Prosecutors are urging the Second Circuit to uphold Combs’ Mann Act convictions and 50-month sentence, arguing the trial judge properly applied federal sentencing guidelines
A federal appeals court has scheduled oral arguments in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ ongoing legal battle stemming from his Manhattan federal criminal case. Combs and his legal team are attempting to to overturn (or ‘modify’) his Mann Act convictions. According to a notice filed February 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear arguments April 9, 2026, at 10 AM at 40 Foley Sq. in lower Manhattan. Each side will have 10 minutes to present arguments before a panel of appellate judges.
The appeal relates to Combs’ underlying federal case in the Southern District of New York, overseen by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, where he was convicted in July 2025 on two counts of transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution under the Mann Act, was acquitted of more serious charges including racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking.
🚨DIDDY DOCKET: The U.S. Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments in United States v. Combs, the federal criminal case involving Sean “Diddy” Combs. According to the filing from yesterday, February 19, 2026, attorneys for both sides will appear April 9, 2026, at 10 AM at the… pic.twitter.com/iAwKemgQSf
In October 2025, Subramanian sentenced Combs to 50 months in federal prison and five years of supervised release, along with a $500,000 fine, following an emotional sentencing hearing attended by family members and victims. Combs’ legal team has argued the Mann Act convictions were improperly applied and previously filed motions challenging the verdict and seeking relief, calling the law outdated and inappropriate in his case (citing that Combs didn’t engage in acts with the escorts). The defense also previously stated that Judge Subramanian acted as a “13th juror” in imposing an abnormally long sentence for a Mann Act conviction.
In its appellate brief, federal prosecutors urged the Second Circuit to uphold Sean Combs’ convictions and sentence, arguing the trial court “properly applied the Acquitted Conduct Guideline, correctly calculated the Guidelines range, and properly considered the aggravated manner in which Combs carried out his Mann Act offenses and harmed his victims.” Prosecutors said evidence presented during the eight-week trial showed Combs transported women and commercial sex workers across state lines for prostitution, paid escorts to engage in sexual encounters involving his girlfriends, and relied on staff to arrange travel, hotel rooms, drugs and payments to facilitate the encounters. The government also argued the district court acted within its discretion at sentencing(even if a defendant was acquitted of related charges),when determining an appropriate sentence.
The Second Circuit appeal represents one of Combs’ final legal avenues to challenge the conviction or sentence. During oral arguments, appellate judges will question both prosecutors and defense attorneys before issuing a written decision, which could affirm the conviction, overturn it, or send the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The hearing notice indicates arguments will take place in person, though some remote participation remains possible depending on court protocols.
Combs, 55, remains in federal custody serving his sentence at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey.
Just after he killed his wife in Arlington, Tareq Alkayyali predicted in a telephone call to a colleague that he would be going to prison for the rest of his life.
Although he did not receive that bleak sentence, Alkayyali will at minimum be confined for about a decade longer than if had he not appealed his murder conviction.
In a retrial compelled by the defendant’s successful appeal connected to a judge’s flawed jury instruction, a state district court jury in Tarrant County on Friday imposed a prison term 17 years longer than did the jury in his first trial.
Alkayyali, an IHOP restaurant manager, was again found guilty of murder in the May 2019 killing of his new wife, Wasam Moussa, whose screaming mouth he covered with his hand inside their apartment.
The jury that heard the case this week in the 396th District Court assessed Alkayyali’s punishment at 40 years in prison. Alkayyali, who is 43, will become eligible for parole once he serves 20 years.
The jury’s verdict in the first trial in December 2021 carried a 23-year prison sentence. A retrial jury is not told that an earlier trial occurred.
Both panels were directed to consider a term of five to 99 years, or life. Both juries rejected a defense argument that Alkayyali was under the influence of sudden passion, and would have considered a term of two to 20 years if they were persuaded by the argument.
“Wasam Moussa didn’t deserve this,” Deputy Chief Allenna Bangs told the jury. “She died alone, by herself, in a country where she knew no one.” Thanks to the Arlington Police Department for their work on this case and for their commitment to keeping our community safe. pic.twitter.com/No6TMrkVHQ
In April 2017, Alkayyali met Moussa in Jordan. His uncle is married to Moussa’s sister. In November of that year, Alkayyali and Moussa were engaged and in August 2018, they married. Both the engagement and wedding took place in Jordan.
Within 24 hours of the wedding, Moussa told Alkayyali and her relatives that she wanted a divorce, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals opinion. She did not provide an explanation.
Alkayyali returned to Texas. Moussa continued living in Jordan until May 25, 2019, when she took a flight to Texas to live with Alkayyali.
Three days later, at 6:29 a.m., Alkayyali called Vernie Smith, his friend and coworker, while he was driving to work, Smith testified this week during the retrial at which Judge Vincent Giardino presided.
“He was crying, and he said he made a mistake, and he had hit his wife,” Smith testified.
Alkayyali told Smith that he covered Moussa’s mouth “to keep her from screaming,” Smith testified.
Moussa stopped breathing.
Smith told Alkayyali to call 911. Alkayyali returned to the apartment in the 2500 block of Park Village Drive and called 911. Smith also called 911.
Arlington Police Department officers found Moussa unresponsive on the floor, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals opinion. She was pronounced dead at a hospital.
Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office pathologists concluded that asphyxiation caused Moussa’s death.
Allenna Bangs, a deputy chief in the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s Office’s criminal division, and Assistant District Attorney Madeline Jones represented the state in both trials. Defense attorney Kobby Warren represented Alkayyali in the retrial.
In the first trial Alkayyali’s defense attorney, Shawn Paschall, argued the theory that Moussa’s death was an accident and that she died due to a pre-existing heart condition.
Alkayyali testified that there was tension between himself and Moussa as soon as she arrived in Texas.
The retrial instructions to the jury indicate that Alkayyali also testified at the retrial.
The appellate court in Austin reversed Judge George Gallagher, who presided in the 396th District Court at the time of the first trial. It found egregious harm in an error in what is known as the jury instructions’ application paragraph, which repeated the language of the indictment prepared by the district attorney’s office.
Both omitted the element “that causes the death of an individual” from the second paragraph, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals opinion.
“So, while the first application paragraph required the jury to find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, the second application paragraph did not,” according to the Court of Criminal Appeals opinion. ”Instead, the second paragraph informed the jury that it could nevertheless convict without determining whether [Alkayyali’s] actions caused the victim’s death.”
Emerson Clarridge covers crime and other breaking news for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. He works days and reports on law enforcement affairs in Tarrant County. He previously was a reporter at the Omaha World-Herald and the Observer-Dispatch in Utica, New York.
WASHINGTON — Trump administration lawyers have joined California Republicans in urging Supreme Court to block California’s new election map on the grounds that one district in the San Joaquin Valley was drawn to favor Latinos.
Two months ago, Trump’s lawyers called on the court to uphold a new Republican-friendly election map in Texas, arguing that it was partisan gerrymander, not one driven by race.
“Plaintiffs bringing a racial-gerrymander claim have the heavy burden to show that race was the predominant factor motivating” how the map was drawn, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said then.
The Supreme Court agreed by a 6-3 vote and lifted a judges’ order that had blocked the Texas map which was drawn to win five more House seats for Republicans.
Voting rights advocates had sued, noting Gov. Greg Abbott said the goal to eliminate four “coalition districts,” which had a combined majority of Black and Latino voters and elected Democrats.
In a brief opinion, the justices said they presume state officials acted in “good faith” in drawing the maps of congressional districts.
“It is indisputable that impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The justices also said it was too late in the election-year calendar for reshuffling the districts again.
Undeterred, Trump’s lawyers now stake out the near opposite view to support the GOP’s attack on the California map which was upheld by the voters in November.
He pointed to past comments from Paul Mitchell, the designated map maker, who said he hoped the Latino districts in the Central Valley could be “bolstered in order to make them most effective.”
Trump’s lawyer said District 13 in Merced County has an odd-looking “northern plume” that brings in Democratic voters near Stockton.
“California’s motivation in adopting the Prop. 50 map as a whole was undoubtedly to counteract Texas’s political gerrymander,” Sauer said. “But that overarching political goal is not a license for district-level racial gerrymandering.”
He advised the justices to declare the new California map unconstitutional and require the state to return to the former map. The political impact of such a ruling is obvious. It would likely cost Democrats five seats in the House of Representatives.
Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees appeals from the West Coast, asked for a response from California by Thursday. That would suggest the justices may act on the GOP’s appeal in the first week of February.
Election law experts have been skeptical of the Republican arguments in the California case.
He said legal challenge “comes too late,” the proposed remedy is too broad, and it ignores the fact that the California’s voters were focused on partisanship, not race. It’s their intent that counts, he said.
Then, Hasen added, there’s “the optics. It would be a terrible look for the Court … to allow Texas’s Republican gerrymander to go forward but stop California’s, especially if it’s a party line vote. That might be too much even for this Court.”
There is also a key legal difference in how the appeal arrived at the court.
In Texas, a three-judge panel heard the evidence, wrote a 160-page opinion and ruled against the state in a 2-1 decision.
In the California case, by contrast, a three-judge panel heard the evidence and rejected the racial gerrymandering claim in a 2-1 decision.
In December, Kagan dissented in the Texas case and argued the court should be reluctant to overturn the factual findings of the three judges who heard the case.
The two judges in the majority said they did not see evidence of a racial gerrymander.
“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.
Combs’ lawyers say the trial judge imposed the longest sentence ever recorded for prostitution cases by relying on coercion allegations the jury unanimously rejected
Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs asked a federal appeals court to overturn his prostitution-related convictions or order his immediate release, arguing that Judge Arun Subramanian unlawfully punished him for crimes a jury explicitly rejected, according to a newly filed appellate brief spearheaded by powerhouse attorney Alexandra Shapiro.
Credit: US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Combs is serving a 50-month federal prison sentence following a mixed verdict in July 2025 in Manhattan. Jurors acquitted him of racketeering conspiracy and sex-trafficking charges but convicted him on two lesser counts under the Mann Act for transporting “consenting adults across state lines” for prostitution.
In the 84-page brief filed with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Combs’ lawyers argue the district court essentially ignored both the jury’s verdict and a 2024 amendment to federal sentencing guidelines by relying heavily on “acquitted conduct” (allegations of coercion and criminal enterprise that jurors unanimously rejected) to increase his sentence.
“Not guilty means not guilty,” the brief states, citing guidance from the US Sentencing Commission that bans judges from using acquitted conduct to enhance punishment. Defense attorneys had argued Judge Subramanian acted as a “thirteenth juror,” imposing the longest sentence ever recorded for comparable Mann Act convictions despite the absence of force, fraud or coercion findings by the jury. According to the filing, Combs would ordinarily have faced a sentence of roughly one year for the prostitution counts.
Judge: The Deputy will inquire as to the verdict. Deputy: In the matter of US v Combs, Count 1? Juror 5: Not guilty. Deputy: Sex trafficking of Casandra Ventura? Juror 5: Not Guilty Deputy: Transportation for prostitution? Juror 5: Guilty
The appeal also asks for a reversal of the convictions, arguing the conduct at issue involved consensual, adult sexual encounters that were staged, filmed and later viewed; activity they say is protected by the First Amendment as “amateur pornography.”
During the 7-week-long trial, prosecutors alleged Combs used his wealth, influence and inner circle to coerce longtime girlfriends Casandra Ventura and a second woman identified as “Jane” into sexual encounters with male escorts. Jurors heard testimony, viewed text messages and videos, which prompted their rejection of claims of coercion, fraud and racketeering.
Scroll to continue reading
🚨SEAN “DIDDY” COMBS Officially Files His 84-Page Appeal:
➡️Sean Combs’s appeal argues that although a jury rejected the government’s claims that he ran a sex-trafficking enterprise or coerced women, the judge ignored that verdict and punished him as if he were guilty anyway.… pic.twitter.com/0H087CmXp2
The appeal has been expedited because Combs has already served more than a year in custody, which is longer than the average sentence for similar offenses. His attorneys argue that if the convictions are not overturned, the appeals court should at a minimum order his immediate release and remand the case for resentencing limited strictly to the conduct the jury found proven. Federal prosecutors have not yet responded publicly to the appeal. The Second Circuit has not announced when it will hear oral arguments. Check back with Los Angeles Magazine for new developments.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.
Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.
The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy militia troops in U.S. cities.
In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if the regular U.S. armed forces were unable to quell violence.
The law dating to 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces the threat of an invasion or a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
That phrase turned out to be crucial.
Trump’s lawyers assumed it referred to the police and federal agents. But after taking a close look, the justices concluded it referred to the regular U.S. military, not civilian law enforcement or the National Guard.
“To call the Guard into active federal service under the [Militia Act], the President must be ‘unable’ with the regular military ‘to execute the laws of the United States,’” the court said in Trump vs. Illinois.
That standard will rarely be met, the court added.
“Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from execut[ing] the laws except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” the court said. “So before the President can federalize the Guard … he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be ‘unable’ with those forces to perform that function.
“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the court said.
Although the court was acting on an emergency appeal, its decision is a significant defeat for Trump and is not likely to be reversed on appeal. Often, the court issues one-sentence emergency orders. But in this case, the justices wrote a three-page opinion to spell out the law and limit the president’s authority.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who oversees appeals from Illinois, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. cast the deciding votes. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome, but said he preferred a narrow and more limited ruling.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.
Alito, in dissent, said the “court fails to explain why the President’s inherent constitutional authority to protect federal officers and property is not sufficient to justify the use of National Guard members in the relevant area for precisely that purpose.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.
“Today, Americans can breathe a huge sigh of relief,” Bonta said Tuesday. “While this is not necessarily the end of the road, it is a significant, deeply gratifying step in the right direction. We plan to ask the lower courts to reach the same result in our cases — and we are hopeful they will do so quickly.”
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.
But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to Newsom’s control.
Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”
The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.
Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.
By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.
Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.
“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Sauer told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.
Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.
“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”
Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the standing U.S. armed forces.
A few days before, Georgetown law professor and former Justice Department lawyer Martin Lederman had filed a friend-of-the-court brief asserting that the “regular forces” cited in the 1903 law were the standing U.S. Army.
His brief prompted the court to ask both sides to explain their view of the disputed provision.
Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the standing army.
If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use” of the National Guard, not the standing military, to quell domestic disturbances, they said.
State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. Guard members were needed to enforce the law in Chicago.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to end its monthslong deployment of National Guard troops to help police the nation’s capital.Video above: Can President Trump legally deploy the National Guard to other states?U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb concluded that President Donald Trump’s military takeover in Washington, D.C., violates the Constitution and illegally intrudes on local officials’ authority to direct law enforcement in the district. She put her order on hold for 21 days to allow for an appeal, however.District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued to challenge the Guard deployments. He asked the judge to enjoin the White House from deploying Guard troops without the mayor’s consent.In August, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington. Within a month, more than 2,300 National Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling the city under the command of the Secretary of the Army. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist in patrols.It’s unclear how long the deployments will last, but attorneys from Schwalb’s office said Guard troops are likely to remain in the city through at least next summer.“Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” they wrote.Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the D.C. National Guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in the district.“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.Trump’s Guard deployments have led to other court challenges. On Monday, a federal appeals court suspended an order blocking Trump from taking command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In September, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally sent Guard troops to the Los Angeles area after days of protests over immigration raids.In Washington, the Trump administration deputized Guard troops to serve as special U.S. Marshal Service deputies. Schwalb’s office said out-of-state troops are impermissibly operating as a federal military police force in D.C., inflaming tensions with residents and diverting local police resources.“Every day that this lawless incursion continues, the District suffers harm to its sovereign authority to conduct local law enforcement as it chooses,” his office’s attorneys wrote.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to end its monthslong deployment of National Guard troops to help police the nation’s capital.
Video above: Can President Trump legally deploy the National Guard to other states?
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb concluded that President Donald Trump’s military takeover in Washington, D.C., violates the Constitution and illegally intrudes on local officials’ authority to direct law enforcement in the district. She put her order on hold for 21 days to allow for an appeal, however.
District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued to challenge the Guard deployments. He asked the judge to enjoin the White House from deploying Guard troops without the mayor’s consent.
In August, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in Washington. Within a month, more than 2,300 National Guard troops from eight states and the district were patrolling the city under the command of the Secretary of the Army. Trump also deployed hundreds of federal agents to assist in patrols.
It’s unclear how long the deployments will last, but attorneys from Schwalb’s office said Guard troops are likely to remain in the city through at least next summer.
“Our constitutional democracy will never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand,” they wrote.
Government lawyers said Congress empowered the president to control the D.C. National Guard’s operation. They argued that Schwalb’s lawsuit is a frivolous “political stunt” threatening to undermine a successful campaign to reduce violent crime in the district.
“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.
Trump’s Guard deployments have led to other court challenges. On Monday, a federal appeals court suspended an order blocking Trump from taking command of 200 Oregon National Guard troops. In September, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration illegally sent Guard troops to the Los Angeles area after days of protests over immigration raids.
In Washington, the Trump administration deputized Guard troops to serve as special U.S. Marshal Service deputies. Schwalb’s office said out-of-state troops are impermissibly operating as a federal military police force in D.C., inflaming tensions with residents and diverting local police resources.
“Every day that this lawless incursion continues, the District suffers harm to its sovereign authority to conduct local law enforcement as it chooses,” his office’s attorneys wrote.
BOSTON — The state Legislature has been hit with another lawsuit over its refusal to open up the books to allow a voter-approved audit of its inner workings.
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Middlesex County Superior Court by Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Anne Brensley, who asked a judge to declare a voter-approved law giving State Auditor Diana DiZoglio the power to audit the Legislature constitutional and invalidate an internal state House of Representatives rule on audits.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.
A decision could come at any time.
And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.
Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.
The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”
Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.
That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.
Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.
Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.
When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.
Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers
That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.
“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”
“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.
“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”
Conservatives cite civil rights examples
Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.
“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”
He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.
The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.
The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”
Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”
While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”
Lower courts have blocked deployments
Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.
Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”
In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”
But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.
A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.
But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.
“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”
Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.
“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”
U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.
“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”
He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.
“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”
He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.
WASHINGTON — With two conservatives in dissent, the Supreme Court on Monday turned down a property-rights claim from Los Angeles landlords who say they lost millions from unpaid rent during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency.
Without comment, the justices said they would not hear an appeal from a coalition of apartment owners who said they rent “over 4,800 units” in “luxury apartment communities” to “predominantly high-income tenants.”
They sued the city seeking $20 million in damages from tenants who did not pay their rent during the pandemic emergency.
They contended that the city’s strict limits on evictions during that time had the effect of taking their private property in violation of the Constitution.
In the past, the court has repeatedly turned down claims that rent control laws are unconstitutional, even though they limit how much landlords can collect in rent.
But the L.A. landlords said their claim was different because the city had in effect taken use of their property, at least for a time. They cited the 5th Amendment’s clause that says “private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.”
“In March 2020, the city of Los Angeles adopted one of the most onerous eviction moratoria in the country, stripping property owners … of their right to exclude nonpaying tenants,” they told the court in GHP Management Corporation vs. City of Los Angeles. “The city pressed private property into public service, foisting the cost of its coronavirus response onto housing providers.”
“By August 2021, when [they] sued the City seeking just compensation for that physical taking, back rents owed by their unremovable tenants had ballooned to over $20 million,” they wrote.
A federal judge in Los Angeles and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 3-0 decision dismissed the landlords’ suit. Those judges cited the decades of precedent that allowed the regulation of property.
The court had considered the appeal since February, but only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch voted to hear the case.
“I would grant review of the question whether a policy barring landlords from evicting tenants for the nonpayment of rent effects a physical taking under the Taking Clause,” Thomas said. “This case meets all of our usual criteria. … The Court nevertheless denies certiorari, leaving in place confusion on a significant issue, and leaving petitioners without a chance to obtain the relief to which they are likely entitled.”
The Los Angeles landlords asked the court to decide “whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.”
In February, the city attorney’s office urged the court to turn down the appeal.
“As a once-in-a-century pandemic shuttered its businesses and schools, the city of Los Angeles employed temporary, emergency measures to protect residential renters against eviction,” they wrote. The measure protected only those who could “prove COVID-19 related economic hardship,” and it “did not excuse any rent debt that an affected tenant accrued.”
The city argued that the landlords are seeking a “radical departure from precedent” in the area of property regulation.
“If a government takes property, it must pay for it,” the city attorneys said. “For more than a century, though, this court has recognized that governments do not appropriate property rights solely by virtue of regulating them.”
The city said the COVID emergency and the restriction on evictions ended in January 2023.
In reply, lawyers for the landlords said bans on evictions are becoming the “new normal.” They cited a Los Angeles County measure they said would “preclude evictions for non-paying tenants purportedly affected by the recent wildfires.”
The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear appeals from ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft, which were asking to block California state labor lawsuits that seek back pay for tens of thousands of drivers.
Without comment, the justices turned down appeals from both companies. At issue, they said, was the scope of the arbitration agreements between drivers and the companies.
A state appeals court ruled last year that state labor officials are not bound by arbitration agreements which they did not sign or support.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Uber and Lyft, joined by a coalition of California employers, contended the Federal Arbitration Act overrides state laws and blocks broad lawsuits seeking money for employees who had agreed to arbitrate claims as individuals. They said the case “represents California’s latest attempt to create a loophole” in the law.”
Four years ago, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Labor Commissioner Lilia Garcia-Brower sued the ride-hailing companies for the “misclassification of drivers as independent contractors” rather than as employees.
This left “workers without protections such as paid sick leave and reimbursement of drivers’ expenses, as well as overtime and minimum wages,” Garcia-Brower said at the time. The suit sought money “for unpaid wages and penalties owed to workers which will be distributed to all drivers who worked for Uber or Lyft during the time period covered by the lawsuits.”
The lawsuit continued even after voters approved Proposition 22 in 2020 to uphold the authority of companies to classify drivers as independent contractors.
Last year, the state appeals court in San Francisco ruled the state lawsuits may proceed because the state officials did not agree to be bound by the arbitration agreements.
“The people and the labor commissioner are not parties to the arbitration agreements invoked by Uber and Lyft,” said Justice Jon Streeter for the California court of appeals. He said the state officials are not suing on behalf of drivers, but instead enforcing the state’s labor laws.
“The relevant statutory schemes expressly authorize the people and the labor commissioner to bring the claims (and seek the relief) at issue here,” he said. “The public officials who brought these actions do not derive their authority from individual drivers but from their independent statutory authority to bring civil enforcement actions.”
In January, the state Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. Uber and Lyft then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in.
In recent years, the conservative high court has regularly clashed with California judges over arbitration and ruled for businesses that sought to limit lawsuits.
Two years ago, the justices struck down part of state law that authorized private attorneys to sue on behalf of a group of employees, even though they had agreed to be bound by individual arbitration.
The California Employment Law Council, which represents about 80 private employers in the state, had urged the court to hear the Uber case and rule that the state may not sidestep arbitration agreements.
“The California courts have been clear. They don’t like arbitration,” said Paul Grossman, a Los Angeles lawyer with the Paul Hastings firm who represents private employers.
According to an exclusive report published by TMZ on Tuesday, September 17, Diddy is being held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. The outlet notes that the center is a federal jail. Meanwhile, CNN adds that it features a special housing unit “used to house inmates who require additional protection…”
TMZ also notes that MDC has reportedly housed other celebrity inmates such as R. Kelly, Fetty Wap, and Ghislaine Maxwell.
More Details About MDC Brooklyn
Per TMZ, MDC is “notorious for its brutal, sometimes fatal, conditions.” In June, a 37-year-old inmate named Uriel Whyte was reportedly stabbed to death on the premises, per Spectrum News NY1. Whyte was reportedly awaiting trial for murder.
“The COs [correction officers] is the one that brings in the phones, the drugs, you know, the razors, the scalpels and stuff like that,” one detainee named Robert told the outlet at the time. “Some of the COs in here are gang members.”
Another inmate expanded on the alleged weapons and violence inside the facility.
“One guy was stabbed in the eye with a makeshift knife,” a detainee named Eli explained. “And these knives… are six, nine inches long sometimes, you know, homemade with materials from the steel walls. It’s very violent. There’s stabbings, there’s stabbings at least a couple times a week.”
Per The Independent, at least four inmates have reportedly committed suicide at the facility in the last three years. Furthermore, Spectrum News NY1 adds that footage of the inside of the Metropolitan Detention Center “show cockroaches on the food, broken light fixtures and mold in the shower.”
Here’s What’s Expected To Happen In Court On Wednesday, September 18
As The Shade Room previously reported, Diddy was arrested and taken into federal custody on the evening of September 16.
The following day, it was revealed that the 54-year-old was charged with racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution, per The Shade Room. Additionally, footage surfaced of the music mogul minutes before he was placed in handcuffs.
On Tuesday, a 14-page federal indictment against Diddy was released to the public, per The Shade Room. The indictment highlighted the music mogul’s decades-long alleged actions of “abus[ing], threaten[ing], and coerc[ing] women and others around him to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct.”
On Tuesday, Diddy also appeared in a Manhattan court and pled not guilty to his charges. Additionally, his defense lawyers advocated for the 54-year-old to be released on a $50 million bond. However, the prosecution cited Diddy’s alleged coercion of witnesses and potential flight risk as a means to keep him in custody, per The Shade Room.
The judge ultimately remanded Diddy to custody, prompting the mogul’s lawyer to share his plans to appeal the decision.
According to The Independent, Diddy is expected to appear in court today at 3:30 p.m. for the appeal request. If it is denied, the 54-year-old will reportedly return to MDC, where he will likely “remain… until trial.”
Plans call for 36 studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments at Exposition and Buckingham Road, with parking for 28 cars.
Abington Emerson sought Transit Oriented Communities incentives to build a larger building than allowed by local zoning rules in exchange for five affordable apartments for low-, very low- and extremely low-income households to make up for the demolished units.
The white complex, designed by Venice-based Ottinger Architects, would be clad in stucco, metal siding and perforated metal panels, punctuated by brown exterior balconies. The building would include a central courtyard and a rooftop deck.
The developer won the appeal filed by Mindy Zhao, owner of a neighboring property, who contended the project was improperly approved for an insufficient number of affordable apartments, given the number to be demolished. She also argued environmental impacts were not taken into account.
Planning staff said the project is required to comply with state and local regulations relative to the demolition of existing rent-stabilized housing, and was revised to include one more affordable unit.
Abington Emerson, founded in 2008 by Joshua Perttula and Adam Bass, has more than $250 million in assets under management as a result of more than 500 real estate deals in California, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and Texas, according to its website. It also has 10 qualified Opportunity Zone funds, including one focusing on Jefferson Boulevard in West Adams.
Donald Trump has appealed his $454 million New York civil fraud judgment, challenging a judge’s finding that Trump lied about his wealth as he grew the real estate empire that launched him to stardom and the presidency.The former president’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal Monday asking the state’s mid-level appeals court to overturn Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 verdict in Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit.Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers that they’re asking the appeals court to decide whether Engoron “committed errors of law and/or fact” and whether he abused his discretion and/or his jurisdiction.Engoron found that Trump, his company and top executives, including his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., schemed for years to deceive banks and insurers by inflating his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals. Among other penalties, the judge put strict limitations on the ability of Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, to do business.The appeal ensures that the legal fight over Trump’s business practices will persist into the thick of the presidential primary season, and likely beyond, as he tries to clinch the Republican presidential nomination in his quest to retake the White House.If upheld, Engoron’s ruling will force Trump to give up a sizable chunk of his fortune. Engoron ordered Trump to pay $355 million in penalties, but with interest the total has grown to nearly $454 million. That total will increase by nearly $112,000 per day until he pays.Video below: Trump gives remarks after closing arguments at his New York civil fraud trial
NEW YORK —
Donald Trump has appealed his $454 million New York civil fraud judgment, challenging a judge’s finding that Trump lied about his wealth as he grew the real estate empire that launched him to stardom and the presidency.
The former president’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal Monday asking the state’s mid-level appeals court to overturn Judge Arthur Engoron’s Feb. 16 verdict in Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit.
Trump’s lawyers wrote in court papers that they’re asking the appeals court to decide whether Engoron “committed errors of law and/or fact” and whether he abused his discretion and/or his jurisdiction.
Engoron found that Trump, his company and top executives, including his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr., schemed for years to deceive banks and insurers by inflating his wealth on financial statements used to secure loans and make deals. Among other penalties, the judge put strict limitations on the ability of Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, to do business.
The appeal ensures that the legal fight over Trump’s business practices will persist into the thick of the presidential primary season, and likely beyond, as he tries to clinch the Republican presidential nomination in his quest to retake the White House.
If upheld, Engoron’s ruling will force Trump to give up a sizable chunk of his fortune. Engoron ordered Trump to pay $355 million in penalties, but with interest the total has grown to nearly $454 million. That total will increase by nearly $112,000 per day until he pays.
Video below: Trump gives remarks after closing arguments at his New York civil fraud trial
Jussie Smollett may be returning to jail after an Illinois Appeals court upheld his conviction for staging a hate crime in 2019. As The Shade Room previously reported, the actor was found guilty in December 2021.
In March of 2022, Smollett was sentenced to 150 days in the Cook County jail. Additionally, the actor was ordered to serve 30 days of probation and satisfy orders for restitution.
Six days later, however, Smollett was released from police custody on an emergency motion. The motion granted the actor bail as his team worked to appeal his conviction.
More Details Regarding The Illinois Court’s Decision On Jussie Smollett’s Conviction
According to Fox News, Smollett received a decision regarding his appeal from an Illinois court on Friday, December 1.
The outlet reports that three judges gave the ruling 2-1. Justice David Navarro and Justice Mary Ellen Coghlan agreed to uphold Smollett’s 2021 conviction, while Judge Freddrenna Lyle reportedly “dissented.”
According to AP News, Lyle reportedly believes Smollett paid his dues when he completed community service in exchange for prosecutors to drop his charges in 2019.
A representative for Smollett and his legal team told the outlet they plan to “file an appeal with the Supreme Court.”
“We wish to highlight that the decision was divided, with Justice Lyle offering a detailed analysis in favor of Smollett,” Holly Baird reportedly explained. “We are preparing to escalate this matter to the Supreme Court, armed with a substantial body of evidence.”
A special prosecutor named Dan. K. Webb reportedly championed the Illinois Appeals Court’s decision.
“As the appellate court noted, Mr. Smollett ‘challenge[d] virtually every aspect of’ the prosecution, and the appellate court correctly rejected each and every one of those challenges,” Webb stated, per Fox News. “Today’s decision is a validation of Winston & Strawn’s tireless work on this matter and a resounding victory for justice. We are proud to have prevailed in a case that, we believe, can help restore the public’s confidence in the Cook County justice system.”
According to Fox News, after Smollett’s team files another appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court will decide whether to “hear the case.” Then, if the actor’s conviction is not overturned, he will return to Cook County jail to finish his 150-day sentence.
A Look Back On The Actor’s Sentencing & Staged Hate Crime Hoax
According to Fox News, Smollett was found guilty on five out of six charges of disorderly conduct in December 2021. In January 2019, the actor went viral after alleging he was the victim of a “racist and homophobic attack” by two men in ski masks.
A police investigation revealed that Smollett orchestrated the plot. Additionally, the former ‘Empire’ actor hired the two men, Bola and Ola Osundairo, to participate as assailants for $3,500.
Fox News reports that Smollett maintained his innocence during his sentencing. Additionally, his legal team alleges that Smollett’s “due process rights” were violated when he was given “renewed protection” and his initial deal, or “nonprosecution agreement,” with prosecutors was not honored.
According to CNN, the court ultimately found that prosecutors never agreed to drop Smollett’s charges.
“Here, the State’s nolle prosequi [dcision to no longer prosecute] of the indictment was not a final disposition of the case,” the court declared, per CNN. “Therefore, the State was not barred from re-prosecuting Smollett…”
Furthermore, Smollett’s legal team reportedly accused the judge who presided over his conviction of having bias against the actor.
“[In addition, the] circuit court judge improperly denied the defense motion for substitution of judge for cause because of his explicit bias towards Mr. Smollett, rendering every subsequent ruling and action in this case null and void,” Smollett’s legal reportedly disclosed in their March 2023 appeal filing.
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.”
On November 23, Amber Heard, by way of her latest legal team at Ballard Spahr, filed her brief to appeal the verdict in her ex-husband Johnny Depp’s defamation case against her. After the trial, a six-week public spectacle streamed from a Fairfax County, Virginia, courtroom from April to June, a jury found Heard responsible for three counts of defamation and awarded more than $10 million in damages to Depp.
Heard hired a new firm post-trial, and the team is now led by First Amendment stars Jay Ward Brown and David L. Axelrod. The opening brief lays out several grounds for appeal in Judge Penney Azcarate’s proceedings, and these indeed include First Amendment arguments. The Washington Post op-ed that Depp sued Heard over, claiming it had a “devastating” effect on his career, was published in 2018 and written by Heard in coordination with the American Civil Liberties Union; it supported legislative protections for domestic abuse victims. She didn’t use his name in it and described herself as a “public figure representing domestic abuse.” The argument is that her op-ed could be considered just that: an opinion.
“The trial court also erred in overruling Heard’s demurrer, in which she argued that the challenged statements are non-actionable expressions of opinion and are not reasonably capable of conveying the alleged defamatory implication,” the filing reads (Deadline published the appellate brief in full). “That holding, if allowed to stand, undoubtedly will have a chilling effect on other women who wish to speak about abuse involving powerful men.”
The appeal also argues that the trial should have never moved forward in the first place. The court in Virginia was not the appropriate forum to hold the trial since the claims had no real connection to the state and neither party had spent any significant time there, it argues. (Depp’s camp successfully previously argued that because The Washington Post was published in Virginia, the case fell within that jurisdiction. The Post was not implicated in the case.) Additionally, the brief states that since a judge in London’s High Court had found more than 10 of Heard’s accusations about Depp’s domestic abuse to be “substantially true,” the American trial should not have had to move forward. (Depp sued the publisher of The Sun in the UK in 2018 for a headline describing him as a “wife-beater,” but was unable to disprove the designation in court and lost. While he sought to appeal, his request was denied.)
As for the US trial, the brief claims that when it did ultimately go forward, there were issues regarding evidence both admitted and prohibited, as well as Depp’s lack of proof around actual malice and the instructions given to the jury around actual malice. “First, [Depp] did not demonstrate that Heard was aware of and intended to communicate the alleged defamatory implication that he had abused her,” it reads. “Second, he did not establish that Heard knew the alleged implication was false or subjectively entertained serious doubts about its truth. The trial court erred in declining to set aside the jury verdict and enter judgment in Heard’s favor.”
“The trial court then refused Heard’s proposed jury instruction on the ‘communicative intent’ prong of actual malice,” it continues. “Consequently, the jury instructions were missing a key requirement for establishing a defamation-by-implication claim.”
Heard is not the only one appealing the jury’s decisions in the springtime trial. After Heard countersued Depp for $100 million, she won on one of the three counts of defamation. Adam Waldman, a lawyer for Depp at the time, had given a statement to the Daily Mail in 2020 amid Depp’s other defamation case against the publisher of The Sun, saying that Heard’s claims of abuse were a “hoax.” Heard’s team claimed Depp was “vicariously liable” for his representation’s statements, and the jury agreed in that one instance, awarding her $2 million. Depp’s attorneys have already filed to appeal this decision.
.jpg "Wasam Moussa")
