U.S. top court to set guidelines for Trump treatment of non-citizensWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three cases in coming months that could help or hinder President Donald Trump’s efforts to ramp up border security and accelerate deportations of those in the country illegally. The three cases, which reached the court before Democratic President Barack Obama left office, all deal broadly with the degree to which non-citizens can assert rights under the U.S. Constitution. They come at a time when the court is one justice short and divided along ideological lines, with four conservatives and four liberals. The justices will issue rulings before the end of June against the backdrop of high-profile litigation challenging the lawfulness of Trump’s controversial travel ban on people traveling from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The most pertinent of the three cases in terms of Republican Trump administration priorities involves whether immigrants in custody for deportation proceedings have the right to a hearing to request their release when their cases are not promptly adjudicated.  The long-running class action litigation, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of thousands of immigrants detained for more than six months, includes both immigrants apprehended at the border when seeking illegal entry into the United States and legal permanent residents in deportation proceedings because they were convicted of crimes. The case also could affect long-term U.S. residents who entered the country illegally and have subsequently been detained. The Trump administration has said it wants to end the release of immigrants facing deportation and speed up the process for ejecting them from the country. A decision in the case requiring additional court hearings could have very direct implications for the administration’s plans, said ACLU lawyer Ahilan Arulanantham, especially since immigration courts currently have a backlog of more than 500,000cases. The ACLU estimates that up to 8,000 immigrants nationwide at any given time have been held for at least six months. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official was unable to immediately confirm data on length of detention but said that in fiscal year 2016, the average daily count of detainees was just under 35,000.  “If Trump wants to put more people in deportation but does not increase the number of immigration judges, then people are going to have to wait longer and longer to get a hearing,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School. The Trump administration has pledged to sharply curtail illegal immigration, with initiatives such as building a wall along the U.S-Mexican border and hiring thousands of federal agents to police the border and arrest and deport immigrants who live in the United States but entered the country illegally. Trump has also threatened to withhold federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities” that offer protections to immigrants who could face deportation. CROSS-BORDER SHOOTING The other cases to be decided concern whether U.S. government officials can be sued over mistreatment of non-citizens in two separate contexts.  One will decide whether the family of 15-year-old Mexican teenager Sergio Hernandez, who was killed while on Mexican soil by a U.S. agent firing from across the border in Texas, can sue under the U.S. Constitution. It is a scenario that the lawyers for Hernandez’s family say could become more frequent if the Trump administration acts on its proposal to increase the number of border guards by 5,000, raising the prospect of similar confrontations. The court hears arguments in that case on Feb. 21. The second is a civil lawsuit brought by immigrants, mainly Muslims, who were detained in New York after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and claim they were mistreated.  The group of Muslim, Arab and South Asian non-U.S. citizens say they were held as terrorism suspects based on race, religion, ethnicity and immigration status and abused in detention before being deported. The long-running case focuses on whether senior officials in the administration of Republican President George W. Bush can be sued for their role in directing the action. The Obama administration argued that the court should be wary of extending liability to the actions of senior officials, especially when it implicates national security and immigration. Based on the skepticism of the justices during the Jan. 18 oral argument, the court seems likely to rule against the detainees. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that permitting such lawsuits against senior U.S. officials would become “a way of challenging national policy” through litigation seeking monetary damages against the individuals who implemented the policy. The three cases are separate from litigation over the legality of Trump’s travel ban, which could also ultimately be decided by the high court. The key case on that front is now pending before an appeals court in San Francisco after a three-judge panel upheld a lower court decision to put the ban on hold. Language in the upcoming rulings that address the rights of non-citizens and analyzes how courts should review govenrment action on immigration and national security could have relevance in that case, legal experts say. Anil Kalhan, an immigration law professor at Drexel University’s Kline School of Law, said the furor over the treatment of non-U.S. citizens affected by the travel ban could bleed over into how the court approaches the cases. “It might be the atmospherics of what’s going on now might lead to a closer look from the justices,” he said. (This story has been refiled to correct spelling of Ahilan Arulanantham in paragraph six.) politicsNews
top court set guidelines trump treatment reuters the supreme court decide three cases coming months could help hinder president donald trump efforts ramp border security accelerate deportations country illegally the three cases reached court democratic president barack obama left office deal broadly degree assert rights constitution they come time court one justice short divided along ideological lines four conservatives four liberals the justices issue rulings end june backdrop litigation challenging lawfulness trump controversial travel ban people traveling seven predominantly muslim countries the pertinent three cases terms republican trump administration priorities involves whether immigrants custody deportation proceedings right hearing request release cases promptly adjudicated the class action litigation brought american civil liberties union actu behalf thousands immigrants detained six months includes immigrants apprehended border seeking illegal entry united states legal permanent residents deportation proceedings convicted crimes the case also could affect residents entered country illegally subsequently detained the trump administration said wants end release immigrants facing deportation speed process rejecting country a decision case requiring additional court hearings could direct implications administration plans said actu lawyer asian arulanantham especially since immigration courts currently backlog the actu estimates immigrants nationwide given time held least six months a immigration customs enforcement official unable immediately confirm data length detention said fiscal year average daily count detainees if trump wants put people deportation increase number immigration judges people going wait longer longer get hearing said stephen immigration law professor cornell law school the trump administration pledged sharply curtail illegal immigration initiatives building wall along border hiring thousands federal agents police border arrest deport immigrants live united states entered country illegally trump also threatened withhold federal funding sanctuary cities offer protections immigrants could face deportation shooting the cases decided concern whether government officials sued mistreatment two separate contexts one decide whether family mexican teenager sergio hernandez killed mexican soil agent firing across border texas sue constitution it scenario lawyers hernandez family say could become frequent trump administration acts proposal increase number border guards raising prospect similar confrontations the court hears arguments case the second civil lawsuit brought immigrants mainly muslims detained new york attacks claim mistreated the group muslim arab south asian citizens say held terrorism suspects based race religion ethnicity immigration status abused detention deported the case focuses whether senior officials administration republican president george bush sued role directing action the obama administration argued court wary extending liability actions senior officials especially implicated national security immigration based skepticism justices oral argument court seems likely rule detainees chief justice john roberts expressed concern permitting lawsuits senior officials would become way challenging national policy litigation seeking monetary damages individuals implemented policy the three cases separate litigation legality trump travel ban could also ultimately decided high court the key case front pending appeals court san francisco panel upheld lower court decision put ban hold language upcoming rulings address rights analyzes courts review government action immigration national security could relevance case legal experts say ani khan immigration law professor diesel university line school law said juror treatment citizens affected travel ban could bleed court approaches cases it might atmospheric going might lead closer look justices said this story refined correct spelling asian arulanantham paragraph six politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: U.S. top court to set guidelines for Trump treatment of non-citizensWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three cases in coming months that could help or hinder President Donald Trump’s efforts to ramp up border security and accelerate deportations of those in the country illegally. The three cases, which reached the court before Democratic President Barack Obama left office, all deal broadly with the degree to which non-citizens can assert rights under the U.S. Constitution. They come at a time when the court is one justice short and divided along ideological lines, with four conservatives and four liberals. The justices will issue rulings before the end of June against the backdrop of high-profile litigation challenging the lawfulness of Trump’s controversial travel ban on people traveling from seven predominantly Muslim countries. The most pertinent of the three cases in terms of Republican Trump administration priorities involves whether immigrants in custody for deportation proceedings have the right to a hearing to request their release when their cases are not promptly adjudicated.  The long-running class action litigation, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of thousands of immigrants detained for more than six months, includes both immigrants apprehended at the border when seeking illegal entry into the United States and legal permanent residents in deportation proceedings because they were convicted of crimes. The case also could affect long-term U.S. residents who entered the country illegally and have subsequently been detained. The Trump administration has said it wants to end the release of immigrants facing deportation and speed up the process for ejecting them from the country. A decision in the case requiring additional court hearings could have very direct implications for the administration’s plans, said ACLU lawyer Ahilan Arulanantham, especially since immigration courts currently have a backlog of more than 500,000cases. The ACLU estimates that up to 8,000 immigrants nationwide at any given time have been held for at least six months. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official was unable to immediately confirm data on length of detention but said that in fiscal year 2016, the average daily count of detainees was just under 35,000.  “If Trump wants to put more people in deportation but does not increase the number of immigration judges, then people are going to have to wait longer and longer to get a hearing,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration law professor at Cornell Law School. The Trump administration has pledged to sharply curtail illegal immigration, with initiatives such as building a wall along the U.S-Mexican border and hiring thousands of federal agents to police the border and arrest and deport immigrants who live in the United States but entered the country illegally. Trump has also threatened to withhold federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities” that offer protections to immigrants who could face deportation. CROSS-BORDER SHOOTING The other cases to be decided concern whether U.S. government officials can be sued over mistreatment of non-citizens in two separate contexts.  One will decide whether the family of 15-year-old Mexican teenager Sergio Hernandez, who was killed while on Mexican soil by a U.S. agent firing from across the border in Texas, can sue under the U.S. Constitution. It is a scenario that the lawyers for Hernandez’s family say could become more frequent if the Trump administration acts on its proposal to increase the number of border guards by 5,000, raising the prospect of similar confrontations. The court hears arguments in that case on Feb. 21. The second is a civil lawsuit brought by immigrants, mainly Muslims, who were detained in New York after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and claim they were mistreated.  The group of Muslim, Arab and South Asian non-U.S. citizens say they were held as terrorism suspects based on race, religion, ethnicity and immigration status and abused in detention before being deported. The long-running case focuses on whether senior officials in the administration of Republican President George W. Bush can be sued for their role in directing the action. The Obama administration argued that the court should be wary of extending liability to the actions of senior officials, especially when it implicates national security and immigration. Based on the skepticism of the justices during the Jan. 18 oral argument, the court seems likely to rule against the detainees. Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern that permitting such lawsuits against senior U.S. officials would become “a way of challenging national policy” through litigation seeking monetary damages against the individuals who implemented the policy. The three cases are separate from litigation over the legality of Trump’s travel ban, which could also ultimately be decided by the high court. The key case on that front is now pending before an appeals court in San Francisco after a three-judge panel upheld a lower court decision to put the ban on hold. Language in the upcoming rulings that address the rights of non-citizens and analyzes how courts should review govenrment action on immigration and national security could have relevance in that case, legal experts say. Anil Kalhan, an immigration law professor at Drexel University’s Kline School of Law, said the furor over the treatment of non-U.S. citizens affected by the travel ban could bleed over into how the court approaches the cases. “It might be the atmospherics of what’s going on now might lead to a closer look from the justices,” he said. (This story has been refiled to correct spelling of Ahilan Arulanantham in paragraph six.) politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: top court set guidelines trump treatment reuters the supreme court decide three cases coming months could help hinder president donald trump efforts ramp border security accelerate deportations country illegally the three cases reached court democratic president barack obama left office deal broadly degree assert rights constitution they come time court one justice short divided along ideological lines four conservatives four liberals the justices issue rulings end june backdrop litigation challenging lawfulness trump controversial travel ban people traveling seven predominantly muslim countries the pertinent three cases terms republican trump administration priorities involves whether immigrants custody deportation proceedings right hearing request release cases promptly adjudicated the class action litigation brought american civil liberties union actu behalf thousands immigrants detained six months includes immigrants apprehended border seeking illegal entry united states legal permanent residents deportation proceedings convicted crimes the case also could affect residents entered country illegally subsequently detained the trump administration said wants end release immigrants facing deportation speed process rejecting country a decision case requiring additional court hearings could direct implications administration plans said actu lawyer asian arulanantham especially since immigration courts currently backlog the actu estimates immigrants nationwide given time held least six months a immigration customs enforcement official unable immediately confirm data length detention said fiscal year average daily count detainees if trump wants put people deportation increase number immigration judges people going wait longer longer get hearing said stephen immigration law professor cornell law school the trump administration pledged sharply curtail illegal immigration initiatives building wall along border hiring thousands federal agents police border arrest deport immigrants live united states entered country illegally trump also threatened withhold federal funding sanctuary cities offer protections immigrants could face deportation shooting the cases decided concern whether government officials sued mistreatment two separate contexts one decide whether family mexican teenager sergio hernandez killed mexican soil agent firing across border texas sue constitution it scenario lawyers hernandez family say could become frequent trump administration acts proposal increase number border guards raising prospect similar confrontations the court hears arguments case the second civil lawsuit brought immigrants mainly muslims detained new york attacks claim mistreated the group muslim arab south asian citizens say held terrorism suspects based race religion ethnicity immigration status abused detention deported the case focuses whether senior officials administration republican president george bush sued role directing action the obama administration argued court wary extending liability actions senior officials especially implicated national security immigration based skepticism justices oral argument court seems likely rule detainees chief justice john roberts expressed concern permitting lawsuits senior officials would become way challenging national policy litigation seeking monetary damages individuals implemented policy the three cases separate litigation legality trump travel ban could also ultimately decided high court the key case front pending appeals court san francisco panel upheld lower court decision put ban hold language upcoming rulings address rights analyzes courts review government action immigration national security could relevance case legal experts say ani khan immigration law professor diesel university line school law said juror treatment citizens affected travel ban could bleed court approaches cases it might atmospheric going might lead closer look justices said this story refined correct spelling asian arulanantham paragraph six politicsnews