Philly-based appeals court appears divided over ICE policy of detaining nearly all undocumented immigrants

PHILADELPHIA — A Philadelphia federal appeals court appeared divided Monday about whether a controversial policy mandating detention for nearly all undocumented immigrants is legal.

During oral arguments before a three-judge panel inside a Philadelphia courtroom, the judges repeatedly pressed attorneys about whether and how federal immigration law offers different considerations to undocumented immigrants who have recently crossed the border when compared to those who have been in the country for years.

While much of the high-stakes hearing focused on arcane legal issues and specific wording within various statutes, tensions were raised when U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore A. McKee pressed Justice Department lawyer Charles Roberts on whether undocumented immigrants can be detained indefinitely without recourse under the policy. Roberts seemed reluctant to provide a definitive response.

“You need to answer the question because I’m asking you the question,” said McKee, an appointee of then-President Bill Clinton. “That’s why you’re standing there.”

Roberts said subject was not at the core of the issues being discussed Monday. Instead, he said, the heart of the matter is whether federal law permits authorities to detain undocumented immigrants and hold them as their cases proceed through immigration court — something Roberts said is legal.

An attorney for two men challenging that position called that “dead wrong,” saying the law provides different standards for how and when immigrants can be detained depending on how recently they’ve entered the country, and depending on which legal avenues they may be using in trying to stay.

The law “recognizes the reality that once people live here and establish deep ties to family and community here in the country, they’re differently situated particularly from a detention perspective,” said Michael Tan of the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case on behalf of two immigrants challenging the policy.

The mandatory detention policy was rolled out by President Donald Trump’s administration last year, and has led to an avalanche of lawsuits by immigrants who challenged their incarceration and demanded a bond hearing. Philadelphia’s federal judges have granted these requests, known as habeas corpus petitions, at near-universal rates.

The flood of litigation challenging the policy has occurred across the country. And so far, five circuit courts have ruled on the issue — with a variety of opinions.

—The Philadelphia Inquirer

Supreme Court extends order allowing abortion pills by mail

WASHINGTON— The U.S. Supreme Court extended a temporary order that lets medical providers keep dispensing a widely used abortion pill by mail while the justices debate privately how to handle the issue.

The order keeps a pause on a federal appeals court decision that would require patients to visit a provider in person to get a prescription for mifepristone. The new Supreme Court order lasts until May 14.

Louisiana is seeking to upend the Food and Drug Administration’s decision during Joe Biden’s presidency to permit remote prescriptions for mifepristone. The state says regulators gave short shrift to safety concerns.

Mifepristone has been available by mail since 2021, when the FDA said it would stop enforcing the in-person rule because of the pandemic. The FDA formally lifted the requirement in 2023.

The clash has threatened to upend abortion access nationwide. Pill-induced abortions accounted for 63% of all abortions in 2023, and mifepristone was used in the vast majority of cases, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports reproductive rights. Louisiana and other states with abortion bans say remote prescriptions are undermining those laws.

The drug’s manufacturers, Danco Laboratories LLC and GenBioPro Inc., asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying in separate requests that the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals created chaos by restricting access to mifepristone even in states where abortion is legal. The companies say the FDA acted based on a wealth of evidence that mifepristone is safe without an in-person visit.

The cases are Danco v. Louisiana, 25a1207, and GenBioPro v. Louisiana, 25a1208.

—Bloomberg News

Israel will prosecute Oct. 7 suspects in Eichmann-style tribunal

JERUSALEM— Israel’s parliament approved a special military tribunal for hundreds of Palestinians accused of taking part in the attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, some of whom could face execution.

The prosecution plan approved Monday recalls aspects of the 1961-1962 trial of Nazi mastermind Adolf Eichmann, which Israeli leaders at the time viewed as an opportunity for the young state, and for international audiences, to confront the crimes of the Holocaust. His conviction upheld on appeal, Eichmann was hanged.

Proponents say the Oct. 7 tribunal could bring similar closure to Israelis who are still reeling from the attacks — and feuding over how it blindsided the government.

Around 1,200 people were killed and 250 others were abducted in the Hamas-led raid on Israeli border villages and army bases. Some victims were burned alive or dismembered, first responders said. A U.N. report found “reasonable grounds” to believe sexual violence, including gang rape, occurred at multiple locations.

Justice Minister Yariv Levin said the scale of the Oct. 7 rampage, and the prospect of multiple death sentences in a country that has carried out capital punishment only once, necessitated the special legislation.

“Thus will justice be done and the story of this terrible massacre recounted to the whole world, for generations,” he told reporters.

Ninety-three of the Knesset’s 120 lawmakers voted in favor. Among those dissenting was Ahmad Tibi, a member of Israel’s Palestinian minority who told the plenum that he had lost relatives in Gaza. “I don’t exploit it for politics and I’m not seeking revenge,” he said.

—Bloomberg News

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer losing fight to stay in power as rebellion spreads

LONDON — Keir Starmer was facing a decision to step down as prime minister as dozens of members of Parliament, including his own home secretary, joined the calls for him to set out a time table for his departure.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has overseen Starmer’s controversial immigration crackdown, told the prime minister that he should consider laying out a plan for a successor, according to people familiar with the matter. The Home Office didn’t respond to a request for comment on the exchange, which was first reported by the Times newspaper. No. 10 Downing St. declined to comment.

The addition of Mahmood to the ranks of those calling for Starmer to resign signals a new level of peril for the prime minister in the wake of Labour’s disastrous performance in last week’s local elections. She was among more than 70 members of Parliament who had urged the prime minister to step aside, with many speaking up in the hours after the prime minister announced his plans for a reset on Monday.

Such critics included Joe Morris, a ministerial aide of Health Secretary Wes Streeting, and Streeting’s constituency neighbor Jas Athwal, leading to intense speculation in Labour that the health secretary was preparing to challenge Starmer. Around half a dozen other ministerial aides also resigned Monday.

Mahmood’s comments follow a similar overture by Energy Secretary Ed Miliband in recent weeks. A Labour official said they believed several more Cabinet members were ready to tell the premier he needed to set a timetable for his departure. Starmer is due to chair a regularly scheduled meeting of his Cabinet on Tuesday morning.

A turbulent day began with a speech by Starmer aimed at saving his premiership, after his party lost control of the Welsh parliament and almost three of every five English council seats it was defending on Thursday. But the intervention fell flat among Labour lawmakers, doing little to improve his prospects of survival.

—Bloomberg News