Trump fires US attorney who told border agents to follow law on immigration raids
Source: The Guardian
Fri 26 Sep 2025 21.48 EDT
Last modified on Sat 27 Sep 2025 04.03 EDT
Donald Trump fired a top federal prosecutor in Sacramento just hours after she warned immigration agents they could not indiscriminately detain people in her district, according to documents reviewed by the New York Times. Michele Beckwith, who became the acting US attorney in Sacramento in January, received an email at 4.31pm on 15 July notifying her that the president had ordered her termination.
The day before, Beckwith had received a phone call from Gregory Bovino, who leads the Border Patrols unit in El Centro, a border city 600 miles south of Sacramento. Bovino was planning an immigration raid in Sacramento and asked Beckwith who in her office to contact if his officers were assaulted, the Times reported, citing Beckwith.
She informed Bovino that agents were not allowed to indiscriminately stop people in her district, north of Bakersfield, per a federal court order issued in April that prevents the agency from detaining people without reasonable suspicion. The US supreme court overturned a similar court order issued in Los Angeles earlier this month.
In a 10.57am email on 15 July, Beckwith repeated her message, telling Bovino she expected compliance with court orders and the constitution. Less than six hours later, her work computer and cellphone no longer functioning, she received a letter to her personal email account notifying her that she had been terminated. Two days later, Bovino proceeded with his immigration raid at a Sacramento Home Depot.
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/26/trump-fires-prosecutor-sacramento
Blatantly illegal and looks like he is now in desperation mode to satisfy a thirst that will never be quenched.

no_hypocrisy
(53,178 posts)Michele Beckwith. Hope she asks for punitive damages.
PSPS
(14,955 posts)no_hypocrisy
(53,178 posts)he/she/they/it makes a motion for summary judgment. If granted that means that the judge agrees that there is no controversy about the facts. If both parties agree on the facts, there's no need for a jury to decide who or what to believe. The judge then decides on the law.
You make a motion, hand in a legal brief with or without documents to support your argument.
By Trump telling his DHS official to fire an official for following the current law, both parties agree that happened and that the law was in force at the time of the firing.
The only thing left is for the judge to decide whether it's within the law to fire someone for following the rules.
Evolve Dammit
(21,246 posts)And Orban outlined it at Magotlago. I'm sure Russia provided advice as well. Saudis? He'd listen to any dicktator for hints and then re-read Mein Kampf to go beddy bye on a nostalgic note. We are in the fight of our lives.
Doodley
(11,423 posts)J_William_Ryan
(3,027 posts)the law and Constitution and youll get fired by Trump; Trump is an enemy of the rule of law.
Trump is authoritarianism out of control.