ReportWire

Tag: appeal court

  • UC must publicly release Trump administration’s $1.2-billion settlement proposal

    [ad_1]

    UCLA must release the Trump administration document that outlines the terms of the $1.2 billion settlement proposal at the center of talks between the University of California and the federal government, the California Supreme Court ruled Friday.

    The decision is a win for UCLA faculty who have pushed for more transparency in the negotiations over the future of the nation’s premier public university system. UC has until the end of the day to disclose the 28 pages of federal demands for far-reaching policy changes at UCLA that are in line with President Trump’s vision for higher education.

    UCLA asked the high court to take two actions: block a lower court’s ruling that ordered UC to turn over the document to faculty and force the appeals court that declined to review the lower court decision to release a detailed explanation of its reasoning.

    “The petition for review and applications for stay are denied,” said brief Supreme Court decision, signed by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. The court did not elaborate on the matter.

    The proposal will be shared with the UCLA Faculty Association, an independent campus group which sued UC. Faculty leaders have said they intend to distribute the document publicly.

    “We’re excited that the Supreme Court agreed with us that every Californian has a right to see this letter and understand the scope of federal interference into our state institutions,” said Anna Markowitz, president of the UCLA Faculty Assn. and an associate professor in UCLA’s School of Education and Information Studies.

    UC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    What’s at stake for each side

    UC said in court filings that it would “suffer irreparable harm” to negotiations with the Trump administration if the document became public. It also said disclosure would hurt future settlement negotiations with other parties.

    University lawyers argued that releasing the proposal would invite “every member of the entire public to express each one’s views on every settlement” for an “uncontrollable public fray” around negotiations.

    The UCLA Faculty Association said that the document’s disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. The association argued that the information is a matter of public interest to faculty, staff, students, UCLA Health patients and Californian’s whose tax dollars support the UC system.

    Faculty sued after UC and UCLA denied public records requests. UC said it was not bound by public records law to share details of confidential settlement discussions.

    “The intense public reaction to disclosure at an early stage of an initial proposal could easily end any opportunity for discussion at its inception and hamper the ability to fully and fairly evaluate a response,” UC wrote a court filings.

    A lower court’s Oct. 14 ruling ordered UC to release the proposal to the association within 10 days. On Wednesday, an appeals court declined to reverse the decision before UC sought emergency relief from the state’s highest court.

    The Trump administration sent the more than 7,000-word settlement proposal in August, after the Department of Justice accused UCLA of violating the law in its handling of antisemitism complaints, admissions practices and gender identity on campus. Citing those alleged violations, the federal government suspended $584 million in medical, science and energy research funding to UCLA. The vast majority of the funds are now restored as the result of the a lawsuit filed by UC-wide faculty.

    UCLA has maintained that its policies comply with state and federal laws,. Its chancellor, Julio Frenk, has said the “far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.”

    What’s in the document

    The Times reviewed the settlement proposal and, in September, published a detailed account of its demands.

    They include proposed changes to admissions to prevent alleged affirmative action, stricter protest rules and a ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors at UCLA medical facilities.

    The document calls for UCLA to publicly announce that it does not recognize transgender people’s gender identities, prevent the admission of “anti-Western” international students and to pay the costs for an outside monitor to oversee the agreement.

    The offer also says that “the United States and its consultants and agents will have full and direct access to all UCLA staff, employees, facilities, documents, and data related to the agreement, in coordination with legal counsel for UCLA, except any documents or data protected by work product or the attorney-client privilege.”

    UC President James B. Milliken has said fine — a $1-billion payment to the government and a $172-million claims fund for people who say they faced discrimination — would be near impossible to pay.

    He has been less detailed on the other federal demands, leading to faculty complaints over how UC has handled negotiations and communicated updates to employees. Milliken has broadly said that UC will protect academic freedom as well as its mission and values in any potential Trump agreement.

    [ad_2]

    Jaweed Kaleem

    Source link

  • Appeals court rules Trump administration can end legal protections for more than 400,000 migrants

    [ad_1]

    A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can end legal protections for around 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest twist in a legal fight over Biden-era policies that created new and expanded pathways for people to live in the United States, generally for two years with work authorization. The Trump administration announced in March it was ending the humanitarian parole protections.“We recognize the risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court’s order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month — a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries,” the judges wrote. “But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay.”In a two-page ruling, the court lifted a stay issued by a district court and is allowing the administration to end humanitarian parole for those groups while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling Friday is a victory for the Trump administration, but doesn’t change anything on the ground.Esther Sung, the legal director of Justice Action Center, a co-counsel in the case, said the ruling “hurts everyone.”“People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain,” Sung said. “While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues.”A district court issued a stay in April halting the administration’s decision, but the Supreme Court lifted the lower court order at the end of May with little explanation.The Trump administration had argued the appeals court should follow the Supreme Court and reverse the district court ruling.The protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference, the Justice Department said in a court filing.Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that ending parole on a case-by-case basis would be a “gargantuan task” that would slow the government’s efforts to press for the removal of the migrants.“The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter,” lawyers for the government wrote in their brief.Plaintiffs, including people who benefited from the legal protections, urged the appeals court to endorse the district court ruling, which found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not categorically end protections for these groups, but instead had to evaluate each case individually. They also cited the district court’s finding that Noem ignored the humanitarian concerns that led to the legal protections in the first place.“The district court applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Secretary Noem’s action inflicted irreparable injury on the class members (among others) and that the public interest and balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of preliminary relief,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a brief.Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people. Since taking office, he has sought to dismantle Biden administration policies that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S.The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said in court papers, calling it “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”

    BOSTON —

    A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration can end legal protections for around 430,000 migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

    The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the latest twist in a legal fight over Biden-era policies that created new and expanded pathways for people to live in the United States, generally for two years with work authorization. The Trump administration announced in March it was ending the humanitarian parole protections.

    “We recognize the risks of irreparable harm persuasively laid out in the district court’s order: that parolees who lawfully arrived in this country were suddenly forced to choose between leaving in less than a month — a choice that potentially includes being separated from their families, communities, and lawful employment and returning to dangers in their home countries,” the judges wrote. “But absent a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of such irreparable harms cannot, by itself, support a stay.”

    In a two-page ruling, the court lifted a stay issued by a district court and is allowing the administration to end humanitarian parole for those groups while the lawsuit plays out. The ruling Friday is a victory for the Trump administration, but doesn’t change anything on the ground.

    Esther Sung, the legal director of Justice Action Center, a co-counsel in the case, said the ruling “hurts everyone.”

    “People who came here from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela did everything the government asked of them, and the Trump administration cruelly and nonsensically failed to hold up the government’s end of the bargain,” Sung said. “While we are deeply disappointed by this decision, we will continue to advocate zealously for our clients and class members as the litigation continues.”

    A district court issued a stay in April halting the administration’s decision, but the Supreme Court lifted the lower court order at the end of May with little explanation.

    The Trump administration had argued the appeals court should follow the Supreme Court and reverse the district court ruling.

    The protections for people fleeing turmoil in their home countries were always meant to be temporary, and the Department of Homeland Security has the power to revoke them without court interference, the Justice Department said in a court filing.

    Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that ending parole on a case-by-case basis would be a “gargantuan task” that would slow the government’s efforts to press for the removal of the migrants.

    “The Secretary’s discretionary rescission of a discretionary benefit should have been the end of the matter,” lawyers for the government wrote in their brief.

    Plaintiffs, including people who benefited from the legal protections, urged the appeals court to endorse the district court ruling, which found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not categorically end protections for these groups, but instead had to evaluate each case individually. They also cited the district court’s finding that Noem ignored the humanitarian concerns that led to the legal protections in the first place.

    “The district court applied the law correctly and did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that Secretary Noem’s action inflicted irreparable injury on the class members (among others) and that the public interest and balance of the equities tip sharply in favor of preliminary relief,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in a brief.

    Republican President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to deport millions of people. Since taking office, he has sought to dismantle Biden administration policies that expanded paths for migrants to live legally in the U.S.

    The Trump administration’s decision was the first-ever mass revocation of humanitarian parole, attorneys for the migrants said in court papers, calling it “the largest mass illegalization event in modern American history.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California Supreme Court ends Disneyland’s fight against Anaheim wage law

    California Supreme Court ends Disneyland’s fight against Anaheim wage law

    [ad_1]

    The California Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from Disney as to whether an Anaheim wage law applies to its lowest-paid theme park workers —setting the stage for the Disneyland resort to boost wages for many of its workers.

    Over the summer, the state’s 4th District Court of Appeal ordered up raises and back pay for “cast members,” as Disney calls its employees, in a class-action lawsuit filed on their behalf. The state Supreme Court’s decision to allow the appeal court’s order to stand represents a serious legal blow to the media giant.

    “Disney’s at the end of the road in terms of appeals,” said Sarah Grossman-Swenson, an attorney representing Disney workers. “The appellate decision is clear that Disney is required to comply with the law. The only issue left is the amount of damages.”

    The dispute between Disneyland workers and the park began in 2018 when voters passed a law prescribing a $15 minimum wage for companies in Anaheim’s resort area who enjoyed “tax rebate” agreements with the city. The measure approved by voters, known as Measure L, had been placed on the ballot thanks to petition drive, led by a coalition of Disney unions.

    In the lead up to the election, Disney asked the Anaheim City Council to shred a 45-year gate tax shield and a $267-million bed-tax break for a luxury hotel project that has since been abandoned.

    With those agreements canceled, Anaheim’s city attorney opined that the law wouldn’t apply to Disney.

    But a class-action lawsuit representing 25,000 theme park workers filed against Disney in Dec. 2019 begged to differ.

    An Orange County Superior Court judge originally sided with Disney before a three-judge panel overturned the ruling this summer, citing a provision in a 1996 Disney expansion deal passed by Anaheim in which the city agreed to repay the company if it had to cover bond payments.

    Disney filed an appeal with the state’s Supreme Court in August in which it claimed the appellate court redefined what a tax rebate is in a move that would “chill” public-private partnerships such as the ’96 expansion deal that brought Disney’s California Adventure, the Downtown Disney District and Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel into existence, going forward.

    It appears the legal fight ends with this week’s decision.

    “We are aware of the court’s decision and will be complying with the requirements of Measure L,” said Jessica Good, a Disneyland Resort spokesperson.

    Anaheim spokesman Mike Lyster said the city “will continue to monitor how the court’s ruling is implemented.”

    How many workers will be affected by the law’s implementation and the sum of back pay owed are unknown at this time.

    The pay scale under the law is set to rise to slightly less than $20 an hour next year after being adjusted for inflation.

    Grossman-Swenson called the raises and back pay owed a “big deal” for Disney workers.

    “We know that thousands of them were not paid a living wage for almost five years in compliance with the law,” she added. “This will mean that they are entitled to their money and that can make a big difference in their lives.”

    [ad_2]

    Gabriel San Román

    Source link