Trump administration eliminating warning period for fining those in the US illegally: Exclusive
Brett Carlsen/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is looking to speed up its ability to fine those in the United States illegally — up to $1,000 per day — according to a rule set to be published Friday in the Federal Register that was obtained by ABC News.
Currently, the government can alert those in the U.S. illegally 30 days before it starts issuing fines.
The rule proposed by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security allows the government to immediately start fining those in the U.S. illegally. “DHS believes that the nature of the failure-to-depart and unlawful entry penalties supports the need for more streamlined procedures,” the proposed rule says.
The new process will apply to those who enter the U.S. illegally, ignore final orders of removal, and those in the U.S. illegally who do not comply with a judge’s voluntary departure order.
Fines will range from $100 to $500 per illegal entry into the U.S., up to almost $10,000 for failure to voluntary deport after a judge orders it, and up to $1,000 per day for those who do not comply with a removal order.
Fining migrants illegally in the U.S. started during President Donald Trump’s first term in office and was stopped during the Biden administration. Trump started it again after he took office in January.
“The law doesn’t enforce itself; there must be consequences for breaking it,” said Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday. “President Trump and [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem are standing up for law and order and making our government more effective and efficient at enforcing the American people’s immigration laws. Financial penalties like these are just one more reason why illegal aliens should use CBP Home to self-deport now before it’s too late.”
Those who use the Customs and Border Protection’s CBP Home app to self-deport will have any fines levied against them waived, according to the DHS. As of June 13, DHS has issued 10,000 fine notifications.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday signaled that it is poised to establish a right of parents to opt-out their children from public school instruction that conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs.
The case, brought by a group of Christian, Muslim and Jewish parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, specifically seeks a guaranteed exemption from the classroom reading of storybooks with LGBTQ themes, including same-sex marriage and exploration of gender identity.
The parents allege use of the books in elementary school curriculum — without an opportunity to be excused — amounts to government-led indoctrination about sensitive matters of sexuality. The school board insists the books merely expose kids to diverse viewpoints and ideas.
The justices engaged in spirited debate for more than 2 1/2 hours of oral arguments, wrestling with where to draw the line between exposure and coercion, which is forbidden under the First Amendment.
“Is merely being exposed to the reading of the book out loud coercion?” asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the parents’ attorney Eric Baxter. “Is looking two men getting married — is that the religious objection?”
“Our parents would object to that,” Baxter replied.
Several of the court’s conservative members suggested an opt-out for sensitive subjects should be common sense.
“I’m a bit mystified as a lifelong resident of the county how it came to this,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “I’m surprised that this is the hill we’re going to die on, in terms of not respecting religious liberty.”
In 2022, after introducing several LGBTQ-themed books into the language arts curriculum, the school board allowed parents to opt-out if the content was deemed objectionable as a matter of faith. One year later, officials reversed course and said an opt-out program had become unwieldy and ran counter to values of inclusion.
“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” Kavanaugh said later. “The whole goal of some of our religious precedents is to look for the win/win.”
Justice Samuel Alito, who appeared most sympathetic to the parents, said he believes the five books in question — out of more than 100 in the school curriculum — “have a clear message” and that “a lot of people disagree with it.”
“What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” Alito asked Alan Schoenfeld, the county’s attorney. “Why is it not administrable? They are able to opt-out of the health class, right?”
Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether elementary school students could realistically be assumed to understand that a presentation of the books was different than a teacher’s endorsement of them.
“I understand the idea when you’re talking about a sophomore, a junior, whatever, in high school,” Roberts said, “but I’m not sure that same qualifying factor applies when you’re talking about five-year-olds.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the board may have exhibited discriminatory “hostility” toward religion in reversing course on the opt-outs, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared inclined to believe the board’s distinct purpose was to coerce children into accepting beliefs about sexuality.
“It was part of the curriculum to teach them that boys can be girls or boys can — or that your pronouns can change depending on how you feel one day to the next?” Barrett asked skeptically.
“Federal courts are not meant to sit as school boards in deciding these curriculum disputes,” Schoenfeld said later, noting that the Montgomery County board was democratically elected by local residents.
The court’s three liberal justices all vigorously challenged the parents’ request in the case, seeing opt-out rights as a slippery slope.
Sotomayor said the list of potential religiously offensive content is limitless, from depictions of women who work, to stories involving divorce, pictures of interfaith marriage, even teachings around evolution.
Justice Elena Kagan said the constitutional right parents are claiming is remarkably broad. “I’m searching for what in the legal arguments would allow us to draw lines in this area, and I’m not finding it,” Kagan said. “It’ll be like opt-outs for everyone.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson worried aloud that a decision siding with the parents could have far-reaching implications beyond books.
She asked about a gay teacher with a photo of his wedding on a desk, or a student group putting “love is love” posters around the campus, or about exposure to a transgender student in the classroom, where a teacher refers to them by their preferred pronouns?
“Is it a burden for a religious student who is being taught at home and through their religion that gender is not a situation that can be changed … to be in a public school classroom where the teacher is referring to another student by what this student believes is the wrong pronoun?” Jackson asked.
“That would, in fact, constitute a burden on religious exercise,” replied Baxter, implying such a student might have a case for an opt-out.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
The Democratic National Committee — continuing its push to host town halls in Republican-held districts — is announcing a new set of town halls focused on the Republican-led budget bill and featuring high-profile officials such as Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., ABC News has learned exclusively.
These “People’s Town Halls,” which will be held during Congress’ two-week April recess that begins next week, comes as Democrats look to hammer Republicans and the White House and to reach out to voters over economic concerns and affordability.
The Democrats are focusing in large part on a budget blueprint that President Donald Trump has said will help his administration’s priorities, including tax cuts and border security investments.
But that bill has been criticized by Democrats as potentially leading to cuts to key programs Americans rely on, such as health care or food assistance, during a time of economic uncertainty.
“In both red and blue communities, people are sick and tired of Donald Trump and Elon Musk destroying the economy, threatening health care and Social Security, and making life worse for families,” DNC chair Ken Martin said in a statement.
“In April, we’re doubling down with leading Democratic voices joining even more town halls in key districts across the country. Republicans still want to pretend like their constituents don’t exist, but we believe Americans deserve to have their voices heard.”
Republicans have argued that the budget blueprint does not and will not threaten any benefits or entitlements, and Trump has said his administration will not cut or threaten Social Security benefits. Republicans have also pushed back against claims they are not hosting town halls, saying that they are continuing to host in-person events or are hearing from constituents by phone and virtually. Some members have faced fierce pushback from constituents at their events.
The Democratic Party town halls during the recess are set to feature high-profile congressional figures — including Booker, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, Arizona Rep. Greg Stanton and Florida Rep. Maxwell Frost, according to the DNC.
Booker received heightened attention in early April after breaking a Congressional record, speaking for more than 24 hours in a marathon speech on the Senate floor protesting the national “crisis” he said President Donald Trump and key advisor Elon Musk had created.
“The Democratic Party is at its weakest when it’s concerned about the party. It’s at its strongest when it’s concerned about the people, when it’s bigger and broader than any narrow, political analysis,” Booker told ABC News’ “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos on Sunday.
The Democratic town halls will be held during the recess on April 13 in Arizona’s 6th District, on April 22 in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, on April 24 in Colorado’s 8th District and North Carolina’s 9th District, and on April 25 in Missouri’s 2nd District.
Two of those districts — Pennsylvania’s 8th, represented by Rep. Robert Bresnahan, and Colorado’s 8th, represented by Rep. Gabe Evans, were flipped by Republicans in the 2024 election.
North Carolina’s 9th District is represented by Rep. Richard Hudson, the chair of the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC). In March, Hudson encouraged House Republicans to do more virtual events instead of in-person town halls, although the NRCC said this was a suggestion to help members reach more constituents.
The Democrats’ new batch of town halls is also a joint effort between the DNC and two of its affiliates, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Association of State Democratic Committees (ASDC).
“While vulnerable Republicans continue to run scared because they’re voting to raise costs, gut Medicaid, and threaten working families livelihoods, we’re going to make sure voters know they don’t have to wait until Election Day to hold them accountable,” DCCC chair Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., said in a statement.
According to the DNC, those three arms of the party have hosted 71 town halls in 35 states and territories in the past three weeks altogether, with tens of thousands of attendees overall.
ABC News’ Mariam Khan, Lauren Peller and Isabella Murray contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s challenge to his “one of a kind” felony hush money conviction in New York should be removed from state appellate courts and heard in federal court, an attorney for the president argued Wednesday.
Just over a year after Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard arguments Wednesday on Trump’s efforts to move his appeal of the verdict from state court to federal court.
“The federal officer is entitled to a federal forum, not to have those arguments heard in state court,” attorney Jeffrey Wall told the three-judge panel. “And if that’s true for a normal federal officer in a normal criminal prosecution, it certainly ought to be true for the president of the United States and for what we can all recognize is an anomalous one of its kind prosecution.”
Trump was convicted last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.
New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, sentenced him to an unconditional discharge — the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law — saying it was the “only lawful sentence” to prevent “encroaching upon the highest office in the land.”
At Wednesday’s hearing, an attorney for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Steven Wu, argued that it’s now too late to move the case.
“After sentencing, removal is no longer available,” Wu said during oral arguments.
Wu also argued the purpose of removal is to decide where to hold the trial.
“It is not to divert a state criminal proceeding into a federal court for direct appellate review,” Wu said.
Wall, who served as an acting solicitor general in Trump’s first administration, argued that the time limit to ask for removal to federal court does not apply if Trump can show good cause.
“Why shouldn’t we be looking for some more specific signs that Congress actually intended this?” Judge Susan Carney asked.
“It’s the first-ever prosecution by a district attorney of a president,” Wall responded. “As long as you have colorable federal defenses, and it has something to do with your job, you get to come into federal court notwithstanding the state’s interest.”
Trump’s lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included “official acts” undertaken while he was president, and that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts — which was decided after Trump was convicted in May — would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction.
“There was evidence that came in at trial that triggered federal immunity,” Wall told the appellate panel.
Wu countered that the evidence offered involved discussion about a crime that related to Trump’s actions before he became president.
“It’s a highly unusual case, would you agree with that?” Judge Raymond Lohier asked.
“This defendant is a very unusual defendant,” Wu conceded — but he argued that should not automatically usurp the state’s interest in enforcing its laws.
The judges did not immediately rule, but said they would take the arguments under advisement.
If the appeals court grants Trump’s request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
Although Trump has in the past asserted that, as president, he would have the right to pardon himself for federal offenses, Pace University Law School professor Bennett Gershman told ABC News that would not apply in this case.
“It’s still a state crime — you’re now just talking about where the case is litigated,” Gershman said. “I’m not even sure that pardoning yourself is even allowed, but that’s an open question that’s never been addressed.”
