Florida
Attorneys urge judge to visit ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ to assess detainees’ access to lawyers
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Attorneys for detainees at an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” want a federal judge to make an unscheduled, in-person visit to the facility to see firsthand if they are getting sufficient access to their lawyers.
Attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on Friday to make the visit within the next two months to help assess whether detainees are allowed to meet with their attorneys in a confidential and regular manner. The facility was built this summer at a remote airstrip in the Florida Everglades by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration.
The detainees’ federal lawsuit claims that their attorneys have to make an appointment to visit three days in advance, unlike at other immigration detention facilities where lawyers can just show up during visiting hours; that detainees often are transferred to other facilities after their attorneys had made an appointment to see them; and that scheduling delays have been so lengthy that detainees were unable to meet with attorneys before key deadlines.
“Federal courts routinely conduct site visits as a valid fact-finding tool, especially in cases involving conditions of confinement,” the detainees’ attorneys wrote in their request.
But attorneys for the state of Florida “strenuously” objected to a visit, saying a federal judge doesn’t have authority to inspect a state facility and a visit would pose significant security risks.
“It would also impose a large burden on facility staff and significantly interrupt the facility’s operations,” attorneys for the state of Florida said.
As of Monday, the judge hadn’t ruled on the request.
The judge, who is based in Fort Myers, Florida, ordered the detainees’ lawyers and attorneys for the state and federal government to meet last week in an effort to resolve the case. But they were unable to reach a resolution despite nine hours of talks.
The case over access to the legal system is one of three federal lawsuits challenging practices at the immigration detention center. Another lawsuit brought by detainees in federal court in Fort Myers argues that immigration is a federal issue, and Florida agencies and private contractors hired by the state have no authority to operate the facility under federal law. A judge last week denied a request by the detainees for a preliminary injunction to close the facility.
In the third lawsuit, a federal judge in Miami last summer ordered the facility to wind down operations over two months because officials had failed to do a review of the detention center’s environmental impact. But an appellate court panel put that decision on hold for the time being, allowing the facility to stay open.
Detainees at the facility have complained about toilets that don’t flush, flooding floors with fecal waste, and mosquitoes and other insects that are everywhere. President Donald Trump toured the detention center last summer, suggesting it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration races to expand the infrastructure necessary for increasing deportations.
Washington
Ex-CIA director wants ‘favored’ Trump judge kept away from Justice Dept. inquiry
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for former CIA Director John Brennan want the Justice Department to be prevented from steering an investigation of him and other former government officials to a “favored” judge in Florida who dismissed the classified documents case against President Donald Trump.
The request Monday is addressed to U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga, the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, where federal prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation related to the U.S. government assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Brennan and other officials have received subpoenas and Brennan’s lawyer say he’s been advised by prosecutors that he’s a target of the investigation.
Brennan’s lawyers say the Justice Department is engaged in “judge-shopping” and trying to arrange for the case to be handled by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who issued favorable rulings to Trump during the classified documents case and dismissed it last year. The letter asks Altonaga to exercise her “supervisory authority” as chief judge to ensure that the Justice Department is unable to steer the current election interference investigation into her courtroom.
“In short, we are seeking assurance that any litigation arising out of this grand jury proceeding will be heard by a judge who is selected by the court’s neutral and impartial processes, not by the prosecution’s self-interested maneuvering contrary to the interests of justice,” wrote Brennan’s attorneys, Kenneth Wainstein and Natasha Harnwell-Davis. The New York Times earlier reported on the letter.
It remains unclear what crime prosecutors in Florida believe was committed, but the subpoenas issued last month to Brennan and other former law enforcement and intelligence officials sought documents related to the preparation of the Obama administration’s intelligence community assessment, made public in January 2017, that detailed how Russia waged a covert influence campaign to help Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Trump was investigated, but not charged, during his first term over whether his campaign conspired with Russia to tip the outcome of the election. He has long sought retribution over the Russia investigation and the officials who played a key part in it.
His Justice Department in September secured a false statement and obstruction indictment against James Comey, the FBI director at the time the Russia probe was launched, though the case against him was dismissed and its future is in doubt thanks to a judge’s ruling that blocked prosecutors from accessing materials they considered to be key evidence.
Brennan’s lawyers say the Trump administration Justice Department tried to “forum-shop” the investigation into him to multiple jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, before settling in Florida. But they say prosecutors have been unable to answer basic questions about why Florida is a proper venue for the investigation given that the intelligence community assessment at issue was produced by officials in the Washington, D.C., area.
The grand jury investigation is currently based in the Miami division of the Southern District of Florida, but Brennan’s lawyers say they’re concerned that the Trump administration may be poised to transfer the case to the smaller Fort Pierce division, where Cannon is the only judge. They cited as a basis for that alarm a Justice Department decision to seek an additional grand jury in Fort Pierce even though there’s no apparent caseload need.
“The United States Attorney’s efforts to funnel this investigation to the judge who issued this string of rulings that consistently favored President Trump’s positions in previous litigations should be seen for what it is,” Brennan’s lawyers wrote.
Washington
Trump administration sues District of Columbia over its gun laws
The Trump administration is suing the local government of Washington, D.C., over its gun laws, alleging that restrictions on certain semiautomatic weapons run afoul of Second Amendment rights.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed its lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, naming Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department and outgoing Chief of Police Pamela Smith as defendants and setting up another potentially seismic clash on how broadly the courts interpret individual gun possession rights.
“The United States of America brings this lawsuit to protect the rights that have been guaranteed for 234 years and which the Supreme Court has explicitly reaffirmed several times over the last two decades,” the Justice Department states.
It’s the second such lawsuit the administration has filed this month: The Justice Department also is suing the U.S. Virgin Islands, alleging the U.S. territory is obstructing and systematically denying American citizens the right to possess and carry guns.
It’s also the latest clash between the District of Columbia and the federal government, which launched an ongoing law enforcement intervention into the nation’s capital over the summer, which was meant to fight crime. The district’s attorney general is challenging the deployment of the National Guard to the city as part of the intervention in court.
In Washington, Metropolitan Police Department spokesman Sean Hickman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The Justice Department asserts that the District is imposing unconstitutional bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons the administration says are legal to posses under the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller precedent, which also originated from a dispute over weapons restrictions in the nation’s capital.
In that seminal case, the court ruled that private citizens have an individual right to own and operate weapons “in common use today,” regardless of whether they are part of what Second Amendment text refers to as a “well regulated militia.”
“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms,” the majority reasoned. The justices added a caveat: “Of course, the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”
The Justice Department argues that the District has gone too far in trying to limit weapons possession under that caveat. Administration lawyers emphasize the Heller reference to weapons “in common use today,” saying it applies to firearms that District of Columbia residents cannot now register. Those restrictions in turn subject residents to criminal penalties for unregistered firearms, the administration asserts.
“Specifically, the District denies law-abiding citizens the ability to register a wide variety of commonly used semi-automatic firearms, such as the Colt AR-15 series rifles, which is among the most popular of firearms in America, and a variety of other semi-automatic rifles and pistols that are in common use,” Justice Department lawyers write.
“D.C’s current semi-automatic firearms prohibition that bans many commonly used pistols, rifles or shotguns is based on little more than cosmetics, appearance, or the ability to attach accessories,” the suit continues, “and fails to take into account whether the prohibited weapon is ‘in common use today’ or that law-abiding citizens may use these weapons for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment.”
The Justice Department does not include any individual plaintiffs from Washington, D.C., alleging any violations of their constitutional rights. That’s different from the Heller case, which is named for Dick Heller, a Washingtonian who filed a civil lawsuit challenging the city’s handgun ban in 2003.
The administration argues in the suit that it has jurisdiction to challenge current District laws under the sweeping federal crime law of 1994.
Attorneys urge judge to visit ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ to assess detainees’ access to lawyers
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Attorneys for detainees at an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” want a federal judge to make an unscheduled, in-person visit to the facility to see firsthand if they are getting sufficient access to their lawyers.
Attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on Friday to make the visit within the next two months to help assess whether detainees are allowed to meet with their attorneys in a confidential and regular manner. The facility was built this summer at a remote airstrip in the Florida Everglades by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration.
The detainees’ federal lawsuit claims that their attorneys have to make an appointment to visit three days in advance, unlike at other immigration detention facilities where lawyers can just show up during visiting hours; that detainees often are transferred to other facilities after their attorneys had made an appointment to see them; and that scheduling delays have been so lengthy that detainees were unable to meet with attorneys before key deadlines.
“Federal courts routinely conduct site visits as a valid fact-finding tool, especially in cases involving conditions of confinement,” the detainees’ attorneys wrote in their request.
But attorneys for the state of Florida “strenuously” objected to a visit, saying a federal judge doesn’t have authority to inspect a state facility and a visit would pose significant security risks.
“It would also impose a large burden on facility staff and significantly interrupt the facility’s operations,” attorneys for the state of Florida said.
As of Monday, the judge hadn’t ruled on the request.
The judge, who is based in Fort Myers, Florida, ordered the detainees’ lawyers and attorneys for the state and federal government to meet last week in an effort to resolve the case. But they were unable to reach a resolution despite nine hours of talks.
The case over access to the legal system is one of three federal lawsuits challenging practices at the immigration detention center. Another lawsuit brought by detainees in federal court in Fort Myers argues that immigration is a federal issue, and Florida agencies and private contractors hired by the state have no authority to operate the facility under federal law. A judge last week denied a request by the detainees for a preliminary injunction to close the facility.
In the third lawsuit, a federal judge in Miami last summer ordered the facility to wind down operations over two months because officials had failed to do a review of the detention center’s environmental impact. But an appellate court panel put that decision on hold for the time being, allowing the facility to stay open.
Detainees at the facility have complained about toilets that don’t flush, flooding floors with fecal waste, and mosquitoes and other insects that are everywhere. President Donald Trump toured the detention center last summer, suggesting it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration races to expand the infrastructure necessary for increasing deportations.
Washington
Ex-CIA director wants ‘favored’ Trump judge kept away from Justice Dept. inquiry
WASHINGTON (AP) — Lawyers for former CIA Director John Brennan want the Justice Department to be prevented from steering an investigation of him and other former government officials to a “favored” judge in Florida who dismissed the classified documents case against President Donald Trump.
The request Monday is addressed to U.S. District Judge Cecilia Altonaga, the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, where federal prosecutors have launched a criminal investigation related to the U.S. government assessment of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Brennan and other officials have received subpoenas and Brennan’s lawyer say he’s been advised by prosecutors that he’s a target of the investigation.
Brennan’s lawyers say the Justice Department is engaged in “judge-shopping” and trying to arrange for the case to be handled by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who issued favorable rulings to Trump during the classified documents case and dismissed it last year. The letter asks Altonaga to exercise her “supervisory authority” as chief judge to ensure that the Justice Department is unable to steer the current election interference investigation into her courtroom.
“In short, we are seeking assurance that any litigation arising out of this grand jury proceeding will be heard by a judge who is selected by the court’s neutral and impartial processes, not by the prosecution’s self-interested maneuvering contrary to the interests of justice,” wrote Brennan’s attorneys, Kenneth Wainstein and Natasha Harnwell-Davis. The New York Times earlier reported on the letter.
It remains unclear what crime prosecutors in Florida believe was committed, but the subpoenas issued last month to Brennan and other former law enforcement and intelligence officials sought documents related to the preparation of the Obama administration’s intelligence community assessment, made public in January 2017, that detailed how Russia waged a covert influence campaign to help Trump defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
Trump was investigated, but not charged, during his first term over whether his campaign conspired with Russia to tip the outcome of the election. He has long sought retribution over the Russia investigation and the officials who played a key part in it.
His Justice Department in September secured a false statement and obstruction indictment against James Comey, the FBI director at the time the Russia probe was launched, though the case against him was dismissed and its future is in doubt thanks to a judge’s ruling that blocked prosecutors from accessing materials they considered to be key evidence.
Brennan’s lawyers say the Trump administration Justice Department tried to “forum-shop” the investigation into him to multiple jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania, before settling in Florida. But they say prosecutors have been unable to answer basic questions about why Florida is a proper venue for the investigation given that the intelligence community assessment at issue was produced by officials in the Washington, D.C., area.
The grand jury investigation is currently based in the Miami division of the Southern District of Florida, but Brennan’s lawyers say they’re concerned that the Trump administration may be poised to transfer the case to the smaller Fort Pierce division, where Cannon is the only judge. They cited as a basis for that alarm a Justice Department decision to seek an additional grand jury in Fort Pierce even though there’s no apparent caseload need.
“The United States Attorney’s efforts to funnel this investigation to the judge who issued this string of rulings that consistently favored President Trump’s positions in previous litigations should be seen for what it is,” Brennan’s lawyers wrote.
Washington
Trump administration sues District of Columbia over its gun laws
The Trump administration is suing the local government of Washington, D.C., over its gun laws, alleging that restrictions on certain semiautomatic weapons run afoul of Second Amendment rights.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed its lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, naming Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department and outgoing Chief of Police Pamela Smith as defendants and setting up another potentially seismic clash on how broadly the courts interpret individual gun possession rights.
“The United States of America brings this lawsuit to protect the rights that have been guaranteed for 234 years and which the Supreme Court has explicitly reaffirmed several times over the last two decades,” the Justice Department states.
It’s the second such lawsuit the administration has filed this month: The Justice Department also is suing the U.S. Virgin Islands, alleging the U.S. territory is obstructing and systematically denying American citizens the right to possess and carry guns.
It’s also the latest clash between the District of Columbia and the federal government, which launched an ongoing law enforcement intervention into the nation’s capital over the summer, which was meant to fight crime. The district’s attorney general is challenging the deployment of the National Guard to the city as part of the intervention in court.
In Washington, Metropolitan Police Department spokesman Sean Hickman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
The Justice Department asserts that the District is imposing unconstitutional bans on AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons the administration says are legal to posses under the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller precedent, which also originated from a dispute over weapons restrictions in the nation’s capital.
In that seminal case, the court ruled that private citizens have an individual right to own and operate weapons “in common use today,” regardless of whether they are part of what Second Amendment text refers to as a “well regulated militia.”
“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms,” the majority reasoned. The justices added a caveat: “Of course, the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not.”
The Justice Department argues that the District has gone too far in trying to limit weapons possession under that caveat. Administration lawyers emphasize the Heller reference to weapons “in common use today,” saying it applies to firearms that District of Columbia residents cannot now register. Those restrictions in turn subject residents to criminal penalties for unregistered firearms, the administration asserts.
“Specifically, the District denies law-abiding citizens the ability to register a wide variety of commonly used semi-automatic firearms, such as the Colt AR-15 series rifles, which is among the most popular of firearms in America, and a variety of other semi-automatic rifles and pistols that are in common use,” Justice Department lawyers write.
“D.C’s current semi-automatic firearms prohibition that bans many commonly used pistols, rifles or shotguns is based on little more than cosmetics, appearance, or the ability to attach accessories,” the suit continues, “and fails to take into account whether the prohibited weapon is ‘in common use today’ or that law-abiding citizens may use these weapons for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment.”
The Justice Department does not include any individual plaintiffs from Washington, D.C., alleging any violations of their constitutional rights. That’s different from the Heller case, which is named for Dick Heller, a Washingtonian who filed a civil lawsuit challenging the city’s handgun ban in 2003.
The administration argues in the suit that it has jurisdiction to challenge current District laws under the sweeping federal crime law of 1994.
