Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Drake’s New Valentine’s Day Album Pivots From Kendrick Lamar Beef

      by

      The Valentine’s Day release, a collaboration with PartyNextDoor, tries on different styles (acoustic pop, traditional Mexican) while only alluding to Kendrick Lamar.Following a Grammy Awards and a Super Bowl halftime show in which he featured heavily in absentia — at least as a punchline — life goes on for Drake, who released his first new album on Friday since his much-publicized beef with Kendrick Lamar.The album, “Some Sexy Songs 4 U,” a collaboration with PartyNextDoor, a longtime Drake associate with success as an enigmatic R&B singer, pop songwriter and producer, was released via multiple record companies at a fraught moment: Drake is currently suing his own label, Universal Music Group, or UMG, for defamation and harassment.In a lawsuit filed last month, lawyers for the Toronto rapper, born Aubrey Graham, said that UMG’s release and promotion of Lamar’s diss track and No. 1 smash “Not Like Us,” which accuses Drake of pedophilia, was an example of valuing “corporate greed over the safety and well-being of its artists.”Still, the release of “Some Sexy Songs 4 U” seemed to be business as usual, as UMG (and its Republic flagship) are credited with the release. The album is also credited to OVO Sound, Drake’s boutique label and the home of PartyNextDoor. OVO Sound is distributed by the Santa Anna Label Group, a subsidiary of UMG’s corporate rival, Sony Music.Representatives for Drake, who is on tour in Australia, and UMG did not respond to requests for comment.“Not Like Us” won five Grammys this month, including song and record of the year. A week later, it was the centerpiece of Lamar’s Super Bowl halftime show, in which Lamar rapped “Say, Drake, I hear you like ’em young” but stopped short of performing the line calling Drake and his crew “certified pedophiles,” replacing the controversial designation with a prerecorded scream.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Funding Freeze Raises a New Question: Is the Government’s Word Good?

      by

      As the Trump administration continues to withhold billions of dollars for climate and clean energy spending — despite two federal judges ordering the money released — concerns are growing that the United States government could skip out on its legal commitments.Typically, when the federal government spends money through a grant or a loan program approved by Congress, it signs a legally binding agreement, known as an obligation, to deliver the money. Companies, states and other recipients often spend millions of dollars to buy equipment, hire workers, build facilities and more, fully expecting that the federal government will make good on its promise to reimburse the funds.That expectation has been upended by the new administration.Following an order by President Trump, federal agencies, including the Energy Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department, have paused funding for a wide range of obligated grants related to the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law, sweeping laws that provided billions for climate and energy programs.In just a few weeks, the consequences have begun to be felt nationwide. School districts that planned to use promised federal dollars to buy electric school buses have seen their accounts frozen. Farmers and store owners that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money to replace old refrigeration systems or install solar panels are finding their requests for reimbursements delayed.Two federal judges have explicitly ordered the Trump administration to end its freeze and let the money flow again. On Monday, one of those judges, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island federal court, said the White House was defying his order by withholding funds.Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, said the administration’s actions had jeopardized the integrity of federal contracting.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

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      USAID Lifesaving Aid Remains Halted Despite Rubio’s Promise

      by

      When Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced last month that lifesaving humanitarian work would be exempt from a freeze on foreign aid, global health workers breathed a collective sigh of relief.But a new directive has put such exemptions on hold.Several senior employees at the U.S.A.I.D. Bureau of Global Health received an email Tuesday telling them to “please hold off on any more approvals” pending further directions from the acting chief of staff, according to a copy reviewed by The New York Times.Senior officials at the Bureau of Humanitarian Affairs received similar instructions during a meeting this week, according to a person familiar with what transpired.For weeks, U.S.A.I.D. officials and the organizations, contractors and consultants who partner with them have struggled to continue the kind of work that Mr. Rubio promised to preserve — “core lifesaving medicine, medical services, food, shelter and substance assistance.”Some waivers have been issued to programs that fall under Mr. Rubio’s definition of “lifesaving” aid, but the payments system called Phoenix that U.S.A.I.D. relies on to disburse financial assistance has been inaccessible for weeks. That means even programs that received waivers have struggled to continue.The State Department did not reply to a request for comment for this article.On Tuesday, Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur empowered by President Trump to combat the agency, told reporters in the Oval Office that the administration had “turned on funding for Ebola prevention and for H.I.V. prevention.” But in reality, the Ebola funding and virtually all of the H.I.V. prevention funding remains frozen, according to two U.S.A.I.D. employees and several aid groups.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Bondi Announces Lawsuit Against New York Over Immigration

      by

      The attorney general, citing a law allowing New Yorkers to get a driver’s license regardless of citizenship or legal status, accused the state of “prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens.”The Trump administration sued New York on Wednesday over its migrant policies, accusing state officials of prioritizing “illegal aliens over American citizens,” as Washington ramped up its political and legal battles with states over deportations.Attorney General Pam Bondi, in her first news conference, specifically cited New York’s “green light” law, which allows people in the state to get a driver’s license regardless of citizenship or legal status.Ms. Bondi, flanked by federal agents in raid jackets, vowed to put an end to those practices.“It stops,” Ms. Bondi said. “It stops today.”The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Albany, said New York state law was the most egregious in that it requires state authorities “to promptly tip off any illegal alien when a federal immigration agency has requested his or her information.”That, the lawsuit said, was “a frontal assault on the federal immigration laws, and the federal authorities that administer them.”Gov. Kathy Hochul’s spokesman, Avi Small, said the governor “supports deporting violent criminals who break our laws, believes that law-abiding families should not be targets and will coordinate with federal authorities who have a judicial warrant.”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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Elon Musk’s X Settles Trump Lawsuit

      by

      X has agreed to pay in the range of $10 million to settle a lawsuit brought by President Trump over the 2021 suspension of his account on the social media platform, according to a person briefed on the matter.The company, then known as Twitter, removed Mr. Trump from its platform after the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, citing his inflammatory posts and arguing they could lead to more violence. Mr. Trump sued, claiming Twitter and other tech firms that removed his accounts had wrongfully censored him.Elon Musk, now X’s owner and a close adviser to the president, reinstated Mr. Trump’s account shortly after acquiring the company in 2022. Mr. Musk has thrown his support behind Mr. Trump, donating more than $250 million to his campaign, and is now running a government cost-cutting initiative called the Department of Government Efficiency.The settlement further cements the relationship between Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump. Details of the agreement were not made public in court filings, but X and Mr. Trump notified the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday that they had agreed to dismiss the lawsuit. Both parties agreed to pay their own costs, according to a court filing.The settlement amount was previously reported by The Wall Street Journal. A spokesman for X did not respond to a request for comment. It was not immediately clear what entity would receive the money.Mr. Trump sued Twitter, Facebook and Google, the parent company of YouTube, after the platforms suspended his accounts in the wake of the attack on the Capitol. After the riot, Mr. Trump had used his Twitter account to praise his supporters, calling them “patriots.”Mr. Trump also posted that he would not attend the inauguration of Joseph R. Biden Jr., which Twitter’s safety teams said at the time could have signaled his supporters to stage another attack on that event. Twitter said it suspended Mr. Trump’s account “due to the risk of further incitement of violence.”Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, settled its lawsuit last month, agreeing to pay the president $25 million. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, has also courted Mr. Trump in recent months, donating to his inauguration fund and making sweeping changes to Meta’s policies to allow for more types of speech across the company’s apps.In December, ABC News agreed to pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit by Mr. Trump. ABC News said it would donate the money to Mr. Trump’s future presidential foundation and museum.Meta agreed to similar terms in its settlement with Mr. Trump. About $22 million will finance Mr. Trump’s presidential library, with the remaining $3 million set aside to for Mr. Trump’s legal fees and other plaintiffs who joined the lawsuit. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      8 Inspectors General Fired by Trump File Lawsuit Seeking Reinstatement

      by

      Eight former inspectors general who were summarily fired by President Donald J. Trump last month filed a lawsuit on Wednesday asking a judge to declare their removals illegal and order the government to reinstate them.“The purported firings violated unambiguous federal statutes — each enacted by bipartisan majorities in Congress and signed into law by the president — to protect inspectors general from precisely this sort of interference with the discharge of their critical, nonpartisan duties,” the complaint said.The lawsuit asserts that the plaintiffs remain the lawful inspectors general of their agencies because Mr. Trump’s dismissals broke the law. It asks for an injunction requiring the executive branch to allow them to return to work and awarding them back pay.Four days after Mr. Trump returned to office last month, the White House notified as many as 17 inspectors general in tersely worded emails that they were being terminated because of “changing priorities.”Those were all in direct conflict with statutory restrictions on firing such officials in the Inspector General Act of 1978 and strengthened by lawmakers in the bipartisan Securing Inspectors General Act of 2022.That statute says that before an inspector general is removed, the president must provide Congress with 30 days’ advance notice, including a written explanation with “the substantive rationale, including detailed and case-specific reasons for any such removal.”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