Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    Appeals Court Pauses for Now Contempt Proposal by Trial Judge

    A federal appeals court on Friday night put off for the moment a plan by a trial judge to open contempt proceedings to determine whether the Trump administration had violated an order he issued last month stopping flights of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador under a powerful wartime statute.In a single-page order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that it was entering what is known as an administrative stay to give itself more time to consider the validity of the contempt proposal by the trial judge, James E. Boasberg.On Wednesday, Judge Boasberg, concerned that the White House had ignored his order to pause all deportation flights headed to El Salvador under the wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, gave Trump officials a choice. He said they could provide the men who were sent without hearings to El Salvador the due process they had been denied or they could face a searching contempt investigation into who among them was responsible for having not complied with his directives.In court papers filed on Friday morning, lawyers for the Justice Department told the appeals court that neither option was acceptable. The lawyers accused Judge Boasberg of overstepping his authority by seeking, on the one hand, to tell the Trump administration how to conduct foreign policy and, on the other, to effectively try to assume the role of an investigating prosecutor.The appeals court made clear that it was not ruling on the merits of the Justice Department’s accusations. The panel simply wanted additional time to consider the complexities of Judge Boasberg’s plan.That plan, laid out in an order this week, suggested that the judge was trying to pin down who in the administration was behind what he called the “willful disregard” of his oral instructions issued during a hearing on March 15. Speaking from the bench that day, he said any deportation flights headed to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act needed to be halted at once and that any planes already in the air should turn around.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares168 Views

    in Elections

    Elon Musk Faces Questions About His Government Influence After Setbacks

    A series of setbacks have raised questions about Elon Musk’s enduring influence in the White House.At the start of the new Trump administration, Elon Musk’s influence seemed to have no limits.He was in the Oval Office, one of his sons on his shoulders. He was meeting with heads of state. He was putting the United States Agency for International Development through the “wood chipper.” He gave a Fox News interview with President Trump.Over the past couple of weeks, though, Trump’s highest-profile governing partner has faced setbacks that raise questions about his enduring power and relationships in the White House.Some of my colleagues reported today that the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service was being replaced after the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, complained that Musk had his preferred candidate installed in the role without Bessent’s blessing.It was only on Tuesday that Trump had appointed Musk’s choice, Gary Shapley, to run the agency temporarily. But since then, my colleagues reported, Bessent secured the president’s approval to send Musk’s pick packing.It’s the latest bump in the road during Musk’s three-month crash course in government. He has repeatedly rankled certain members of Trump’s cabinet by failing to coordinate with them. His overall progress with the Department of Government Efficiency has been slower than he imagined. He was practically admonished by Trump in public after a plan for him to receive a classified briefing on China was leaked and then scuttled.He suffered a high-profile political defeat after inserting himself into this month’s Wisconsin Supreme Court race. And despite his public opposition to Trump’s tariffs — and the trade adviser promoting them — he is not believed to have played a substantial role in persuading the president to change course.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares178 Views

    in Elections

    Judge Rules Against Trump Administration on Passport Changes

    A group of transgender plaintiffs sued President Trump and the State Department over a new rule prohibiting passports from including a gender different from the sex listed on an original birth certificate.A federal judge in Boston on Friday ordered the Trump administration to issue passports that reflect the self-identified gender of six transgender people rather than requiring that the passports display the sex on the applicants’ original birth certificates.The order from Judge Julia E. Kobick was a victory, at least temporarily, for the six plaintiffs, who she said were likely to prevail on their claim that a new policy by the Trump administration amounts to a form of unconstitutional sex discrimination under the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. The State Department adopted the new policy earlier this year to comply with an executive order from President Trump directing all government agencies to limit official recognition of transgender identity.“The plaintiffs have been personally disadvantaged by the government — they can no longer obtain a passport consistent with their gender identity — because of their sex assigned at birth,” wrote Judge Kobick, who was nominated by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. “The passport policy does indeed impose a special disadvantage on the plaintiffs due to their sex and the court therefore concludes that it discriminates on the basis of sex.”The judge’s order on Friday applied only to six transgender plaintiffs who were seeking new passports and had sued the Trump administration. The order does not apply to a seventh plaintiff, who already holds a passport, valid until 2028, with the sex marker that corresponds to his gender identity. The order, which will remain in place as the case goes forward, does not bar the government from the new passport requirement for other transgender people.In court documents, the plaintiffs suing the government argued that a mismatch between the sex listed on their passport and the way they think of themselves and are perceived puts them at risk of suspicion and hostility that other Americans do not face. During the first several weeks of Mr. Trump’s administration, two plaintiffs received passports with an “F” or “M” marker that was contrary to what they had requested. Another plaintiff learned that selecting an “X” marker, indicating a nonbinary gender identity, was no longer an option in the application process, though it had been allowed since 2022.The restrictions on passports are part of a broad effort by the Trump administration to minimize the role of gender identity in how American society organizes itself. In the first of a series of executive orders on transgender issues, Mr. Trump characterized people whose gender does not match the sex on their birth certificate as “making a false claim.” Gender identity, the order states, is not “a replacement for sex” and “does not provide a meaningful basis for identification.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares108 Views

    in Elections

    Judge Temporarily Halts Mass Firings at Consumer Bureau

    One day after the Trump administration sent layoff notices to the vast majority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s workers, a federal judge temporarily blocked the action and ordered a hearing to determine whether the attempted mass firing violated an injunction she imposed last month.In a brief court session Friday morning, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington pressed Justice Department lawyers for details about layoff notices sent Thursday to nearly 1,500 of the consumer bureau’s 1,700 workers. The messages told workers that they would lose access to their email accounts and work systems on Friday evening.Judge Jackson issued an oral order, followed by a written one, barring the government from carrying out that plan until at least April 28, when she plans to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue. Her ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the consumer bureau’s staff union and other parties.“Once again, the court is confronted with evidence that gives rise to concerns that there will be no agency standing by the time it gets to consider the merits,” she said in her written order.Russell T. Vought, director of the White House budget office, became the consumer bureau’s acting director in early February and immediately began dismantling the agency — which cannot be closed without congressional action. Judge Jackson issued an injunction last month freezing those actions, saying that she wanted to make sure the agency existed long enough for courts to evaluate whether Mr. Vought’s actions were lawful.One week ago, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit pared back Judge Jackson’s order and said Trump officials could fire workers whom they decided — after a “particularized assessment” — were not needed to fulfill the agency’s legally mandated responsibilities.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Elections

    A Fireball Near Mexico City Lit Up the Sky and the Internet

    The glowing object was a bolide, fireballs that explode in a bright flash, according to experts. It streaked across Mexico’s predawn skies on Wednesday.The bright object that streaked across the sky is called a bolide.Webcams de Mexico, Associated PressFor a few brief moments on Wednesday, a bright fireball lit up the predawn skies near Mexico City. The display awed residents and online viewers alike as videos of the object quickly spread.The glowing object was a bolide, according to The Associated Press. Bolides are fireballs that explode in a bright flash, often with visible fragmentation, according to the American Meteor Society.Whereas a meteorite is a space rock that reaches the ground, a bolide is “just the luminous phenomenon” associated with the object’s atmospheric entry, said Jérôme Gattacceca, the editor of The Meteoritical Bulletin of the Meteoritical Society, an organization that records all known meteorites.Meteors that are brighter in our sky than Venus are called “fireballs,” Dr. Gattacceca said. While meteors and fireballs are common, bolides are less so — though “still not rare,” he said.This echoes what Guadalupe Cordero Tercero, a researcher at the UNAM Institute of Geophysics and head of the Mexican Meteor Network project, told UNAM Global Magazine.It’s “estimated that every two and a half days an object at least one meter in diameter enters the Earth’s atmosphere,” Dr. Cordero Tercero said, according to the magazine. However most of these objects fall into the ocean or uninhabited areas, so they often go unnoticed.Denton Ebel, a curator of meteorites at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, said that while he had seen only some footage of the fireball and heard stories, “it sounds really exciting.”Meteors are “not as uncommon as many people think,” Dr. Ebel said, but they are being reported more frequently because of fireball networks, which are cameras parked atop buildings that capture the objects as they enter the atmosphere.UNAM Global Magazine also reported that the fireball roared after streaking across the dark sky. A sonic boom is associated with its breaking apart, Dr. Gattacceca said.“This noise is usually a good indicator that the object fragmented at relatively low altitude and that meteorites actually reached the ground,” he added.The rumbling can sound almost like a freight train, Dr. Ebel said.Meteors are all created by space rocks hitting the atmosphere at high speed, Dr. Gattacceca said, and most of these space rocks originate from the asteroid belt.Their high velocity means that small rocks, even the ones as small as a walnut, will “generate a fireball because of its elevated speed,” Dr. Gattacceca said.The object’s dazzling display caught the attention of many of the more than 22 million people who live in Mexico City, who had nothing to fear.“Nobody has ever been killed by a falling meteorite in historical times,” Dr. Gattacceca said, adding, “So, not dangerous.” More

  • 163 Shares168 Views

    in Elections

    Ex-Harvard Medical School Morgue Chief to Plead Guilty in Sale of Body Parts

    Cedric Lodge stole organs from cadavers that had been donated for medical research, prosecutors said. The university fired him in 2023.A former manager of the morgue at Harvard Medical School will plead guilty to stealing body parts that had been donated for research and selling them for thousands of dollars to people who collected them as macabre curiosities, according to court documents.The supervisor, Cedric Lodge, 57, who was fired by the university in 2023, had been entrusted with handling cadavers that were part of the medical school’s Anatomical Gift Program and were supposed to be cremated after the research on them had been completed, prosecutors said.But according to a sweeping federal investigation, Mr. Lodge turned the morgue into a shopping emporium for brains, skin and other body parts, supplying them to collectors in several states as part of a criminal network that involved several people, including his wife. Investigators said he drove the stolen body parts to his home in New Hampshire.The breach went undetected from about 2018 until March 2023, tainting one of the nation’s most prestigious medical schools.In a filing on Wednesday in federal court in Pennsylvania, Mr. Lodge agreed that he would plead guilty to one count of interstate transportation of stolen goods, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000. Under the plea deal, he will no longer face a conspiracy charge. Prosecutors recommended that he receive less than the maximum sentence, but a judge will make the final decision.In a statement on Friday, Dr. George Q. Daley, the dean of Harvard Medical School, condemned Mr. Lodge’s misconduct.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares168 Views

    in Elections

    Trump-Allied Prosecutor Sends Letters to Medical Journals Alleging Bias

    An interim U.S. attorney is demanding information about the selection of research articles and the role of N.I.H. Experts worry this will have a chilling effect on publications.A federal prosecutor has sent letters to at least three medical journals accusing them of political bias and asking a series of probing questions suggesting that the journals mislead readers, suppress opposing viewpoints and are inappropriately swayed by their funders.The letters were signed by Edward Martin Jr., a Republican activist serving as interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. He has been criticized for using his office to target opponents of President Trump.Some scientists and doctors said they viewed the letters as a threat from the Trump administration that could have a chilling effect on what journals publish. The health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has said he wants to prosecute medical journals, accusing them of lying to the public and colluding with pharmaceutical companies.One of the letters was sent to the journal Chest, published by the American College of Chest Physicians. The New York Times obtained a copy of the letter.The Times confirmed that at least two other publishers had received nearly identically worded letters, but those publishers would not speak publicly because they feared retribution from the Trump administration.In the letter to Chest, dated Monday, Mr. Martin wrote, “It has been brought to my attention that more and more journals and publications like CHEST Journal are conceding that they are partisans in various scientific debates.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares128 Views

    in Elections

    Wisconsin Supreme Court Says Governor’s 400-Year Edit Was Within Veto Authority

    Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, used his veto power to increase school funding limits for four centuries longer than Republican lawmakers in the state had intended.The sentence, dull but clear, was buried 158 pages into Wisconsin’s budget.“For the limit for the 2023-24 school year and the 2024-25 school year,” the sentence read when it was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature, “add $325” to the amount school districts could generate through property taxes for each student.But by the time Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, and his veto pen were finished, it said something else entirely: “For the limit for 2023-2425, add $325.”It was clever. Creative. Perhaps even a bit subversive, extending the increase four centuries longer than lawmakers intended. But was it legal?On Friday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said yes. In a 4-to-3 ruling in a lawsuit challenging Mr. Evers’s use of his partial veto authority, the court’s liberal majority said the governor had acted legally. The three conservative justices on the court dissented.“We uphold the 2023 partial vetoes, and in doing so we are acutely aware that a 400-year modification is both significant and attention-grabbing,” Justice Jill J. Karofsky wrote in the majority opinion. “However, our Constitution does not limit the governor’s partial veto power based on how much or how little the partial vetoes change policy, even when that change is considerable.”The proposed state budget had outlined two years of revenue limit increases, for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years. By editing out the text in red, Mr. Evers allowed increases until 2425.State of WisconsinWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More