F. Scott Fitzgerald statue stolen from outside site of the novelist’s former school
Saint Paul Police Department
(MINNESOTA) — A statue of famed novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald was stolen from outside a Minnesota building where he once attended school, police said.
The statue, which had been located outside the Academy Professional Building in Saint Paul, depicted a young Fitzgerald seated with a couple of books in his lap.
Now all that remains of the statue of “The Great Gatsby” author is part of his right hand.
Police said the statue is believed to have been cut free. Its owner, Ed Conley, told ABC Twin Cities affiliate KSTP a cutting torch is believed to have been used to free the statue. The bolts were also cut, he said.
“Disappointed for sure,” Conley, the founder of the real estate company CCI Properties, told the station.
The statue, which was located on the steps to the Academy Professional Building, was last known to be there on Feb. 3 and was reported missing four days later, police said.
The building was once home to the St. Paul Academy, which Fitzgerald attended from 1908 to 1911 as a teen. Conley said Fitzgerald wrote for the school paper and participated in plays while he attended the school.
He commissioned local artist Aaron Dysart to make the statue of the author nearly 20 years ago when he bought the building, which now houses office spaces.
“It was really fun to just highlight that history,” Conley told KSTP.
The statue of the author has been a fixture on various tours in the city, Conley said.
It would cost around $40,000 to replace the bronze statue, Conley told KSTP, estimating the metal could fetch several hundred dollars at a scrap yard.
Conley told KSTP he hopes to “resurrect” the statue and “bring it back to the community and have people enjoy it again.”
The investigation into the theft remains ongoing and there are no updates on any suspects or arrests, a Saint Paul Police Department spokesperson told ABC News on Wednesday.
Police asked anyone with information or who “recalls seeing suspicious activity” outside the building between Feb. 3 and 7 to call 651-291-1111.
(WASHINGTON) — A lawyer for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man and alleged gang member who was deported in error to El Salvador, said Monday that it might take a contempt order to prompt the U.S. government to return him from that country.
As ordered by a federal judge, U.S. officials over the weekend confirmed in a court filing that Abrego Garcia is being held in the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador — but ignored the judge’s order to detail what steps the government is taking to facilitate his return.
“At some point, if somebody gets held in contempt, you might see quicker movement there,” Benjamin Osorio, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told ABC News’ Start Here.
The Supreme Court last week unanimously ruled that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”
The high court also said, “The Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”
Top U.S. officials Monday indicated that they did not intend to take any steps to retrieve Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.
“That’s up to El Salvador,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi in an Oval Office meeting with President Trump and the visiting El Salvador President Nayib Bukele. “If El Salvador … wanted to return him, we would facilitate it.”
Asked by reporters about Abrego Garcia, President Bukele responded, “I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.”
Judge Xinis on Friday ordered the Trump administration to provide daily updates on Abrego Garcia’s status, after which another attorney for Abrego Garcia said that he would ask the judge to “take appropriate steps” if the administration doesn’t make a good-faith effort to respond.
“Whether it’s DOJ or DHS getting held in contempt and the judge taking some move there, we’ll see how that plays out,” Osorio said Monday. “I imagine if they they stall too much, that’s what you’re going to see.”
The attorney said he was glad to hear from the administration that Abrego Garcia is “alive and well,” because, he said, “to my knowledge, nobody, not his wife, not his attorneys, nobody’s had contact with him.”
Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador whose wife is a U.S. citizen and who has 5-year-old child, was issued a 2019 court order barring his deportation to El Salvador, where his attorneys say he escaped political violence in 2011. Despite the court order, he was deported in March to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison following what the government said was an “administrative error.”
The Trump administration claims Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, which his lawyers and his wife deny, and have argued in legal filings that because Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody, the courts cannot order him to be returned to the U.S. nor can they order El Salvador to return him.
Friday’s hearing came a day after the U.S. Supreme affirmed Judge Xinis’ earlier ruling ordering the Trump administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.
On Saturday, President Donald Trump, speaking with reporters, said that he wasn’t well-versed in the case, but that “if the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court.”
On Sunday, however, an ICE official said in court filings that Abrego Garcia’s “membership in MS-13” makes him ineligible to be removed from that country.
“I understand that he should not have been removed to El Salvador because the immigration judge had also granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal,” said ICE official Evan Katz. “However, I also understand that Abrego Garcia is no longer eligible of withholding of removal because of his membership in MS-13 which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization.”
U.S. officials, however, have publicly provided no evidence that Abrego Garcia is a MS-13 member, and he has not been charged with any crime.
The event will be on Sunday, March 2, at 3 p.m. at Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C.
Olympians Tara Lipinski, Kristi Yamaguchi, Scott Hamilton and Johnny Weir are among those participating. The show will raise funds to support victims’ families, first responders and aviation professionals, U.S. Figure Skating said.
More than a dozen of the victims killed in the Jan. 29 plane crash were young skaters, their parents and coaches returning home from a national figure skating development camp in Wichita, Kansas.
The plane, which departed from Wichita, was about to land at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C., when it collided with a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter, sending both aircraft plunging into the Potomac River.
Sixty-four people were on board the plane and three soldiers were on the helicopter. No one survived.
“As we begin to heal from this devastating loss, we look forward to honoring the enduring memories of these athletes, coaches and family members who represented the best of the figure skating community,” U.S. Figure Skating interim-CEO Samuel Auxier said in a Wednesday statement announcing the tribute show.
“We can think of no better way of celebrating their legacies than through the sport they loved,” Auxier said.
Tickets will go on sale on Monday, Feb. 10, on Ticketmaster.
(NEW YORK) — In recent weeks stories have emerged about college students whisked off campuses by immigration agents – targeted for deportation based on their writings or activism – and detained in federal custody despite never being charged with a crime.
While the number of impacted students appears to be small — with Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicating around 300 students were targeted last week — the actions, part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, have sparked fear and questions about the rights these students have, especially free speech.
Experts, immigration attorneys and advocates told ABC News the Trump administration has been using an unprecedented application of immigration law to expedite their removals. The administration, for its part, maintains that it is following the law and has accused some of the students detained of showing support for Hamas and participating in movements that are “creating a ruckus,” Rubio said.
While legal experts have said that noncitizens are generally guaranteed the same free speech as American citizens, the Trump administration has argued that their presence in the United States is a privilege. As their cases move through federal courts, the students challenging their removals have the potential to reshape the law related to free speech and immigration, according to legal experts.
In the meantime, the students caught in the Trump administration’s crosshairs may be detained for months despite never being charged with any crimes because of the massive backlog of cases in U.S. immigration courts.
Here’s what the experts say there is to know about their rights:
What rights do student visa or green card holders have if they are threatened with deportation?
Once the Trump administration attempts to revoke a visa or green card – which grants permanent residency rather than a short-term stay in the US for a specific purpose — students still have the right to an immigration hearing to determine if their deportations are justified, according to Cheryl David, a New York immigration attorney.
“The level of due process that they may be entitled to will depend on what immigration status they have in the United States, and whether or not the Trump administration has a basis for revoking their lawful status in the United States that has any reasonable basis in law or not,” said Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of its Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.
During those removal proceedings, noncitizens have the right to access a lawyer but are not guaranteed one like they would in a criminal court. If they are detained while they await their removal hearing, the noncitizens also have the right to file a habeas petition to challenge their detention.
Even though all the recent students who have had their visas revoked do not have criminal records, the Trump administration has insisted that they be detained while their cases play out, meaning they could spend more than six months behind bars without being charged with any crimes, according to retired Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr.
“The Trump administration has been a lot more aggressive than past administrations on putting people who have not been convicted of crimes into immigration detention,” said Yale-Loehr.
The Trump administration had justified the detentions by arguing that some of the students have supported terrorist activities, pose an ongoing threat to the United States, or threaten the country’s foreign policy interests.
Have past administrations revoked student visas?
The Trump administration’s policy of revoking student visas marks the most aggressive approach in more than two decades, according to immigration attorney Renata Castro.
“Because presidents have direct control over policies on the issuance of student visas by embassies and consulates, they are able to dial up or down the heat when It comes to issuing student visas from individuals of certain countries,” Castro said.
Following the 9/11 terror attacks, the George W. Bush administration implemented stricter immigration and student visas policies based on national security concerns. According to Castro, what makes the Trump administration’s revocations unique is that they are sometimes rooted on the exercise of free speech – a basis that could eventually be challenged in court.
“The government is looking at speech – the exercise of free speech – and using that to dig into perceived immigration violations so that they can revoke student visa,” she said.
What role might colleges and universities have related to deportations?
If a college or university expels a student for their campus activism, the students face a heightened risk of removal because they no longer have the student status required by their visa.
“If the school is not cooperating and they are still going to school, they’re not in violation of their student status,” said David. “Then the government would have to find another way to say that they’re removable from the United States.”
According to Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Trump administration’s recent crackdown has included more aggressive enforcement action on campuses, where some universities have cooperated with law enforcement.
“I have not seen before the kinds of aggressive tactics ICE is now taking to apprehend students in their dormitories, on campus or near campus for immigration enforcement,” said Chen.
Can a student be deported because they threaten U.S. foreign policy?
In some instances, the Trump administration has invoked a rarely-used law to justify removing noncitizens based on their impact on foreign policy. Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and Georgetown University fellow Badar Khan Suri were both detained based on the law.
The provision, 8 U.S.C. § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i), allows the removal of noncitizens if their presence in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
According to an analysis of past immigration cases conducted by political scientists Graeme Blair and David Hausman, the United States has invoked that law only 14 times in history as a basis for a removal, including only two times since 2000 when it was the sole basis for removal.
“I’ve been doing this for 25 years. I’ve never seen this used,” said Cheryl David, a longtime immigration attorney.
To prove that a noncitizen threatens U.S. foreign policy, Yale-Loehr said the administration will have to submit sworn declarations or evidence to prove the person’s impact on foreign policy.
“If it is this foreign policy ground, you need a statement from the secretary of state saying the magic words, this person’s presence would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” he said.
Mukherjee, of Columbia University’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, called the use of the law “unprecedented and unconstitutional” and believes the policy will be shot down by the courts because it is at odds with the First Amendment.
“It’s important for the American public to keep in mind that the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech for all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. This is long established constitutional law ruled on by the Supreme Court over decades,” she said.
The Trump administration has argued that the invocation of the law is a justified, lawful, and protects US interests.
What basis is the Trump administration using for the removals?
The Trump administration has alleged that some students have supported terrorists as a basis for their removal. To prove that, David said, they will need to demonstrate that they did more than simply practice their free speech.
“Because a person you know necessarily does an op-ed saying we think that Israel is committing genocide, that’s not going to be enough,” David. “But if they are handing out flyers and promoting activities that the government thinks are related to terrorism, then that could be grounds to say they did engage in terrorist activity.”
Authorities are also looking closely at visa applications.
Federal authorities alleged that Columbia graduate student and legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil – who was first detained based on his alleged impact on foreign policy — lied on his green card application. Experts said that examining visa applications may become a broader strategy for the Trump administration to justify deportations.
“If you don’t disclose information on a green card application that the government thinks was material to whether or not they would have admitted you to the United States, then they can allege that you committed fraud on that application,” said David.
Can a removal decision be appealed?
Noncitizens generally have the right to challenge an immigration judge’s decision with the Board of Immigration Appeals or in federal court; however, David noted that they might not be able to fully exercise their appeal if they are already in U.S. custody and removed before their appellate rights are exhausted.
“Unless a federal judge saves that deportation, that person is going to be deported from the United States,” David said.
While other presidents – including Barack Obama – have embraced a policy of swift deportations, the Trump administration appears to be testing the limits of the law, experts said.
Does the location where a noncitizen is detained during their immigration proceedings matter?
According to Castro, keeping the students detained while their cases move through the courts could prompt more people to self-deport – a policy the Trump administration has actively encouraged.
“When an individual is kept in detention, it’s almost to break their spirit, because now they don’t have the ability to work. They don’t have access to free legal representation. Their life is falling apart,” she said. “Migrants who self deport are usually the ones who haven’t committed a crime and look at themselves in the mirror and think, ‘I’m being treated like a criminal, even though I’m not one.’”
The process of granting a bond in immigration court is a “marathon” according to Castro that takes at least three weeks, and judges in some jurisdictions infrequently hear habeas cases filed by noncitizens.
In some cases, the Trump administration has relocated noncitizens from the district where they were arrested to ICE holding facilities in other states. The location where they are currently held could be impactful if or when they file a habeas petition in federal court, according to Nicholas Espíritu, deputy legal director at the National Immigration Law Center.
For noncitizens held in the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana, they would end up filing their habeas petition in the more conservative Western District of Louisiana and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The move to another state could also complicate their legal representation and make it harder to communicate regularly with lawyers, said Espíritu.
“These individuals are students, and the idea that they are going to have the resources necessary kind of on their own to be able to secure that robust legal protection just demonstrates the way in which the actions taken by the federal government are really seeking to undermine, quite frankly, the ability for these individuals to have their case heard in court,” he said.
