A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court heard arguments Wednesday in a bitter legal fight between Governor Greg Abbott and the Biden administration over Texas’ new migrant arrest law, highlighting a dizzying array of legal developments in recent years. 24 Hours highlighted that migrants and many law enforcement officers in Texas are confused and unsure.

The hearing had been hastily called the day before by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, prompting attorneys to prepare for a hearing that could determine whether one of the nation’s most aggressive state efforts to improve security at the U.S.-Mexico border should be enforced. may become law.

Two judges spoke frequently during the hearing, and their comments suggested there was division in the jury.

The court’s chief judge, Priscilla Richman, appeared skeptical of the Texas law, particularly the provision that allows state courts to send migrants back to Mexico. While questioning Aaron Nielson, the attorney general of Texas, she read from a 2012 Supreme Court case from Arizona that affirmed the federal government’s supremacy in immigration matters.

“It seems to me that this statute washes that away,” Judge Richman said of the Texas law.

The other judge to speak, Andrew S. Oldham, Mr. Abbott’s former general counsel, peppered the Justice Department lawyer with questions and seemed likely to side with Texas. Mr. Oldham dissented in a Fifth Circuit ruling Tuesday night, effectively putting the law back on hold hours after the U.S. Supreme Court allowed it to take effect.

Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated by President Biden and confirmed last year, did not appear to speak during the hearing, which was held via video conference and streamed live on audio to the public.

The appeals court judges considered a request from Texas to let the law take effect while its constitutionality is challenged in court. A district court originally blocked the law in February. The appeals court judges did not rule during Wednesday’s hearing.

In a wide-ranging speech in Austin shortly after the hearing, Mr. Abbott, who has said he expects the Supreme Court to ultimately rule on the law’s constitutionality, suggested that the statute was designed to uphold Supreme Court precedent on the issue of the constitution. 2012 case, Arizona v. United States, decided 5-3.

“We found ways to try to make that law consistent” with the dissent that the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the Arizona case: said Mr. Abbott. Justice Scalia had suggested that Arizona take action did not violate federal law but simply added state penalties to help enforce existing federal restrictions.

The hearing followed a rapid series of back-and-forth court rulings Tuesday, including a Supreme Court procedural ruling that allowed the law to take effect briefly for several hours. Then on Tuesday evening, the appeals court panel blocked the law again, ruling in a 2-to-1 decision.

The confusion continued into Wednesday and extended to state troopers, local police departments and elected sheriffs, some of whom were eager to implement the law, known as Senate Bill 4.

The law makes it a crime to enter Texas from another country anywhere other than through a legal port of entry, punishable by jail time, a deportation order from a state court judge, or both. It would apply not only to migrants at the border, but also to people in Texas towns hundreds of miles away who entered the country without permission as early as two years ago.

Brad Coe, the sheriff in Kinney County along the Texas border, said he woke up determined to hear directly from Mr. Abbott what was going on with the law. “I’m on my way to his office now,” he said Wednesday morning.

Along the Rio Grande, a group of about two dozen migrants in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, kept a close eye on their phones for information about the new law as they gathered at the Paso del Norte Bridge across from El Paso. Yazmine Marquez, a 34-year-old Venezuelan woman, waited for an immigration hearing in El Paso later Wednesday.

“They have their reasons,” she said of Texas leaders who tried to enact the law. “Not all migrants try to enter for good reasons. But most of us are trying to enter the United States for work and a better future.”

Mr. Abbott and other Texas officials have argued that the law is a necessary response to record numbers of border crossings, sometimes flooding South Texas cities with hundreds of new migrants a day — and to what they say is the federal government’s inability to enforce the country’s existing border security laws.

“Texas has the right to defend itself,” Mr. Nielson, the attorney general of Texas, said during his opening presentation on Wednesday. He argued that the state law mirrored federal statutes that already make it a crime to enter the country without authorization.

“What we’re trying to do is make sure that Congress, which sets the nation’s immigration laws, makes sure those laws are enforced,” he said. “And to the extent that we cannot enforce federal law, which we do not claim to do,” he added, “we will enforce our own laws.”

But Mr. Nielson struggled with hypothetical questions about the law. Judge Richman raised the case of a migrant who may have crossed from Mexico into Arizona without permission and years later went to Texas: Could that person be arrested under the law?

“I don’t know the answer,” Mr. Nielson said. “Maybe?”

The federal government has argued, and did so at Wednesday’s hearing, that the U.S. Constitution and decades of legal precedent have made immigration enforcement a federal responsibility.

Daniel Tenny, a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the Texas law conflicted with federal law and Supreme Court precedent, particularly a 2012 Arizona v. United States decision, decided when Arizona tried to pass an immigration enforcement law. .

He said the court had simply upheld a system of federal jurisdiction over immigration and borders “that has been in place for 150 years.”

Legal experts following the hearing said the panel appeared inclined to leave the lower court’s order in place while the appeals process continues, meaning the law would remain on hold.

“The bottom line is that the court will most likely deny Texas the stay they asked for, which means SB 4 will remain blocked,” said Raffi Melkonian, a federal appeals attorney based in Houston who regularly appears in court. Fifth Circuit.

The same panel of judges will hear more extensive arguments on April 3 on the constitutionality of the law and Texas’ appeal of the ban. Mr. Melkonian said that, based on Wednesday’s arguments, it also did not appear that Texas would be on good footing for that hearing.

But the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, has developed a reputation for tough conservatism. Many of the justices adhere to “originalism,” which attempts to interpret the Constitution through the lens of its 18th-century authors.

The court’s composition was dramatically shaped by President Donald J. Trump, who nominated six of the seventeen justices, including Mr. Oldham. Six of the others were nominated by other Republican presidents.

Both sides would likely appeal any ruling, and Mr. Abbott has already said he expects the fight over the law to reach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court weighed in on the case on Tuesday, but did so on procedural grounds and did not address the broader issue of the law’s constitutionality. It moved the case to the Fifth Circuit, where another group of judges issued a procedural pause in the lower court’s order, allowing the Supreme Court to intervene.

When the Supreme Court threw it back and declined to order a further delay, the law was still in effect for a few hours Tuesday afternoon and evening.

Some Texas officials celebrated. Attorney General Ken Paxton called it a “huge victory.” But others, like Mr. Abbott, were more muted. “A positive development,” he called it in a statement.

In a concurring opinion written by Judge Amy Coney Barrett and joined by Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court urged the Fifth Circuit to take swift action. That appeared to be the impetus for the appeals court panel’s announcement of Wednesday’s oral arguments, and for a separate order lifting their earlier procedural pause — blocking the law again.

As the hearing took place Wednesday, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico attacked the Texas law at a news conference, calling it “draconian” and “completely dehumanizing.” The Mexican government has said it would legally refuse deportations by Texas officials.

“It’s as if the governor of Tamaulipas were to enforce a law against Texans visiting Mexico,” he said, referring to the state in Mexico.

If the law were to go into effect, Texas would be the only state known to deputize local authorities to arrest people suspected of entering the country illegally. Legal experts said a ruling in the state’s favor could encourage other Republican-led states to enact similar laws. On Tuesday, lawmakers in Iowa passed their own similar bill.

Reporting was contributed by Edgar Sandoval, Reyes Mata III, Mattathias Schwartz, David Montgomery And Emiliano Rodriguez Mega.

The thirteen federal appellate courts across the country are located just below the U.S. Supreme Court. In theory, the courts of appeal, each covering a judicial circuit, are equivalent. But often enough in American history, one circuit court plays an outsized role in shaping fundamental constitutional issues that ultimately end up before the Supreme Court.

Right now, that judicial spotlight belongs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is weighing the fate of a Texas law that would give police officers in the state the power to arrest people suspected of illegally entering the U.S. entered – a The power long believed to rest with the federal government.

It’s a case with far-reaching legal and political implications, and has landed the Fifth Circuit in the middle of a fierce debate over the extent of federal power over national borders.

The Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, hears cases from three states – Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana – and the court’s composition was dramatically shaped by President Trump, who appointed six of the seventeen judges. Six of the others were nominated by other Republican presidents.

In recent years, the Fifth Circuit has developed a reputation for muscular conservatism. Many of the justices adhere to “originalism,” which attempts to interpret the Constitution through the lens of its 18th-century authors.

That has led the Fifth Circuit to take a number of positions — such as protecting a violent abuser’s legal access to firearms — that even the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed skeptical of. Of the nine Fifth Circuit decisions reviewed by the Supreme Court last term, seven were reversed.

Yet the Fifth Circuit’s growing role in handling cases before the Supreme Court is undeniable. The number of Fifth Circuit cases heard by the nation’s highest court more than tripled during the Trump administration. And the fact that it hears appeals from federal district courts in Texas means the Fifth Circuit will likely remain very busy as the state’s governor and attorney general continue to mount legal challenges to federal authority over immigration and the border.

Peter Navarro, trade adviser to Donald J. Trump during his presidency, will report to prison Thursday after a federal appeals court refused his near-final attempt to remain free while appealing his conviction for contempt of Congress.

The ruling meant that, barring an 11th-hour Supreme Court intervention, which his lawyers previously vowed to invoke if necessary, Mr. Navarro will have to obey a Bureau of Prisons order and report to a federal prison on Tuesday in Miami. , which would make him the first senior aide to Mr. Trump to serve time for his role in the effort to overturn the 2020 election.

Mr. Navarro, 74, was sentenced to four months in prison in January for refusing to cooperate with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. The committee had subpoenaed Mr. Navarro for documents and testimony, seeking his testimony about a plan he devised to delay the certification of the election by holding up the counting of electoral votes.

After receiving the subpoena, Mr. Navarro dismissed the committee based on the belief, he argued at trial, that Mr. Trump had instructed him not to testify and to assert executive privilege. professions.

Lawyers for Mr. Navarro have consistently argued that his case raises new legal questions about executive privilege and is likely to lead to new insights into Congress’s oversight of the executive branch. They have also pointed to Stephen K. Bannon, another aide to Mr. Trump, who was allowed to remain free while he appealed an identical sentence for similarly obstructing the commission.

But a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, writing that he had “failed to demonstrate that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in a reversal, a retrial, a sentence which shall not include imprisonment or a reduction in sentence less than the time already served.”

The order upheld a ruling by Judge Amit P. Mehta, who presided over the trial, in February turned down Mr. Navarro’s request to remain free while his appeal is heard.

Indiana’s ban on hormone treatments and puberty blockers for transgender minors can go into effect, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, reversing a lower court ruling last year that had largely blocked the law.

The statement of three paragraphs A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, based in Chicago, said it was suspending a preliminary injunction the district court issued in June, just before the law was set to take effect last summer.

The appeal judges did not explain their reasoning, but simply said that a full opinion on the case would be issued in the future.

The decision further confuses the national legal landscape surrounding transgender care for minors, with bans in some states but not in others, and could lead to abrupt changes in the treatment of young people in Indiana.

“This ruling is beyond disappointing and a heartbreaking development for thousands of transgender youth, their doctors and their families,” the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Indiana, which filed the lawsuit challenging the ban, said in a statement. “As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all transgender youth in Indiana to know that this fight is far from over,” the statement said.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, whose office defended the law in court, said on social media that “we are proud to win this fight.”

“Our common-sense state law banning dangerous and irreversible gender transition procedures for minors is now enforceable,” said Republican Rep. Rokita.

Republican-led states have fought in recent years to ban gender transition care for minors, leading to a series of lawsuits in federal and state courts that have so far produced mixed results. Many legal experts on both sides of the issue expect the legality of the bans will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Indiana’s ban passed the Republican-controlled Legislature by wide margins last spring and was signed into law by Gov. Eric Holcomb, a Republican. Supporters of the law claimed they wanted to protect young people from making life-changing decisions they might later regret.

Families of transgender children have filed a lawsuit to block the law, saying it would put transgender youth at immediate risk of unwanted changes to their bodies that would have lifelong consequences.

A federal district judge, James Patrick Hanlon, appointed by President Donald J. Trump, temporarily blocked parts of the law banning hormone treatments and puberty blockers for minors while the lawsuit continued. He allowed a ban on gender transition operations for minors to take effect as planned.

But after hearing arguments this month, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, consisting of two judges appointed by Republican presidents and one appointed by a Democratic president, vacated Judge Hanlon’s order.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Donald J. Trump's claim that he was immune from charges of conspiring to undermine the 2020 election results, ruling that he must stand trial on a criminal complaint alleging he is accused of trying to undo his loss. to President Biden.

The 3-0 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat, but would likely not be the final word on his claims for executive immunity. Trump is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court – possibly with an interim request to the full appeals court.

Still, the panel's 57-page ruling marked an important moment in American jurisprudence, answering a question never before answered by an appeals court: Can former presidents escape the criminal justice system's responsibility for things they did during their have served in office?

The question is new because no former president had been indicted before Mr. Trump, so there was never a chance for a defendant to make — and for courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he has put forward.

The panel, composed of two Democratic-appointed judges and one Republican-appointed judge, said in its decision that Trump, despite the privileges of the office he once held, was subject to federal criminal law like every other American.

“For the purposes of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the panel wrote. “But any executive branch immunity that may have protected him while he was president no longer protects him from this prosecution.”

The panel's ruling came nearly a month after it heard arguments on the immunity issue from Mr. Trump's legal team and from prosecutors working for the special counsel, Jack Smith. While the decision was swift by the standards of a normal appeal, what happens next will arguably be more important in determining when and if a trial on the election subversion charges – now set to begin in early March – will take place.

.

When a federal appeals court in December agreed with former President Donald J. Trump's sweeping claims that he would be immune from charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, it set up a rapid-fire briefing schedule that included the defense and prosecutor were asked to submit their papers. on consecutive Saturdays during the Christmas and New Year holidays.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also moved with unusual alacrity in arranging a hearing for arguments on the issue, scheduling the proceedings for January 9, just a week after all papers had been submitted. filed – a remarkably short time frame by the standards of the legal system.

But after sending what appeared to be clear signals that they intended to quickly resolve this phase of the immunity dispute — which is at the heart of both the viability and timing of Trump's trial on election subversion charges — the judges of the court of appeal have not yet issued a decision.

The consequences are already becoming clear. On Friday, Tanya S. Chutkan, the federal district court judge who oversaw the election case, formally scrapped her plan to start the trial on March 4. She bowed to the reality that the time to initiate the proceedings had passed by then, especially because of the wrangling over Mr. Trump's immunity claim, and said she would set a new date “if and when” that issue has been resolved.

The discrepancy between the expectations raised by the panel's initial steps to expedite the case and the weeks that have now piled up without a ruling has drawn the attention of some legal experts who are closely watching the case.

It has also caught the attention of Mr. Trump's lawyers, who have watched from the sidelines with something akin to quiet glee. Every day that passes without a verdict reinforces their strategy of delaying the trial until after the presidential race has been decided.

“It is surprising, given the speed with which they briefed and argued this appeal, that the court has not yet made a decision,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in federal courts. “It is surprising, both because of the speed with which they acted and because of the broader timing considerations in this case – both the March 4 trial date and the looming specter of the election.”

It is impossible at this point to get any real insight into what is going on among the members of the panel, which consists of two judges appointed by President Biden and one judge placed on the bench by President George HW Bush.

The latter judge, Karen L. Henderson, had previously opposed expediting the immunity appeal and has voted in favor of Mr. Trump in several previous politically charged cases. As the panel's senior lawyer, Judge Henderson has the authority to write the opinion if she is in the majority. And she has no deadline to get the job done.

Professor Vladeck said many people in the legal community had speculated about what Judge Henderson's role might be in the delay, although he also noted that no formal rule prevented the other two judges on a panel from ruling on their own . .

While that would be a “violation of judicial decorum,” he said, Judge Henderson's colleagues — Florence Y. Pan and J. Michelle Childs — could theoretically make a decision without her.

One possibility behind the delay is that the panel is deadlocked on immunity, although that seems unlikely given that all three lawyers expressed some skepticism about Trump's claims during last month's hearing in Washington.

It could also be that the justices agree that Mr. Trump does not have immunity from prosecution, but struggle to reach a consensus on how to formulate their decision on one of the most momentous questions of presidential power that courts have considered in years.

Professor Vladeck said the panel would benefit – if only in terms of public opinion – if it reached a unanimous decision, both in terms of reasoning and outcome. The benefits of avoiding the appearance of a divided panel, he noted, are likely worth taking “a few extra days – or even a few extra weeks.”

The appeals process began in early December, when Trump's lawyers asked the appeals court to overturn Judge Chutkan's denial of his immunity claims. Judge Chutkan also froze the underlying case, putting the proposed trial start date in jeopardy.

Even if the immunity issue is resolved in the coming weeks, it is not clear how quickly the case could go to trial. Judge Chutkan has scheduled a new trial in her courtroom, which could last about a week, starting April 2. And she has hinted in court filings that, in the interest of fairness, she wants to ensure that Mr. Trump's lawyers are given the time they are entitled to prepare for the trial.

The timing will also likely be determined by the Supreme Court, assuming one or the other side appeals the three-judge panel's ruling to the justices.

The Supreme Court could decline to hear the question and leave the appeals court ruling in place — a move that could appeal to the justices. They are already embroiled in another politically charged issue involving Mr. Trump, whether states can disqualify him from voting this year over his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

But if the court hears the immunity appeal, it will have to make the equally important decision about how quickly to take action in hearing it.

Depending on the justices' actions, the election interference case could go to Federal District Court in Washington as early as April or could be postponed until after the election. If that happens and Mr. Trump wins, he could ask his Justice Department to dismiss the charges. Even if the charges were to remain in force, proceedings against him could be frozen while he remains in office, under a long-standing Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president.

Judge Henderson has generally shown herself to be more willing than some of her colleagues on the appeals court to rule in Trump's favor.

In November 2019, she was among the dissenters in an 8-3 decision by the full appeals court that Mr. Trump's accounting firm had to hand over eight years of his financial records to Congress.

She was also part of a panel that ruled in February 2020 that Trump's former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II, was immune from a subpoena to testify before the House of Representatives. A few months later, the full court overturned that decision.

And in June 2020, Judge Henderson was part of a panel that ordered a district court judge to immediately dismiss a case against Trump's former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. That would have blocked the district court's plan to investigate the circumstances under which the Trump-era Justice Department sought dismissal of the case, even though Mr. Flynn had pleaded guilty. The full Court of Appeal also reversed that decision over her objections.

In August 2022, Judge Henderson joined in a ruling that delivered a setback for Mr. Trump. The decision gave the House access to Mr. Trump's tax records. But in a separate opinion, she expressed unease about “the potential and incentive of Congress to threaten a sitting president with a post-presidency request for tax returns” to influence the president while in office.

Donald J. Trump may one day have to pay E. Jean Carroll the $83.3 million she was awarded, but that day is not today.

Mr. Trump called the jury's decision “Absolutely ridiculous!” and vowed to appeal the verdict, a process that could take months or longer.

And while he awaits an appeals court ruling, Mr. Trump doesn't have to write Ms. Carroll a check.

Yet the former president still has to pay something — possibly a significant amount — while he waits.

Trump can pay the $83.3 million to the court, which will hold the money while the appeal is pending. This is what he did last year when a jury ordered him to pay Ms. Carroll $5.5 million in a related case.

Or Mr. Trump could try to secure a bond, which would avoid having to pay the full amount up front.

With a bond, he might have to make a down payment and offer collateral, and that would incur interest and fees. It would also require Trump to find a financial institution willing to lend him a large sum of money at a time when he is in significant legal danger.

Although Mr. Trump likes to brag about his billions, much of his wealth is tied to the value of his properties, and he is loathe to give away large sums of cash at once.

And when it comes to his various legal fees – of which there are many – he tries to avoid spending his own money in the first place. Mr. Trump has tapped the coffers of his political action committee to pay for his own legal fees and other costs arising from his criminal charges and civil suits.

Yet $83.3 million exceeds the amount in his political accounts. Friday's verdict will require Trump to reach into his own pocket.

But if the verdict survives Trump's appeals, Ms. Carroll should ultimately be paid, said Bruce Green, director of the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics at Fordham University.

“He is the rare defendant with an $83 million judgment against him who actually has the money,” Mr. Green said. “Wherever this ends up, she should be able to collect it.”

He has enough cash to cover the judgment in several accounts, a person close to him said. In recent years, Trump has emptied several properties, including his Washington hotel, which was sold for $375 million.

Still, Friday's verdict isn't the only payout for Trump. New York's attorney general is seeking a $370 million fine from the former president and his family business as part of a civil fraud lawsuit concluded this month.

It is expected that the judge will rule in this case in the coming weeks. If Mr. Trump is ordered to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, it is unclear whether he would have to sell another asset to make such a payment.

Claire Fahy reporting contributed.