bear. So, what they have to do in order to get away with whatever their end goal is, you know, with their eyes on the big trust fund, they have to degrade its ability to serve customers. They have to turn people away from it or against it. You’ve heard a lot of big lies about Social Security. You’ve heard Elon Musk say it’s a Ponzi scheme just like the rest of our government; illegal immigrants get Social Security benefits, when they don’t. You’ve heard about the zombie apocalypse, that is, you know, millions of people roaming the Earth and taking our money. None of those things is true.

But the other big lie you hear, Amy, is that Social Security is bad, it’s always been bad, it’s never really worked. So, that’s the big lie they’re pushing. And then they demonstrate it by cramming as many people into Social Security offices as they can for services that they used to be able to get online or used to be able to get on the phone. And that’s going to be the evidence, then, that they create, that “it’s always been bad, so, you know, we had to privatize it, or we had to liquidate it. Here’s your lump sum. Be happy. Go away. It was always a Democratic program that never worked.” So, that’s what’s going on here, and it’s happening with a stunning speed that I think Americans are waking up to.

AMY GOODMAN: And in the 10 seconds that we have left, this allegation that immigrants are being fraudulent in getting Social Security. They have paid into the system for years. It’s their money.

MARTIN O’MALLEY: Well, actually, illegal immigrants, so-called, people working here outside of legal status, cannot receive any Social Security benefits, and never have been able to. They’re prohibited by law. But they do pay in $25 billion for the benefit of the rest of us and into the Social Security trust fund. It’s a total lie. Illegal immigrants do not receive Social Security benefits.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet they pay. Martin O’Malley, thank you so much for being with us, former Social Security administrator.

[admin]

Trump SPIRALS after ARREST on Judge BACKFIRES
by Michael Popok
The Intersection with Popok
Legal AF
Apr 28, 2025

Trump arresting Judges is part of his latest assault on our democracy, and there is no end in sight, as Trump's own press secretary won't rule out arresting United States Supreme Court justices if they get in the Trump Administration's way. Popok reports.



Transcript

[Michael Popok] I want to do a quick follow-up on the
case of Judge Hannah Dugan, who they
should be building a bronze statue for
in front of the Wisconsin courthouse, not
having the Republicans in Milwaukee
moved to impeach her because she refused
to comply with a Trump administration
federal arrest warrant that wasn't worth
the paper it was written on. Who can
trust this administration? The Supreme
Court doesn't trust the administration.
The American people doesn't trust the
administration. Who can trust the
Department of Justice? The Supreme Court
doesn't trust the Department of
Justice, or anything it says in an open
courtroom. So why should a judge, who's
upholding two separate constitutions, the
state constitution of Wisconsin and that
of the United States Supreme Court, why
should she take the word of federal
agents that show up and descend on her
courtroom to pick up somebody that she
was already handling as a criminal
defendant, and they show up not with an
arrest warrant issued by a federal judge,
or federal magistrate, or state court
judge, or state court magistrate, they
show up with an administrative warrant.
"Here, we just got this out of the bubble
gum machine next door. We're here to pick
up somebody in your courtroom." And she
said, I don't think so.

And now they bring
another ridiculous piece of paper, a
criminal complaint, not even a grand jury
indictment of Dugan, as other judges in
and around Wisconsin, and beyond, are
moving forward to support her. We got
judges in Wisconsin that are refusing to
open the doors of their courtroom until
they get proper guidance on how to
thread the needle between their
constitutional requirements and their
obligations under the Wisconsin
Constitution and the United States
Constitution. They're not going to trust
the Trump administration to do
the right thing. Who does that these days?
You do it at your own risk.

And what does the Trump
administration do on the heels of
deporting three children under the age
of five who are US citizens without
notice, on the heels of accidentally on
purpose deporting somebody without due
process and notice, after losing twice to
the United States Supreme Court, and
being told to obey the Supreme Court,
what do they do? They don't
reject the proposition posed to them by
Fox News and Peter Doocy that even a
Supreme Court justice could be
arrested! I'm not making it up!

In fact, let's go to Karoline Leavitt, the press
secretary, who's given what I think is a
softball question by Peter Doocy of Fox,
but it pounds off her forehead and goes
rolling away on the one thing we
can all agree on: that no administration
should be arresting federal judges, or
even Supreme Court justices, let alone
judges in Wisconsin. Let's roll the clip.

Peter, go ahead.

[Peter Doocy] Thank you. A few things.
You guys arrested a Milwaukee County
Circuit judge for allegedly helping
illegal immigrants get away. As you guys
look at other judges, would you ever
arrest somebody higher up on the
judicial food chain, like a federal judge,
or even a Supreme Court justice?

[Karoline Leavitt] Well,
that's a hypothetical question. Again, I'd
defer you to the Department of Justice
for individuals that they are looking at,
or individual cases. But let's be clear
about what this judge did. She obstructed
federal law enforcement who were looking
for an illegal alien in her courthouse.
She showed that illegal alien the door,
to evade law enforcement officials. That
is a clear-cut case of obstruction. You
don't have to be a lawyer to understand
that. And so anyone who is breaking the
law, or obstructing federal law
enforcement officials from doing their
jobs, is putting themselves at risk of
being prosecuted. Absolutely.

[Michael Popok] It sent a chill down my
spine. you know she hears the question
but because she's so hardwired and wired
so tight you know wrapped so tight that
she misses the lead which is would you
arrest a Supreme Court justice higher up
the food chain she had to start with
well let me first take the comment about
the Supreme Court justices the answer to
that is obviously a resounding no we're
not a lawless administration no matter
what the Democrats and the liberals have
to say about it that would be a a proper
Levetian response to that right by
Carolyn Levette not well can't rule
anything out you know got to take it
case by
case did she listen or read i guess read
is the better word to Donald Trump's
Time magazine interview about how he
thinks the 100 days is going the first
100 days i love that split screen three
sets of polls come out that says the
Trump administration is in the toilet no
below the toilet in the sewer uh
completely rejected by independents two
uh 3 to one uh completely rejected by
Democrats even Republicans and there's
no silver lining top to bottom economy
dem uh economy domestic policy foreign
policy military policy national security
policy uh immigration policy you name it
this is the worst rated presidency in
its first 100 days and the shock and awe
or flood the zone that they were doing
to take on all of these things all at
the exact same time and wreck the
economy along with it are not working
and the American people are telling you
so so with that as the backdrop Donald
Trump gives Time magazine an interview
okay and they get to the part he had to
know it was coming about the rule of law
and him obeying the the Supreme Court so
Carol Levette had to have read it i
think it's professional malpractice they
let him give that interview there's so
many ridiculous confessions in there
that of course help us in our court
proceedings but they ask him "Would you
obey you know you promised to obey the
United States Supreme Court the last
time we asked you that question?" I said
"What now?" That was his response i said
"What is it?" And they then they Yes
okay what's your point okay and then
they go through why aren't you obeying
the Obreago Garcia Supreme Court command
that you facilitate his release from a
Nicaragua in El Salvadorian prison and
he said well my lawyers I would I would
like to help i really would it's just
that they haven't asked me to and I I
would call Belli but I but the president
of El Salvador but I haven't cuz you're
the first person uh you Mr interviewer
you're the first person ever asked me to
do it and uh uh the but the but the
lawyers think we have a very good case
but they haven't asked me to do anything
about it well that's going to be news to
Judge Zenis and to the United States
Supreme Court so against that backdrop
of Donald Trump throwing his entire
Department of Justice already in the
trash reputationally under the
bus and and and clearly in the line for
being held in contempt by Judge Zennus
and
others Carol
Levette right it's always like 50 first
dates with her right she can never
remember anything it's always a new day
for her you know it's It's like there 50
First Dates that movie with Adam Sandler
and uh and the other person where like
she she has amnesia every morning you
can't remember the date yeah it's It's
like Carolyn Levette she has no
short-term memory no long-term memory no
nothing so she says "Well can't rule it
out arresting Supreme Court justice is
this the time after you just lost twice
or as they used to say bigly at the
United States Supreme Court big time you
think this is the time to suggest that
that this administration is considering
arresting Supreme Court justices i don't
think so uh but they just can't grow a
brain you can't What's the What's the
Senator Kennedy from Louisiana this is
deep stupid on display and they can't
fix it because Donald Trump is is
genetically hardwired to do the wrong
thing when it comes to our rule of
law that's it
and so that's good news for the
Democrats and for those that oppose
Donald Trump because he's I mean people
are like well maybe he'll turn it around
maybe these crazy tariff policies will
actually put a lot of money in my pocket
i don't see it happening and it's
certainly you know you can count on I
don't know a finger the amount of
presidencies that have started this deep
in the trash in the first 100 days that
have found a way to write the ship i
mean if there was a
war I hate to put the thought in his
head you know has that ever turned
around a presidency sure you know but in
real time Donald Trump has failed in so
many different ways the American people
the American voter that uh and the
Walmart voter as I like to call it I
just don't see it happening in time for
the midterms uh look at look at these
poll numbers i mean he where do you
start and the problem is everybody
around him uh suffers from the same
disease they all you know the victims of
Trump derangement syndrome are on full
display in the administration and victim
number one is Donald Trump and so he has
no there are no adults in the room
there's nobody that's going to think
about exercising the 25th amendment to
take Donald Trump out uh while they're
considering apparently under a question
taking out a United States Supreme Court
justice and arresting him donald Trump
in his in his response to Time magazine
said "I have full respect for the for
the United States Supreme Court i would
never
disobey and like clutching his pearls
over there." Uh you better get the memo
out to Carolyn Levette you know you know
they they are power we said it from day
one they are power drunk and mad with
power and they've swung the pendulum so
far to the right that even their own
voters are having buyers remorse or
voters remorse for Donald Trump we'll
continue to follow it you're here we do
this every day 10 12 times a day

**************************************

Trump's AG, Pam Bondi, Says Judges Are "Deranged." Here's What Reporters Should Ask Bondi.
Glenn Kirschner
Apr 28, 2025
All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America

Donald Trump's Attorney General, Pam Bondi, is now parroting the lies of her boss, saying that judges are "deranged." Although Bondi clearly is trying to undermine the public's confidence in a co-equal branch of government - the judiciary - in reality, her statements are erroding the legitimacy of the Department of Justice.

This video takes on the questions that the media SHOULD be asking AG Bondi about her claim that judges are "deranged."



Transcript

so friends did you hear that Attorney
General Pam Bondi is now saying that
judges are and I
quote
deranged let's talk about that because
justice matters
hey all Glenn Kirschner here well friends
we now have an attorney general the head
of the United States Department of
Justice demeaning degrading damaging our
constitutional order of government we
have three co-equal branches of
government but she is disregarding the
balance of power between and among those
three branches and Bondi's reckless
assertions have the effect of damaging
the people's confidence in the judiciary
but what she's really doing by talking
about deranged judges is she's
destroying the legitimacy of the very
department she heads the Department of
Justice let's start with the new
reporting this from the Washington Post
headline Pam Bondi's striking comments
on arresting judges amid criticisms that
the administration is intimidating
judges the attorney general didn't
exactly downplay the idea that this was
part of a larger crusade against the
judiciary and that article begins "The
Trump administration's brash moves to
crack down on illegal immigration
entered a fraught new phase Friday with
the FBI arrest of a local Wisconsin
judge who was charged with obstructing
the arrest of an immigrant this is
needless to say a significant escalation
of the administration's efforts anytime
you are arresting judges you enter yet
more constitutionally dicey territory
with the administration already flouting
and resisting judges orders and the
backdrop looms large here the
administration has in recent weeks
ramped up its attacks against who it
labels as radical activist judges who
have ruled against many of its
immigration actions in actuality several
of the judges have been Republican and
even Trump
appointees but in some of its first
comments about the situation the Trump
administration didn't downplay the idea
that this was connected to its broader
crusade against the judiciary attorney
General Pam Bondi actually seemed to
lean into the idea that this was part of
the larger pattern of judicial wrongs
that the administration now seeks to
write her commentary is unlikely to
temper fears that the administration is
trying to send a message to the other
judges who would stand in its way
appearing on Fox News Bondi discussed
the Wisconsin case and another in which
a local New Mexico judge resigned after
a man the government has alleged is a
member of a Venezuelan gang Trende
Aaragua was arrested at his home but
rather than focus on those two cases
Bondi repeatedly talked as if they were
part of a broader problem with the
judiciary. "What has happened to
our judiciary is beyond me," Bondi said.
She suggested these specific judges were
deranged, but then again, connected it to
a supposedly larger trend in the
judiciary. "I think some of these
judges think they are beyond and above
the law," Bondi said. And
crucially, that kind of rhetoric echoes
what the administration has said about
other judges, whom it alleges are
usurping the president's foreign policy
powers. It has sometimes suggested that
judges have virtually no place reviewing
its deportation efforts. Top
administration figures have called
the judges things like "rogue," and "radical"
judges. Bondi has called them "low-level leftist judges who are trying
to dictate President Trump's executive
powers." Elon Musk and Stephen Miller have
gone so far as to label legal push back
against their policies "a judicial
coup." Wow. Our nation's top law
enforcement official, Pam Bondi, she's in
some pretty good company when she is
spewing out the same kind of garbage as
Elon Musk and Stephen
Miller.

You know friends, if mainstream
media corporate media cared to take Pam
Bondi to task when she spews this
garbage about, you know, judges who are
ruling against Trump, being deranged, they
could ask her questions along the
following lines:

[Reporter] Attorney General Bondi,
you say that these judges are deranged
judges who are ruling against Donald
Trump. Let me ask you about some of those
judges. Judge John
Coughenour, who was appointed by President
Ronald Reagan, Judge John
Coughenour ruled that
Donald Trump's executive order, trying to
revoke the constitutional guarantee of
birthright citizenship, is "blatantly
unconstitutional." Is Reagan appointed
Judge John
Coughenour deranged?

Before you answer, let me ask you if Judge Harvie
Wilkinson is deranged in your opinion? He
was also appointed to the federal bench
by President Ronald Reagan. And he
is the one who said in the Abrego Garcia
case, that if Donald Trump and his
administration can unconstitutionally
deport Abrego Garcia, then they can
unconstitutionally deport American
citizens, and they can unconstitutionally
deport Trump's political opponents. Is
Judge Wilkinson, a Reagan-appointed
federal judge, is he deranged?

Wait, don't answer just
yet. How about Judge Trevor McFadden, who
ruled that the Trump administration
cannot ban reporters from the
Associated Press from White House press
conferences or events? Let's
see. Trevor McFadden was appointed
by Donald
Trump. Is Trevor McFadden a deranged judge?

Don't answer just yet. Let me ask you
about Judge Terry Doughty. He's the judge,
who in recent days said, when the Trump
administration deported a 2-year-old
American citizen, it was very likely in violation
of that 2-year-old's constitutional due
process rights? You want to take a stab
at who appointed Judge
Doughty? Donald Trump. Is Judge Doughty deranged?
And if so, Madame Attorney General, why is
Donald Trump appointing deranged judges?
You know Madame Attorney General, you're
the one who's coming across a bit
deranged, and you're damaging the Americans perception of
the legitimacy of both the judiciary and
the executive branch, the Department of
Justice. Both branches of government.

You know friends, given her behavior, Pam
Bondi is not worthy of the office of the
Attorney General of the United
States. Because
justice
matters. friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow

*************************

As FBI arrests judge in Wisconsin, AG Pam Bondi directs new threats at the judiciary. The Republican offensive against the judiciary has been unsubtle, but the Trump administration hadn’t arrested a sitting judge — until now.
by Steve Benen
msnbc
April 25, 2025, 12:48 PM MDT / Updated April 25, 2025, 1:23 PM MDT
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna203061

The Republican offensive against the courts and judges in recent months has been as subtle as a sledgehammer. The Washington Post recently summarized, for example, that the White House has pushed forward with “delegitimizing” the independent judiciary, and there’s overwhelming evidence to bolster the point.

And President Donald Trump wrote last month, “Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings. ... The danger is unparalleled!”

Around the same time, the president — who recently wrote that American courts are “broken,” “rigged” and guilty of “corruption” — also used his platform to amplify an item from a right-wing blog that read in part, “When judges exceed their constitutional authority by obstructing or overturning executive actions without legitimate constitutional grounds, they not only overstep their role but may also commit acts tantamount to treason and sedition.”

He has plenty of company. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has targeted a specific federal judge. White House advisor Stephen Miller condemned “Marxist” judges, who “must be stopped.” With the president’s blessing, Elon Musk and congressional Republicans have targeted a variety of judges with impeachment measures.

But the Trump administration hadn’t gone so far as to actually arrest a sitting judge — until now. NBC News reported:

The FBI arrested a county judge in Milwaukee on Friday, alleging that she obstructed the detention of an undocumented immigrant who was wanted by federal authorities on an administrative immigration warrant by escorting the man and his defense attorney though a non-public jury door. The arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan marks a significant escalation of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration, in line with its rhetoric about going after local and state authorities on immigration-related matters.

Dugan faces charges of obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, as well as a charge of concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest. After the local jurist was arrested by the FBI, she made an appearance before a federal magistrate judge and was released on bond.

(There was a related case in 2019, when prosecutors working for Trump's Justice Department charged a Massachusetts judge with obstruction of justice after she allegedly allowed a defendant to leave the building through a rear door in order to evade ICE. She was not, however, arrested by the FBI, and the federal charges were dropped in 2022.)

Shortly after Dugan was taken into custody, Kash Patel, Trump’s highly controversial FBI director, published a tweet that effectively spiked the football. “We believe Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse, Eduardo Flores Ruiz, allowing the subject — an illegal alien — to evade arrest,” he wrote in a missive that was deleted a short time later. “Thankfully our agents chased down the perp on foot and he’s been in custody since, but the Judge’s obstruction created increased danger to the public.”

Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin didn’t quite see it that way.

“In the United States, we have a system of checks and balances and separations of power for damn good reasons,” the senator said in a statement. “The president’s administration arresting a sitting judge is a gravely serious and drastic move, and it threatens to breach those very separations of power. Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country, and we are a democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by. By relentlessly attacking the judicial system, flouting court orders, and arresting a sitting judge, this president is putting those basic Democratic values that Wisconsinites hold dear on the line."

“While details of this exact case remain minimal," Baldwin continued, "this action fits into the deeply concerning pattern of this president’s lawless behavior and undermining courts and Congress’s checks on his power.”

I was also struck by Attorney General Pam Bondi — who’s already gone too far in targeting judges by name — who went to Fox News in the wake of Dugan’s arrest.

Aaron Rupar
‪@atrupar.com‬

Bondi declares war on the courts: "What has happened to our judiciary is beyond me ... they are deranged ... we are sending a very strong message today ... we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you."

April 25, 2025 at 11:12 AM

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3lnnprevixu2y?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fiframe.nbcnews.com%252Fh0xWKn6

“[Judges] are deranged, is all I can think of,” Bondi said during her 18th appearance on Fox this year. “I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law, and they are not. And we’re sending a very strong message today: If you are harboring a fugitive, we don’t care who you are. ... We will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you.”

To be indifferent to the authoritarian threat from this administration is to fail to pay close enough attention to unfolding events.

Through her legal counsel, Dugan issued a statement Friday afternoon that read, “Judge Hannah C. Dugan has committed herself to the rule of law and the principles of due process for her entire career as a lawyer and a judge. She has retained former United States Attorney Steven Biskupic to represent her. Judge Dugan will defend herself vigorously and looks forward to being exonerated. This will be the extent of any statements or interviews at this time.”

Biskupic served as the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Wisconsin during George W. Bush’s administration.

This post has been updated to include a statement from Judge Hannah Dugan’s defense counsel.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."

****************************

As judges face new threats, the White House’s campaign takes an aggressive turn. As more judges face threats of violence, Donald Trump and his team are condemning judges in highly inflammatory and demonstrably false ways.
by Steve Benen
MSNBC
March 24, 2025, 8:48 AM MDT
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-sho ... rcna197779

The reports about threats against judges have become unnervingly familiar. My MSNBC colleague Clarissa-Jan Lim noted the other day that jurists are facing increased threats of violence, and there’s ample evidence in support of the thesis.

NPR reported last week, for example, that federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration “are confronting a wave of threats, potentially compromising their personal safety and the independence of the judiciary.” Reuters added that U.S. marshals have warned that federal judges are facing “unusually high threat levels as tech billionaire Elon Musk and other Trump administration allies ramp up efforts to discredit judges who stand in the way of White House efforts.”

The New York Times reported, “At a moment when the judiciary is weighing pivotal decisions on the legality of Trump administration policies, the potential for violence against judges seems to be rising.” The article quoted one federal judge, “whose 20-year-old son was shot and killed at her home in 2020 by a self-described “anti-feminist” lawyer,” who said: “This is not hyperbole. I am begging our leaders to realize that there are lives at stake.”

Donald Trump does not appear to be listening to those pleas. On the contrary, the president published an item to his social media platform late last week that read in part:

Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings. ... The danger is unparalleled!

The Republican went on to write, “It is our goal to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and such a high aspiration can never be done if Radical and Highly Partisan Judges are allowed to stand in the way of JUSTICE. STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

In case this reckless rhetoric weren’t quite enough, Trump also used his platform to amplify an item over the weekend from a right-wing blog that read in part, “When judges exceed their constitutional authority by obstructing or overturning executive actions without legitimate constitutional grounds, they not only overstep their role but may also commit acts tantamount to treason and sedition.”

Others on the president’s team are predictably adding to the pile-on. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt targeted a specific federal judge from behind the podium last week, just days after Trump called for the jurist’s impeachment. Around the same time, Attorney General Pam Bondi, during one of her many Fox News appearances, called out three specific district court judges — by name.

Even Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is joining the dangerous parade. After U.S. District Court Judge Ana Reyes ruled against the administration’s ban on transgender Americans serving in the military, the former Fox News host wrote via social media, “Since ‘Judge’ Reyes is now a top military planner, she/they can report to Fort Benning at 0600 to instruct our Army Rangers on how to execute High Value Target Raids ... after that, Commander Reyes can dispatch to Fort Bragg to train our Green Berets on counterinsurgency warfare.”

Note that Hegseth put Reyes’ title in scare quotes, as if she weren’t an actual Senate-confirmed federal judge, before assigning a “she/they” pronoun to her. Just as notably, of course, the Pentagon chief suggested that Reyes, by honoring the law, is necessarily interfering with military duties, despite the fact that transgender Americans have already been serving in the military for years without incident.

Taken together, the bigger picture is, to put it mildly, unsettling: As more judges face threats of violence, Trump and his team are publicly condemning judges in highly inflammatory and demonstrably false ways.

The Washington Post reported last week that the White House was pushing forward “with delegitimizing the independent federal judiciary by attacking judges who rule against the administration.” That, in and of itself, was an extraordinary sentence, generally unseen in healthy and stable democracies. But the observation is made worse by the fact that Team Trump is executing this campaign in irresponsible ways that appear quite dangerous.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans' War on the Recent Past."

[admin]

Irish Lawyer spells out Israel's destruction of Gaza at The Hague
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Apr 28, 2025

Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh spoke as part of the Palestinian delegation at the ICC in their case against Israel, where she went into immense detail on the failure of Israel to ensure the basic human rights of Palestinians in Gaza.



Transcript

[Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh] Israel is now seeking to destroy Palestinians as a group including by
inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction by seizing ever more
Palestinian territory and by turning Gaza into an uninhabitable wasteland
incapable of sustaining human life in addition to seeking to destroy the protective application of international
law to the Palestinian people Israel appears set on destroying the very international framework created to
ensure compliance with international law and accountability for its breach with
profound consequences that reverberate far beyond Palestine and Palestinians on
the 27th of March of this year the last international staff of the United
Nations Relief and Work Agency left Gaza given Israel's recently passed
anti-UNRA legislation no further UNRA staff is likely to be permitted entry
three days earlier on the 24th of March the Secretary General of the United
Nations had announced his I quote difficult decision to reduce the organization's footprint in Gaza even as
humanitarian needs sore and the United Nations concern over the protection of civilian intensifies." End quote his
decision evocative of previous genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia followed Israel's
breach of the ceasefire agreement on the 18th of March 2025 and its resumption of its siege and
large-scale assault on Gaza as had been threatened by the Israeli Defense Minister Israel Catz I
quote the gates of Gaza closed and the gates of hell reopened
israel killed almost 500 people including more than 180 children in the
deadliest 24 hours in Gaza since October 2023 one strike on a designated UN
compound killed one international UN official and injured seriously five
others the Secretary General's decision to reduce the United Nations footprint in Gaza followed days later
the United Nations itself cannot keep its staff in Gaza safe from Israel
because nowhere and no one is safe the past 18 months have been the
deadliest ever in the history of the United Nations of over 418 aid workers
killed in Gaza 295 of them were UN staff
most of them teachers doctors nurses engineers operational staff were
Palestinian those Palestinian staff remain in Gaza their own footprint is
also being reduced each day as they are injured and
killed as stated by Medan San Frontier Gaza has been turned into a mass grave
of Palestinians and those coming to their assistance end quote
in the words of the secretary general it is a killing
field since March 2025 Israel has no longer even maintained the pretense of
designating so-called humanitarian zones in the last month alone it has
bombed over 20 times the tents of the displaced in Alawasi the overcrowded
sandy wasteland to which it repeatedly ordered Palestinians to flee a ground
invasion of which is now reportedly imminent as stated by UNICEF I
quote "Images of children burning while sheltering in makeshift tents should
shake us all to our core." The warnings of United Nations
officials could not be clearer including by the head of office for OCHA in the occupied Palestinian territory who
himself remains in Gaza i quote variously "As humanitarian leaders we
are repeating unequivocally to the world we are being deliberately blocked from saving lives in Gaza and so civilians
are dying." As humanitarians we need to emphasize that we cannot accept that
Palestinians are dehumanized to the point of being somehow unworthy of
survival what is happening here defies decency it
defies humanity it defies the law end
quote before turning to what that law is in terms of Israel's obligations as a
member of the United Nations it's important to recall the reason for the organization's presence and vital role
in Palestine as recently acknowledged by the Israeli finance minister Smatish I
quote "For 75% of Gaza's population it's not their homeland do you know what
their homeland is hifur Tiberius Acra
Jaffa this is a refugee population that has been in Gaza since
1948." End quote those refugees their children and
grandchildren have indeed been in Gaza since 1948 and in East Jerusalem and in
the rest of the West Bank and violently scattered to the four corners of the earth since being forcibly expelled from
their homes on the creation of the state of Israel the mass displacement and dispossessions Palestinians refer to as
al-Nakba the catastrophe they are the people alongside those
Palestinians previously long and deeply rooted in Gaza whom Israel is bombing
starving maming and killing and whom it has violently displaced over and over
again for 18 long months in the West Bank including East
Jerusalem also Israel is subjecting to ongoing and intensifying attack that
same refugee population alongside other Palestinians including those violently
displaced previously since Israel's occupation began in 1967
israel's ongoing mass displacements its demolitions of homes entire refugee
camps and necessary infrastructure and its ever escalating killings of Palestinian men women and
children risk in the words of the Secretary General transforming the West Bank into another Gaza
having denied for 77 years the right of return of refugees and the perempary
right of Palestinians to self-determination in violation of international law and UN resolutions
israel is now seeking to destroy Palestinians as a group including by
inflicting on them conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction by seizing ever more
Palestinian territory and by turning Gaza into an uninhabitable wasteland
incapable of sustaining human life.

Having willfully destroyed the ability
of the Palestinian people to sustain themselves independently, Israel is now intensifying
its weaponization of the food and relief assistance on which it has long forced so many Palestinians to rely for their
survival. It is also seeking to destroy UNRWA, the very agency mandated by the United
Nations to provide them with life sustaining aid and assistance, including
to, I quote, "Prevent conditions of starvation and distress among them," end
quote, "Until a just and lasting resolution of their plight, in accordance with international law, including General
Assembly Resolution 1943 of 1948."

It is against that backdrop that I turn to Israel's breach of its duty to cooperate with the United
Nations. Article 25 of the charter stipulates that, "All members shall give
the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes, in accordance with
the present charter. This is a broad obligation of cooperation binding members, without
restriction, as to the nature of the action involved, or the identity of the United Nations entity taking it, subject
to the action being in accordance with the charter. This is reflected in state
practice, including written statements in these proceedings, and numerous UN resolutions concerning Palestine."

Israel now argues before this court that the article 25 obligation should be
interpreted as restricted to certain limited actions taken by the security council, where the United States
repeatedly wields its veto to shield Israel from accountability.
But Israel interpreted this obligation very differently when being considered for membership in the United
Nations. At a meeting of the committee considering its application in 1949, Israel undertook unqualifiedly to,
quote, "Cooperate with the organs" plural, "of the United Nations, with all the means
at our disposal, in the fulfillment of the part of resolution 194 concerning
refugees." End quote. Israel has also interpreted the obligation broadly when commending other
states for acting as quote, "loyal members of this organization." End quote.

"In providing every assistance to the UN pursuant to article 25," Israel cannot now credibly assert for
itself a different interpretation of the charter. The court has itself confirmed the
nature of the obligation. In its reparation for injuries advisory opinion, it emphasized the importance of the duty
noting that, quote, "The effective working of the organization, the accomplishment of its task, and the
independence and effectiveness of the work of its agents, require that these undertakings should be strictly
observed." Accordingly, as the secretary general has underscored, it has
been a long-standing position of the secretariat, I quote, "That member states are required to provide every assistance
to United Nations entities, to ensure the effective implementation of their mandates."
He reaffirmed this just four months ago in his letter to the Security Council and General
Assembly, underscoring that as a member of the United Nations, Israel is required
quote, "To give UNRWA every assistance," end quote, in any action taken. In accordance
with the charter, Israel is intentionally and egregiously failing to do so.

Secondly, and relatedly, Israel is egregiously breaching its obligations to
respect the inviolability of UN premises, and the immunity of UN premises property and assets, pursuant to article charter,
article 105, and Israel's obligations under the 1946 convention on the
privileges and immunities of the United Nations,
Israel is similarly in egregious breach of its obligations to respect the privileges and immunities of UN
officials, including salaried Palestinian staff, international staff, and experts on
UN missions, including fact-finding missions. Those obligations are
unqualified, and apply both in times of peace, and of armed conflict.
They cannot be abrogated by a military occupier, particularly one that is
unlawfully present in occupied territory. Given that those obligations
bind Israel, pursuant to the charter, and the 1946 convention to which it is a
party, they are entirely unaffected by Israel's announced withdrawal from its
bilateral agreement with UNRWA. Israel's violations of those obligations
in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, include its forcible entry into UN schools, its seizure and often
violent shuttering of UN premises, and its failure to protect them from attack by Israeli
civilians. They also include Israel's obstruction or prohibition of the movement of Palestinian UN staff, and of
the access by international UN staff to the occupied Palestinian territory.
In Gaza, Israel's violations of those obligations include its obstruction of
UN aid supplies, goods, and equipment, into and throughout the
territory, and its attacks on UN food stores, distribution facilities, and
humanitarian convoys.

Further violations include Israel's use
of UN premises as Military Bases, and its violent lethal attacks on UN schools,
shelters, and healthcare facilities, which have been a feature of every large-scale military assault on Gaza
since at least 2009. Since October 2023 alone, Israel has
attacked more than 310 UN facilities in Gaza, many being struck repeatedly.
Israel violates the immunities of UN officials, including by killing, injuring,
and unlawfully detaining them, and subjecting them to violent interrogation
and ill treatment, including severe beatings, water boarding, deprivation of
food and water, and threats of extreme harm to their families.
Such violations against UN staff also constitute serious breaches of Israel's
obligations under the 1973 convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes
against internationally protected persons. Previously, Israel has failed to prevent violent attacks on UN officials, or to
prosecute those responsible. The Israeli attacks on the 23rd of March 2025 on UN personnel, and
other aid workers in Rafah, stands as a stark example.

The slide on your screens shows the mangled wreckage of a UN vehicle crushed
by Israeli soldiers, and hidden in the sand, buried alongside its murdered
driver, a UN employee and 14 medics and first responders, with their destroyed
ambulances, and fire truck. They were only recovered six days later,
an initial joint UN mission to recover the bodies having been abandoned, after, quote, "Encountering hundreds of civilians
fleeing under gunfire." The acting director of OCH in Gaza described, I quote again, "Witnessing
a woman shot in the back of the head. When a young man tried to retrieve her,
he too was shot," end quote, as a video recording has exposed
the Israeli army's Golani unit, responsible for the attacks.

"On the 23rd of March ___ was briefed prior to its
deployment to Rafah that, I quote, 'Everyone you encounter is an enemy. If
you spot a figure, open fire, eliminate, and move on.'"

It was the recording of the Israeli attacks on the 23rd of March, found on the mobile phone of a slain Palestinian
Red Crescent paramedic, that compelled Israel's retraction of its initial attempted justification of the
killings.

That recording of Rifaat Radwan's final words, also reflects the sacrifice
made by so many in Gaza, who have given their lives for others. After reciting the Muslim prayers
of the dying, and knowing his mother's heart would be broken by his death, he called
out, "Forgive me mother, forgive me. I chose this path to help people. Forgive me."

-- ‘Forgive me, Mama’: A Gaza mother’s agony for a son Israel killed. Rifaat Radwan was among 15 paramedics Israel killed, he recorded his own death and begged his mother to forgive him, by Maram Humaid, aljazeera.com.

Footage shows moment Israeli soldiers killed Palestinian paramedics
Guardian News
Apr 5, 2025 #idf #gazawar #israel

The video, shot by one of the medics who was killed in Rafah on 23 March, shows clearly marked ambulances using flashing emergency lights as they searched the area for colleagues who had gone missing.

The Israeli military has said its soldiers “did not randomly attack” any ambulances, insisting they fired on “terrorists” approaching them in “suspicious vehicles”.

The footage appears to contradict the IDF's version of events.

As stated by the director general of the
International Committee of the Red Cross, quote, "The situation in Gaza will haunt
us for decades, because no one will be able to say we weren't aware. All the
information is available. The images are there." End quote. They are being streamed from the
phones of the living and the dead.
All the information is available also.

Of Israel's long-standing violations of the fundamental human rights of Palestinians
which is a third topic to which I now turn israel's actions including those
long predating October 2023 are egregious violation of articles 55 and
56 of chapter 9 of the charter through those articles Israel quote
pledged to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the United Nations to promote higher standards of
living and universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all end
quote the obligations to which chapter 9 gives rise are not optional
as the United States explained in its submissions in the southwest Africa case which concerned another situation of
occupation of Namibia by apartheid South Africa I quote "In accordance with
chapter nine of the charter states have an obligation to cooperate with the United Nations towards the realization
of human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination for the people of
Namibia." end quote the same applies without
discrimination to the people of Palestine that is because through the
charter the people of the United Nations including Israel have declared
themselves quote determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights in the
dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of nations large
and small end quote one of the foundational purposes of the
United Nations is I quote to achieve international cooperation in solving
international problems of a humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and
for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction end
quote international law protects and binds all peoples equally
there are no children of a lesser God yet for decades Israel has denied
and violated with impunity the fundamental human rights of the Palestinian people in breach of its
obligations under the UN charter and international human rights law while in
parallel preventing attempts by the UN other organizations and third states to
ensure their fulfillment it has violated the right of Palestinians to development causing
widespread poverty across the occupied Palestinian territory and forcing large numbers of people into depend dependence
on international assistance and then it has obstructed that international assistance or destroy destroyed it once
provided it has violated the rights of Palestinians to food to water to health
to physical integrity to education to property to shelter and above all else
their right to life including through the system of racial discrimination and apartheid it has
imposed the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian men women and children whom it has imprisoned many without charge or
trial have been particularly severely impacted israel's violations have been
extensively documented by UN bodies and by Palestinian and international NOS's
and their breach is recorded by this court in two previous advisory opinions however even as against that
standard Israel's violations since October 2023 have been unprecedented
the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former defense
minister Galant include the crime against humanity of persecution defined
as I quote the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights
contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or
collectivity in addition to the war crime of starvation dealt with in the previous presentation warrants have also
been issued for the crimes against humanity of murder and inhumane acts
involving killing and the infliction of great physical or mental suffering or serious injury committed as part of a
widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population
the ICC pre-trial chamber considered for example that I quote "by intentionally
limiting or preventing medical supplies and medicine from getting into Gaza the two individuals are responsible
for inflicting great suffering by means of inhumane acts on persons in need of
treatment doctors were forced to operate on wounded persons and carry out
amputations including on children without anesthetics causing these
persons extreme pain and suffering end quote and almost
inconceivably the situation has deteriorated further since those warrants were issued
as of late 2024 the UN had already assessed that local water and food
production in Gaza crops olive tree orchards fishing cattle and poultry
farms had been all but destroyed as had been essential services including
electricity water and sewage alongside the destruction of bakeries shops and
trade and now no fuel no medicine no food no
water nothing has been permitted by Israel to enter Gaza for 57
days three days ago on Friday the UN World Food Program announced that it had
now I quote depleted all its food stocks in Gaza
widespread malnutrition rampant infectious diseases alongside untreated
conditions and the severe mental impact of Israel's assault on Gaza together with its systematic destruction of 95%
of Gaza's hospitals and maternity clinics and its killing of so many of Gaza's medical experts will impact
Palestinians for generations this is not just about Gaza's present but about its very
future and Gaza's future its approximately 1 million children are
being impacted particularly severely children are literally freezing
and starving to death they include 79 children including
eight newborn babies who died during the particularly harsh cold weather of Christmas and New Year gone by
gaza is now home to the largest cohort of child amputees in the world the largest orphan crisis in modern history
and a whole generation in danger of suffering from stunting causing irreparable physical and cognitive
impairments over 15,600 children have been killed
violently tens of thousands more of Gaz's children are injured or missing
and many of those so those surviving are so traumatized that they openly express
the wish to die they like everyone in Gaza are in desperate urgent need of assistance
which Israel continues to block as recently warned by the heads of
12 international aid agencies I quote "Survival itself is now slipping out of
reach israel's acts are not just murderous and
inhumane they are genocidal as the UN Commission of Inquiry and others have concluded and as is the near consensus
view across the human rights community while the determination of Israel's international responsibility for
genocide is a subject of other proceedings before this court the risk to the right of Palestinians to be
protected from acts of genocide is at issue in these proceedings that is because the court is being asked
to advise on Israel's obligations in relation to the provision of aid and other services to Gaza in the context of
a binding determination by a competent organ of the United Nations being the
court itself that there exists a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to the right of Palestinians
to be protected from acts of genocide and that Israel must ensure humanitarian
aid and basic services in that situation despite Israel's objections
there is nothing to pres prevent the court advising on the obligations flowing from that situation in these
proceedings on the contrary given that what is an issue is at the very least a situation
of a risk of a violation of a permpary norm of an ergonom's nature the court
could itself risk I quote failing in the discharge of its judicial functions if
it did not declare that there is an obligation especially upon members of the United Nations to bring that
situation to an end end quote as the court underscored in the Southwest Africa
case in the context of what UNRA's commissioner general commissioner general has called I quote one of the
darkest times for our common humanity that we vowed would not happen again end quote.

The court might well consider it particularly important to remind all states again, as it did a year ago in Nicaragua vs. Germany, of their
international obligations under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide,
as well as under other binding rules of international law.

That brings me to the fourth, and penultimate issue: Israel's violations of UN resolutions and the orders of this court.
Applying the court's reasoning in Southwest Africa, there is no doubt that the four Security Council resolutions,
addressing the current situation in Gaza, are binding decisions, pursuant to
article 25 of the charter, having regard to their subject matter their imperative
language, and the discussions leading to them.

Those discussions include the
Secretary General's exceptional triggering, in December 2023, of article
99 of the charter, the most powerful tool available to him, permitting him to bring
to the Security Council quote, "any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the
maintenance of international peace and security," end quote.
Israel's continuing failure to comply with those resolutions, with unanimous resolution 2417, which condemns the
unlawful denial of humanitarian access to civilian populations, and with dozens
of other Security Council resolutions since its admission to the United Nations, constitute repeated violations
of Charter Article 25, reflecting a fundamental rejection of the Security
Council's authority. Israel has similarly defied numerous
General Assembly resolutions, including those calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, setting out the
modalities for the implementation of this court's 2024 advisory opinion, and I
quote, "strongly deploring the continued and total disregard and breaches by the
government of Israel of its obligations under the charter," end quote.
Israel continues to defy resolution 194 concerning the right of return of
Palestinian refugees, with which it unequivocally undertook to comply on being admitted to UN membership, and
resolution ES1024, demanding that Palestinians displaced during Israel's occupation, be
allowed to return home, as stipulated by this court in its 2024 opinion.
Israel has also repeatedly violated Charter Article 941 by failing to comply
with this court's binding orders in South Africa vs. Israel. Israel's prime minister has
rejected the court's authority asserting that, I quote, "nobody will stop us, not
the Hague, not the Axis of evil, and not anybody else."
Just 12 days ago its defense minister declared in defiance of this court's
orders that, I quote, "Israel's policy is clear, and no humanitarian aid is about
to enter Gaza," in violation of the court's order to
maintain open land crossing points, in particular the Rafah crossing, previously
described by the UN High Commissioner as, quote, "the symbolic lifeline for 2.3
million people in Gaza." Israel has closed all
crossings, and it has turned Rafah itself, once a refuge for almost 1.5 million
displaced Palestinians, into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
The slide on your screens reflective of the general tenor. Israeli media, since at least October
2023, shows Rafah devastated with the caption, "The annihilation of Rafah is
complete," alongside an Israeli flag, and a flexed bicep.

Plans are reportedly underway for Israel to annex 75 square kilometers of Rafah
of Gaza, to Israel's so-called buffer zone, permanently. This, together with Israel's
continuing maritime blockade, cuts Gaza and its people off from direct aid and assistance, and from the rest of the
world. In further violation of the court's orders, Israel continues to block
UN-mandated investigatory bodies from Gaza, while destroying and burying
evidence of its crimes. Despite the extraordinary efforts of Palestinian journalists, who are
themselves repeatedly targeted and killed, so much remains undocumented.
As stated by UNRWA's commissioner general, I quote, "I shudder to think of what will
still be revealed about the horrors that have taken place in this narrow strip of
land." Simultaneously, Israel obstructs external investigations.
It does so while its officials denounce the UN commission of inquiry, and the UN-human rights council itself,
as quote, "a propaganda mouthpiece for terrorist organizations and anti-semitic
Israel haters engaged in blood libels," and calls for the council to be, quote,
"removed from this earth."

And so to my final submission
concerning the principle of good faith one of the United Nations bedrock principles set out in article 22 of the
charter it provides all members in order to ensure to all of them the rights and
benefits resulting from membership shall fulfill in good faith the obligations
assumed by them in accordance with the present charter
the obligation reaffirmed in the declaration on friendly relations was described by the court in the nuclear
test case as quote one of the basic principles governing the creation and
performance of legal obligations whatever their source end quote
it reflects not only the maxim of pact but also that of quihabet camode
feri debit honor, whomever receives the advantages must also bear the
responsibilities. Israel is failing to fulfill its charter responsibilities in good faith
its violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people its attacks on the United Nations and on UN officials
property and premises its deliberate obstruction of the organization's work
and its attempt to destroy an entire UN subsidiary organ are unprecedented in
the history of the organization they evidence a fundamental repudiation by Israel of its charter obligations
owed both to the organization and to all UN members and of the international rule
of law they are antithetical to the actions of a peaceloving
state israel's very submissions to this court violate its obligations to cooperate with the UN in good faith
advancing allegations for which Israel has persistently failed to provide credible evidence
this is notwithstanding the Secretary General's call on Israel quote to refrain from such
misrepresentations end quote given how very damaging they are to the United
Nations but for Israeli officials damage to the United Nations appears to be the
point their attacks are not limited to UNRA or indeed the UN Human Rights Council
israel has declared the secretary general of the United Nations himself persona non grata in Israel accusing him
of being quote an official Hamas spokesperson engaged in anti-semitic and
anti-Israel conduct israeli officials demand his resignation labeling his triggering
triggering of Charter Article 99 and his calls for a ceasefire in Gaza quote a
danger to world peace senior Israeli officials leveled similar
accusations at the United Nations itself as an organization denouncing it as quote "a swamp of anti-semitic bile an
accomplice to terrorists and a stain on humanity."
Israeli officials have even sought to discredit this court calling it quote an anti-semitic
court comprising judges from Muslim dictatorships which has been manipulated
and weaponized in the persecution of the Jewish people as stated by UNRA's Commissioner
General I quote "The international order is crumbling in a repetition of the
horrors that led to the establishment of the United Nations and in violation of
commitments to prevent their occurrence the attacks on UNRWA are an integral part
of this disintegration," end quote.

Not stopping at UNRWA, the Israeli
ambassador to the United Nations itself has demanded that the entire UN and,
quote, "its corrupt courts, the ICC and the ICJ, must be defunded," end quote.
In addition to seeking to destroy the protective application of international law to the Palestinian people, Israel
appears set on destroying the very international framework, created to ensure compliance with international law
and accountability, for its breach, with profound consequences that reverberate
far beyond Palestine, and Palestinians. If these venerable institutions are to
survive, and if, in the words of the UN relief chief, quote, "The basic principles
of law still count, the international community must act while it can to
uphold them" end quote, Mr. President, members of the court,
the international community is so acting in seeking the court's advice on these matters, having regard to the court's
prior, vital, unwavering reaffirmation of international law in its 2024 advisory
opinion, mindful of the former Secretary General's description of the United Nations as, quote, "the hope and home of
all humankind, with the charter at its compass," end quote, the state of Palestine
respectfully calls on this court to provide this further advisory opinion,
urgently to reset that compass in the continuing, desperate hope that
international law might finally prevail.

[admin]

In his victory speech, Mark Carney warns Canadians that 'Trump is trying to break us'
by Jackie Northam
Heard on Morning Edition
npr.org
Updated April 29, 202511:13 AM ET
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/28/nx-s1-53 ... e-minister


Canada's Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Mark Carney applauds at a victory party in Ottawa, Ontario on Tuesday. Dave Chan/AFP via Getty Images

Mark Carney is staying on as Canada's prime minister, according to the projections of the national broadcaster CBC/Radio Canada, in one of the country's most consequential elections in decades.

But with full results not yet published, it's still not clear if his Liberal Party will win the 172 seats needed for an outright majority in Parliament.

His top opponent, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, lost his own Ontario seat to the Liberals, a post he has held for 20 years. In a concession speech early Tuesday morning, Poilievre said that his party "didn't quite get over the finish line."

The vote was widely seen as a referendum about which candidate could best handle President Trump, who helped spark a wave of nationalism across Canada by threatening to annex Canada and placing stiff tariffs on the country.

"As I've been warning for months, America wants our land, our resources, our water, our country," Carney told supporters Monday night. "These are not idle threats. President Trump is trying to break us so America can own us. That will never ... ever happen."

Carney now enters Parliament for the first time after winning a seat in Ottawa's Nepean constituency.

The elections results quickly drew international reaction. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Union's top official, quickly praised Carney. "I look forward to working closely together, both bilaterally and within the G7," she wrote on X. "We'll defend our shared democratic values, promote multilateralism, and champion free and fair trade."

Australia's prime minister, Anthony Albanese, added on X: "In a time of global uncertainty, I look forward to continuing to work with you to build on the enduring friendship between our nations, in the shared interests of all our citizens."

And after a rocky few years of Canadian-Chinese relations, China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Guo Jiakun, said: "China stands ready to grow its relations with Canada on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefit."

The 60-year-old Carney had a career in investment banking before becoming the governor of the Bank of England during the Brexit turmoil, and as the head of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 economic downturn.

Carney had never held political office before being named leader of the Liberal Party in March. His background in finance and his seeming unflappable demeanor helped convince voters he was the candidate that could best tackle Trump and his sometimes erratic policies.

Carney beat out Pierre Poilievre, a 45-year-old career politician and head of the Conservative Party. It was a stunning reversal of fortunes for Poilievre, who for more than a year rode high in the polls, at one point with his Conservatives up 27 points over the Liberals.

Poilievre's momentum began to slip in January when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned. The Liberal Party's Trudeau was widely disliked in Canada by the end of his decade-long tenure and his resignation gave the Liberals a lift. Carney became Trudeau's successor.

But the real boost came when President Trump began targeting Canada's economy and its sovereignty. Many Canadians were outraged by Trump's threat to make Canada the 51st state — a threat he repeated in a post on social media on election day.

Many of Poilievre's positions and much of his rhetoric mirror Trump — albeit on a more moderate level. The Conservative leader has a "Canada First" slogan, he wants tighter borders, smaller government and to end what right-wing politicians consider "wokeness." While his proposals resonated with some voters early on, Poilievre's association with Trump ultimately ended up hurting him badly.

It is the fourth consecutive federal election the Conservative Party has lost, leading some analysts to believe the party will now go through a time of reckoning about its message and appeal.

[admin]

Trump Signs Executive Orders to Militarize Police, Punish Sanctuary Cities and Refugees
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
Apr 29, 2025


Image Credit: X / @Whitehouse

President Trump has signed three more executive orders, further cracking down on the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers. One order seeks to compile a list of so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with Trump’s mass deportation policies.

A second order further militarizes local police departments, while providing legal resources to officers accused of abuses; it also seeks to undo federal consent decrees for departments that have committed civil rights abuses and seeks to punish local officials who “unlawfully prohibit law enforcement officers from carrying out duties.”

A third executive order requires professional truck drivers to be proficient in English. On Monday, staffers placed signs on the White House lawn showing mugshots of immigrants, linking them to crimes with the word ”ARRESTED” written in all caps.

This comes as House Republicans have proposed a bill that would charge people arriving at a U.S. port of entry $1,000 in order to file an asylum claim — and a $3,500 fee for those sponsoring children. The right to seek asylum is a fundamental human right enshrined in international law, and the U.S. has never before charged petitioners.

**********************

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Strengthens America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens
The White House
April 28, 2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/ ... -citizens/

EMPOWERING LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to empower state and local law enforcement to relentlessly pursue criminals and protect American communities. More specifically, the Order directs the Attorney General to:

• Create a mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification for officers facing unjust legal expenses from official duties, including pro bono assistance.
• Maximize the use of Federal resources to improve training, increase officer pay and benefits, strengthen legal protections, seek tougher sentences for crimes against officers, enhance prison security and capacity, and improve crime-data uniformity.
• Review Federal consent decrees, out-of-court agreements, and post-judgment orders involving State or local law enforcement agencies and modify or rescind any that impede the performance of law enforcement functions.
• Increase the provision of surplus military assets to support local law enforcement and evaluate their use in crime prevention.
• Use recently established Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs) to advance Federal and local coordination.

KEEPING AMERICANS SAFE: President Trump’s Executive Order empowers law enforcement to do their jobs, relentlessly pursue criminals, and protect innocent citizens.

• Millions of Americans live in fear, worried that surging crime will destroy their lives, homes, or businesses.
• Crime increases when local leaders demonize law enforcement and impose legal and political handcuffs that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible; reversing this dynamic is essential to restoring public safety.
• Democrat-led soft-on-crime policies have fueled chaos.
o In many local jurisdictions, officers are forced to comply with DEI policies or are wrongly accused of misconduct, which diverts their attention from fighting crime.
o Some use “bail reform” to free dangerous felons without ensuring they face trial, leaving communities vulnerable to repeat offenders.
o Some ignore shoplifting, vagrancy, and urban encampments, allowing disorder to spread unchecked in cities.
o Certain jurisdictions excuse violent riots when it’s fashionable and demonize law enforcement officers who risk their lives to protect citizens.
• President Trump is committed to reversing these failed policies, empowering law enforcement, and ensuring every American can live in safety and security.

STOPPING CRIME AND UPHOLDING JUSTICE: President Trump is fulfilling his campaign promise to Make America Safe Again.

• President Trump sealed the border and initiated the largest deportation operation in U.S. history to remove criminal illegal aliens and protect American communities.
• President Trump created a task force to make Washington, D.C., safe and beautiful.
• President Trump designated international cartels and other violent organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
• President Trump marshalled Federal resources to combat the explosion of anti-Semitism on our campuses and in our streets.
• This Executive Order will restore law and order and ensure that every community is better protected from crime and lawlessness.

*****************************

Fact Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Enforces Commonsense Rules of the Road for America’s Truck Drivers
The White House
April 28, 2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/ ... k-drivers/

ENFORCING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY FOR SAFETY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to keep American families safe on the road by ensuring anyone behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle is properly qualified and proficient in English.

• The Order directs the Secretary of Transportation to rescind guidance that watered down the law requiring English proficiency for commercial drivers.
• It mandates revising out-of-service criteria to ensure drivers violating English proficiency rules are placed out-of-service, enhancing roadway safety.
• It instructs the Secretary of Transportation to review state issuance of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses to identify any irregularities and ensure American drivers are validly licensed and qualified.
• The Order directs the Secretary of Transportation to carry out additional administrative, regulatory, or enforcement actions to improve the working conditions of America’s truck drivers.

SUPPORTING AMERICA’S TRUCK DRIVERS: President Trump recognizes that America’s truck drivers are essential to the strength of our economy, the security of our Nation, and the livelihoods of the American people.

• President Trump believes that English is a non-negotiable safety requirement for professional drivers, as they should be able to read and understand traffic signs; communicate with traffic safety officers, border patrol, agricultural checkpoints, and cargo weight-limit station personnel; and provide and receive feedback and directions in English.
• Federal law mandates that commercial vehicle drivers read and speak English sufficiently, yet this requirement has not been enforced pursuant to Obama Administration guidance, compromising roadway safety as trucking fatalities have increased since this guidance was issued.
o Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States, killing over 120 people every day.
• The Trump Administration is committed to enforcing this law to protect the safety of American truckers, drivers, passengers, and others by ensuring that anyone operating a commercial vehicle is properly qualified and proficient in English, the national language.

UPHOLDING NATIONAL LANGUAGE STANDARDS: President Trump has long championed the idea that English should be the official language of the United States.

• President Trump previously signed an Executive Order designating English as the official language of the United States.
• With this Executive Order, President Trump is ensuring commercial drivers meet established English-proficiency standards to safely navigate roads, comply with regulations, and communicate effectively with authorities and employers.

*****************************

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Protects American Communities from Criminal Aliens
The White House
April 28, 2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/ ... al-aliens/

CRACKING DOWN ON SANCTUARY CITIES: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to enforce federal law with respect to sanctuary jurisdictions to protect their citizens from dangerous illegal aliens.

• The Order directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to publish a list of States and local jurisdictions obstructing federal immigration law enforcement and notify each sanctuary jurisdiction of its non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it.
• Sanctuary jurisdictions that do not comply with federal law may lose federal funding.
• The Order directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to bring non-compliant jurisdictions into compliance.
• It instructs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to develop mechanisms for proper eligibility verification in sanctuary jurisdictions to prevent illegal aliens from receiving federal public benefits.
• The Order ensures illegal aliens are not being favored over American citizens by directing the Attorney General to address state or local laws that unlawfully prioritize aliens.
o This includes in-state tuition benefits for aliens or criminal sentencing factors that favor aliens.

ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW: President Trump believes it is imperative that the federal government restore the enforcement of United States immigration law to protect national sovereignty and security.

• Millions of illegal aliens entered the United States under President Biden’s watch, including human smugglers, gang members, criminals, and terrorists.
• Some state and local officials are choosing to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, a lawless insurrection against the Federal Government’s constitutional authority to protect the territorial sovereignty of the United States and conduct a unified national policy on immigration.
o The sanctuary state of Massachusetts released several illegal aliens accused of raping kids back into the community while refusing to hold them for ICE.
o Jose Ibarra was arrested and released twice before going on to murder Laken Riley.
o The sanctuary city of Philadelphia ignored an ICE detainer and released a previously deported illegal alien from Honduras, who then went on to rape a child.
• Beyond creating enormous national security risks, these efforts often violate federal criminal laws, including those prohibiting obstruction of justice, harboring or hiring illegal aliens, conspiring against the United States, and impeding federal law enforcement.

SECURING OUR HOMELAND: President Trump is following through on his promise to rid the United States of sanctuary cities.

• President Trump: “No more Sanctuary Cities! They protect the Criminals, not the Victims. They are disgracing our Country, and are being mocked all over the World. Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!”

[admin]

US lawyer for Venezuelans held in El Salvador says government denied her access to clients
by Reuters
April 29, 20251:08 AM MDT Updated 12 hours ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/ ... 025-04-28/

SAN SALVADOR, April 28 (Reuters) - A lawyer for ten Venezuelan men sent by the U.S. government to a prison in El Salvador says the Salvadoran government denied her access to meet with her clients.

Kerry Kennedy, a human rights activist who is the daughter of assassinated U.S. politician Robert F. Kennedy and niece of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy, told reporters during a trip to El Salvador on Monday that the Salvadoran government did not respect her clients' rights to meet with their lawyer.

"Despite the right of our clients and thousands of Salvadorans to be attended by their lawyers, the government of El Salvador, starting with President (Nayib) Bukele, did not respect these rights and denied us, their lawyers, access to our clients," Kennedy told a press conference.

El Salvador's government didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.


Kerry Kennedy, President of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights attends a press conference in Santa Tecla, El Salvador April 28, 2025. REUTERS/Jose Cabezas

More than 250 Venezuelans were deported from the United States to a maximum security Salvadoran prison beginning of March, under an agreement through which the United States is paying El Salvador to hold the prisoners.

The U.S. administration alleges the people it deported are gang members and it can deport them under a 18th-century wartime law, but lawyers and family members say their clients and loved ones are innocent and were deprived of due process.

Kennedy said she visited El Salvador to speak with the defendants, document the human rights situation and learn about the condition of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man the U.S. government said was mistakenly deported.

The Trump administration has refused to adhere to a Supreme Court order to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, while Bukele has said he would not release him in El Salvador nor "smuggle" him back into the country.

The case has pitted the U.S. executive against the courts, raising the prospect of a constitutional conflict.

Reporting by Nelson Renteria; Writing by Brendan O'Boyle and Sarah Morland; Editing by Aida Pelaez-Fernandez

[admin]

US dismisses all authors of National Climate Assessment, email says
by Valerie Volcovici
Reuters
April 29, 20259:59 AM MDT Updated 4 hours ago
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/ ... 025-04-28/

WASHINGTON, April 28 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration has dismissed all contributors to the U.S. government's signature study that informs federal and local governments on how to prepare for climate change impacts, according to an email sent to them on Monday.

The dismissal of nearly 400 contributors to the sixth National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by Congress, leaves the future of the report in doubt since the multi-year, peer-reviewed analysis is due for publication in 2028.

"At this time, the scope of the NCA6 is being evaluated in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990," the email, seen by Reuters, said, referring to the legislation that kickstarted the assessments that was signed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.

The climate assessment had been overseen by the Global Change Research Program, which the Trump administration dismissed earlier this month, and had coordinated input from 14 federal agencies and hundreds of external scientists.

Its findings were meant to inform federal agencies and lawmakers for decision-making around climate policy and funding priorities.

The last assessment, published in 2023, said climate change was increasingly imposing costs on Americans, as prices rise for weather-related insurance or certain foods, and as medical care becomes more expensive as people face threats like extreme heat.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the email.

Trump's administration has targeted scientific research in several areas in sweeping government job cuts to curtail what it calls wasteful spending, including at the National Institutes of Health, Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The climate assessment was a target of Project 2025, the right-wing Heritage Foundation-written policy blueprint that has helped shape some of Trump's policies.

Project 2025's chapter on scientific agencies said the National Climate Assessment should be reshaped to ensure contributors are better scrutinized.

Reporting by Valerie Volcovici: Valerie Volcovici covers U.S. climate and energy policy from Washington, DC. She is focused on climate and environmental regulations at federal agencies and in Congress and how the energy transition is transforming the United States. Other areas of coverage include her award-winning reporting plastic pollution and the ins and outs of global climate diplomacy and United Nations climate negotiations.