Justice Department

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      A Stephen Miller Staffer and Tough Talk: Inside Trump’s Latest Attack on Harvard

      by

      The Justice Department opened an investigation into the student-run Harvard Law Review. The startling accusations show how the Trump administration is wielding power in pursuit of its political agenda.The Justice Department quietly approached Harvard University last month with startling claims, even by the extraordinary standards of the Trump administration’s monthslong assault on the elite college.The department signaled that it was reviewing claims of discrimination against white men at The Harvard Law Review, and accused the renowned publication of destroying evidence in an open investigation. The administration demanded that Harvard “cease and desist” from interfering.In a series of letters that have not been previously reported, the government also disclosed that it had a “cooperating witness” inside the student-run journal. That witness now works in the White House under Stephen Miller, the architect of the administration’s domestic policy agenda, Trump officials confirmed.The Law Review is independent of Harvard University. The allegations nonetheless deepened fears among Harvard officials that the administration appeared eager to escalate one of its civil investigations into a criminal inquiry, underscoring how the university’s problems with President Trump extend far beyond the loss of billions in federal funding.But the aggressive language in the letters from the Justice Department’s two top civil rights lawyers appeared to have overstated the allegations in pursuit of an additional way to punish Harvard. In that way, the episode fits a broader trend in how the administration is wielding federal investigatory powers to impose its political agenda.From reshaping the economy to ramping up deportations to punishing the nation’s elite law firms and universities, Mr. Trump’s government has repeatedly prized speed and shock value over the kind of methodical steps typically taken to build a legal case.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

      Trump, Bashing the Federalist Society, Asserts Autonomy on Judge Picks

      by

      The president has grown increasingly angry at court rulings blocking parts of his agenda, including by judges he appointed.President Trump appears to be declaring independence from outside constraints on how he nominates judges, signaling that he is looking for loyalists who will uphold his agenda and denouncing the conservative legal network that helped him remake the federal judiciary in his first term.Late Thursday, after a ruling struck down his tariffs on most imported goods, Mr. Trump attacked the Federalist Society, leaders of which heavily influenced his selection of judges during his first presidency.“I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,” Mr. Trump asserted on social media. “This is something that cannot be forgotten!”Hours earlier Thursday, the Justice Department severely undercut the traditional role of the American Bar Association in vetting judicial nominees. A day before, Mr. Trump picked a loyalist who has no deep ties to the conservative legal movement for a life-tenured appeals court seat, explaining that his pick could be counted on to rule in ways aligned with his agenda.Together, the moves suggest that Mr. Trump may be pivoting toward greater personal involvement and a more idiosyncratic process for selecting future nominees. Such a shift would fit with his second-term pattern of steamrolling the guardrails that sometimes constrained how he exercised power during his first presidency.But it could also give pause to judges who may be weighing taking senior status, giving Mr. Trump an opportunity to fill their seats. Conservatives have been eyeing in particular the seats of the Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas, who will turn 77 next month, and Samuel A. Alito, 75.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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Hears Final Arguments on How to Fix Google’s Search Monopoly

      by

      A judge queried lawyers during closing arguments on Friday about how A.I. should factor into his decision, which is expected by August.Judge Amit P. Mehta has some tough decisions to make about Google.That much was clear on Friday as the federal judge, who sits on the U.S. District Court in Washington, peppered lawyers for the Justice Department and the tech company with questions during closing arguments over about how best to fix the company’s search monopoly. The conclusion of the three-week hearing means the decision will now be in the hands of the judge, who is expected to issue a ruling by August.The government has asked the court to force Google to sell Chrome, its popular web browser, and share the data behind its search results with rivals. The company has countered with a far narrower proposal.Judge Mehta, who ruled last year that the company had broken antitrust laws to maintain its dominance in search, quickly turned his attention Friday to artificial intelligence, which many tech experts expect to upend search. Given that A.I. products are already changing the tech industry, the judge said he was grappling with questions about whether the proposals could lead a new challenger to “come off the sidelines and build a general search engine.”“Does the government believe that there is a market for a new search engine to emerge” as we think of one today, he asked. The government argued that A.I. products were connected to the future of search.Judge Mehta’s ruling could reshape a company synonymous with online search at a pivotal moment. Google is in a fierce race with other tech companies, including Microsoft, Meta and the startup OpenAI, to convince consumers to use generative A.I. tools that can spit out humanlike answers to questions. Judge Mehta’s ruling could directly hamper Google’s efforts to develop its own A.I. or offer a leg up to its competitors as they race to build their own new versions of A.I.-powered search.In addition, Judge Mehta’s decision will signal whether the government’s recent push to rein in the biggest tech companies through a series of antitrust lawsuits can result in significant changes to the way they do business.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 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      United Airlines Will Return to J.F.K. Through a Deal With JetBlue

      by

      The partnership comes after Newark’s airport, where United has a big hub, suffered long delays because of air traffic control problems.United Airlines and JetBlue Airways said on Thursday that they would swap a handful of flights at two New York airports, providing United a long-sought return to Kennedy International Airport. The airlines will also sell tickets on each other’s flights and link their loyalty programs.Under a new partnership called Blue Sky, the airlines would swap seven flights at J.F.K. and Newark Liberty International Airport, giving United another option in the New York area. That is important because Newark, one of United’s biggest hubs, has been strained for years under the weight of rising congestion and air traffic control staffing shortfalls. The trade would begin as soon as 2027, the airlines said. Other elements of the deal could begin as soon as this fall, pending a regulatory review.Customers will also be able to earn and use United’s MileagePlus loyalty points on most JetBlue flights. JetBlue customers will be able to earn and use the airline’s TrueBlue points for flights on United’s network.The airlines will also provide reciprocal benefits — such as early boarding, free checked bags and seats with extra legroom — to members of both loyalty programs and sell flights operated by the other carrier. Unlike some partnerships, in which such flights are offered under the name of the airline selling the tickets, these flights will continue to be branded independently.Airlines have long used such partnerships to gain access to more customers and limited number of gates and takeoff and landing rights at busy airports. Consumer groups have often criticized such deals, arguing that they lead to higher fares and fewer choices for travelers because airlines are unlikely to compete aggressively with a partner.United and JetBlue executives said that customers would benefit from the wider range of flights provided under their agreement.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      F.B.I. Memo on Sheds Light on Dispute Over Venezuelan Gang

      by

      The remaining intelligence agencies disagree with the F.B.I.’s analysis tying the gang, Tren de Aragua, to Venezuela’s government.An F.B.I. intelligence memo unsealed on Wednesday offers new details on why the bureau concluded that some Venezuelan government officials were likely to have had some responsibility for a criminal gang’s actions in the United States, pitting it against other intelligence agencies in a heated dispute over President Trump’s use of a wartime law.The memo, whose conclusions the remaining intelligence agencies have rejected, was submitted by the administration to a federal judge in Texas before a hearing on Thursday. It is part of a proliferating array of lawsuits over Mr. Trump’s use of the law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport people accused of being members of that gang, Tren de Aragua, to a notorious Salvadoran prison without due process.“The F.B.I. assesses some Venezuelan government officials likely facilitate the migration of TdA members from Venezuela to the United States to advance the Maduro regime’s objective of undermining public safety in the United States,” the memo said, using an abbreviation for the gang.It added that the bureau also thinks some officials in the administration of Venezeula’s president, Nicolas Maduro, “likely use TdA members as proxies.”The submission of the memo opens the door to greater judicial scrutiny of a key basis for Mr. Trump’s assertion that he can invoke the rarely used law to summarily deport people accused of being members of the gang. It also offers a glimpse of the claims put forth by several detained migrants that formed the basis for the F.B.I.’s assessment.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Pardoned Tax Cheat After Mother Attended $1 Million Dinner

      by

      Paul Walczak’s pardon application cited his mother’s support for the president, including raising millions of dollars and a connection to a plot to publicize a Biden family diary.As Paul Walczak awaited sentencing early this year, his best hope for avoiding prison time rested with the newly inaugurated president.Mr. Walczak, a former nursing home executive who had pleaded guilty to tax crimes days after the 2024 election, submitted a pardon application to President Trump around Inauguration Day. The application focused not solely on Mr. Walczak’s offenses but also on the political activity of his mother, Elizabeth Fago.Ms. Fago had raised millions of dollars for Mr. Trump’s campaigns and those of other Republicans, the application said. It also highlighted her connections to an effort to sabotage Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s 2020 campaign by publicizing the addiction diary of his daughter Ashley Biden — an episode that drew law enforcement scrutiny.Mr. Walczak’s pardon application argued that his criminal prosecution was motivated more by his mother’s efforts for Mr. Trump than by his admitted use of money earmarked for employees’ taxes to fund an extravagant lifestyle.Still, weeks went by and no pardon was forthcoming, even as Mr. Trump issued clemency grants to hundreds of other allies.Then, Ms. Fago was invited to a $1-million-per-person fund-raising dinner last month that promised face-to-face access to Mr. Trump at his private Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla.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

      U.S. Sues Four New Jersey Cities Over ‘Sanctuary’ Policies

      by

      Justice Department lawyers say in a lawsuit that Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken and Paterson are shielding illegal immigrants from lawful prosecution.The Justice Department has sued four New Jersey cities and their leaders over so-called sanctuary policies that federal lawyers say are hindering the Trump administration’s enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. With their policies, the cities, Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken and Paterson, are shielding illegal immigrants from lawful prosecution, Justice Department lawyers write in a lawsuit filed in federal court in Newark on Thursday. “While states and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way,” the lawsuit says. “And where inaction crosses into obstruction, local governments break federal law.”The suit was filed a day after a judge dismissed federal trespassing charges that had been filed against Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark this month after his arrest outside a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center where people were protesting. Mr. Baraka said at a hearing last week that he had been “targeted” for selective enforcement. He was named as a defendant in the suit filed on Thursday, as were Mayor Steven Fulop of Jersey City, Mayor Andre Sayegh of Paterson and Mayor Ravi Bhalla of Hoboken. All are Democrats; Mr. Fulop and Mr. Baraka are candidates in the Democratic primary for governor. Mr. Fulop said he had learned of the lawsuit from a post on the social media app X. “I think it’s a political sideshow,” he said. “It’s a stunt.”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

      Woman Arrested for Spitting on Ed Martin, Former Trump Justice Dept. Official

      by

      Ed Martin, the former interim U.S. attorney for Washington, stepped down from the position earlier this month.Federal police arrested a Washington woman on Thursday and charged her with assault for allegedly spitting on Ed Martin, who was at the time the chief prosecutor for the nation’s capital appointed by President Trump.Earlier this month, Emily Gabriella Sommer, 32 confronted Mr. Martin, the interim U.S. attorney for Washington, during an interview with journalists outside of his office in Northwest Washington. Ms. Sommer, who was walking a dog on a leash, approached Mr. Martin, asked him “Who are you?” using an expletive, and then spat on him. As she walked away, she told Mr. Martin, “You are a disgusting man.”Later that evening, a social media account — “@EmilyGabriellaS” with the username “leftits” — then repeatedly confronted Mr. Martin in the replies to his social media posts, mocking him and claiming responsibility for the incident.Mr. Martin stepped down from his position as the interim U.S. attorney earlier this month after it became clear his work for Jan. 6 rioters would stop him from getting confirmed by the Senate. He is now the self-described “captain” of the Justice Department’s “weaponization” group, among other roles, leading President Trump’s campaign to carry out retribution against his perceived enemies. He often appeared to do just that in his role as the top prosecutor in Washington, and it was one of the obstacles in his ultimately doomed path to Senate confirmation to be the capital’s permanent U.S. attorney.According to the criminal complaint submitted in federal court, U.S. marshals interviewed a witness at Ms. Sommer’s home, who identified her as the person who spat on Mr. Martin. In a statement on Thursday, the Justice Department announced that they had arrested and charged Ms. Sommer with one count of assaulting, resisting, or impeding a government official.Although spitting is considered a form of assault in most U.S. jurisdictions, prosecutors do not usually pursue assault cases for spitting unless there is some aggravating circumstance. In 2020, for example, a New York woman was charged with assault of a federal employee for spitting on a postal worker and claiming to have been infected with the coronavirus. A study published in “Forensic Science International” in 2021 found that “spitting is generally considered more of a nuisance than a truly violent act,” adding that one of the exceptions would be potential exposure to an infectious disease. More