(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, extended its injunction that temporarily bars the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan immigrants from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation and remanded the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to resolve the question of how much time should be afforded for detainees to contest their removals.
The majority said the government did not provide migrants targeted under the wartime authority with enough time or information to contest their cases.
“The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,” the majority wrote in the decision. “But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case.”
The justices did not reach the question of the lawfulness of the removals under the Alien Enemies Act.
“We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously,” they wrote.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Earlier this week, the Trump administration asked the court to lift its injunction, arguing that the migrants it intended to deport under the act were dangerous.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Civil rights groups, including the NAACP, filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday challenging President Donald Trump’s effort to overhaul the election system.
The executive order, which Trump signed on March 25, requires stricter voting regulations in federal elections, including showing proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is among the groups representing the plaintiffs in the complaint.
“We know that providing documentation in general tends to fall more heavily on people who are already having so many obstacles thrown in their lives at them,” ACLU attorney Sophia Lin Lakin told ABC News. “These are real barriers for populations that unfortunately intersect very much with voters of color.”
Lakin highlighted logistical obstacles such as transportation, childcare responsibilities and financial barriers that could prevent people from obtaining and paying out of pocket for documents like passports and naturalization certificates.
The order directs the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an independent agency of the U.S. government that supports election officials, to require people to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote to prevent noncitizens from voting.
This comes after the president and his Republican allies characterized noncitizen voting during the 2024 presidential campaign as widespread — a false claim that was debunked by experts and by a spate of GOP-led inquiries in the weeks leading up to the election, which found that noncitizen voting is extraordinarily rare.
“Using this very racialized, this very xenophobic fear mongering — it’s really just a vehicle for voter suppression to justify imposing requirements that are going to silence a certain segment of the population,” Lakin, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, told ABC News.
Plaintiffs in Tuesday’s lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, include organizations that advocate for voting right across the country: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Asian and Pacific Islander American Vote, the Hispanic Federation, National League of Women Voters, League of Women Voters of Arizona, League of Women Voters Education Fund and Asian Pacific American Advocates (OCA).
The complaint names Trump and EAC officials as defendants. ABC News has reached out to the White House and EAC but requests for comment on the lawsuit were not immediately returned.
The lawsuit, which is known as “League of Women Voters v. Trump,” argues that the president “has no authority to make or change the rules for conducting federal elections,” — a claim that was also made in a similar federal lawsuit challenging this executive order that was filed in D.C. court on Monday by The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) – the largest civil rights organization in the U.S.
“In the [Executive Order] the President attempts to usurp the power to regulate federal elections from Congress, the States, and an independent agency to which Congress delegated certain limited responsibilities,” plaintiffs argue in the “League of Women Voters v. Trump,” claiming that the president is violating the “constitutional separation of powers.”
Existing federal law, as outlined in the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, already requires anyone who registers to vote to swear to their citizenship under penalty of perjury, but it does not require individuals to present documents to demonstrate proof of citizenship when they register.
The executive order directs the EAC to revise its national mail voter registration form within 30 days of the order’s issuance to require voters to show proof of citizenship through a U.S. passport, a state-issued driver’s license or identification card, an official military identification card or a valid federal or state government-issued photo identification. The order mandates that all documents provided should show proof of citizenship, but many state or government-issued ID’s, including drivers licenses, don’t show an individual’s citizenship.
The lawsuit argues that requiring documentation to prove citizenship “would impose a severe burden on, if not wholly disenfranchise, millions of voters” who face various barriers, including financial and logistical, that prevent them from obtaining the required documentation.
Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, on Jan. 3, Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy introduced H.R. 22 — legislation known as the “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” or the SAVE Act — a bill that would require people to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections.
“Like the SAVE Act, this executive order is part of a broader voter suppression strategy designed to silence eligible voters rather than protect election integrity,” Lakin said.
As the U.S. House considers the SAVE Act this week, House Speaker Mike Johnson House and GOP leaders urged bipartisan support for the legislation in a statement on Monday.
“American citizens — and only American citizens — should decide American elections,” the statement says. “This legislation cements into law President Trump’s executive action to secure our voter registration process and protect the voices of American voters. We urge all our colleagues in the House to join us in doing what the overwhelming majority of people in this country rightfully demand and deserve.”
ABC News’ Peter Charalambous and Olivia Rubin contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s national security adviser Michael Waltz is expected to leave his post, sources familiar with the decision told ABC News Thursday.
This move comes as President Trump has been increasingly frustrated by Waltz after he came under intense scrutiny for inadvertently adding a reporter to a Signal chat.
The White House and Waltz have not commented on the moves. Sources cautioned the move is not final until Trump announces it.
The president is expected to announce the changes soon, according to sources.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — In a sneaky legislative maneuver tied into the effort to pass a funding bill and avert a government shutdown, House Republicans earlier this week successfully blocked Democrats from forcing votes and debate on President Donald Trump’s controversial tariffs.
It was a somewhat complicated move. But it worked — and demonstrated that Republicans are attempting to give cover to Trump and his implementation of sweeping tariffs on top U.S. trading partners that have roiled the stock market and stoked diplomatic tensions.
Had Democrats forced a vote and debate on the tariffs, it could have forced Republicans to go on the record on Trump’s tariff agenda — perhaps splitting with the president’s actions.
To tee up Speaker Mike Johnson’s temporary government funding bill, which the House passed Tuesday evening, the House first needed to pass what’s known as “a rule.” Buried inside the text of that rule was legislative language that prevents Democrats from forcing a potentially politically painful vote to end Trump’s tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China.
How could Democrats compel a vote to end the tariffs?
Trump imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China by declaring illegal migration and fentanyl constituted a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act.
But, here’s the catch: under the NEA, Congress has the authority to move quickly to terminate that emergency declaration. Top House Democrats tried to do that last week.
But inside that rule, which passed along party lines and cleared the way for a vote on the House GOP’s stopgap funding bill, was a provision prohibiting lawmakers from forcing a vote to terminate the president’s border emergency and the resulting tariffs until at least January 2026.
The section reads, “Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.”
Democrats are blasting the move.
“Guess what they tucked into this rule, hoping nobody would notice? They slipped in a little clause letting them escape ever having to debate or vote on Trump’s tariffs. Isn’t that clever?” Rep. Jim McGovern, the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, said during floor debate Tuesday.
Congress could still approve a joint resolution to terminate the president’s national emergency. That would require the support of both rank-and-file GOP lawmakers and House Republican leadership, which is unlikely.
Democratic Rep. Don Beyer blasted the maneuver on “ABC News Live Prime with Linsey Davis” Tuesday.
Asked about the Republicans’ move and if Democrats have any way around it, Beyer said “not really,” calling it “tragic.”
“Once again, Trump has ignored existing law and the Constitution with all the tariffs he’s been announcing in recent weeks,” Beyer said. “He inherited on Jan. 20 the strongest economy this country has ever had. And we are rapidly heading towards recession right now just because of the extraordinary uncertainty in business decisions and capital investment and hiring decisions.”
