Connect with us

Politics

Trump administration asks appeals court to lift restrictions on SoCal immigration raids

Published

on

Trump administration asks appeals court to lift restrictions on SoCal immigration raids

The Trump administration asked a federal appeals court Monday to allow immigration agents to resume unfettered raids across Southern California, seeking to overturn a federal judge’s order in Los Angeles that barred “roving patrols” in seven counties.

The order “is inflicting irreparable harm by preventing the Executive from ensuring that immigration laws are enforced, severely infringing on the President’s Article II authority,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote in a motion asking for an emergency stay on Monday. “These harms will be compounded the longer that injunction is in place.”

After weeks of aggressive sweeps by masked and heavily armed federal agents, the operations seemingly ceased in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties following a temporary restraining order granted Friday night by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong.

A coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests that have sown terror and sparked widespread protest since June 6.

“It should tell you everything you need to know that the federal government is rushing to appeal an order that instructs them only to follow the Constitution,” said Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with ACLU of Southern California, who argued the case. “We look forward to defending the temporary restraining order and ensuring that communities across Southern California are safe from the federal government’s violence.”

Advertisement

Despite arguments from the Trump administration that its tactics are valid, Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement is forbidden by the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The judge found that preventing detainees from meeting with lawyers violates the right to due process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.

“What the federal government would have this court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening,” she wrote.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem incorrectly referred to Frimpong as a man when responding to the order during a news conference Saturday, saying of the judge’s order: “He’s an idiot.”

“We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we’re going to do. So none of our operations are going to change,” Noem said. “We’re going to appeal it and we’re going to win.”

In addition to blocking roving patrols, the judge also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open part of its detention facility in downtown Los Angeles to attorneys and legal aid groups.

Advertisement

“While the district court injunction is a significant victory for immigrants, the whiplash of court orders and appeals breeds uncertainty,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UC Law San Francisco. “That form of real-world insecurity weakens communities and undermines democratic values in places like L.A.”

The Trump administration did not immediately contest the 5th Amendment portion of the ruling. Instead, its attacked the 4th Amendment claim, seeking a stay that would immediately restore the status quo for immigration agents across Southern California while the case is heard by judges from the higher court.

“It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement,” the appeal argued. “This judicial takeover cannot be allowed to stand.”

But some experts say that’s unlikely.

“Their argument [is] the sky’s falling,” said professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. “They make very extreme arguments, and that doesn’t necessarily help their case in the 9th Circuit.”

Advertisement

The appeal escalates an already fierce and sprawling legal battle over Trump’s promised mass deportations and the means used to achieve it.

After the president deployed troops to quell anti-ICE protests in June, California sued and won a temporary restraining order that would have stripped the president of command.

The appellate panel swiftly blocked that decision, before overturning it in mid-June, leaving thousands of soldiers in Trump’s hands.

But the Trump appointee who authored the June 19 ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, also bristled at the government’s argument that the president’s actions in the case were “unreviewable.”

“Some of the things they say are unorthodox, arguments we don’t usually hear in court,” Chen said. “Instead of framing this as executive overreach, they’re saying the judiciary’s efforts to put limits on executive power is judicial overreach.”

Advertisement

Last week, another 9th Circuit judge challenged that June decision, petitioning the court to rehear the issue with a larger “en banc” panel — a move that could nudge the case to the Supreme Court.

“Before [courts] became so politicized, many judges would often defer to the three-judge panels that first heard appeals, because they trusted their colleagues,” Tobias said. “Increasing politicization of most appeals courts and somewhat decreased collegiality complicate efforts to predict how the Ninth’s judges will vote in this case.”

Meanwhile, California is gathering evidence to bolster its claim that Marines and National Guard forces participating in immigration enforcement run afoul of the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids using soldiers to enforce civilian laws.

Compared to those questions, the legal issues in the L.A. appeal are simple, experts said.

“What makes this case different is how much it’s based on facts,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It’s much harder for an appellate court to overturn a trial court finding of fact then it is with regard to legal conclusions.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

Published

on

Video: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

new video loaded: Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

transcript

transcript

Kennedy Center Board Votes to Add Trump to Its Name

President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

Reporter: “She just posted on X, your press secretary, [Karoline Leavitt,] that the board members of the Kennedy Center voted unanimously to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center. What is your reaction to that?” “Well, I was honored by it. The board is a very distinguished board, most distinguished people in the country, and I was surprised by it. I was honored by it.” “Thank you very much, everybody. And I’ll tell you what: the Trump-Kennedy Center, I mean —” [laughs] “Kennedy Center — I’m sorry. I’m sorry.” [cheers] “Wow, this is terribly embarrassing.” “They don’t have the power to do it. Only Congress can rename the Kennedy Center. How does that actually help the American people, who’ve already been convinced that Donald Trump is not focused on making their life better? The whole thing is extraordinary.”

Advertisement
President Trump’s handpicked board of trustees announced that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts would be renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center, a change that may need Congress’s approval.

By Axel Boada

December 19, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

Published

on

Judge tosses Trump-linked lawsuit targeting Chief Justice Roberts, dealing setback to Trump allies

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump legal group seeking access to a trove of federal judiciary documents, including from a body overseen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts – putting an end to a protracted legal fight brought by Trump allies seeking to access key judicial documents. 

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee assigned to the case earlier this year, dismissed the long-shot lawsuit brought by the America First Legal Foundation, the pro-Trump group founded by White House policy adviser Stephen Miller after Trump’s first term; Miller, now back in the White House, is no longer affiliated with AFL.

McFadden ultimately dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, saying Thursday that two groups responsible for certain regulatory and administrative functions for the federal judiciary are an extension of the judicial branch, and therefore protected by the same exemptions to federal laws granted to the judiciary.

“Nothing about either entity’s structure suggests the president must supervise their employees or otherwise keep them ‘accountable,’ as is the case for executive officers,” McFadden said.

Advertisement

TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON VOTING BLOCKED BY FEDERAL JUDGES AMID FLURRY OF LEGAL SETBACKS

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen at the 60th inaugural ceremony on Jan. 20, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Ricky Carioti /The Washington Post via Getty Images)

The lawsuit by AFL was first reported by Fox News Digital earlier this year. It named both Chief Justice Roberts in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and sought access to a trove of judicial documents from both bodies under the Freedom of Information Act.

AFL accused both groups of performing regulatory actions that the lawsuit argued exceeded the scope of the “core functions” of the judiciary, and which it argued should subject the groups to the FOIA requests as a result.

AFL cited recent actions the Judicial Conference and Administrative Office had taken in 2023 to “accommodate” requests from Congress to investigate allegations of ethical improprieties by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and subsequently to create or adopt an “ethics code” for justices on the high court.

Advertisement

“Under our constitutional tradition, accommodations with Congress are the province of the executive branch,” AFL argued.

“The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are therefore executive agencies,” and must therefore be overseen by the president, not the courts, they said.

GORSUCH, ROBERTS SIDE WITH LEFT-LEANING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES IN IMMIGRATION RULING

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

McFadden disagreed, rejecting the group’s argument that “courts” under FOIA refers only to judges. He concluded that both the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office are components of the judicial branch and therefore exempt from FOIA.

Advertisement

“Indeed, if America First were right that only judges and ‘law clerks,’ who ‘directly report to the judge,’ count as part of ‘the courts,’ numerous questions arise, and senseless line drawing ensues,” he said in a memo opinion accompanying his order. “Rather, FOIA’s exclusion reflects that courts include a full range of ‘judicial adjuncts,’ from ‘clerks’ to ‘court reporters,’ who perform ‘tasks that are an integral part of the judicial process.’” 

Plaintiffs for AFL, led by attorney Will Scolinos, had argued in their lawsuit earlier this year that the Judicial Conference’s duties are “executive functions” and functions they allege must be supervised by executive officers “who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers.” 

Courts “definitively do not create agencies to exercise functions beyond resolving cases or controversies or administratively supporting those functions,” the group had argued.

The U.S. Judicial Conference is the national policymaking body for the courts. Overseen by the chief justice, it issues policy recommendations and reports to Congress as needed.

TRUMP IS THREATENING TO ‘FEDERALIZE’ DC WITH NATIONAL GUARD AND MORE. HERE’S HOW THAT COULD PLAY OUT 

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C. ((Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty))

The Administrative Office for the U.S. Courts, meanwhile, operates under the guidance and supervision of the Judicial Conference. Its role is to provide administrative support to the federal courts on certain administrative issues and for day-to-day logistics, including setting budgets and organizing data, among other things.

The news comes as President Donald Trump, in his first year back in the White House, has relied heavily on executive orders to advance his agenda — a strategy that has accelerated implementation of campaign promises but also prompted a surge of legal challenges.

 

Trump’s actions sparked hundreds of federal lawsuits this year alone, sending tensions skyrocketing between the executive branch and the courts, including federal judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump’s biggest priorities in his second term. 

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

Published

on

Contributor: Who can afford Trump’s economy? Americans are feeling Grinchy

The holidays have arrived once again. You know, that annual festival of goodwill, compulsory spending and the dawning realization that Santa and Satan are anagrams.

Even in the best of years, Americans stagger through this season feeling financially woozy. This year, however, the picture is bleaker. And a growing number of Americans are feeling Grinchy.

Unemployment is at a four-year high, with Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, declaring, “The U.S. economy is in a hiring recession.” And a new PBS News/NPR/Marist poll finds that 70% of Americans say “the cost of living in the area where they live is not very affordable or not affordable at all.”

Is help on the way? Not likely. Affordable Care Act subsidies are expiring, and — despite efforts to force a vote in the House — it’s highly likely that nothing will be done about this before the end of the year. This translates to ballooning health insurance bills for millions of Americans. I will be among those hit with a higher monthly premium, which gives me standing to complain.

President Trump, meanwhile, remains firmly committed to policies that will exacerbate the rising cost of getting by. Trump’s tariffs — unless blocked by the Supreme Court — will continue to raise prices. And when it comes to his immigration crackdown, Trump is apparently unmoved by the tiresome fact that when you “disappear” workers, prices tend to go up.

Advertisement

Taken together, the Trump agenda amounts to an ambitious effort to raise the cost of living without the benefit of improved living standards. But if your money comes from crypto or Wall Street investments, you’re doing better than ever!

For the rest of us, the only good news is this: Unlike every other Trump scandal, most voters actually seem to care about what’s happening to their pocketbooks.

Politico recently found that erstwhile Trump voters backed Democrats in the 2025 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia for the simple reason that things cost too much.

And Axios reports on a North Carolina focus group in which “11 of the 14 participants, all of whom backed Trump last November, said they now disapprove of his job performance. And 12 of the 14 say they’re more worried about the economy now than they were in January.”

Apparently, inflation is the ultimate reality check — which is horrible news for Republicans.

Advertisement

Trump’s great talent has always been the audacity to employ a “fake it ‘till you make it” con act to project just enough certainty to persuade the rest of us.

His latest (attempted) Jedi mind trick involves claiming prices are “coming down tremendously,” which is not supported by data or the lived experience of anyone who shops.

He also says inflation is “essentially gone,” which is true only if you define “gone” as “slowed its increase.”

Trump may dismiss the affordability crisis as a “hoax” and a “con job,” but voters persist in believing the grocery scanner.

In response, Trump has taken to warning us that falling prices could cause “deflation,” which he now says is even worse than inflation. He’s not wrong about the economic theory, but it hardly seems worth worrying about given that prices are not falling.

Advertisement

Apparently, economic subtlety is something you acquire only after winning the White House.

Naturally, Trump wants to blame Joe Biden, the guy who staggered out of office 11 months ago. And yes, pandemic disruptions and massive stimulus spending helped fuel inflation. But voters elected Trump to fix the problem, which he promised to do “on Day One.”

Lacking tangible results, Trump is reverting to what has always worked for him: the assumption that — if he confidently repeats it enough times — his version of reality will triumph over math.

The difficulty now is that positive thinking doesn’t swipe at the register.

You can lie about the size of your inauguration crowd — no normal person can measure it and nobody cares. But you cannot tell people standing in line at the grocery store that prices are falling when they are actively handing over more money.

Advertisement

Pretending everything is fine goes over even worse when a billionaire president throws Gatsby-themed parties, renovates the Lincoln Bedroom and builds a huge new ballroom at the White House. The optics are horrible, and there’s no doubt they are helping fuel the political backlash.

But the main problem is the main problem.

At the end of the day, the one thing voters really care about is their pocketbooks. No amount of spin or “manifesting” an alternate reality will change that.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending