ReportWire

Tag: Courts

  • Judge orders Trump administration to say how it’s trying to prevent illegal deportation from Ghana

    [ad_1]

    A federal judge on Saturday said it appeared the Trump administration was making an “end run” around U.S. court orders prohibiting five African immigrants to be deported to their home countries by sending them first to Ghana, which was poised to then relocate them to countries where they could face torture or death.

    U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the government to detail Saturday night how it was trying to ensure Ghana would not send the immigrants elsewhere in violation of domestic court orders. One of the plaintiffs has already been shipped from Ghana to his native Gambia, where a U.S. court found he could not be sent, Lee Gelernt of the ACLU told Chutkan.

    Elianis Perez of the Department of Justice acknowledged that she told Chutkan in court on Friday that Ghana had pledged that wouldn’t happen. But she argued that Chutkan had no power to control how another country treats deportees. She noted the U.S. Supreme Court this summer ruled the administration could continue sending immigrants to countries they are not from, even if they hadn’t had a chance to raise fears of torture.

    Gelernt, however, compared the case to that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who the Trump administration mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order prohibiting it, then argued it couldn’t get him back. After multiple courts directed the administration to “facilitate” his return, Abrego Garcia eventually came back to the U.S. where he is now fighting human trafficking charges and another Trump push to deport him.

    “This appears to be a specific plan to make an end run around these obligations,” Chutkan said of the administration shipping the immigrants to Ghana. “What does the government intend to do? And please don’t tell me you don’t have any control over Ghana because I know that.”

    Chutkan later issued an order giving the administration until 9 p.m. Eastern time to file a declaration detailing how they were trying to ensure the other immigrants weren’t improperly sent to their home countries from Ghana.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Florida applies for federal reimbursement for ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ costs despite court warning

    [ad_1]

    The state of Florida has asked the federal government to reimburse it for the costs of its “Alligator Alcatraz” immigrant detention camp, despite a recent appeals court ruling that receiving federal funds would trigger environmental reviews that the state ignored when it hastily built the camp.

    “The State of Florida submitted an application for reimbursement to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),” a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson says. “FEMA has roughly $625 million in Shelter and Services Program funds that can be allocated for this effort.”

    Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit lifted a lower court’s preliminary injunction shutting down the Everglades detention camp, allowing operations there to resume. It was a victory for Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, but it also complicated the state’s plan to be reimbursed by the federal government for hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses, as DeSantis repeatedly promised would happen.

    The appeals court panel ruled, in response to a lawsuit by the environmental advocacy nonprofits Friends of the Everglades and the Center for Biological Diversity, that the detention camp is not subject to environmental impact studies required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it has so far been entirely paid for by the state of Florida.

    “Here, no federal dollars have been expended on the construction or use of the Facility,” Judge Barbara Lagoa wrote in the majority opinion. “So, the Florida-funded and Florida-operated detention activities occurring at the Site do not conceive a ‘major federal project’ either.”

    “There may come a time when [the Florida Department of Environmental Protection] applies for FEMA funding,” Lagoa continued. “If the Federal Defendants ultimately decide to approve that request and reimburse Florida for its expenditures related to the Facility, they may need to first conduct an [environmental impact statement]. But, having not yet formally ‘committed to funding that project,’ the Federal Defendants have taken no ‘major federal action’ subjecting them to the procedural requirements of NEPA.”

    As the Associated Press reported Wednesday, the ruling created an apparent predicament for the state: “The state can either pass up federal reimbursement for hundreds of millions of dollars spent to build and operate the facility, or take the money and face an environmental review, which would risk halting the center’s operations,” the A.P. reported.

    But Florida has already applied for such funding, according to DHS’ statement to Reason.

    DHS and FEMA did not respond to requests for a copy of Florida’s application. No funds are reported to have been disbursed yet.

    DeSantis’ office did not respond to a request for comment. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM), which is the state agency in charge of the detention camp, responded by sending a link to a DeSantis press conference from last month.

    Friends of the Everglades argues that, although no money has changed hands, the tacit agreement between the federal government and the state of Florida, and the repeated public statements by Florida and DHS officials, clearly show that the federal government has committed to pay for the project.

    In a dissenting opinion, Judge Adalberto Jordan agreed, writing that “the notion that Florida decided to build the detention facility without a concrete funding commitment from the federal government is squarely contradicted by the preconstruction statements of [DHS] Secretary [Kristi] Noem and Governor DeSantis that the United States will pay for the facility.”

    Friends of the Everglades says Florida’s reimbursement application only adds to the pile of evidence that the federal government has always intended to pay for the project.

    “Time will prove the trial judge and Judge Jordan correct—and this evidence will support our case when we return to the trial court,” says Paul Schwiep, the lead counsel for Friends of the Everglades in its lawsuit.

    Federal and Florida officials have had a tacit reimbursement agreement for months.

    In a June 20 email, disclosed last month in a court filing, the Trump administration’s nominee for DHS general counsel, James Percival, wrote to the Florida Attorney General’s Office regarding Florida’s plan to detain aliens under an agreement with the federal government. “If you go forward, we will work out a method of partial reimbursement,” Percival wrote.

    At a June 25 press conference, DeSantis said the federal government would fully reimburse Florida. “This is something that was requested by the federal government, and this is something that the federal government is going to fully fund,” DeSantis said. “From a state taxpayer perspective, we are implementing it…but that will be fully reimbursed by the federal government.”

    Noem also said in public statements over the summer that FEMA funds would be used to reimburse Florida.

    The FDEM estimated in August that a shutdown of the facility would cost it more than $218 million it had already invested.

    [ad_2]

    C.J. Ciaramella

    Source link

  • ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detainees continue to face obstacles to meet with lawyers, court papers allege

    [ad_1]

    ORLANDO, Fla. — There still are no protocols for attorneys to get in touch with clients at the immigration detention center known as “Alligator Alcatraz,” and detainees are often transferred just before scheduled lawyer visits, according to new court papers alleging continued unconstitutional obstacles for meeting with legal representatives.

    Thursday’s court papers were filed in response to a transfer from Miami to Fort Myers of the federal lawsuit claiming detainees have been denied private meetings with immigration attorneys while being held at the facility built by the state of Florida in the Everglades wilderness.

    It also comes a week after a federal appellate court panel, in a separate environmental lawsuit, allowed operations to continue at the detention center by putting on hold a lower court’s preliminary injunction ordering the facility to wind down by the end of October. A third federal lawsuit challenging practices at the facility claims immigration is a federal issue and Florida agencies and the private contractors hired by the state have no authority to operate the facility.

    “Detained individuals have a First Amendment right to communicate with their attorneys in confidence,” lawyers said Thursday in the legal rights case.

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to omit information about detainees at the facility from its online locator system “so attorneys cannot confirm whether detained clients are held at the facility.” During videoconferences with their lawyers, detainees are placed in cages that aren’t soundproof with staff in earshot, and documents for clients are subject to review by staff, the attorneys said.

    Unlike other detention facilities which don’t require prior appointments, at the Everglades facility, if lawyers want to meet in-person with their clients, they must schedule a meeting three days in advance. That gives the facility the opportunity to transfer out detainees, denying them legal access, they lawyers said.

    Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration in late June raced to build the facility on an isolated airstrip surrounded by wetlands to aid President Donald Trump’s efforts to deport people living in the U.S. illegally. Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be a model for future lockups around the nation as his administration pushes to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations.

    The center has been plagued by reports of unsanitary conditions and detainees being cut off from the legal system. Other states have since announced plans to open their own immigration detention centers.

    As part of the legal rights lawsuit, the attorneys for the detainees want to make a visit to the facility in mid-October, but the federal and state government defendants said it wasn’t necessary. The detainees’ attorneys also asked for permission to keep their clients anonymous in public court filings and to use pseudonyms instead.

    “At a time of increasingly violent anti-immigrant rhetoric in Florida and across the country, immigrants detained at Alligator Alcatraz are subjected to extreme vitriol, including from officials at the highest levels of government,” they wrote.

    ___

    Follow Mike Schneider on the social platform Bluesky: @mikeysid.bsky.social

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former executive of Mars candy subsidiary pleads guilty to stealing $28M from company

    [ad_1]

    BRIDGEPORT, Conn. — A former executive for a subsidiary of candymaker Mars Inc. pleaded guilty Thursday to fraud and tax charges in connection with his theft of $28 million from the company, federal prosecutors said.

    Paul Steed, 58, appeared in federal court in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He also agreed to pay $28.4 million in restitution to Mars and owes another $10 million in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney for Connecticut David Sullivan said in a statement.

    Steed, of Stamford, Connecticut, who is free on $5 million bail, did not immediately return messages left at phone numbers and emails listed for him in public records. His lawyer, former U.S. Attorney for Connecticut Deirdre Daly, did not immediately return phone and email messages Thursday.

    A dual U.S. and Argentine citizen, Steed was once a respected sugar market expert for Mars Wrigley, where his last position was global price risk manager. The company is a subsidiary of McLean, Virginia-based Mars Inc., the maker of M&M’s, Snickers, Skittles, Altoids mints and Doublemint gum, as well as other food products and pet food.

    A federal indictment accused him of stealing from Mars beginning in about 2013 through various schemes, including diverting funds to companies he set up. Steed sent the lion’s share of the stolen funds, more than $26 million, to one of his companies, MCNA LLC, which was created to mimic an actual Mars company, Mars Chocolate North America, prosecutors said.

    Authorities say they have seized more than $18 million from Steed’s bank accounts, and Steed has agreed to forfeit the money. The government is also seeking to liquidate a home in Greenwich, Connecticut, that Steed allegedly purchased using $2.3 million of the stolen cash. Prosecutors say Steed sent another $2 million to Argentina, where he has relatives and owns a ranch.

    Steed pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and one count of tax evasion. Sentencing is set for Dec. 9.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Indictment charges church leaders with swindling millions in military benefits

    [ad_1]

    SAVANNAH, Ga. — Leaders of a Georgia-based church with congregations in five states have been charged by federal prosecutors with swindling millions of dollars in veterans benefits from parishioners serving in the military.

    An indictment unsealed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Savannah charges House of Prayer Christian Churches of America founder Rony Denis and seven other church leaders with conspiring to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, as well as other federal crimes.

    Authorities say church leaders exploited soldiers and other congregation members by enrolling them in seminary programs that drained their G.I. Bill education benefits. They also say church officials used parishioners’ names on fraudulent mortgage applications to buy homes that the church then rented to congregation members.

    “The defendants are accused of exploiting trust, faith, and even the service of our nation’s military members to enrich themselves,” Paul Brown, the agent in charge of the FBI’s Atlanta office, said in a news release.

    Prosecutors say they don’t even know the real name of Denis, alleging he assumed that name after stealing another person’s identity in 1983. He founded House of Prayer roughly two decades ago. The church is headquartered in Hinesville, a southeast Georgia city that is home to thousands of veterans and Army soldiers serving at neighboring Fort Stewart. The congregation there grew to as many as 300 members, the indictment says.

    House of Prayer branched out, opening up to a dozen churches in five states, often near military bases, according to prosecutors. It also established affiliated Bible seminaries in Hinesville as well as Fayetteville, North Carolina; Killeen, Texas; and Tacoma, Washington.

    The indictment says the church focused on recruiting military service members to join their congregations and pressured them to spend their G.I. Bill education benefits on enrollment in its seminary programs.

    The seminaries in all four states earned House of Prayer leaders $23.5 million in G.I. Bill payments for tuition, fees, books and housing costs from 2013 and 2021, according to the indictment.

    Charges against Denis and others stem from just $3.2 million of those benefit payments made to House of Prayer’s two seminaries in Georgia. That is because the programs operated in Georgia under a religious exemption granted by state regulators. Prosecutors say that exemption prohibited the Georgia seminaries from receiving federal funding — including G.I. Bill benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

    The indictment says church officials lied to Georgia regulators in annual forms saying the seminaries received no federal money.

    Steven Sadow, listed in court records as an attorney for Denis, did not immediately return an email message seeking comment Thursday.

    A group called Veterans Education Success wrote to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in 2020, saying former students had complained that the House of Prayer seminaries had drained their benefits while providing them with little education. FBI agents served search warrants on several House of Prayer churches in 2022, according to local news outlets.

    The indictment says church officials also used its members as straw buyers to conceal the leaders’ purchase of rental properties. Prosecutors say church leaders falsified loan applications and closing documents and forged powers of attorney to buy and transfer homes that were rented to congregation members.

    The indictment says House of Prayer received $5.2 million in rent payments between 2018 and 2020, with some of that money being used to pay for Denis’ two homes as well as church leaders’ credit card bills.

    Denis was also charged with helping falsify his federal income tax returns for 2018, 2019 and 2020. On Wednesday, FBI agents and Columbia County sheriff’s deputies arrested the church founder at his mansion in Martinez west of Augusta, WRDW-TV reported.

    In a separate case, federal prosecutors also indicted Bernadel Semexant, a pastor at the House of Prayer church in Hinesville. The indictment unsealed Wednesday charges Semexant with sex abuse of a girl between the ages of 12 and 15. William Joseph Turner, listed in court records as the pastor’s attorney, did not immediately return an email message.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom’s latest legal bid to halt deportation from New Zealand is rejected

    [ad_1]

    WELLINGTON, New Zealand — A New Zealand court has rejected the latest bid by internet entrepreneur Kim Dotcom to halt his deportation to the United States on charges related to his file-sharing website Megaupload.

    Dotcom had asked the High Court to review the legality of an official’s August 2024 decision that he should be surrendered to the U.S. to face trial on charges of copyright infringement, money laundering and racketeering. It was the latest chapter in a protracted 13-year battle by the U.S. government to extradite the Finnish-German millionaire from New Zealand.

    The Megaupload founder had applied for what in New Zealand is called a judicial review, in which a judge is asked to evaluate whether an official’s decision was lawful.

    A judge on Wednesday dismissed Dotcom’s arguments that the decision to deport him was politically motivated and that he would face grossly disproportionate treatment in the U.S. In a written ruling, Justice Christine Grice also rejected Dotcom’s claim that New Zealand’s police were wrong to charge his business partners, but not him, under domestic laws — which likely yielded laxer sentences than if the men had been tried in the U.S.

    The latest decision could be challenged in the Court of Appeal, where a deadline for filing is Oct. 8. It wasn’t immediately clear if Dotcom would do so.

    One of his lawyers, Ron Mansfield, told Radio New Zealand that Dotcom’s team had “much fight left in us as we seek to secure a fair outcome,” but didn’t elaborate further. Neither Dotcom nor Mansfield responded to a request for comment from The Associated Press on Thursday.

    New Zealand’s government hasn’t disclosed what will happen next in the extradition process or divulged an expected timeline for Dotcom to be surrendered to the United States.

    The saga stretches back to the January 2012 arrest by New Zealand authorities of Dotcom in a dramatic raid on his Auckland mansion along with other company officers at the request of the FBI. U.S. prosecutors said Megaupload raked in at least $175 million, mainly from people who used the site to illegally download songs, television shows and movies, before the FBI shut it down earlier that year.

    Lawyers for Dotcom and the others arrested argued that it was the users of the site, founded in 2005, who chose to pirate material, not its founders. But prosecutors said the men were the architects of a vast criminal enterprise, with the Department of Justice describing it as the largest criminal copyright case in U.S. history.

    He has been free on bail in New Zealand since February 2012.

    Dotcom and his business partners fought the FBI’s efforts to extradite them for years, including by challenging New Zealand law enforcement’s actions during the investigation and arrests. In 2021, however, New Zealand’s Supreme Court ruled that Dotcom and two other men could be surrendered.

    Under New Zealand law, it remained up to the country’s justice minister to decide if the extradition should proceed. The minister, Paul Goldsmith, ruled in August 2024 that it should.

    But by then, Dotcom was the only person whose fate remained in question. Two of his former business partners, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk, pleaded guilty to charges against them in a New Zealand court in June 2023 and were sentenced to two and a half years in jail.

    In exchange, U.S. efforts to extradite them were dropped. Part of Dotcom’s latest legal bid challenged the police decision not to extend a plea deal under New Zealand laws to him too.

    Grice rejected that, saying the choice to only charge Ortmann and van der Kolk in New Zealand was “a proper exercise of the Police’s discretion.” The jurist also dismissed Dotcom’s claim that Goldsmith’s extradition decision was politically motivated.

    Prosecutors earlier abandoned their extradition bid against a fourth Megaupload officer, Finn Batato, who was arrested in New Zealand. Batato returned to Germany, where he died from cancer in 2022.

    In November 2024, Dotcom said in a post on X that he had suffered a stroke. He wrote on X in July that he was making “good progress” in his recovery but still suffered from speech and memory impairments.

    Goldsmith’s decision that Dotcom should be extradited was made before the stroke. But Grice said the minister had considered other “significant health conditions” Dotcom faced and wasn’t wrong to conclude that these shouldn’t prevent him from being deported.

    “I am pleased my decision has been upheld,” Goldsmith said Thursday in a written statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump takes one step back and another forward in his attempt to reshape the Fed

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s goal of appointing a majority of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors faced a setback late Tuesday when a court blocked his unprecedented attempt to fire Lisa Cook.

    But the very next next day, his nominee to replace another Fed governor moved forward, giving him one more opportunity during his second term to reshape the Fed.

    Over time, Trump will almost certainly get the lower short-term interest rate he is seeking, economists say, although it’s unlikely the Fed will shave 3 percentage points from its current level of about 4.3%, as he has demanded, even if he gets most of the seats on the seven-member board.

    On Wednesday, Trump got one step closer to reaching a majority when the Senate Banking Committee approved the president’s nomination of Stephen Miran, one of his top economic advisers, to an open position on the Fed’s board. The full Senate is expected to approve Miran shortly. He could end up participating in the central bank’s policy meeting next week, when it is expected to reduce its key interest rate by a quarter-point to about 4.1%.

    But he took a step back with Cook after a federal court blocked Trump’s attempt to fire her late Tuesday. Jia Cobb, a judge appointed by former president Joe Biden, ruled that the firing was illegal because the administration did not provide sufficient cause to remove her. That means Cook is also likely to participate in next week’s Fed meeting.

    The Trump administration appealed that ruling Wednesday, and many observers expect the case could end up at the Supreme Court.

    Here are where things stand regarding Trump, the Federal Reserve, and its traditional independence.

    Fed governors aren’t like Cabinet members or other officials who serve at the pleasure of the president. Under the law governing the Fed, they can’t be fired over policy disagreements, but can be dismissed “for cause.”

    Trump has accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud when she bought two properties in 2021 —before she joined the Fed — which she said were both “primary residences.” Such a designation can result in lower down payments and mortgage rates than if one of the homes was classified as a rental or second house.

    On Tuesday, Cobb ruled that Fed governors can only be fired for malfeasance or other actions while in office and said the White House also failed to provide Cook with a chance to formally respond to charges against her.

    The appeals court or the Supreme Court could stay the district court’s decision, which would remove Cook from the Fed’s board until her case is resolved. The Supreme Court has shown sympathy for Trump’s arguments that the president can remove many officials from agencies previously seen as independent. But in a case earlier this year, the Supreme Court said that the central bank is a “unique, semi-private entity” and suggested its officials may have greater protection from being removed by the White House.

    Trump picked Miran to replace former Fed governor Adriana Kugler, who stepped down Aug. 1. Miran would, if approved, simply finish her term, which expires in January.

    Miran has taken the unusual step of planning to keep his job as the chair of the White House’s Council of Economic Advises if he does win Senate approval. While previous presidents have appointed their aides to the Fed, they have always then stepped down from White House jobs.

    Nearly all economists and most Wall Street investors prefer a Fed that is independent from day-to-day politics. They worry that if the Fed falls under the control of the White House, it will keep its key interest rate lower than justified by economic fundamentals to satisfy Trump’s demands for cheaper borrowing.

    That could accelerate inflation and over time could also push up longer-term interest rates, such as those on mortgages and car loans. Investors may demand a higher yield to own bonds to offset greater inflation in the future, lifting borrowing costs for the U.S. government and the entire economy.

    If Miran is confirmed, he will be the third Trump appointee to the Fed’s seven-member board, after Trump appointed Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman in his first term. If Cook is able to keep her seat, then Trump’s next opportunity would arrive in May, when current Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s term ends.

    It’s possible that Powell could pull an unusual move and remain on the Fed’s board even after stepping down as chair. If so, that would deprive Trump of another appointment and would force him to choose a new chair from the existing seven governors.

    Powell has declined to answer when he has been asked whether he will leave the board after his term as chair ends. But if he does leave, then Trump could appoint a fourth member and gain a majority.

    The four other governors are serving terms that last beyond the end of Trump’s time in office. Governors are appointed to 14-year terms, in part to shield them from political pressure.

    Still, many governors step down before their terms end, so Trump may have more opportunities to add loyalists to the board.

    “Over time the composition of the Fed aligns with the views of the administration because you pick like-minded people,” said Vincent Reinhart, chief economist at BNY, a bank. “The direction of travel is for lower rates.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court rules Trump doesn’t have the authority to fire Copyright Office director

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A divided appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Donald Trump doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally remove and replace the director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

    A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voted 2-1 to temporarily block Trump’s Republican administration from firing Shira Perlmutter as the register of copyrights, who advises Congress on copyright issues.

    Perlmutter claims Trump fired her in May because he disapproved of advice she gave to Congress in a report related to artificial intelligence. Perlmutter had received an email from the White House notifying her that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately,” her office said.

    Circuit Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs concluded that Perlmutter’s purported firing was likely illegal.

    “The Executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers that is significantly different in kind and in degree from the cases that have come before,” Pan wrote in the majority opinion.

    Perlmutter’s position is considered part of the legislative branch of government. Her office is housed within the Library of Congress. Its director is chosen by the librarian of Congress, who is also a legislative branch employee but is nominated by the president and is subject to Senate confirmation.

    U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump nominee, ruled in May that Perlmutter failed to meet her legal burden to show how removing her from the position would cause her irreparable harm.

    Pan and Childs, who were nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, concluded that Kelly abused his discretion and failed to weigh other factors favoring Perlmutter’s request for a preliminary injunction.

    “The President’s purported removal of the Legislative Branch’s chief advisor on copyright matters, based on the advice that she provided to Congress, is akin to the President trying to fire a federal judge’s law clerk,” Pan wrote.

    Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, wrote a dissenting opinion in which he said the register of copyrights “exercises executive power in a host of ways.”

    “Recently, repeatedly, and unequivocally, the Supreme Court has stayed lower-court injunctions that barred the President from removing officers exercising executive power,” Walker wrote.

    Pan said it appears Perlmutter is still serving as register despite her purported removal.

    “And because she continues to serve as Register at the present time, ruling in her favor would not disrupt the work of the U.S. Copyright Office,” Pan wrote. “To the contrary, it is her removal that would be disruptive.”

    Perlmutter’s attorneys say she is a renowned copyright expert who also has served as register of copyrights since then-Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden appointed her to the job in October 2020.

    Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to replace Hayden at the Library of Congress. The White House fired Hayden amid criticism from conservatives that she was advancing a “woke” agenda.

    The appeals court’s ruling says Blanche’s appointment to serve as acting librarian of Congress was likely unlawful, as well, because the position is subject to Senate confirmation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kilmar Abrego Garcia wants asylum. The US wants to deport him. What to know

    [ad_1]

    Kilmar Abrego Garcia faces an uncertain future.

    The Trump administration wants to deport him to the African nation of Eswatini. Abrego Garcia wants to apply for asylum to stay in the U.S.

    Either path could begin with a long journey through the legal system.

    Abrego Garcia, 30, became a flashpoint over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador. The Trump administration claimed he was a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he wasn’t charged.

    The administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June, but only to face human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have called the case preposterous and vindictive.

    Abrego Garcia was released from a Tennessee jail to await his trial last month. He was taken into immigration custody three days later and remains in a Virginia detention center.

    Here’s a look at what could happen next:

    The Trump administration has proposed sending Abrego Garcia to Eswatini because it cannot legally send him to El Salvador.

    Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador around 2011 because a local gang had extorted and terrorized him and his family, according to court documents. Abrego Garcia had settled in Maryland without documentation to join his older brother, who had become a U.S. citizen.

    One day in 2019, Abrego Garcia sought work as a day laborer outside a Home Depot. A confidential informant told police that Abrego Garcia and other men outside the store were in MS-13 because of their clothing and tattoos, according to court documents.

    Abrego Garcia was never charged but was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He applied for asylum, but was denied because his request came more than a year after he entered the U.S.

    However, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported to El Salvador after Abrego Garcia demonstrated that he had a well-founded fear of gang persecution there.

    Six years later, in the early days of the second Trump administration, ICE deported Abrego Garcia to a notorious El Salvador prison, violating the immigration judge’s order. Following a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned him to the U.S., but only to face charges of human smuggling.

    The Trump administration said last month that it intended to deport him to the African country of Uganda. Abrego Garcia notified the U.S. government that he fears being sent there over concerns of persecution or being sent on to El Salvador.

    Last Friday, the Trump administration said it now intends to deport him to Eswatini.

    A letter from ICE said his fears are “hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 different countries.”

    The U.S. is supposed to follow a multi-step process for deporting someone to a nation that isn’t their home country, according to immigration attorneys.

    For example, an immigration officer is supposed to conduct a reasonable fear interview, during which Abrego Garcia can raise concerns about persecution and torture. If the officer disagrees, Abrego Garcia can ask an immigration judge to review the decision. From there, Abrego Garcia can go to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

    Immigration judges are part of the Justice Department and under the Trump administration’s authority. Trump has been firing immigration judges, many appointed by former President Joe Biden, as part of his immigration crackdown.

    However, Abrego Garcia can contest a Board of Immigration Appeals decision in the federal courts, which are part of the nation’s independent judiciary.

    Even if Abrego Garcia thwarts deportation to Eswatini, he likely will face attempts to remove him to another country and then another, according to Memphis-based immigration attorney Andrew Rankin.

    “By the law of averages, you can’t win every case,” he said.

    Asylum, however, could place the focus solely back on El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia has previously shown a credible fear of gang persecution.

    Abrego Garcia has filed a motion to reopen his 2019 immigration case and apply for asylum. His lawyers will likely argue he’s eligible because he’s been in the U.S. less than a year, Rankin said.

    Asylum could provide a green card and a path to citizenship. But he’s taking a risk, Rankin said. If Abrego Garcia loses his bid, an immigration judge could remove his protection from being returned to El Salvador.

    Abrego Garcia’s motion to reopen his immigration case is still pending. If it’s denied, he can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. From there, he can go to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

    If he is allowed to request asylum, he’ll get a hearing. His lawyers and the government can present evidence and call witnesses.

    “A very famous saying about immigration court is ’Immigration court has death penalty consequences in a traffic court setting,” said Rankin, the attorney.

    For example, immigration judges have much wider discretion on scheduling, admitting evidence and issuing judgments, Rankin said. There can be little consistency between individual immigration courts.

    “In traffic court, you’re deciding a speeding ticket, which at most affects insurance purposes,” Rankin said. “Whereas in immigration court, you’re deciding in this particular case whether someone’s going to go home to die. Or if they’re going to stay in the U.S.”

    Attorney General Pam Bondi has the authority to decide Abrego Garcia’s immigration case as the head of the Justice Department, immigration experts say. Such decisions are rare, but the Trump administration has shown a willingness to break with precedent.

    Abrego Garcia’s attorneys in his Tennessee criminal case have criticized Bondi for what they say are prejudicial statements, claiming he can’t get a fair criminal trial.

    César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, an Ohio State University law professor, said a hypothetical ruling from Bondi would likely be appealed to the 4th Circuit.

    The smartest thing for Bondi to do, the professor said, is to “work with a good group of Justice Department lawyers who are going to explain the factual basis for your conclusion.”

    Rankin, the attorney in Memphis, said Abrego Garcia’s attorneys likely would attack any decision made by Bondi to deport him as “a political hit job.”

    “It would destroy any credibility that this is a prosecution for the American people and not a prosecution for Donald Trump,” Rankin said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Orleans mayor to appear in court on corruption charges tied to alleged affair

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell is scheduled to appear in federal court Wednesday for the first time since the Democrat was indicted on corruption charges stemming from an alleged romantic relationship with her bodyguard.

    She is expected to enter a plea in response to conspiracy, fraud and obstruction charges in what prosecutors described as a yearslong scheme to conceal an affair with her bodyguard as the two traveled, wined and dined together on taxpayers’ dime.

    Cantrell’s bodyguard, Jeffrey Vappie, has already pleaded not guilty to charges of wire fraud and making false statements after he was indicted in July 2024. He is scheduled to appear in court Friday for the additional charges.

    Cantrell, the first female mayor in New Orleans’ 300-year history, was elected twice but now becomes the city’s first mayor to be charged while in office in a state with a reputation for public corruption. She has only four months before she leaves office under term limits.

    The mayor once known for her outspoken persona has kept quiet about the charges in the weeks since the 18-count indictment against her and Vappie was announced in mid-August. She did not acknowledge the indictment during public appearances to commemorate the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina late last month.

    Cantrell was already receding into the background of city affairs over the past year and offered no apparent resistance to President Donald Trump’s suggestion earlier this month to send the National Guard and federal agents to New Orleans even as other Democrats bristled.

    She’s also been cast as a pariah by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, who announced on Sept. 3 that Cantrell was suspended from involvements in federal transactions with HUD. The City Council issued a statement last week saying it had reassured the Housing Authority of New Orleans and the Office of Community Development that other city officials could sign federal contracts instead.

    At times, she and her allies have said the blowback she is experiencing is tinged by double standards she faces as a Black woman. Cantrell said earlier this year, before to the indictment, that she has faced “very disrespectful, insulting, in some cases kind of unimaginable” treatment.

    Cantrell and Vappie used WhatsApp for more than 15,000 messages, where they professed their love and plotted to harass a citizen who helped expose their relationship, delete evidence, make false statements to FBI agents “and ultimately to commit perjury before a federal grand jury,” acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson said. Vappie’s 14 trips with Cantrell cost taxpayers $70,000, not including Cantrell’s own travel costs, according to the indictment.

    In a WhatsApp exchange, the indictment says, Vappie recalled accompanying Cantrell to Scotland in October 2021 on a dreamy trip “where it all started.”

    Cantrell, whose husband died in 2023, has denied having anything more than a professional relationship with Vappie. She lashed out at associates who raised questions about the amount of time she spent with her bodyguard, including on wine-tasting trips and in a city-owned apartment, court records show.

    Cantrell joins the ranks of more than 100 people brought up on corruption charges in Louisiana in the past two decades, said Rafael Goyeneche, a former prosecutor who is president of the Metropolitan Crime Commission, a watchdog group.

    ___

    Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Appeals court hears from US military contractor ordered to pay $42M to former Abu Ghraib detainees

    [ad_1]

    RICHMOND, Va. — A federal appeals court was scheduled to hear oral arguments Tuesday about an appeal from a U.S. military contractor ordered to pay $42 million for contributing to the torture and mistreatment of three former detainees at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison two decades ago.

    Reston, Virginia-based CACI appealed last year’s civil lawsuit verdict to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Suhail Al Shimari, Salah Al-Ejaili and Asa’ad Al-Zubae testified at last year’s trial that that they were subjected to beatings, sexual abuse, forced nudity and other cruel treatment at the prison during the U.S. occupation of Iraq. A jury awarded them $3 million each in compensatory damages and $11 million each in punitive damages.

    The three did not allege that CACI’s interrogators explicitly inflicted the abuse themselves, but argued CACI was complicit because its interrogators conspired with military police to “soften up” detainees for questioning with harsh treatment.

    CACI supplied the interrogators who worked at the prison. It has denied any wrongdoing and has emphasized throughout 17 years of litigation that its employees are not alleged to have inflicted any abuse on the plaintiffs in the case.

    Photos of the abuse released in 2004 showed naked prisoners stacked into pyramids or dragged by leashes. Photos included a soldier smiling and giving a thumbs-up while posing next to a corpse, detainees being threatened with dogs, and a detainee hooded and attached to electrical wires.

    Military police seen in the photos smiling and laughing as they directed the abuse were convicted in military courts-martial. But none of the civilian interrogators from CACI ever faced criminal charges, even though military investigations concluded that several CACI interrogators had engaged in wrongdoing.

    Last year’s civil trial and subsequent retrial were the first time a U.S. jury heard claims brought by Abu Ghraib detainees in the 20 years since the photos shocked the world.

    None of the three plaintiffs were in any of photos but they described treatment very similar to what was depicted.

    The $42 million they were awarded fully matches the amount sought by the plaintiffs. It’s also more than the $31 million that the plaintiffs said CACI was paid to supply interrogators to Abu Ghraib.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Police say man killed retired Auburn University professor at a public park

    [ad_1]

    AUBURN, Ala. — A retired veterinary professor at Auburn University was killed over the weekend while walking her dog at a popular park in Auburn, Alabama, authorities said.

    Julie Gard Schnuelle, 59, was attacked and killed Saturday morning in Kiesel Park, located about 5 miles (8 kilometers) from campus, according to the Auburn Police Department. She had gone to the park to walk her dog, WRBL reported.

    The sprawling park has a popular dog park and 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) of walking trails.

    Police said Gard Schnuelle’s body was found in a wooded area within the park and that her red Ford F-150 truck was missing.

    Lee County Coroner Daniel Sexton told The Associated Press that Gard Schnuelle died from multiple sharp force injuries.

    Police on Sunday arrested Harold Rashad Dabney III and charged him with two counts of capital murder. Court documents indicated investigators believe Dabney killed Gard Schnuelle during an attempted kidnapping and theft. He is being held without bond.

    Police did not immediately indicate what led them to Dabney other than to say they responded to a report of a suspicious person and officers made observations that “led them to believe Dabney had involvement with the homicide.”

    Andrew Stanley, a defense attorney appointed to represent Dabney, declined to comment Monday, noting they were in the early stages of the case.

    Gard Schnuelle, a large animal veterinarian, was a 1996 graduate of the veterinary school and was a faculty member from 2003 until her retirement in 2021, serving as a professor of theriogenology. She had recently served as Area Veterinarian in Charge with the U.S. Department of Agriculture for Alabama and Mississippi. She remained active with the veterinary school even after her retirement.

    “Dr. Gard Schnuelle was a beloved educator, mentor, researcher and colleague whose passion for teaching, dedication to students, and commitment to theriogenology earned the respect and admiration of all who knew her,” Auburn University said in a statement.

    “Dr. Gard Schnuelle’s legacy of compassion, scholarship and service will continue to inspire generations of veterinarians,” the statement also read.

    Gard Schunuelle’s dog was found safe and returned to her family, WRBL reported.

    Flowers were placed at the gate to the popular park as a memorial. Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones said there is both anger and a “profound sadness” in the community.

    “Her death through a violent crime at a location that so many enjoy and felt safe in has devastated all who knew her and the community as a whole,” Jones said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Archdiocese agrees to $230M settlement in clergy sex abuse case, attorneys say

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — The New Orleans Archdiocese on Monday agreed to a $230 million proposed settlement for survivors of clergy sexual abuse, attorneys for some of the survivors said Monday. The agreement paves the way for a final resolution to yearslong negotiations amid a series of similar settlements from the Catholic Church.

    The archdiocese had announced in May that it would pay at least $179.2 million in response to more than 500 abuse claims, which the bloc of attorneys said they opposed because they considered it to be lowballing the hundreds of survivors.

    “We knew this was a bad deal, and we knew we could do better; and we have,” the group of 10 attorneys said in a statement. “The ‘power of no’ forced the Archdiocese to come up with significantly more money.”

    The archdiocese had filed for bankruptcy in May 2020 rather than handle each abuse claim separately, which survivors point out allows church leadership to avoid facing tough questions in court. The archdiocese called the updated settlement a “significant step forward for the benefit of all claimant survivors” in an emailed statement.

    Survivors have until late October to vote on whether or not to approve the settlement. If approved by two-thirds of survivors, payments could begin disbursement by next year.

    “At this point, I’m not aware of a single attorney for an abuse survivor that opposes the plan,” said Brad Knapp, an attorney for a committee representing abuse survivors. “With all the abuse survivors’ attorneys supporting it, I think there’s much less chance that it gets voted down.”

    The archdiocese’s bankruptcy is one of the longest running and most contentious of more than a dozen ongoing Catholic Church bankruptcy cases in the U.S. related to sex abuse, according to Terence McKiernan, president of the nonprofit BishopAccountability.org.

    Judge Meredith Grabill, overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings in federal court, has warned that if the settlement is not approved, then she will dismiss the case.

    If a bankruptcy settlement fails, survivors would be required to seek compensation for their abuse claims through new lawsuits, which could take years to play out in courts. And it raises the prospect that the archdiocese would declare bankruptcy again to delay payments, according to a public letter from the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. The committee represents the interests of abuse survivors in the bankruptcy case and urged survivors to accept the initial settlement offer.

    The committee warned that bringing individual abuse claims in court would likely lead to difficult confrontations with a “aggressive and hostile” archdiocese, which could force survivors and their friends and family to engage in tough depositions and years of appeals, exacerbating survivors’ “emotional and psychological pain.”

    “A lot of survivors are ready for this to be resolved,” said Kristi Schubert, an attorney representing dozens of survivors. “A lot of them would prefer to receive certain money now.”

    But some survivors, like Kevin Bourgeois, say that monetary compensation only goes so far.

    “There is no dollar amount that really is equitable considering that abuse survivors live for the rest of their lives putting their lives back together,” said Bourgeois, a New Orleans native who suffered clergy sexual abuse and settled privately in 2020. He pointed out that the bankruptcy process allows the church to “wear people down” and keep the public in the dark about the extent to which it enabled abuse.

    The settlement as outlined in May requires the archdiocese to bring in outside experts to evaluate its child-protection programs and recommend improvements. The archdiocese would also establish a document archive at a secular university related to its abuse and hold public forums for survivors to share their experiences and concerns with the archbishop.

    “I remain very hopeful and committed to bringing this bankruptcy to a conclusion that benefits the survivors of abuse,” said New Orleans Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond in a Monday statement. “Please know that I pray for the survivors of abuse every day and look forward to the opportunity to meet with them to hear their stories…”

    Aymond has resisted the chorus of survivors calling for his resignation over the church’s failure to take action on allegations against priests for decades.

    The accusations of archdiocese clergy abuse triggered a sweeping FBI probe and a cascading crisis for the Catholic Church, which drew on help from New Orleans Saints executives to help behind the scenes with damage control, an AP investigation revealed.

    ___

    Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Drug dealer whose sentence was commuted found guilty of violating terms of release

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — A convicted New York drug dealer whose federal prison sentence was commuted by President Donald Trump has been found guilty of violating the terms of his release after being arrested and charged in connection with several recent crimes.

    Jonathan Braun now faces up to five years in prison when he’s sentenced Oct. 9.

    The Long Island resident had been accused of menacing a hospital nurse and a fellow synagogue member on two separate incidents, as well as of groping his family’s nanny and evading bridge tolls.

    A federal judge ruled Friday that prosecutors proved the violations had occurred “by a preponderance of the evidence” during a series of hearings in Brooklyn federal court.

    At the same time, Judge Kiyo Matsumoto acknowledged prosecutors had not met the legal burden for other charges related to a March 29 altercation at his home.

    Prosecutors had said Braun punched a guest in the face, shoved him to the ground, then pushed his 3-year-old son to the ground, leaving a red mark on the child’s back.

    Braun, who pleaded not guilty, has been in federal custody since he was ordered detained in April. His lawyers didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment Monday.

    In 2019, Braun was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison after pleading guilty to drug-related charges. He served roughly a year behind bars before Trump commuted his sentence in the final days of his first term in January 2021.

    Braun had been a high-ranking member of an international group that smuggled more than 100,000 kilograms (220,460 pounds) of marijuana from Canada into the United States, federal prosecutors said at the time.

    In the most recent criminal cases, prosecutors said, Braun argued with a staffer at a hospital in January and swung an IV pole at her. In March, he threatened a man who asked him to be quiet during a synagogue service.

    Last summer, police said, Braun evaded bridge tolls at least 40 times, accruing $160 in unpaid fees.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Thune says Senate will change the rules to push through Trump’s blocked nominees

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader John Thune says he’s ready to change the chamber’s rules to allow quick confirmations of dozens of President Donald Trump’s executive branch nominees, moving this week to speed up votes after months of Democratic delays.

    Thune says he’ll start the process of changing the rules when the Senate goes into session on Monday afternoon, with a final vote likely coming later this week. “We must return to the Senate’s traditional confirmation process that existed before this unprecedented blockade,” Thune said in an op-ed published on Breitbart.com Monday morning.

    Republicans have been talking about options for changing the rules since early August, when the Senate left for a monthlong recess after a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the confirmation process. Democrats have blocked nearly every single one of Trump’s nominees, forcing majority Republicans to spend valuable floor time on procedural votes and leaving many positions in the executive branch unfilled.

    The changes come after both parties have escalated their obstruction of the other party’s nominees for years, and as leaders in both parties have incrementally changed the rules to make the process less bipartisan. The proposal to group nominations is loosely based on legislation introduced by Democrats two years ago as Republicans blocked many of then-President Joe Biden’s picks.

    But while Senate Republicans forced similar delays during Biden’s administration, Democrats have blocked almost all of Trump’s nominations. It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations.

    “Democrats have made President Donald Trump the first president on record to not have a single nominee confirmed via voice vote or unanimous consent, and they are forcing time-consuming votes on noncontroversial nominees who go on to be confirmed by large bipartisan margins,” Thune said in the op-ed.

    The delays have infuriated Trump, who told Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to “GO TO HELL!” in a social media post after negotiations broke down over the process in early August.

    Thune has not yet said how they will change the rules, but Republicans said last week that the leading option was to allow votes on large groups of nominees at once if a majority of senators agree. Currently, one senator’s objection can force days of votes on a single nominee.

    If Republicans act quickly, they could confirm more than 100 of Trump’s pending nominations as soon as this week. The rules change is expected to only apply to executive branch nominations, not lifetime judicial appointments, and would exclude the most high-profile positions, such as Cabinet nominees, that require a longer debate time. Some others could also be excluded, such as nominees that are particularly controversial.

    The process to change the rules will likely require several floor votes and the support of a simple majority, so at least 51 out of the chamber’s 53 Republicans. But most GOP senators appear to be on board.

    The change will be the latest salvo in years of intensifying standoffs over presidential nominations. In 2013, Democrats changed Senate rules for executive branch and lower court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations as Republicans blocked President Barack Obama’s picks. In 2017, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees as Democrats tried to block Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

    Democrats have said the rules change would be a mistake, especially as Senate Republicans will need Democratic votes to pass spending bills and other legislation moving forward.

    Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said last week that Republicans’ proposed plan “guts the Senate’s constitutional role of advice and consent, weakens our checks and balances, and guarantees that historically bad nominees will only get worse with even less oversight.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • In new memoir, Supreme Court Justice Barrett reflects on historic cases, is largely silent on Trump

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett says “violence or threats of violence” against judges shouldn’t be the cost of public service.

    But in an interview at the court with The Associated Press about her new book, “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution,” Barrett was not willing to join other judges who have called on President Donald Trump to tone down rhetoric demonizing judges.

    She said there “has been a lot of clear polarization” that has “spilled over into a bad place, spilled into a bad place when it comes to these acts of political violence.”

    Along with other justices she said she has received death threats following the court’s decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v. Wade’s right to an abortion.

    At 53, Barrett is the youngest member of the court. She said she wrote the book, for which she received a reported $2 million advance, to make the nation’s highest court accessible to non-lawyers.

    Barrett joined the court in 2020, just over a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and Trump chose Barrett to replace her. In her book, the Republican president gets just a few mentions, mainly in connection with her nomination and confirmation.

    She dealt with the court’s 2024 decision that spared Trump from prosecution for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss without even using his name or explaining the decision.

    “For example, when a former president was indicted — a historical first — the court took the case to decide whether he could be prosecuted for his official acts,” Barrett wrote. She joined most of Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion.

    Even as Barrett writes about political polarization across the country, she does not address what role Trump may have played in it. The book does not deal with events of his second term, which began in January, about when Barrett said she was wrapping up the writing.

    The court’s consideration of the president and executive power “necessarily has to be detached from the current occupant of the office because … the court has to think about things in the context of the broad sweep of history, of the presidents who have come before and the presidents who will come later. And so the court in deciding cases about executive power, it really is focused on the presidency rather than the president,” Barrett said.

    In the interview and in subsequent public appearances, Barrett downplayed the idea that the nation is facing a constitutional crisis or dealing with unprecedented events.

    “It’s hard to say when you look over all of history that there haven’t been times in which that disagreement has been even more acute,” she said, listing the Civil War, Vietnam war protests and the Great Depression.

    The book is being published Tuesday by Sentinel, a conservative imprint of Penguin Random House.

    Barrett wrote clearly on two topics that suggest some disagreement with the president. Trump signed an executive order last month requiring the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute people for burning the American flag, despite a 1989 high court decision protecting the act as political speech.

    Barrett wrote admiringly of the free-speech votes of Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, for whom she once worked, despite their personal distaste for burning the flag.

    Without reference to Trump and his musings about seeking a third presidential term, Barrett also noted the clarity of the two-term limit added to the Constitution in 1951.

    “That clear imperative — now memorialized in our binding law — leaves no room for second-guessing,” she wrote.

    Barrett was the last of Trump’s three appointees to join the court, cementing a conservative supermajority that has moved quickly to undo the constitutional right to abortion, end affirmative action in education, expand gun rights and make it harder to sustain government regulations. In a series of emergency orders this year, Barrett has mainly been in the majority to allow Trump to move ahead with plans to remake the federal government, even after lower-court judges have found some of his actions likely illegal.

    The decision to overturn Roe hinged on Barrett’s vote. At the time, she was the junior justice and the last to vote when the court met in a private conference following arguments.

    In all likelihood, when it came her turn to speak, the court would have been split 4 to 4 on the central question of overturning nearly 50 years of high court precedent.

    Asked about the moment in the interview, Barrett said only, “What happens in conference stays in conference.”

    A mother of seven and the only woman in the majority, Barrett joined Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion, but she did not contribute a separate opinion as several of her colleagues did.

    “I write when I feel like there’s something that I can contribute because there’s something that was left unsaid that I think is important to say methodologically,” she said.

    The court does not often undo its past decisions, and Barrett said the current court does so less frequently than its predecessors.

    “It’s not surprising the court has always overturned cases,” she said. “So it’s not surprising that the court, you know, it’s a human institution institution and humans make mistakes.”

    So Roe was a mistake, she was asked.

    Alito’s opinion “describes where … Roe went wrong in interpreting the due process clause. So you don’t overrule precedent without concluding that that precedent was mistaken about the law in some respect,” Barrett said.

    In the book, Barrett offered a defense of the decision.

    “If the Constitution places a matter beyond the reach of democratic majorities, the Court must vigilantly and fearlessly enforce that choice. Otherwise, the Court must leave the matter to the democratic process, which requires citizens to persuade one another rather than a handful of Supreme Court justices,” she wrote. “These points animate the Court’s reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which holds that the Constitution leaves the regulation of abortion to the democratic process.”

    As she approaches the five-year anniversary of her confirmation, Barrett said the biggest changes in her life deal with ever-present security and that “you can never feel completely free.”

    Last week, Barrett said she passed on dancing at a wedding until the very end, when Aretha Franklin’s “Respect” began to play. “I just started kind of twirling around my niece a little bit, and all of a sudden I see my sister take off across the floor, and somebody had a phone out and they were recording me,” Barrett said. “She went up, and she said, ‘I want you to delete that.’”

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pennsylvania plastics company settles ‘nurdles’ pollution case for $2.6 million

    [ad_1]

    A Pennsylvania plastics manufacturer will pay $2.6 million for allegedly violating the federal Clean Water Act and will ensure that no more of its plastic pellets leak into waterways, under a proposed settlement with two environmental groups.

    • This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

    PennEnvironment and Three Rivers Waterkeeper sued Styropek USA, claiming the company discharged large quantities of “nurdles”—tiny pellets used to produce a wide variety of plastic products—into a western Pennsylvania creek, polluting the water and leaving the pellets on creek-side vegetation. Testing by state officials also found that the plastic pollution had increased due to stormwater runoff from the site.

    Environmentalists called the agreement, announced Thursday, a landmark that will set a precedent for other plastics manufacturers in Pennsylvania and around the country. It comes amid growing evidence that plastics in general, and nurdles specifically, represent a threat to human health and natural systems.

    “It’s a precedent-setting settlement in many ways,” said David Masur, executive director of PennEnvironment, in an interview. “It has one of the largest Clean Water Act citizen-suit penalties in Pennsylvania history but even more important, it includes requirements that should get the facility to move to zero discharge of pellets.”


    SIGN UP HERE to get PhillyVoice’s free newsletters delivered to your inbox


    The plaintiffs were joined in recent weeks by Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, which intervened in the case, saying the company violated two state laws in addition to the federal statute.

    “Pennsylvanians have a right to a clean and safe environment,” DEP Secretary Jessica Shirley said in a statement. “This consent decree holds Styropek accountable for its violations and ensures they act to stop further unlawful discharges while supporting the cleanup of a treasured creek in Beaver County.”

    The company said it welcomed the settlement, which resolves a related notice of violation from the DEP, and added that it is committed to environmental quality. “Styropek is pleased that the parties have reached an agreement that will contribute positively to the Beaver County community,” it said in a statement.

    The agreement requires Styropek, which uses nurdles to make polystyrene foam, to install the latest monitoring technology to track whether the pellets leak from its Monaca property. The settlement imposes an automatic penalty if even a single pellet is found outside its plant. The company is also required to redesign its stormwater system so that it captures all pellet waste rather than spreading it into waterways.

    For now, because the company idled the plant in March, the settlement applies to flows of stormwater from its 400-acre site. If the plant restarts production or is sold, the requirements would also apply to production.

    Steve Miano, an environmental lawyer at Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller in Philadelphia, who wasn’t involved in the case, said it’s not clear whether the settlement will set a national precedent as the plaintiffs believe, because other plastics cases are pending.

    But he called the consent decree “very comprehensive” and said it “could very well” be used as a template for similar cases. “It remains to be seen if the technologies employed … will sufficiently remove the plastics from the discharges,” he wrote in an email. “The [consent decree] seems to require alternative plans if the initial technology is not effective.”

    The required use of monitoring technology aims to prevent future nurdle releases because the pellets are virtually impossible to clean up, said Heather Hulton VanTassel, executive director of Three Rivers Waterkeeper.

    “The widespread installation of these technologies is the next step to preventing future plastic pollution and protecting our source drinking water,” she said.

    The pellets often look like food to many aquatic animals and birds, which eat them. They remain in the stomachs of wildlife, leading to malnutrition and starvation, and sometimes death, Masur said. As they break down and become microplastics, they serve as magnets for harmful chemicals, including carcinogens, neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors, which become more concentrated and toxic as they move up the food chain, with devastating impacts on wildlife and, potentially, human health.

    Styropek was chosen for the suit, filed in December 2023, because it had a track record of Clean Water Act violations, Masur said. That’s in contrast to the nearby ethane-cracker plant operated by Shell, although that plant has had a long series of air-quality violations since it opened in 2022.

    VanTassel said her group and the Mountain Watershed Association have been watching for nurdle discharges from the Shell plant for the last several years but have not found significant quantities of the pellets from that source. The groups found large nurdle discharges that were traced to Styropek, and that data was used in the suit.

    She predicted the settlement will set a national precedent because it’s the first citizen action on plastic pellets to be based on Clean Water Act violations of an inland waterway, and because this is the first time in a citizen lawsuit over nurdles that a state regulator intervened in support of plaintiffs’ claims.

    “Our regulators have decided that our agreement to deal with plastic-pellet pollution at the zero-tolerance level is the appropriate way to regulate plastics,” she said.

    The agreement is expected to be approved by the federal court for Western Pennsylvania, given that all parties have agreed to it and the judge had been pushing to finalize it, Masur said.

    Of the fine, $2 million will support a fund to investigate and clean up pellet pollution in the water, sediment and banks of Raccoon Creek, where the company operates. A further $500,000 will create a fund to support efforts to protect water quality in the creek and nearby areas of the Ohio River watershed. The company agreed to pay another $100,000 in civil penalties to a clean water fund operated by the state.

    [ad_2]

    Jon Hurdle, Inside Climate News

    Source link

  • Zizians group member to be arraigned on murder charge in Vermont border agent’s death

    [ad_1]

    BURLINGTON, Vt. — A member of the cultlike Zizians group accused of killing a U.S. Border Patrol agent is set to make her first court appearance since prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty against her.

    Teresa Youngblut, 21, of Seattle, is among a group of radical computer scientists focused on veganism, gender identity and artificial intelligence who have been linked to six killings in three states. She’s accused of fatally shooting agent David Maland in Vermont on Jan. 20, the same day President Donald Trump was inaugurated and signed a sweeping executive order lifting the moratorium on federal executions.

    Youngblut initially was charged with using a deadly weapon against law enforcement and discharging a firearm during an assault with a deadly weapon, crimes that were not punishable by the death penalty. But the Trump administration signaled early on that more serious charges were coming as part of its push for more federal executions, and a new indictment released last month charged her with murder of a federal law enforcement agent, assaulting other agents with a deadly weapon and related firearms offenses.

    Youngblut is scheduled to be arraigned on the new charges Friday afternoon.

    At the time of the shooting, authorities had been watching Youngblut and her companion, Felix Bauckholt, for several days after a Vermont hotel employee reported seeing them carrying guns and wearing black tactical gear. She’s accused of opening fire on border agents who pulled the car over on Interstate 91. An agent fired back, killing Bauckholt and wounding Youngblut.

    The pair were among the followers of Jack LaSota, a transgender woman also known as Ziz whose online writing attracted young, highly intelligent computer scientists who shared anarchist beliefs. Members of the group have been tied to the death of one of their own during an attack on a California landlord in 2022, the landlord’s subsequent killing earlier this year, and the deaths of one of the members’ parents in Pennsylvania.

    LaSota and two others face weapons and drug charges in Maryland, where they were arrested in February, while LaSota faces additional federal charges of being an armed fugitive. Another member of the group who is charged with killing the landlord in California had applied for a marriage license with Youngblut. Michelle Zajko, whose parents were killed in Pennsylvania, was arrested with LaSota in Maryland, and has been charged with providing weapons to Youngblut in Vermont.

    Vermont abolished its state death penalty in 1972. The last person sentenced to death in the state on federal charges was Donald Fell, who was convicted in 2005 of abducting and killing a supermarket worker five years earlier. But the conviction and sentence were later thrown out because of juror misconduct, and in 2018, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.

    ___

    Ramer reported from Concord, New Hampshire.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ex-pilot accused of trying to cut a passenger flight’s engines reaches plea deals

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. — A former Alaska Airlines pilot accused of trying to cut the engines of a passenger flight in 2023 while riding off-duty in the cockpit has reached plea agreements with state and federal prosecutors, his attorney said Thursday.

    Attorney Noah Horst declined to discuss details of the agreements ahead of change-of-plea hearings his client, Joseph Emerson, faces Friday in state and federal court in Oregon. He said that Emerson reached the plea agreements because he wants to take responsibility for his actions and hopes to avoid further time behind bars.

    Emerson was subdued by the flight crew after trying to cut the engines of a Horizon Air flight from Everett, Washington, to San Francisco on Oct. 22, 2023, while he was riding in an extra seat in the cockpit. The plane was diverted to Portland, where it landed safely with more than 80 people on board.

    Emerson told police he was despondent over a friend’s recent death, had taken psychedelic mushrooms about two days earlier, and hadn’t slept in over 40 hours. He has said he believed he was dreaming at the time and that he was trying to wake himself up by grabbing two red handles that would have activated the plane’s fire suppression system and cut off fuel to its engines.

    He was charged in federal court with interfering with a flight crew. A state indictment in Oregon separately charged him with 83 counts of endangering another person and one count of endangering an aircraft.

    He previously pleaded not guilty to all the charges, but on Friday was expected to plead guilty to the federal charge and no-contest to the state charge, which carries the same legal effect as a guilty plea.

    Emerson was released from custody in December 2023 pending trial, with requirements that he undergo mental health services, stay off drugs and alcohol, and keep away from aircraft. In the meantime, he has founded a nonprofit focused on pilot mental health.

    The averted disaster renewed attention on cockpit safety and the mental fitness of those allowed in them.

    ___

    Johnson reported from Seattle.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google facing $425.7 million in damages for nearly a decade of improper smartphone snooping

    [ad_1]

    SAN FRANCISCO — A federal jury has ordered Google to pay $425.7 million for improperly snooping on people’s smartphones during a nearly decade-long period of intrusions.

    The verdict reached Wednesday in San Francisco federal court followed a more than two-week trial in a class-action case covering about 98 million smartphones operating in the United States between July 1, 2016, through Sept. 23, 2024. That means the total damages awarded in the five-year-old case works out to about $4 per device.

    Google had denied that it was improperly tracking the online activity of people who thought they had shielded themselves with privacy controls. The company maintained its stance even though the eight-person jury concluded Google had been spying in violation of California privacy laws.

    “This decision misunderstands how our products work, and we will appeal it,” Google spokesman Jose Castaneda said Thursday. “Our privacy tools give people control over their data, and when they turn off personalization, we honor that choice.”

    The lawyers who filed the case had argued Google had used the data they collected off smartphones without users’ permission to help sell ads tailored to users’ individual interests — a strategy that resulted in the company reaping billions in additional revenue. The lawyers framed those ad sales as illegal profiteering that merited damages of more than $30 billion.

    Even though the jury came up with a far lower calculation for the damages, one of the lawyers who brought the case against Google hailed the outcome as a victory for privacy protection.

    “We hope this result sends a message to the tech industry that Americans will not sit idly by as their information is collected and monetized against their will,” said attorney John Yanchunis of law firm Morgan & Morgan.

    The San Francisco jury verdict came a day after Google avoided the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to break up the company in a landmark antitrust case in Washington, D.C., targeting its dominant search engine. A federal judge who had declared Google’s search engine to be an illegal monopoly ordered less radical changes, including requiring the company to share some of its search data with rivals.

    [ad_2]

    Source link