(COBB COUNTY, GA) — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, one of President Donald Trump’s most loyal allies in the House, faced several protesters who were removed by police for disrupting her town hall on Tuesday.
Police said at least six attendees were escorted out without incident, while three others were arrested — two of whom were stunned with a Taser during their removal.
The event was held at the Acworth Community Center in Greene’s home state of Georgia on Tuesday, with disruptions breaking out almost immediately after the congresswoman took the stage.
“Well, welcome everyone,” Greene said, kicking off the meeting as police removed at least three protesters. “Thank you, Thank you to our great police officers… This is not a political rally. This is not a protest. If you stand up and want to protest, if you want to shout and chant, we will have you removed, just like that man was thrown out.”
At one point, a man was tased for not cooperating with police as they tried to escort him out for interrupting the meeting.
“This is a peaceful town hall. Now this is a peaceful town hall, ladies and gentlemen, this should not have to happen,” the Greene said in response.
While speaking at the town hall, Greene accused the media of “trying to defend an illegal alien that is a member of MS-13 that was deported to his home country, El Salvador. That is shameful and that should never happen,” she said, referring to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who ICE officials have said was sent to El Salvador by error in March.
Following this, another protester was removed from Greene’s event.
“Bye,” Greene said. “Just like that illegal alien,” she said, despite Abrego Garcia’s legal status.
Outside of the disruptions, Rep. Greene did receive continuous support from the audience, which had about 80 people in attendance. Outside the venue, protesters lined up on the street.
Following the rally, Greene told reporters the protesters were “out of line,” saying there was a place designated outside of the venue for the protesters “because we support their First Amendment right.”
(WASHINGTON) — In the nearly three months since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, lawyers challenging his actions in court have alleged that his administration has violated court orders on a half dozen occasions, according to court records reviewed by ABC News.
From unilaterally freezing federal funding to the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens, the clashes have raised concerns about the separation of powers and the potential for a constitutional crisis.
Plaintiffs suing the Trump administration have alleged the government violated or ignored court orders on at least six different occasions, but no judge so far has held a member of the Trump administration in contempt of court. On at least four occasions, judges have expressed concerns about the Trump administration’s compliance with court orders.
Lawyers with the Justice Department have vigorously defended the actions of the Trump administration and argued that federal officials have strictly complied with lawful court orders, while also questioning the legality of some orders. Each of the cases are ongoing or being appealed, so the district court orders may be vacated as higher courts weigh in.
Trump has repeatedly vowed to respect a court order even if a judge rules against parts of his agenda, though he has attempted to cast doubt on the authority of some judges.
“Well, I always abide by the courts and then I’ll have to appeal it,” Trump told ABC’s Rachel Scott in February, referencing cases involving Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. In those cases, Trump suggested a judge’s order “slowed down the momentum, and it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a person’s crooked and they get caught, other people see that and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on.”
The Trump Administration now faces arguably its most high-profile legal battle, as it attempts to keep Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Salvadoran custody despite the Supreme Court ordering his administration to facilitate his release.
Using the Alien Enemies Act to remove alleged members of Tren de Aragua
Last month, the Trump administration removed more than 100 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act despite a federal judge ordering they be returned to the U.S.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a directive that two planes carrying the men to El Salvador be returned to the United States on March 15. Despite both planes still being in the air at the time of the order, the planes landed in Honduras before flying to El Salvador.
Lawyers representing the Venezuelan men have argued that the Trump administration violated the court order, and Judge James Boasberg remarked that the government “acted in bad faith” when it rushed the deportation flights.
The Supreme Court vacated his order blocking any future removals under the Alien Enemies Act because the plaintiffs lacked jurisdiction to bring a case in D.C. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Boasberg was considering beginning contempt proceedings.
Trump defended his use of the Alien Enemies Act – telling reporters last month that he has the authority to remove noncitizens under the law – and has repeatedly criticized Judge Boasberg for blocking the removals.
“[Secretary of State Marco Rubio has] the authority to get bad people out of our country. And you can’t stop that with a judge sitting behind a bench that has no idea what goes on, who happens to be a radical left lunatic,” Trump told ABC’s Karen Travers.
Removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
After the Trump administration acknowledged it had deported a Salvadoran native who was living in Maryland under protected legal status due to an “administrative error,” a federal judge ordered the government to facilitate his return to the United States.
After the Trump administration appealed the decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Judge Paula Xinis “properly” required that the U.S. facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody; however, the high court ordered Judge Xinis determine what “deference” Trump is owed related to his conduct of foreign affairs.
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration has doubled down on its allegation that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 — without providing any evidence — and claimed it lacks the authority to return him to the U.S. During a meeting with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday, Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele told reporters that he lacks the power to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
“The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?” Bukele said.
Benjamin Osorio, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told ABC News that he believes the Trump administration is defying the court’s order and that a contempt order might be the only thing to prompt the U.S. government to return his client from El Salvador.
Before his meeting with Bukele, Trump told reporters that he would respect an order from the Supreme Court to return Abrego Garcia.
“If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court,” Trump said.
Removal of migrants to third countries
During a hearing last week, a federal judge gave lawyers with the Justice Department two weeks to provide more information about three recent removals of noncitizens to El Salvador that took place two days after he issued a temporary order blocking similar deportations to countries other than their place of origin without a hearing to raise concerns about their safety.
Judge Brian Murphy described the “potential violations of the temporary restraining order” as “concerning” and set an April 28 hearing to learn more about the deportations.
“This is something that is concerning to me,” Judge Murphy said. “I do think it’s something that we need to address.”
Lawyers with the Justice Department agreed to provide more information about the removals and defended the administration’s conduct.
Judge Murphy is considering extending his court order that prevents the Trump administration from removing noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin without allowing the noncitizens to raise concerns about their safety.
Two days after Judge Murphy temporarily blocked the deportations, the Trump administration announced that it had removed 17 alleged members of Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. According to the plaintiffs, some of the men on those flights had final orders of removal to Venezuela and were never given the right to challenge their removal to El Salvador.
Unilaterally freezing funding to states
In February, U.S. District Judge John McConnell said that a group of state attorneys general presented evidence that the Trump administration “continued to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds” to states despite a “clear and unambiguous” order barring them from blocking the funding.
He ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen funding” though the state attorneys general later provided evidence that the Trump administration continued to pause funding from FEMA. Many of the funding streams were restored in the months following Judge McConnell’s order.
Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the limiting of funds was a lawful way to identify and limit alleged fraud.
Blocking FEMA grants
Two months after Judge McConnell ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze funding to states, he determined that the government “covertly” paused millions of dollars in FEMA funding in direct violation of a court order.
Judge McConnell ordered the Trump Administration to “immediately cease” its efforts to impede the disbursement of federal funds, finding the government directly violated his order.
Last month, a coalition of 22 attorneys general asked Judge McConnell to stop the freeze after they presented evidence that FEMA continued to restrict more than 215 federal grants despite a court order blocking Trump’s unilateral funding freeze.
Lawyers with the DOJ pushed back on the request, arguing that FEMA was “merely implementing a manual review process” of each grant.
Judge McConnell disagreed, finding that the states presented “undisputed evidence” that FEMA “essentially [imposed] an indefinite categorical pause on payments” in direct violation of his preliminary injunction. He said the manual review process cited by the Trump administration “violates” a preliminary injunction issued in the case.
Freezing billions in foreign aid
A federal judge in February determined that the Trump administration was improperly withholding nearly $2 billion in foreign aid despite an order to restore the funding.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali blocked the Trump administration from imposing a blanket freeze on funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, yet the freeze continued for weeks, according to lawyers representing the foreign aid nonprofits. Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued the funding freeze was necessary to identify and block potential fraud.
In an order, Judge Ali wrote that the Trump administration justified the freeze by advancing “an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected—a view that flouts multiple statutes.”
After the Trump administration appealed the order, a divided U.S. Supreme Court denied the request to block the order, though the justices ordered the lower court to clarify its original order.
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Joe Biden in one of his first public speeches since leaving the White House offered a full-throated rebuke of the Trump administration’s efforts to cut Social Security on Tuesday, calling the amount of damage the White House has inflicted on the program “breathtaking” and “devastating,” — a sharp departure from his efforts while in office to protect it and “make it stronger.”
“Well, look what’s happening. In fewer than 100 days, this new administration has made so much … done so much damage, and so much, it’s kind of breathtaking it could happen that soon,” Biden said.
Biden avoiding saying his successor’s name. In his nearly 30-minute remarks, the 82-year-old often sounded hushed, with several distinct outbursts in defense of Social Security and its recipients. His only indirect mention of President Donald Trump was to call him “this guy.”
Biden was introduced by former Maryland Gov. and Social Security Administrator Martin O’Malley in front of roughly 180 attendees at the Advocates, Counselors and Representatives for the Disabled conference in Chicago.
“I will not go further and get in trouble …” Biden said wearily early in his speech, as he pivoted then from highlighting his own accomplishments as president to uplift Social Security to rebuking the current White House’s cuts.
“Last time this guy had the job, he raised the debt ceiling because of an enormous and profligate tax cut to the super wealthy,” Biden said later.
“They wanted to cut Social Security,” Biden added, calling out Republican members of Congress. “Not on my watch. We refused to go along with any of that,” he said.
Later in the former president’s remarks, he threw out any hesitancy to critique the current administration, even saying Trump voters in the 2024 election had “no heart.”
“What makes us distinct from the rest of the world? Basic, in my view, fundamental American values. Nobody’s king,” Biden said, again referencing Trump.
“You can’t go on like this, as a divided nation, as divided as we are, like I said, I’ve been doing this a long time. It’s never been this divided. Granted, it’s just 30 percent, but it’s a 30 percent that has no heart.”
He also warned of additional cuts to Social Security.
“They’ve taken a hatchet in Social Security, pushing additional 7,000 employees, 7,000 out the door in that time, including the most seasoned career officials. Now they’re getting ready to push something more out the door.”
Biden also hit directly at Trump’s Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and his senior adviser Elon Musk.
“Based on [Lutnick’s] comments, he doesn’t seem to even care. You saw what he said the other day. By the way, he’s a billionaire … He said his 94-year-old mother-in-law wouldn’t complain, wouldn’t bother her. Probably lovely woman. No kidding…. her son-in-law is a billionaire. What about that 94-year-old mother living all by herself?
“Folks, it’s not just the Secretary of Commerce, where we heard how others, empowered and emboldened by this administration, talk about Social Security, one of them called it a ‘Ponzi scheme.’ A Ponzi scheme — what the hell are they talking about?” Biden said, referring to Musk.
Biden suggested that the White House’s moves were based on the tech industry adage of “move fast and break things.”
He also asserted that this Congress would move to cut the program through the Republican funding package that would make Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent.
“These guys are willing to hurt the middle class, working class, in order to deliver significant, greater wealth to the already very wealthy,” he said. “Who in the hell do they think they are? I really think they — I mean just basic, basic decency. Who do think they are?”
Biden’s speech came as Democratic congressional leaders billed Tuesday as a “Day of Action” focused on Social Security.
“Across the country, Democrats are leading the fight to oppose the Republican plan to gut Social Security. Our Save Social Security Day of Action will mobilize Americans from every corner of the United States to push back on Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE’s cuts to Social Security,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in a joint statement.
“Republicans want to slash this critical lifeline by making it harder for seniors and people with disabilities to access their earned benefits. Shutting down local offices, firing large numbers of experienced constituent service workers and cutting phone services makes it harder for people to get their checks. Republicans are trying to kill Social Security from the inside — it is a cut by another name — and we won’t let that happen.”
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images, Ken Ishii – Pool/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump earlier this month announced far-reaching “reciprocal tariffs” on scores of countries, but he soon suspended the levies on all but one: China.
Instead, Trump ratcheted up China tariffs to a whopping total of 145%. In response, China slapped 125% tariffs on U.S. goods and issued other countermeasures.
The trade war between the world’s two largest economies amounts to a battle of wills in which each stands poised to draw on economic advantages and political pressure points, analysts said. An assessment of each side’s leverage, they added, helps reveal how the standoff may unfold.
“The stakes are extremely high and the only issue remaining is who is going to blink first,” Yasheng Huang, professor of global economics and management at MIT, told ABC News.
Potential economic damage
The U.S. and China each are among the other’s top trade partners, meaning a sizable chunk of each economy depends on the relationship.
U.S. consumers and firms purchase more goods and services from China than the other way around, putting China at risk of a larger loss in economic activity if trading comes to an effective halt, analysts said.
Still, they added, the trade imbalance also threatens acute product shortages and price increases for U.S. consumers.
“The U.S. imports more from China than it exports to China — that gives the U.S. an advantage,” Shang-Jin Wei, a professor of finance and economics at Columbia University who studies the U.S.-China trade relationship, told ABC News.
“But the very fact that the U.S. buys so much from them also means that it is dependent on their supply of low-cost goods,” Wei said.
Last year, the U.S. imported about $438 billion worth of goods and services from China, making it the largest destination for China’s exports. In all, that figure accounts for about 15% of China’s exports, according to the U.S. Trade Representative. China makes up a primary source of consumer electronics like laptops and smartphones, as well as footwear, apparel and toys.
U.S. tariffs are expected to lower China’s gross domestic product growth this year by 0.7%, though the Chinese economy is still forecast to expand by more than 4%, J.P.Morgan said on Tuesday.
The loss of relatively cheap Chinese goods, meanwhile, is expected to raise prices for U.S. shoppers. Over the weekend, the Trump administration issued a tariff exemption for some consumer electronics from China, but price hikes are expected for a host of other goods.
On the other hand, China purchased about $143 billion of U.S. goods last year, including crops such as soybeans and wheat, as well as oil and gas.
Roughly 930,000 U.S. jobs are supported by exports to China, the U.S.-China Business Council said in a report last year. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. provided financial relief to some farmers to make up for lost sales to China.
Essential materials
The U.S. or China could also derive leverage from specialized goods that would be difficult for the other country to replace in the event of trade restrictions.
Earlier this month, China imposed export restrictions on some rare earth elements and magnets that make up critical inputs in some U.S. auto, energy and defense products. For now, Chinese companies can still export to U.S. buyers, though the Chinese firms must receive approval from the Chinese government.
Rare earths are vital for a range of defense technologies, including F-35 fighter jets, Tomahawk missiles and radar systems, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, or CSIS, said on Tuesday.
The U.S. is not prepared to immediately make up for a potential loss of those components through domestic industry, CSIS found.
“The U.S. dependency on China for rare earths is extremely high,” Huang said. “China can shut it off or turn it on at will — that is leverage.”
Meg Rithmire, a professor of business administration at Harvard University, said the U.S. could seek out alternative sources abroad but China remains the dominant source of such materials.
“It doesn’t seem like this is the kind of thing that will cripple anyone in the short term, but the supply chains are such that it could get messy in the medium term,” Rithmire said.
Meanwhile, China relies on the U.S. for some important components of its electronics, auto and technology products, Huang said.
China could likely withstand a temporary shortfall, Huang added, though a long-term shortage of such goods would pose a problem.
“It would definitely hurt them — no question about it,” Huang said.
Tolerance for financial pain
Analysts told ABC News that China’s authoritarian form of government affords it greater capacity to tolerate a prolonged period of economic hardship.
By contrast, separate branches of government and regular elections in the U.S. make it more difficult for the country to hold out through potential widespread financial challenges, they added.
The Chinese public faces limits on public expression and little recourse for bringing its displeasure to bear on political representatives, analysts said.
“There’s a lot structurally built into the Chinese system to withstand political pain, which isn’t the case for the U.S.,” Rithmire said. “The U.S. system incorporates the unhappiness of people as they experience the economic effects.”
The countries’ different responses to COVID-19 exemplify how their respective political systems respond to flagging general welfare, analysts said.
China maintained a zero-COVID policy for several years, severely restricting individual mobility and hamstringing a broad swath of the nation’s economy. In the U.S., on the other hand, eight states never issued COVID lockdowns, while the federal government focused on economic stimulus and expedited vaccine development.
“The trade war, as substantial as it is, doesn’t compare to the COVID lockdown that China implemented,” Huang said. “We have solid evidence that the political system is quite immune from economic hardship.”
Still, that tolerance of economic pain has limits, Wei said. Over the past half century, the Chinese government has drawn legitimacy from its ability to deliver economic growth and improved living standards, he added.
“Anything that hurts that can undermine their power,” Wei said.
Ultimately, the standoff may endure until each country sees a pathway out of the trade spat that promises sufficient political benefit.
“Is there a productive off-ramp for each side?” Huang said.
(SAINT TERESA, NM) — Two service members were killed and another is in serious condition following a vehicle accident earlier Tuesday in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) said in a statement.
Shortly before 9 a.m. “Three service members deployed in support of Joint Task Force Southern Border were involved in a vehicle accident,” NORTHCOM said.
Tuesday’s accident are the first fatalities associated with the United States military’s mission along the border with Mexico that have been disclosed.
More than 10,000 active duty service members have been authorized for the border mission.
The cause of the accident is under investigation, officials said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(FORT HUACHUCA, AZ) — U.S. Army soldiers will soon be patrolling a 170-mile buffer zone along the southern border with Mexico in a newly created “National Defense Area” in Arizona and New Mexico.
It’s part of the Trump administration’s efforts to use the U.S. military to stop the flow of undocumented migrants into the United States.
The large swath of area will stretch 60-feet-deep along federal lands running the length of the border and will be considered a part of Fort Huachuca in Arizona, meaning that, just as at any Army base, trespassers would be apprehended by soldiers and held until turned over to law enforcement.
Some analysts see it as a way to militarize the border and skirt a federal law — the Posse Comitatus Act — that prohibits U.S. military personnel from carrying out law enforcement duties: by declaring the federal property a military base where migrants crossing into can be detained.
“Last week, President Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum directing federal agencies administering federal land on the border to make land available to the Defense Department in a new national defense area,” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Tuesday.
“This new National Defense Area spans more than 170 miles across our border in New Mexico,” said Leavitt. “But in in the coming weeks, this administration will add more than 90 miles in the state of Texas.”
“This National Defense Area will enhance our ability to detect, interdict and prosecute the illegal aliens, criminal gangs and terrorists who were able to invade our country without consequence for the past four years under the Biden administration,” said Leavitt. “It will also bolster our defenses against fentanyl and other dangerous narcotics that have been poisoning our communities.”
U.S. officials told ABC News that the initial phase of the new area will stretch from Fort Huachuca in southeastern Arizona eastward into New Mexico.
The designation of a National Defense Area will apply only to federal lands that have been newly transferred to the control of the Defense Department and will not apply to privately held lands or territory belong to Native American reservations. That means it will be non-contiguous but will be in effect for much of New Mexico’s border with Mexico, which stretches for nearly 180 miles of the state’s border.
U.S. Army troops will be operating in what is essentially a buffer zone formally known as the Roosevelt Reservation that includes federal lands in California, Arizona, and New Mexico on the border with Mexico. In 1907, to prevent smuggling, President Theodore Roosevelt declared that a 60-foot-wide buffer zone on public lands along the border with Mexico belongs to the federal government.
Two U.S. officials told ABC News it was still to be determined whether the new authority would be applied to Texas given that the Roosevelt Reservation does not apply to lands in that state.
According to the officials, the U.S. Army will soon begin placing signs on both sides of that 60-foot buffer zone warning that they are about to enter Defense Department property and could be apprehended for trespassing.
Because of natural barriers along the border, the Roosevelt Reservation in some cases may stretch a mile into U.S. territory.
Some of the territory to now be considered an Army base already has existing fencing on the border but in some areas does not. Regardless, the Army will place signage in both English and Spanish warning that any trespassers into the area will be apprehended.
The move by the Trump administration has drawn criticism from legal analysts who describe it as a way to get around the U.S. military having law enforcement on the border which is done by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Currently 10,000 U.S. military personnel have been authorized to serve along the border, but only in a support role to CBP.
“The president’s plan would empower U.S. soldiers patrolling the area to take on a civilian law enforcement function: apprehending and detaining migrants crossing the border into the U.S. Deploying the military to enforce civilian law is a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act,” said Elizabeth Goitein, the senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
“Under emergency powers law, the president is required to seek congressional approval for any transfer of federal land to the Defense Department,” said Goitein.
International students pursuing degrees at Michigan public universities sought relief from detention and deportation during a federal court hearing on Tuesday, after their student immigration status was terminated this month, jeopardizing their legal status in the U.S.
The students — two citizens of China, one of Nepal and another from India — filed a lawsuit on Friday against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and immigration officials, claiming that their student immigration status in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was illegally terminated “without sufficient notice and explanation.”
SEVIS is a database that tracks information about nonimmigrant students and exchange visitors in the U.S.
“According to the government, they no longer have legal status in the U.S., and they have to leave the country immediately,” Ramis Wadood, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan who is representing the students, told ABC News.
He noted that the students didn’t get any kind of grace period.
“You no longer have status, and have to leave the country right away,” Wadood said.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court by the ACLU of Michigan on behalf of the students — Xiangyun Bu, Qiuyi Yang, Yogesh Joshi and Chinmay Deore. According to the complaint, in addition to their student immigration status being terminated, Yang and Joshi were told that their F-1 student visas, which allowed them to enter the country, were also revoked.
“None of them has been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime in the United States,” the complaint said. “None has violated any immigration law. Nor have they been active in on-campus protests regarding any political issue.”
The students’ attorneys argued during a Tuesday morning hearing in a Detroit federal court for a temporary restraining order that would restore their legal status and protect them from arrest or deportation as the case moves forward.
According to Wadood, the judge indicated that he “recognized the urgency of the situation and said he would rule soon.”
Wadood told ABC News on Monday that his clients are at risk of being arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and are “scared” and have stopped showing up to classes in person.
“Our clients have been allowed to continue their studies to the extent that their professors and their programs will accommodate,” Wadood said, adding that they are trying to resume their studies remotely since “they’re at risk of arrest and detention at any point.”
The lawsuit names DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and ICE Detroit Field Office Director Robert Lynch. ABC News reached out to the officials but requests for comment were not immediately returned.
“DHS did not provide the students or their schools any meaningful explanation for terminating their F-1 student status,” the complaint said. “At most, what seems to connect students targeted by this newfound and unlawful policy is that the students had some encounter with some American law enforcement official at some point in the past, no matter how innocuous — including receiving a speeding or parking ticket (or even a warning) or lawfully withdrawing an application to enter the United States.”
Court records show four separate letters that each of the students received from their prospective universities informing them that their student immigration status has been terminated. The reason cited by DHS in all cases is “individual identified in criminal records check,” and for Yang and Joshi it also says “and/or revoked visa.”
The Trump administration filed a response on Monday evening to the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, urging the judge to “deny this request because it is procedurally and substantively improper.”
“An emergency motion for a temporary restraining order may only be used to maintain the status quo; it cannot be used to obtain the ultimate relief plaintiffs seek in this case, which is the alteration of their SEVIS record,” it said.
The government also alleged in Monday’s filing that the students have criminal records, but did not provide additional details.
“DHS searched criminal records for each of the plaintiffs and criminal history matches were returned for each of the plaintiffs,” its response said.
Wadood denied that any of his clients have ever been charged with or convicted of a crime. He said that in explaining their reference to “criminal records,” the government cited three of his clients who were detained for alleged domestic disputes.
They were subsequently released and not charged with any crimes, while one plaintiff “doesn’t have as much as a simple speeding ticket or parking ticket” on their record, according to Wadood
“Our plaintiffs’ criminal history is clean. They have no convictions, no charges,” he said.
The federal lawsuit comes as the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown strikes higher education, prompting a slew of lawsuits against White House officials. Similar lawsuits have been filed across the country in states like New Hampshire, Indiana and California.
According to Inside Higher Ed — a publication that tracks news in higher education — as of Tuesday over 180 colleges and universities have identified nearly 1,200 international students and recent graduates who have had their legal status changed by the State Department.
“If the courts don’t put an end to this arbitrary government action, then generations of future international students are going to see what’s happening today and decide, ‘You know what, it’s probably not safe for me to go to the U.S to study'” Wadood said. “And our academic institutions, our academic communities, are going to be so much worse off because of it.”
The Trump administration appears to be targeting some international students with student visas and green card holders for their participation in pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses or for alleged criminal records.
“A visa is a gift. It’s a voluntary thing. We decide to give you a visa,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during a March 28 press conference. “We deny visas all over the world every day for a variety of reasons, and that means we can also revoke those visas. No one is entitled to a visa.”
(SANTA DE, NM) — Signs of rodent activity were found at Gene Hackman’s New Mexico property after the actor’s wife, Betsy Arakawa, died from a rare disease transmitted through rodents, according to a report.
Arakawa, 65, died at their Santa Fe home in February from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome — a disease spread through rodent urine, droppings or saliva, officials said.
Signs of dead rodents and rodent feces were discovered in their attached garage, detached garage, two casitas and a storage shed, according to a New Mexico Department of Health homesite environmental report. A rodent nest was found in a detached garage, the report said.
In a vehicle, officials found a live rodent, rodent feces and a nest, according to the report.
Live traps had been set out around the home, the report said.
The main house was clean with no signs of rodent activity, the report noted.
The inspection was completed one week after the bodies of Hackman, 95, and Arakawa were found inside their house during a Feb. 26 welfare check.
At first, authorities didn’t know what caused their deaths.
Officials later announced that Hackman died of cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s disease. He likely died around Feb. 18, about one week after Arakawa died from HPS on about Feb. 12, officials said.
Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome at first causes flu-like symptoms and can later cause trouble breathing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Those who contract HPS after being exposed to rodent excrement often feel ill for roughly three to six days, Dr. Heather Jarrell, chief medical investigator for New Mexico’s Office of the Medical Investigator, told reporters.
“Then they can transition to that pulmonary phase, where they have fluid in their lungs and around their lungs,” she said. “And at that point, a person can die very quickly, within 24 to 48 hours, roughly speaking, without medical treatment.”
Hackman was likely home with his deceased wife for one week before he died, Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said at a press briefing in March.
The Justice Department on Tuesday unsealed drug trafficking charges against the two leaders of the Mexican drug cartel La Nueva Familia Michoacana Organization (LNFM) and offered up to $8 million for information leading to their arrest.
Brothers Johnny Hurtado Olascoaga and Jose Alfredo Hurtado Olascoaga, are “responsible for the cartel’s resurgence” over the past decade, according to a DOJ official.
“These brothers were charged by a federal grand jury in the Northern District of Georgia with various crimes related to the manufacture, distribution and importation of massive quantities of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl into the United States,” Michael Herskowitz, chief of the Narcotics Section at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Atlanta, said at a press conference Tuesday.
The Treasury Department also sanctioned the brothers, and the State Department has offered $3 and $5 million rewards for information leading to their arrest. The men are currently in Mexico, officials said.
“It is our hope that these multimillion dollar rewards will encourage people to come forward with what they know about their Olascoaga brothers, both here in the United States and in cities and towns in Mexico, who are most impacted by the cartels violence,” Herskowitz said.
DEA Atlanta Acting Special Agent in Charge Jae Chong told reporters that the foreign terrorist organization designation that the Trump administration has leveled against the cartels has “allowed law enforcement to apply enhanced counterterrorism authorities to drug cartel operations, something we believe that will have a greater impact in the fight to protect our communities.”
“In 24 hours, DEA and our partners have seized over 100 pounds of fentanyl, $320,000 of suspected drug proceeds, guns, and made 22 arrests, 11 of which are illegal criminals,” Chong said.
The fentanyl they seized was enough to kill 3.5 million people, according to Chong.
In a separate indictment, the Justice Department also charged seven individuals with allegedly funneling the proceeds of the cartel’s activity through a business in Georgia.
Agents “analyzed the money service businesses transactions and determined that the cash was wired to Mexico, but was transferred in small increments, as did not raise suspicion by federal regulators during an approximate period of two months, these individuals allegedly laundered over $1 million in drug proceeds smuggled to Mexico,” Herskowitz said.
(HOUSTON) — A Texas man was arrested after his dogs fatally attacked his neighbor, with a history of disturbing others, according to the Houston Police Department.
Marshall Garrett, 38, was arrested on Tuesday and charged with three counts of criminal negligent failure to secure his dogs after his three Staffordshire mixes fatally mauled 65-year-old Harriette Phillips, according to court documents filed on April 9.
The attack occurred on March 23 in Houston, when Phillips was walking toward the left side of her backyard, and it “appeared that the defendant’s dogs had broken through her fence,” the court records said.
Phillips’ home security cameras reviewed by police show her “scanning her backyard looking for something” and hitting her fence with a hammer. Then, the dogs “returned through the broken fence and attacked her.” She began screaming for help and attempted to use her hammer as a form of defense, the court records said.
She fell to the ground, and the dogs began “mauling her head, neck area, arms/elbows and other parts of her body until the complainant was unable to move anymore or screamed for help,” the court records said.
Garrett did not witness the attacks but “realized what occurred afterward and called 911,” court documents said.
On the same day as this attack, another neighbor texted Garrett that he saw the dogs in Phillips’ yard, to which he replied: “Oh lord, I’m about to get it resolved,” the court records said.
In that same month, the dogs also nipped the finger of another neighbor when she was trying to fix a hole in her fence, the court records said.
All three dogs were euthanized after the attack, the court records said.
Garrett already has an established criminal record prior to this incident, as he and a female suspect, Latrecia Washington, were charged with murder last year when they fatally assaulted a man outside a Family Dollar store, according to court records.
On Oct. 29, Garrett approached 69-year-old Alton Martin from behind and punched him in the back of the head, according to court records.
The altercation appears to have stemmed from a dispute over whether jewelry Martin had sold to Washington was authentic or fake. Martin died from his injuries, court records said.
Garrett was arrested for this crime and was previously released on bond, according to court records. As of Tuesday, Garrett is back in police custody.
