Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Professor Illegally Forced into DEI Training Deserves His Day in Court
PHOENIX, Arizona, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Professor Illegally Forced into DEI Training Deserves His Day in Court
*
When Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson was illegally forced to take a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training to keep his job, he sued. But a court ruled that he didn't have the right to challenge the illegal mandate. Now the Goldwater Institute is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to allow Owen to have his day in court.
"Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other
... Show Full Article
PHOENIX, Arizona, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Goldwater Institute posted the following news:
* * *
Professor Illegally Forced into DEI Training Deserves His Day in Court
*
When Arizona State University professor Owen Anderson was illegally forced to take a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training to keep his job, he sued. But a court ruled that he didn't have the right to challenge the illegal mandate. Now the Goldwater Institute is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to allow Owen to have his day in court.
"Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every otheremployee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it's okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that," professor Anderson said. "Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn't a left or right issue-it's about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law."
Professor Anderson sued the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024 after he was required to take ASU's mandatory "Inclusive Communities" DEI training as a condition of employment. He objects to the materials that present discriminatory ideas about race and identity.
ASU's requirement that all its employees take this training is plainly forbidden under Arizona law, which prohibits government employers from forcing their employees to take trainings that present concepts of blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex. The law also bars the use of taxpayer funds to create or implement such trainings. These provisions were enacted specifically to protect public employees and taxpayers from unlawful government DEI mandates.
Astonishingly, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that professor Anderson should not be allowed to sue, concluding that the statute does not allow an individual subjected to unlawful, discriminatory training to have any way to challenge it in court.
There's no way around it-a law is meaningless if it can't be enforced. If allowed to stand, the error by the Arizona Court of Appeals would eliminate an essential civil-rights safeguard for public employees and taxpayers. The ruling changes how Arizona laws are enforced by removing the ability of an ordinary Arizonan to ensure government officials obey the law.
That's why the Goldwater Institute is asking the Arizona Supreme Court to step in and fix this mistake. Goldwater is urging the court to affirm a basic legal principle: when a statute is designed to protect a specific class of people, the law necessarily includes the ability for those people to enforce it.
"No one should be forced to participate in divisive DEI training or endorse race-based ideology as a condition for holding a government job. That's exactly why Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory trainings that teach discriminatory ideas about race, ethnicity, or sex. But a law without enforcement is no law at all," Goldwater attorney Stacy Skankey said. "We're asking the Arizona Supreme Court to correct the lower court's error and restore Arizonans right to hold government agencies accountable when they violate the law."
Goldwater attorneys have appeared before the Arizona Supreme Court 14 times, most recently arguing that public officials must comply with the state's public records laws. Goldwater has routinely argued in courts around the country that the government remains accountable to the people. It is critical that citizens be allowed to serve as a check against corruption and hold those in power accountable to the people they serve.
The Arizona Supreme Court must decide whether to restore the ability of public employees and taxpayers to enforce this important civil-rights protection and prevent discriminatory training mandates. The court's decision will have lasting consequences-determining whether government officials can dodge accountability simply by claiming no one is allowed to sue them.
Meanwhile, Arizona lawmakers are advancing the most powerful state constitutional protections against racially discriminatory DEI practices in the nation. This constitutional amendment would not only obliterate efforts by ASU and others to twist or evade existing state statutes, but would also completely end state spending on DEI offices, prohibit universities from forcing students to complete DEI coursework to graduate, and permanently close existing loopholes that allow the federal government to pressure schools and state agencies into engaging in race-based preferential treatment.
Read the petition to the Arizona Supreme Court here.
***
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/professor-illegally-forced-into-dei-training-deserves-his-day-in-court/
PPI Urges FCC to Approve Amazon Leo's Constellation Deployment Deadline Extension Request
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Progressive Policy Institute posted the following news release:
* * *
PPI Urges FCC to Approve Amazon Leo's Constellation Deployment Deadline Extension Request
*
WASHINGTON -Today, Mary Guenther, Head of Space Policy, and Diana Moss, VP and Director of Competition Policy, at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) issued the following statement regarding Amazon Leo's request for an extension from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to deploy a satellite internet constellation.
"PPI urges the FCC to grant the request made today by Amazon
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- The Progressive Policy Institute posted the following news release:
* * *
PPI Urges FCC to Approve Amazon Leo's Constellation Deployment Deadline Extension Request
*
WASHINGTON -Today, Mary Guenther, Head of Space Policy, and Diana Moss, VP and Director of Competition Policy, at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) issued the following statement regarding Amazon Leo's request for an extension from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to deploy a satellite internet constellation.
"PPI urges the FCC to grant the request made today by AmazonLeo to extend the deadline for the company to deploy its satellite internet constellation. Injecting competition in satellite broadband service will enormously benefit American consumers.
"More competition in the domestic LEO satellite broadband is critical for meeting consumer broadband needs, keeping prices in check, and spurring quality and innovation. Consumers are excited about LEO satellite broadband and it is a key part of the solution to closing the digital divide. Amazon Leo is the only source of near-term competition in the U.S.
"To be sure, deadlines in the FCC licensing process are important to avoid spectrum 'warehousing.' However, Amazon Leo is clearly making good faith progress towards deploying their constellation as a service. It is expected to become available in some areas later this year. The company is launching regularly and complying with the intent of the FCC regulations.
"However, unlike competitors, Amazon Leo is dependent on external rocket launch services, which is likely part of the reason for their delay. Many of the launch companies Amazon Leo has contracts with have not been able to ramp up operations as quickly as anticipated. As PPI has previously noted, there is high demand for launch services and a limited number of rockets to fulfill that demand. It's simply a market reality."
Founded in 1989, PPI is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Find an expert and learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Follow us @p pi.
Media Contact: Ian O ' Keefe - iokeefe@ppionline.org
***
Original text here: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/ppi-urges-fcc-to-approve-amazon-leos-constellation-deployment-deadline-extension-request/
New Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Say Housing Costs Won't Fall Until Corporate Landlords Are Reined In, Most Skeptical Trump Will Deliver
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
New Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Say Housing Costs Won't Fall Until Corporate Landlords Are Reined In, Most Skeptical Trump Will Deliver
*
Today, Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress released new polling showing nearly two thirds (64%) of Americans say the way to lower housing costs is to rein in corporate landlords and institutional investors. That support cuts across party lines, with 61% of Republicans and 62% of Independents
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Groundwork Collaborative, a think tank and progressive advocacy group, posted the following news release:
* * *
New Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Say Housing Costs Won't Fall Until Corporate Landlords Are Reined In, Most Skeptical Trump Will Deliver
*
Today, Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress released new polling showing nearly two thirds (64%) of Americans say the way to lower housing costs is to rein in corporate landlords and institutional investors. That support cuts across party lines, with 61% of Republicans and 62% of Independentsin favor of taking action against corporate landlords and developers who jack up prices.
Voters want aggressive action on housing affordability, but most don't trust President Trump to take on the powerful corporate interests they blame for rising costs. A majority (55%) believe that President Trump and Republicans in Congress are "not focused" on lowering housing costs. Even if Trump succeeded in banning corporate investors from buying single-family homes, three quarters of voters say the president still needs to do more to show he's serious about bringing down costs. This aligns with widespread skepticism that Trump is not serious about addressing the cost of living.
The polling also shows overwhelming support for consumer-focused housing reforms proposed by Groundwork Collaborative, including a public platform to compare mortgage offers and increase transparency (81%), and portable mortgages that let homeowners keep their interest rates when they move (75%).
Groundwork Collaborative's Senior Advisor for Economic Policy, Emily DiVito, reacted with the following statement:
"Americans don't think the Trump Administration is serious about lowering their housing costs, and new polling from Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress shows why. Voters across parties understand that building more housing won't lower prices if corporate landlords and private developers remain free to jack them up. And despite President Trump's recent attempted populist pivot, voters don't believe that he or Republicans in Congress are focused enough on lowering their housing costs to deliver results."
Key findings include:
* Voters don't think Trump or the GOP are focused on lowering costs: Despite his populist posturing, a majority of voters (55%) believe that President Trump and Republicans in Congress are "not focused" on lowering the cost of housing for families. Only 17% of voters believe they are "very focused" on this issue.
***
Original text here: https://groundworkcollaborative.org/news/new-poll-nearly-two-thirds-of-americans-say-housing-costs-wont-fall-until-corporate-landlords-are-reined-in-most-skeptical-trump-will-deliver/
D.C. Mobile Billboard Demands Trump Fire Kristi Noem
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
D.C. Mobile Billboard Demands Trump Fire Kristi Noem
*
As President Trump and Congress return today to consider government funding, Common Cause is welcoming elected leaders back with a simple message on a mobile billboard roaming Washington, D.C.: Fire Kristi Noem.
Last week, Common Cause launched a campaign to "Fire Kristi Noem" and hold DHS accountable after federal agents killed a second Minnesotan in 2026, Alex Pretti. Since then, the watchdog group's campaign has gathered nearly a hundred
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 [Category: ThinkTank] -- Common Cause posted the following news release:
* * *
D.C. Mobile Billboard Demands Trump Fire Kristi Noem
*
As President Trump and Congress return today to consider government funding, Common Cause is welcoming elected leaders back with a simple message on a mobile billboard roaming Washington, D.C.: Fire Kristi Noem.
Last week, Common Cause launched a campaign to "Fire Kristi Noem" and hold DHS accountable after federal agents killed a second Minnesotan in 2026, Alex Pretti. Since then, the watchdog group's campaign has gathered nearly a hundredthousand signatures, launched digital ads, and now has taken its people-powered message to the streets of Washington, D.C., with a mobile billboard. The billboard will be present from 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. today around the White House, Congress, and the Secretary's office near Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling.
"DHS under Kristi Noem has become dangerously lawless and deadly, and the buck stops with her," said Virginia Kase Solomon, Common Cause President and CEO. "Whether she resigns or the president fires her, America doesn't need another day with Noem as DHS secretary. We plan to drive the people's message past the White House, Congress, and even Kristi Noem's office until our demands are met."
***
Original text here: https://www.commoncause.org/press/d-c-mobile-billboard-demands-trump-fire-kristi-noem/
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Dr. Oz Visited Griggs-Midway Fraud Site
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Feb. 2 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Dr. Oz visited Griggs-Midway fraud site
By Bill Glahn
Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was in town earlier this month to pay homage at the most-holy shrine to Minnesota fraud, the Griggs-Midway building at 1821 W. University Avenue in St. Paul. Clearly, the feds have not forgotten about Minnesota fraud.
RealClearPolitics wrote
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Feb. 2 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Dr. Oz visited Griggs-Midway fraud site
By Bill Glahn
Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator for the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), was in town earlier this month to pay homage at the most-holy shrine to Minnesota fraud, the Griggs-Midway building at 1821 W. University Avenue in St. Paul. Clearly, the feds have not forgotten about Minnesota fraud.
RealClearPolitics wrote(with video and transcript of the visit), quoting Dr. Oz,
Behind me is the Griggs-Midway building. It looks like a factory because it was a linen factory. They made cloth back there, and it was converted to an office building. You'll notice all those little signs there -- there are tons of businesses inside.
Roughly 400 Medicaid businesses were started in the building behind me over the last several years. They generated about $380 million of billing that you, the taxpayer, were putting up. That means roughly every business had a million dollars of billing.
It's fraud central. As I noted back in the day, 1821 University Ave. was the No. 1 free-food address in the Feeding Our Future scandal. Dr. Oz later warns,
You'll notice there is already a watch group observing us and people in cars taking pictures of us. They're calling around trying to find out what's going down.
And I'll tell you, you don't have to wonder. We're here to figure out why these folks are being defrauded--why the people who live in Minnesota aren't getting access to the care they deserve -- because it's been stolen.
While in town, Dr. Oz met with the state Dept. of Human Services (DHS). KSTP-5 reported at the time,
Dr. Oz's visit came days after CMS sent notice to the state, saying its plan to address fraud lacked specifics and enforceable timelines, and demanding the state revise that plan or risk losing up to about $2 billion in 2026 meant to help vulnerable Minnesotans.
That's "billion" with a "b." As it happens,
The state has until Jan. 30 to submit a revised plan, according to the federal notice.
Hey, that's today! We'll see if the state of Minnesota takes this ultimatum seriously.
* * *
Bill Glahn is a Policy Fellow with Center of the American Experiment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/dr-oz-visited-griggs-midway-fraud-site/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Common Ground on Immigration - Minnesota
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Feb. 2 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Common ground on immigration: Minnesota
By John Phelan
Yesterday, looking to define some common ground on immigration, I noted that:
1. The president enforces that law across the entire United States
2. Congress makes immigration law for the entire United States
What does this mean in practical terms for our state?
3) Opposition to ICE is often the motte, opposition to immigration
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Feb. 2 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on Jan. 30, 2026:
* * *
Common ground on immigration: Minnesota
By John Phelan
Yesterday, looking to define some common ground on immigration, I noted that:
1. The president enforces that law across the entire United States
2. Congress makes immigration law for the entire United States
What does this mean in practical terms for our state?
3) Opposition to ICE is often the motte, opposition to immigrationlaw is often the bailey...
You might have seen the "motte and bailey" meme. This shows you a Norman castle where the motte -- the village out front -- is a strong statement that either cannot be supported or has very little support -- and the bailey -- the fortification up on the hill -- is a more moderate argument which can be defended and/or has more support. The gag is that people with weak and/or unpopular arguments flee the motte for the safety of the bailey.
This captures a good chunk of the opposition to ICE's activities in Minnesota. There are a lot of extremists -- like Defend the 612, the People's Action Coalition Against Trump, or People Over Papers -- who oppose any enforcement of federal immigration law whatsoever -- indeed, they oppose the existence of such laws in the first place -- but know that this is an unpopular argument, a point I'll return to in a moment. So, they hide this argument behind a narrower, more immediate opposition to ICE's tactics.
4) ...but not always: There are legitimate gripes with tactics
We should not infer from this, though, that all opposition to ICE's methods is a Trojan Horse containing the abolition of the borders of the United States of America. A great many Minnesotans have gripes, and not all of these can, or should, be easily dismissed.
In December, the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll "conducted Dec. 9 through Dec. 12" found that "41% approve of the strategies used by ICE, while 56% disapprove and 3% are not sure." Furthermore:
According to our poll, 43% approve of President Trump's immigration enforcement policies while 53% disapprove. Within those numbers, 86% of Republicans approve of Trump's immigration enforcement policies, compared to 11% of Democrats and 37% of independents.
Last June:
The latest Star Tribune/Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication Minnesota Poll found that 55% of Minnesotans polled oppose Trump's immigration moves while 43% support them.
Suburban respondents outside Hennepin and Ramsey counties were divided on Trump's immigration policies, with 51% saying they support them, and in greater Minnesota, most strongly back the president on this issue.
...
The poll also found that a majority -- 53% of poll respondents -- disapprove of the Trump administration's recent push to deport undocumented immigrants without a court hearing. Yet 92% of Republicans back the president on that question.
These are questions of tactics: How is the executive branch, via agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, executing the laws? Remember the Bill of Rights and those Constitutional protections discussed yesterday which a conservative should value as highly as anyone.
5) What do Minnesotans want from immigration policy?
But if people have concerns about the tactics of immigration policy, what do they think of the aims?
When the Star Tribune asked "Which of the following statements comes closest to your point of view," 28% of respondents said "All undocumented immigrants should be deported," 12% said that "undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records should be allowed to stay in the U.S. in order to work, but not allowed to become citizens," and 59% said that "undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records should be allowed to stay and become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over time."
This is not a terribly helpful question. What do the 71% of respondents who favor "undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records" remaining under certain circumstances think ought to happen to those illegal immigrants who do? Should they be deported? If so, Mayor Jacob Frey, for one, disagrees. "Violent criminals should be held accountable based on the crimes they commit," he tweeted earlier this week, "not based on where they are from," lining up alongside those aforementioned extremists who oppose any deportations at all. He might say that he doesn't want "a working dad who contributes to MPLS & is from Ecuador" deported, but he doesn't want violent criminals deported either.
There is little that I can find in the KSTP/SurveyUSA poll or the Star Tribune's Minnesota poll to indicate what Minnesotans think ought to happen to illegal immigrants with criminal records. In a New York Times-Ipsos poll conducted in January last year, 87% of respondents said they supported removing all migrants "who are here illegally and have criminal records." What are the numbers for that in Minnesota?
We conduct our own Thinking Minnesota poll, which, alas, does not yet provide an answer. What does it tell us about Minnesotans views on immigration over the last couple of years?
At the federal level, it is a reasonably important issue.
Our March 2024 poll found that 69% of respondents thought that the federal government was doing "not enough" when it came to "illegal immigration and the situation at the border."
In our November 2024 poll, 14% of respondents said that "Illegal immigration and border security" was "One of the most important" issues in their "choice of which candidate to support for President." This was above "Government Reform" with 4%, "The environment and climate change" and "Taxes" with 8% each, "Public schools," "Crime, drugs, and public safety," and "LGBTQ+ and Transgender Issues" with 9% each, "Healthcare" with 11%, and tied with "The economy and jobs." "Abortion" (15%), "Inflation and the cost of living (16%), and "Protecting democracy" (23%) all rated higher.
And President Trump was rated pretty well. In that poll, 56% of respondents thought that "Illegal immigration and border security" would get better under President Trump, with 25% thinking it would get worse.
But what about the state level?
In both May and December 2025, we asked "Thinking about some issues, which ONE or TWO of the following issue areas do you believe should be the top priorities for the Governor and State Legislature here in Minnesota?" As Table 1 shows, "Inflation and Cost of Living" held its position as Minnesotan's leading concern, so watch out for more from us on "affordability." But we also see that the share of Minnesotans naming "Illegal Immigration and Border Security" surged by eight percentage points, moving from 7th out of fifteen issues to 3rd. It now ranks as a top three concern in both the "MSP Suburbs" and the "Rest of State."
Table 1: Thinking about some issues, which ONE or TWO of the following issue areas do you believe should be the top priorities for the Governor and State Legislature here in Minnesota?
Source: Thinking Minnesota Poll
We do not, yet, have data on what is behind this surge in a desire for the state government to prioritize immigration: What do these folks want the state government to do, exactly? Perhaps we can get an idea from answers to adjacent questions?
In March 2024, we found that 59% of respondents opposed "a proposal in the state legislature to make Minnesota a sanctuary state -- which would stop local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials and ban state government officials from enforcing immigration laws." This is substantially the approach advocated by the likes of Mayor Frey and those extremists, and Minnesotans didn't like it.
Our August 2024 poll found that 58% of respondents opposed "a law allowing illegal immigrants the ability to acquire a driver's license," up from 42% in February 2023: Support fell, over the same period, from 53% to 39%. Meanwhile, 66% of respondents were concerned that such a bill would accidentally register non-citizens to vote.
In May 2025, 61% of respondents opposed taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, with 37% supporting it.
None of this suggests that Minnesotans are aligned with Mayor Frey and those other extremists. If we are looking for the common ground on immigration in Minnesota, this points us towards it. Proposals, such as those floated by DFLers for cash handouts to illegal immigrants, are not likely to be popular; proposals such as that from Rep. Harry Niska (R) that we "change Minnesota state law to facilitate more cooperation between the local and state communities and federal law enforcement" might be more so.
It is time to be constructive
Emotions have been running high in our state as a result of these recent events. There are those who would keep them running high, as they need an issue to campaign on in November. Your anguish is their strategy.
As a policy shop, it is our job to look past this for workable solutions. Those emotions won't subside until those solutions are discovered and enacted. When they are, we can all breathe a sigh of relief, so let us not dawdle.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/common-ground-on-immigration-minnesota/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: 500 Habeas Cases
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Feb. 2 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
500 habeas cases
By Bill Glahn
We are now over 500 habeas corpus cases filed in federal district court in Minnesota so far in just January. These petitions all seek the release of one or more illegal aliens held in ICE detention. By my count, as of Friday morning (January 30), based on caption and case type, we stand at 526 habeas cases.
For comparison purposes, please note that we did not reach the
... Show Full Article
GOLDEN VALLEY, Minnesota, Feb. 2 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary:
* * *
500 habeas cases
By Bill Glahn
We are now over 500 habeas corpus cases filed in federal district court in Minnesota so far in just January. These petitions all seek the release of one or more illegal aliens held in ICE detention. By my count, as of Friday morning (January 30), based on caption and case type, we stand at 526 habeas cases.
For comparison purposes, please note that we did not reach the500 criminal case mark in Minnesota federal district for all of 2025.
Nearly all of the habeas corpus cases filed ultimately succeed in their goal. Here is one exception.
Case No. 26-cv-386 was filed on January 16. Here's what I can piece together from what's available to the public in the case file.
On January 13, Sinan Ozturk had already received a hearing in Immigration Court and was not granted bond.
On January 16, Judge Laura Provinzino ordered that Ozturk not be removed from Minnesota. She did not order Ozturk's release.
Today (January 29), Judge Provinzino is holding a hearing on the case, seeking to examine,
The reasons why Sinan O. was denied bond at the bond hearing on January 13, 2026.
That's not her job. Congress has already established an appeals process for decisions made by an Immigration Court judge. It involves a body called the Board of Immigration Appeals (BOIA).
In a much-followed case involving a prominent Columbia University activist, CBS News reported earlier this month,
A panel of judges on a federal appeals court ruled Thursday that a district court judge did not have the authority to order the release of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University activist who has been targeted by the Trump administration for deportation.
The three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey "lacked jurisdiction over Khalil's removal proceedings" under a provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, or INA.
Quoting the court decision,
Our holdings vindicate essential principles of habeas and immigration law. The scheme Congress enacted governing immigration proceedings provides Khalil a meaningful forum in which to raise his claims later on -- in a petition for review of a final order of removal.
It seems that word hasn't trickled down to flyover country.
I hope you don't think that I've forgotten about my Minnesota Men.
Edgar Diaz-Jiminez of Mexico pled guilty last week to one count of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm.
Guidelines call for Diaz to spend one year in federal prison, give or take a few months. Sentencing will occur at a later date.
Xavier Antonio Contreras-Lara of Honduras appeared in federal court in downtown Minneapolis today.
Back on January 12, Contreras pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry of a previously deported alien. He had been deported on two prior occasions.
A suspect matching his name was arrested back in late August and again in October on domestic assault charges in McLeod County, according to jail records. After this second arrest, he was indicted in federal court and placed in the Fast Track program.
He is now a convicted felon.
In a court filing made by his federal defense attorney, Contreras is said to have been a banker in his native land, chased out of the country by local gangs. Upon his return to Honduras, he will seek employment as a welder.
Adios, Xavier!
* * *
Bill Glahn is a Policy Fellow with Center of the American Experiment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/500-habeas-cases/
[Category: ThinkTank]
