Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Venezuelan Migrants

      by

      Cite as: 604 U. S.
      (2025)
      9
      SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting
      whether its March 15 deportations complied with the Dis-
      trict Court’s orders, it simultaneously sought permission to
      resume summary deportations under the Proclamation.
      The District Court, first, denied the Government’s motion
      to vacate its temporary restraining order, rejecting the as-
      sertion that “the President’s authority and discretion under
      the [Alien Enemies Act] is not a proper subject for judicial
      scrutiny.” App. to BIO 71a. At the very least, the District
      Court concluded, the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed” on
      their claim that, “before they may be deported, they are en-
      titled to individualized hearings to determine whether the
      Act applies to them at all.” 2025 WL 890401, *2. The D. C.
      Circuit, too, denied the Government a requested stay and
      kept in place the District Court’s pause on deportations un-
      der the Alien Enemies Act pending further proceedings.
      2025 WL 914682, *1 (per curiam) (Mar. 26, 2025).
      It is only this Court that sees reason to vacate, for the
      second time this week, a temporary restraining order
      standing “on its last legs.” Department of Education, 604
      U. S., at (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1). Not
      content to wait until tomorrow, when the District Court will
      have a chance to consider full preliminary injunction brief-
      ing at a scheduled hearing, this Court intervenes to relieve
      the Government of its obligation under the order.
      II
      Begin with that upon which all nine Members of this
      Court agree. The Court’s order today dictates, in no uncer-
      tain terms, that “individual[s] subject to detention and re-
      moval under the [Alien Enemies Act are] entitled to judicial
      review’ as to ‘questions of interpretation and constitution-
      ality’ of the Act as well as whether he or she ‘is in fact an
      alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.”” Ante, at 2
      (quoting Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163–164, 172,
      n. 17 (1948)). Therefore, under today’s order, courts below More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Congestion Pricing Will Live On for Several Months After Court Agreement

      by

      State and federal officials agreed to a timeline in their court dispute over the tolling program that is likely to leave it in place until the fall. Other threats to the program still loom.The federal government and New York transit officials have agreed to allow congestion pricing, the tolling program opposed by President Trump, to continue until at least midsummer, and most likely into the fall, according to a new court filing.But it remains unclear whether the federal Department of Transportation, which has raised the specter of defunding mass transit projects in the state, could exert pressure outside the court system to try to force the program to end sooner. Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, has said he wants the toll to end by April 20.The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which operates the program, declined to comment on the letter that detailed the agreement. The document was filed on Friday in federal court in Manhattan as part of a lawsuit by the M.T.A. against the Department of Transportation over the government’s efforts to kill the toll. The letter said that the authority and federal officials would abide by a timeline that would not resolve the dispute until at least late July. It also noted that the federal government does not currently plan to seek an injunction, which could have potentially halted the program in the meantime.The Department of Transportation did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The agreement signals another temporary reprieve for the M.T.A. and Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has vowed to keep the tolling cameras on. Congestion pricing, which charges most drivers $9 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street during peak traffic times, began in January, with the goals of reducing traffic and raising $15 billion for critical mass-transit upgrades in the region.Sam Spokony, a spokesman for the governor, declined to comment on the court document, but reiterated Ms. Hochul’s support for the program. “Since congestion pricing took effect three months ago, traffic is down and business is up — and that’s the kind of progress we’re going to keep delivering for New Yorkers,” he said.For months, President Trump has promised to kill congestion pricing, claiming, without offering evidence, that the toll is harmful to the city’s economy.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuit Accuses Prominent Palestinian American of Supporting Hamas

      by

      The complaint against the businessman, Bashar Masri, does not say that he knew about the Oct. 7 attack in advance but does assert that he was aware of the Hamas military infrastructure at his properties.Families of victims of the Hamas-led terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, sued a prominent Palestinian American businessman on Monday, accusing him of supporting Hamas by developing properties that were crucial to the terrorist group’s operations.According to the lawsuit, Bashar Masri, a wealthy developer, operated hotels and an industrial site in Gaza to “construct and conceal” a labyrinthine network of tunnels that allowed Hamas to “store and launch its rockets at Israel.”“The properties defendants developed with Hamas were not only part of the infrastructure Hamas used in connection with the Oct. 7 attack itself,” the lawsuit added. “Their development deliberately advanced Hamas’s false narrative that it was interested primarily in the economic development of Gaza and a grudging coexistence with Israel.”The lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court in Washington, where Mr. Masri has a home. It does not say that Mr. Masri and the companies he controls knew about the attack in advance but does assert that they were aware of the Hamas military infrastructure at their properties.Mr. Masri, a respected entrepreneur, denied the allegations.Mr. Masri “was shocked to learn through the media that a baseless complaint was filed today referring to false allegations against him and certain businesses he is associated with,” a statement from his office said. “Neither he nor those entities have ever engaged in unlawful activity or provided support for violence and militancy.”The complaint comes at a politically sensitive time for Mr. Masri, who has been linked to the hostage envoy for the Trump administration who has been involved in efforts to free the remaining captives being held by Hamas in Gaza. Mr. Masri is expected to play a role in the reconstruction of Gaza.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 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Chevron Must Pay $745 Million for Coastal Damages, Louisiana Jury Rules

      by

      The verdict will likely influence similar lawsuits against other oil companies over coastal damage in the state.A jury in Louisiana has ruled that Chevron must pay a parish government about $745 million to help restore wetlands that the jury said the energy company had harmed for decades.The verdict, which was reached on Friday, is likely to influence similar lawsuits filed by other parishes, or counties, in the state against other energy giants and their possible settlement negotiations.The lawsuit, filed by Plaquemines Parish, is one of at least 40 that coastal parishes have filed against fossil fuel companies since 2013.The lawsuit contended that Texaco — which Chevron bought in 2000 — violated state law for decades by failing to apply for coastal permits, and by not removing oil and gas equipment when it stopped using an oil field in Breton Sound, which is southeast of New Orleans.A state regulation in 1980 required companies operating in wetlands to restore “as near as practicable to their original condition” any canals that they dredged, wells that they drilled or wastewater that they dumped into marshes.Oil industry infrastructure in coastal waters in Plaquemines Parish, La.William Widmer for The New York TimesWe 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 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Permanently Bars N.I.H. From Limiting Medical Research Funding

      by

      A federal judge permanently barred the Trump administration on Friday from limiting funding from the National Institutes of Health that supports research at universities and academic medical centers, restoring billions of dollars in grant money but setting up an almost certain appeal.The ruling by Judge Angel Kelley, of the Federal District Court in Massachusetts, made an earlier temporary order by her permanent and was one of the first final decisions in the barrage of lawsuits against the Trump administration. But it came about in an unusual way: The government asked the court to enter that very verdict earlier on Friday so it could move ahead with an appeal.The decision nonetheless was an initial win for a diverse assortment of institutions that conduct medical research. After the Trump administration announced the policy change in February, scores of research hospitals and universities issued dire warnings that the proposal threatened to kneecap American scientific prowess and innovation, estimating that the change could force those institutions to collectively cover a nearly $4 billion shortfall.Under the Trump administration’s plan, the National Institutes of Health could cap the funding it provides to cover the “indirect costs” of research — for things like maintenance of buildings, utilities and support staff — at 15 percent in the grants it hands out. Historically, when the agency awarded grants, it could allocate close to 50 percent in some cases to cover the indirect costs associated with a given study.The Trump administration said it had conceived of the policy as a way of freeing up more federal dollars to pay for research directly — covering scientists’ salaries or buying necessary equipment — as opposed to the many tangential costs that hospitals and laboratories incur in maintaining their facilities and other overhead expenses.But critics described that reasoning as disingenuous, as the changes the administration had proposed would paradoxically force institutions to cover the bill, and most likely shed staff and scale down research projects in the process.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

      Federal Worker Unions Sue to Block Trump From Stripping Bargaining Rights

      by

      A group of federal employee unions filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the Trump administration’s efforts to strip union representation from about one million federal workers, arguing that President Trump had exceeded his constitutional authority and violated the unions’ rights.The complaint, filed late Thursday night in federal court in Oakland, Calif., is the latest development in the unions’ escalating battle with the administration over its attempts to slash the federal work force and roll back the protections afforded to the civil service employees. Unions representing government workers have repeatedly sued over the efforts to cut jobs and dismantle offices and agencies, winning at least temporary reprieves in some of those cases.Last week, Mr. Trump signed an executive order designating employees of about two dozen agencies as central to “national security missions,” a move explicitly designed to exclude them from federal unions, which the administration said were “hostile” to his agenda.The executive order was accompanied by a lawsuit in federal court in Texas, filed by the administration, which seeks to allow agencies to cancel collective bargaining agreements, which would strip the employees of union protection and the unions of millions of dollars in dues.Officials at the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal union, which filed the countersuit on Friday, said the president’s move was among the most aggressive they had seen out of the White House so far, one that threatened collective bargaining rights across the work force. The A.F.G.E. alone represents 800,000 workers.The lawsuit called the order an act of retaliation against the union for pushing back against “both his agenda to decimate the federal work force and his broader agenda to fundamentally restructure the federal government through expansive and unprecedented exercises of executive authority.”Since January, unions have filed an array of lawsuits challenging an array of executive orders and actions, including the February firing of some 25,000 probational employees.The administration said the move to eliminate union representation was necessary to protect national security and advance Mr. Trump’s agenda. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Lawsuit Challenges Trump’s Legal Rationale for Tariffs on China

      by

      The New Civil Liberties Alliance — a nonprofit group that describes itself as battling “violations by the administrative state” — sued the federal government on Thursday over the means by which it imposed steep new levies on Chinese imports earlier this year.The new filing, which the group said was the first such lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration over its tariffs, set the stage for what may become a closely watched legal battle. It comes on the heels of President Trump’s separate announcement on Wednesday of broader, more extensive tariffs targeting many U.S. trading partners around the world.At issue are the tariffs that Mr. Trump announced on China in February and expanded in March. To impose them, Mr. Trump cited a 1970s law that generally grants the president sweeping powers during an economic emergency, known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.Mr. Trump charged that an influx of illegal drugs from China constituted a threat to the United States. But the alliance argued in the lawsuit, on behalf of Simplified, a Pensacola, Fla.-based company, that the administration had misapplied the law. Instead, the group said the law “does not allow a president to impose tariffs,” but rather is supposed to be reserved for putting in place trade embargoes and sanctions against “dangerous foreign actors.”Port Manatee in Palmetto, Fla., on TuesdayScott McIntyre for The New York TimesMr. Trump cited that same law as one of the legal justifications for the expansive global tariffs he announced with an executive order on Wednesday. That order raised the tariff rate on China to at least 54 percent, adding new levies on top of those that the president imposed earlier this year.Mr. Trump’s new order specifically described the U.S. trade deficit with other nations as “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.”For now, the alliance asked the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida to block implementation and enforcement of the president’s earlier tariffs on China. “You can look through the statute all day long; you’re not going to see the president may put tariffs on the American people once he declares an emergency,” said John J. Vecchione, senior litigation counsel for the alliance.A spokesman for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Sue Trump Over Executive Order on Elections

      by

      Nearly every arm of the Democratic Party united in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday night, arguing that a recent executive order signed by the president seeking to require documentary proof of citizenship and other voting reforms is unconstitutional.The 70-page lawsuit, filed in Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., accuses the president of vastly overstepping his authority to “upturn the electoral playing field in his favor and against his political rivals.” It lists President Trump and multiple members of his administration as defendants.“Although the order extensively reflects the president’s personal grievances, conspiratorial beliefs and election denialism, nowhere does it (nor could it) identify any legal authority he possesses to impose such sweeping changes upon how Americans vote,” the lawsuit says. “The reason why is clear: The president possesses no such authority.”The lawsuit repeatedly argues that the Constitution gives the president no explicit authority to regulate elections, noting that the Elections Clause of the Constitution “is at the core of this action.” That clause says that states set the “times, places and manner” of elections, leaving them to decide the rules, oversee voting and try to prevent fraud. Congress may also pass federal voting laws.As Democrats debate how best to challenge the Trump administration’s rapid expansion of executive power, the lawsuit represents one of the first moments where seemingly every arm of the party is pushing back with one voice.Such unity is further evidence that Democrats still view the issue of democracy as core to their political brand, as well as a key issue that can help them claw back support with voters as they aim to build a new coalition ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In February, Democrats sued the Trump administration over attempts to control the Federal Election Commission. Weeks earlier, the D.N.C. joined a lawsuit over new voting laws in Georgia.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