lawyers

NEW YORK — President Trump’s lawyers have asked a New York state appeals court to toss out his hush money criminal conviction, saying federal law preempts state law and there was no intent to commit a crime.

The lawyers filed their written arguments with the state’s mid-level appeals court just before midnight Monday.

In June, the lawyers asked a federal appeals court to move the case to federal court, where the Republican president can challenge the conviction on presidential immunity grounds. The appeals court has not yet ruled.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of the four criminal cases against him to go to trial.

Trump was sentenced in January to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment.

Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a “political witch hunt,” “a weaponization of government” and “an embarrassment to New York.”

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, will have a chance to respond to the appeals arguments in court papers. A message seeking comment was left with the office Tuesday.

At trial, prosecutors said Trump mislabeled payments to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen as legal fees to conceal that he was actually reimbursing the $130,000 that Cohen paid Daniels to keep her quiet in the final weeks of Trump’s successful 2016 presidential run.

At the time, Daniels was considering going public with a claim that she and the married Trump had a 2006 sexual encounter that Trump has consistently denied.

In their arguments to the New York state appeals court, Trump’s lawyers wrote that the prosecution of Trump was “the most politically charged prosecution in our Nation’s history.”

They said Trump was the victim of a Democratic district attorney in Manhattan who “concocted a purported felony by stacking time-barred misdemeanors under a convoluted legal theory” during a contentious presidential election in which Trump was the leading Republican candidate.

They wrote that federal law preempts the “misdemeanor-turned-felony charges” because the charges rely on an alleged violation of federal campaign regulations that states cannot enforce.

They said the trial was also spoiled when prosecutors introduced official presidential acts that the Supreme Court has made clear cannot be used as evidence against a U.S. president.

“Beyond these fatal flaws, the evidence was clearly insufficient to convict,” the lawyers wrote.

The lawyers also attacked the conviction on the grounds that “pure, evidence-free speculation” was behind the effort by prosecutors to persuade jurors that Trump was thinking about the 2020 election when he allegedly decided to reimburse Cohen.

Neumeister writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

“Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

“Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

“Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

“More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.

ORLANDO, Fla. — U.S. government lawyers say that detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” probably include people who have never been in removal proceedings, which is a direct contradiction of what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been saying since it opened in July.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice made that admission Thursday in a court filing arguing that the detainees at the facility in the Everglades wilderness don’t have enough in common to be certified as a class in a lawsuit over whether they’re getting proper access to attorneys.

A removal proceeding is a legal process initiated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to determine if someone should be deported from the United States.

The Justice Department attorneys wrote that the detainees at the Everglades facility have too many immigration statuses to be considered a class.

“The proposed class includes all detainees at Alligator Alcatraz, a facility that houses detainees in all stages of immigration processing — presumably including those who have never been in removal proceedings, those who will be placed into removal proceedings, those who are already subject to final orders of removal, those subject to expedited removal, and those detained for the purpose of facilitation removal from the United States pursuant to a final order of removal,” they wrote.

Since the facility opened, DeSantis has been saying publicly that each detainee has gone through the process of determining that they can’t legally be in the United States.

During a July 25 news conference outside the detention center, DeSantis said, “Everybody here is already on a final removal order.”

“They have been ordered to be removed from the country,” he added.

At a July 29 speech before a conference of the Florida Sheriffs Assn., the Republican governor said, “The people that are going to the Alligator Alcatraz are illegally in the country. They’ve all already been given a final order of removal.”

He added, “So, if you have an order to be removed, what is the possible objection to the federal government enforcing that removal order?”

DeSantis’ press office didn’t respond Monday morning to an email seeking comment.

The court filing by the Justice Department attorneys was made in a lawsuit in which civil rights groups allege the facility’s detainees have been denied proper access to attorneys in violation of their constitutional rights. The civil rights groups on Thursday asked a federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., for a preliminary injunction that would establish stronger protections for detainees to meet with attorneys privately and share documents confidentially.

The court case is one of three lawsuits filed by environmental and civil rights groups over the detention center, which was hastily built this summer by the state of Florida and operated by private contractors and state agencies.

A federal judge in Miami ordered in August that the facility must wind down operations within two months, agreeing with environmental groups that the remote airstrip site wasn’t given a proper environmental review before it was converted into an immigration detention center. But operations continued after the judge’s preliminary injunction was put on hold in early September by an appellate court panel. At one point, the facility held more than 900 detainees, but most of them were transferred after the initial injunction. It wasn’t clear on Monday how many detainees were at the center, which was built to hold 3,000 people.

President Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration pushes to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations. Federal officials on Friday confirmed that Florida has been approved for a $608-million reimbursement for the costs of building and running the immigration detention center.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Former Sen. Joseph B. Montoya, facing the possibility of prison for his conviction on seven corruption charges, should not be sentenced to more than a year behind bars, his lawyers argued in documents filed in federal court.

Montoya is due to be sentenced Thursday and his attorneys, Michael Sands and Bruce Kelton, contend that federal sentencing guidelines allow for a sentence of no more than six to 12 months in prison.

Earlier this week, federal prosecutors argued that, under the same guidelines, the Whittier Democrat’s conviction on extortion, racketeering and money laundering charges calls for a term ranging from eight years and one month to 10 years and one month.

U.S. Atty. David F. Levi said Montoya’s use of his Senate post to extort payments from citizens, his use of his state staff to help solicit money and his failure to turn over key documents subpoenaed by prosecutors are all factors that should increase his sentence.

Montoya’s lawyers argued, however, that he had no control over what documents were turned over to the government by his staff under the subpoena.

“There is no evidence whatever that Sen. Montoya was ever aware of what specific documents had, or had not, been found,” they said. “The government’s paranoid suspicions cannot substitute for evidence.”

Sands and Kelton also repeated their contention that the prosecution thwarted the senator’s defense by refusing to grant immunity to Montoya aide Steve English, who invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to testify.

In a separate recommendation to U.S. District Judge Milton L. Schwartz, federal probation officers have recommended a sentence of 6 1/2 years in prison for Montoya.

HONOLULU — Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani and his agent, Nez Balelo, moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed last month accusing them of causing a Hawaii real estate investor and broker to be fired from a $240-million luxury housing development on the Big Island’s Hapuna Coast.

Ohtani and Balelo were sued Aug. 8 in Hawaii Circuit Court for the First Circuit by developer Kevin J. Hayes Sr. and real estate broker Tomoko Matsumoto, West Point Investment Corp. and Hapuna Estates Property Owners, who accused them of “abuse of power” that allegedly resulted in tortious interference and unjust enrichment.

Hayes and Matsumoto had been dropped from the development deal by Kingsbarn Realty Capital, the joint venture’s majority owner.

In papers filed Sunday, lawyers for Ohtani and Balelo said Hayes and Matsumoto in 2023 acquired rights for a joint venture in which they owned a minority percentage to use Ohtani’s name, image and likeness under an endorsement agreement to market the venture’s real estate development at the Mauna Kea Resort. The lawyers said Ohtani was a “victim of NIL violations.”

“Unbeknownst to Ohtani and his agent Nez Balelo, plaintiffs exploited Ohtani’s name and photograph to drum up traffic to a website that marketed plaintiffs’ own side project development,” the lawyers wrote. “They engaged in this self-dealing without authorization, and without paying Ohtani for that use, in a selfish and wrongful effort to take advantage of their proximity to the most famous baseball player in the world.”

The lawyers claimed Hayes and Matsumoto sued after “Balelo did his job and protected his client by expressing justifiable concern about this misuse and threatening to take legal action against this clear misappropriation.” They called Balelo’s actions “clearly protected speech “

In a statement issued after the suit was filed last month, Kingsbarn called the allegations “completely frivolous and without merit.”

Ohtani is a three-time MVP on the defending World Series champion Dodgers.

“Nez Balelo has always prioritized Shohei Ohtani’s best interests, including protecting his name, image, and likeness from unauthorized use,” a lawyer for Ohtani and Balelo, said in a statement. “This frivolous lawsuit is a desperate attempt by plaintiffs to distract from their myriad of failures and blatant misappropriation of Mr. Ohtani’s rights.”

Lawyers for Hayes and Matsumoto did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sept. 3 (UPI) — Attorneys for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook denied claims of wrongdoing made by the Trump administration as she seeks to block President Donald Trump‘s efforts to fire her.

In a civil action filed Tuesday, Cook’s attorney, Abe Lowell, denied claims made by U.S. Director of Federal Housing Bill Pulte that she committed mortgage fraud, which Trump presented as the reason for her firing, are untrue.

“Governor Cook did not ever commit mortgage fraud,” her attorneys wrote.

The action seeks to follow up on a suggestion made Friday by the courts to use a fast-tracked review to rule on the key issues of Cook’s case, which would cut through more routine routes and timelines.

The filing states that Cook’s team would agree to this, as long as Trump, who is a defendant along with Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and the Fed Board of Governors, would agree to allow Cook to serve as Fed Board Governor until the expedited ruling is made.

Cook has served as a Federal Reserve Governor since 2022 but was fired by Trump following a criminal referral from a member of his administration that alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud.

She has not been charged with any related crime.

Trump fired her “for cause,” which is the only way a president can fire a Fed governor under the Federal Reserve Act.

The White House has since attempted to justify her firing under the past case Reagan vs. United States, which the administration interprets to have created precedent that when a president determines cause for termination exists, it’s unreviewable unless protected by specific removal statutes.

“But the Government ignores the facts, context, and reasoning of Reagan to advance this contorted reading,” the lawsuit suggests. “In reality, Reagan hurts the Government’s case more than it helps it.”

Cook’s attorneys explained the “Reagan” case helped define that as officers such as Federal Reserve Board governors serve fixed terms, they are entitled “to notice and a hearing, and ultimately judicial review” before being removed for cause.

As for Cook’s role as a Fed governor, she remains active until a court rules otherwise, despite Trump’s actions.

Meanwhile, Pulte, who was responsible for both the original and a second criminal referral against Cook, said he would hold a meeting with the press on Thursday.

Pulte has posted a wave of allegations against Cook since mid-August.

“Once you see what we present on Thursday, there’s going to be a lot of people apologizing and retracting their false and defamatory statements,” Pulte posted Tuesday in regard to those who have defended Cook and called the Trump administration’s action a political power move. “Watch.”

Head of the American Immigration Lawyers Association says plan similar to having ‘a cardiologist do a hip replacement’.

Hundreds of military and civilian lawyers working for the United States Department of Defense (DOD) will serve as immigration judges temporarily, officials have said, in the latest move by President Donald Trump’s administration to involve the military in US domestic affairs.

“These DOD attorneys will augment existing resources to help further combat a backlog of cases by presiding over immigration hearings,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement on Tuesday.

Military lawyers are not trained to serve as immigration judges, and one US official told the Reuters news agency that even with additional training, it would be difficult for military lawyers to act as judges.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department as part of the plan, according to a memo reviewed by The Associated Press news agency.

The military will begin sending groups of 150 lawyers “as soon as practicable”, according to the memo, with the lawyers expected to serve as immigration judges for 179 days initially, Reuters reported.

The head of the American Immigration Lawyers Association described the plan as similar to having “a cardiologist do a hip replacement”.

“Expecting fair decisions from judges unfamiliar with the law is absurd. This reckless move guts due process and further undermines the integrity of our immigration court system,” said Ben Johnson, the organisation ‘s executive director.

In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, Defense Secretary Hegseth was highly critical of military lawyers, saying that most “spend more time prosecuting our troops than putting away bad guys”.

The move to deploy the military lawyers comes as the Trump administration turns to military support for its crackdown on undocumented immigration, including the growing role of troops patrolling the US-Mexico border, National Guard members being sent into US cities to support immigration enforcement efforts, detaining people at military bases in advance of deportation, and using military aircraft to carry out deportations.

On Tuesday, a court ruled that the Trump administration had “wilfully” violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in early June.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — Five men deported by the United States to Eswatini in July have been held in a maximum-security prison in the African nation for seven weeks without charge or explanation and with no access to legal counsel, their lawyers said Tuesday.

They accused the Trump administration’s third-country deportation program of denying their clients due process.

The New York-based Legal Aid Society said that it was representing one of the men, Jamaican national Orville Etoria, and that he had been “inexplicably and illegally” sent to Eswatini when his home country was willing to accept him back.

That contradicted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which said when it deported the five men with criminal records that they were being sent to Eswatini because their home countries refused to take them. Jamaica’s foreign minister has also said that the Caribbean country didn’t refuse to take back deportees.

Etoria was the first of at least 20 deportees sent by the U.S. to various African nations in the last two months to be identified publicly.

Expanding deportation program

The deportations are part of the Trump administration’s expanding third-country program to send migrants to countries in Africa that they have no ties with to get them off U.S. soil.

Since July, the U.S. has deported migrants to South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda, while a fourth African nation, Uganda, says it has agreed to a deal in principle with the U.S. to accept deportees.

Washington has said it wants to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has been a flashpoint over President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies, to Uganda after he was wrongly deported to his native El Salvador in March.

Etoria served a 25-year prison sentence and was granted parole in 2021, the Legal Aid Society said, but was now being held in Eswatini’s main maximum-security prison for an undetermined period of time despite completing that sentence.

The U.S. Homeland Security Department said that he was convicted of murder. The agency posted on X in reference to a New York Times report on Etoria, saying that it “will continue enforcing the law at full speed — without apology.”

It didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from the Associated Press.

The Legal Aid Society said that an Eswatini lawyer acting on behalf of all five men being held in prison there has been repeatedly denied access to them by prison officials since they arrived in the tiny southern African nation bordering South Africa in mid-July.

The other four men are citizens of Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen.

‘Indefinite detention’

A separate lawyer representing the two men from Laos and Vietnam said that his clients also served their criminal sentences in the U.S. and had “been released into the community.”

“Then, without warning and explanation from either the U.S. or Eswatini governments, they were arbitrarily arrested and sent to a country to which they have never ever been,” the lawyer, Tin Thanh Nguyen, said in a statement. “They are now being punished indefinitely for a sentence they already served.”

He said that the U.S. government was “orchestrating secretive third-country transfers with no meaningful legal process, resulting in indefinite detention.”

U.S. Homeland Security said those two men had been convicted of charges including child rape and second-degree murder.

A third lawyer, Alma David, said that she represented the two men from Yemen and Cuba who are also being held in the same prison and denied access to lawyers. She said she had been told by the head of the Eswatini prison that only the U.S. Embassy could grant access to the men.

“Since when does the U.S. Embassy have jurisdiction over Eswatini’s national prisons?” she said in a statement, adding the men weren’t told a reason for their detention, and “no lawyer has been permitted to visit them.” David said all five were being held at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

Secretive deals

The deportation deals the U.S. has struck in Africa have been secretive, and with countries with questionable rights records.

Authorities in South Sudan have given little information on where eight men sent there in early July are being held or what their fate might be. They were also described by U.S. authorities as dangerous criminals from South Sudan, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar and Vietnam.

The five men in Eswatini are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex. It’s the same prison where Eswatini, which is ruled by a king as Africa’s last absolute monarchy, has imprisoned pro-democracy campaigners amid reports of abuse that includes beatings and the denial of food to inmates.

Eswatini authorities said when the five men arrived that they were being held in solitary confinement.

Another seven migrants were deported by the U.S. to Rwanda in mid-August, Rwandan authorities said. They didn’t say where they are being held or give any information on their identities.

The deportations to Rwanda were kept secret at the time and only announced last week.

Imray writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges, according to a memo reviewed by the Associated Press.

The military will begin sending groups of 150 attorneys — both military and civilians — to the Justice Department “as soon as practicable,” and the armed services should have the first round of people identified by next week, according to the Aug. 27 memo.

The effort comes as the Trump administration is cracking down on illegal immigration by ramping up arrests and deportations. And immigration courts already are dealing with a massive backlog of roughly 3.5 million cases that has ballooned in recent years.

At the same time, more than 100 immigration judges have been fired or left voluntarily after taking deferred resignations offered by the Trump administration, their union says. In the most recent round of terminations, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers said in July that at least 17 immigration judges had been fired “without cause” in courts across the country.

That has left about 600 immigration judges, union figures show, meaning the Pentagon move would double their ranks.

The Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, requested the assistance from the Defense Department, according to the memo sent by the Pentagon’s executive secretary to his Justice Department counterpart. The military lawyers’ duties as immigration judges will initially last no more than 179 days but can be renewed, it said.

A Justice Department spokesperson referred questions about the plan to the Defense Department, where officials directed questions to the White House.

A White House official said Tuesday that the administration is looking at a variety of options to help resolve the significant backlog of immigration cases, including hiring additional immigration judges. The official said the matter should be “a priority that everyone — including those waiting for adjudication — can rally around.”

The memo stressed that sending the additional attorneys is contingent on availability and that mobilizing reserve officers may be necessary. Plus, the document said the Justice Department would be responsible for ensuring that anyone sent from the Pentagon does not violate the federal prohibition on using the military as domestic law enforcement, known as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The administration faced a setback on its efforts to use the military in unique ways to combat illegal immigration and crime, with a court ruling Tuesday that it “willfully” violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in early June.

Cases in immigration court can take years to weave their way to a final determination, with judges and lawyers frequently scheduling final hearings on the merits of a case more than a year out.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Will Weissert, Rebecca Santana and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A watchdog investigation into former special counsel Jack Smith over his prosecutions of President Trump is based on an “imaginary and unfounded” premise, Smith’s lawyers wrote in a letter obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The letter marks the first response by Smith and his legal team to news that the Office of Special Counsel, an independent watchdog office, had launched an investigation into whether Smith engaged in improper political activity through his criminal inquiries into Trump.

The attorneys told Jamieson Greer, the acting head of the office, that his investigation into Smith was “wholly without merit.”

“Mr. Smith’s actions as Special Counsel were consistent with the decisions of a prosecutor who has devoted his career to following the facts and the law, without fear or favor and without regard for the political consequences, not because of them,” wrote Smith’s lawyers, Lanny Breuer and Peter Koski.

The Office of Special Counsel, which is totally distinct from the Justice Department special counsel position that Smith held for more than two years starting in November 2022, confirmed the investigation following a request from Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who asked it to examine Smith’s activities for potential violations of the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans certain public officials from engaging in political activity.

Cotton had alleged that Smith sought to interfere in the 2024 presidential election through his prosecutions and sought to effectively fast-track the cases toward resolution, including by asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on a key legal question before a lower court had a chance to review the issue.

But Smith’s lawyers say that argument is contradicted by the facts and note that no court ruling or other authority prohibits prosecutors from investigating allegations of criminal conducts against candidates for office. Politics, they say, played no part in the decision to bring the cases.

“A review of the record and procedural history demonstrates the opposite — Mr. Smith was fiercely committed to making prosecutorial decisions based solely on the evidence, he steadfastly followed applicable Department of Justice guidelines and the Principles of Federal Prosecution, and he did not let the pending election influence his investigative or prosecutorial decision-making,” Smith’s lawyers wrote.

“The predicate for this investigation,” they added, “is imaginary and unfounded.”

Smith, who was appointed special counsel under the Biden administration, brought two cases against Trump, one accusing him of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and the other of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were brought in 2023, well over a year before the 2024 presidential election, and indictments in the two cases cited what Smith and his team described as clear violations of well-established federal law.

Both cases were abandoned by Smith after Trump’s November win, with the prosecutor citing longstanding Justice Department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Former president denies involvement in alleged effort to overturn his loss in the 2022 election.

Lawyers have submitted a final statement on behalf of Brazilian ex-President Jair Bolsonaro in a trial focused on his alleged role in a plot to stay in power despite losing the 2022 election.

In a statement submitted on Wednesday evening, Bolsonaro’s legal representatives denied the charges against him and said that prosecutors had presented no convincing evidence.

“There is no way to convict Jair Bolsonaro based on the evidence presented in the case, which largely demonstrated that he ordered the transition … and assured his voters that the world would not end on December 31st,” the document states.

The right-wing former president faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted of attempting to mount a coup after losing a presidential election to left-wing rival and current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Bolsonaro, who raised alarm in the months leading up to the election by casting doubt on the voting process, has denied involvement in the plot, which allegedly included plans for Lula’s assassination.

The former leader’s legal representatives say the fact that he authorised the transition contradicts the coup allegations.

“This is evidence that eliminates the most essential of the accusatory premises,” they said.

Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet submitted final arguments in July, citing handwritten notes, digital files, message exchanges, and spreadsheets that he said show details of a conspiracy to suppress democracy.

Following Bolsonaro’s election loss, crowds of his supporters gathered outside of military bases, calling on the armed forces to intervene and prevent Lula from taking office. A group of Bolsonaro’s supporters also stormed federal buildings in the capital of Brasilia on January 8, 2023. Some drew parallels to a military coup in the 1960s that marked the beginning of a decades-long period of dictatorship, for which Bolsonaro himself has long expressed fondness.

Bolsonaro and his allies, including United States President Donald Trump, have depicted the trial as a politically motivated “witch hunt”.

A recent survey conducted by Datafolha, a Brazilian polling institute, found that more than 50 percent of Brazilians agree with the court’s decision to place Bolsonaro under house arrest in August. The survey also found that a majority believe that Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a frequent target of right-wing ire and central figure in the trial, is following the law.

Respondents also largely disagreed with the claim that Bolsonaro was being persecuted for political reasons, with 39 percent in agreement and 53 percent in disagreement.

Speaking from the White House on Thursday, Trump said Bolsonaro was an “honest man” and the victim of an attempted “political execution”.

The Trump administration has mounted a pressure campaign to push the court to drop Bolsonaro’s case, sanctioning De Moraes and announcing severe sanctions on Brazilian exports to the US. That move has met anger in Brazil and been depicted as an attack on Brazilian sovereignty.

SEAN ‘Diddy’ Combs’ attorneys have confirmed they’ve approached the Trump administration about a possible pardon.

It comes after the disgraced rapper Diddy was convicted of two charges of transportation to engage in prostitution last month.

9

9

9

“It’s my understanding that we’ve reached out and had conversations in reference to a pardon,” his lawyer told CNN.

Trump previously suggested a pardon would be unlikely.

In an interview with Newsmax last week, the US President said: “I was very friendly with him, I got along with him great and he seemed like a nice guy.

“I didn’t know him well. But when I ran for office, he was very hostile.”

Attorney for Combs Nicole Westmoreland said Combs “is a very hopeful person, and I believe that he remains hopeful”.

A White House official declined to comment.

It comes after The Sun on Sunday revealed last month how Ghislaine Maxwell is also seeking a pardon from Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, earlier this year the President pardoned Todd and Julie Chrisley, who were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion in 2022.

And, when he was first inaugurated, Trump gave the founder of dark web marketplace Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht, a full and unconditional pardon and saved him from serving two life sentences after he was convicted in 2015.

It comes as Combs was denied $50 million bail – for the second time – ahead of his October 3 sentencing on prostitution charges.

Judge Arun Subramanian agreed with federal prosecutors’ decision to keep the disgraced rapper locked up at MDC Brooklyn.

In a court order the US district judge wrote there were no “exceptional reasons” warranting Combs’ release before his sentencing.

The former music mogul reportedly filed a new motion for bail, offering a $50 million bail package in which he pledged to stay at his Miami home and restrict travel to Florida and New York.

His legal team argued there is no binding precedent for keeping him in jail before sentencing – an argument Judge Subramanian rejected.

9

9

9

They also claimed he is likely the only man in America jailed for hiring male sex workers to sleep with his girlfriend.

But Subramanian dismissed this, stating that the case involved “evidence of violence, coercion or subjugation in connection with the acts of prostitution”.

When Combs’ legal team raised concerns about his safety at MDC Brooklyn, Subramanian said staff protected Combs “even during an incident of threatened violence from an inmate”.

The judge added that the bail denial will not affect Combs’ sentencing in 60 days’ time.

Combs faces a maximum 20-year prison sentence – 10 years for each count of transportation to engage in prostitution.

However, federal prosecutors have said they would seek a three- to five-year sentence.

On July 2, Combs was convicted on two prostitution-related counts, but was acquitted of the more serious charges he faced.

He was acquitted of racketeering conspiracy and two counts of sex trafficking in regard to his ex-girlfriends Cassandra “Cassie” Ventura and “Jane” (pseudonym).

The music executive fell to his knees in prayer after the jury foreperson read the verdict.

Combs’ defence team delivered a post-verdict victory speech to reporters outside the US District Courthouse, calling the outcome a “great victory for the jury system”.

Agnifilo said the 12-person jury “got the situation right – or certainly, right enough”.

“We are not nearly done fighting. We’re not going to stop until he walks out of prison a free man to his family,” he added.

Meanwhile, in their closing arguments, prosecutors described Combs as the “leader of a criminal enterprise”, who used his expansive “wealth, power, violence, and fear to get what he wanted”.

The prosecution’s case centred on disturbing and graphic testimony about drug-fuelled “freak-offs” during which Combs allegedly coerced his ex-girlfriends into participate in sex acts with male escorts.

Combs was first denied bail in November 2024 – shortly after his arrest in late September of that year.

9

9

9

Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds has said warnings that the recognition of a Palestinian state could breach international law are “missing the point”.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced the UK would move towards recognition unless Israel met certain conditions, including agreeing a ceasefire and reviving the prospect of a two-state solution, earlier this week.

However, some of Britain’s most distinguished lawyers have warned that Palestine does not meet the legal requirements for statehood under a 1933 treaty.

Nearly 150 more than 140 of the UN’s 193 members already formally recognise a Palestinian state, with Canada, Germany and Portugal considering recognition.

Under the Montevideo Convention, signed in 1933, the criteria for the recognition of a state under international law are set out as a defined territory, a permanent population, an effective government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.

In a letter to the government’s attorney general, Lord Hermer, first reported by the Times, 43 cross-party peers call for him to advise the prime minister against recognition.

The group includes some of the country’s top lawyers, such as former Supreme Court judge Lord Collins of Mapesbury and Lord Pannick KC.

“It is clear that there is no certainty over the borders of Palestine,” they argue, and also that “there is no functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies”.

“The former has failed to hold elections for decades, and the latter is a terrorist organisation, neither of which could enter into relations with other states,” the letter adds.

The UK did not sign the 1933 convention but the lawyers argue that it has “become part of customary law and it would be unwise to depart from it at a time when international law is seen as fragile or, indeed, at any time”.

They add: “You have said that a selective, ‘pick and mix’ approach to international law will lead to its disintegration, and that the criteria set out in international law should not be manipulated for reasons of political expedience.

“Accordingly, we expect you to demonstrate this commitment by explaining to the public and to the government that recognition of Palestine would be contrary to the principles governing recognition of states in international law.”

Lord Hermer has previously insisted that a commitment to international law “goes absolutely to the heart” of the government’s approach to foreign policy.

Jonathan Reynolds defended the plans on BBC Radio 4’s World At One programme and suggested the peers needed to “look at the levers the UK has” to deliver peace.

Asked about the signatories’ concern recognition does not align with the 1933 Montevideo Convention, Reynolds said: “I think to be honest, with respect to those colleagues, that is missing the point somewhat.”

He explained the objective was “not just a ceasefire for the conflict in Gaza but a genuine peace process, and that requires a two-state solution”.

Asked about why conditions had not been placed on Hamas, he said: “Hamas is a terrorist organisation and we don’t put conditions on those, we don’t negotiate with terrorists.

“We’ve been absolutely clear: it’s our longstanding position that the hostages have to be released. It’s also our longstanding position that Hamas can play no role in the future governance of Gaza or any Palestinian state.

“So those are our absolute condition, but we will never be willing to negotiate with Hamas because they are a terrorist organisation.”

The peers’ intervention follows condemnation of Sir Keir’s announcement by Emily Damari, a British-Israeli women who was held captive by Hamas for more than a year, who said Sir Keir is “not standing on the right side of history”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also claimed it “rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism”.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country plans to recognise a Palestinian state as part of the two-state solution – that is Israel and Palestine living side-by-side.

Carney said his decision was prompted by the “catastrophe” in Gaza, and because he feared the prospect of a Palestinian state was “receding before our eyes”.

The Palestinian Authority – which runs parts of the occupied West Bank – must commit to “much-needed reform” he said, and Hamas, which controlled Gaza, “can play no part”.

The UK has said it too would recognise a Palestinian state at a UN summit in September unless Israel committed to a ceasefire.

Sir Keir has said the UK will only refrain from recognition if Israel allows more aid into Gaza, stops annexing land in the West Bank, agrees to a ceasefire, and signs up to a long-term peace process over the next two months.

He also said Hamas must immediately release all remaining Israeli hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and “accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza”.

The question of international law has been repeatedly raised with the prime minister by more than 800 other lawyers, who allege Israel has flouted the Geneva Convention by committing war crimes including genocide in Gaza.

Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to delay releasing him from jail in order to prevent the Trump administration from trying to swiftly deport the Maryland construction worker.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, U.S. officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.

Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Trump’s immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.

The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn’t charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”

The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.

U.S. officials have said they’ll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn’t El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he’s a danger to the community.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he’s not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.

Holmes’ ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government’s plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw’s decision imminent, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to “evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.”

Earlier this month, U.S. officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That’s where Abrego Garcia’s American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.

U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.

Following the immigration judge’s decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But U.S. officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia’s supervised release.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in Maryland have asked U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation.

His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he’s released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.

Finley writes for the Associated Press.

Despite being wrongly deported and returned to the US, lawyers say Abrego Garcia again faces expulsion.

Lawyers representing Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a judge in Tennessee to delay his release from jail, in a bid to avoid deportation.

The filing on Monday was the latest turn in the case of Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to his native El Salvador by the administration of President Donald Trump in March, but later returned to the US in June following a Supreme Court order.

Abrego Garcia has been held in jail since his return, as he faces smuggling charges related to a 2022 traffic stop.

His lawyers have dismissed the charges as “preposterous” and an effort by US officials to demonise Abrego Garcia, who has become a cause celebre for opponents of Trump’s mass deportation drive.

At the same time, they believe that if Abrego Garcia is released ahead of his trial, he will be detained by immigration agents and deported, according to the Monday filing.

They requested that any release of Abrego Garcia be delayed by 30 days so he can “evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary”.

US District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr is expected to soon rule on whether to free Abrego Garcia, after another judge ruled he could be released as he did not pose a flight risk.

Plan to deport

The Trump administration has long maintained that Abrego Garcia, a resident of Maryland, was a member of an MS-13 gang, a claim his lawyers have said was based on faulty information.

Abrego Garcia has never been convicted of a crime or had the claims adjudicated in court.

He was among those loaded onto a deportation flight to El Salvador under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, which the Trump administration has argued allows for the swift deportation of alleged gang members.

Administration officials later admitted that Abrego Garcia had been wrongly deported due to an “administrative error”, as an immigration judge in 2019 had shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador. The judge determined he faces threats of gang violence in his home country.

Still, for several months, the administration refused to return Abrego Garcia, who came to the US in 2011 without documentation.

Trump officials have since said that the immigration judge’s 2019 order only applies to El Salvador, and have maintained that they can legally deport Abrego Garcia to a third country.

Last month, the US Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration could deport individuals to far-flung third countries, including war-torn South Sudan, until a legal challenge to the practice makes its way through the lower courts.

Abrego Garcia’s wife, meanwhile, has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in Maryland. His lawyers have requested that he be transferred to state custody while the criminal and civil cases proceed.

New court filings detail man’s ordeal after his mistaken deportation became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man legally residing in the US state of Maryland, whom the Trump administration mistakenly deported in a high-profile case in March, was severely beaten and subjected to psychological torture in prison there, his lawyers say.

The alleged abuse was detailed in court documents filed in Abrego Garcia’s civil lawsuit against the Trump administration on Wednesday, providing an account of his experiences following his deportation for the first time.

Abrego Garcia’s case has become a flashpoint in the US government’s controversial immigration crackdown since he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March, despite an earlier order by an immigration judge barring such a move.

According to his lawyers, Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager to avoid gang violence, arriving in the United States around 2011. He has lived for more than a decade in Maryland, where he and his American wife are raising three children.

He was returned to the US last month and is currently locked in a legal battle with the US government, which has indicted him on charges of migrant smuggling and says it plans to deport him to a third country.

“Plaintiff Abrego Garcia reports that he was subjected to severe mistreatment upon arrival at CECOT, including but not limited to severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture,” his lawyers said in the filing, referring to the Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Centre, or CECOT.

Severe beatings, threats

The filings, made in a civil suit in federal court against the US government brought by Abrego Garcia’s wife in Maryland, said her husband was hit and kicked so frequently upon his arrival at the prison that the next day his body was covered in lumps and bruises.

The filings also said he and other inmates were forced to kneel for nine hours straight throughout the night, or were hit by guards, in a cruel exercise of sleep deprivation.

It said prison staff repeatedly threatened to transfer Abrego Garcia to cells with gang members who would “tear” him apart, and claimed that he lost 31 pounds (14kg) in his first two weeks in jail as a result of the abuse.

‘Administrative error’

Abrego Garcia was detained by immigration officials and deported to El Salvador on March 15. Trump and US officials have accused him of belonging to the notorious MS-13 gang, which he denies.

The deportation took place despite an order from a US immigration judge in 2019, which barred Abrego Garcia from being sent back to El Salvador because he likely faced persecution there from gangs.

Abrego Garcia’s treatment gained worldwide attention, with critics of Trump’s aggressive immigration policy saying it demonstrated how officials were ignoring due process in their zeal to deport migrants. The Trump administration later described the deportation as an “administrative error”.

Last month, the US government complied with a directive from the court to return Abrego Garcia to the US, but only after having secured an indictment charging him with working with coconspirators as part of a smuggling ring to bring immigrants to the US illegally.

He is currently being detained in Nashville, Tennessee, while his criminal case is pending, having pleaded not guilty to illegally transporting undocumented immigrants.

The US government is arguing that the new civil suit is now moot, as Abrego Garcia has been returned from El Salvador. It has said it plans to deport him to a third country after he is released from custody.

Abrego Garcia a ‘criminal’ for DHS

In the wake of the latest court filings, the Trump administration doubled down on its attacks on Abrego Garcia as a dangerous illegal immigrant.

In a post on the social media platform X, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the “media’s sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal gang member has completely fallen apart”.

“Once again the media is falling all over themselves to defend Kilmar Abrego Garcia,” it said.

“This illegal alien is an MS-13 gang member, alleged human trafficker, and a domestic abuser,” DHS claimed, without providing any evidence.

Southern California Edison’s admission that its equipment may have ignited the Hurst fire in the San Fernando Valley on Jan. 7 is being seized on by lawyers suing the utility company for another fire in the same area nearly six years earlier.

Both the Saddleridge fire in 2019 and the Hurst fire this year started beneath an Edison high-voltage transmission line in Sylmar. The lawyers say faulty equipment on the line ignited both blazes in the same way.

“The evidence will show that five separate fires ignited at five separate SCE transmission tower bases in the same exact manner as the fire that started the Saddleridge fire,” the lawyers wrote of the Hurst fire in a June 9 filing in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The lawyers said the January wildfire is “further evidence” that a transmission pylon known as Tower 2-5 “is improperly grounded.”

Edison told the state Public Utilities Commission in February that “absent additional evidence, SCE believes its equipment may be associated with the ignition of the Hurst Fire.” But the company denies claims that its equipment sparked the 2019 fire, which tore through Sylmar, Porter Ranch and Granada Hills — all suburbs of Los Angeles — burning 8,799 acres.

“We will continue to focus on facts and evidence — not on preposterous and sensational theories that only serve to harm the real victims,” said Edison spokesman David Eisenhauer. He declined further comment on the case.

The Saddleridge wildfire destroyed or damaged more than 100 homes and other structures, according to Cal Fire, and caused at least one death when resident Aiman El Sabbagh suffered a cardiac arrest.

Edison is being sued by insurance companies, including State Farm and USAA, to recoup the cost of damages paid to their policyholders. Homeowners and other victims are also seeking damages. A jury trial for the consolidated cases is set for Nov. 4.

In their June 9 filing, the plaintiffs’ lawyers also claimed Edison wasn’t transparent with officials looking into the cause of the 2019 fire. One fire official characterized the utility’s action as “deceptive,” the filing said.

Edison discovered a fault on its system at 8:57 p.m. — just three minutes before the blaze at the base of its transmission tower was reported to the Fire Department by Sylmar resident Robert Delgado, according to the court filing.

But Edison didn’t tell the Los Angeles city Fire Department about the fault it recorded, the filing said. Instead the fire department’s investigation team discovered the failure on Edison’s transmission lines through dash cam footage recorded by a motorist driving on the 210 Freeway nearby, the filing said.

When Timothy Halloran, a city Fire Department investigator, went to the location of the flash shown on the motorist’s camera, he found “evidence of a failure on SCE’s equipment,” the filing said.

Halloran said in a deposition that employees of the business located where the evidence was found told him that Edison employees “attempted to purchase” footage from the company’s security camera on the night of the fire, the filing said.

“The video footage shows a large flash emanating from the direction of SCE Transmission Tower 5-2,” the filing said.

Halloran testified in his deposition that he believed Edison was trying to be “deceptive” for attempting to purchase the security camera footage and not reporting the system fault to the Fire Department, the lawyers said.

Halloran didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Edison’s maintenance of its transmission lines is now being scrutinized as it faces dozens of lawsuits from victims of the devastating Eaton fire, which also ignited on Jan. 7.

Videos showed that fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes, starting under a transmission tower in Eaton Canyon. The investigation into the cause of the fire is continuing.

Victims of the 2019 fire say they’ve become disheartened as Edison has repeatedly asked for delays in the court case.

“Many plaintiffs have not yet been able to rebuild their homes” because of the delays, wrote Mara Burnett, a lawyer representing the family of the man who died.

Burnett noted that Aiman El Sabbagh was 54 when he suffered a fatal cardiac arrest during the incident. His children, Tala and Adnan El Sabbagh, “feel they were robbed of things they treasured and worked hard for with no apparent recompense in sight.”

Both the Saddleridge and Hurst fires included a similar chain of events where a failure of equipment on one tower resulted in two or more fires igniting under different towers elsewhere on the line, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs.

Edison designed and constructed the towers that run through Sylmar in 1970. They hold up two transmission lines: the Gould-Sylmar 220 kV circuit and the Eagle Rock-Sylmar 220 kV circuit.

In the case of the Saddleridge fire, investigators from the Los Angeles Fire Department and the California Public Utilities Commission found that at 8:57 pm on Oct. 10, 2019, a Y-shaped steel part holding up a transmission line failed, causing the line to fall on a steel arm.

The failure caused a massive electrical fault, lawyers for the plaintiffs say, that sparked fires at two transmission towers that were more than two miles away.

State and city fire investigators say the Saddleridge fire began under one of those towers. And they found unusual burning at the footing of the other tower, according to a report by an investigator at the utilities commission.

The utilities commission investigator said in the report that he found that Edison had violated five state regulations by not properly maintaining or designing its transmission equipment.

This year’s Hurst fire ignited not far away on Jan. 7 at 10:10 p.m. It also began under one of Edison’s transmission towers.

According to Edison’s Feb. 6 report to the utilities commission, the company found that its hardware failed, resulting in equipment falling to the ground at the base of a tower.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs say that they now have more evidence of the fire’s start. They say that investigators found that the hardware failure set off an event — similar to the 2019 fire — that resulted in five fires at five separate transmission tower bases on the same line.

One of those fires spread in high winds to become the Hurst fire. Officials ordered 44,000 people to evacuate. Air tankers and 300 firefighters contained the fire before it reached any homes.

NASHVILLE — Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge in Tennessee on Friday to delay his release from jail because of “contradictory statements” by President Trump’s administration over whether he’ll be deported upon release.

A federal judge in Nashville has been preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial on human smuggling charges. But she’s been holding off over concerns that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would swiftly detain him and try to deport him again.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys are now asking the judge to continue to detain him following statements by Trump administration officials “because we cannot put any faith in any representation made on this issue by” the Justice Department.

“The irony of this request is not lost on anyone,” the attorneys wrote.

Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had been living in Maryland, became a flashpoint over Trump’s hard-line immigration policies when he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March. Facing mounting pressure and a Supreme Court order, Trump’s Republican administration returned him this month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”

In a response to the request by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys on Friday, acting U.S. Atty. Rob McGuire agreed to delaying Abrego Garcia’s release. He reiterated his stance that Abrego Garcia should remain in jail before trial and that he lacks jurisdiction over ICE, stating that he has no way to prevent Abrego Garcia’s deportation.

Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin told the Associated Press on Thursday that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him, stating that Abrego Garcia “has been charged with horrific crimes, including trafficking children, and will not walk free in our country again.”

Hours earlier, Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told a federal judge in Maryland that the U.S. government plans to deport Abrego Garcia to a “third country” that isn’t El Salvador. Guynn said there was no timeline for the deportation plans.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys wrote in their filing on Friday that Guynn’s statements were the “first time the government has represented, to anyone, that it intended not to deport Mr. Abrego back to El Salvador following a trial on these charges, but to deport him to a third country immediately.”

The filing by Abrego Garcia’s lawyers also cited a post on X on Thursday from White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson: “Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States to face trial for the egregious charges against him,” Jackson stated. “He will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he’s committed.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys wrote Friday the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back “only to convict him in the court of public opinion.”

“In a just world, he would not seek to prolong his detention further,” his attorneys wrote. “And yet the government — a government that has, at all levels, told the American people that it is bringing Mr. Abrego back home to the United States to face ‘American justice’ — apparently has little interest in actually bringing this case to trial.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have asked the judge to delay his release until a July 16 court hearing, which will consider a request by prosecutors to revoke Abrego Garcia’s release order while he awaits trial.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken expulsion to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

When the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia in March, it violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that barred his expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge had found that Abrego Garcia faced a credible threat from gangs that had terrorized him and his family.

The human smuggling charges pending against Abrego Garcia stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville wrote in a ruling Sunday that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community.

During a court hearing Wednesday, Holmes set specific conditions for Abrego Garcia’s release that included him living with his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland. But she held off on releasing him over concerns that prosecutors can’t prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting him.

Finley and Loller write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.

WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official nominated to become a federal appeals court judge said Wednesday that he never told department attorneys to ignore court orders, denying the account of a whistleblower who detailed a campaign to defy judges to carry out President Trump’s deportation plans.

Emil Bove, a former criminal defense attorney for the Republican president, forcefully pushed back against suggestions from Democrats that the whistleblower’s claims make him unfit to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bove’s nomination has come under intense scrutiny after the whistleblower, a fired department lawyer, claimed in a complaint made public Tuesday that Bove used an expletive when he said during a meeting that the Trump administration might need to ignore judicial commands.

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He added: “I don’t think there’s any validity to the suggestion that that whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge.”

Bove was nominated last month by Trump to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Bove was on the defense team during Trump’s New York hush money trial and defended Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.

The White House said Bove “is unquestionably qualified for the role and has a career filled with accolades, both academically and throughout his legal career, that should make him a shoo-in for the Third Circuit.”

“The President is committed to nominating constitutionalists to the bench who will restore law and order and end the weaponization of the justice system, and Emil Bove fits that mold perfectly,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email.

The whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, was fired in April after conceding in court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison. Reuveni sent a letter on Tuesday to members of Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general seeking an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Bove and other officials in the weeks leading up to his firing.

Reuveni described a Justice Department meeting in March concerning Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni says Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used profanity in saying the department would need to consider telling the courts what to do and “ignore any such order,” Reuveni’s lawyers said in the letter.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche called the allegations “utterly false,” saying that he was at the March meeting and “at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”

“Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,” Blanche wrote in a post on X on Tuesday.

Bove has been at the center of other moves that have roiled the Justice Department in recent months, including the order to dismiss New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ federal corruption case. Bove’s order prompted the resignation of several Justice Department officials, including Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, who accused the department of acceding to a quid pro quo — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration argued in federal court Wednesday that any judicial intervention to curtail its deployment of military troops to Los Angeles would endanger federal immigration agents and undermine the president’s authority to keep American cities safe.

Attorneys for President Trump called California’s request Tuesday for a temporary restraining order barring those deployments a “crass political stunt endangering American lives” amid violent protests over immigration raids in the city.

If granted, they wrote, a restraining order would prevent Trump “from exercising his lawful statutory and constitutional power” as commander in chief to ensure federal facilities and personnel are protected and that the nation’s immigration laws are adequately enforced.

“There is no rioters’ veto to enforcement of federal law,” they wrote. “And the President has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law.”

Hindering the administration’s deployment of troops, the attorneys argued, “would be constitutionally anathema. And it would be dangerous.”

The administration was responding to California’s request Tuesday that U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issue a restraining order blocking Trump’s and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s deployments of thousands of state National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to L.A.

The troops were deployed without the request or approval of Gov. Gavin Newsom or city leaders, who have called their presence unnecessary, politically motivated and a move to increase tensions on the streets, rather than reduce them.

Trump and other administration officials have defended the deployments as necessary, and in their filing Wednesday, the president’s attorneys argued that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents had been targeted in violent attacks and that federal facilities had been damaged and defaced.

They also said that local police had acknowledged things had spun out of control and that their response had been inadequate to restore order.

Trump’s attorneys included with their opposition a written declaration from Ernesto Santacruz Jr., field office director for ICE’s enforcement and removal operations unit in Los Angeles. He described how federal agents faced violence from protesters during a raid in the Garment District, near a Home Depot store in Paramount, and at a secure ICE processing facility downtown.

Santacruz said federal immigration officials were also having their personal information spread by protesters online, and that efforts by the Los Angeles Police Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol to restore order and address the threats on the street were inadequate.

“Even with the LAPD, LASD, and CHP all engaged in the ensuing law enforcement activities, I believe the safety of local federal facilities and safety of those conducting immigration enforcement operations in this area of responsibility requires additional manpower and resources,” Santacruz wrote.

The administration’s arguments, if adopted by the court, could have implications elsewhere. Similar demonstrations against immigration raids have erupted in San Francisco and Santa Ana and across the country, including in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, New York and Seattle. More protests were scheduled to coincide with a large military parade in Washington on Saturday.

Newsom and California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta first filed a lawsuit over the L.A. deployments Monday, arguing they are unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment — violating state sovereignty and clear federal law limiting the use of military forces for domestic policing, including the Posse Comitatus Act.

They said Tuesday that a restraining order was necessary on an emergency basis to prevent “imminent, irreparable harm” to the state, arguing that the Trump administration intended for the military troops to “accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles.”

Bonta said Trump was using military personnel as “a political pawn” to “create a confrontational situation.” Newsom said the federal government was turning the military against American citizens in a way that “threatens the very core of our democracy.” Trump, he said, was “behaving like a tyrant, not a President.”

Constitutional scholars and members of Congress also have raised concerns about the executive branch deploying military assets to quell street protests, suggesting such tactics are most commonly used by authoritarian strongmen and dictators.

A coalition of 18 other state attorneys general issued a statement Wednesday backing Bonta and California’s lawsuit, saying Trump’s decision to deploy troops without the consent of California’s leaders was “unlawful, unconstitutional, and undemocratic.”

“The federal administration should be working with local leaders to keep everyone safe, not mobilizing the military against the American people,” said the statement, which was joined by the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Vermont.

In their response to California’s restraining order request Wednesday, the president’s attorneys said the military forces in L.A. would not be directly engaged in policing, and that state officials had offered zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

“Neither the National Guard nor the Marines are engaged in law enforcement. Rather, they are protecting law enforcement, consistent with longstanding practice and the inherent protective power to provide for the safety of federal property and personnel,” Trump’s attorneys wrote.

A hearing on the state’s request for a restraining order is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Thursday. The outcome could potentially affect how federal resources are deployed at future demonstrations in L.A. and beyond, including in coming days.

The administration has said immigration raids will continue in L.A. and nationwide. Trump has warned that any protesters who show up at the military parade in Washington will be “met with heavy force.”

The parade is for the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, according to the administration, but critics have derided it as an authoritarian show of strongman power by Trump — whose birthday is also Saturday.