Wednesday, October 14, 2026 SourcesAbout🌓
🇺🇸 US ▾
BREAKING
› Dominion still has pending lawsuits against election deniers such as Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell› Russia is 'going backwards' in equipment and deploying post WWII-era tanks, according to Western officials› Podcast: One country musician is calling for other artists to oppose assault rifles› Bidets save you money and reduce waste — we tested the best options out there› 50+ products to make your life easier and our planet cleaner› Mother's Day is around the corner. Here are 50+ thoughtful gifts she'll love› A head-to-toe guide of how men should dress this spring, and where they should shop› 42 of the most useful travel products you can buy on Amazon› The 7 best high-yield savings accounts of April 2023› Taxes are due tomorrow. Here's how to file for an extension› Dominion still has pending lawsuits against election deniers such as Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell› Russia is 'going backwards' in equipment and deploying post WWII-era tanks, according to Western officials› Podcast: One country musician is calling for other artists to oppose assault rifles› Bidets save you money and reduce waste — we tested the best options out there› 50+ products to make your life easier and our planet cleaner› Mother's Day is around the corner. Here are 50+ thoughtful gifts she'll love› A head-to-toe guide of how men should dress this spring, and where they should shop› 42 of the most useful travel products you can buy on Amazon› The 7 best high-yield savings accounts of April 2023› Taxes are due tomorrow. Here's how to file for an extension
Latest

Trump Appointee Joins Liberal SCOTUS Colleague to Blast ‘Absurd’ Case

The Daily Beast ·
Trump Appointee Joins Liberal SCOTUS Colleague to Blast ‘Absurd’ Case

EVELYN HOCKSTEIN / REUTERS A Trump-appointed Supreme Court judge joined a liberal colleague to denounce the government’s actions in a case they said had “serious constitutional problems.” Justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonia Sotomayor declined to hear arguments in a case involving Jesus Herrera-Salazar, a Mexican national who was arrested twice for being “found in” the U.S. despite being ordered to remain in the country while he was on probation.

Sotomayor, an appointee of Barack Obama, wrote that the government’s treatment of Herrera-Salazar didn’t conform to double jeopardy protections, which prevent the government from prosecuting a person twice for the same criminal offense.

Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, joined her in her statement.

“Because I hope the facts of this case are anomalous and because Herrera-Salazar has since been removed from the United States, I concur in the Court’s decision not to grant review in this case,” Sotomayor wrote .

“I write, however, to underscore the serious constitutional problems that plague the Government’s treatment of Herrera-Salazar.” The justice explained how the government prosecuted Herrera-Salazar twice after he illegally crossed the border.

He was first found in Texas in 2020 and was sentenced to prison time.

“After being once convicted and punished for being found in the United States and, as part of his original sentence, prohibited from leaving the United States, Herrera-Salazar was convicted and punished for being found in the United States a second time,” she continued.

Herrera-Salazar served both sentences and was deported in 2024, according to The Hill .

Sotomayor wrote that the statutory language “found in... the United States” was unclear and could not reasonably be understood to include a person the government had already found and ordered to remain in the country under supervision.

She added that since the crime Herrera-Salazar was convicted of extended over the whole period he was present in the U.S. after his previous removal and reentry, the crime wouldn’t have concluded until the government allowed him to leave the country.

“From the moment he was released from custody after serving his first term of imprisonment, Herrera-Salazar was presented with a Hobson’s choice,” Sotomayor wrote, referring to a “take it or leave it” choice where only one option is actually offered.

“Should circumstances like these arise again, I encourage courts to avoid the constitutional absurdity that occurred here and give the Double Jeopardy Clause its full weight and meaning,” she concluded.

Read more at The Daily Beast.

Read the full article on The Daily Beast ›

5News aggregated this summary from the outlet’s public feed. The full article, with all the context, is on www.thedailybeast.com — the content belongs to The Daily Beast.

More from The Daily Beast

See all ›

More in Latest

See all ›