HAMAS new ceasefire proposal - Dropsite News

 Hamas has responded to the Israelis with a new “termsheet” found below after the Dropsite summary of the state of the Israel-Hamas negotiations.

- GWC

Hamas has submitted a new proposal for a Gaza ceasefire that the group says “aims to achieve a permanent ceasefire, a comprehensive withdrawal [of Israeli forces] from the Gaza Strip, and ensure the flow of aid to our people and our families in the Gaza Strip.” The thirteen point document, obtained by Drop Site, represents Hamas’s official response to an Israeli proposal for a 60-day temporary truce circulated Thursday by President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff.

Among the terms Hamas wants included in any deal are a guarantee that as long as Palestinian resistance forces hold their fire, negotiations for a complete end to the genocide will continue beyond a 60-day initial truce and that this would be guaranteed by the U.S., Egypt and Qatar. “The United States and President Trump are committed to working diligently to ensure the continuation of negotiations until a final agreement is reached,” the document says.

Hamas also wants the immediate resumption of aid deliveries in accordance with the protocols established in the original January ceasefire deal, as well as guarantees that the flow of aid—distributed primarily by the UN and Red Crescent—will not be shut off by Israel as long as negotiations continue. The mediators “will ensure that negotiations continue until a permanent ceasefire agreement is reached, along with the ongoing cessation of hostilities and the entry of humanitarian aid,” the document says.

Hamas’s proposal would require an immediate and complete halt to all Israeli military activity in Gaza and an initial withdrawal of Israeli troops to their positions prior to March 2, when Israel abandoned the original January ceasefire agreement and imposed a full spectrum blockade on Gaza. The proposal calls for all Israeli aerial activity, military and reconnaissance, to halt for ten hours per day and 12 hours on days when exchanges of captives occur.

Under Hamas’s framework, Trump would announce the ceasefire deal and state that he is committed to preserving the ceasefire until a final resolution is reached. Witkoff, according to the proposal, would travel to the region to chair the negotiations. Hamas dropped a term, contained in an earlier agreement, that would have seen Witkoff personally shake hands with Hamas’s lead negotiator Khalil Al Hayya, as well as one that said Trump would thank all parties, including Hamas, for their work in achieving a deal.

Hamas’s draft reintroduces terms from a deal that Hamas said it made with Witkoff on May 25. Israel rejected that document and four days later, on May 29, Witkoff and Israel announced new terms, which would permit Israel to resume its genocidal war after 60 days and to keep its forces entrenched deep inside Gaza. It contained no guarantees for allowing the unrestricted flow of food, medicine, fuel and other life essentials to the Gaza Strip.

In a post on X Saturday, soon after he received Hamas’s response, Witkoff denounced Hamas’s draft. “It is totally unacceptable and only takes us backward. Hamas should accept the framework proposal we put forward as the basis for proximity talks, which we can begin immediately this coming week,” Witkoff wrote. “That is the only way we can close a 60-day ceasefire deal in the coming days… and in which we can have at the proximity talks substantive negotiations in good-faith to try to reach a permanent ceasefire.”

Senior Hamas official Basem Naim disputed Witkoff’s characterization. “We did not reject Mr. Witkoff’s proposal. We agreed with him on a proposal, which he deemed acceptable for negotiation. We then received the other party's response (the Israelis) through Mr. Witkoff, which rejected all that we had agreed upon with him,” Naim told Drop Site. “Nevertheless, we responded positively and responsibly, responding to him in a manner that fulfilled the aspirations and demands of our people. Why is the Israeli response considered the only response for negotiation? This violates the integrity and fairness of mediation and constitutes a complete bias towards the other side.”

Netanyahu echoed Witkoff’s rejection of Hamas’s proposal, saying in a statement, “It is unacceptable and sets the process back. Israel will continue its efforts to bring our hostages home and to defeat Hamas.”

Drop Site depends on reader support. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

In its new ceasefire outline, Hamas reinserted language that Witkoff and Israel removed from the May 25 agreement that stated that Hamas would relinquish its governance of Gaza to an independent technical committee of Palestinians to administer all affairs in Gaza and to coordinate reconstruction. Hamas has consistently said it would give up power as part of a long term ceasefire deal. “An independent technocratic committee will immediately assume management of all affairs of the Gaza Strip upon the start of the agreement’s implementation, with full authority and responsibilities,” the proposal states.

Among the new terms Hamas proposed was that the Rafah crossing on the border with Egypt be reopened and the free flow of people and commercial goods into Gaza would be permitted “without any restrictions.” The Rafah crossing represents the only gateway Gaza’s residents have to the outside world—as the rest of the Strip is encircled by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear he does not intend to allow the re-opening of the crossing and has bragged in recent days that the Witkoff “term sheet” Israel endorsed allows Israeli forces to retain control of the crossing.

Hamas also called for immediate reconstruction to begin on hospitals, clinics, schools, bakeries and other essential sites destroyed in Israel’s war, as well as the rehabilitation of electricity, water, sewage, telecommunications, and roads “in all areas of the Strip.”

Hamas proposed the commencement of immediate negotiations to achieve a long term truce, which it described as, “A cessation of mutual (hostile) military operations between the two parties for a long period of 5-7 years, guaranteed by the mediators (the United States, Egypt, and Qatar).” It also called for a massive 3-5 year reconstruction effort to rebuild Gaza that would “be implemented under the supervision of several countries and organizations, including Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations.”

Hamas’s proposal would result in the same number of Israeli captives released in the initial 60-day period outlined in the Witkoff-Israel proposal and the deal made between Witkoff and Hamas: ten living Israelis and the bodies of 18 deceased. But in its new draft, Hamas proposes the releases be staggered over the course of two months, rather than one week. Witkoff’s framework says that five living Israeli captives would be released on day one of a deal and the remaining five on day seven.

Hamas says it wants the releases spread out over two months to prevent Netanyahu from resuming the war after the first week of a deal: four on day one, two on day 30 and four on day 60. “The release of the living prisoners and bodies will take place simultaneously and according to an agreed-upon mechanism,” the document states. Hamas would also agree to return the bodies of 18 Israelis, the same number as Witkoff’s term sheet, though these would also be staggered over a 50-day period.

The Hamas document does not specify the number of Palestinian captives that would be freed in exchange for the Israelis held in Gaza, but officials have told Drop Site they expect the formulas used in previous exchanges would apply. “On the tenth day, Hamas will provide information on the numbers of living and dead prisoners remaining in Hamas and the Palestine factions’ custody. In return, Israel will provide full information on all living and dead prisoners captured from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023,” the document states.

“Hamas commits to ensuring the health, care, and security of Israeli detainees immediately upon the commencement of the ceasefire,” it adds. “In return, Israel commits to ensuring the health, care, and security of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons and detention centers, in accordance with international law and norms.” In the Israeli-Witkoff proposal, only Hamas would have been required to commit to the care and security of the captives it holds. Israeli guarantees about the treatment of Palestinian captives were not included.

Hamas states that negotiations for a permanent ceasefire should be completed during the 60-day truce. After an agreement is announced and the “complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the entire Gaza Strip” is enacted, Hamas would free all remaining Israeli captives “in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners.”

Hamas’s proposal is presented in the same 13-point structure as the previous framework, which Witkoff referred to as a “term sheet.” It contains a range of amendments and terms that largely seek to return the ceasefire negotiations to the spirit of the original deal signed on January 17, which Israel unilaterally abandoned after the first phase of what was supposed to be a three-phase deal spanning 126 days.

Hamas said that its new proposal was crafted after extensive consultations with a range of Palestinian political factions and parties and that the document was crafted out of an “immense sense of responsibility towards our people and their suffering.”

Hamas officials have consistently told Drop Site they will not agree to any proposal that does not include a clearly defined framework for a total end to the genocide and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. Netanyahu has said Israel will not agree to terms that prevent it from resuming its war of annihilation against Gaza.

Below is an English translation of the complete Arabic text of Hamas’s ceasefire proposal made on May 31, 2025:

31 May 2025

Framework for Negotiating an Agreement to a Permanent Ceasefire

1. Duration: A 60-day ceasefire. President Trump guarantees Israel’s commitment to the ceasefire during the agreed-upon period.

2. Release of Israeli Prisoners and Bodies: 10 living Israeli prisoners and 18 bodies will be released. Four living prisoners will be released on the first day, two living prisoners on the 30th day, and four living prisoners on the 60th day. Six bodies will be handed over on the 10th day, six on the 30th day, and six on the 50th day.

3. Aid and the Humanitarian Situation:

a. Aid will be delivered to Gaza immediately upon approval of the ceasefire agreement, in accordance with the humanitarian protocol included in the January 19, 2025 agreement, through the United Nations, its agencies, and other organizations, including the Red Crescent.

b. Rehabilitation of infrastructure (electricity, water, sewage, telecommunications, and roads) and the entry of necessary materials, including construction materials, and the rehabilitation and operation of hospitals, health centers, schools, and bakeries in all areas of the Strip.

c. Allowing residents of the Strip to travel to and from the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing without any restrictions, and allowing the return of goods and trade movement.

d. During the negotiations period, arrangements and plans for the reconstruction of homes, facilities, and infrastructure destroyed during the war will be completed, as well as support for those affected by the war. A 3 to 5 year reconstruction plan for the Gaza Strip will be implemented under the supervision of several countries and organizations, including Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations.

4. Israeli Military Activities: All Israeli military activities in Gaza shall cease once this agreement enters into force. During the ceasefire period, aerial activity (military and reconnaissance) over the Gaza Strip will be suspended for 10 hours daily, and for 12 hours on days of prisoner and detainee exchanges.

5. Withdrawal of Israeli Forces: On the first day, four living Israeli prisoners will be released, provided that Israeli forces withdraw to their positions prior to March 2, 2025, in all areas of the Gaza Strip, in accordance with the maps stipulated in the January 19 2025 agreement.

6. Negotiations: On the first day, indirect negotiations will begin under the auspices of the mediators guaranteeing the permanent ceasefire, on the following topics:

a. Keys and conditions for the exchange of all remaining Israeli prisoners in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons.

b. Declaration of a permanent ceasefire and full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. (After agreement on the exchange of the remaining prisoners and bodies and before the start of the handover procedures, the permanent ceasefire and complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the entire Gaza Strip will be announced.)

c. Next-day arrangements in the Gaza Strip, including:

· An independent technocratic committee will immediately assume management of all affairs of the Gaza Strip upon the start of the agreement’s implementation, with full authority and responsibilities

· A cessation of mutual (hostile) military operations between the two parties for a long period of 5-7 years, guaranteed by the mediators (the United States, Egypt, and Qatar).

7. Presidential Support: The President is serious about the parties' commitment to the ceasefire agreement and insists that negotiations during the temporary ceasefire, if successfully concluded with an agreement between the parties, will lead to a permanent resolution of the conflict.

8. Release of Palestinian Prisoners and Bodies: In exchange for the release of the ten living Israeli prisoners and the 18 bodies, a mutually agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners and bodies will be released.

· The release of the living prisoners and bodies will take place simultaneously and according to an agreed-upon mechanism.

9. Status of Prisoners and Detainees:

a. On the tenth day, Hamas will provide information on the numbers of living and dead prisoners remaining in Hamas and the Palestine factions’ custody. In return, Israel will provide full information on all living and dead prisoners captured from the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023.

b. Hamas commits to ensuring the health, care, and security of Israeli detainees immediately upon the commencement of the ceasefire. In return, Israel commits to ensuring the health, care, and security of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons and detention centers, in accordance with international law and norms.

10. Release of Remaining Prisoners: Negotiations regarding a permanent ceasefire should be completed within 60 days. Upon agreement and after the declaration of a permanent ceasefire and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, the remaining prisoners (living and dead) from the list of 58 submitted by Israel will be released in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners.

11. Guarantors: The mediators (the United States, Egypt, and Qatar) will guarantee the continuation of the ceasefire for 60 days and will ensure that negotiations continue until a permanent ceasefire agreement is reached, along with the ongoing cessation of hostilities and the entry of humanitarian aid.

12. Envoy to Chair Negotiations: The Special Envoy, Ambassador Steve Witkoff, will travel to the region to finalize the agreement. Witkoff will chair the negotiations.

13. President Trump: President Trump will personally announce the ceasefire agreement: The United States and President Trump are committed to working diligently to ensure the continuation of negotiations until a final agreement is reached. 

Drop Site News is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber today.

Upgrade to paid

© 2025 Drop Site News, Inc.
Drop Site News Inc., 4315 50th St. NW
Ste 100 Unit #2560, Washington, DC 20016

HARVARD SUES TO RESTORE FUNDING

 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.283718/gov.uscourts.mad.283718.59.0.pdf?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Harvard lawyers in court on graduation day

 https://abcnews.go.com/US/graduation-day-harvards-lawyers-head-court-defend-foreign/story?id=122307706

Gov. Tim Walz to new law graduates

 https://youtu.be/NUgmSjQV9x0?si=qOtEhN_xFN3GxkWf

Everybody belongs and everyone is equal before the law.

Past Harvard President: Trump a threat to democracy

The Civil War era historian Drew Gilpin Faust, author of This Republic of Suffering, warns of the grave dangers to democracy posed by Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/may/26/former-harvard-president-drew-gilpin-faust-threats-to-democracy

Like "The Godfather" Trump makes demands they can't refuse.

 

The presiigious New York firms Paul Weiss (long time home of my mentor Jerome Cohen); and Skadden Arps (former home of Fordham's revered Dean John Feerick) both folded in the face of Trump demands.  The President extradcted commitments to pro bono work on issues presumably agreeable to Trump. Today read that the conservative lawyer and cable TV correspondent Greta Van Susteren is pressing Paul Weiss to take up the ause of a Marine Corps veteran.  The hundred of millions of dollars of free services promised to the Godfather will keep those firms on a short leash - reluctant, it seems certain, to challenge the President.

Unofrtunately they could have stood up to the bully, as did Jenner & Block, a 400+ member firm with with offices in Century City, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C.

Jenner's bourage has been rewarded by its victory before D.C. District Judge John Bates.  A former associate of Kenneth Starr who hounded Bill Clinton for his peccadillos and dissembling regarding Ms. Lewinsky, Bates declared:

 If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Trump's order obstructing Jenner's ability to do business witht he Unitd States was driven by a Trump personal vendetta.  His EO declares:

Jenner was “thrilled” to re-hire the unethical Andrew Weissmann after his time engaging in partisan prosecution as part of Robert Mueller’s entirely unjustified investigation.  Andrew Weissmann’s career has been rooted in weaponized government and abuse of power, 

This sort of personal vengeance is precisely what Trump on the occasion of hi re-election swore not todo.  He swore to "faithfully execute" the laws, as specified in the Constitution of the united States of America, Article I.

The consquences of such conduct are felt no only by the named targets - but by all of us who see in the United States a "shining city on a hill".  Unfortunatley the road to recovery will be long, and the outcome not a foregone concluion.

- GWC

 

Judge enjoins Trump demands v. Jenner & Block - Chicago law firm

Judge John D. Bates, D.D.C.

Senior Judge John D. Bates has since his 2001 appointment by George W. Bush,  made hundreds of decisions but none more consequential than the challege posed by Donald Trump.  A Trump Executive Order targeted the firm with csrippling restraints. Undeterred by the Chief Justice whose opinion in DOJ v. Trump exonerated Trump for crimes performed as part of his preseidential duties,  Thus freed, Trump has embarked on a rampage of Executive Orders and Proclamations.

Bates in his MEMORANDUM OPINION explains that in our constitutional order, few stars are as fixed as the principle that no official “can prescribe what shall be orthodox.  And in our constitutional order, few actors are as central to fixing that star odox in politics.”  as lawyers. 

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us

This case arises from one of a series of executive orders targeting law firms that, in one way or another, did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy. Like the others in the series, this order—which takes aim at the global law firm Jenner & Block— makes no bones about why it chose its target: it picked Jenner because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed. 

Going after law firms in this way is doubly violative of the Constitution. Most obviously, retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work—and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward—violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024). More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint discrimination.

- GWC

 

Harvard University Loses Student and Exchange Visitor Program Certification for Pro-Terrorist Conduct

Harvard is being held accountable for collaboration with the CCP, fostering violence, antisemitism, and pro-terrorist conduct from students on its campus.

WASHINGTON – Today, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered DHS to terminate the Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification.

This means Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.

Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students, and otherwise obstruct its once-venerable learning environment. Many of these agitators are foreign students. Harvard’s leadership further facilitated, and engaged in coordinated activity with the CCP, including hosting and training members of a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide.

“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” said Secretary Noem. “It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing. It refused. They have lost their Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification as a result of their failure to adhere to the law. Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country.”

On April 16, 2025, Secretary Noem demanded Harvard provide information about the criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus. Secretary Noem warned refusal to comply with this lawful order would result in SEVP termination.

This action comes after DHS terminated $2.7 million in DHS grants for Harvard last month.

Harvard University brazenly refused to provide the required information requested and ignored a follow up request from the Department’s Office of General Council. Secretary Noem is following through on her promise to protect students and prohibit terrorist sympathizers from receiving benefits from the U.S. government.

Facts about Harvard’s toxic campus climate:

• A joint-government task force found that Harvard has failed to confront pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus.
• Jewish students on campus were subject to pervasive insults, physical assault, and intimidation, with no meaningful response from Harvard’s leadership.
• A protester charged for his role in the assault of a Jewish student on campus was chosen by the Harvard Divinity School to be the Class Marshal for commencement.Harvard’s own 2025 internal study on anti-Semitism revealed that almost 60% of Jewish students reported experiencing “discrimination, stereotyping, or negative bias on campus due to [their] views on current events.”
• In one instance, a Jewish student speaker at a conference had planned to tell the story of his Holocaust survivor grandfather finding refuge in Israel. Organizers told the student the story was not “tasteful” and laughed at him when he expressed his confusion. They said the story would have justified oppression.
• Meanwhile, Pro-Hamas student groups that promoted antisemitism after the October 7 attacks remained recognized and funded.

Instead of protecting its students, Harvard has let crime rates skyrocket, enacted racist DEI practices, and accepted boatloads of cash from foreign governments and donors.

• Crime rates at Harvard increased by 55% from 2022 to 2023.
  • From 2022 to 2023 aggravated assaults increased 295% and robberies increased 560%
• Harvard has adopted race-conscious hiring policies, potentially in violation of civil rights law.
• Harvard Received $151 Million From Foreign Governments Since January 2020 — making up more than 13 percent of the total $1.1 billion received from foreign donors over the same period.
• Harvard hosted and trained members of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC), a CCP paramilitary group complicit in the Uyghur genocide, even after its 2020 designation on the U.S. Treasury’s Specially Designated Nationals List, with engagements continuing as recently as 2024.
• Harvard researchers collaborated with China-based academics on projects funded by an Iranian government agent and partnered with Chinese universities tied to military advancements, including aerospace and optics research, using U.S. Department of Defense funds.
• Harvard partnered with individuals linked to China’s defense-industrial base, including conducting robotics research with military applications.

Judge Howell Enjoins Perkins Coie targeted Executive Order 14230

Amici Curiae - 363 law professors 

Amici law professors highlight that the right to counsel was included in the Bill of Rights in large part to avoid “executive control of access to counsel,” which “could distort the administration of justice.” Br. of Amici Curiae 363 Law Professors in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. & for Declaratory & Permanent Injunctive Relief (“Law Professors’ Br.”) at 11, ECF No. 49; see also id. at 11-15 (reviewing the history of the inclusion of this right in the Bill of Rights and collecting authorities). The historical backdrop for these provisions, as Justice Black explained, was in direct response to the “willingness . . . of the courts of England to make ‘short shrift’ of unpopular and uncooperative groups,” including “lawyers whose greatest crime was to dare to defend unpopular causes.” Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 139-40 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting); see also id. at 138-41 (reviewing the history and protections adopted in response). 

PERKINS COIE LLP, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 25-716 (BAH) 

United States District Court, District of Columbia

Judge Beryl A. Howell  

Case 1:25-cv-00716-BAH Document 185 Filed 05/02/25 Page 1-2  of 102

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, HENRY VI, PART 2, act 4, sc. 2, l. 75. When Shakespeare’s character, a rebel leader intent on becoming king, see id. l. 74, hears this suggestion, he promptly incorporates this tactic as part of his plan to assume power, leading in the same scene to the rebel leader demanding “[a]way with him,” referring to an educated clerk, who “can make obligations and write court hand,” id. l. 90, 106. Eliminating lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law removes a major impediment to the path to more power. See Walters v. Nat’l Ass’n of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305, 371 n.24 (1985) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (explaining the import of the same Shakespearean statement to be “that disposing of lawyers is a step in the direction of a totalitarian form of government”). 

The importance of independent lawyers to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice has been recognized in this country since its founding era. In 1770, John Adams made the singularly unpopular decision to represent eight British soldiers charged with murder for their roles in the Boston Massacre and “claimed later to have suffered the claimed later to have suffered the  loss of more than half his practice.” DAVID MCCULLOUGH, JOHN ADAMS 68 (2001). “I had no hesitation,” he explained, since “Council ought to be the very last thing that an accused Person should want in a free Country,” and “the Bar ought . . . to be independent and impartial at all Times And in every Circumstance.” 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 293 (L.H. Butterfield et al. eds., 1961). When the Bill of Rights was ratified, these principles were codified into the Constitution: The Sixth Amendment secured the right, in “all criminal prosecutions,” to “have the Assistance of Counsel for . . . defence,” U.S. CONST. amend. VI, and the Fifth Amendment protected “the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the right,” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 68 (1932).1 TThis value placed on the role of lawyers caught the attention of Alexis de Tocqueville, who in reflecting on his travels throughout the early United States in 1831 and 1832, insightfully remarked that “the authority . . . intrusted to members of the legal profession . . . is the most powerful existing security against the excesses of democracy.” ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 301 (Henry Reeve trans., 2002) (1835).  

The Supreme Court, too, has recognized the importance of lawyers to the functioning of the American judicial system, since “[a]n informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar.” Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 545 (2001). This is so because Congress may legislate, the President may implement, and courts may adjudicate, “but only the lawyers can prepare and submit the great issues of human justice under law in such manner and form that courts, in the ultimate, may be effective.” Williams v. Beto, 354 F.2d 698, 706 (5th Cir. 1965). Absent their crucial independence, lawyers would “become nothing more than parrots of the views of whatever group wields governmental power at the moment.” Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U.S. 117, 138 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on these foundational principles. 

On March 6, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14230 (“EO 14230”), 90 Fed. Reg. 11781(Mar. 11, 2025), entitled “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.”2 

By its terms, this Order stigmatizes and penalizes a particular law firm and its employees—from its partners to its associate attorneys, secretaries, and mailroom attendants—due to the Firm’s representation, both in the past and currently, of clients pursuing claims and taking positions with which the current President disagrees, as well as the Firm’s own speech. In a cringe-worthy twist on the theatrical phrase “Let’s kill all the lawyers,” EO 14230 takes the approach of “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,” sending the clear message: lawyers must stick to the party line, or else.

***

Josh Marshall: Scotus makes it up as it wishes

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-courts-make-it-up-as-you-go-constitution/sharetoken/f064375d-3e6a-49ff-b4c6-649a29251cd9?utm_source=brevo&utm_campaign=Backchannel%20535&utm_medium=email

Supreme Court: Trump administration violated rights of Venezuelan mingrants designated as terrorists

 The Supreme Court holds that the Trump administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelan migrants last month in its rushed effort to expel them to El Salvador in the middle of the night (which SCOTUS blocked). Alito and Thomas dissent.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1007
A. A. R. P., ET AL. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 16, 2025]
PER CURIAM .
The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA),
Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan na-
tionals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a desig-
nated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proc-
lamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants
are two detainees identified as members of TdA and a pu-
tative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern
District of Texas. All of the alleged TdA members in the
putative class are currently being held in U. S. detention
facilities. In the application before the Court, the detainees
seek injunctive relief against summary removal under the
AEA.
I
On April 17, 2025, the District Court denied the detain-
ees’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against
summary removal under the AEA. No. 25−cv−59, ECF Doc.
27. The detainees allege that, hours later, putative class
members were served notices of AEA removal and told that
they would be removed “tonight or tomorrow.” ECF Doc.
30, p. 1. On April 18 at 12:34 a.m. central time, the detain-
ees moved for an emergency TRO. See ibid. At 12:48 p.m.,
the detainees moved for a ruling on that motion or a status
conference by 1:30 p.m. ECF Doc. 34. At 3:02 p.m., they
appealed “the constructive denia[l]” of the emergency TRO to the Fifth Circuit. ECF Doc. 36, p. 1. 

The detainees also applied to this Court for a temporary injunction.

We understood the Government to assert the right to re-
move the detainees as soon as midnight central time on
April 19. The Government addressed the detainees’ allega-
tions on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the Dis-
trict Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees
had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed
that no putative class members would be removed that day.
Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25−cv−766,
ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its
view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next
day “would be consistent with” its due process obligations,
and it “reserve[d] the right” to take such action. Id., at 26;
see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that “tomorrow . . .
starts at 12:01 a.m.”). Evidence now in the record (although
not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government
had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward
removing detainees under the AEA—including transport-
ing them from their detention facility to an airport and later
returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply
1a−5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United
States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the
Government may have argued, as it has previously argued,
that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Ap-
plication To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia,
No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11−20.
At 12:52 a.m. eastern time (11:52 p.m. central time), we
ordered the Government—in light of all these circum-
stances—“not to remove any member of the putative class
of detainees” in order to preserve our jurisdiction to con-
sider the application. 604 U. S. ___ (2025). We invited the
Government to respond to that application after the Fifth
Circuit ruled. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the detainees’
appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for
injunction pending appeal as premature, on the ground that the detainees “gave the [district] court only 42 minutes to

act.” No. 25−10534, ECF Doc. 14, p. 2. We now construe
the application as a petition for writ of certiorari from the
decision of the Fifth Circuit. See Reply 15. We grant the
petition as well as the application for injunction pending
further proceedings, vacate the judgment of the Fifth Cir-
cuit, and remand for further proceedings.

Judge Luttig: Trump and The End of Rule of Law

 Michael Luttig was for 12 years a judge of the United States Court of Appeals fo rthe Fourth Circuit.

He retired in 2006 to become General Counsel of Boeing Corp, a position he held until 2019.

In a piece in The Atlantic he warns of Trump - The End of the Rule of Law in America

The president of the United States appears to have long ago forgotten that Americans fought the Revolutionary War not merely to secure their independence from the British monarchy but to establish a government of laws, not of men, so that they and future generations of Americans would never again be subject to the whims of a tyrannical king. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense in 1776, “For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

Michael Dorf: Trump conditions on federal funding are unlawful

Conditional Funding Can Raise Difficult Legal Questions. Trump’s Freezes Don’t.

Despite some confusion in the doctrine, the Trump administration's use of the funding power is clearly unlawful

By Michael C. Dorf [Cornell Law]

May 13, 2025

In Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc. (2013), the Supreme Court invalidated a condition on federal spending. Under the challenged law, which provided money to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS throughout the world, a funded nongovernmental organization (NGO) was required to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.” The Court held that this condition violated recipient organizations’ right to free speech. Yet the Court’s opinion made clear that another condition on funding—forbidding the use of the money at issue “to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking”—was unproblematic. According to the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, there is a constitutionally dispositive difference “between conditions that define the limits of the government spending program—those that specify the activities Congress wants to subsidize—and conditions that seek to leverage funding to regulate speech outside the contours of the program itself.”

The Chief Justice immediately acknowledged, however, that the dividing line between permissible conditions on how the government’s money is spent and impermissible leveraging of that money to regulate other speech “is hardly clear, in part because the definition of a particular program can always be manipulated to subsume the challenged condition.” Nonetheless, the Court thought the line necessary.

Necessary perhaps, but is it even possible? After all, as the Court’s spending cases sometimes recognize, money is fungible. At least within a single enterprise, additional resources for one unobjectionable program can be used to free up resources for another, more problematic, program.

KEEP READING

 

Pro-Publica - Agency tpo protect immigrant children becomes enforcement arm

<h1>An Agency Tasked With Protecting Immigrant Children Is Becoming an Enforcement Arm, Current and Former Staffers Say</h1><p>by Lomi Kriel, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, and Mica Rosenberg, ProPublica</p><p><em>ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for <a href="https://www.propublica.org/newsletters/the-big-story?source=reprint&placement=top-note">The Big Story newsletter</a> to receive stories like this one in your inbox</em>.</p><div><p>It started with a call. A man identifying himself as a federal immigration agent contacted a Venezuelan father in San Antonio, interrogating him about his teenage son. The agent said officials planned to visit the family’s apartment to assess the boy’s living conditions.</p><p>Later that day, federal agents descended on his complex and covered the door’s peephole with black tape, the father recalled. Agents repeatedly yelled the father’s and son’s names, demanded they open the door and waited hours before leaving, according to the family. Terrified, the father, 37, texted an immigration attorney, who warned that the visit could be a pretext for deportation. The agents returned the next two days, causing the father such alarm that he skipped work at a mechanic shop. His son stayed home from school.</p><p>Department of Homeland Security agents have carried out dozens of such visits across the country in recent months as part of a systematic search for children who arrived at the U.S.-Mexico border by themselves, and the sponsors who care for them while they pursue their immigration cases. The Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is responsible for the children’s care and for screening their sponsors, has assisted in the checks.</p><p>The agency’s welfare mission appears to be undergoing a stark transformation as President Donald Trump seeks to ramp up deportation numbers in his second term, a dozen current and former government officials told ProPublica and The Texas Tribune. They say that one of the clearest indications of that shift is the scale of the checks that immigration agents are conducting using information provided by the resettlement agency to target sponsors and children for deportation.</p><p>Trump officials maintain that the administration is ensuring children are not abused or <a href="https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/guatemalan-migrants-exploited-in-forced-labor-scheme">trafficked</a>. But current and former agency employees, immigration lawyers and child advocates say the resettlement agency is drifting from its humanitarian mandate. Just last week, the Trump administration fired the agency’s ombudsman, who had been hired by Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration to act as its first watchdog.</p><p>“Congress set up a system to protect migrant children, in part by giving them to an agency that isn’t part of immigration enforcement,” said Scott Shuchart, a former official with Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump’s first term and later under Biden. The Trump administration, Shuchart said, is “trying to use that protective arrangement as a bludgeon to hurt the kids and the adults who are willing to step forward to take care of them.”</p><p>Republicans have called out ORR in the past, pointing to instances of children <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/us/unaccompanied-migrant-child-workers-exploitation.html">working</a> in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/underage-workers/">dangerous jobs</a> as examples of the agency’s <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/us-failed-to-protect-migrant-children-from-traffickers-senate-probe-idUSKCN0V61UY/">lax oversight</a>. Lawyers, advocates and agency officials say cases of abuse are rare and should be rooted out. They argue that the administration’s recent changes are immigration enforcement tools that could make children and their sponsors more susceptible to harmful living and working conditions because they fear deportation.</p><p><a href="https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf">Project 2025</a>, a right-wing blueprint to reshape the federal government, called for moving the resettlement agency under the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, arguing that keeping the agencies separate has led to more unaccompanied minors entering the country illegally. Although Trump publicly distanced himself from the overall plan during his reelection campaign, many of his actions have aligned with its proposals.</p><p>During Trump’s first term, he required ORR to share some information about the children and their sponsors, who are usually relatives. That led to the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/ice-arrested-170-immigrants-seeking-sponsor-migrant-children-n946621">arrests</a> of at least 170 sponsors in the country illegally and spurred pushback from lawmakers and advocates who said the agency shouldn’t be used to aid deportation. Immediately after starting his second term in January, Trump issued an <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-immigration-executive-orders">executive order</a> calling for more information sharing between the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the resettlement agency, and Homeland Security. Now, current and former employees of the resettlement agency say that some immigration enforcement officials have been given unfettered access to its databases, which contain sensitive and detailed case information.</p><p>Data sharing for “the sole purpose of immigration enforcement imperils the privacy and security” of children and their sponsors, Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, wrote in a <a href="https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-demands-end-to-info-sharing-between-orr-and-ice-citing-threats-to-care-of-vulnerable-children">February letter</a> to the Trump administration. In a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25939997-orr-uacb-response-letter-approval-es-clean/">March response</a> to Wyden, Andrew Gradison, an acting assistant secretary at HHS, said the resettlement agency is complying with the president’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/">executive order</a> and sharing information with other federal agencies to ensure immigrant children are safe. Wyden told the news organizations that he plans to continue pressing for answers. On Tuesday, he sent another <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25940841-letter-to-orr-information-sharing-follow-up-51325-final/">letter</a> to the administration, stating that he is “increasingly concerned” that ORR is sharing private information “beyond the scope” of what is allowed and “exposing already vulnerable children to further risks.”</p><p>Two advocacy groups filed a <a href="https://youthlaw.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2025-05/Angelica%20S.%20v.%20HHS%20Complaint.pdf">federal lawsuit</a> last week in Washington, arguing that the Trump administration unlawfully reversed key provisions of a 2024 Biden rule. Those provisions had barred ORR from using immigration status to deny sponsors the ability to care for children. They also had previously prohibited the agency from sharing sponsor information for the purpose of immigration enforcement. Undoing the provisions has led to the prolonged detention of children because sponsors are afraid or can’t claim them because they are unable to meet requirements, the lawsuit alleges. The government has not responded to the lawsuit in court.</p><p>In conjunction with those changes, Trump <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-children-ice-office-refugee-resettlement-mellissa-harper">tapped an ICE official</a> to lead ORR for the first time. That official was fired two months into her job because she failed to implement the administration’s changes “fast enough,” her successor for the position, Angie Salazar, an ICE veteran, said in a March 6 recording obtained by ProPublica and the Tribune.</p><p>“Some of these policy changes took too long. Three weeks is too long,” Salazar told staff without providing specifics. Salazar said that she would ramp up an effort to check on immigrant children and strengthen screenings of their sponsors.</p><p>She told staff that, in nearly two weeks, ICE investigators had visited 1,500 residences of unaccompanied minors. Agents had uncovered a handful of instances of what she said were cases of sex and labor trafficking. Salazar did not provide details but said identifying even one case of abuse is significant.</p><p>“Those are my marching orders,” Salazar told staffers. “While I will never do something outside the law for anybody or anything, and while we are operating within the law, we will expect all of you to do so and be supportive of that.”</p><p>Salazar said she expected an increase in the number of children taken from their sponsors and placed back into federal custody, which in the past has been rare.</p><p>Since Salazar took charge, ORR has instituted a raft of strict vetting rules for sponsors of immigrant children that the agency argues are needed to ensure sponsors are properly screened. Those include <a href="https://acf.gov/orr/policy-guidance/unaccompanied-children-program-policy-guide-section-2#2.2.4">no longer</a> accepting foreign passports or IDs as forms of identification unless people have legal authorization to be in the U.S. The resettlement agency also <a href="https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/orr/FG-27_-_DNA_Testing_Expansion.pdf">expanded</a> DNA checks of relatives and <a href="https://acf.gov/orr/policy-guidance/unaccompanied-children-program-policy-guide-section-2">increased</a> income requirements, including making sponsors submit recent pay stubs or tax returns. <strong>(</strong>The IRS recently <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/us/politics/irs-ice-tax-data-deal.html">announced</a> that it would share tax information with ICE to facilitate deportations.)</p><p>ORR said in a statement that it could not respond to ongoing litigation and did not answer detailed questions about Salazar’s comments or about the reasoning for some of the new requirements. Its policies are intended to ensure safe placement of unaccompanied minors, and the agency is “not a law enforcement or immigration enforcement entity,” the statement read.</p><p>Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, also declined to comment on pending lawsuits. But he criticized how the agency within his department was run under Biden, saying it failed to protect unaccompanied children after they were released to sponsors while turning “a blind eye to serious risks.” Jen Smyers, a former ORR deputy director, disputed those claims, saying the Biden administration made strides to address longstanding concerns that included creating a unit to combat sponsor fraud and improving data systems to better track kids.</p><p>Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS assistant secretary, did not respond to detailed questions but said in a statement that her agency shares the goal of ensuring that unaccompanied minors are safe. She did not answer questions about the Venezuelan family in San Antonio. She also declined to provide the number of homes the agents have visited across the country or say whether they found cases of abuse or detained anyone for the purpose of deportation.</p><p>An April email obtained by ProPublica and the Tribune shows for the first time the scale of the operation in the Houston area alone, which over the past decade has resettled the largest number of unaccompanied immigrant children in the country. In the email, an ICE official informed the Harris County Sheriff’s Office that the agency planned to visit more than 3,600 addresses associated with such minors. The sheriff’s office did not assist in the checks, a spokesperson said.</p><p>An <a href="https://nipnlg.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/2025-ICFO-22246-001.pdf">internal ICE memo</a> obtained last month through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Immigration Project, a Washington-based advocacy group, instructed agents to find unaccompanied children and their sponsors. The document laid out a series of factors that federal agents should prioritize when seeking out children, including those who have not attended court hearings, may have gang ties or have pending deportation orders. The memo detailed crimes, such as smuggling, for which sponsors could be charged.</p><p>In the case of the San Antonio family, the father has temporary protected status, a U.S. permit for certain people facing danger at home that allows him to live and work here legally. The news organizations could not find a criminal record for him in the U.S. His son is still awaiting an immigration court hearing since crossing the U.S.-Mexico border alone a year ago. The father stated in his U.S. asylum application that he left Venezuela after receiving death threats for protesting against President Nicolás Maduro’s government. The father, who declined to be identified because he fears ICE enforcement, said in an interview that his son later fled for the same reason.</p><p>Meanwhile, the avenues for families, like that of the Venezuelan man and his son, to raise concerns about ORR’s conduct are shrinking. The Trump administration reduced staff at the agency’s ombudsman’s office. Mary Giovagnoli, who led the office, was terminated last week. An HHS official said the agency does not comment on personnel matters, but in a letter to Giovagnoli, the agency stated that her employment “does not advance the public interest.” Giovagnoli said the cuts curtail the office’s ability to act as a watchdog to ensure the resettlement agency is meeting its congressionally established mission.</p><p>“There’s no effective oversight,” she said. “There is this encroachment on ORR’s independence, and I think this close relationship with ICE makes everyone afraid that there’s going to come a point in time where you don’t know where one agency stops and the next begins.”</p><div><div><p><a href="https://www.propublica.org/people/doris-burke">Doris Burke</a> contributed research.</p></div></div></div><link rel="canonical" href="https://www.propublica.org/article/office-of-refugee-resettlement-immigration-enforcement-trump"><meta name="syndication-source" content="https://www.propublica.org/article/office-of-refugee-resettlement-immigration-enforcement-trump"><script type="text/javascript" src="https://pixel.propublica.org/pixel.js" async></script>

Trolling on Habeas Corpus - Jack Goldsmith (Harvard Law)

 https://open.substack.com/pub/executivefunctions/p/trolling-about-habeas-corpus?r=zv1g&selection=e79275ac-630c-4d68-af06-7fbd48722ab1&utm_campaign=post-share-selection&utm_medium=web

 

Habemus Papam - First American to lead Catholic Church

 Habemus Papam - First American to lead the Catholic Church - National Catholic Reporter

A note on the name: Pope Leo XIII was the first to close out the Church's tolarance of slavery, and was a celebrant of the rights of labor.  Both good signs.

Pope Leo XIV

By Christopher White

A Chicago-born Augustinian friar has been elected the first American pope in the history of the Roman Catholic church.

Cardinal Robert Prevost, 69, who heads the influential Vatican Dicastery for Bishops, walked out onto the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica to the cheers of thousands of faithful gathering for the announcement at 7:15 p.m. Rome time today (April 8).

Prevost, born in south Chicago, has spent most of his life outside of the United States, a factor likely to have made him more acceptable to the College of Cardinals in his selection,

By selecting an American, the cardinals have defied conventional wisdom that a man from the United States would never ascend the throne of St. Peter as long as the U.S. was a superpower.

White smoke billowed from the Sistine Chapel announcing the election of the 267th successor to St. Peter just after 6 p.m. Rome time.

He appeared on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica about 8:20 p.m. as crowds cheered in St. Peter's Square. Pilgrims waved flags and white handkerchiefs. A custom.