Decisions and Verdicts

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Maine Lobster Industry Can Sue Seafood Watchdog for Defamation, Judge Rules

      by

      A group of fishermen says that it lost business after Seafood Watch, a program run by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, advised consumers not to buy lobster from the state.Maine’s lobster industry can proceed with a defamation lawsuit that it brought against a seafood watchdog group, which had placed a do-not-buy designation on the crustaceans because of the dangers it said that the industry’s fishing nets posed to an endangered whale species.A federal judge last month denied a motion to have the case dismissed, drawing an appeal on Thursday from the group Seafood Watch, a nonprofit run by the Monterey Bay Aquarium that publishes seafood sustainability ratings.It has been nearly two years since the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and several other plaintiffs sued the nonprofit after it downgraded the sustainability rating for American lobsters caught off Maine from yellow to red in 2022. The nonprofit advised consumers to avoid those lobsters, saying that endangered North Atlantic right whales were at significant risk of becoming entangled in fishing gear.The fishermen blamed Seafood Watch in the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maine, for damaging the reputation of the billion-dollar industry and prompting some of their customers to cancel contracts.“Reputation and goodwill cannot be adequately replaced through awarding damages and this injury lingers as long as the ‘red listing’ does,” Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. wrote in the 137-page order denying the motion to dismiss the case.The fishermen applauded the judge’s ruling in a statement, having argued in the lawsuit that the average price per pound of lobster dropped by 40 percent after Seafood Watch changed its sustainability rating.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Rules Trump Can’t Fire Head of Federal Watchdog Agency Without Cause

      by

      A federal judge said that the president’s efforts to remove Hampton Dellinger, who leads the Office of Special Counsel, were unlawful.A federal judge in Washington on Saturday blocked the Trump administration from ousting the top official at a federal watchdog agency, finding that its efforts to do so were unlawful.In an order on Saturday evening, Judge Amy Berman Jackson granted a permanent injunction against the government, allowing Hampton Dellinger to remain the head of the watchdog agency, the Office of Special Counsel. The order required the Trump administration to recognize Mr. Dellinger’s authority in that position, barring it from taking any action to “treat him in any way as if he has been removed” or otherwise interfere with his work.The administration immediately indicated it would challenge the ruling, starting an appeals process that appeared likely to end at the Supreme Court.In a 67-page opinion explaining the order, Judge Jackson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stressed the unique responsibilities Congress gave the office when it was created under a 1978 law. She noted its central role in protecting whistle-blowers in the federal government, a role that she said would be compromised if Mr. Dellinger were allowed to be removed without a cause stipulated under the law. The judge had earlier put a temporary block on the firing.“It is his independence that qualifies him to watch over the time-tested structure that is supposed to bar executive officials from taking federal jobs from qualified individuals and handing them out to political allies — a system that Congress found intolerable over a century ago,” she wrote. The ruling came a week after the Supreme Court declined to intervene in the temporary block on removing Mr. Dellinger. Lawyers for the government argued to the court that Mr. Trump had the authority as the head of the executive branch to place his preferred pick in charge of the office. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Prison Officials Detail Treatment of Trans Inmates Under Trump Gender Order

      by

      The federal Bureau of Prisons is banning the use of preferred pronouns, stopping special pat-down procedures and rejecting underwear requests from transgender prisoners.The Bureau of Prisons on Friday laid out strict new guidelines for the treatment of transgender inmates to comply with President Trump’s executive order on gender recognition, including ending special procedures for pat-down searches and barring prisoners from purchasing the underwear of their choice.The guidelines, dated Feb. 21 and obtained by The New York Times, show the extraordinary steps that the federal government will have to take to comply with the president’s edict that there are only two sexes, established at conception, and that men who “self-identify as women” pose a threat to the safety of women.The prison memo was issued on the same day that a new group of transgender women rushed to court to try to stop their transfer from all-female prisons to all-male facilities, saying that the move would place them at an elevated risk of physical and sexual violence. Already, a preliminary injunction issued Feb. 18 had blocked the transfer of three transgender women to male prisons.But the new lawsuit said the bureau informed the trans women not participating in earlier suits that they were to be transferred to male prisons “imminently.”The Bureau of Prison’s two-page memo details the treatment expected of transgender inmates at length. The guidelines require prison staff to refer to inmates by “their legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex.”It said that transgender women would no longer be shielded from pat-down searches by male guards and that they would no longer be permitted to buy bras and other women’s clothing at the commissary. Public funds would no longer be used to purchase items that bind breasts, remove hair or allow trans men to use urinals.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Former Sheriff’s Deputy Is Convicted in Killing of Colorado Man

      by

      Andrew Buen was found guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the 2022 killing of Christian Glass, who was experiencing a mental health crisis on a mountain road.A former Colorado sheriff’s deputy who fatally shot a 22-year-old man who was experiencing a mental health crisis on a dark mountain road in 2022 was convicted Thursday of criminally negligent homicide.The former deputy, Andrew Buen, could face up to three years in prison when he is sentenced on April 14, according to the Clear Creek County District Attorney’s Office. The jury declined to convict him on the more serious charge of second-degree murder in the killing of Christian Glass, whose death prompted scrutiny of how the police handle crisis intervention, prompted changes to how officers train for similar situations and resulted in a $19 million settlement for Mr. Glass’s parents.Last year, Mr. Buen was found guilty of reckless endangerment in connection with the shooting, but the jury could not reach a verdict on the second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum penalty of 48 years in prison. That set up this month’s trial, which lasted two weeks.Mr. Glass’s father, Simon Glass, said Thursday that conviction of Mr. Buen had brought him significant relief.“We don’t have to be constantly worrying, ‘Will he get away with it?’” Simon Glass, 56, said by phone after attending the trial. “The jury probably showed him a little more mercy than he showed our son, but it’s a conviction.”A lawyer for Mr. Buen, Mallory Revel, said in a statement that a murder count “was never the appropriate charge in this case, and we are grateful to all of the jurors for recognizing that.”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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      South Korean Officials Convicted Over Forcibly Sending North Koreans Home

      by

      The case of two North Korean fishermen, who murdered 16 compatriots before they sought asylum, has become a political minefield in the South.In 2019, two North Korean fishermen confessed to murdering 16 shipmates ​before they fled to South Korea by boat​ and sought asylum.​ The then-progressive government in ​the South denied them refugee status ​or a trial there and, in an unprecedented move, sent them back to the North​.​That decision triggered ​not only a political firestorm at the time​ but also criminal charges against four senior officials prosecuted after the current conservative government, with a more hard-line stance against North Korea, took power in Seoul in 2022.On Tuesday, a three-judge panel in the Seoul Central District Court found the four top national security aides to former President Moon Jae-in guilty of abusing their official power when they sent the fleeing North Korean fishermen back. The court announced prison sentences but decided not to impose them immediately, indicating in its verdict that it considered the criminal charges against the​ officials to be politically motivated under Mr. Moon’s successor, President Yoon Suk Yeol.The four former officials — Mr. Moon’s national security adviser, Chung Eui-yong; his director of national intelligence, Suh Hoon; his presidential chief of staff, Noh Young-min; and his unification minister, Kim Yeon-chul — were sentenced to six to 10 months in prison. But the sentences were suspended for two years, after which they will be removed.The criminal charges the four faced were the first of their kind in South Korea and reflect the polarization between the country’s two main political parties when it comes to dealing with its decades-old foe North Korea.​When South Korea captured the two North Korean fishermen, then ages 22 and 23, in its waters in 2019​, they were no ordinary defectors. They confessed that they fled after killing the captain and 15 other crewmen on their boat with ​hammers, dumping​ their bodies into the sea.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Refuses to Immediately Reinstate Inspectors General Fired by Trump

      by

      A federal judge denied eight former inspector generals who were fired by President Trump immediate reinstatement to their jobs on Friday and excoriated their lawyers, saying that their emergency request had wasted the court’s limited time.The ruling by Judge Ana C. Reyes of the Federal District Court in Washington marked a rare victory for the Trump administration in the barrage of lawsuits that has followed its attempts to slash the federal work force, freeze funding, dismantle agencies and install officials loyal to the president. But it is not necessarily permanent: Judge Reyes criticized the case more on procedural than substantive grounds and allowed it to proceed on a less urgent schedule.Still, in a roughly 10-minute hearing scheduled just hours before it was held via a conference call, she repeatedly berated the plaintiffs’ lawyers for the manner in which they brought the case. She also faulted what she considered to be their weak arguments for immediately reinstating the eight inspectors general, who performed oversight of the Departments of Defense, State, Education, Agriculture, Labor, Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, as well as the Small Business Administration.At one point Judge Reyes, who was appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr., went as far as to threaten the plaintiffs with court sanctions if they did not immediately withdraw their emergency request so the case could proceed on a slower timeline. The plaintiffs initially refused, but eventually assented after further criticism from Judge Reyes.President Trump has moved swiftly to purge federal agencies in his first weeks in office, targeting many executive branch officials whose positions are supposed to be protected from being fired without cause. Inspectors general, who monitor their assigned agencies for fraud, waste and other misbehavior, are among those officials who have statutory restrictions on how they can be fired, ones that Congress tightened after Mr. Trump dismissed some inspectors general during his first term.The inspectors general in this case had argued that a judge’s order this week to temporarily reinstate another government watchdog — Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel — while that court challenge progresses had supported their own request to have the inspectors general immediately reinstated while their case proceeds.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Extends Halt on Trump Plan to Dismantle U.S.A.I.D.

      by

      For at least another week, a judge will keep a hold on a directive placing more than 2,000 employees on administrative leave and forcing the return of overseas workers.A federal judge on Thursday moved to extend by one week a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from carrying out plans that would all but dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development.The order, which Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said he would file later Thursday, continues to stall a directive that would put a quarter of its employees on administrative leave while forcing those posted overseas to return to the United States within 30 days.Judge Nichols said he would rule by the end of next week on whether to grant the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction that would indefinitely block key elements of the high-profile Trump administration effort.The plan was driven in large part by Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur tasked with making cuts to the federal budget, to shutter an agency he and Mr. Trump have vilified. The temporary restraining order applies to about 2,700 direct hires of U.S.A.I.D., including hundreds of Foreign Service officers, who would have been put on administrative leave under the directive, which also warned that contractors’ jobs could be terminated.The lawsuit was filed by two unions representing the affected U.S.A.I.D. employees: the American Foreign Service Association, to which aid workers in global missions belong, and the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents other direct hires. They have argued that President Trump’s executive order freezing foreign aid for 90 days and subsequent directives to dismantle certain U.S.A.I.D. operations and reduce staff were unconstitutional, and have asked the court to overturn them.Democratic lawmakers, U.S.A.I.D. workers, and the aid organizations that depend on U.S. foreign assistance have decried any moves to unilaterally shut down the agency as unlawful, as its role in the federal government was established by law and Congress funded it, like the rest of the government, through March 14.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 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Argues That Courts Cannot Block Musk’s Team From Treasury Systems

      by

      Lawyers for the Trump administration argued late Sunday that a court order blocking Elon Musk’s aides from entering the Treasury Department’s payment and data systems impinged on the president’s absolute powers over the executive branch, which they argued the courts could not usurp.The filing by the administration came in response to a lawsuit filed Friday night by 19 attorneys general, led by New York’s Letitia James, who had won a temporary pause on Saturday. The lawsuit said the Trump administration’s policy of allowing appointees and “special government employees” access to these systems, which contain sensitive information such as bank details and social security numbers, was unlawful.Members of Mr. Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency, which is not actually a department, have been combing through the databases to find expenditures to cut. The lawsuit says the initiative challenges the Constitution’s separation of powers, under which Congress determines government spending.A U.S. district judge in Manhattan, Paul A. Engelmayer, on Saturday ordered any such officials who had been granted access to the systems since Jan. 20 to “destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems.”Judge Engelmayer said in an emergency order that the officials’ access heightened the risk of leaks and of the systems becoming more vulnerable than before to hacking. He set a hearing in the case for Friday.Federal lawyers defending Mr. Trump — as well as the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, and the Treasury Department — called the order “markedly overboard” and said the court should dismiss the injunction, or at least modify his order.They argued that the order violated the Constitution by ignoring the separation of powers and severing the executive branch’s right to appoint its own employees. The restriction, they wrote, “draws an impermissible and anti-constitutional distinction” between civil servants and political appointees working in the Treasury Department.The filing followed warning shots over the weekend. Vice President JD Vance declared that the courts and judges aren’t allowed “to control the executive’s legitimate power,” although American courts have long engaged in the practice of judicial review.On Saturday, Mr. Trump called the ruling by Judge Engelmayer a “disgrace” and said that “No judge should, frankly, be allowed to make that kind of a decision.”This is a developing story and will be updated. More