Courts and the Judiciary

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares48 Views

    Emil Bove, Top Justice Dept. Official, Is Considered for Circuit Court Nomination

    by

    Emil Bove III has emerged as a top contender to fill a vacancy on the appeals court covering Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, people familiar with the matter said.President Trump is considering nominating Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official responsible for enacting his immigration agenda and ordering the purge of career prosecutors, to be a federal appeals judge, according to people familiar with the matter.Mr. Bove, 44, is a former criminal defense lawyer for Mr. Trump and a longtime federal prosecutor in New York. He was the Justice Department official at the center of the Trump administration’s request earlier this year to dismiss a corruption case against the mayor of New York, Eric Adams.One of the department’s most formidable and feared political appointees in the second Trump administration, he has emerged as a top contender to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware, those people said.There are two vacancies on the court — one based in New Jersey and one in Delaware. It is not clear which seat Mr. Bove is under consideration for. He has a property in Pennsylvania, and some conservatives have called for moving the Delaware-based seat to Pennsylvania.The people familiar with the matter spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive internal matter that has not yet been publicly announced. They cautioned that the timing remains unclear, and the intentions could still shift.If Mr. Bove is nominated for the post, Democrats are all but certain to use his Senate confirmation process to scrutinize his role in some of the Justice Department’s most contentious actions since Mr. Trump took office.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

    • 125 Shares93 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Judge Accused of Obstructing Federal Agents Pleads Not Guilty

      by

      Judge Hannah C. Dugan claimed judicial immunity this week after a federal grand jury indicted her.The Wisconsin state judge accused of impeding immigration agents at a Milwaukee courthouse last month pleaded not guilty on Thursday morning during a brief appearance in federal court.Prosecutors have said that the judge, Hannah C. Dugan, violated federal law when she directed an undocumented defendant who was being sought by immigration agents through an alternate exit from her courtroom. Judge Dugan, who was indicted by a grand jury on Tuesday, is seeking the dismissal of the charges against her and has asserted that her actions were protected by judicial immunity.A lawyer entered the plea on behalf of Judge Dugan, who was seated next to him in the federal courtroom on Thursday.The Justice Department’s decision to arrest and charge a sitting state judge has drawn sharp criticism from many Democrats, lawyers and former judges, who have described the case as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. Top Trump administration officials have defended the prosecution.“It doesn’t matter what line of work you are in, if you break the law, we will follow the facts and we will prosecute you,” Attorney General Pam Bondi has said about the case.The prosecution of Judge Dugan quickly became synonymous with the Trump administration’s broader immigration crackdown, and its warnings to local officials that they must not stand in the way of deportation efforts. Since President Trump returned to office, the Justice Department has sued state and local governments that limit cooperation with immigration agents and has announced investigations of some elected Democrats over their immigration policies.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 Shares82 Views

      in Elections

      In Menendez Brothers Case, a Reckoning With the 1990s

      by

      As a court reviewed the Menendez murder case, the culture and politics of the 1990s were scrutinized almost as much as the horrific crime.After Lyle and Erik Menendez were resentenced on Tuesday, paving the way for their possible release after more than three decades in prison, one of the first things their lawyer, Mark J. Geragos, did was make a phone call.Leslie Abramson, the brothers’ defense attorney at their trials in the 1990s who found herself parodied on “Saturday Night Live,” had in recent years warned Mr. Geragos that his efforts to free the brothers were doomed, in spite of the groundswell of support on social media.“No amount of TikTokers,” he recalled Ms. Abramson telling him, “was ever going to change anything.”Facing the bank of television cameras staking out the courthouse, Mr. Geragos told reporters he had just left a message for his old friend.“And so, Leslie, I will tell you it’s a whole different world we live in now,” he said. He continued, “We have evolved. This is not the ’90s anymore.”Indeed, over the last many months, the culture and politics of 1990s America seemed as much under the legal microscope as the horrific details of the Menendez brothers’ crimes and what witnesses described as the exemplary lives they led in prison ever since.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 Shares124 Views

      in Elections

      Does Trump Have the Power to Install Jeanine Pirro as Interim U.S. Attorney?

      by

      By using another interim appointment to fill a vacancy for the top prosecutor in Washington, the White House is bypassing Senate confirmation and potentially claiming expansive authority.President Trump’s announcement that he was making the Fox News host Jeanine Pirro the interim U.S. attorney in Washington has raised questions about whether he had legitimate legal authority to do so.Under a federal law, the attorney general can appoint an interim U.S. attorney for up to 120 days. But soon after taking office in January, the Trump administration installed a Republican lawyer and political activist, Ed Martin, in that role.The question is whether presidents are limited to one 120-day window for interim U.S. attorneys, or whether they can continue unilaterally installing such appointees in succession — indefinitely bypassing Senate confirmation as a check on their appointment power. Here is a closer look.What is a U.S. attorney?A U.S. attorney, the chief law enforcement officer in each of the 94 federal judicial districts, wields significant power. That includes the ability to start a criminal prosecution by filing a complaint or by requesting a grand jury indictment. Presidents typically nominate someone to the role who must secure Senate confirmation before taking office.What is an interim U.S. attorney?When the position needs a temporary occupant, a federal statute says the attorney general may appoint an interim U.S. attorney who does not need to undergo Senate confirmation. The statute limits terms to a maximum of 120 days — or fewer, if the Senate confirms a regular U.S. attorney to fill the opening.Is the president limited to one 120-day window?This is unclear. The ambiguity underscores the aggressiveness of Mr. Trump’s move in selecting Ms. Pirro. Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats on the panel “will be looking into this.”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 Shares127 Views

      in Elections

      Courts Must ‘Check the Excesses’ of Congress and the President, Roberts Says

      by

      The chief justice, in rare public remarks, defended judicial independence before a crowd of lawyers and judges.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. defended the independence of the judiciary and denounced any attempt to impeach judges over disagreements with their rulings during rare public remarks on Wednesday evening.“Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with a decision,” the chief justice told a crowd of about 600 people, mainly lawyers and judges, gathered in Buffalo, his hometown.The remarks were his first since issuing a similar, though also unusual, written statement in March in response to threats by President Trump and his allies to impeach federal judges who have issued decisions against administration policies.The chief justice did not mention the president directly in his comments on Wednesday, and he did not elaborate further in his answer about threats of impeachment, which he gave in response to a direct question during an event to commemorate the 125th anniversary of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.But the commentary was nevertheless notable given that justices typically avoid weighing in on political matters. His comments came less than a week after another justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, denounced attacks on the judiciary during remarks at a conference for judges held in Puerto Rico.Justice Jackson criticized what she called “relentless attacks” on judges, as well as an environment of harassment that “ultimately risks undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”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 Shares107 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Plans to Send Migrants to Libya on a Military Flight

      by

      Human rights groups have called conditions in the country’s network of migrant detention centers “horrific” and “deplorable.”The Trump administration is planning to transport a group of immigrants to Libya on a U.S. military plane, according to U.S. officials, another sharp escalation in a deportation program that has sparked widespread legal challenges and intense political debate.The nationalities of the migrants were not immediately clear, but a flight to Libya carrying the deportees could leave as soon as Wednesday, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the operation.The decision to send deportees to Libya was striking. The country is racked with conflict, and human rights groups have called conditions in its network of migrant detention centers “horrific” and “deplorable.”The Libya operation falls in line with the Trump administration’s effort to not only deter migrants from trying to enter the country illegally but also to send a strong message to those in the country illegally that they can be deported to countries where they could face brutal conditions. Reuters earlier reported the possibility of a U.S. deportation flight to Libya.The planning for the flight to Libya has been tightly held, and could still be derailed by logistical, legal or diplomatic obstacles.The White House declined to comment. The State Department and Defense Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.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

      Attacks on Judges Undermine Democracy, Warns Ketanji Brown Jackson

      by

      Speaking to a judicial conference, the Supreme Court justice said attacks were designed to intimidate and influence.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court’s newest member, denounced on Thursday what she described as “relentless attacks” on judges, and an environment of harassment that “ultimately risks undermining our Constitution and the rule of law.”“ Across the nation, judges are facing increased threats of not only physical violence, but also professional retaliation just for doing our jobs,” said Justice Jackson, speaking at a conference for judges held in Puerto Rico. “And the attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity.”Justice Jackson did not mention President Trump by name nor cite any specific attacks against the nation’s judges. However, her remarks came as Mr. Trump and his allies have repeatedly targeted judges who have blocked key pieces of his agenda, even calling for judges who have ruled against him to be impeached.Those calls drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in March, who described them as “not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”Threats of physical violence against judges have also been on the rise, with judges facing bomb threats and a rash of delivery of anonymously dispatched pizzas, a prank apparently designed to send a message that their home addresses can be found.The forceful comments by Justice Jackson were rare for the justice. Since joining the court in 2022, she has focused many of her public appearances on telling the personal story of her rise to become the first Black woman on the Supreme Court.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 Shares193 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Says He Could Free Abrego Garcia From El Salvador, but Won’t

      by

      Trump’s comments undermined previous statements by his top aides and were a blunt sign of his administration’s intention to double down and defy the courts.President Trump, whose administration has insisted it could not bring Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador to the United States, said he does have the ability to help return the wrongly deported Maryland man, but is not willing to do so because he believes he is a gang member.“You could get him back, there’s a phone on this desk,” said Terry Moran, an ABC News correspondent, noting a Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia.“I could,” Mr. Trump replied.Mr. Moran said Mr. Trump could call Mr. Bukele and get Mr. Abrego Garcia back immediately.“And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Mr. Trump said. “But he is not.” Mr. Trump added that government lawyers do not want to help bring Mr. Abrego Garcia back to the United States.Mr. Trump’s comments not only undermined previous statements by his top aides, but were a blunt sign of his administration’s intention to double down and defy the courts. Before the interview with ABC News, the administration had dug in on its refusal to heed the Supreme Court order to help return Mr. Abrego Garcia, who is a Salvadoran migrant. Trump officials have said that because he was now in a Salvadoran prison, it was up the Salvadoran government to release him.The Justice Department has argued that it can respond to the Supreme Court’s demand that the administration “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release by doing little more than letting him enter if he manages to present himself at a port of entry.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 Shares154 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Temporarily Blocks Border Patrol’s Stop-and-Arrest Tactics in California

      by

      Border Patrol agents carried out sweeps in California’s Central Valley. Lawyers argued that people were stopped and arrested based on their skin color.In January, Border Patrol agents conducted sweeps through immigrant communities in California’s Central Valley, arresting nearly 80 individuals the agency said were unlawfully present in the United States.Officials said the operation, named “Return to Sender,” was intended to target undocumented immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds. But lawyers for those arrested argued that the agents had simply rounded up people who appeared to be day laborers and farm workers, regardless of their actual immigration status, without having a legally sound reason to suspect they were in the country illegally.On Tuesday, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction barring Border Patrol agents from stopping individuals without having a reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, as required by the Fourth Amendment.The judge also blocked agents from making warrantless arrests unless they have probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.The Trump administration has adopted increasingly aggressive tactics in pursuit of its goal of mass deportations, but has faced pushback from the judiciary. The California ruling marks the latest attempt by courts to rein in enforcement actions that appear to conflict with long-established constitutional and legal protections.Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California noted in her ruling that the government did not “dispute or rebut” the “significant anecdotal evidence” from the plaintiffs regarding Border Patrol’s stop-and-arrest practices.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