![\"BREAKING:](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Screenshot_108-1757391203-q80.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court intervened on Monday evening to block what the Trump administration labeled an unprecedented judicial power grab by temporarily halting a federal judge\u2019s order demanding that the government return deported MS-13 gang member Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from a high-security prison in El Salvador. Chief Justice John Roberts granted an emergency administrative stay, providing the administration with additional time to contest the lower court\u2019s ruling, which required that the Salvadoran national with verified gang ties be brought back to the United States by midnight Monday, according to Axios.<\/p>\n
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the administration\u2019s lead legal representative, filed the appeal early Monday, contending that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had exceeded her authority and interfered with the president\u2019s power to manage foreign policy and national security. At the heart of the legal dispute is Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native who was previously deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to the Department of Justice, he is \u201ca verified member of MS-13,\u201d citing an immigration judge\u2019s determination that a \u201cpast, proven, and reliable source of information\u201d confirmed his gang affiliation.<\/p>\n
Although Abrego Garcia was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador in 2019, the Trump administration argued that this relief was nullified after MS-13 was designated as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year. Sauer stressed that \u201cmembers of MS-13 are no longer eligible for withholding of removal.\u201d The emergency application submitted to the Supreme Court by Sauer described the lower court\u2019s injunction as \u201cremarkable,\u201d saying the ruling \u201crequires the United States to persuade El Salvador to release Abrego Garcia\u2014a native of El Salvador detained in El Salvador\u2014on a judicially mandated clock.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Constitution charges the President, not federal district courts, with the conduct of foreign diplomacy and protecting the Nation against foreign terrorists,\u201d Sauer wrote. \u201cThis order sets the United States up for failure.\u201d She further argued that the U.S. government \u201cdoes not control the sovereign nation of El Salvador, nor can it compel El Salvador to follow a federal judge\u2019s bidding.\u201d<\/p>\n
The underlying order from Xinis directed the Trump administration to \u201cfacilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.\u201d But the administration blasted the ruling as an unconstitutional overreach into foreign policy, noting that \u201cdistrict courts would effectively have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the United States\u2019 diplomatic relations with the whole world\u201d if this precedent were allowed to stand.<\/p>\n
SEE MORE<\/p>\n
Former President Barack Obama slammed major law firms for bowing to the Trump administration to safeguard their careers and bankroll their lavish lifestyles.<\/p>\n
Speaking at a private fundraiser in New Jersey on Friday, Obama voiced frustration that some of the nation\u2019s top legal institutions had \u201cset aside the law\u201d in response to President Donald Trump\u2019s actions, Business Insider reported.<\/p>\n
Obama said some lawyers were giving way to Trump not because they were \u201cgoing to be thrown in jail, but because they might lose a few clients and might not be able to finish that kitchen rehab at their Hampton house<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not impressed,\u201d Obama added, per MSNBC.<\/p>\n
Obama\u2019s connections to Big Law date back to his time at Harvard Law School, where he spent a summer as an associate at Sidley & Austin after his first year.<\/p>\n
Before launching his political career, he practiced civil rights law at the Chicago-based litigation firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, Business Insider noted.<\/p>\n
Since February, Trump has signed executive orders targeting major law firms such as Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling. The orders accused these firms of weaponizing the judicial system, revoked their security clearances, and triggered reviews of their government contracts.<\/p>\n
Some firms, including Paul Weiss and Kirkland & Ellis, opted to cooperate, agreeing to provide pro bono legal work for conservative causes. Others, like Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, pushed back and filed lawsuits challenging the administration\u2019s actions, the outlet said.<\/p>\n
In his remarks, Obama criticized universities that opted to strike compromises with the Trump administration.<\/p>\n
Obama\u2019s alma mater, Columbia University, ultimately yielded to the Trump administration\u2019s demands after facing a $400 million cut in federal funding. The administration said the funding was slashed due to the university\u2019s failure to address anti-Semitism amid campus protests over Israel\u2019s war in Gaza.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf your core mission, if your core value is to teach, you may teach without compromising values of academic independence. Yeah, you may lose some grant money temporarily. That\u2019s why you have those big endowments,\u201d Obama said last week.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Obama has continued his criticism of President Trump and his administration.<\/p>\n
Speaking at The Connecticut Forum on June 17, Obama warned that the United States was on the brink of sliding into autocracy under Trump. \u201cWe\u2019re not there yet completely, but I think that we are dangerously close to normalizing behavior like that,\u201d Obama claimed.<\/p>\n
Former President Joe Biden, meanwhile, is defending his decision to use an autopen for signing his final pardons, explaining the administration\u2019s rationale for employing the device in a recently published interview.<\/p>\n
The conversation with The New York Times focused specifically on his use of the autopen to execute the last round of clemency measures at the close of his term. In those final weeks, Biden granted pardons and clemency to over 1,500 individuals, what the White House described at the time as the largest single-day act of clemency by any U.S. president.<\/p>\n
In his interview, Biden told the Times he \u201cmade every decision\u201d on his own. \u201cWe\u2019re talking about [granting clemency to] a whole lot of people,\u201d Biden told the paper.<\/p>\n
But that said, the Times reported that the then-president \u201cdid not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people,\u201d according to Biden himself and his aides.<\/p>\n
\u201cRather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, [Biden] signed off on the standards he wanted to be used to determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction in sentence,\u201d the Times\u2019s report said.<\/p>\n
Instead of repeatedly requesting that the president sign updated versions of official documents, his staff employed an autopen to affix Biden\u2019s signature to the final drafts.<\/p>\n
His explanation came amid Republican criticism of his extensive use of the autopen on a large volume of formal paperwork.<\/p>\n
The Trump administration\u2019s efforts to reshape America\u2019s immigration system entered a new phase this week as the Justice Department confirmed that another San Francisco immigration judge has been dismissed.Judge Shira Levine, appointed in late 2021, became the sixth judge removed from the city\u2019s immigration bench since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.The decision underscores the administration\u2019s determination to accelerate mass deportations and restructure the immigration judiciary, even amid fierce criticism from immigrant advocates, former judges, and legal organizations.Levine\u2019s dismissal was abrupt. According to reports, she received no explanation for her removal, learning only that her services were no longer required.Her departure followed a wave of firings since April, with Judges Chloe Dillon and Elisa Brasil \u2014 both of whom had among the nation\u2019s highest asylum approval rates \u2014 also being forced out.Dillon, who granted asylum in nearly 97% of her cases, said she was informed of her firing by a three-sentence email after returning from a years-long asylum hearing.In her account, she had already prepared her ruling in favor of a family seeking refuge when the dismissal arrived, leaving her unable to deliver a decision. She described packing up her office in less than two hours, with no clarity on who would inherit her docket of more than 6,000 cases. Five of the six dismissed judges had asylum approval rates well above the national average. The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) reported that while the national asylum approval rate had dipped below 36% last year, San Francisco\u2019s bench was granting asylum at rates more than twice as high.For critics, the pattern is unmistakable: judges with professional backgrounds in immigrant defense or public interest law are being removed, while judges who previously advanced as immigration prosecutors remain in place.Supporters of the administration\u2019s moves frame them as necessary to restore balance to an immigration system that they say has grown too lenient. They argue that immigration judges must follow strict statutory standards and that unusually high asylum approval rates reflect a failure to apply those standards consistently.President Trump\u2019s 2024 campaign made mass deportation a cornerstone issue, promising to overhaul the courts to ensure quicker, tougher rulings. The dismissals in San Francisco are being portrayed by allies as part of fulfilling that mandate.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department insists that all federal employees, including immigration judges, serve at the will of the executive branch.Trump-era reforms emphasized that immigration courts are not independent judicial bodies but administrative tribunals under the Department of Justice. That legal framework allows for at-will dismissals without formal cause.Immigrant advocates and former judges view the firings as politically motivated purges. Dana Leigh Marks, a longtime San Francisco immigration judge, argued that the pattern reflects ideological targeting rather than legitimate performance concerns.\u201cThey are specifically targeting one end of the spectrum because they don\u2019t like those results,\u201d Marks told reporters. She suggested the dismissals send a chilling message to remaining judges: grant too many asylum cases, and you risk your job.Others worry that the restructuring undermines judicial independence. By rewarding judges who deny asylum and removing those who grant it, critics say the administration is transforming immigration courts into enforcement arms rather than neutral adjudicators.Civil rights groups have also raised alarms about due process. They argue that applicants appearing before the immigration court are entitled to impartial hearings, not proceedings overseen by judges pressured to meet political targets.The firings are not just an internal matter for the courts; they carry real-world consequences for thousands of immigrants. With judges dismissed mid-docket, hearings have been delayed or reassigned. Families who had waited years for their cases now face further uncertainty.<\/p>\n
San Francisco has historically been one of the nation\u2019s friendliest jurisdictions for asylum seekers, with higher rates of legal representation and stronger networks of nonprofit support.Critics argue that dismantling this bench is designed to reduce approval rates in one of the few places where applicants had a fighting chance.Already, national approval rates have fallen sharply. TRAC data shows that approval rates plummeted from roughly 50% in fiscal year 2019 to less than 36% in 2024.Advocates warn the current restructuring could push them even lower, further narrowing the path for those fleeing violence, persecution, or political oppression abroad.The firings also reflect a broader political agenda. President Trump\u2019s administration has tied immigration policy to its themes of national security and economic protectionism.By reshaping the immigration courts, the White House is seeking to accelerate deportations and limit humanitarian relief, making good on campaign pledges to prioritize removal over refuge.Democrats in Congress have denounced the firings as a partisan assault on judicial independence. They argue that immigration courts already face overwhelming backlogs \u2014 with more than 3 million cases pending nationwide \u2014 and that dismissing experienced judges will only worsen the crisis.The administration, however, is not retreating. Last month, the Justice Department announced that 600 military lawyers would be authorized to serve as temporary immigration judges, reducing the traditional requirement that such appointees have prior immigration law experience.Critics see this as a move to stack the courts with adjudicators more likely to rule in favor of the government.Underlying the controversy is a deeper struggle over how asylum law should be interpreted. Traditionally, asylum has been granted to individuals who demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home countries based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.Advocates argue that these categories must adapt to modern realities such as gang violence, gender-based persecution, or climate displacement. The Trump administration, by contrast, has sought to narrow eligibility criteria and speed up denials.By removing judges with histories of expansive interpretations, the administration appears intent on reshaping not just who sits on the bench but also the very meaning of asylum under U.S. law.The dismissals in San Francisco may be a preview of broader national restructuring. If the administration continues removing judges with higher-than-average asylum approval rates, the immigration judiciary could be fundamentally reshaped within a few years.Supporters say this would restore discipline and uniformity. Critics warn it could erode due process and tarnish America\u2019s reputation as a haven for the persecuted.Either way, the firings highlight the extraordinary power presidents wield over immigration courts, which unlike Article III courts lack independence from the executive branch.As the Trump administration pushes forward with its agenda, the nation\u2019s immigration system is becoming not just a legal battleground but a political flashpoint, reflecting deeper divisions over identity, sovereignty, and humanitarian obligations.The dismissal of Judge Shira Levine and her colleagues marks more than just personnel changes. It symbolizes the administration\u2019s determination to enforce a new vision of immigration justice \u2014 one where asylum is harder to obtain, deportations are prioritized, and judicial discretion is tightly controlled.For President Trump and his allies, the firings represent a necessary step in delivering on campaign promises of mass deportation and strict border enforcement. For critics, they mark a dangerous politicization of the courts and a betrayal of American ideals.As more judges face dismissal and military lawyers take their place, the future of the immigration system remains uncertain. What is clear is that the courtroom has become yet another arena where the nation\u2019s political battles are being fought, and where the stakes \u2014 for immigrants, for workers, and for the balance of power \u2014 could not be higher.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court intervened on Monday evening to block what the Trump administration labeled an unprecedented judicial power grab by temporarily halting a federal judge\u2019s order demanding that the government return deported…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":15823,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t