Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge rejects Trump administration’s bid to unseal Epstein grand jury transcripts

      by

      A US federal judge on Wednesday denied a justice department request to unseal grand jury transcripts related to a criminal investigation of the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein in south Florida from the mid-2000s.The move is the first ruling in a series of attempts to release more information on the case by Donald Trump’s administration, which has been mired in a scandal in recent weeks, after the justice department announced it would not be releasing any additional files related to the Epstein case – despite earlier promises from the president and the the US attorney general, Pam Bondi.The justice department’s memo sparked renewed focus on and scrutiny of Trump’s past ties to Epstein and drew backlash from some Trump supporters and conservative commentators.On Friday, the justice department filed a motion asking the court to unseal the grand jury transcripts related to the federal investigations into Epstein in 2005 and 2007, according to court documents.But on Wednesday, US district judge Robin Rosenberg ruled that the department’s request in Florida did not fall into any of the exceptions to rules requiring grand jury material be kept secret.Rosenberg wrote that the court’s “hands are tied” and said the government had not requested the grand jury’s findings for use in a judicial proceeding, pointing out that district courts in the US are largely prohibited from unsealing grand jury testimony except in very narrow circumstances.“Eleventh circuit law does not permit this court to grant the government’s request,” Rosenberg wrote. “The court’s hands are tied – a point that the Government concedes.”The justice department still has pending requests to unseal transcripts in Manhattan federal court related to a later indictment brought against Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial, and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats demand Pam Bondi and Kash Patel be summoned for Epstein hearing

      by

      Democratic members of the House judiciary committee on Thursday demanded that Republicans summon the attorney general, Pam Bondi, the FBI director, Kash Patel, and their deputies for a hearing into the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s death and the sex-trafficking case against him.The letter from all 19 Democratic members on the committee to its Republican chair, Jim Jordan, comes amid a rift between Donald Trump and some of his supporters over the justice department’s conclusion, announced last week, that Epstein’s death in federal custody six years ago was a suicide, and that there is no secret list of his clients to be made public.The US president, who knew Epstein personally, has long claimed that there is more to be made public about his death and involvement in running a sex-trafficking ring for global elites. Last week’s report, together with the justice department’s announcement that nothing further about his case would be made public, has sparked rare criticism of Trump among the rightwing influencers and commentators who are usually among his most ardent defenders.In their letter, Democrats argued that the matter can only be settled if Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, along with Patel and his deputy, Dan Bongino, appear before the judiciary committee.“The Trump DOJ and FBI’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and president Trump’s suddenly shifting positions, have not restored anyone’s trust in the government but have rather raised profound new questions about their own conduct while increasing public paranoia related to the investigation,” the Democratic lawmakers wrote.“Only a bipartisan public hearing at which administration officials answer direct questions from elected representatives before the eyes of the American people can restore public trust on the matter.”A spokesperson for Jordan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Democrats have sought to capitalize on the questions raised by the justice department’s announcement, and earlier on Tuesday, House Republicans blocked an attempt by the minority to force release of documents related to the Epstein case.Last week, most Democrats on the judiciary committee signed a letter to Bondi that accused her of withholding some files related to the financier to protect Trump from any damaging disclosures. It went on to call for the release of any documents in the Epstein files that mention Trump, as well as the second volume of former special counsel Jack Smith’s report into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified materials.In this week’s letter, Democrats argued that only a congressional hearing would resolve whether there is indeed a cover-up over Epstein’s death, or if Trump was just promoting conspiracy theories as he sought an advantage on the campaign trail.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“We must submit to public scrutiny President Trump’s and MAGA’s longstanding claims about the ‘Epstein files,’ new questions as to whether President Trump himself has something to hide, whether he is keeping damaging information secret to protect other individuals or to maintain future blackmail leverage over public and private actors,” the lawmakers wrote, “or, perhaps the simplest explanation, whether President Trump and his Administration magnified and disseminated groundless Epstein conspiracy theories for purposes of political gain which they are now desperately trying to disavow and dispel.”The reignited turmoil over the Epstein case has sparked reports that Bongino, a former podcaster who has long promoted conspiracies about his death, clashed with Bondi and is considering resigning his position at the FBI.Over the weekend, Trump defended Bondi in a post on Truth Social and pleaded with his supporters. “One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it’s the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about,” he wrote. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US court blocks Trump administration from revoking Afghans’ protected status

      by

      A US appeals court has for now blocked the Trump administration from removing the temporary protective status of thousands of Afghans in the United States, court documents showed on Monday.An administrative stay on the termination of temporary protected status for Afghans will remain until 21 July, the US court of appeals for the fourth circuit said in an order granting a request from immigration advocacy organization Casa.The group had filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Homeland Security to challenge the terminations of the temporary protected status for Afghans and Cameroonians announced by the Trump administration in April.Casa had filed for an emergency motion for a stay on Monday, when the protected status for Afghans was scheduled to be terminated. The protected status for Cameroonians is set to end on 4 August, according to the court document.The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In April when the Trump administration terminated temporary deportation protections for thousands of Afghans and Cameroonians, the department had said conditions in Afghanistan and Cameroon no longer merited the protected status.The Trump administration has until 1159pm ET on Wednesday to respond.The US evacuated more than 82,000 Afghans from Afghanistan after Taliban’s takeover in 2021, including more than 70,000 who entered the US with temporary “parole”, which allowed legal entry for a period of two years. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court allows Trump to resume gutting education department

      by

      The US supreme court on Monday cleared the way for Donald Trump’s administration to resume dismantling the Department of Education as part of his bid to shrink the federal government’s role in education in favor of more control by the states.In the latest high court win for the president, the justices lifted a federal judge’s order that had reinstated nearly 1,400 workers affected by mass layoffs at the department and blocked the administration from transferring key functions to other federal agencies. A legal challenge is continuing to play out in lower courts.The court’s action came in a brief, unsigned order. Its three liberal justices dissented.A group of 21 Democratic attorneys general, school districts and unions behind a pair of legal challenges had warned in court papers that Trump’s shutdown efforts threatened to impair the department’s ability to perform its core duties.Created by Congress in 1979, the Department of Education’s main roles include administering college loans, tracking student achievement and enforcing civil rights in schools. It also provides federal funding for needy districts and to help students with disabilities.Federal law prohibits the department from controlling school operations including curriculum, instruction and staffing. Authority over these decisions belongs to state and local governments, which provide more than 85% of public school funding.The department’s Republican critics have portrayed the department as a symbol of bureaucratic waste, underlining the need for smaller federal government in favor of greater state power.In March, Trump sought to deliver on a campaign promise to conservatives by calling for the department’s closure.“We’re going to be returning education, very simply, back to the states where it belongs,” Trump said on 20 March before signing an executive order to close the department to the “maximum extent” allowed by law.Trump said that certain “core necessities” would be preserved, including Pell grants to students from lower-income families and federal funding for disadvantaged students and children with special needs, though he said those functions would be redistributed to other agencies and departments.Trump in March directed that the department transfer its $1.6tn student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education services to the Department of Health and Human Services.Although formally eliminating the department would require an act of Congress, the downsizing announced in March by US education secretary Linda McMahon aimed to slash the department’s staff to roughly half the size it was when Trump took office in January.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBoston-based US district judge Myong Joun, an appointee of Democratic former president Joe Biden, concluded in a 22 May ruling that the mass firings would “likely cripple the department”. He ordered the affected workers to be reinstated and also blocked the administration’s plan to hand off department functions to other federal agencies.The plaintiffs, Joun wrote, are “likely to succeed in showing that defendants are effectively disabling the department from carrying out its statutory duties by firing half of its staff, transferring key programs out of the department, and eliminating entire offices and programs”.The Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals on 4 June rejected the Trump administration’s request to pause the injunction issued by the judge.In a court filing asking the supreme court to lift Joun’s order, the justice department accused him of judicial overreach.The plaintiffs warned that mass firings at the department could delay the disbursement of federal aid for low-income schools and students with special needs, prompting shortfalls that might require cutting programs or teaching staff.They also argued in court papers that Trump’s shutdown effort would undermine efforts to curb discrimination in schools, analyze and disseminate critical data on student performance, and assist college applicants seeking financial aid. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Missouri’s governor signs repeal of state’s guaranteed paid sick leave law

      by

      Eight months after voters approved it, Missouri’s governor, Mike Kehoe, signed the repeal of a law on Thursday that had guaranteed paid sick leave to workers and inflation-linked adjustments to the minimum wage.The move marked a major victory for the state’s largest business group and a frustrating defeat for workers’ rights advocates, who had spent years – and millions of dollars – building support for the successful ballot measure. The repeal will take effect on 28 August.Kehoe, who also signed a package of tax breaks on Thursday, described the paid sick leave law as an onerous mandate that imposed burdensome record-keeping.“Today, we are protecting the people who make Missouri work – families, job creators and small business owners – by cutting taxes, rolling back overreach and eliminating costly mandates,” Kehoe, a Republican, said in a statement released after a private bill-signing ceremony.The new tax law excludes capital gains from individual state income taxes, expands tax breaks for seniors and disabled residents, and exempts diapers and feminine hygiene products from sales taxes.Richard von Glahn, who sponsored the worker benefit ballot initiative, said many parents felt forced to go to work instead of staying home to care for a sick child in order to pay for their rent or utilities.“The governor signing this bill is an absolute betrayal to those families, and it hurts my heart,” said Von Glahn, policy director for Missouri Jobs With Justice.About one-third of states mandate paid sick leave, but many businesses voluntarily provide it. Nationwide, 79% of private-sector employees received paid sick leave last year, though part-time workers were significantly less likely to receive the benefit than full-time employees, according to US labor department data.Voters in Alaska, Missouri and Nebraska all approved paid sick leave measures last November. Only Alaska’s, which kicked in on 1 July, has remained unchanged by state lawmakers.Before Nebraska’s measure could take effect on 1 October, the state’s Republican governor, Jim Pillen, signed a measure last month exempting businesses with 10 or fewer employees from the paid sick leave requirements. The revision also allows businesses to withhold paid sick leave from seasonal agricultural workers and 14- and 15-year-olds.Missouri’s law allowed employees to earn one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, starting 1 May. By the time it’s repealed, 17 weeks will have elapsed. That means someone working 40 hours a week could have earned 22 hours of paid sick leave.If workers don’t use their paid sick leave before 28 August, there is no legal guarantee they can do so afterward.The Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry had made repealing the law its top legislative priority.The “paid leave and minimum wage policies were a job killer”, the chamber’s president and chief executive officer, Kara Corches, said.But Missouri voters could get a second chance at mandating paid sick leave.Von Glahn has submitted a proposed ballot initiative to the secretary of state that would reinstate the repealed provisions. Because the new measure is a constitutional amendment, the state legislature would be unable to revise or repeal it without another vote of the people. Supporters have not decided whether to launch a petition drive to try to qualify the measure for the 2026 ballot. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Mahmoud Khalil files $20m claim against Trump administration for false imprisonment

      by

      Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist who was detained by the Trump administration for months, have filed a claim for $20m in damages against the administration, alleging Khalil was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite as the government sought to deport him over his prominent role in campus protests.The filing – a precursor to a lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act – names the Department of Homeland Security, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the state department.Khalil, 30, was released from US immigration detention last month after having been held for more than three months over his activism against Israel’s war on Gaza. He has become the most high-profile of the students who have been arrested by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestinian activism.Upon his release, Khalil told reporters: “Although justice prevailed, it’s very long overdue and this shouldn’t have taken three months. I leave some incredible men behind me, over 1,000 people behind me, in a place where they shouldn’t have been.”Asked by the Guardian to respond to allegations made by the Trump administration, which has fought for months to keep him detained, that his pro-Palestinian organizing constituted a national security threat, he said:“Trump and his administration, they chose the wrong person for this. That doesn’t mean there is a right person for this. There is no right person who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide.”Khalil told reporters he was looking forward to returning home to spend time with his infant son, who was born while he was detained. “I can actually hug him,” Khalil said.Khalil’s arrest was widely decried as a dangerous escalation in the Trump administration’s campaign against speech protected by the US constitution’s first amendment. Khalil has not been charged with a crime, and his deportation case is still continuing in immigration court.Trump administration officials had accused Khalil of antisemitism and of pro-Hamas advocacy, although they didn’t provide evidence at any point during his arrest or detention.In an emailed statement to the Associated Press, Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, called Khalil’s claim for $20m “absurd”, and accused him of “hateful behavior and rhetoric” that threatened Jewish students.Khalil told the AP that the goal of his legal claim is to send a message that he will not be intimidated into silence.“They are abusing their power because they think they are untouchable,” Khalil said. “Unless they feel there is some sort of accountability, it will continue to go unchecked.”Khalil said he plans to share any settlement money with others targeted in Trump’s “failed” effort to suppress pro-Palestinian speech. In lieu of a settlement, he would also accept an official apology and changes to the administration’s deportation policies. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      DoJ whistleblower provides emails backing claim Emil Bove defied courts over deportations

      by

      Erez Reuveni, a former justice department attorney who was dismissed from his post, has provided text messages to the Senate judiciary committee supporting his whistleblower complaint involving Emil Bove, a top department official who is currently being considered for a seat on the federal bench.Reuveni’s initial complaint, filed last month, included the explosive allegation that Bove had told justice department lawyers that they “would need to consider telling the courts ‘fuck you’ and ignore any such court order” blocking efforts to remove immigrants to El Salvador.The text messages Reuveni provided to the Senate judiciary committee include Reuveni and his boss, August Flentje, referencing Bove’s comments, according to Bloomberg Law.“Guess we are about to say fuck you to the court” – “Super,” Reuveni texted a colleague, according to Bloomberg.The colleague replied: “Well Pamela Jo Bondi is” and “Not you.”A former New York City-based federal prosecutor, Bove was hired by Donald Trump to defend him against the four state and federal indictments he faced before winning re-election last year. He then appointed Bove as acting justice department deputy attorney general in his first weeks back in the White House, during which time Bove fired prosecutors who brought charges against January 6 rioters and requested a list of FBI agents who worked on the cases.During a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee last month, Bove denied that he had ever instructed justice department attorneys to defy a court order.“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” he said.But the messages released by Reuveni suggest that justice department lawyers were, at the very least, aware of the possibility they might have to ignore judicial orders.One of the newly disclosed emails shows that Bove gave the OK to deplane flights on foreign soil that were carrying immigration detainees from the US, despite an order from US district judge James Boasberg to turn the planes around. According to the email, Bove gave the legal advice that it was OK to deplane the detainees because the planes had left US airspace before Boasberg’s written order had been filed on the court docket. Before issuing his written order, Boasberg had issued an oral order from the bench.View image in fullscreen“At this point why don’t we just submit an emoji of a middle finger as our filing,” Reuveni wrote in one 19 March message. “A picayune middle finger.” “So stupid,” his boss wrote back. The messages provide an unusual and remarkable level of insight into how justice department lawyers knew they were defying court orders.Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, responded to the issue on X on Thursday.“We support legitimate whistleblowers, but this disgruntled employee is not a whistleblower – he’s a leaker asserting false claims seeking five minutes of fame, conveniently timed just before a confirmation hearing and a committee vote,” she wrote. “As Mr Bove testified and as the Department has made clear, there was no court order to defy, as we successfully argued to the DC Circuit when seeking a stay, when they stayed Judge Boasberg’s lawless order. And no one was ever asked to defy a court order.“This is another instance of misinformation being spread to serve a narrative that does not align with the facts. This ‘whistleblower’ signed 3 briefs defending DOJ’s position in this matter and his subsequent revisionist account arose only after he was fired because he violated his ethical duties to the department.”Chris Stein contributed reporting More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      New Hampshire judge blocks Trump’s birthright citizenship order

      by

      Donald Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship suffered a courtroom defeat on Thursday as a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the controversial executive order nationwide and certified a sweeping class-action lawsuit that could protect tens of thousands of children.Ruling from the bench on Thursday, Judge Joseph LaPlante announced his decision after an hour-long hearing and said a written order would follow. The judge, an appointee of George W Bush, said a written order would follow later in the day, with a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.The decision is a test case following a recent supreme court ruling that restricted nationwide injunctions, in effect making class-action lawsuits the primary remaining method for district court judges to halt policy implementation across large areas of the country. It delivers a legal blow to the administration’s hardline immigration agenda and ramps up a constitutional dispute that has continued through the first six months of Trump’s second term.The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It is among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to undocumented parents living in the US or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.“Tens of thousands of babies and their parents may be exposed to the order’s myriad harms in just weeks and need an injunction now,” lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in court documents filed on Tuesday.At issue is the US constitution’s 14th amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration argues that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” allows the US to deny citizenship to babies born to undocumented women in the country illegally, seeking to overturn the established practice that people born in the United States automatically receive citizenship, irrespective of their parents’ immigration circumstances.“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he did not consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of US citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.Several federal judges had issued nationwide injunctions stopping Trump’s order from taking effect, but the US supreme court limited those injunctions in a 27 June ruling that gave lower courts 30 days to act. With that time frame in mind, opponents of the change quickly returned to court to try to block it.In a Washington state case before the ninth US circuit court of appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the supreme court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from Casa, a non-profit immigrant rights organization.Ama Frimpong, the legal director at Casa, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the US after being targeted by gangs.“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties – his wife’s father is a US citizen.“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote. More