Supreme Court to hear Trump appeal involving lengthy detention of certain immigrants

2026-06-15T13:40:58.298Z / Reuters

WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal by President Donald Trump’s administration in a case involving the legality of subjecting certain convicted immigrants with pending deportation proceedings to lengthy detention without bond hearings allowing ​them to seek a release on bail.

The administration appealed a lower court’s ruling that said the U.S. Constitution’s right to due process bars “unreasonably prolonged” detention ‌without a hearing of non-U.S. citizens who face deportation after being convicted of certain crimes. That ruling involved two immigrants in New York – one who pleaded guilty to assault and the other convicted of sexually abusing a child.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the case during its next term, which starts in October.

The dispute stems from the government’s detention of two non-U.S. citizen men who were convicted ​of aggravated felonies while living in the United States as lawful permanent residents, also known as green-card holders.

Federal immigration law requires authorities to detain and seek the ​deportation of non-U.S. citizens who are convicted of an aggravated felony and certain other serious crimes, or accused of terrorism.

After several months ⁠in detention, each man filed a legal action called a habeas corpus petition in federal court challenging the legitimacy of their detention and arguing that they were entitled to ​hearings to determine whether they qualified to be released on bail. Both men were detained during Trump’s first presidential term.

One of the green-card holders, a Dominican man identified in court ​papers as G.M., became a lawful permanent resident in 2011 and four years later pleaded guilty in New York to assault, according to court papers. He was detained in 2020.

A federal judge in 2021 denied his habeas corpus petition. G.M. was later released in 2022, after 21 months in detention, due to concerns about the spread of COVID.

The other man, a Jamaican citizen named Carol Black, became a lawful ​permanent resident in 1983. In 2000, he was convicted in New York of sexually abusing a child younger than 11 years old, according to court papers. Citing his criminal ​record, federal immigration authorities took Black into custody in 2019.

A separate federal judge granted Black’s petition in 2020 and ordered a bail hearing. He was later released on a $15,000 bond.

After initially appealing a ‌judge’s deportation order ⁠against him, Black and his wife left the United States in 2025 and have no intention of returning, according to court papers. For this reason, his lawyer argued in a filing to the Supreme Court, Black’s case should be considered moot.

During appeals of their cases, the Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it was unreasonable that Black was detained for seven months and G.M. for nearly two years without a chance to qualify for bail, though that court stopped short of setting a strict time limit on such detentions. ​In these two cases, the 2nd Circuit ​said, the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantee ⁠of due process entitled the men to a bond hearing.

The 2nd Circuit also said that if the government seeks to maintain its detention in these circumstances, it must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a detainee poses a risk of flight or a ​danger to the community.

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Cecillia Wang, who represents the two men, said: “The court of appeals got it right, ​and we will defend ⁠our fundamental due process principles at the Supreme Court.”

“The Constitution protects all of us, regardless of immigration status, from being locked away without due process,” Wang said. “(U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) cannot detain immigrants – separating families and cutting people off from their communities – for months or even years on end without a bond hearing.”

The Supreme Court has backed Trump in several immigration-related rulings ⁠issued on an ​emergency basis since his return to the presidency, including allowing him to deport migrants to countries other than ​their own and to revoke temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants.

The court also is expected to rule by the end of June on the legality of Trump’s directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United ​States and the administration’s bid to revoke temporary legal protections for more than 350,000 Haitians and about 6,100 Syrians living in the United States.

Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham

法国总统马克龙星期一（6月15日）在G7峰会所在地埃维昂莱班慰问紧急部队，并发表讲话。 （路透社）

法国总统马克龙说，欧洲多国已准备好参与霍尔木兹海峡护航行动。

新华社报道，马克龙星期一（6月15日）告诉法国电视一台，如果未来几天局势良好，法国和英国军队会一同部署到霍尔木兹海峡；法国的戴高乐号航空母舰，可在两三天内抵达。

他补充说，意大利、荷兰等国也已准备好参与行动。

美国与伊朗星期天（14日）宣布达成共识，预计星期五（19日）签署停止冲突的谅解备忘录。

马克龙说，七国集团（G7）会在星期二（16日）就伊朗问题开会，努力确保美国和伊朗谅解备忘录的落实。

马克龙星期一在社交媒体上发文，呼吁各方迅速、全面落实谅解备忘录，确保霍尔木兹海峡能够尽快且无条件地重新开放。

G7领导人会议峰于星期一至星期三（15日至17日）在法国埃维昂莱班举行。

US Supreme Court rebuffs challenge to New York law allowing lawsuits against gun industry

2026-06-15 13:52:06 / Reuters

A person looks at a gun on display during the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) Annual Meetings and Exhibits in Houston, Texas, U.S. April 19, 2026. REUTERS/Callaghan O’Hare Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary
• Companies

• Gun industry says the law threatens “crushing” liability
• New York says law helps address scourge of gun violence
• Trade group says criminals should be blamed for misuse

June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court turned away ​on Monday a gun industry challenge to a New York law that permits lawsuits against gun makers, wholesalers and dealers for ‌endangering people’s safety through sales of firearms and ammunition.

The justices declined to hear an appeal by an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, of a lower court ruling upholding the law, which New York calls a public nuisance statute.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Gun manufacturers including Smith & Wesson

(SWBI.O), opens new tab
, Ruger

(RGR.N), opens new tab
, Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer and Sturm joined the appeal, which argued that New ​York’s law unconstitutionally conflicted with federal law.

The Supreme Court in 2025 spared Smith & Wesson from a lawsuit by Mexico’s government accusing the company ​of aiding illegal gun trafficking to drug cartels.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court decided ⁠not to hear its appeal.

“NSSF sincerely believes that those criminals who illegally misuse lawful products should be held responsible for the harms they cause when ​they commit their crimes,” spokesperson Mark Oliva said in an email. “Holding the firearm industry responsible for the criminal misuse of a firearm is akin to holding ​Anheuser-Busch and Ford Motor Company responsible for damages from drunk-driving crimes.”

Signed by Democratic former Governor Andrew Cuomo in 2021, the New York law requires the gun industry to use reasonable safeguards to protect against gun trafficking, theft and the use of “straw purchasers” who buy firearms for someone else. It also allows civil lawsuits by New York state and ​local officials as well as members of the public.

Letitia James, New York’s attorney general, has said the law helps in fighting a “scourge” of gun ​violence.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation said the law was preempted by a 2005 federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, that shields the gun industry from ‌civil liability ⁠when its products are used in crimes. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.

The Manhattan-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld New York’s law last year.

Circuit Judge Eunice Lee, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden, wrote that Congress intended to preserve “at least some causes of action” when a defendant’s knowing violation of federal or state firearms sales and marketing laws was a proximate cause of harm.

‘CRUSHING LIABILITY’

The ​appeal did not hinge on the Constitution’s ​Second Amendment protections of the ⁠right to keep and bear arms. But the trade group said laws such as New York’s imperil such rights by allowing lawsuits that could saddle companies with “crushing liability” for crimes they had nothing to do with.

It also said ​a “predicate exception” in the federal law at issue subjected the industry to liability only for failures to comply ​with specific obligations or ⁠prohibitions within its control.

“The decision below blows a gaping hole in a statute that Congress enacted for the express purpose of protecting the firearms industry from exactly the kinds of lawsuits New York seeks to usher back in,” the group said.

New York said the predicate exception allowed liability for some “downstream acts” of third parties. ⁠It also ​said at least nine states have passed laws to satisfy the exception.

The gun industry appeal ​was supported by the National Rifle Association, 24 Republican state attorneys general and several dozen Republican members of Congress.

The Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in three major decisions since 2008, ​when it found that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Will Dunham

法国总统马克龙星期一（6月15日）在G7峰会所在地埃维昂莱班慰问紧急部队，并发表讲话。 （路透社）

法国总统马克龙说，欧洲多国已准备好参与霍尔木兹海峡护航行动。

新华社报道，马克龙星期一（6月15日）告诉法国电视一台，如果未来几天局势良好，法国和英国军队会一同部署到霍尔木兹海峡；法国的戴高乐号航空母舰，可在两三天内抵达。

他补充说，意大利、荷兰等国也已准备好参与行动。

美国与伊朗星期天（14日）宣布达成共识，预计星期五（19日）签署停止冲突的谅解备忘录。

马克龙说，七国集团（G7）会在星期二（16日）就伊朗问题开会，努力确保美国和伊朗谅解备忘录的落实。

马克龙星期一在社交媒体上发文，呼吁各方迅速、全面落实谅解备忘录，确保霍尔木兹海峡能够尽快且无条件地重新开放。

G7领导人会议峰于星期一至星期三（15日至17日）在法国埃维昂莱班举行。

无人机拍摄的照片显示，6月15日的霍尔木兹海峡水域可见大量船舶。 （路透社）

美国总统特朗普说，已有许多装载石油的船只开始驶出霍尔木兹海峡。

特朗普星期一（6月15日）在社媒平台“真相社交”发文说：“许多装载着石油的船只开始驶出霍尔木兹海峡，沿着南部的‘高速公路’航行。这条航线完全安全、可靠，而且风景优美。也有其他一些交通方式！”

美国与伊朗前一天宣布就停止冲突达成共识，双方预计本周五（19日）签署谅解备忘录。

特朗普公布和解消息时声称，已正式批准开放霍尔木兹海峡，无须缴纳通行费，同时下令立即解除美国海军对伊朗港口的海上封锁。

一名伊朗高级官员说，一旦谅解备忘录签署，霍尔木兹海峡会向所有商船重新开放。

Supreme Court declines to revive Carter Page lawsuit over FBI surveillance tied to Trump-Russia probe

June 15, 2026 10:47am EDT / Fox News

Page recently reached a $1.25M settlement with the federal government but sought to hold individual officials liable

By Bradford Betz, Fox News

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit brought by former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page challenging FBI surveillance conducted during the bureau’s investigation into alleged ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The justices denied Page’s appeal, leaving lower court rulings in place and effectively ending his effort to hold former FBI Director James Comey and other former government officials personally liable for what he alleged was unlawful surveillance. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson did not participate in the case.

Page, who served as a foreign policy advisor to Trump’s 2016 campaign, was the subject of secret surveillance warrants approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2016 and 2017 as part of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

He was never charged with a crime and has long denied allegations that he acted as an agent of Russia.

TRUMP ORDERS FBI TO DECLASSIFY DOCUMENTS FROM ‘CROSSFIRE HURRICANE’ RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

Carter Page, Former Foreign-Policy adviser to Donald Trump during his 2016 Presidential Election Campaign visits “The David Webb Show” On SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 at SiriusXM Studios on January 14, 2020 in New York City.(Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images for SiriusXM)

The case became one of the most controversial chapters of the Trump-Russia investigation after a Justice Department inspector general report identified significant errors and omissions in the FBI’s applications to surveil Page. Former FBI and Justice Department officials involved in approving the warrants later said they would not have signed off on the applications had they known the full extent of the problems identified by investigators.

Carter Page, former advisor to President-elect Donald Trump, addresses the audience during a presentation in Moscow, Russia, on Dec. 12, 2016.

In response to the watchdog findings, the FBI implemented dozens of corrective measures aimed at improving the accuracy and completeness of future surveillance applications.

Page sued Comey and other former officials, alleging they violated his constitutional rights by submitting flawed applications to obtain surveillance authority. Lower courts dismissed the case, finding, among other things, that Page had not sued the officials who directly carried out the surveillance.

Page recently reached a $1.25 million settlement with the federal government related to the surveillance claims but sought to continue pursuing claims against individual former officials.

FBI LAUNCHES CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS OF JOHN BRENNAN, JAMES COMEY: DOJ SOURCES

The Supreme Court offered no explanation for declining review, as is customary when turning away appeals.

The Supreme Court of the United States building is illuminated at night in Washington, D.C., showing the main entrance, the West Facade with the marble pediment, and the inscription “Equal Justice Under Law.”(Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The decision marks the latest legal chapter stemming from the Russia investigation, which examined whether members of Trump’s 2016 campaign coordinated with Moscow’s efforts to influence the election. Special counsel Robert Mueller ultimately concluded that Russia interfered in the election but did not establish that members of the Trump campaign criminally conspired with Russia.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bradford Betz is a Fox News Digital breaking reporter covering crime, political issues, and much more.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6380467520112

无人机拍摄的照片显示，6月15日的霍尔木兹海峡水域可见大量船舶。 （路透社）

美国总统特朗普说，已有许多装载石油的船只开始驶出霍尔木兹海峡。

特朗普星期一（6月15日）在社媒平台“真相社交”发文说：“许多装载着石油的船只开始驶出霍尔木兹海峡，沿着南部的‘高速公路’航行。这条航线完全安全、可靠，而且风景优美。也有其他一些交通方式！”

美国与伊朗前一天宣布就停止冲突达成共识，双方预计本周五（19日）签署谅解备忘录。

特朗普公布和解消息时声称，已正式批准开放霍尔木兹海峡，无须缴纳通行费，同时下令立即解除美国海军对伊朗港口的海上封锁。

一名伊朗高级官员说，一旦谅解备忘录签署，霍尔木兹海峡会向所有商船重新开放。

Supreme Court to decide if migrants detained for months must receive bond hearings

2026-06-15T13:39:57.528Z / CNN

By John Fritze

Updated 1 hr 32 min ago
Updated Jun 15, 2026, 9:43 AM ET
PUBLISHED Jun 15, 2026, 9:39 AM ET

The US Supreme Court is seen at dusk on May 28 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Summary

• The Supreme Court will decide whether the government can hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without bond hearings.
• The case involves two green card holders convicted of aggravated felonies who were detained for seven months and nearly two years without hearings.
• A ruling could significantly affect the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if the government may hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without a bond hearing, a case that could have significant implications for the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

At the center of the dispute are two green card holders who had been convicted of aggravated felonies that immigration officials sought to deport to the Dominican Republic in one case and to Jamaica in the other. One of the men was held for seven months and the other for nearly two years as their removal cases were pending.

Neither received a hearing to assess whether they were a flight risk or could be released on bond.

A federal appeals court in New York ruled in 2024 that the due process clause requires a bond hearing for prolonged detention for noncitizens. The Trump administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court in January, arguing that it was “seriously misguided.”

The law at issue requires mandatory detention for noncitizens convicted of a list of crimes. The Trump administration has reclassified certain types of immigrants to sweep far more people into mandatory detention — a move that has been repeatedly challenged in court and that is likely to be ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The two men at the center of the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the Supreme Court should decline to hear the case. That’s partly because, the group said, one of the men had already left the country and the other was released and, according to his attorneys, ICE has not attempted to re-detain him.

In 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a similar challenge and concluded that federal law did not require bond hearings. But the court’s divided decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, declined to answer whether the Constitution would require those hearings after prolonged detention.

“The court reads the statute as forbidding bail, hence forbidding a bail hearing, for these individuals,” liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who has since retired, wrote in dissent at the time. “In my view, the majority’s interpretation of the statute would likely render the statute unconstitutional.”

The Trump administration also appealed the 2nd Circuit’s holding that, in order to continue detention, the government must prove that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or is a danger to the community with a higher standard of evidence than is required in other cases.

Supreme Court declines to take up suspended 98-year-old judge’s bid to hear cases again

June 15, 2026 / 10:32 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to return to service on a federal appeals court after she was suspended from hearing cases due to concerns about her fitness to serve.

Newman, who is 98, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 1984. Established in 1982, the Federal Circuit hears appeals in cases involving international trade, patents, trademarks, veterans’ benefits and money claims against the U.S. government.

Across her more than four decades on the Federal Circuit, Newman has authored more than 300 dissenting opinions, earning her the nickname the “Great Dissenter.”

But three years ago, the Judicial Council for the Federal Circuit, which consists of the circuit judges in active service, suspended Newman from hearing cases. The court’s chief judge, Kimberly Moore, also told Newman she could either retire or consider senior status, a form of semi-retirement in which judges take on a lighter caseload.

After Newman refused either option, Moore entered an order that identified a judicial complaint against the then-96-year-old judge and found “there is probable cause to believe that Judge Newman’s health has left her without the capacity to perform the work of an active judge and that her habitual delays are prejudicial to the efficient administration of justice.”

Judge Pauline Newman in her office in Washington, D.C., in 2023. Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Moore’s filing referenced health issues Newman suffered in the summer of 2021 and a fainting episode in 2022, and said judges and staff on the Federal Circuit had expressed concerns about Newman’s inability to keep up with her workload.

Moore and a special committee of two Federal Circuit judges then investigated Newman’s fitness to continue serving and ordered the judge to submit to neurological and neuropsychological testing. The panel also requested she turn over medical records and participate in an interview.

While Newman provided expert reports from two doctors, the committee recommended Newman “not be permitted to hear any cases” for one year, subject to renewal. The Judicial Council approved the recommendation in September 2023.

Newman asked a panel of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal courts, to review her suspension, though it rejected her arguments in February 2024.

The Federal Circuit then renewed Newman’s suspension for another year in September 2024, and again in August 2025.

Amid her suspension, Newman filed a lawsuit against Moore and her colleagues on the Federal Circuit and sought to prevent the Judicial Council from taking action against her in the future. The judge argued that the panel violated the Constitution by effectively removing her from office despite life tenure protections and denied her due process.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ultimately ruled against Newman, finding that the Disability Act prevents litigants from bringing certain constitutional challenges to a judicial council’s authority.

In urging the Supreme Court to take up her case, Newman’s lawyers claimed that Moore was circumventing the Constitution’s protections for federal judges in an attempt to sideline a judge she doesn’t want to serve with. They also accused the Federal Circuit judges of trying to silence a colleague who often dissents.

“This administrative removal of a judge who is famous for dissenting from her colleagues, by those same colleagues, with judicial refusal to review the merits of the action, undermines the judicial independence that is a vital foundation of our constitutional design,” Newman’s lawyers wrote in a filing. “Every judge who gets crosswise with her chief judge or her colleagues must now worry whether similar tactics could be used to remove them.”

The Justice Department, which represented Moore and the other judges,urged the Supreme Court to turn away Newman’s case.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing Newman, said it is disappointed in the high court’s denial of the appeal, but said it would continue to push for her reinstatement.

“It is a dark day for the independence of the federal judiciary,” Mark Chenoweth, the group’s president, said in a statement. “The cert denial in this case means that Judge Newman’s due process and other complaints about the way Chief Judge Moore and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council have treated her never have and never will receive a merits decision from an Article III court. That is utterly inexcusable and truly inexplicable.”

Supreme Court won’t hear Trump ex-campaign aide’s bid to sue former FBI officials

2026-06-15 13:52:14 / Reuters

One-time advisor of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump Carter Page addresses the audience during a presentation in Moscow, Russia, December 12, 2016. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary

• Page was adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign
• Lawsuit alleged unlawful spying by former FBI officials

WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a bid by Carter Page, an adviser to President Donald ​Trump’s 2016 campaign, to revive a lawsuit against former FBI officials accusing them of unlawfully ‌obtaining warrants to surveil him during its probe into Russian interference in that year’s election.

The justices on Monday turned away Page’s

appeal, opens new tab
of rulings by lower courts dismissing remaining elements of a lawsuit he filed in 2020 alleging he had been the ​victim of unlawful spying. The Trump administration agreed to pay a reported $1.25 million to resolve the ​rest of the claims he had also brought against the government.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

That partial settlement left ⁠remaining claims Page had also been pursuing against numerous former officials. They include former FBI Director James ​Comey, his former deputy Andrew McCabe and Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering ​an email that had been used to seek court approval to wiretap Page.

Page’s lawsuit alleged that, while volunteering as a member of an informal foreign policy advisory committee to Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign, he became a target of an FBI ​surveillance program aimed at determining if anyone associated with the campaign was coordinating activities with Russia.

The FBI ​during the investigation obtained four warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil Page.

But later reviews by the U.S. ‌Justice Department’s ⁠inspector general discovered that the FBI made numerous errors in its warrant applications to the court, which is tasked with reviewing classified requests from agencies for surveillance warrants. The inspector general released its main report on the matter in 2019, during Trump’s first term as president.

Page was never charged and has denied having had ​any improper communications with ​or ties to Russia. ⁠He asked the Supreme Court to hear his case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025 upheld a judge’s dismissal ​of his lawsuit on the grounds that it was filed too late.

The D.C. ​Circuit said that ⁠his surveillance claim was subject to a three-year statute of limitations that kicked in when Page first became aware of the FBI’s surveillance, which it traced to an April 2017 article by the Washington Post about the ⁠operation.

Page, in ​asking the Supreme Court to consider his case, argued that ​the clock for the statute of limitations should instead be found to have begun ticking when the government acknowledged unlawfully surveilling him, rather ​than when an anonymously sourced news story was published.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.