Latest in Trump Administration
On Feb. 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issues two rulings affirming nationwide injunctions against two Trump administration immigration policy. One ruling (Innovation Law Lab et al v. Chad Wolf et al) affirmed the injuction against the "Remain in Mexico" and the other (East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v.
Congress has told the Trump administration that it has to produce a public war powers report by March 1. And if that doesn’t happen, private citizens can now sue over it.
The House of Representatives has filed its brief before the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases Donald J. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, et al and Donald J. Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al, regarding whether the court should invalidate four subpoenas to the companies from three separate House committees regarding President Trump's financial and business reports. The committees ask the court to affirm the lower courts' judgments that the House can issue the subpoenas, and argue that, "Many momentous separation-of-powers disputes have come before this Court . . .
When the secretary of state says "deterrence," it seems like he means something else.
The administration's decision-making process seems as broken today as when the president entered office.
The rule, which would affect more than 40,000 people, has raised some civil liberties concerns. Here’s what we know so far.
A decision with limited immediate consequences could have more impact over the long run in elevating the role of the president’s lawyers in future conflicts with Congress.
The administration’s proposed rule change could have significant implications for the global trade in small arms, particularly in conflicts across Latin America and the Middle East.
In a new rule, DHS authorizes removal of asylum seekers at the southern border of the U.S. to Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador for asylum processing in those countries, as long as the removed individuals are not nationals of the particular country that will receive them.
The decision highlighted key tensions between the ban on uninsured immigrants and existing law.