Appeals Courts (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares119 Views

    Trump Can Restrict A.P. Journalists’ Access, Appeals Court Rules

    by

    By a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel found that the president can bar the news outlet from small settings such as the Oval Office or Air Force One, reversing at least for now a lower court’s ruling.A federal appeals court on Friday paused a lower court’s ruling that had required the White House to allow journalists from The Associated Press to participate in covering President Trump’s daily events and travel alongside their peers from other major news outlets.By a 2-to-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that many of the spaces in the White House complex or on Air Force One where members of the press have followed the president for decades are essentially invite-only, and not covered by First Amendment protections.“The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted,” wrote Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee. She was joined by Judge Gregory G. Katsas, who was also appointed by Mr. Trump.The ruling temporarily lifted the requirement that the White House give A.P. journalists the same access as other news media professionals while the appeal continues. But it was clouded by the fact that the situation facing The Associated Press has shifted considerably since the legal standoff began in February.The lawsuit was born of a dispute between The Associated Press and the White House over the outlet’s refusal to adopt language favored by Mr. Trump and refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.When The Associated Press refused to change its newsroom style and take up the new name, the White House began openly excluding the outlet’s journalists from covering Mr. Trump as part of a daily rotation system that news media companies have long used to deal with the limited space in some areas and share the cost and commitment of covering the president.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

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      After Meeting Wrongly Deported Man, Van Hollen Accuses Trump of Defying Courts

      by

      Senator Chris Van Hollen on Sunday accused the Trump administration of “outright defying” court orders to return a wrongly deported Maryland man whom Mr. Van Hollen met with in El Salvador last week, and he urged the administration to stop releasing unfavorable records about the man.“They are flouting the courts as we speak,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Facilitating his return means something more than doing nothing, and they are doing nothing.”Mr. Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat, traveled to El Salvador last week to press for the release of the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was deported to a notorious Salvadoran prison in March in what an administration lawyer described as an “administrative error.”A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to take a more active role in bringing back Mr. Abrego Garcia, a few days after the Supreme Court ruled that the government should “facilitate” his return from El Salvador.Instead, the White House has publicized an allegation of domestic abuse from Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife from 2021, when she sought a protective order. Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife said last week that the two “were able to work through this situation privately.”The administration also cited a police filing from a Tennessee trooper who stopped Mr. Abrego Garcia on a highway in 2022 and raised suspicion of human trafficking. Federal law enforcement officials instructed the trooper not to detain him, and Mr. Abrego Garcia’s wife has said he routinely drove workers to their jobs.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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Deportation Fight Reaches Supreme Court

      by

      The Trump administration asked the justices to allow it to use a wartime law to continue deportations of Venezuelans with little or no due process.The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to use a rarely invoked wartime law to continue to deport Venezuelans with little to no due process.The emergency application arrived at the court after a federal appeals court kept in place a temporary block on the deportations. In its application to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the administration argued that the matter was too urgent to wait for the case to wind its way through the lower courts.In the government’s application, acting Solicitor General Sarah M. Harris said the case presented “fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country.”“The Constitution supplies a clear answer: the president,” Ms. Harris wrote. “The Republic cannot afford a different choice.”The case will offer a major early test for how the nation’s highest court will confront President Trump’s aggressive efforts to deport of millions of migrants and his hostile posture toward the courts. Mr. Trump has called for impeaching a lower-court judge who paused his deportations.The case hinges on the legality of an executive order signed by Mr. Trump that invokes the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The order uses the law to target people believed to be Venezuelan gang members in the United States.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

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Un tribunal de apelaciones mantiene el bloqueo de las deportaciones que invocan la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros

      by

      El tribunal dijo que, aunque se necesitaban más argumentos, los abogados de los migrantes probablemente tendrían éxito en sus alegaciones de que a los venezolanos se les había denegado el debido proceso.Un tribunal federal de apelaciones de Washington mantuvo el miércoles, por el momento, el bloqueo del uso por parte del gobierno de Donald Trump de una ley invocada de manera inusual para tiempos de guerra para deportar sumariamente a migrantes venezolanos acusados de pertenecer a una violenta banda.En una votación de 2 a 1, un panel del Tribunal de Apelaciones de Estados Unidos para el Circuito del Distrito de Columbia dijo que era probable que los migrantes venezolanos tuvieran éxito en sus alegaciones de que el gobierno no puede utilizar la ley de guerra, la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros, para trasladarlos sumariamente a una prisión en El Salvador sin una audiencia.“El plan de expulsión del gobierno niega a los demandantes siquiera un hilo del debido proceso, aunque el gobierno reconozca su derecho a la revisión judicial de su expulsión”, escribió la jueza Patricia A. Millett.La decisión asestó un duro golpe a los esfuerzos del gobierno de Trump por impulsar su programa de migración mediante la ley de guerra, pero la orden subyacente expirará de todos modos dentro de unos días. Es probable que el juez James E. Boasberg, presidente del Tribunal Federal de Distrito de Washington, vuelva a pronunciarse sobre la conveniencia de dictar una orden judicial de mayor duración.A mediados de marzo, Boasberg dictó una orden de restricción que prohibía al gobierno de Trump utilizar la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros para expulsar sumariamente a los venezolanos que, según él, pertenecen a la banda Tren de Aragua. Su orden no prohíbe al gobierno detener a esos hombres ni deportarlos tras las audiencias previstas en la ley de migración usual.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

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Allows Trump Administration’s DEI Crackdown to Proceed, but Judges Debate DEI Merits

      by

      A federal appeals court on Friday allowed the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs across the federal government to go forward by pausing a lower-court ruling in Maryland that had blocked enforcement of a series of President Trump’s executive orders.However, the concurring opinions provided by the three judges revealed a sharp political line dividing the jurists on whether diversity was a nonpartisan value of American life or a political philosophy open to scrutiny.Mr. Trump has made aggressive moves to purge diversity initiatives from the government, and administration officials have threatened federal employees with “adverse consequences” if they fail to report on colleagues who defy the orders. Judge Adam B. Abelson of the District of Maryland had written in the lower court ruling last month that the orders sought to punish people for constitutionally protected speech.On Friday, the three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Va., found that the Trump administration had “satisfied the factors for a stay” of that order, writing that the orders “are of distinctly limited scope” and “do not purport to establish the illegality of all efforts to advance diversity, equity or inclusion.”Chief Judge Albert Diaz, who was appointed to the Fourth Circuit by President Barack Obama in 2010, wrote that ruling in the Trump administration’s favor was warranted but pushed back against the attacks on diversity initiatives, saying that “people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium.”“When this country embraces true diversity, it acknowledges and respects the social identity of its people,” wrote Judge Diaz, who became the first Hispanic jurist to serve as chief judge of the court in 2023. “When it fosters true equity, it opens opportunities and ensures a level playing field for all. And when its policies are truly inclusive, it creates an environment and culture where everyone is respected and valued.”He continued, “What could be more American than that?”Judge Pamela Harris, writing in her own concurring opinion, said that she shared Judge Diaz’s sentiment.“My vote should not be understood as agreement with the orders’ attack on efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion,” wrote Judge Harris, who was also appointed to the court by Mr. Obama.But Judge Allison Jones Rushing, who was appointed by Mr. Trump during his first term, used her own concurring opinion to criticize Judge Diaz’s declaration of support for diversity, equity and inclusion.“Any individual judge’s view on whether certain executive action is good policy is not only irrelevant to fulfilling our duty to adjudicate cases and controversies according to the law, it is an impermissible consideration,” Judge Rushing wrote.She continued, “A judge’s opinion that D.E.I. programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case.” More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Musk Wins Appeal Over Tweet He Had to Delete About Union Push

      by

      The Fifth Circuit court ruled that the 2018 post was protected speech. It also vacated an order to reinstate a pro-union Tesla worker who was fired.A federal appeals court handed Elon Musk a victory in a freedom-of-speech case on Friday by overturning an earlier ruling in a dispute between the billionaire and the National Labor Relations Board.In March last year, three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the board’s finding that Tesla illegally fired an employee involved in union organizing, and that Mr. Musk, Tesla’s chief executive, had illegally threatened workers’ stock options in a post on Twitter if they chose to unionize. The opinion allowed the labor board to enforce its 2021 order requiring Tesla to reinstate, with back pay, the employee, Richard Ortiz, and Mr. Musk to delete the 2018 post.Mr. Musk challenged the panel’s ruling, and on Friday the full court ruled, 9 to 8, that the labor board had improperly ordered him to delete the social media post. “The agency exceeded its authority,” the 11-page ruling said. “We hold that Musk’s tweets are constitutionally protected speech.”“Deleting the speech of private citizens on topics of public concern is not a remedy traditionally countenanced by American law,” the ruling added.The court sent the matter of Mr. Ortiz’s firing back to the labor board to review, saying the board had failed “to consider the fact that the actual decision maker in Ortiz’s firing harbored no anti-union animus.”The judges did not rule on whether Mr. Musk’s online comment constituted a National Labor Relations Act violation for illegally threatening workers. (The board has held that it did.)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

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      California Can Ban Guns in Parks and Bars, but Not Hospitals, Court Says

      by

      California and Hawaii banned guns from various public venues. A federal appeals court dusted off the history books to help determine where to allow prohibitions.A federal appeals court on Friday partly reinstated firearm bans in California and Hawaii, finding that California could, for example, prohibit guns in parks, playgrounds and bars but not in banks or hospitals.The 3-0 ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said that the Supreme Court’s current interpretation of gun rights was “seemingly arbitrary” and “hard to explain” at the moment. The court’s findings applied only to laws in those two states.The judges found that most of the prohibitions enacted last year by California and Hawaii met the constitutional standards set in a 2022 Supreme Court decision that drastically narrowed the legal standard for restrictions on firearms.That decision struck down a New York law that had strictly limited the carrying of guns outside homes. The Supreme Court found that restrictions on guns are constitutional only if courts can find an analogue “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” But, the court added, states could ban guns in “sensitive places” such as schools and courthouses.Democratic-led states rushed to rewrite laws to comply with the new interpretation, in some cases banning guns in dozens of specific locations. But federal judges last year struck down new laws in California and Hawaii.The Ninth Circuit judges ruled on Friday that California could prohibit guns in libraries, sports arenas, casinos, museums and restaurants that serve alcohol, in addition to parks, playgrounds and bars. Hawaii can ban guns on parks and beaches and in establishments serving alcohol.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Appeals $454 Million Judgment in N.Y. Civil Fraud Case

      by

      Lawyers for Donald J. Trump challenged the judgment handed down by Justice Arthur F. Engoron, who found that Mr. Trump had conspired to manipulate his net worth to receive favorable terms on loans.Lawyers for Donald J. Trump filed an appeal on Monday evening seeking to dismiss or drastically reduce the $454 million judgment levied against him this year in a New York civil fraud case, the latest maneuver in the former president’s multiple legal battles.The filing made a raft of arguments questioning the judgment handed down in February by Justice Arthur F. Engoron, who found that Mr. Trump had conspired to manipulate his net worth and lied about the value of his properties to receive more favorable terms on loans.The suit was brought by Attorney General Letitia James of New York, a Democrat, who hailed her victory over Mr. Trump as having demonstrated that “there cannot be different rules for different people in this country.”In their lengthy appeal to the First Department of the State Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, however, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that many of the deals in question in Ms. James’s suit had occurred long ago and that the statute of limitations for violations it cited had run out.They also questioned the size of the judgment awarded by Justice Engoron, calling it disproportionate and suggesting that the judge had overcounted damages and miscalculated the profits from some of the properties named in Ms. James’s suit.Taken as a whole, the appeal — peppered with talking points from Mr. Trump’s campaign and his public criticism of the case — seeks to show that the former president’s dealings were business as usual, and that no harm was caused.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Appeals Court Keeps Block on Texas Migrant Law

      by

      The decision in favor of the federal government left in place a trial court injunction while courts determine whether the measure is legal. A federal appeals court late Tuesday ruled against Texas in its bitter clash with the federal government, deciding that a law allowing the state to arrest and deport migrants could not be implemented while the courts wrestled with the question of whether it is legal.A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has a reputation for conservative rulings, sided in its 2-to-1 decision with lawyers for the Biden administration who have argued that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and decades of legal precedent.The panel’s 50-page majority opinion left in place an injunction imposed last month by a lower court in Austin, which found that the federal government was likely to succeed in its arguments against the law. The opinion was written by the Fifth Circuit’s chief judge, Priscilla Richman, a nominee of President George W. Bush, and was joined by Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated to the bench by President Biden last year.Judge Richman found that Texas’ law conflicted with federal law and with Supreme Court precedent, particularly a 2012 immigration case, Arizona v. United States.“For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission and removal of noncitizens — is exclusively a federal power,” she wrote. “Texas has not shown that it is likely to succeed on the merits,” she said after discussing how various arguments made by the state fell short.It was a setback for Gov. Greg Abbott but not an unexpected one: The governor has said that he anticipated the fight over the law’s constitutionality to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Mr. Abbott has said the law, which allows the state to arrest and deport migrants on its own, is necessary to deal with the record number of migrants crossing into Texas from Mexico. 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