Senator heads to El Salvador to find Maryland man deported erroneously by Trump
Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., is in El Salvador to get answers about the wrongful deportation of a Maryland man by the Trump administration, he said in a video ahead of boarding a flight on Wednesday.
Van Hollen said he had been planning the trip for the last few days and that he hopes to meet with Kilmar Abrego Garcia in person and see his condition.
Abrego Garcia, who reportedly fled political persecution from El Salvador and was deported last month by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency following an “administrative error,” remains in the CECOT prison despite court orders requesting the U.S. government “facilitate” bringing him back to the United States.
“The goal of this mission is to let the Trump administration, to let the government of El Salvador know that we are going to keep fighting to bring Abrego Garcia home,” Van Hollen said in a video.
He posted another video after he landed and said he was on his way to meet with members of the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador.
It is unclear if anyone else is joining the senator on the trip.
Attorney General Pam Bondi alleged Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member and was able to be deported because of President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration.
However, the Department of Justice has not made that accusation in court papers and admitted the deportation was an error. Abrego Garcia’s family and attorneys have been fighting the deportation for weeks in court.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled last week that the 29-year-old father, who had no criminal record in the U.S., was illegally deported. However, Bondi has claimed El Salvador’s government is not giving him up.
“What bullies do is they begin by picking on the most vulnerable,” Van Hollen said.
(NEW YORK) — A federal judge in New York on Wednesday dismissed corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams, but not in the way the Trump administration wanted.
Judge Dale Ho dismissed the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be revived.
The Justice Department sought to have the case dismissed to free up Adams to cooperate with the mayor’s immigration agenda, however, the department wanted the case dismissed without prejudice, meaning it could be brought again.
Adams was indicted last year in the Southern District of New York on five counts in an alleged long-standing conspiracy connected to improper benefits, illegal campaign contributions and an attempted cover-up. He had pleaded not guilty.
Ho declined to endorse the DOJ’s desired outcome.
“In light of DOJ’s rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor’s freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government than to the wishes of his own constituents. That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice,” Ho decided.
Ho’s 78-page opinion dismantled the Justice Department’s stated rationale for dismissal: so Adams could focus on the Trump administration’s immigration priorities.
The judge said he could find no other example of the government dismissing charges against an elected official to enable the official to facilitate federal policy goals.
“DOJ’s immigration enforcement rationale is both unprecedented and breathtaking in its sweep,” Ho said. “And DOJ’s assertion that it has ‘virtually unreviewable’ license to dismiss charges on this basis is disturbing in its breadth, implying that public officials may receive special dispensation if they are compliant with the incumbent administration’s policy priorities. That suggestion is fundamentally incompatible with the basic premise of equal justice under the law.”
Ho also made clear he was not weighing the facts of the case and said his decision “is not about whether Mayor Adams is innocent or guilty.”
Still, Adams’ lawyer celebrated the decision to drop the charges without the fear of them being revived after the mayoral election in November — as the Justice Department had threatened.
“The case against Eric Adams should have never been brought in the first place — and finally today that case is gone forever,” Alex Spiro, Adams’ lawyer, said in a statement. “From Day 1, the mayor has maintained his innocence and now justice for Eric Adams and New Yorkers has prevailed.”
The decision to dismiss the charges came just days after Adams’ lawyer had pushed for them to be dismissed ahead of the April 3 deadline for petitions to be submitted for mayoral candidates to get on the June primary ballot. Adams has said he will run as a Democrat in the primary despite criticism from opponents he has cozied up to the Trump administration in recent months, meeting with the president and attending his Inauguration instead of scheduled Martin Luther King Day events in the city.
The decision by Ho followed the recommendation from Paul Clement, who served as solicitor general under the Bush administration and was appointed by Ho to make an independent assessment of the case.
“A dismissal without prejudice creates a palpable sense that the prosecution outlined in the indictment and approved by a grand jury could be renewed, a prospect that hangs like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the accused,” Clement said.
The eventual dismissal came after a scathing letter from acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, suggesting acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove and other members of DOJ leadership were explicitly aware of a quid pro quo suggested by Adams’ attorneys, saying Adams’ vocal support of Trump’s immigration policies would be boosted by dismissing the indictment against him.
Sassoon, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, resigned in protest along with several other career DOJ officials.
Spiro, Adams’ lawyer, balked at the notion of a quid pro quo following Sassoon’s resignation: “The idea that there was a quid pro quo is a total lie. We offered nothing and the department asked nothing of us.”
(WASHINGTON) — After creating history by smashing the record for the longest Senate speech in history, Sen. Cory Booker told reporters as he walked off the floor that he was achy and tired, but grateful for his time.
“I didn’t know how long I could go. I’m so grateful I lasted for 25 hours,” Booker said.
Without taking a seat for the entirety of his speech, dehydration, the New Jersey senator said, had its pros and cons.
Booker sidestepped a question of whether he had any sort of device or diaper on to help him with bathroom demands.
However, he did say he didn’t need to use the restroom for the entirety of the 25 hours because of an incredibly rigorous fasting routine.
“My strategy was to stop eating. I think I stopped eating on Friday, and then to stop drinking the night before I started on Monday. And that had its benefits and it had its really downsides,” he said.
“The biggest thing I was fighting was that different muscles were starting to really cramp up, and every once a while, spasm or something.”
Booker’s speech, which began Monday evening, continued for a total of 25 hours and 4 minutes, surpassing the previous record set by Sen. Strom Thurmond, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
Booker was “very aware” of Thurmond’s record going into the speech.
“I was very aware of Strom Thurmond’s records since I got to the Senate. I always felt that it was a strange shadow to hang over this institution,” Booker told reporters.
“The mission was really to elevate voices of Americans to tell some of their really meaningful stories, very emotional stories, and to let go and let god.” To prepare, Booker said he tried to make himself as light as possible, and took everything out of his pockets except for a notecard with a handwritten Bible verse on it: Isaiah 40:31. “But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles, they shall run and not be weary, and they shall walk and not faint,” Booker read.
He relied on his faith, he said, at one point praying with Reverend Sen. Raphael Warnock ahead of the speech.
For the entirety of his marathon talk-a-thon, Booker occupied the small square of space surrounding his desk.
(WASHINGTON) — A unanimous Supreme Court on Wednesday backed the Food and Drug Administration’s refusal to authorize the sale of kid-friendly flavored e-cigarettes and vapes, including the flavors “Killer Kustard Blueberry,” “Rainbow Road,” and “Pineapple Express.”
Justice Samuel Alito, in his opinion for the court, rejected the manufacturers’ claims that the agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of federal law by changing the requirements for product approval in the middle of the process.
“In the end, we cannot say that the FDA improperly changed its position with respect to scientific evidence, comparative efficacy, or device type,” Alito wrote. He returned the case to a lower court for further review.
The ruling effectively holds the line on the government’s decision to severely limit the number of flavored tobacco products legally available in the U.S. market out of concerns over the impact on children.
Kid-friendly flavors, such as fruit, candy, mint, menthol and desserts — which are largely not approved by the FDA and are currently sold on store shelves illegally — have been fueling an explosion in retail sales of e-cigarettes.
While vaping among youth is declining, more than 1.6 million children use the products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly 90% of them consume illicit flavored brands.
“Today’s ruling is a major victory for the health of America’s kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored e-cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis,” said Yolanda Richardson, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, an advocacy group. She noted the FDA has denied over 26 million flavored e-cigarette product applications so far.
“While the FDA has authorized the sale of only 34 e-cigarette products, manufacturers continue to flood the market with thousands of illegal, unauthorized products,” Richardson said in a statement. “To end this crisis, the FDA must deny marketing applications for flavored e-cigarettes and step up enforcement efforts to clear the market of illegal products. Today’s ruling should spur the FDA to act quickly to do so.”
The companies — White Lion Investments LLC and Vapetasia LLC — did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Since 2009, federal law requires sellers of new nicotine products to provide regulators with scientific evidence to show that the products would promote public health, but the statute does not spell out specifically what evidence is necessary and sufficient. The FDA’s guidance on how to meet that requirement was at the center of the case.
While the first Trump administration had taken a hard line against the marketing and sale sweet and candy flavored vapes, President Donald Trump said during the campaign that he wants to “save” flavored vapes. It’s not clear how the FDA, newly under his control, may modify regulations around flavored vapes or alter the approval process.
Despite their loss in the case, vape manufacturers are able to reapply for approval with the FDA in a new application and attempt to show how benefits of the product to public health would outweigh the dangers to teens.
“In light of the statutory text and the well-documented and serious risks flavored e-cigarette products pose to youth, it should have come as no surprise that applicants would need to submit rigorous scientific evidence showing that the benefits of their products would outweigh those risks,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded in a short concurring opinion in the case.
