<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>experts Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros</title>
	<atom:link href="https://homesafetytechpros.com/tag/experts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://homesafetytechpros.com/tag/experts/</link>
	<description>Home Safety Tech Pros</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2025 06:24:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Experts analyze SCOTUS order barring summary deportations</title>
		<link>https://homesafetytechpros.com/experts-analyze-scotus-order-barring-summary-deportations/</link>
					<comments>https://homesafetytechpros.com/experts-analyze-scotus-order-barring-summary-deportations/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[homesafetytechpros]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2025 06:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alien enemies act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analyze]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deportations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stephen miller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steve vladeck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://homesafetytechpros.com/experts-analyze-scotus-order-barring-summary-deportations/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>President Donald Trump speaks as he signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon). Legal experts were quick to parse the U.S. Supreme Court’s “massively significant” order barring the Trump administration from carrying out deportations using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). In a highly [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com/experts-analyze-scotus-order-barring-summary-deportations/">Experts analyze SCOTUS order barring summary deportations</a> appeared first on <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com">Home Safety Tech Pros</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <br />
</p>
<div id="post-body">
<div id="attachment_520516" style="width: 1210px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-520516" class="size-full wp-image-520516" src="https://am21.mediaite.com/lc/cnt/uploads/2025/04/AP25107753742266-1.jpg" alt="Donald Trump in the Oval Office." width="1200" height="627"/></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-520516" class="wp-caption-text">President Donald Trump speaks as he signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).</p>
</div>
<p>Legal experts were quick to parse the U.S. Supreme Court’s “massively significant” order barring the <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/modicum-of-process-is-mandated-by-the-constitution-judge-blocks-summary-deportations-reminds-trump-admin-all-nine-supreme-court-justices-ruled-against-the-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Trump administration</a> from carrying out deportations using the <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/administrations-most-extreme-measure-yet-judge-hits-trump-with-restraining-order-for-planning-to-use-obscure-wartime-law-to-ramp-up-deportations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Alien Enemies Act</a> (AEA).</p>
<p>In a highly unusual early <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/041925zr_c18e.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Saturday morning ruling</a> — the first and only Saturday order issued this term — the nation’s high court <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-government-is-directed-not-to-remove-supreme-court-slams-brakes-on-trumps-plans-for-more-summary-deportations-under-obscure-wartime-law/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tersely ordered</a> the government “not to remove” any immigrant detainees subject to deportation flights in the Northern District of Texas.</p>
<p>“[T]he Court didn’t wait at all,” Georgetown University Law Prof. Steve Vladeck <a href="https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/144-the-supreme-courts-late-night" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote on his blog</a>. “This may seem like a technical point, but it underscores how seriously the Court, or at least a majority of it, took the urgency of the matter.”</p>
<p>The law professor noted that the justices waited neither for an appellate court to rule on the issue nor gave the government a chance to respond to the emergency request before issuing the order.</p>
<aside class="o-callout__recirculate o-callout"/>
<p>The order comes as the next step in a parry-and-thrust sequence involving the Trump administration’s use of the obscure wartime law.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/administrations-most-extreme-measure-yet-judge-hits-trump-with-restraining-order-for-planning-to-use-obscure-wartime-law-to-ramp-up-deportations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">mid-March</a>, the government invoked the AEA. Though immediately enjoined by U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, officials <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/a-solemn-mockery-of-the-constitution-itself-judge-moves-to-hold-trump-admin-in-criminal-contempt-over-deportation-flights-ordered-to-turn-around/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ignored that court order</a> and promptly flew two planes full of immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. One of the men on one of those flights, <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pretty-sketchy-looking-judge-takes-doj-lawyer-to-the-woodshed-over-trumps-mass-deportations-and-whether-federal-court-orders-are-being-ignored/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia</a>, had an explicit — and separate — court order barring him from being deported to El Salvador.</p>
<p>While the justices dissolved Boasberg’s national injunction, the court also <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">forbade the government</a> from conducting any further deportation flights under the AEA without due process. To that end, the court prescribed writs of habeas corpus in relevant district courts as the way forward for detainees challenging putative AEA deportation.</p>
<p>Then, a few days later, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in a separate case</a>, the justices unanimously directed the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from the <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/torture-in-el-salvador-with-u-s-taxpayer-dollars-habeas-petition-directly-challenges-mans-indefinite-detention-in-notorious-legal-black-hole-foreign-prison/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">torture-plagued</a> Salvadoran lockup facility.</p>
<p>But in the past week, President Donald Trump and high-ranking <a href="https://x.com/Acyn/status/1911812023895359855" target="_blank" rel="noopener">White House officials</a> have misconstrued — and <a href="https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1913241658579440126" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguably mocked</a> — the high court’s ruling as a 9-0 victory for the government. Meanwhile, <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/shall-not-micromanage-the-efforts-of-a-fine-district-judge-4th-circuit-shoots-down-another-attempt-by-trump-doj-to-keep-wrongfully-deported-dad-out-of-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">at least two other courts</a>, one appellate and one district, pointed out that those rulings were <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/modicum-of-process-is-mandated-by-the-constitution-judge-blocks-summary-deportations-reminds-trump-admin-all-nine-supreme-court-justices-ruled-against-the-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">actually defeats for the government</a>, albeit limited ones.</p>
<p>Simultaneously, attorneys across the country have been following the high court’s guidance by filing class-action-seeking habeas petitions in jurisdictions where it is believed immigrants are being housed in anticipation of potential third-country deportations under the AEA.</p>
<p>Such a filing came in Texas on Wednesday; quick work from the court system got the emergency application before the Supreme Court on Friday. Within hours, at least five — and as many as seven — justices voted to stay pending AEA removals of immigrants in North Texas.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs in the case, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), saw fit and were able to avail themselves of the extraordinary intervention because the district court judge denied the original request for a temporary restraining order in the case.</p>
<p>On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, who was appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.402915/gov.uscourts.txnd.402915.27.0_3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">denied the motion for a restraining order</a>, crediting a statement from Department of Justice attorneys that none of the detained plaintiffs faced “imminent risk of summary removal” under the AEA.</p>
<p>That promise may not be worth much to the high court, according to legal commentator and attorney <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/ed-whelan-republicans-would-replace-rbg-during-presidential-election-year/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Ed Whelan</a>, a former clerk for late Justice <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/special-counsel-smith-answers-to-no-one-attorneys-who-represented-trump-during-mueller-probe-look-to-kneecap-mar-a-lago-case-with-an-assist-from-antonin-scalia/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Antonin Scalia</a> who helped advise Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his contentious confirmation hearings.</p>
<p>Calling the order “extraordinary” in a <a href="https://x.com/EdWhelanEPPC/status/1913610220380602634" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post on X</a> (formerly Twitter), Whelan suggested there was only one explanation for the order.</p>
<p>“[T]he Court does not trust the Trump administration to abide by its promise to the district court,” he wrote. “And given how unworthy of trust the Trump administration has proven to be, that’s an ample explanation.”</p>
<p>Vladeck appeared to more or less agree with this estimation.</p>
<p><strong><a href="https://lawandcrime.com/email-newsletter/">Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&amp;Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.</a></strong></p>
<p>As news of renewed AEA flights circulated this week, the ACLU returned to Boasberg on Friday — the original AEA case — and asked for another temporary restraining order.</p>
<p>During a hastily called hearing, the DOJ hedged its bets.</p>
<p>“I’ve spoken with DHS, they are not aware of any current plans for flights tomorrow,” Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign said. “I have also been told to say that they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow.”</p>
<p>Boasberg declined to grant relief, but Vladeck said the justices were likely keenly aware of the government’s position.</p>
<p>“In a world in which a majority of the justices were willing to take these kinds of representations at face value, there might’ve been no need to intervene overnight Friday evening; the justices could’ve taken at least all day Saturday to try to sort things out before handing down their decision,” the law professor wrote. “The Court appears to be finally getting the message — and, in turn, handing down rulings with none of the wiggle room we saw in the J.G.G. and Abrego Garcia decisions last week. That’s a massively significant development unto itself — especially if it turns out to be more than a one-off.”</p>
</div>
<p><script>
  (function(d, s, id) {
    var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
    if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
    js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
    js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";
    fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
  }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
</script><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/the-court-does-not-trust-the-trump-administration-legal-experts-take-stock-of-extraordinary-and-massively-significant-scotus-order-barring-summary-deportations/">Source link </a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com/experts-analyze-scotus-order-barring-summary-deportations/">Experts analyze SCOTUS order barring summary deportations</a> appeared first on <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com">Home Safety Tech Pros</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://homesafetytechpros.com/experts-analyze-scotus-order-barring-summary-deportations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<media:content url="https://lawandcrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AP25107753742266-1.jpg" medium="image"></media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>First Amendment experts ask judge to side with AP over Trump</title>
		<link>https://homesafetytechpros.com/first-amendment-experts-ask-judge-to-side-with-ap-over-trump/</link>
					<comments>https://homesafetytechpros.com/first-amendment-experts-ask-judge-to-side-with-ap-over-trump/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[homesafetytechpros]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Mar 2025 08:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Crime News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donald trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[experts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[side]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trump]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white house]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://homesafetytechpros.com/first-amendment-experts-ask-judge-to-side-with-ap-over-trump/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>President Donald Trump, from right, speaks to reporters accompanied by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Burgum’s wife Kathryn Burgum, aboard Air Force One where Trump signed a proclamation declaring Feb. 9 Gulf of America Day, as he travels from West Palm Beach, Fla. to New Orleans, Sunday, Feb. 9, 2025 (AP Photo/Ben Curtis). A group [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com/first-amendment-experts-ask-judge-to-side-with-ap-over-trump/">First Amendment experts ask judge to side with AP over Trump</a> appeared first on <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com">Home Safety Tech Pros</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> <br />
</p>
<div id="post-body">
<div id="attachment_512677" style="width: 1210px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-512677" class="size-full wp-image-512677" src="https://am21.mediaite.com/lc/cnt/uploads/2025/03/AP25040803010307-1.jpg" alt="President Trump poses with a new map." width="1200" height="627"/></p>
<p id="caption-attachment-512677" class="wp-caption-text">President Donald Trump, from right, speaks to reporters accompanied by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Burgum’s wife Kathryn Burgum, aboard Air Force One where Trump signed a proclamation declaring Feb. 9 Gulf of America Day, as he travels from West Palm Beach, Fla. to New Orleans, Sunday, Feb. 9, 2025 (AP Photo/Ben Curtis).</p>
</div>
<p>A group of First Amendment experts is imploring a federal court to order The Associated Press back into the select stable of journalists who make up the White House “<a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/an-independent-chronicler-of-the-presidency-amicus-brief-supporting-ap-in-dispute-over-white-house-access-unintentionally-foreshadows-huge-change-to-press-pool/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">press pool</a>.”</p>
<p>In a Friday <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682.32.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">brief</a>, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University says the government’s behavior necessitates giving AP journalists back their seats in the halls of power.</p>
<p>“Having created the press pool to enable access to the President in limited-space contexts ranging from the Oval Office to foreign travel, the White House has developed a forum — whether a ‘limited public forum’ or a ‘nonpublic forum,’ as the cases use those terms — from which it may not constitutionally exclude a news organization due to its viewpoints,” the amicus, or friend of the court, brief reads. “Yet that is precisely what the White House is doing, by its own admission.”</p>
<aside class="o-callout__recirculate o-callout"/>
<p>The press pool is a nearly 144-year-old institution whose members have, for decades, been under the purview of the 111-year-old <a href="https://whca.press/covering-the-white-house/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">White House Correspondents Association</a>, a nonprofit famously responsible for its annual, eponymous, comedy-themed dinner. The concept of the pool itself, however, was essentially invented by the AP.</p>
<p>On Feb. 11, White House officials informed the AP its text-based reporters would be barred from entering certain areas as a member of the press pool “unless the AP began referring to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, following President Donald Trump’s renaming of that body of water in Executive Order 14172,” which was titled, “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness.” Later, AP photographers were <a href="https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/ap-again-seeks-end-of-its-white-house-ban-saying-trump-administration-is-retaliating-further/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">allegedly banned</a> as well, the organization said.</p>
<p>On Feb. 21, the AP filed a <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682/gov.uscourts.dcd.277682.1.0_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit in D.C. federal court</a> accusing the White House of engaging in “content- and viewpoint-based discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. The complaint requested a temporary restraining order and asked the court to reverse the ban. An amended filing added the photographer ban to the complaint and pushed for a preliminary injunction.</p>
<p>So far, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, has <a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trump-appointed-judge-refuses-to-restore-aps-white-house-access-but-warns-trump-admin-to-consider-if-its-actions-are-really-appropriate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refused injunctive relief</a> — while at the same time arguing the AP is likely to win on the merits of their case.</p>
<p>“It seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination,” McFadden said.</p>
<p><a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/devised-a-way-to-skirt-this-courts-authority-trump-admin-should-be-held-in-contempt-for-violating-a-whole-swatch-of-federal-court-orders-blocking-anti-transgender-policies-states-say/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>More Law&amp;Crime coverage: ‘Devised a way to skirt this court’s authority’: Trump admin should be held in contempt for violating a ‘whole swatch’ of federal court orders blocking anti-transgender policies, states say</strong></a></p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court’s public forum doctrine centers around the notion that certain places — either physical or digital — have, by tradition or practice, been used for First Amendment purposes and should remain free of government interference. Under high court jurisprudence, there are three types of forums: traditional or quintessential, designated or limited, and closed or nonpublic.</p>
<p>To hear the plaintiffs and the amici tell it, the White House press pool is a limited public forum created by the government.</p>
<p>“The White House’s establishment of the press pool has created a limited public forum, to the benefit of the public as a whole,” the amicus brief argues. “The pool helps provide a prerequisite for a flourishing democracy: access to an unvarnished view of the words and actions of the nation’s chief executive, intermediated by journalists who can report without fear or favor and attempt to hold the President to account through questioning.”</p>
<p>Here, the Knight Center says, history is, in fact, quite instructive.</p>
<p>“The relationship has endured even during the eras of rockiest relations between the White House and the press during the Watergate investigations, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation of President Bill Clinton,” the brief goes on. “Nor did the White House attempt to interfere with the pool during President Trump’s first term.”</p>
<p>And, the argument goes, viewpoint-based discrimination cannot justify the exclusion of anyone from such a public forum.</p>
<p><a href="https://lawandcrime.com/email-newsletter/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&amp;Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.</strong></a></p>
<p>The Trump administration, for its part, clearly singled out the AP for their editorial perspective, the lawsuit and amici claim.</p>
<p>From the amicus brief, at length:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The White House’s decision to ban the AP from the press pool based on the AP’s editorial decisions thus impermissibly excludes the AP from a limited public forum based on the viewpoint of the AP’s speech. The White House does not deny that it acted based on viewpoint. President Trump said “[w]e’re going to keep them out until such time that they agree that it’s the Gulf of America,” while saying in the same breath that the AP “has been very, very wrong on the election, on Trump and the treatment of Trump.” Similarly, Defendant Chief of Staff Susie Wiles wrote to the AP that the White House’s “view as to why we arrived in this point” is that “the influence” the AP’s “Stylebook has acquired has been misused, and at times weaponized, to push a divisive and partisan agenda.” And Defendant Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich said “[t]his isn’t just about the Gulf of America. This is about AP weaponizing language through their stylebook to push a partisan worldview in contrast with the traditional and deeply held beliefs of many Americans and many people around the world.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In pushing for an injunction, the First Amendment experts make several public policy arguments. These are not strictly constitutional pleas but are often considered by courts when considering the various balancing tests and frameworks used to grant or justify requests for relief.</p>
<p>To that end, the Knight Center all but likens the ban on the AP to how journalists are treated in the Russian Federation’s press pool.</p>
<p>“[I]f a press organization can be kicked out of the press pool because of its viewpoints … the remaining members of the press pool would have a strong incentive to soften their coverage of the White House,” the brief continues. “If the White House can evict one outlet from the press pool due to its due to its coverage, it can dangle a sword over those that remain. This phenomenon is familiar to those who have lived under authoritarian regimes.”</p>
</div>
<p><script>
  (function(d, s, id) {
    var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
    if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
    js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;
    js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";
    fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
  }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));
</script><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><a href="https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/familiar-to-those-who-have-lived-under-authoritarian-regimes-first-amendment-experts-implore-judge-to-side-with-ap-in-dispute-over-white-house-access/">Source link </a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com/first-amendment-experts-ask-judge-to-side-with-ap-over-trump/">First Amendment experts ask judge to side with AP over Trump</a> appeared first on <a href="https://homesafetytechpros.com">Home Safety Tech Pros</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://homesafetytechpros.com/first-amendment-experts-ask-judge-to-side-with-ap-over-trump/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<media:content url="https://lawandcrime.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/AP25040803010307-1.jpg" medium="image"></media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
