 Chief Justice John Roberts criticized a call by President Donald Trump for the impeachment of a federal trial judge who temporarily barred the federal government from deporting noncitizens pursuant to an executive order published on Saturday.
The rare public statement was the latest development in a fast-moving battle over Trump’s efforts to deport noncitizens alleged to be members of a Venezuelan gang pursuant to an eighteenth-century law that had been invoked only three previous times in the country’s history. Trump’s executive order relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or other judicial review when Congress has declared war or when an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” occurs. Trump found that Tren de Aragua “is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States.” Based on that conclusion, he indicated that “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies.” On Saturday, James Boasberg – the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia – prohibited the federal government from deporting any noncitizens for 14 days pursuant to the executive order published earlier in the day. Boasberg also ordered the Trump administration to turn around any flights that had already taken off. Despite Boasberg’s order, news outlets – including The New York Times – reported that the Trump administration had deported more than 200 noncitizens to El Salvador on Saturday night and Sunday morning. None of the planes carrying those noncitizens landed in El Salvador before Boasberg issued his written order. Boasberg held another hearing on March 17 on whether the Trump administration had violated his March 15 order. Citing “national security concerns,” a lawyer for the Department of Justice declined to answer the judge’s questions, insisting only that the government had not violated the written order. In a post on Truth Social on Tuesday morning, Trump contended that Boasberg should be impeached. In a statement released by the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office on Tuesday, Roberts indicated that “[f]or more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.” Last year, Roberts handed Trump a significant victory in Trump v. United States, which bolstered the power of the presidency and established that the president is generally immune from criminal prosecution for official acts. But Tuesday’s statement was not Roberts’s first rebuke of Trump. In 2018, after Trump described a federal district judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy as an “Obama judge,” Roberts pushed back. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts told the Associated Press.
0 Comments
 In his first month in office, President Trump has ordered a radical set of changes to the federal government. Some are within the traditionally understood scope of a president’s power, but many appear to purposely violate statutes, setting up tests of whether limits imposed by Congress on the White House are constitutional.
The bounds of presidential power can be hazy, and the Republican-appointed supermajority on the Supreme Court could expand them. Still, so many of Mr. Trump’s actions have defied apparent legal limits that some scholars say the country is approaching a constitutional crisis. Here are 38 of the Trump administration’s biggest moves so far. Reading the list ⚠️ Actions that appear to conflict with specific statutes or to violate the Constitution. 🚫 Actions that have been temporarily blocked by a judge, either partly or completely. Actions without these symbols appear more likely to fall within mainstream understandings of presidential power, but may still be unusual or subject to legal challenges. Staffing, firings and DOGE
Froze federal hiring
Spending ]
Most U.S. foreign aid
Foreign affairs
Immigration and border policy
Judge orders Mayor Eric Adams, DOJ lawyers to appear in court to explain case dismissal request2/18/2025 
A federal judge ordered embattled New York Mayor Eric Adams, his attorneys, and Department of Justice prosecutors to appear in court Wednesday afternoon to explain the DOJ's controversial request to dismiss criminal corruption charges against Adams. Manhattan U.S. District Judge Dale Ho's order Tuesday suggests that he will not rubber stamp the highly unusual dismissal request, which has sparked concerns that the DOJ struck a deal with Adams to toss the case in exchange for the Democratic mayor's cooperation with President Donald Trump's immigration orders. Seven top DOJ prosecutors — including ones directly involved in Adams' case — last week resigned in protest of the department's bid to toss out the case. Ho's order quotes an appeals court case that says judges "should be satisfied that the reasons for the proposed dismissal are substantial." "The parties shall be prepared to address, [among other things], the reasons for the Government's motion, the scope and effect of Mayor Adams's 'consent in writing,'" Ho wrote. The order was issued a day after three former U.S. Attorneys for Manhattan, New Jersey, and Connecticut asked him to "conduct a factual inquiry" into the dismissal request, citing "these extraordinary events" last week. Those events "raise serious questions about the appropriateness of the government's dismissal request," the letter said. In another letter Monday, former Manhattan federal prosecutor Nathaniel Akerman, who is now an attorney for the advocacy group Common Cause, urged Ho to deny the motion to dismiss, saying it was motivated by a "corrupt quid pro quo" between Adams and the DOJ. "The Court may also consider appointing an independent special prosecutor to continue the prosecution of Mr. Adams in this Court," Akerman wrote. Meanwhile Tuesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is set to meet with people she has called "key leaders" to discuss "a path forward" for New York City after four of Adams' deputy mayors resigned on the heels of the DOJ dismissal request. Hochul's announcement of that meeting suggested that she is strongly considering exercising her constitutional authority to remove the mayor from office. Top DOJ lawyers on Friday asked Ho to toss the case after the acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney and six other prosecutors resigned rather than comply with an order to file that request. Danielle Sassoon, the former acting U.S. Attorney, told U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in a letter that the DOJ's dismissal request — which preserves the right to refile charges against Adams instead of dismissing the case "with prejudice" — creates "obvious ethical problems." She said Adams is being implicitly threatened with future prosecution if he does not comply with Trump's demand that Adams and other local officials cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. The DOJ filed its dismissal motion a day after White House border czar Tom Homan met with Adams, who agreed to give federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents access to the city's massive jail complex on Rikers Island. That motion, which deputy Attorney General Emil Bove signed, says Bove concluded that continuing to prosecute Adams would "interfere with the defendant's ability to govern in New York City, which poses unacceptable threats to public safety, national security, and related federal immigration initiatives and policies." The court filing also said Bove concluded the dismissal was necessary "because of the appearances of impropriety and risks of interference" with New York's primary and mayoral elections this year. Adams, who is charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, bribery and solicitation of a contribution by a foreign national, had been scheduled to go on trial in late April — less than six months before November's mayoral election. Adams' lawyer Alex Spiro, in a letter to Ho filed Tuesday, disputed the contention by Sassoon and other prosecutors that the DOJ agreed to a quid pro quo with Adams to obtain his compliance on immigration enforcement in exchange for dismissing the case. "There was no quid pro quo," Spiro wrote. "Period." "We never offered anything to the Department, or anyone else, for the dismissal. And neither the Department, nor anyone else, ever asked anything of us for the dismissal," Spiro said. "We told the Department that ending the case would lift a legal and practical burden that impeded Mayor Adams in his official duties." Homan during a joint televised interview with Adams on Fox News on Friday said that if the mayor "doesn't come through" on an agreement to cooperate with ICE officials in immigration policies "I'll be back in New York City, and we won't be sitting on a couch." "I'll be in his office, up his butt, saying, 'Where the hell is the agreement we came to?'" Homan said. Ho, in his order setting Wednesday's hearing, noted that federal criminal procedure rules allow prosecutors to dismiss a criminal case "with leave of court." Ho also noted that a 2022 federal appeals court ruling says the executive branch of government "remains the absolute judge of whether a prosecution should be initiated and presumptively the best judge of whether a pending prosecution should be terminated." But the same appellate ruling suggests that a dismissal request can be blocked if it is "clearly contrary to manifest public interest." The judge ordered Adams' lawyers by 5 p.m. Tuesday to file the mayor's written consent to the dismissal request by the DOJ. Spiro soon after filed that document. Hochul, in a statement Monday announcing her meeting with political leaders about Adams' future, said, "In the 235 years of New York State history, these powers have never been utilized to remove a duly-elected mayor; overturning the will of the voters is a serious step that should not be taken lightly." "That said, the alleged conduct at City Hall that has been reported over the past two weeks is troubling and cannot be ignored," Hochul said.  The governments of Pacific Islands nations appear concerned over a document which suggests at least 561 former citizens of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa are at criminal risk of deportation from the US under returning President Donald Trump's administration. Immigration raids across the nation are set to affect 1.4 million foreign residents living in the US, who have overstayed their visas or are non-citizens with criminal histories. President Trump is holding firm to his campaign promise of conducting arguably ever the biggest mass deportations for what is termed undocumented immigrants. The revelation comes after what appeared to be a document compiled by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal Operations was released to limited media showing a list that included 353 Fijian nationals, 151 Tongans and 57 Samoans. The document said the deportees were people with removable non-citizen status, who are being held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention. One of the first news sources to publicize the document MSN News, said one of its American-based correspondents had sighted the list that was entitled: 'Noncitizens on the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Non-Detained Docket with Final Orders of Removal by Country of Citizenship'. The document also includes five deportees from Papua New Guinea, three from the Solomon Islands and Kiribati, two from French Polynesia and one each from Tuvalu and Vanuatu does not specify the categories or the types of deportees involved. Other reports in US media added the arrests by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities appear to remain along the lines of "routine operations" and not part of a larger-scale raid in any one place. President Trump's designated border "czar", Tom Homan, told Fox News on Wednesday the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted hundreds of arrests so far across the nation. The arrested unauthorized immigrants are set to be placed on a number of deportation flights flown out on US military aircrafts. Tonga is particularly concerned that a potential influx of criminals deported may worsen the kingdom's struggle against sophisticated drug crime-related activities. Many sitting in power believe these issues are already being exacerbated by experienced deported criminals, who are already in the country. It was estimated around 30 convicted criminals have been deported to Tonga every year since 2010. Reports indicate Malapo's Hu'atolitoli Prison and its psychiatric facility are facing an increasing issue of overcrowding and that Tonga would not be able to cope with more former residents. Suggestions have been made the country could require assistance from third parties such as New Zealand or even Australia. Many of the patients being treated in the psychiatric facility have been victims of illicit drug use. One Tongan political commentator, Melino Maka, said that among the island country of little more than 100,000 residents, President Trump's promise is set to "unleash a wave of deportees that could drown Tonga and other Pacific nations in crisis". Though some Tongan returnees will be accepted back into families and their societies, others are predicted to struggle. A large number Fijian detainees left the country when they were very young, one report says, and often have a limited understanding of the Fijian language and its local culture. Prominent Fijian lawyer Dorsami Naidu said President Trump's threats have invoked fear. "We've had lots of people, who have served prison sentences in America, get sent back to Fiji, where they introduce different kinds of criminal activities that they are well-groomed in," Mr Naidu said. Senior Fijian minister Pio Tikoduadua said in terms of nationals being repatriated, it would be a matter in which Foreign Affairs will take the lead. Fiji and its partner law agencies do share information and they are aware of Fijian citizens – especially those who were being deported – have engaged in any illicit acts. "If someone has already registered in the US justice system as a drug offender, we will know this person," Mr. Tikoduadua said. "We have networks that share information, but it will be nice if the Americans tell us if they are putting them on the plane to come here." Research fellow, Henrietta McNeill, at the Australian National University in Canberra, said there are dire warnings ahead of damage to many of the traditional ways of life throughout the islands. "My research shows that some deported Pacific islanders with criminal histories may turn 'back to what they know' in the absence of support, which at times means involvement in the drug trade if there are no other means of gainful employment," MS McNeill said.  A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s effort to slash funding for National Institutes of Health research programs at universities and medical systems that threatened a key source of funding and jobs in Georgia for critical research on health discoveries such as cancer and basic science. The judge’s ruling came after a lawsuit filed by 22 mostly Democratic-led states challenged Trump’s plan to cut perhaps $4 billion in costs at the federal program, the nation’s bedrock financier of scientific research. “Nobody denies that Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research is critically important,” said Carr spokeswoman Kara Murray. “By cutting indirect costs, there will be even more funds available for legitimate medical research.” The threatened cuts sparked chaos at research institutions across the state and nation, and led to impassioned calls from scientific leaders urging Trump’s administration to rethink the cost-cutting measures. Business boosters promoted a study that showed the funding that research institutions and businesses across Georgia receives equals more than $2 billion annually in economic impact and is responsible for nearly 12,000 jobs in the state. Caylee Noggle, chief of the Georgia Hospital Association, said the proposed cuts come as Georgia was in the midst of growing, not shrinking, programs for high-level medical education. Lawmakers are pouring state dollars into a new medical school at the University of Georgia and a new dental school at Georgia Southern University. “Any potential funding cut only takes us further backwards and will ultimately slow down or hinder access to groundbreaking and life-saving treatments for Georgians,” she said, adding that her industry broadly supports Trump’s mission to make government more efficient. “We need to be careful and look at the significance of the cuts we’re making.” NIH funding primarily supports university laboratories, where scientists and doctors who secure grants may exclusively work in labs or work directly with hospitals and clinics on groundbreaking trials. At Emory University, NIH funding in the last fiscal year totaled $488 million. The university told employees it expected funding to decrease $140 million annually if the cuts went through. Companies and private foundations also fund scientific research, but experts say NIH funding is the bedrock of U.S. dominance in scientific research. Emory called the overhead spending “essential to our research enterprise,” emphasizing that without laboratory infrastructure scientists couldn’t achieve medical breakthroughs. Such “indirect” spending can include laboratory space, research security, handling of bio waste, information technology, equipment and some personnel. Other large-scale recipients in Georgia include the University of Georgia at $76 million, Augusta University at $73 million and Georgia Tech at $46 million. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley’s initial ruling only covered the 22 mostly Democratic-led states that brought the challenge. The judge later expanded the pause on the NIH cost-cutting effort nationwide “until further order” issued by the court. The judge set a Feb. 21 hearing on the challenges. Two other swing states that Trump captured in November — Michigan and North Carolina — did join the lawsuit. But both states have Democratic attorneys general, easing their political decisions. A group of universities filed a separate lawsuit on Monday that also sought emergency help from the courts, warning the cutbacks could deal irreparable damage to lifesaving research and threaten the lives of patients.  Judges on the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals have once again rejected arguments that cannabis consumers can be barred federally owning firearms. On Wednesday, the Court decided in US v Connelly that Americans’ 2nd Amendment rights cannot be infringed solely based upon one’s prior substance use. In its opinion, judges wrote: “[T]here is no historical justification for disarming citizens of sound mind [and] there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence. … Marijuana user or not, [the defendant] is a member of our political community and thus has a presumptive right to bear arms. By infringing on that right, 922(g)(3) contradicts the Second Amendment’s plain text.” Throughout its opinion, the Court acknowledged that no historical precedent exists for stripping alcoholics of their 2nd Amendment rights. It concluded: “The government provides no meaningful response to the fact that neither Congress nor the states disarmed alcoholics, the group most closely analogous to marijuana users in the 18th and 19th centuries. … Our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, … but they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.” The ruling marks the second time in recent years that judges on the 5th Circuit have held that federal statutes should not be applied so broadly that it criminalizes all gun owners with a history of marijuana use. In a 2023 opinion, judges similarly decided neither “history [nor] tradition … justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.” NORML’s Legal Committee filed an amicus (aka friend of the court) brief in that case calling on the court to find the ban unconstitutional. District Court judges in Oklahoma and Texas have recently issued similar opinions. Commenting on the rulings, NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “Neither past nor current cannabis use should automatically preclude someone from legal protections explicitly provided by the US Constitution.” However, he cautioned that these rulings are not universally applicable or binding nationwide. “Either the Supreme Court or Congress need to ultimately resolve this issue so that responsible cannabis consumers are no longer threatened with federal prison terms simply for exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.” A separate legal challenge to the federal government’s ban, initially brought by former Florida Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried (who now serves as a member of NORML’s Board of Directors) and several medical cannabis patients, remains pending in the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Members of NORML’s Legal Committee have also filed an amicus brief in that case. U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered federal agencies to restore funding that continues to be frozen.  A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to thaw any remnants of a grant-funding freeze, finding that federal agencies have violated the court's "clear and unambiguous" temporary restraining order. U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. of the District of Rhode Island granted an emergency enforcement order sought Feb. 7 by attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia. The attorneys general had submitted evidence that, despite the restraining order McConnell issued last month, federal agencies are still withholding funds from certain grant recipients. "The Defendants now plea that they are just trying to root out fraud," McConnell wrote. "But the freezes in effect now were a result of the broad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categorical and sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO." McConnell said agencies can petition for targeted relief from the TRO if they can show they have specific legal authority to pause funding. But his order Monday also quoted from the 1975 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Maness v. Meyers: "Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect." McConnell ordered federal agencies to "immediately restore withheld funds, including those federal funds appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act," two funding sources the plaintiff-states cited as still frozen in their motion for emergency enforcement. Three weeks into the Trump administration, Democratic attorneys general have now secured court orders temporarily blocking the president's executive actions on federal funding and birthright citizenship. Early Saturday, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York granted 19 state attorneys general's motion for a temporary restraining order blocking Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency from accessing U.S. Treasury Department payment systems. "In every case we’ve filed to date, state attorneys general have successfully restrained the president’s abuse of executive power—and we will continue to hold him accountable; our democratic institutions depend on it," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a prepared statement. On Monday, 22 attorneys general sued the National Institutes of Health to block the Trump administration from capping reimbursements to research institutions. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. "Federal tribal programs are not racial or preference programs, and indeed these federal funds and programs are legally mandated under the trust and treaty obligations owed to us,  A federal judge in Washington, D.C. granted a temporary restraining order Monday blocking the Office of Management and Budget from pausing federal financial assistance programs, including critical funding for tribal nations and Native-serving nonprofits Indian Country. In a court order, U.S. District Judge Loren L. Alikhan wrote that OMB's Jan. 27 memo ordering federal agencies to freeze disbursements was likely "arbitrary and capricious" and would cause irreparable harm to grant recipients. The ruling comes after a temporary restraining order last Friday from a Rhode Island federal court protecting funding in 22 Democratic-led states and D.C., though questions remained about its application to tribal nations and organizations in other states. In yesterday’s order, Judge Alikhan noted that granting another TRO was necessary to provide comprehensive protection for recipients potentially not covered by the earlier order. The court actions come amid mounting concerns from tribal leaders about the potential misclassification of Native programs under recent executive orders targeting diversity and environmental initiatives. In a Feb. 2 letter to the Trump administration and congressional leaders, a coalition of tribal organizations emphasized that federal Indian programs stem from sovereign political relationships, not racial preferences. "Federal tribal programs are not racial or preference programs, and indeed these federal funds and programs are legally mandated under the trust and treaty obligations owed to us," the organizations wrote. The funding uncertainty for tribes extends beyond direct federal assistance. The Alliance for Indigenous Prosperity (AIP) launched last week to defend the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Program, which provides crucial contracting opportunities for tribally-owned businesses. The coalition formed in response to legislative proposals in both chambers of Congress that would eliminate these contracting set-asides under the guise of "ending racism in federal contracting." "The SBA 8(a) Program is not just a tool for federal contracting—it is a lifeline for economic sovereignty, innovation, and growth for indigenous enterprises," Kevin J. Allis, president of Thunderbird Strategic and a key AIP leader, said in a statement. Both court orders come as agencies grapple with mixed signals from the administration. While OMB Acting Director Matthew J. Vaeth rescinded the controversial memo on January 29, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted the underlying executive orders targeting diversity and environmental programs "remain in full force and effect." Judge Alikhan's ruling requires OMB to notify agencies they cannot implement the funding freeze and mandates a status report on compliance by February 7. The parties must also propose a schedule for preliminary injunction proceedings, which could determine longer-term protections for tribal and other federal funding recipients. A federal judge early Saturday blocked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from accessing Treasury Department records that contain sensitive personal data such as Social Security and bank account numbers for millions of Americans.  U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the preliminary injunction after 19 Democratic attorneys general sued President Donald Trump. The case, filed in federal court in New York City, alleges the Trump administration allowed Musk's team access to the Treasury Department's central payment system in violation of federal law.
The payment system handles tax refunds, Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits and much more, sending out trillions of dollars every year while containing an expansive network of Americans' personal and financial data. Engelmayer, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, also said anyone prohibited from having access to the sensitive information since Jan. 20 must immediately destroy all copies of material downloaded from Treasury Department systems. He set a hearing for Feb. 14. The White House previously did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit being filed. Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, was created to discover and eliminate what the Trump administration has deemed to be wasteful government spending. DOGE's access to Treasury records, as well as its inspection of various government agencies, has ignited widespread concern among critics over the increasing power of Musk, while supporters have cheered at the idea of reining in bloated government finances. Musk has made fun of criticism of DOGE on his X social media platform while saying it is saving taxpayers millions of dollars. New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose office filed the lawsuit, said DOGE's access to the Treasury Department's data raises security problems and the possibility for an illegal freeze in federal funds. "This unelected group, led by the world's richest man, is not authorized to have this information, and they explicitly sought this unauthorized access to illegally block payments that millions of Americans rely on, payments for health care, child care and other essential programs," James said in a video message released by her office Friday. James, a Democrat who has been one of Trump's chief antagonists, said the president does not have the power to give away American's private information to anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress. Also on the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The suit alleges that DOGE's access to the Treasury records could interfere with funding already appropriated by Congress, which would exceed the Treasury Department's statutory authority. The case also argues that the DOGE access violates federal administrative law and the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. It also accuses Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent of changing the department's longstanding policy for protecting sensitive personally identifiable information and financial information to allow Musk's DOGE team access to its payment systems. "This decision failed to account for legal obligations to protect such data and ignored the privacy expectations of federal fund recipients," including states, veterans, retirees, and taxpayers, the lawsuit says. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said it's not clear what DOGE is doing with the information in the Treasury systems. "This is the largest data breach in American history," Tong said in a statement Friday. "DOGE is an unlawfully constituted band of renegade tech bros combing through confidential records, sensitive data and critical payment systems. What could go wrong?" The Treasury Department has said the review is about assessing the integrity of the system and that no changes are being made. According to two people familiar with the process, Musk's team began its inquiry looking for ways to suspend payments made by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump and Musk are attempting to dismantle. The two people spoke with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Separately, Democratic lawmakers are seeking a Treasury Department investigation of DOGE's access to the government's payment system. Also, labor unions and advocacy groups have sued to block the payments system review over concerns about its legality. A judge in Washington on Thursday temporarily restricted access to two employees with "read only" privileges.  A group of Native Americans were allegedly lined up for questioning during an ICE raid in Arizona, stoking fears that members of this group are being profiled as the Trump administration ramps up its immigration crackdown.
The episode in question took place on January 22, according to state Sen. Theresa Hatathlie, who detailed the account given to her by a member of the Navajo Nation. She said that during the raid at her niece's workplace in Scottsdale 14 people were lined up for questioning, and she believed eight of them were Native American. One of the women managed to text her aunt before her phone was taken away. After then she kept saying "I'm Navajo," according to Hatathlie. She didn't have any tribal documentation on her but her mother was told about the incident and she sent her daughter a picture of her Certificate of Indian Blood. She was eventually released but had a panic attack after. State Sen. Hatathlie said she has heard similar stories across the state, and that's why she's recommending Native Americans to carry a copy of their Certificate of Indian Blood with them. She then claimed the incidents have to do with racial profiling, because she doesn't hear similar stories from other ethnic groups. "And if you look at all of the pictures or the stories, they all involve people who have brown skin." Officials from the Navajo Nation told CNN last week that at least 15 Indigenous people in the southwest U.S. have reported being questioned or detained by immigration officers. Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren confirmed in a statement that his office has received multiple reports of "negative, and sometimes traumatizing, experiences with federal agents targeting undocumented immigrants." Nygren went on to say that "it's best to be prepared, and we are advising Navajo citizensto carry state-issued identification, such as a driver's license or other picture identification if available. Having your state ID is crucial, and if you possess a CIB (Certificate of Indian Blood), it can provide an additional layer of reassurance" The Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico also announced through a statement that a member was confronted by ICE agents in late January and was asked for ID — first in Spanish, although the member spoke English. However, not even Certificates of Indian Blood (CIBs) or state-issued IDs seem to be deterring agents. "Despite possessing Certificates of Indian Blood (CIBs) and state-issued IDs, several individuals have been detained or questioned by ICE agents who do not recognize these documents as valid proof of citizenship," said Crystalyne Curley, speaker of the Navajo Nation Council in a statement reported by Axios. ICE, in turn, said that "should the extremely rare occasion arise where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement might need to work with tribal partners on an immigration-related case, ICE will attempt to consult and deconflict with the FBI, Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals and tribal leaders as a plan is developed and prior to any targeted law enforcement actions." |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.