Trump DOJ says it won't deport babies just yet after birthright citizenship ruling
After a Justice Department lawyer made that vow, two separate federal judges told him to put it in writing.
Tonight’s newsletter recaps hearings and rulings from federal courts in Maryland, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. Subscribe to All Rise News to keep up to date about cases all over the map that affect your rights.
In two federal court hearings on Monday, a Justice Department lawyer told judges that the Trump administration won’t start trying to deport babies pending rulings in two class actions challenging the birthright citizenship ban.
Both times, the federal judges presiding over the cases told the Trump administration to put that vow in writing.
In ruling for Trump on Friday, the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of his birthright citizenship ban, and every federal judge who considered it has found it violated the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment. Instead, the conservatives justices scaled back the power of district court judges to block illegal and unconstitutional presidential actions through nationwide injunctions without class action litigation.
Within hours of the Supreme Court’s ruling, two class action lawsuits were filed in Maryland and New Hampshire, and judges scheduled speedy hearings for both on Monday.
In the Maryland hearing, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman asked: “Is the United States going to be seeking to deport babies … pending resolution of the pending motion for the [temporary restraining order]?”
Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg answered flatly, “No,” but the judge ordered him to memorialize the government’s position in a written filing.
Over in New Hampshire, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante ordered Rosenberg to provide a copy of the same written assurances, and Laplante scheduled a hearing on the matter to take place on July 10.
The judges have every reason to act quickly — and to treat the Trump administration’s claims with skepticism.
Under the terms of the Supreme Court’s order, the operative section of Trump’s birthright citizenship ban does not take effect for 30 days, and both are trying to resolve the motions for temporary restraining orders by July 27.
Meanwhile, the judges are pushing the Justice Department to preserve the status quo before issuing their rulings, and the hearings followed revelations that Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove instructed prosecutors to be prepared to tell courts “f— you” to meet the Trump administration’s immigration goals. During congressional testimony, Bove claimed that he could not recall making that remark, which was quoted by former Justice Department lawyer turned whistle-blower Erez Reuveni.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia kept in jail — to stay safe from feds
Also on Monday, a judge in Nashville agreed to a request by Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawyers to keep their client in jail for a few more weeks to prevent the federal government from deporting him if he is freed.
Abrego has been fighting for his release back to his wife and three children in Maryland ever since the government whisked him to El Salvador in March, only to indict him on allegations of smuggling immigrants months later.
“Essentially, Abrego seeks the due process to which he is constitutionally and statutorily entitled, namely whether the government can make the necessary showing under the Bail Reform Act for his detention pending trial,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes wrote in a four-page order on Monday.
Earlier this month, Holmes found that prosecutors failed to prove Abrego needed to be detained, but she did not immediately order his release.
U.S. District Judge William Crenshaw, who is reviewing the magistrate’s decision, has scheduled an evidentiary hearing in Nashville on July 16.
“This Court is a safe space”
A federal judge in Boston today warned the Trump administration that he will not tolerate any attempt to intimidate or chill witnesses from testifying against the government at an upcoming bench trial over the targeting of student protesters.
In early July, U.S. District Judge William Young will hold a nine-day bench trial to decide whether to block the Trump administration from using immigration authorities as an instrument of political retaliation against pro-Palestinian student protesters.
On Monday, Young denied a request to allow anonymous testimony, declaring: “This Court is a safe place.”
“The plaintiffs and their witnesses may fully participate in the trial process without fear of retribution knowing they are protected by this Court's order,” said Young, a Ronald Reagan appointee. “Indeed, were there to be any violation traceable to any of these defendants, it would prove the plaintiff's case. Likewise, law enforcement officers testifying about enforcement of the laws passed by the Congress of the United States will receive the same courtesy and respect that has long been a hallmark of this Court. Any retribution from any quarter by anyone will be met with the full rigor of the Court's resources.”
“It is only when people believe that the civil courts are faltering, not doing their job, that authoritarians rush in with martial law,” Young pointedly added.
That was just one of multiple shots that Young took at Trump’s actions in the remarkable four-page order, which began with a meditation on trust in the federal judiciary.
“There is altogether too much fear of our government abroad in our land today. Courts are part of government,” Young wrote. “It is in the dignified courtrooms of our nation that [the] most precious aspect of our First Amendment rights are hammered out. All participants in the trial process, be they litigants, witnesses, or attorneys, are engaging in the central practice of the First Amendment — the right formally to petition our government.”
“This is why those courageous law firms who stood up to retribution were so swiftly and emphatically vindicated,” Young added.
Vowing that his court will remain a “safe space,” Young declared: “We shall not falter.”
The bench trial scheduled before him will begin on Monday, July 7.
Thank goodness we have judges such as Judge Young.
He doesn’t know that the courts have not ruled in birthright citizenship. In fact, MAGA only asked the court to rule on the injunction issue because they know there is a constitutional problem with the issue itself.