Connect with us

Politics

Federal Judge Blocks ‘Lawless Biden Administration Policy that Halted Nearly all Deportations’

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 03 23 at 2.37.24 PM

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is celebrating a breaking news court decision. In an announcement on Twitter, Brnovich wrote: “VICTORY: A federal judge just blocked the lawless Biden Administration policy that halted nearly all deportations after our office challenged this guidance.”

“Our office has been at the forefront of the fights for the rule of law this past year. Arizona deserves nothing less” he continued along with attaching the court document. “STATE OF ARIZONA, et al, Plaintiffs, vs. JOSEPH R. BIDEN et al, Defendants” the case reads.

The Tucson Sentinel reports “the states of Arizona, Montana and Ohio won a preliminary injunction on Tuesday enjoining a Biden administration immigration policy that narrows the Department of Homeland Security’s deportation focus to immigrants deemed to be dangerous.”

The rule put in place by Biden instructed immigrations officials to “conduct extensive analysis of an illegal immigrant’s criminal history, mental and physical health, length of time in the country and various other factors before making a removal determination” writes the Tucson Sentinel.

“The states claimed this type of discretionary ‘balancing test’ exceeded the scope of authority granted to DHS and ICE, and causes extensive harm by allowing more dangerous illegal immigrants within their borders.”

The Tucson Sentinel reports:

The guidance, initially instituted on an interim basis by President Joe Biden in January 2021, instructed DHS officials and officers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to “focus their civil immigration enforcement efforts on noncitizens who present a threat to national or border security or public safety.”

Texas immediately challenged the guidance in federal court and eventually won an injunction to prevent its enforcement, although that injunction was stayed by a ruling from a panel of appeals court judges.

While its temporary guidelines were being litigated, DHS made several changes and eventually passed permanent guidance for prioritized removal in September 2021.

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Elections

BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling

Published

on

Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.

The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.

Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.

In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.

Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.

Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.

Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.

The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.

Trump vows to appeal the decision.

Continue Reading

Trending