Lawyers for the families of two children with U.S. citizenship, including a 4-year-old who has Stage 4 cancer, have accused the Trump administration of deporting the youths to Honduras on the same day another child with citizenship was allegedly sent to the Central American country, which led to an order from a federal judge requiring the government to explain itself.

President Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, went on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday and insisted that “no U.S. citizen child” had been deported. He claimed that “deported means ordered by an immigration judge” and suggested that the mothers may have chosen to take the children with them, saying: “That’s a parent’s decision. It’s not a government decision, it’s a parent’s decision.”

Reports emerged late Saturday and Sunday from The Washington Post and New York Times saying the 4-year-old and a 7-year-old had also been shipped out Friday with the child that led to the judge’s memorandum in federal court.

As Law&Crime previously reported, a federal judge in Louisiana known for his rulings that tend to align with causes championed by Trump issued a memorandum order Friday setting a hearing to address the apparent deportation of a 2-year-old identified only as V.M.L. According to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus — a request that court determine whether a person’s detention is unlawful — V.M.L. was born in 2023 in Baton Rouge, as indicated on her birth certificate.

Lawyers for the mother of the 2-year-old told the Times that she and the other two kids were all deported to Honduras Friday. The Times reports that the mother of the 2-year-old is pregnant, while the 4-year-old from the other family has a rare form of late-stage cancer. The boy allegedly had no access to his medications or his doctors during the removal process, the lawyers say.

Gracie Willis, a lawyer with the National Immigration Project who is reportedly involved in the case involving the 2-year-old, has condemned the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and local law officials as being both “horrifying and baffling” as the children are all considered “U.S. citizen” children.

Homan, however, says the government sees things differently.

“Having a U.S. citizen child after you enter this country illegally is not a get-out-of-jail free card,” he told “Face the Nation” on Sunday.

“It doesn’t make you immune from our laws,” Homan said. “If that’s the message we sent the entire world, women are gonna keep putting themselves at risk and come to this country. We send a message. You can enter [the] country illegally, which is a crime. That’s okay. You can have due process, great taxpayer expense. Get ordered removed. That’s okay. Don’t leave. But have a U.S. citizen child and you’re immune from removal? That’s not the way it works.”

Speaking to NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that if the children’s families want them to come back to the U.S. that they will be allowed to “if there’s their father or someone here who wants to assume them” in the United States.

“Ultimately, who was deported … was their mothers, who were here illegally,” Rubio said. “The children just went with their mothers. But it wasn’t like — you guys make it sound like ICE agents kicked down the door and grabbed the 2-year-old and threw him on an airplane. That’s misleading.”

A representative “next friend” of the 2-year-old, who says she has known her since birth, has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the child’s removal, accusing ICE of engaging in “attempts to disappear” V.M.L. and lying to the child’s family and representatives in the process.

At the time the TRO motion was filed, the girl’s representatives believed she was still in the U.S.

In its opposition to the TRO request, ICE said the girl’s mother wanted to take V.M.L. with her back to Honduras, and provided as proof a note written by hand in Spanish. Just like Homan and Rubio, the government also signaled skepticism that the child’s “next friend,” as well as V.M.L.’s father, were indeed who they said they were, saying they have not provided identification to ICE in support of releasing the child into their custody.

In Friday’s order, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty — appointed by Trump in 2018 — said that V.M.L. is “ostensibly” a 2-year-old United States citizen.

“Of course, ‘It is illegal and unconstitutional to deport, detain for deportation, or recommend deportation of a U.S. citizen,”” Doughty concluded.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Marisa Sarnoff contributed to this report. 

The first case involving the second Trump administration has come to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although the court has not gotten involved at this stage in the litigation, the case involves an issue of enormous significance: May a president fire anyone who works in the executive branch of government even when there is a statute limiting firing? More generally, will the court continue to allow the existence of “independent regulatory agencies” with some degree of independence from a president?

The facts of this case

The case, Bessent v. Dellinger, involves Hampton Dellinger, who is the head of the Office of Special Counsel. This is an independent agency responsible for safeguarding whistleblowers and enforcing ethics laws. Dellinger was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2024 to a five-year term and confirmed by the Senate under a law that says that the Special Counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

On Feb. 7, Dellinger was fired in a one sentence email that gave no reasons. In none of its filings in court, has the government tried to claim that there was cause for removing him.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, following Supreme Court precedent, issued a temporary restraining order against the removal. On Feb. 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, denied a request to stay the temporary restraining order. The majority explained that TROs are generally not reviewable on appeal. If the district court, on the expiration of the TRO, issues a preliminary injunction, that would be subject to appeal.

The next day, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO. On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court, in a short order, declined to hear the matter at this point, with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

Independent regulatory agencies and the removal power

Independent regulatory agencies have a long history. In 1887, Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates. Over time, a myriad of important agencies were created, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and many more.

As with cabinet officers, commissioners for these agencies are nominated by the president with a requirement of Senate confirmation. But unlike cabinet positions, members of the agencies have protection from removal. The statutes creating the agencies provide that the commissioners serve for a set term and can be removed only for cause, usually defined as permitting firing by the president “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

In 1935, in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that prevented removal of commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission unless there was just cause for firing. The court stressed the importance of Congress being able to shield federal regulatory agencies from direct presidential control. The court declared: “The authority of Congress, in creating quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial agencies, to require them to act in discharge of their duties independently of executive control cannot well be doubted; and that authority includes, as an appropriate incident, power to fix the period during which they shall continue in office, and to forbid their removal except for cause in the meantime.”

In Wiener v. United States, in 1958, the high court went further and held that even without a statutory limit on removal, the president could not remove executive officials where independence from the president is desirable. Wiener involved the president’s firing a member of the War Claims Commission. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission Act in Humphrey’s Executor, the statute creating the War Claims Commission did not expressly limit the president’s removal power.

However, the court concluded that the functional need for independence of the War Claims Commission limited the president’s removal power. The court explained that Congress’ intent was for the War Claims Commission to award claims based on merit rather than on political influence. The court said that there was a “sharp differentiation” between “those who are part of the executive establishment and those whose tasks require absolute freedom from executive interference.”

In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress can provide protection from removal where independence from the president is desirable. In Morrison v. Olson, in 1988, the court upheld the constitutionality of a federal law which created an independent counsel to investigate wrongdoing by high level executive branch officials and allowed firing only for cause. In a 7-1 decision, the court, in an opinion by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, upheld this limit and stressed that the independent counsel, who exists to investigate and prosecute alleged wrongdoing by those in the executive branch of government, ideally should be independent of the president.

In 2020, the Supreme Court clarified these principles and even spoke of the office held by Dellinger. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the court, 5-4, held that Congress could not limit the removal of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The court distinguished Humphrey’s Executor. It said that the Congress cannot limit removal where an agency is directed by a single person, as was the case for the CFPB. But the court reaffirmed that Congress can limit removal where it is a multi-member commission as with the Federal Trade Commission in Humphrey’s Executor.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, contrasted the Office of Special Counsel, which Dellinger heads, to the CFPB and said: “In any event, the Office of Special Counsel exercises only limited jurisdiction to enforce certain rules governing federal government employers and employees. It does not bind private parties at all or wield regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB.”

The Trump administration position and the opposition

The Trump administration is arguing that cases such as Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison v. Olson should be overruled and that Congress never can limit the firing of anyone who works in the executive branch of government. In a letter, dated Feb. 12, Acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris wrote to Sen. Richard Durbin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, that the Department of Justice has concluded that limits on removal are unconstitutional, that Humphrey’s Executor is wrong, and that it will not abide by statutes limiting firing.

On Feb. 18, the Trump administration issued an executive order, Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies, which declared that all federal agencies are under control of the president. It said that the president can fire those within the agency without needing to comply with statutory limits on removal and that all within the agencies must adhere to the president’s policies.

President Trump has fired many individuals who have statutory protection from removal such as Dellinger, a commissioner on the National Labor Relations Board, members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the head of the Federal Election Commission.

The Trump administration relies on what is referred to as the unitary executive theory. This is the view that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the president who then is in charge of the entire executive branch of government. Any limit on presidential control, such as restrictions on removal, are unconstitutional.

Critics argue that the unitary executive theory has no historical support. The framers of the Constitution were deeply distrustful of executive authority. Those who oppose the unitary executive theory say that it ignores that federal powers are both separate and interdependent and the importance of checks and balances within the federal government.

In addition, critics argue, there are times when it is very desirable to have protection for those who are formally in the executive branch of government. For example, it is widely thought that the Federal Reserve Board, which has enormous influence over the economy, should not be directly answerable to the president. And it makes sense that the person who is handling whistleblower complaints against the government should have protection from removal.

The Supreme Court

Although the Supreme Court did not hear the Trump administration’s appeal in the Dellinger case at this time because of its procedural posture, the issue surely will come back to the court, in this or another case, soon. The court will then have to decide whether to overrule long-standing precedents and give the president powers that could extend to the ability to fire all government officials and employees.

On the one hand, there now may be a majority on the court disposed toward accepting the unitary executive theory. In Trump v. United States, the court, in a majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, stated “The President occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme as the only person who alone composes a branch of government.” The court may well say that the distinction between single-member and multi-member heads of agencies that it drew in Seila Law is arbitrary.

On the other hand, for 90 years, the law has been that there can be independent agencies and there can be limits on presidential removal. It would be a dramatic expansion of presidential power for the court to embrace the unitary executive theory.

Perhaps the court will take an intermediate position, giving the president authority to remove the heads of agencies, but not finding civil service protection for federal employees unconstitutional.

The only sure thing is that one of the first tests of the Trump administration’s expansive assertion of executive power will involve whether Congress can impose limits on the president’s removal power. If the court embraces the unitary executive theory, the implications will be enormous.

---

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He is an expert in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He’s also the author of many books, including No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States and A Court Divided: October Term 2023 (2024).

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

The nation’s largest federation of labor unions on Thursday won a significant victory against the Trump administration in their efforts to peel back the curtain on the activities of the Elon Musk-helmed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In a 16-page order, U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, ordered four members of the “opaque” cost-cutting group to sit for depositions on a series of “properly-scoped topics.” The under-oath testimony will total eight hours, the court ruled.

The judge’s move to enforce a certain measure of transparency on DOGE comes in response to an expedited discovery request from the AFL-CIO, several other unions, and a progressive economic think tank. Filed earlier this month, the underlying lawsuit aims to bar the often-evasively-defined group from accessing nonpublic Department of Labor information and accuses DOGE of violating “multiple laws.”

“Although this in an Administrative Procedure Act case, the discovery plaintiffs request is proper because it is necessary to determine the contours of the agency actions that plaintiffs challenge,” the order reads. “The limited expedited discovery plaintiffs request is also reasonable.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Could courts run out of options if federal…

Judiciary

Could courts run out of options if federal officials defy court orders?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 20, 2025, 2:56 pm CST

The question was considered during President Donald Trump’s first term in office: What would happen if his administration ignored a court order? Now, news articles are considering the issue once again, and commentators are using the term “constitutional crisis” to describe worst-case scenarios.

One federal judge in Rhode Island already ruled Feb. 10 that the Trump administration partly failed to comply with a temporary restraining order to lift a freeze on some federal funds.

Then on Feb. 19, plaintiffs in another case sought to hold several administration officials in contempt for alleged “brazen defiance” of a Washington, D.C., federal judge’s TRO requiring continued funding of many foreign-aid programs.

How can courts respond? Among those considering the enforcement issue are Trevor W. Morrison and Richard H. Pildes, professors at the New York University School of Law, in a guest essay for the New York Times, Bloomberg Law, NPR and the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law.

Court orders are usually directed at subordinate officials, rather than a president. If the officials don’t comply, “the courts would be likely to issue further orders, with increasingly strict and specific requirements, such as a due date,” according to the guest essay.

Then there are these additional options, according to the articles:

  • Sanction the lawyers. Courts can sanction lawyers who help clients deliberately defy a court order, who file court documents for an improper purpose or who make misrepresentations to a court.

  • Order government officials to answer questions in depositions.

  • Hold administration officials in civil contempt of court. The officials and their agencies could be fined daily until they comply with a court order. Judges could also impose sanctions affecting the underlying litigation. And courts could require imprisonment until an order is followed. The problem is that the U.S. Marshals Service would likely be responsible for imprisoning the official—and the service is overseen by the Department of Justice, which could order noncompliance.

  • Hold officials in criminal contempt and refer the issue to a U.S. attorney for prosecution. Trump could direct the federal prosecutor to drop the case, however. If a judge was to instead appoint private counsel to prosecute, Trump could issue a pardon after a conviction.

“Executive branch defiance of the courts is not a simple, one-time-only decision,” Morrison and Pildes wrote in the New York Times guest essay.

Continued defiance could mean expanding the circle of federal officials who violate the law, including U.S. marshals. The confrontation could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

“For an official to stand in continued, open defiance of a court order, he might have to defy the entire judicial system,” Morrison and Pildes wrote. “At that point, there is no question we would be in a constitutional crisis, and the courts could well run out of options.”

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

Video released this week by California‘s Department of Insurance allegedly shows a group of Los Angeles residents committing fake bear attacks on their own luxury cars — including a Rolls-Royce Ghost and Mercedes-Benz “G-Wagon” — using a bear suit and meat shredders, according to officials.

“It was clearly a human in a bear suit,” the department said in a press release on Wednesday after handing down charges to Ruben Tamrazian, 26, Ararat Chirkinian, 39, Vahe Muradkhanyan, 32, and Alfiya Zuckerman, 39.

The group is accused of using a bear costume to fake at least three attacks on a 2010 Rolls-Royce Ghost, a 2015 Mercedes G63 AMG and a 2022 Mercedes E350. The original price tags for all three vehicles, combined, is over $350,000 — with a base sedan for the Ghost, alone, coming in at $245,000.

Four arrested after videos show fake bear attacks for insurance payouts.

Operation Bear Claw reveals suspects allegedly wore bear costume to commit insurance fraud. pic.twitter.com/9mzfvaq2B3

— CA Dept of Insurance (@CDInews) November 13, 2024

State investigators say an insurance company came forward earlier this year after receiving a report about one of the “bear” attacks, which seemed suspicious. The company had gotten a claim about an incident in Lake Arrowhead on Jan. 28, which left a Rolls-Royce — the Ghost — with interior damage, according to officials.

A surveillance video provided by the suspects showed what they claimed was a bear having its way with their vehicle, opening a front door and making its way to the back for some grub before exiting, the suspects told the insurance company. Photos released by CDI show damage and scratches to the car’s interior.

“Upon further scrutiny of the video, the investigation determined the bear was actually a person in a bear costume,” CDI officials said Wednesday. “Detectives found two additional insurance claims with two different insurance companies, for the suspects with the same date of loss and at the same location.” Additional video had also been submitted.

After launching an investigation, the department was able to piece everything together using some canny techniques of its own.

“To further ensure it was not actually a bear in the video, the Department had a biologist from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife review the three alleged bear videos and they also opined it was clearly a human in a bear suit,” CDI officials said. “After executing a search warrant, detectives found the bear costume in the suspects’ home.”

In total, the insurance companies involved were allegedly defrauded of $141,839, according to CDI. The department was assisted by Glendale Police and California Highway Patrol. San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office is handling the case.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

A Virginia mom says that a lack of action taken by school officials who stood by as her daughter had a medical emergency is responsible for the girl’s death.

Kaleiah Jones was 16 years old when she went to school on Feb. 20. According to a lawsuit filed by Kaleiah’s mother, Keyonna Stewart, Kaleiah suffered a cardiac issue and collapsed in a hallway at Menchville High School that day in Newport News, but despite having medical training — and access to potentially lifesaving machines — school officials did next to nothing for more than 16 minutes.