uphold

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.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook from the independent board that can raise or lower interest rates.

The appeal “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

The appeal is the second this month asking the court to give Trump broad new power over the economy.

The first, to be heard in November, will decide if the president to free to impose large import taxes on products coming into this country.

The new case could determine if he is free to remake the Federal Reserve Board by removing a Democratic appointee who he says may have broken the law.

Trump’s lawyers argue that a Fed governor has no legal right to challenge the president’s decision to fire her.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself—and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Trump has chafed at the Federal Reserve board for keeping interest rates high to fight inflation, and he threatened to fire board chairman Jay Powell, even though he appointed him to that post in 2018.

But last month, Trump turned his attention to Cook and said he had cause to fire her.

Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

The law does not define what amounts to cause.

President Biden appointed Cook in 2023 and she was confirmed to a full term.

In August, however, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

Typically, borrowers obtain a better interest rate for a primary residence. But lawyers say charges of mortgage fraud are extremely rare if the borrower makes the required regular payments on the loan.

About 30 minutes after Pulte posted his allegations, Trump posted on his social media site: “Cook must resign. Now!!!”

Cook has not responded directly to the allegations, but her attorneys pointed to news reports which said she told the lender her Atlanta condo would be a vacation home.

Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25. “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referrral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

Cook filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegations did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest the charges.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, agreed she made a “strong showing” the firing was illegal and blocked her removal.

She said Congress wrote the “for cause” provision to punish “malfeasance in office,” not conduct that pre-dated her appointment. She also said Cook had been denied “due process of law” because she was not given a hearing.

The U.S. appeals court in Washington, by a 2-1 vote, refused to lift her order on Monday.

Judges Bradley Garcia and J. Michelle Childs, both Biden appointees, said Cook had been denied “even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed.”

Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said “for cause” removal provision was broader than misconduct in office. It means the president may remove an officer for “some cause relating to” their “ability, fitness, or competence” to hold the office, he said.

And because a government position is not the property of office holders, they do not have a “due process” right to contest their firing, he said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday for the Trump administration and agreed U.S. immigration agents may stop and detain anyone they suspect is in the U.S. illegally based on little more than their working at a car wash, speaking Spanish or having brown skin.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal and lifted a Los Angeles judge’s order that barred “roving patrols” from snatching people off Southern California streets based on how they look, what language they speak, what work they do or where they happen to be.

The decision is a significant victory for President Trump, clearing the way for his oft-promised “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in American history.

The court’s conservatives issued a brief, unsigned order that freezes the district judge’s restraining order indefinitely and frees immigration agents from it. As a practical matter, it gives immigration agents broad authority to stop people who they think may be here illegally.

Although Monday’s order is not a final ruling, it strongly signals the Supreme Court will not uphold strict limits on the authority of immigration agents to stop people for questioning.

The Supreme Court has been sharply criticized in recent weeks for handing down orders with no explanation. Perhaps for that reason, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote a 10-page opinion to explain the decision.

He said federal law says “immigration officers ‘may briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’ if they have ‘a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned … is an alien illegally in the United States.’”

He said such stops are reasonable and legal based on the “totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”

Those were exactly the factors that the district judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said agents may not use as a basis for stopping someone for questioning.

The three liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

“The Government … has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” she wrote.

Sotomayor also disagreed with Kavanaugh’s assertions.

“Immigration agents are not conducting ‘brief stops for questioning,’ as the concurrence would like to believe. They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” she wrote. “Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.”

In response, Kavanaugh said he agreed agents may not use “excessive force” in making stops or arrests. But the judge’s order dealt only with the legal grounds for making stops, he said.

Kavanaugh stressed the court has a limited role when it comes to immigration enforcement.

“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict,” he wrote.

He noted the court had ruled for the Biden administration and against Texas, which had sought stricter enforcement against those who crossed the border or had a criminal record.

The case decided Monday began in early June when Trump appointees targeted Los Angeles with aggressive street sweeps that ensnared longtime residents, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens.

A coalition of civil rights groups and local attorneys challenged the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens caught up in the chaotic arrests, claiming they had been grabbed without reasonable suspicion — a violation of the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The lead plaintiffs — Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and two other Pasadena residents — were arrested at a bus stop when they were waiting to be picked up for a job.

On July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order barring stops based solely on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination.

On July 28, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The case remains in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction this month. But the Department of Justice argued even a brief limit on mass arrests constituted a “irreparable injury” to the government.

A few days later, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to set aside Frimpong’s order. They said agents should be allowed to act on the assumption that Spanish-speaking Latinos who work as day laborers, at car washes or in landscaping and agriculture are likely to lack legal status.

“Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal. Agents can consider “the totality of the circumstances” when making stops, he said, including that “illegal presence is widespread in the Central District [of California], where 1 in every 10 people is an illegal alien.”

Both sides said the region’s diverse demographics support their view of the law. In an application to join the suit, Los Angeles and 20 other Southern California municipalities argued that “half the population of the Central District” now meet the government’s criteria for reasonable suspicion.

Roughly 10 million Latinos live in the seven counties covered by the order, and almost as many speak a language other than English at home.

Sauer also questioned whether the plaintiffs who sued had standing because they were unlikely to be arrested again. That argument was the subject of sharp and extended questioning in the 9th Circuit, where a three-judge panel ultimately rejected it.

“Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks, not years, some repeatedly in the same location,” the panel wrote in its July 28 opinion denying the stay.

One plaintiff was stopped twice in the span of 10 days, evidence of a “real and immediate threat” that he or any of the others could be stopped again, the 9th Circuit said.

Days after that decision, heavily armed Border Patrol agents sprang from the back of a Penske movers truck, snatching workers from the parking lot of a Westlake Home Depot in apparent defiance of the courts.

Immigrants rights advocates had urged the justices to not intervene.

“The raids have followed an unconstitutional pattern that officials have vowed to continue,” they said. Ruling for Trump would authorize “an extraordinarily expansive dragnet, placing millions of law-abiding people at imminent risk of detention by federal agents.”

The judge’s order had applied in an area that included Los Angeles and Orange counties as well as Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

“Every Latino should be concerned, every immigrant should be concerned, every person should be concerned,” Alfonso Barragan, a 62-year-old U.S. citizen, said Monday on his way into one of the L.A. Home Depots repeatedly hit by the controversial sweeps. “They’re allowing the [federal immigration agents] to break the law.”

Savage reported from Washington and Sharp from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Ruben Vives in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a fast-tracking ruling that he has broad power acting on his own to impose tariffs on products coming from countries around the world.

Despite losing in the lower courts, Trump and his lawyers have reason to believe they can win in the Supreme Court. The six conservative justices believe in strong presidential power, particularly in the area of foreign policy and national security.

In a three-page appeal filed Wednesday evening, they proposed the court decide by Wednesday to grant review and to hear arguments in early November.

They said the lower court setbacks, unless quickly reversed, “gravely undermine the President’s ability to conduct real-world diplomacy and his ability to protect the national security and economy of the United States.”

They cited Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s warning about the potential for economic disruption if the court does not act soon.

“Delaying a ruling until June 26 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion-$1 trillion have already been collected and unwinding them could cause significant disruption.” he wrote.

Trump and his tariffs ran into three strong arguments in the lower courts.

First, the Constitution says Congress, not the president, has the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and a tariff is an import tax.

Second, the 1977 emergency powers law that Trump relies on does not mention tariffs, taxes or duties, and no previous president has used it to impose tariffs.

And third, the Supreme Court has frowned on recent presidents who relied on old laws to justify bold new costly regulations.

So far, however, the so-called “major questions” doctrine has been used to restrict Democratic presidents, not Republicans.

Three years ago, the court’s conservative majority struck down a major climate change regulation proposed by Presidents Obama and Biden that could have transformed the electric power industry on the grounds it was not clearly based on the Clean Air Acts of the 1970s.

Two years ago, the court by the same 6-3 vote struck down Biden’s plan to forgive hundreds of millions of dollars in student loans. Congress had said the Education Department may “waive or modify” monthly loan payments during a national emergency like the Covid 19 pandemic, but it did not say the loans may be forgiven, the court said. Its opinion noted the “staggering” cost could be more than $500 billion.

The impact of Trump’s tariffs figure to be at least five times greater, a federal appeals court said last week in ruling them illegal.

By a 7-4 vote, the federal circuit court cited all three arguments in ruling Trump had exceeded his legal authority.

“We conclude Congress, in enacting the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give the president wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs,” they said.

But the outcome was not a total loss for Trump. The appellate judges put their decision on hold until the Supreme Court rules. That means Trump’s tariffs are likely to remain in effect for many months.

Trump’s lawyers were heartened by the dissent written by Judge Richard Taranto and joined by other others.

He argued that presidents are understood to have extra power when confronted with foreign threats to the nation’s security.

He called the 1977 law “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign-affairs realm” that said the president may “regulate” the “importation” of dangerous products including drugs coming into this country.

Citing other laws from that era, he said Congress understood that tariffs and duties are a “common tool of import regulation.”