Sign the petition: Trump's authoritarian takeover targets judges (again) & House votes to sweep away judges as a check on Trump’s power & FILED: We're suing AGAIN to protect birthright citizenship nationwide & Supreme Court for now allows Trump to deport migrants to ‘third countries’ & U.S. Supreme Court allows — for now — third-country deportations 20, 25, 30 & 23JUN25

 NOT MY pres drumpf 's / trump's agenda depends on a complacent judiciary, one that will allow him to impose his authoritarian theocratic oligarchy on us, the U.S. Constitution be damned! The fascist gop / greed over people-republican party sycophants in the House have followed his instructions to destroy the judiciary, drumpf / trump is now waiting on the Senate to do the same. And the scotus is already surrendering it's authority though that has not been an unanimous decision. Please take part in opposing the fascist drumpf / trump-vance-project 2025, sign the petition, donate to Demand Progress and / or the ACLU and e mail your representative and senators telling them to oppose legislation that destroys the American judicial system. My e mails will be at the end of this post. These from Demand Progress, the ACLU, the Washington Post and NPR....

Sign the petition: Trump's authoritarian takeover targets judges (again)

TELL THE SENATE: Trump’s war on the federal judiciary is getting a boost in the Senate. The GOP’s big budget bill would strip power from federal judges to hold Trump admin officials accountable for defying court orders — making it even easier for Trump to break the law. Sign the petition: Stop Trump’s anti-democracy power grab! ADD YOUR NAME Trump’s war on judges and push for authoritarianism just got a major boost in the Senate. The GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee adopted a dangerous, anti-democracy provision from the House’s disastrous budget bill that takes power from federal judges and hands it directly to the Trump administration.1 The judiciary has been one of the strongest checks on Trump’s power over the last five months. Any Republican attempt to take authority away from federal judges is an obvious move to clear the way for Trump to break the law and execute a further authoritarian takeover. Sign the petition: Reject Trump’s war on judges! Stop the GOP’s measure that strips power from the federal judiciary and hands it to Trump. ADD YOUR NAME The provision in Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” would strip federal judges of the power to hold Trump administration officials in contempt when they defy court orders.2 Federal judges have already ruled against Trump at least 170 times since he took office for his second term.3 Trump’s willingness to break the law should never receive the backing of our elected lawmakers in Congress, who are supposed to act as another co-equal branch of government and a check on Trump’s power. The battle between Trump and the courts could tilt the scales between democracy and authoritarianism. As Trump wages all-out war on judges and defies court orders, we can’t let the GOP hand Trump any more advantages. Sign the petition: Oppose the pro-Trump, anti-democracy measure in the budget bill — preserve the power of federal judges! Thanks for taking action, Joey and the team at Demand Progress DONATE Sources: USA Today, “ Senate keeps provision curbing judge's orders in Donald Trump's budget bill,” June 13, 2025. Campaign Legal Center, “These Hidden Provisions in the Budget Bill Undermine Our Democracy,” June 6, 2025. Ibid.   Contributions to ActBlue Civics and Demand Progress Action are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Join our online community on Instagram or Twitter.

House votes to sweep away judges as a check on Trump’s power

Donald Trump is speeding toward turning America into a lawless police state, with masked ICE agents disappearing people off the street.1 Federal judges have been the only part of government standing in his way, and Republicans are now trying to remove even that check on Trump's power. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation called the No Rogue Rulings Act that would ban federal judges from blocking Trump's most flagrantly illegal actions.2 And the House-passed version of Trump's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" included a similar attack on judges' ability to enforce their orders against Trump.3 It's up to us to stop these attacks on judges before they pass the U.S. Senate and get to the president's desk. Demand Progress has mobilized tens of thousands of people to defend judges and the rule of law, and we're counting on your support to help ramp up our efforts. From the moment Trump was sworn into office, Republicans have been trying to strip away any and all checks on his ability to rule as an all-powerful dictator — including and especially federal judges. When Trump tried to erase birthright citizenship from the U.S. Constitution by executive order, it was a federal district judge who said no.4 When he began deporting legal U.S. residents to a notorious Salvadoran prison, a federal district judge stopped it.5 In all so far, at least 197 rulings have at least temporarily paused unlawful Trump executive actions on issues ranging from illegal mass firings to environmental protection and LGBTQ rights.6 That's why Republicans are hell-bent on sweeping away the authority of federal judges to block Trump's unconstitutional rampage. Worse yet, a Justice Department whistleblower has come forward to say that one of Trump's federal district court nominees openly advocated for ignoring judges' rulings when he worked in the Trump Justice Department.7 With gratitude, The team at Demand Progress Action DONATE Sources: 1. The New Yorker, "The People Being Disappeared by ICE in Los Angeles," June 22, 2025. 2. Government Accountability Project, "No Rogue Rulings Act Obstructs Government Oversight," May 15, 2025. 3. The Intercept, "GOP Budget Would Make It Even Harder to Hold Trump Administration in Contempt," May 24, 2025. 4. Associated Press, "What judges have said about birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions," May 15, 2025. 5. Mother Jones, "Judge Calls Trump's Deportation Operation Kafkaesque in Blistering Opinion," June 5, 2025. 6. The New York Times, "Tracking the Lawsuits Against Trump's Agenda," June 24, 2025. 7. The New York Times, "Justice Dept. Leader Suggested Violating Court Orders, Whistle-Blower Says," June 24, 2025. Contributions to ActBlue Civics and Demand Progress Action are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Join our online community on Instagram or Twitter. FILED: WE'RE SUING AGAIN TO  PROTECT BIRTHRIGHT  CITIZENSHIP NATIONWIDE Last week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that could allow the government to deny citizenship to certain American-born children – so the ACLU is suing again. While our legal team fights in court, help us take the fight to Congress – protect immigrants' rights now. Take Action The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't allow President Trump's clearly unconstitutional order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect immediately. But it creates a real risk that in late July, the order can start to be implemented and deny citizenship to many children born in the United States – even though every court to have considered the issue has found the order unconstitutional, and not a single justice on the Supreme Court has suggested otherwise. That's because the ruling restricts the ways in which courts can block likely unconstitutional policies nationwide. But critically, the Court did not restrict the availability of nationwide injunctions in class action lawsuits – so that's exactly what we're pursuing. Within hours of the Supreme Court's ruling, we filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit against President Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. But the attacks on immigrants aren't just playing out in courtrooms. Right now, Congress is considering giving $170 billion to supercharge President Trump's anti-immigrant agenda – not only giving him the resources to enforce this dangerous order, but also accelerating his inhumane deportation plans, putting our immigrant neighbors and loved ones at risk. This bill includes $45 billion to fund an additional 750,000 detention beds – including for pregnant and immigrant parents with US citizen kids. Tell Congress: No more money to cruel immigration enforcement. We're urging the courts to act quickly to issue nationwide relief and protect children's citizenship while our cases continue. Even partial enforcement of President Trump's order would be a disaster and a blatant violation of our Constitution – and we'll continue fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child. Thank you for being with us, The ACLU Team Donate Now This email was sent by: ACLU 125 Broad St. New York, NY 10004 This scotus ruling proves this project 2025 court has no intention of defending our democratic Republic, our Constitution, our rights and liberties. If these 6 fascist "justices" had been judges at Nuremberg the 10 prominent members of the political and military leadership of Nazi Germany; Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Alfred Jodl, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Wilhelm Keitel, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Alfred Rosenberg, Fritz Sauckel, Arthur Seyss-Inquart, and Julius Streicher wouldn't have been found guilty of their crimes, wouldn't have been hanged, but instead would have been acquitted and set free. God help us. Supreme Court for now allows Trump to deport migrants to ‘third countries’ The case centers on President Donald Trump’s attempt to deport migrants to countries where they are not citizens, including conflict-ridden South Sudan. Updated June 23, 2025 at 9:41 p.m. EDTyesterday at 9:41 p.m. EDT The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport immigrants to countries where they are not citizens, temporarily blocking a decision by a lower-court judge who said migrants must have a “meaningful opportunity” to contest their removal. The court’s order, which drew a sharp dissent from the three liberal justices, was the latest of several allowing President Donald Trump to move forward with a major change in policy while litigation on the issue continues in lower courts. Each has been made as part of the court’s “emergency docket,” which means they are decided based on truncated court filings, not oral argument, and the justices do not always explain their reasoning. As part of Trump’s mass deportation efforts, the administration has attempted to send groups of migrants, some convicted of crimes in the United States, to countries other than their own, including to conflict-ridden South Sudan. Four individuals initially filed a lawsuit in Boston on behalf of all migrants potentially subject to third-country removals, saying they are entitled to notice and an opportunity to raise fear-based claims before deportation. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts ruled against the administration, temporarily barring such deportations. He later said a planned deportation flight to South Sudan had violated his order. Those migrants have since been held in a makeshift detention facility at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, enduring health hazards and the threat of rocket attacks. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a nearly 20-page dissent, criticizing the administration for violating the lower-court order and trying to send migrants to “a nation the State De­partment considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel.” “Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires,” the liberals wrote, the majority was “rewarding lawlessness” by halting an order the administration has repeatedly defied. “Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice” to the targeted migrants, the dissent said. The conservative majority’s one-paragraph, unsigned statement did not explain its reasons for pausing Murphy’s decision. The White House and the Department of Homeland Security claimed victory, posting on social media the message “Fire up the deportation planes,” and a meme of the president doing a celebratory dance.  In a brief order late Monday, Murphy said the men in Djibouti were protected from immediate removal based on a separate ruling he previously issued. The third-country removals case is one of several that have reached the Supreme Court involving the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to ramp up deportations and restrict legal and illegal immigration. The justices restrained the administration in other deportation cases, joining lower courts in chastising Trump officials for failing to provide immigrants with sufficient time or due process to challenge their removals. But the justices also allowed Trump to lift protected status for hundreds of thousands of migrants while litigation on the cancellation of their programs continues. The court, for example, ordered the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego García, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting it. The government brought him back to the United States this month after securing an indictment against him for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants. In her dissent Monday, Sotomayor suggested that the majority’s position contradicted its earlier orders that had emphasized that migrants cannot be removed without a fair process. Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck, who closely tracks the emergency docket, called the order “disastrous” and scolded the majority for failing to address the Trump administration’s violations of Murphy’s order. That silence, he wrote in his One First newsletter Monday night, could encourage the administration to violate other lower-court orders. Like Sotomayor, Vladeck noted the court’s earlier rulings that migrants are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportations. He said Monday’s order “effectively allows for countless other migrants to be removed to third countries where they have credible arguments that they’ll be mistreated — for no other reason than because they’ve already been held to be removable to some other country. Due process apparently matters to these justices on the initial removability question, but not beyond that.” Attorneys for the migrants said the court action leaves thousands of people vulnerable to deportation and mistreatment. “It strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death,” Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said in a statement. She emphasized that the broader challenge to the administration’s policy is still underway in the lower courts, adding, “We now need to move as swiftly as possible to conclude the case and restore these protections.” Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement that the agency “can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them.” Murphy had ordered the government to give those targeted for third-country deportations up to 25 days to legally challenge their removals. He said the deportees also must be interviewed by the government, with their attorney and interpreter present, to determine whether they qualify for humanitarian protection. In asking the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling, Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that the U.S. is “facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove.” He argued that the lower-court judge infringed on the executive’s authority over deportations and imposed an “onerous set of procedures” for the government to assess any claims under the Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by Congress in 1994 to bar the U.S. government from sending people to countries where they might face torture. Attorneys for the immigrants told the justices that Murphy “went to great lengths to avoid micro-managing” the administration’s compliance with federal law prohibiting such deportations — even of criminals — to third countries where they would face persecution or torture. They also disputed the administration’s characterization of the migrants as “the worst of the worst,” saying many of those targeted have not been convicted of crimes and initially entered the United States legally as refugees or on student or work-based visas. Murphy has grown increasingly frustrated with the administration’s responses to his orders, accusing Justice Department lawyers of “manufacturing the very chaos they decry” as a way to evade his instructions. In May, Murphy found that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to remove one group of migrants, who are from Cuba, Vietnam, Myanmar, Laos and Mexico, after federal authorities determined they had committed serious crimes and their homelands would not take them. A lawyer for the immigrants had urged Murphy to order the government to return the men, bound for South Sudan, to the United States. But the judge declined to order their return, saying the Department of Homeland Security could bring them back for the interviews or conduct them where the migrants were being held. In his filing, Sauer assured the court that under the Convention Against Torture, the administration “will not remove an alien to any country where he is likely to be tortured — i.e., the extreme scenario where the alien is likely to face severe pain or suffering intentionally inflicted by the hand or with the consent of a public official.” Maria Sacchetti contributed to this report. By Ann E. Marimow Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005, and has spent a decade writing about legal affairs and the federal judiciary. She previously covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Send secure tips on Signal to annmarimow.72 U.S. Supreme Court allows — for now — third-country deportations Updated June 23, 20257:07 PM ET  Nina Totenberg The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a lower court order that required 15 days notice to individuals the Trump administration is trying to deport to countries other than their own.  The high court's action, at least for now, reversed the lower court's order requiring that those being deported have enough time to contact their lawyers and present evidence that would show their lives would be in danger if deported to certain countries.  The order focused on a flight carrying several men from various countries — including Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and Mexico — which was initially headed to South Sudan but ended up in the East African country of Djibouti in order to give the men time to dispute their final destination. The U.S. government says the men are violent criminals, convicted of crimes including murder, sexual assault, kidnapping and robbery, and said they don't deserve to stay in the U.S. But Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts last month said people must still get a so-called "credible fear" interview in their native language to be able to dispute being sent to a country they're not originally from. He said people must get at least 15 days to challenge their deportations. National Deportees are being held in a converted shipping container in Djibouti, ICE says Monday's unsigned Supreme Court order puts that decision on hold while the legal process continues in the lower courts. In a searing dissent, the court's three liberals accused the conservative majority of "rewarding lawlessness." Writing for the three, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said "The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone, anywhere without notice or an opportunity be heard." Sotomayor said the Trump administration had already acted "in violation of unambiguous" lower court orders, by flying four noncitizens to Guantanamo Bay, and from there to El Salvador." Following that, she said, "the government removed six people to South Sudan, with less than 16 hours notice" basically overnight, and without any opportunity to contact their lawyers or be heard in court. The government, she said, "thus openly flouted two court orders," even before it went to the Supreme Court.  "This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," she said.  Several migrants and U.S. detention officers awaited the court ruling while living in a converted shipping container at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, beset by high temperatures, exposure to malaria, and close proximity to "burn pits," which emit throat-clogging smog from burning trash and human waste. Monday's Supreme Court order is the latest example of its willingness to allow President Trump's to accelerate deportations and minimize due process, based on the administration's assertion that it will be irreparably harmed by interventions from the lower courts while the cases are fully litigated through the appeals process — a process likely to take months. Accusations of 'wreaking havoc' U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on May 27 asked the Supreme Court for an immediate stay of Murphy's order, saying it is "wreaking havoc on the third country removal process." "The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove," he wrote. Through "sensitive diplomacy," the U.S. had convinced third countries to accept the men after their own countries refused, he said, but Murphy's order prevents that "unless DHS first satisfies an onerous set of procedures invented by the district court" to assess whether the men might be tortured or persecuted in the country to which they're sent. Immigration The White House is deporting people to countries they're not from. Why? Immigration lawyers told the Supreme Court that even criminals deserve meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard before they're sent to a country with dangerous conditions where they could be tortured. Lawyers from the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Human Rights First, and the National Immigration Litigation Alliance say the men set to end up in South Sudan only got notification the night before their flight. They also say Mexico, for example, had previously accepted its own citizens deported from the U.S., suggesting that the Trump administration's process of removing people to third countries is "intentionally punitive." South Sudan is a politically unstable country in Africa and one of the poorest in the world. Prioritizing deportations The strategy to rely on other countries to take in U.S. deportees is not new. But the Trump administration has prioritized getting more countries to repatriate their citizens, including from China, Venezuela and Cuba, in order to more quickly deport people from the U.S. "And the further away the better, so they can't come back across the border," Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during an April cabinet meeting. Immigration White House agrees to keep migrants in Djibouti for now, blasts federal judge's ruling DHS policy requires any deportee to get notice of what country they're being sent to, "and an opportunity for a prompt screening of any asserted fear of being tortured there." The arguments in court have centered on how long migrants should have to contest their removal to a country. DHS says this process takes "minutes," not weeks. In the case of the flight to South Sudan, the men got less than 24 hours' notice. Immigration lawyers say such little time means deportees' have little hope of arguing against a removal, especially if they don't speak English.