"US district and appeals courts are increasingly rebuking Donald Trump's radical moves on tackling crime, illegal immigration and other actions where administration lawyers or Trump have made sweeping claims of emergencies that judges have bluntly rejected as erroneous and undermining the rule of law in America. Legal scholars and ex-judges note that strong court pushback has come from judges appointed by Republicans, including Trump himself, and Democrats,"
"Both district judges sharply challenged Trump's plans to deploy national guard troops to deal with minimal violence that Trump had portrayed as akin to war zones, spurring the judges to impose temporary restraining orders. Immergut, whom president Trump nominated for the court in his first term, rejected Trump's depiction of Portland as war-ravaged, and in need of saving from Antifa and other domestic terrorists concluding that the president's determination was simply untethered to the facts."
Federal district and appeals courts have increasingly rebuked Donald Trump's emergency claims and sweeping executive measures on crime, illegal immigration and related issues. Judges across the political spectrum have found many presidential factual determinations untethered to evidence and have rejected expansive claims of emergency authority. District judges imposed temporary restraining orders against National Guard deployments after finding portrayals of city violence exaggerated, though an appeals court later authorized some troop movements. A 161-page ruling in Boston found certain deportation policies sought to remove non-citizen campus activists in violation of First Amendment rights under an unconstitutionally broad definition of antisemitism. These rulings have slowed several extreme policies.
#judicial-rulings #executive-power #national-guard-deployments #immigration-and-deportation #first-amendment
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]