Tag: appeals

5th Circuit upholds Texas ban on paid ballot harvesting, overturning lower court

[ad_1]

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a Texas law banning paid ballot harvesting, reversing a lower court that had blocked the measure as unconstitutional and allowing the state to enforce the restriction.

In a 26-page opinion, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court erred when it struck down part of Texas’ 2021 election law, Senate Bill 1. The provision makes it a crime to be paid to interact with voters in person while they are filling out mail ballots in order to influence how they vote.

Under the statute, a person commits a crime if they knowingly provide “vote harvesting services” in exchange for compensation or other benefit. The law defines those services as in-person interaction with one or more voters, in the physical presence of an official ballot, intended to deliver votes for a specific candidate or measure.

The law targets paid political operatives who go door to door, help voters request or complete mail ballots and then collect those ballots — sometimes while advising or pressuring voters as they mark them.

RNC GETS DAY AT SUPREME COURT TO CHALLENGE LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS

Texas circuit court upheld ban on paid ballot harvesting. (Brian Cassella/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

Supporters of the measure say paid ballot collection creates opportunities for coercion or fraud, particularly with mail-in voting, where election officials are not present. Opponents argue organized ballot assistance is a legitimate get-out-the-vote strategy and that restrictions disproportionately affect elderly and minority voters who rely on help returning ballots.

Judge Edith H. Jones, writing for the panel, said the lower court improperly invalidated the law before it had even taken effect and relied on speculative hypotheticals.

The district court had ruled the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated the First Amendment, issuing an injunction that barred the Texas attorney general, secretary of state and several district attorneys from enforcing it.

TEXAS PASSES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITING NONCITIZEN VOTING

The 5th Circuit disagreed.

On the vagueness claim, the panel said terms such as “compensation or other benefit” and “physical presence” have common meanings that juries can understand. The court also emphasized that the statute requires a person to act “knowingly,” which narrows its reach.

The judges said the law clearly applies, for example, to “prevent paid partisans from haranguing Texas citizens while they fill out their mail ballots.”

In a 26-page opinion, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court erred when it struck down part of Texas’ 2021 election law, Senate Bill 1. The provision makes it a crime to be paid to interact with voters in person while they are filling out mail ballots in order to influence how they vote. (MARK FELIX/AFP via Getty Images)

The panel also rejected the First Amendment challenge. Applying a balancing test commonly used in election law cases, the court said Texas has a compelling interest in preventing voter intimidation and fraud and in preserving confidence in elections.

The opinion leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which upheld Arizona restrictions on ballot collection and recognized that mail-in voting presents unique fraud risks.

Even under the highest constitutional standard of review, the 5th Circuit said, Texas’ law is narrowly tailored because it applies only to paid, in-person conduct directly involving a ballot — not to unpaid volunteers or general political advocacy.

Supporters of the measure say paid ballot collection creates opportunities for coercion or fraud, particularly with mail-in voting, where election officials are not present. (AP Photo/John Bazemore)

The ruling also addressed procedural issues, concluding that the Texas attorney general and secretary of state were not proper defendants under sovereign immunity principles. However, local district attorneys who indicated they would enforce the law absent an injunction can remain parties to the case.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The decision marks a significant win for Texas officials defending the state’s post-2020 election reforms and reinforces a broader trend in federal courts giving states wide latitude to regulate election procedures.

Voting rights groups involved in the lawsuit could seek rehearing or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

[ad_2]

Source link

February 12, 2026
Miami judge under fire for text exchanges wants disciplinary charges dismissed

[ad_1]

Judge Bronwyn Miller of the Third District Court of Appeal

Courtesy Third District Court of Appeal

A Miami judge is asking to dismiss the formal disciplinary charges a state oversight panel brought against her after reviewing her text messages with Miami-Dade State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle, arguing she did not attempt to “corrupt the process” but sought to “secure justice.”

Last month, the panel found probable cause to file formal charges against Judge Bronwyn Miller, a former prosecutor and current judge on Miami’s Third District Court of Appeal. The panel cited concerns over Miller’s texts with Fernandez Rundle, her former boss, and questioned Miller’s impartiality as a judge, saying the texts “appear to be coercive.”

READ MORE: State oversight panel finds Miami judge’s texts ‘appear to be coercive,’ questions her impartiality

In 69-page motion to dismiss filed on Wednesday, Miller’s attorney Warren Lindsey said Miller shouldn’t be disciplined because her texts with Fernandez Rundle were speech protected by the First Amendment. The texts, the attorney said, were also “unrelated to any matter that was pending before or ever likely to come before Judge Miller, bore no nexus to her official duties, and all involved an issue of great public concern.”

Lindsey argued in the filing that the issues raised in the texts were “of grave public importance,” and seeking to discipline Judge Miller for them is “inconsistent with fundamental constitutional considerations“ and “raises the spectre of the Orwellian state.”

The oversight panel’s investigation focused on Miller’s hundreds of text messages to Fernandez Rundle while Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Andrea Ricker Wolfson was presiding over hearings last year for the resentencing of Corey Smith. The reputed leader of Miami’s John Doe gang, Smith had been sentenced to death for murdering four people in Liberty City in the 1990s.

ID Photo Corey Smith Florida Department of Corrections

Prosecutors ultimately dropped the death penalty, and Smith was resentenced to 30 years in a plea deal in February after Wolfson removed two prosecutors from the case, citing misconduct. Smith’s defense attorneys accused prosecutors of coaching witnesses’ testimonies and speaking to a convicted murdered in a recorded jail call about a difficult witness.

Miller, who years earlier had been the prosecutor in Fernandez Rundle’s office that secured Smith’s convictions and death sentence, indicated in the text messages to Fernandez Rundle she was trying to protect her reputation, which she felt was tarnished during the proceedings.

The Miami Herald obtained Miller’s text messages with Fernandez Rundle and published them in an online article on Nov. 10, 2024. Three days later, on Nov. 13, Miller reported herself to the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, which investigates allegations of judicial misconduct.

The commission found probable cause that Miller had misstepped. “Your communications cast reasonable doubt on your capacity to act impartially as a judge, undermine your appearance of integrity and impartiality, demean the judicial office, interfere with your proper performance of judicial duties, may lead to your frequent disqualification, and appear to be coercive,” the commission said in its filing.

The state Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether Miller will be sanctioned. If the charges are upheld, she could face penalties ranging from a reprimand to being removed from the bench.

“Judge Miller did not attempt to overturn or overthrow justice or pervert or corrupt the process by undermining morals, allegiance, or faith. The opposite is true,” her attorney wrote in her response. “Her actions were moral, and she sought to ensure justice was served by fully cooperating in the proceedings. She was committed to exposing the false testimony and fabricated events asserted by Smith in furtherance of his motion.”

Lindsey didn’t respond to the Herald’s request for comment as of Friday afternoon.

In the filing, Lindsey said Miller sent the messages from her personal cellphone, intended the texts to be private and believed they were legally protected from being made public.

“Judge Miller privately communicated with the State Attorney in her role as the former prosecutor, a current witness, a threat victim, and a concerned constituent,” the document says. “Her unique knowledge was essential to preserving the integrity of the convictions…”

Convicted murderer and gang leader Corey Smith, center, thanks his attorney Craig Whisenhunt after he pleaded guilty to second degree murder on several charges in Courtroom 4-1 at the Richard E. Gerstein Justice Building in Miami, Florida, on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, as the State dropped the former first degree murder charges. Left to Right: Whisenhunt, Allison Miller, and Smith. Carl Juste cjuste@miamiherald.com

Miller, according to the filing, was “constitutionally authorized” to communicate with Fernandez Rundle about the case. She was also concerned about the danger posed by Smith’s potential release.

“Her recollection was pivotal in dismantling the fabricated allegations of past prosecutorial misconduct, and, as the JQC is aware, her cooperation resurrected her historic safety fears,” the document says. “Smith was unrestrained and seated mere feet away from her in the courtroom when she testified. Smith had demonstrated on more than one occasion that he was capable of eliminating adverse witnesses.”

Addressed panel’s allegations

In her response to the allegations, Miller denied attempting to influence Fernandez Rundle — and initiating the exchanges with the State Attorney. She said the commission “fail[ed] to account” for communications Rundle Fernandez initiated on the phone and in person.

“…Judge Miller did not assert physical, moral, or economic force or threats,” the filing says. “Expressing a view and participating in a free flow of information is not coercive…” READ MORE: Miami judge’s venomous texts come back to bite her in crumbling death penalty case

In her motion to dismiss, Miller said she didn’t disparage Wolfson. Rather, she expressed concern that Wolfson “prematurely developed an opinion on the merits” of the Smith case.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Andrea Wolfson is expected to rule on convicted killer Corey Smith’s claim that Miami-Dade prosecutors are too compromised to take part in his re-sentencing, by the end of the month. Jose A. Iglesias jiglesias@elnuevoherald.com

Miller also said she didn’t denigrate defense attorneys but merely pointed out that prosecutors are held to a heightened ethical standard. In one of the texts, Miller took aim at Michael Von Zamft — one of the prosecutors Wolfson ousted from the Smith case. Miller pointed out that Von Zamft is a former defense attorney.

“They play by different rules,” Miller wrote. “No defense attorney should be training [assistant state attorneys]. It should be someone who knows that prosecutors are held to higher ethics.”

Grethel Aguila

Miami Herald

Grethel covers courts and the criminal justice system for the Miami Herald. She graduated from the University of Florida (Go Gators!), speaks Spanish and Arabic and loves animals, traveling, basketball and good storytelling. Grethel also attends law school part time.

[ad_2]

Grethel Aguila

Source link

November 14, 2025
Court strikes down Ohio school’s pronoun policy in win for parental rights group

[ad_1]

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that an Ohio school district violated students’ free speech rights by enforcing policies that restricted gendered language in classrooms.

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Olentangy Local School District, near Columbus, cannot punish students for using gender-specific language, even if some find it offensive.

Parents Defending Education, a national parental rights organization, sued the district in 2023, arguing its pronoun mandate violated students’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. District officials maintained the policies were designed to curb bullying and promote inclusion.

In its majority opinion, the court said the district “fell far short” of showing that allowing such speech would cause disruption or infringe on others’ rights.

RED STATE ARGUES TRANS BATHROOM CASE WILL BE ‘DEATH KNELL’ FOR LEFT-WING AGENDA

The William McKinley Monument is silhouetted near the Ohio Statehouse, April 15, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. (AP)

“Our society continues to debate whether biological pronouns are appropriate or offensive — just as it continues to debate many other issues surrounding transgender rights,” Circuit Judge Eric Murphy wrote for the majority. “The school district may not skew this debate by forcing one side to change the way it conveys its message or by compelling it to express a different view.”

In her dissent, Circuit Judge Jane Stranch avoided using any gendered pronouns, writing that adapting to new linguistic norms “may be new for some” but remains “entirely possible.” She noted that social customs around pronouns “have evolved throughout American history.”

NYC SCHOOLS SUE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OVER NEARLY $50M IN GRANT CUTS DUE TO TRANSGENDER POLICIES

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Olentangy Local School District may not bar students from using gendered language considered by others to be offensive. (iStock)

The decision overturns a 2024 ruling from a separate Sixth Circuit panel that had sided with the district. The case now returns to U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley in Columbus, who must issue an injunction blocking enforcement of the policy.

District rules discouraged students from using language related to gender that could be seen as disrespectful or demeaning, and urged them to use classmates’ self-identified pronouns instead.

The district’s policies prohibited the use of gender-related language that other students might view as insulting, dehumanizing, unwanted or offensive. (Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A separate policy governing students’ use of personal devices extended those restrictions beyond school grounds, prohibiting content that could be interpreted as harassing or disparaging toward others’ gender identity or sexual orientation.

It remains unclear how widely the ruling will apply. An Ohio teachers’ union told the court that Olentangy’s policies resemble those in other districts across the state.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

November 7, 2025
Operations at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ back on after appeals court halts judge’s order

[ad_1]

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal appeals court on Thursday halted a lower court judge’s order to end operations indefinitely at the “Alligator Alcatraz” immigration detention center built in the Florida Everglades.

The panel voted 2-1 to stay the judge’s order pending the outcome of an appeal, allowing the facility to continue holding migrant detainees – for now.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams issued a preliminary injunction blocking Florida from further expanding the detention center and ordering operations to dwindle by the end of October. The judge also ordered the state to transfer detainees to other facilities and to remove equipment and fencing.

The rulings came after a lawsuit brought by Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Miccosukee Tribe accused the state and federal officials of not following federal law requiring an environmental review for the detention center, which the groups argue threatens sensitive wetlands that have protected plants and animals.

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS FLORIDA FROM FURTHER EXPANSION OF ‘ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ’ IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITY

A federal appeals court halted a lower court judge’s order to end operations indefinitely at the “Alligator Alcatraz” immigration detention center. (Alon Skuy/Getty Images)

“This is a heartbreaking blow to America’s Everglades and every living creature there, but the case isn’t even close to over,” Elise Bennett, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.

In June, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration moved quickly to build the facility at a single-runway training airport in the middle of the Everglades to support President Donald Trump’s efforts to detain and deport migrants. DeSantis has said the facility’s location was intended to deter escape plans.

Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be used as a model for future facilities across the country to support his mass deportation plan.

Reacting to Thursday’s ruling, DeSantis said that claims that the facility would soon shutter were false.

“We said we would fight that. We said the mission would continue. So Alligator Alcatraz is in fact, like we’ve always said, open for business,” he said on social media.

LAWSUITS THREATEN TO UPEND ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ OPERATIONS

President Donald Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be used as a model for future facilities across the country to support his mass deportation plan. (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images)

The Department of Homeland Security described the ruling as “a win for the American people, the rule of law and common sense.”

“This lawsuit was never about the environmental impacts of turning a developed airport into a detention facility,” DHS said in a statement. “It has and will always be about open-borders activists and judges trying to keep law enforcement from removing dangerous criminal aliens from our communities, full stop.”

Florida officials said in court papers this week that it would resume accepting detainees at the facility if the request for a stay was granted.

Though plaintiffs say the case is far from over, claiming that the facility will eventually be shut down.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit against “Alligator Alcatraz” say the case is far from over, claiming that the facility will eventually be shut down. (Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“In the meantime, if the DeSantis and Trump administrations choose to ramp operations back up at the detention center, they will just be throwing good money after bad because this ill-considered facility — which is causing harm to the Everglades — will ultimately be shut down,” Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, said in a statement.

The plaintiffs have argued that because Florida financed the project itself and the federal government hasn’t directly contributed, “Alligator Alcatraz” falls outside federal environmental review requirements, even though it houses federal detainees.

In Thursday’s ruling, the appeals court largely accepted those claims.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

September 4, 2025
Federal appeals court approves Illinois restrictions on carrying guns on public transit

[ad_1]

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal appeals court approved Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit, reversing a lower court ruling that found the gun restrictions passed more than a decade ago violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals handed down its decision on Tuesday, with Judge Joshua Kolar writing for the majority that the ban “is comfortably situated in a centuries-old practice of limiting firearms in sensitive and crowded, confined places.”

“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense. It does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws—consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation—that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms,” Kolar wrote.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS NEW MEXICO’S 7-DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR GUN PURCHASES, SAYING IT VIOLATES 2ND AMENDMENT

A federal appeals court approved Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit. (AP)

“We are asked whether the state may temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned,” the judge continued. “We draw from the lessons of our nation’s historical regulatory traditions and find no Second Amendment violation in such a regulation.”

Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sided with four plaintiffs who claimed that restricting people from carrying guns on public buses and trains was unconstitutional.

The district court relied on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in which a new standard to determine whether a gun restriction is unconstitutional was established. To meet that standard, the government must show there is a “historical tradition of firearm regulation” that supports the law. The court said there were no analogous conditions justifying the gun restrictions on public transit.

Last year, a lower court sided with four plaintiffs who claimed that restricting people from carrying guns on public buses and trains was unconstitutional. (Photo by Gregory Potter/Interim Archives/Getty Images)

But the appeals court found the ban was constitutionally protected.

“Our concern is whether the law aligns with the nation’s tradition,” the majority opinion reads. “We hold that [the law] is constitutional because it comports with regulatory principles that originated in the Founding era and continue to the present.”

The case, started by several Illinois gun owners and backed by gun rights groups, is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While plaintiffs argued that the transit restrictions flouted the high court’s 2022 Bruen decision, the Seventh Circuit said the state had shown a sufficient historical basis for treating crowded public transport as a “sensitive place.”

The public transit firearm ban was implemented in 2013, when Illinois became the last state in the country to approve carrying concealed weapons in public.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES CALIFORNIA AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECKS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The public transit firearm ban was implemented in 2013. (Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

On top of prohibiting guns on buses and trains, the measure restricted gun possession in hospitals and some other public spaces.

Kolar, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Kenneth Ripple, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan. Judge Amy St. Eve, who was selected by President Donald Trump during his first term, wrote a separate concurring opinion.

“I write separately to highlight a difficult jurisdictional question that today’s opinion prudently reserves for a future case: how to assess redressability where a plaintiff defines her injury as the inability to engage in protected activity—not the threat of prosecution for doing so—and an unchallenged law also prohibits that precise activity,” St. Eve wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

September 3, 2025
Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration From Ending Legal Protections For 600,000 Venezuelans – KXL

[ad_1]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States, saying that plaintiffs are likely to win their claim that the Republican administration’s actions were unlawful.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that maintained temporary protected status for Venezuelans while TPS holders challenge actions by Trump’s administration in court.

The 9th Circuit judges found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had no authority to vacate or set aside a prior extension of temporary protected status because the governing statute written by Congress does not permit it. Then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration had extended temporary protected status for people from Venezuela.

“In enacting the TPS statute, Congress designed a system of temporary status that was predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote for the panel. The other two judges on the panel were also nominated by Democratic presidents.

In an email, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security blasted the decision as more obstruction from “unelected activist” judges.

“For decades the TPS program has been abused, exploited, and politicized as a de facto amnesty program,” the email read. “While this injunction delays justice and undermines the integrity of our immigration system, Secretary Noem will use every legal option at the Department’s disposal to end this chaos and prioritize the safety of Americans.”

Congress authorized temporary protected status, or TPS, as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the secretary of DHS to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country. The terms are for six, 12 and 18 months.

The appellate judges said the guaranteed time limitations were critical so people could gain employment, find long-term housing and build stability without fear of shifting political winds.

But in ending the protections soon after Trump took office, Noem said conditions in Venezuela had improved and it was not in the U.S. national interest to allow migrants from there to stay on for what is a temporary program. It’s part of a broader move by Trump’s administration to reduce the number of immigrants who are in the country either without legal documentation or through legal temporary programs.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco found in March that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the administration had overstepped its authority in terminating the protections. Chen postponed the terminations, but the Supreme Court reversed him without explanation, which is common in emergency appeals.

It is unclear what effect Friday’s ruling will have on the estimated 350,000 Venezuelans in the group of 600,000 whose protections expired in April. Their lawyers say some have already been fired from jobs, detained in immigration jails, separated from their U.S. citizen children and even deported.

Protections for the remaining 250,000 Venezuelans are set to expire Sept. 10.

“What is really significant now is that the second court unanimously recognized that the trial court got it right,” said Emi MacLean, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California representing plaintiffs.

She added that while the decision might not benefit immediately those people who have already lost their status or are about to lose their status, Friday’s ruling “should provide a path for the administration’s illegal actions related to Venezuela and TPS to finally be undone.”

A court declaration provided by plaintiffs showed the turmoil caused by the Trump administration and Supreme Court decision.

A Washington woman who worked in restaurants was deported in June along with her daughters, 10 years and 15 months old, after ICE officers told her to bring her children to an immigration check-in. The father of the baby, who is a U.S. citizen, remains in the U.S. while the woman tries to figure out what to do.

Also in June, a FedEx employee appeared in uniform at his required immigration check-in only to be detained, the court declaration states. He slept for about two weeks on a floor, terrified he would be sent to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison. His wife cannot maintain the household on her earnings.

“I am not a criminal,” he said in the declaration, adding that “immigrants like myself come to the United States to work hard and contribute, and instead our families and lives are being torn apart.”

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. Their country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Attorneys for the U.S. government argued the Homeland Security secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program were not subject to judicial review. They also denied that Noem’s actions were motivated by racial animus.

But the appellate judges said courts clearly had jurisdiction in cases where the actions were unlawful. They declined to address whether Noem was motivated by racial animus.

[ad_2]

Grant McHill

Source link

August 29, 2025
Apple can sell its latest smartwatches again after court pauses FTC import ban

[ad_1]

The latest Apple Watches are available again after the company scored a legal victory Wednesday.

“We are thrilled to return the full Apple Watch lineup to customers in time for the new year,” Apple
AAPL,
+0.05%
said in a statement to MarketWatch. “Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2, including the blood-oxygen feature, will become available for purchase again in the United States at Apple Stores starting today and from apple.com tomorrow by 3 p.m. ET.”

A U.S. appeals court earlier Wednesday temporarily blocked a government commission’s import ban on popular Apple Watch models following a patent dispute with medical-technology firm Masimo Corp.
MASI,
-4.57%.

The court’s order allows Apple to temporarily resume selling the Apple Watch Series 9 and Apple Watch Ultra 2. Both watches were pulled from Apple’s website last week and off store shelves this week when the ban went into effect. The appeals court is weighing a longer halt on the import and sales ban.

Masimo declined to comment.

On Tuesday, the tech giant filed an emergency request for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to halt the ban at least until U.S. Customs and Border Protection decides whether redesigned versions of its watches infringe Masimo’s patents.

The appeals court’s decision will allow the U.S. Customs department to consider Apple’s redesign of the offending Apple Watch models. A fix is expected by Jan. 12. Apple said in the motion Tuesday it could “suffer irreparable harm” if the ban is kept in place while the appeal is ongoing.

Shares of Apple were flat in trading Wednesday.

[ad_2]

Source link

December 27, 2023