Attorneys representing several Venezuelan men being detained in Texas have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to once again weigh in on the Trump administration’s unprecedented use of an 18th-century wartime authority to fast-track deportations of accused gang members, claiming that the government has been flouting the court’s order to provide detainees with notice before they’re removed to a notorious work prison in El Salvador.

The high court in the early morning hours of Saturday issued an order — the first and only Saturday order issued this term — directing the government “not to remove” any immigrant detainees subject to President Donald Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA). The Saturday order came after the justices on April 7, unanimously held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal” under the AEA “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

In Monday’s 15-page filing, the ACLU, which represents the detainees, asserted that the administration was not abiding by the court’s order. Instead, they allege the government has been shuffling groups of migrants between different judicial districts and providing them with “English-only AEA notices” less than a day before they are deported without “any explanation” as to how they may seek judicial review.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Merely misleading statements aren’t illegal…

U.S. Supreme Court

Merely misleading statements aren’t illegal under false statements law, Supreme Court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 24, 2025, 3:41 pm CDT

A federal law that makes it a crime to knowingly make false statements to influence the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. does not punish statements that are merely misleading, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The high court ruled for Patrick Daley Thompson, a lawyer and a former alderman who is the grandson of former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley and the nephew of former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, SCOTUSblog reports. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous March 21 decision.

According to SCOTUSblog, the decision “was the most recent of a series of rulings over the past several years in which the court has pushed back against a broader reading of federal criminal laws by prosecutors.”

Other publications covering the opinion include Law360, WBEZ, the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times.

Thompson had received three loans totaling $219,000 from the Washington Federal Bank for Savings over a three-year period. The first loan of $110,000 was used to make an equity payment to his law firm. The second loan was for $20,000, and the third loan was for $89,000. The FDIC became responsible for collecting outstanding loans after the bank failed in 2017.

Thompson told the FDIC’s loan servicer and two FDIC contractors that he had borrowed $110,000. Thompson maintained that his statement was misleading but not false because he referred only to the first $110,000 loan. He later agreed to settle the debt for $219,000.

Thompson was convicted in February 2022, and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision.

“Given that some misleading statements are also true, it is significant that the statute uses only the word ‘false,’” Roberts wrote in the unanimous opinion. “In casual conversation, people use many overlapping words to describe shady statements: false, misleading, dishonest, deceptive, literally true and more. Only one of those words appears in the statute.”

The Supreme Court did not decide whether the conviction could be upheld because Thompson’s statement was false. The issue can be addressed on remand, Roberts said.

Thompson has already served his sentence of four months in prison, according to WBEZ. He was also convicted for filing false tax returns, but that was not an issue in the appeal.

The case is Thompson v. United States.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday evening ordered the Trump administration to rehire tens of thousands of recently terminated federal workers and issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting additional unlawful mass firings, becoming the second judge to issue such an order in the same day.

The sweeping 56-page ruling from Maryland-based U.S. District Judge James Bredar covers firings across 18 different agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, and Homeland Security. Bredar reasoned that the administration’s actions appeared to be an attempt to skirt statutory constraints regarding “reductions in force” (RIFs) by falsely claiming that each of the thousands of workers were fired for “performance or other individualized reason.”

“In this case, the government conducted massive layoffs, but it gave no advance notice,” the judge wrote. “It claims it wasn’t required to because, it says, it dismissed each one of these thousands of probationary employees for ‘performance’ or other individualized reasons. On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively. Accordingly, in the language of relevant laws, these big government layoffs were actually ‘Reductions in Force,’ or ‘RIFs.’ And, because these were ‘RIFs,’ they had to be preceded by notice to the states that would be impacted.”

The ruling came as the result of a lawsuit filed by 19 Democratic state attorneys general and Washington, D.C., which alleged that the Trump administration failed to follow procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedures Act for “reductions in force,” which require giving employees at least 60 days notice of mass terminations. Without such notice, the plaintiff States were not prepared for the impact resulting from the deluge of about 24,000 people being suddenly added their unemployed populations, Bredar said.

The ruling is yet another impediment to the Trump administration’s effort to gut the federal workforce at breakneck speed.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Iowa immigration law making illegal reentry…

Immigration Law

Iowa immigration law making illegal reentry a misdemeanor blocked by 8th Circuit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 29, 2025, 9:35 am CST

Iowa can’t enforce a law making it a crime for immigrants to be in the state if they reentered the country illegally after formerly being denied entry or ordered deported, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis affirmed a preliminary injunction preventing the law from taking effect in a Jan. 24 opinion.

The law makes violations an aggravated misdemeanor and requires judges to order convicted immigrants to return to the foreign nation from which they entered or attempted to enter the United States.

U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher of the Southern District of Iowa had agreed with the Biden administration that the law is likely preempted by federal law.

In an opinion by Judge Duane Benton, the 8th Circuit affirmed.

The Iowa law is “an obstacle to the exercise of the discretion that Congress gives to federal officials charged with enforcing federal immigration law,” the 8th Circuit said. “Decisions about the removal of illegal aliens ‘touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice,’” wrote Benton, quoting a former U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Benton is an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Other panel members are Judge Jonathan A. Kobes, an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term, and Senior Judge Morris S. Arnold, an appointee of former President George H.W. Bush.

The decision “may not be the final word,” the New York Times reports. “The panel’s preliminary ruling could be appealed, and the case has yet to go to trial on its merits at the district court. The U.S. Supreme Court could ultimately consider the question of whether states can enforce their own immigration laws, in a challenge to either the Iowa law or to similar measures passed in Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.”

Publications covering the order, besides the New York Times, include Courthouse News Service, Law360, the Iowa Capital Dispatch and the Des Moines Register.

The American Immigration Council and the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented an immigration legal services group also challenging the law, issued joint press releases (here and here).

The case is United States v. Iowa.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge accused of ‘casual and illegal use’…

Judiciary

Judge accused of ‘casual and illegal use’ of contempt power; crime victim cuffed

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 23, 2024, 10:45 am CDT

A Florida judge has been accused of conducting “improper or legally deficient” contempt proceedings in which she ordered the handcuffing of a crime victim and the jailing of the mother of traumatized, truant children.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission accused Judge Anne Marie Gennusa of Putnam County, Florida, of violating ethics rules in an Oct. 21 complaint.

Gennusa has practiced law for 29 years, yet she blamed deficient proceedings on the fact that she hadn’t yet attended the Florida Judicial College, the ethics complaint said. In one case, she also said she had been vomiting with a fever prior to ordering the handcuffing of a misdemeanor battery defendant and the alleged victim.

The ethics complaint accuses Gennusa of “casual and illegal use” of her contempt power in these three cases.

  • State v. Boone: In January, Gennusa held a misdemeanor battery defendant and an alleged victim in contempt after they twice argued in open court. The victim was handcuffed in court and held in custody for nearly three hours.

After the defendant and the victim argued the first time, Gennusa told the defendant that he was acting disrespectful.

“This is not The Jerry Springer Show,” she said, and, he can’t “lash out” and say whatever he wants. The defendant protested, “I’m not lashing. This ain’t no lashing out. Lash out I’m going to get loud on you.” Gennusa replied, “You gonna get loud on me?” and ordered the defendant taken into custody until after lunch.

When the prosecutor asked whether the victim should remain, Gennusa replied that she wouldn’t accept a plea because it appeared that the victim would not accept a plea. At that point, the victim spoke up from the gallery, saying, “I never said I did not want the plea.” The defendant and the victim began arguing again.

Gennusa then admonished the victim and asked whether the prosecutor wanted to speak with the victim. During the conversation with the prosecutor, the victim said she was getting irritated, she didn’t like being spoken to like a child, and she didn’t understand what was going on. Gennusa overheard the conversation and ordered the victim taken into custody until after lunch.

  • In re: M.R.A., J.F.A.: In November 2023, Gennusa held the mother of three truant children in contempt and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. Gennusa had claimed that the mother’s conduct was “belligerent” and “deplorable,” but the hearing recording did not support the assessment, the ethics complaint said.

The mother had violated a court order for her children to attend a specific school program. The mother said the children weren’t in school because their maternal grandfather had recently been murdered by the children’s father. Gennusa interrupted the mother and said, “I get all that, but that’s not a reason for the kids not to go to school.”

The mother said one of the children had witnessed the murder and had to go out of town to speak with the investigating detective.

“My kids are mentally unstable to go right now, and you’re not understanding, their father is gone,” the mother said. Gennusa said an order was already in place.

Gennusa also scolded the mother when she talked about a different case and when she nodded during testimony by the school truancy counselor.

“You’re shaking your head like you’ve done something wonderful,” Gennusa said, “and you haven’t. You’ve failed to comply with the court’s order.” She sentenced the mother to jail after a court recess.

  • State v. Morrison: In November 2023, Gennusa sentenced a misdemeanor defendant to 60 days in jail after he told a courtroom deputy to “Go f- – – yourself.” The deputy had asked the defendant to remove his hat and leave the courtroom when his cellphone rang.

Gennusa held the man in contempt before asking him to explain his comment. The man then asked for “a little bit of grace” because he had a stressful week and had just obtained his first “career job” in hopes of getting his daughter back. Gennusa sentenced the man to jail as he was crying.

The ethics charges said Gennusa’s behavior and use of her contempt power “raise serious questions about your fitness to serve as a judicial officer.”

Law360 and the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union have coverage of the charges.

Gennusa was appointed to the court last year and is running for reelection in November, according to the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union.

Her lawyer, Warren Lindsey, told the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union that Gennusa “has served the Putnam County community with great distinction since her appointment to the county court bench. … She is an excellent judge and person. However, the rules do not allow her to respond to the allegations except in legal filings, which will be submitted in the near future.”

A CBS News investigation found that the sale of illegal drugs is booming on social media, making access easier for teenagers. Tom Hanson reports.