News

(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court for emergency intervention in the case of a Maryland man the government — by its own admission — removed to El Salvador by mistake and now must return by 11:59 p.m. on Monday under a lower court’s order.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in the filing that a federal court cannot order a president to engage in foreign diplomacy, which he says is implicitly involved in any potential return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who the Trump administration alleges is a gang member.

“The Constitution charges the President, not federal district courts, with the conduct of foreign diplomacy and protecting the Nation against foreign terrorists, including by effectuating their removal,” Sauer writes. “And this order sets the United States up for failure. The United States cannot guarantee success in sensitive international negotiations in advance, least of all when a court imposes an absurdly compressed, mandatory deadline that vastly complicates the give-and-take of foreign-relations negotiations.”

The appeal to the Supreme Court came Monday morning, just before the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a ruling by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that Garcia must be returned by 11:59 p.m. on Monday

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s emergency motion to block the order to return Garcia to the U.S. after he was sent to a prison in El Salvador despite having protected legal status.

In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed Xinis’ order requiring the government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.

“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the judges said. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”

Xinis had ruled on Friday that Garcia must be returned to the U.S.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the Trump administration’s emergency motion to block a federal judge’s order to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after he was sent to a prison in El Salvador despite having protected legal status.

In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’ order requiring the government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.

“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” the judges said. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”

Xinis had ruled on Saturday that the man must be returned to the U.S.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As fallout continues from President Donald Trump’s destabilizing tariff policy on virtually all U.S. trading partners, some Republican senators are warning about the risks for American families.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and ardent Trump supporter, made headlines when he spoke out — first on Fox News last week and in recent days on his podcast “Verdict.”

“Tariffs are a tax on consumers, and I’m not a fan of jacking up taxes on American consumers, so my hope is these tariffs are short-lived, and they serve as leverage to lower tariffs across the globe,” Cruz told Fox Business host Larry Kudlow.

Cruz reiterated that point on his podcast, saying it would be a win if the administration used the policy as leverage to quickly negotiate down tariffs imposed by other nations but if it stays in place long term it could increase inflation, hurt job growth and possibly put the U.S. into a recession — the latter of which would result in a “bloodbath” for the Republican Party in the 2026 midterm election.

“If we’re in a scenario 30 days from now, 60 days from now, 90 days from now with massive American tariffs and massive tariffs on American goods in every other country on Earth, it’s a terrible outcome,” he said on Friday.

Trump officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Agriculture Secretary Broke Rollins, were confronted with his comments during Sunday morning news shows. They largely sidestepped the comments as they projected optimism about the policy’s long term impact.

Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, voiced similar concerns as Cruz.

“Tariffs are taxes and Americans are paying the price,” Paul wrote on X last week.

Paul also spoke on the Senate floor criticizing Trump’s argument that the tariffs are necessary because of what he claimed was a “national emergency” regarding trade deficits. Paul said Congress needed to reassert its constitutional power to regulate tariffs and foreign trade.

“I am a Republican. I am a supporter of Donald Trump,” Paul said. “But this is a bipartisan problem. I don’t care if the president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t want to live under emergency rule. I don’t want to live where my representatives cannot speak for me and have a check and balance on power.”

“One person can make a mistake and guess what — tariffs are a terrible mistake,” Paul said.

“Tariffs are like whiskey: A little whiskey, under the right circumstances, can be refreshing — but too much whiskey, under the wrong circumstances, can make you drunk as a goat,” Sen. John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, said last week.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, introduced a bill last week that would require Congress to approve any new tariffs. Grassley teamed up with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell on the legislation.

Cantwell said on CBS News “Face the Nation” on Sunday that seven Republicans were on board with the bill. Rep. Don Bacon, a Nebraska Republican, told CBS he was “beginning support” for a similar measure in the House.

But the legislation faces an uphill battle, as it would need significant Republican support in both chambers to pass and Speaker Mike Johnson opposes the the idea.

And so far, there are limited signs of any widespread cracks in overall support for Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso, a member of Republican leadership, said on Sunday that he believed Trump’s actions on tariffs were constitutional.

“So, in terms of the tariffs, I believe they’re a tool, and I think we have to go after China,” Barrasso said on CBS. “They have been abusing us for years, and I believe the President is on firm constitutional grounds.”

House and Senate lawmakers are returning to Washington on Monday.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A group of business groups and conservative lawyers are preparing a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, arguing he does not have the legal authority to impose them.

Sources familiar with the effort say they are preparing to file the challenge in the coming weeks, possibly as soon as this Friday.

One prominent legal figure close to Trump told ABC News there is “a very good chance” the U.S. Supreme Court would find Trump’s tariffs unconstitutional.

The issue is this: Congress, not the president, has the power to impose taxes and regulate trade. In imposing these tariffs, President Trump cited the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the the president power to regulate international commerce in the event of a national emergency.

But the IEEPA — which specifically cites the power to impose sanctions and seize foreign assets — does not mention tariffs. And, even if one argues the right to impose tariffs is implied, it’s not clear what “national emergency” could justify the imposition of global tariffs.

“There is a strong argument that the tariffs imposed under the IEEPA are not legal or constitutional,” a prominent conservative lawyer close to President Trump told ABC News. “Under that particular statute, tariffs are not listed amongst the various actions a president can take in response to the declaration of a nation emergency.”

The lawyer adds: “And when you combine that with the fact that Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] clearly gives Congress the power to impose duties — tariffs — I think those two things in combination raise a very, very serious legal question.”

Another conservative lawyer familiar with the expected legal challenge to Trump’s tariffs predicted the Supreme Court would rule 9-0 against the administration if it reaches the high court.

A lawsuit has already been filed against the 20% sanctions Trump imposed on China earlier this year. The White House cited the IEEPA in imposing those tariffs as well, and the president said they were in response to China’s failure to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

The suit was filed in a federal court in Florida last week by The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a conservative legal, on behalf of a Florida-based paper company called Simplified.

Trump’s tariffs are the first time a president has attempted to impose global tariffs by citing the IEEPA. The steel and aluminum tariffs Trump imposed on China during his first term where narrower and done under a different congressional authorization. But that act doesn’t specifically give the president the authority to impose tariffs — and it’s not clear what the emergency is that would justify his actions under the law.

Tariffs have never previously been imposed under the emergency power Trump is using here. The tariffs he imposed in his first term (and President Joe Biden’s tariffs, too) were imposed citing different congressional authorizations.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.