Courts and the Judiciary

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Musk Team’s Treasury Access Raises Security Fears, Despite Judge’s Ordered Halt

      by

      A federal judge’s order that Elon Musk’s team temporarily cease boring into the Treasury Department’s payment systems raises a far larger question: whether what Elon Musk has labeled the Department of Government Efficiency is creating a major cyber and national security vulnerability.The activities of Mr. Musk’s government cost-cutting effort, U.S. District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer said in his order on Saturday, risk “the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information” and render the Treasury’s systems “more vulnerable than before to hacking.”It is a risk that cybersecurity experts have been sounding alarms over in the past 10 days, as Mr. Musk’s band of young coders demanded access to the Treasury’s innermost systems. That access was ultimately granted by Scott Bessent, the newly confirmed Treasury secretary.But other than vague assurances that the new arrivals at the Treasury’s door had proper clearances, there was no description of how their work would be secured — and plenty of reason to believe that it would make it easier for Chinese and Russian intelligence services to target the Treasury’s systems.That was the central argument made by 19 attorneys general as they sought a temporary restraining order to get Mr. Musk’s workers out of the Treasury systems. And Judge Engelmayer endorsed it on Saturday, limiting access to existing Treasury officials until a hearing next week in front of a different federal judge.The government has maintained that Mr. Musk’s team has been limited to reviewing “read-only” data in the Treasury Department’s systems, though the administration is now placing appointees in positions where they could do much more.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

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Delaware Law Has Entered the Culture War

      by

      Elon Musk has helped bring an esoteric debate around the Delaware Chancery Court to a national stage. Now Dropbox and Meta are contemplating moving their incorporation away from the state.The clubby insular world of corporate law has entered the culture war.First, Elon Musk started railing against Delaware, which for more than a century has been known as the home of corporate law, after the Delaware Chancery Court chancellor, Kathaleen McCormick, rejected his lofty pay package last year.Eventually he switched where Tesla is incorporated to Texas.Now, Dropbox has announced shareholder approval to move where it is incorporated to outside Delaware, and Meta is considering following suit. Others are also evaluating whether to make the move, DealBook hears.Musk’s ire against the state where nearly 70 percent of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated brought what would usually be an esoteric issue to the national stage and framed it, alongside hot button issues like diversity, equity and inclusion programs, as one further example of overreach.“You can blame McCormick or you can blame Musk — or you can say it’s a combination of the two of them — but it has turned it into a highly ideologically charged political issue, which it never, ever was before,” said Robert Anderson, a professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law.The drama over court rulings could have huge consequences for the economy and politics of Delaware, which counts on corporate franchise revenue for about 30 percent of its budget — and more, if you count secondary impacts like tax payments generated by the legal industry.At issue is a longstanding question in corporate America: How much say should minority shareholders have, especially in a controlled company? One side argues that founders like Mark Zuckerberg are given controlling shares, which give them outsize influence in a company, with the belief that they know what is best for a company. And minority shareholders buy into a company knowing their limitations. The other side argues these controlling shareholders are not perfect.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Menendez Brothers Are a Test for Society and the Courts

      by

      Recently, a Los Angeles judge delayed a hearing for Erik and Lyle Menendez in their bid to be resentenced for the murder of their parents 35 years ago. Renewed interest in the brothers’ case, fueled by Netflix’s recent docudrama series and documentary on the brothers, has drawn celebrity advocates to call for their release, alongside an army of TikTok accounts. Unfortunately for the brothers, social advocacy rarely corresponds to judicial change.The Menendez brothers shot and killed their parents in August of 1989, when Erik was 18 and Lyle was 21. For months, the murders went unsolved, and the police believed that perhaps the parents had been victims of a mafia hit. During that time, the brothers went on a spending spree, buying cars, private tennis lessons, even a restaurant. When the truth finally emerged, the world was shocked. How could two young men born into privilege squander not only their futures but also quite possibly their lives?There was a televised trial, the men sobbing on the stand, detailing years of abuse at the hands of their father. Sexual abuse, emotional abuse, coercion, violence. And their mother — where was she in all of this? Drinking away the woes of her family, failing in her sacred duty to protect her children.The trial ended in hung juries, and Judge Stanley Weisberg declared a mistrial. So the men were tried again in 1995, and this time it was not televised. Judge Weisberg seemed to say enough with the shenanigans and less of this messy talk of abuse. He barred much of the evidence of the sexual perversions of Lyle and Erik’s father, Jose Menendez. The trial ended in convictions for each brother, and sentences of life without parole.I was in college and then graduate school as the fate of the Menendez brothers played out. Their lurid travails were a sort of background static for the orderly world in which I lived, attending classes, struggling with rent and groceries. What did rich kids have to be so upset over?Like so many people, I now understand more of how abuse and trauma play out in a person’s life. I understand that a male victim of abuse feels the pain no less than a woman, a child even more so. What I question is whether judges have absorbed this new understanding of abuse, and whether a court today would reach a different verdict.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How Biden Changed His Mind on Pardoning Hunter: ‘Time to End All of This’

      by

      The threat of a retribution-focused Trump administration and his son’s looming sentencings prompted the president to abandon a promise not to get involved in Hunter Biden’s legal problems.A dark sky had fallen over Nantucket, Mass., on Saturday evening when President Biden left church alongside his family after his final Thanksgiving as president.Inside a borrowed vacation compound earlier in the week, with its views of the Nantucket Harbor, Mr. Biden had met with his wife, Jill Biden, and his son Hunter Biden to discuss a decision that had tormented him for months. The issue: a pardon that would clear Hunter of years of legal trouble, something the president had repeatedly insisted he would not do.Support for pardoning Hunter Biden had been building for months within the family, but external forces had more recently weighed on Mr. Biden, who watched warily as President-elect Donald J. Trump picked loyalists for his administration who promised to bring political and legal retribution to Mr. Trump’s enemies.Mr. Biden had even invited Mr. Trump to the White House, listening without responding as the president-elect aired familiar grievances about the Justice Department — then surprised his host by sympathizing with the Biden family’s own troubles with the department, according to three people briefed on the conversation.But it was Hunter Biden’s looming sentencings on federal gun and tax charges, scheduled for later this month, that gave Mr. Biden the final push. A pardon was one thing he could do for a troubled son, a recovering addict who he felt had been subjected to years of public pain.When the president returned to Washington late Saturday evening, he convened a call with several senior aides to tell them about his decision.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico Passes Bill Barring Legal Challenges to Constitutional Changes

      by

      The bill has drawn criticism from legal scholars who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters. Mexico’s lower house of Congress approved sweeping new measures on Wednesday that would prevent legal challenges to constitutional amendments, allowing lawmakers to reshape the country’s charter without any judicial review — even from the Supreme Court.The bill, which was already passed by the Senate last week, has drawn criticism from legal scholars and human rights experts, who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters and hand the ruling Morena party seemingly unchecked power to pass profound changes to the laws governing the nation.Most state legislatures are expected to approve the measure in the coming days, paving the way for the president to sign it into law.The move comes at a tense moment for Mexico, in which the major branches of government barreling toward open conflict over the fundamental makeup of the judicial system and the role it should play in the country’s democracy.“This reform, if it passes, does place us in a context of an exercise of unlimited power,” said Guadalupe Salmorán Villar, a researcher on global rule of law and constitutional democracy based in Mexico City. “It’s an overt attempt by the federal government, with the support of the large congressional majority of Morena and its allies, to politically subjugate the judiciary.”Olga Sánchez Cordero, a Morena lawmaker, said that while the initiative would bar courts from weighing in on the content of constitutional amendments, it would not prohibit challenges on procedural grounds. Until now, she said, the Constitution has not been clear on how changes to the charter could be revised, but now there would be “a clear, explicit, unequivocal mechanism” for evaluating them.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      8 Supreme Court Justices in Mexico to Resign Ahead of Contentious Election

      by

      All but three of the country’s Supreme Court justices announced they would quit rather than partake in the controversial elections mandated by a judicial overhaul.In a series of terse resignation letters released Wednesday, eight of Mexico’s 11 Supreme Court justices said they would step down from their posts instead of participating in a contentious election of thousands of judges next year. The justices will all serve the remainder of their terms, most of which conclude in August.The announcements were the latest volley in an ongoing battle over a judicial overhaul, passed by the ruling party and its allies in September, that promises to upend the system by which Mexico’s judges are chosen and how they operate.The resignations follow a spate of attacks on the courts by President Claudia Sheinbaum and prominent members of her Morena party, who have said the response to the overhaul by the country’s justices is motivated by their desire to protect their own privileges. “This is a political message being sent not just by the Supreme Court, but the entire judiciary,” said Fernanda Caso, a political analyst in Mexico City. “These resignations and decisions not to participate, as a matter of dignity, are a response to the attacks and the way they have been treated.”Among other changes, the redesign of the judiciary requires that all of the nation’s judges be elected and will subject them to review by a disciplinary tribunal made up of elected officials, who will have the power to investigate and impeach judges.Supporters say the measure will help curb corruption within the judicial system. Critics say it will undermine judicial independence and give the Morena party control over a key check on its power. It has been met with more than 500 legal challenges by federal judges and other critics, some of whom say it violates the Constitution.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Lawyers Should Not Assist Trump in a Potential Power Grab

      by

      As the presidential campaign begins its final sprint, Donald Trump has made crystal clear how he will respond if he loses. He will refuse to accept the results; he will make baseless claims of voter fraud; and he will turn, with even more ferocity than he did in 2020, to the courts to save him.Mr. Trump has made clear that he views any election he loses — no matter how close or fair — as by definition illegitimate. The question then is whether there will be lawyers willing to cloak this insistence in the language of legal reasoning and therefore to assist him in litigating his way back to the White House.Republican lawyers have already unleashed lawsuits ahead of Election Day. These legal partisans have pursued their efforts across the country but have concentrated on swing states and key counties. The moves are clearly intended to lay the groundwork for Mr. Trump’s post-election efforts in states where the margins of victory are close.Such post-election efforts will be credible only if credible attorneys sign on to mount them. So it is critical that lawyers of conscience refuse to assist in those endeavors. As Mr. Trump’s rhetoric grows ever more vengeful and openly authoritarian, a great deal turns on the willingness of members of the legal profession to make common cause with him.At least since 2000, every close presidential election has involved recounts or litigation. Both sides lawyer up, and a high-stakes game of inches ensues.Although the lawyers engaged in those efforts are playing hardball, their work is predicated on a shared set of premises: In elections, the candidate who gets the most votes prevails (whether that means winning state or federal office or winning a state’s electoral votes). And in a close election, skilled lawyers will seek to develop legal arguments that determine which votes count, and therefore who emerges as the winner.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Kentucky Sheriff Arrested in Shooting Death of Judge

      by

      The police say a sheriff shot District Judge Kevin Mullins inside the courthouse on Thursday afternoon before turning himself in.The sheriff of a rural eastern Kentucky county walked into a courthouse on Thursday afternoon and shot and killed a district judge in his chambers after an argument, the police said.Mickey Stines, 43, the sheriff in Letcher County, turned himself in after shooting Judge Kevin Mullins and was charged with first-degree murder, Trooper Matt Gayheart of the Kentucky State Police said at a news conference on Thursday evening.The shooting happened at about 2:55 p.m. inside the Letcher County Courthouse in Whitesburg, a city in southeastern Kentucky.The sheriff was taken to a local jail and had been cooperative with investigators, Trooper Gayheart said.“This community is small in nature, and we’re all shook,” the trooper said.Judge Mullins, 54, suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was pronounced dead at the scene, Trooper Gayheart said.Investigators were interviewing witnesses who were in the building at the time of the shooting. The police were still trying to determine what had led up to the argument.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