|
|
|
Immigration lawyers accuse Vermont prisons of impeding their work
Law Firm News |
2026/03/16 09:30
|
Attorneys and volunteers with the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project used to go into Vermont's prisons and meet with every immigration detainee, using their phones and computers for language interpretation, according to Jill Martin Diaz, executive director of the organization. But they say that access changed this fall after Jon Murad took over as interim commissioner of the Vermont Department of Corrections. Since then, attorneys with the organization said the department has made it harder to meet and work with their clients, citing language barriers and lack of meeting space. Murad denies those claims and says he has merely enforced policies that predate his time as commissioner, cutting off practices that shouldn't have been allowed under his predecessor. Federal immigration authorities use Vermont prisons to hold often more than a dozen immigration detainees at a time per a contract agreement with the federal government. Though detainees can be held in any Vermont prison, they're most commonly brought to two facilities: Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in South Burlington and Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans Town. As President Donald Trump has ramped up his mass deportation campaign, federal immigration authorities often swiftly shuffle people they detain around the country. And the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project has been the main organization routinely providing legal services to all immigration detainees in Vermont. "I think it's really important to capitalize on this opportunity that Vermont can be where we disrupt this arrest-to-deportation pipeline that is happening across this country," said Hillary Rich, an attorney at the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. The issue has raised the eyebrows of legislators focused on the state's prison system and prompted them to write the Corrections Department a memo directing its officials to develop a memorandum of understanding with the Vermont Asylum Assistance Project to guarantee cooperation between the organization and the department. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
US and Israeli attacks on Iran put further strain on international law
Law Firm News |
2026/03/02 03:14
|
As U.S. and Israeli forces pounded Iran, and Tehran and its affiliates retaliated by firing missiles at targets across the Mideast on Monday, the international legal order was caught in the crossfire. At the heart of the post-World War II global order — United Nations headquarters in New York — Secretary-General António Guterres told the Security Council on Saturday that U.S. and Israeli airstrikes violated international law, including the U.N. Charter. He also condemned Iran's retaliatory attacks for violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations in the Mideast. Officials in the Trump administration insist that the military campaign is a lawful measure to ensure Tehran does not build nuclear weapons. "It's a matter of global security. And to that end, the United States is taking lawful actions," Trump's U.N. ambassador, Mike Waltz, said. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote in a letter to the U.N. on Sunday that the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "constitutes a grave and unprecedented breach of the most fundamental norms governing relations among States." On Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth bullishly defended the U.S. military campaign. "No stupid rules of engagement, no nation building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win and we don't waste time or lives," he said at the Pentagon. The war with Iran comes less than two months after U.S. forces swooped into Caracas to capture former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and fly him to New York to face justice. David Crane, an American expert on international law and founding prosecutor of a United Nations court that prosecuted crimes in Sierra Leone, wrote in an analysis that U.S. attacks in Iran and Venezuela "highlight a dangerous trend: the normalization of unilateral force as a tool of foreign policy. Even when the outcome is positive, the violation of international law and constitutional limits sets a precedent that threatens global stability and undermines America's own legal foundations." In Washington, many Democrats have called the strikes illegal. They argue that under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. They say the Trump administration failed to lay out its rationale or plan for the military strikes, and the aftermath. Congress hurriedly scheduled a war powers debate for Monday over Trump's authority to bomb Iran. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justice Department steps up pressure on cartels’ financial networks
Law Firm News |
2026/02/07 16:52
|
The Justice Department is taking direct aim at the financial lifelines of Mexico’s most violent drug cartels, targeting money brokers who prosecutors say have adapted to intensified enforcement by increasingly routing drug profits through cryptocurrency from American cities to cartel leaders in Mexico.
The cases of four defendants recently sent from Mexico to the U.S. for prosecution provide a glimpse into shadowy money laundering networks that allow the Jalisco New Generation Cartel and other violent groups to continue pumping dangerous drugs into American communities. The prosecutions underscore the Justice Department’s efforts to turn up the pressure on cartels and stay ahead of their sophisticated and ever-evolving tactics to launder money across the border without detection.
By targeting alleged money brokers — rather than street-level traffickers — prosecutors say they are aiming at a choke point they believe is essential to the cartels sustaining their operations as law enforcement pressure mounts on more visible drug routes.
Since the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second administration, the Mexican government has turned over more than 90 high-level defendants with ties to cartels in three transfers now at the center of a legal debate in Mexico. The defendants were wanted by U.S. prosecutors for crimes including drug trafficking, human smuggling and money laundering.
Senior Justice Department officials say bringing cartel figures to the United States is designed to do more than be a deterrent message. It could also lead to indictments against other high-level leaders if defendants cooperate, allowing prosecutors to reach higher into cartel leadership. Under Trump’s Republican administration, the Justice Department has restructured the Criminal Division to integrate narcotics prosecutors with anti-money laundering experts to better target cartels and to reflect a broader shift toward targeting the financial systems that sustain their operations.
The latest transfers to the U.S. include alleged Mexico-based money brokers, who authorities say oversee the movement of drug proceeds and pocket a percentage of the money that returns to the cartels as a commission, according to court papers. The brokers arrange for cash to be picked up in cities across the U.S. and conceal the money to get it across the border, often through digital assets as law enforcement has cut off other methods.
Prosecutors “want to hear on the distribution side how it works, who is involved, and seek additional indictments, and on the money laundering side, exactly the methods that they are using to get the money out of the United States through the U.S. banks,” Duva said. “There’s bulk cash smuggling that has been going on since the beginning of time, and then also sort of the newer trend of taking the cash, buying cryptocurrency, and then trading that cryptocurrency.”
Eduardo Rigoberto Velasco Calderon, Eliomar Segura Torres, Manuel Ignacio Correa and Cesar Linares-Orozco face money laundering conspiracy charges in indictments filed in Kentucky’s federal court. An attorney for Linares-Orozco declined to comment in an email to the AP, and no attorneys were listed in court papers for the other defendants.
The January transfer of 37 defendants from Mexico to the U.S. marked the third of its kind under Trump’s second term. Observers have described the transfers as an offering by Mexican authorities to offset mounting threats by Trump to take military action against cartels.
A group of lawyers and family members of cartel figures have accused Mexico of breaking the law by sending them without an extradition order. Mexico’s government has maintained the transfers were legal, carried out in the name of national security. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court official dismisses Justice Department’s misconduct complaint
Law Firm News |
2025/11/28 21:30
|
A court official has dismissed a Justice Department complaint that accused a federal judge of “hostile and egregious” misconduct during hearings for a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops serving in the military.
The complaint accused U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., of inappropriately questioning a government lawyer about his religious beliefs and of trying to embarrass the attorney with a rhetorical exercise during a February hearing.
In a Sept 29 order that wasn’t made public until Monday, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the complaint. Srinivasan said a motion for Reyes’ recusal would have been the proper means for the Justice Department to contest her impartiality and seek her removal from the case.
The department didn’t explicitly ask for Reyes’ removal from the transgender troops’ litigation. And it didn’t file a petition for a review of the chief judge’s order, which didn’t reach any conclusions about the merits of the complaint’s allegations.
“If a party that believes a judge’s conduct in a case raises serious questions about her impartiality were to press its concerns in the ordinary way — by seeking her recusal in the case itself — the standards for resolving the matter are well established,” Srinivasan wrote.
The Justice Department had no immediate comment on Tuesday. Reyes declined to comment on the chief judge’s order or the department’s complaint.
The complaint was filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s then-chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, who has since left the department. Mizelle claimed Reyes’ behavior “compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias.”
“When judges demonstrate apparent bias or treat counsel disrespectfully, public confidence in the judicial system is undermined,” he wrote.
Mizelle’s complaint cited an exchange in which Reyes asked a government attorney: “What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’?” The attorney responded by saying, “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”
The complaint also refers to a rhetorical exercise about discrimination. Reyes spoke of changing the rules in her courtroom to bar graduates of the University of Virginia law school from appearing before her because they are all “liars and lack integrity.” She instructed the government attorney, a graduate of the school, to sit down before calling him back up to the podium.
Reyes was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. Trump and Republican allies have mounted an escalating series of attacks against the federal judiciary since the start of his second term.
Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order claims without presenting evidence that the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness. It required Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a revised policy.
Six transgender people who were active-duty service members and two other plaintiffs seeking to join the military sued to challenge Trump’s order. Reyes blocked the order’s enforcement in March, ruling that it likely violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. A federal judge in Washington state also blocked enforcement of the order.
Reyes agreed to suspend her order pending the government’s appeal, which hasn’t been resolved yet. But the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban transgender people from the military in the meantime. |
|
|
|
|
|