ReportWire

Tag: U.S. District Court

  • U.S. will consider new applications for DACA for the first time in years

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — For the first time in four years, the federal government plans to begin processing initial applications for DACA, the Obama-era program that grants deportation protection and work permits to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.

    The move, outlined in a proposal Monday by the Justice Department, would reopen DACA to first-time applicants in every state except Texas. The proposal was filed in response to an ongoing lawsuit in U.S. district court in Brownsville, Tex.

    According to the filing, Texas residents who already have DACA could continue receiving protection from deportation but would no longer qualify for employment authorization.

    Lawsuits over DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, have been ongoing since President Trump moved to end the program during his first term.

    Under the government’s proposal, DACA recipients who move into Texas would risk losing their legal ability to work, while moving out of Texas could allow them to resume qualifying for a two-year work permit.

    The proposal is pending a final decision by U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen.

    “These proposals do not limit DHS from undertaking any future lawful changes to DACA,” the filing states.

    The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.

    Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, deputy director of federal advocacy for United We Dream, said misinformation was circulating Tuesday on social media.

    “We’ve seen a lot of folks saying initial applications will start right away. That’s not true,” she said. “The status quo stays. If you are a DACA recipient right now, even in Texas, if you can renew you should renew as soon as possible because then you have another two years.”

    Other advocacy groups, such as the nonprofit Dreamers2gether, urged DACA recipients and hopeful applicants to leave Texas and file a change of address form with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

    More than 525,000 immigrants are currently enrolled in DACA. Texas follows California in the ranking of states with the highest number of program enrollees, according to USCIS.

    To qualify, applicants must prove they came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and have graduated from high school or were honorably discharged from the military. Applicants also cannot have serious criminal records.

    But for years the program has sat in a state of uncertainty, stoking anxiety for many recipients, amid court battles that stopped applications from being processed and left many younger people who would have aged into qualifying for DACA instead vulnerable to deportation.

    In this first term, Trump attempted to shut down the program, but the Supreme Court concluded in 2020 that his administration had acted improperly. The court did not rule on the program’s legality.

    Because of the court battle, the program has been closed to new applicants since 2021, though current recipients could still renew their work permits.

    Los Angeles resident Atziri Peña, 27, runs a clothing company called Barrio Drive that donates proceeds toward helping DACA recipients renew their applications.

    Peña, who also has DACA, said she knows many people in Texas who are thinking about moving out of state. The latest news is another example of how the immigration system breaks families apart, she said.

    “A lot of us who are DACA recipients, we don’t necessarily know what it was like to be undocumented before DACA, so most of us have careers that we won’t be able to continue,” Peña said.

    United We Dream has recorded at least 19 current DACA recipients detained by immigration agents in recent months. In one case in Texas, immigration authorities have kept Catalina “Xochitl” Santiago detained despite an immigration judge saying she cannot be deported.

    “It’s a way of making sure she can’t renew her DACA and then she becomes deportable,” said Macedo do Nascimento. In her view, the Department of Homeland Security’s attitude toward DACA recipients lately has diminished the protections it offers.

    “The bigger picture here is DHS is moving onto a new policy on DACA anyway — without having to go through the courts, the rulemaking process or taking DACA away altogether,” she said. “They’re really trying to end the program piece by piece, recipient by recipient.”

    Even so, immigrants across the country are looking forward to applying for DACA for the first time.

    “While we could still get detained, it’s a little bit of a sense of safety and hope,” Peña said. “I have heard of people who are just waiting for DACA to reopen. But let’s see what happens and let’s hope they don’t use this as a way to catch more of us.”

    [ad_2]

    Andrea Castillo, Rachel Uranga

    Source link

  • ACLU sues Indiana AG Todd Rokita to block probe into refugee nonprofit Exodus

    [ad_1]

    An Indianapolis-based refugee resettlement nonprofit is arguing that Attorney General Todd Rokita’s recent civil subpoena is “unjustified retaliation” and violates its First Amendment rights, according to a lawsuit filed Sept. 19.

    Last week, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office sent Indianapolis-based Exodus Refugee Immigration Inc. a civil investigatory demand, a legal tool the attorney general can use to collect information prior to litigation. The office said they did so to discern whether the nonprofit is violating the law and interfering with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, argues that Rokita targeted Exodus for its mission of serving the immigrant and refugee community. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Exodus, says its services are constitutionally protected activities.

    The investigatory demand seeks to chill their services and advocacy, places an undue burden on Exodus to fulfill the request, exposes private information of its clients, and deters potential clients, according to the complaint.

    “This is a clear attempt to intimidate Exodus and to prevent us from serving refugees and other humanitarian immigrants here in Central Indiana,” Exodus CEO Cole Varga said in a statement. “We cannot allow the Attorney General to impede the vital work we do to support the refugees who are our neighbors, colleagues, and friends.”

    IndyStar has reached out to Rokita’s office for comment.

    AG Todd Rokita’s immigration probes

    Exodus is the latest of at least nine immigration organizations Rokita’s office has targeted with civil investigatory demand since last November. Two are challenging Rokita’s subpoena in court.

    “These (civil investigatory demands) appear to be designed to advance a personal political agenda and to punish and deter organizations that assist, advocate for, and associate with immigrants and refugees,” the complaint reads. “The investigation is without cause and is in bad faith.”

    Rokita has said he believes that there may be a coordinated effort among large employers and resettlement organizations to bring large numbers of migrants to Indiana and employ them, though he hasn’t provided evidence. He’s citing his authority to send these requests for information under Indiana’s Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and indecent nuisance statute.

    “The mass movement of illegal aliens and others into Indiana has exposed our communities to significant public safety risks,” Rokita said in a past news release. “Worse, some organizations in Indiana — whether they are local officials like the Monroe County sheriff who operate sanctuary policies or private organizations that appear to encourage or assist illegal immigration — are making the problem worse.”

    In his Sept. 8 release announcing the Exodus demand, Rokita said his office received information from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement that a recent Monroe County operation “faced numerous challenges as a result of what may have been a coordinated effort by entities in Bloomington to help illegal aliens evade apprehension.” The office isn’t accusing Exodus of anything, but says it is seeking information from Exodus about this.

    In late January, Exodus temporarily locked its main Indianapolis doors and moved client services to off-site or virtual locations out of concern for their clients’ safety. This closure lasted a few weeks amid a flurry of immigration-related announcements from state and federal leaders, including an executive order signed by Gov. Mike Braun pledging state support for federal immigration enforcement.

    Reporter Kayla Dwyer contributed reporting.

    The USA TODAY Network – Indiana’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.

    Have a story to tell? Reach Cate Charron by email at ccharron@indystar.com, on X at @CateCharron or Signal at @cate.charron.28.

    This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: ACLU sues to block probe of Exodus Refugee by Indiana AG Todd Rokita

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Military families sue Trump administration over gender-affirming care ban

    [ad_1]

    Three military families are suing the Department of Defense over a policy that prevents military clinics or insurance from covering gender-affirming care.

    The case, Doe v. Department of Defense, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law) and the National Center for LGBTQ Rights (NCLR) on behalf of three servicemembers and their families. The plaintiffs, who are using pseudonyms, had obtained the care for their transgender children through the military health system for over a decade before the Trump administration prohibited it.

    “President Trump has illegally overstepped his authority by abruptly cutting off necessary medical care for military families,” Shannon Minter, Legal Director at NCLR, said in a statement. “This lawless directive is part of a dangerous pattern of this administration ignoring legal requirements and abandoning our servicemembers.”

    Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a rule in February banning gender-affirming medical care for trans service members as well as preventing new enlistments of individuals with a history of gender dysphoria, which stated, “Effective immediately, all new accessions for individuals with a history of gender dysphoria are paused, and all unscheduled, scheduled, or planned medical procedures associated with affirming or facilitating a gender transition for service members are paused.”

    Hegseth’s orders were temporarily blocked by a federal court in April, with the judges finding the restrictions to be unconstitutional. Despite this, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Stephen Ferrara issued a decision in May to move forward with the restrictions.

    The Pentagon policies came alongside Donald Trump’s executive order banning trans troops from serving in the military altogether. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the administration to enforce the ban while lawsuits against it are heard.

    “This is a sweeping reversal of military health policy and a betrayal of military families who have sacrificed for our country,” said Sarah Austin, Staff Attorney at GLAD Law. “When a servicemember is deployed and focused on the mission they deserve to know their family is taken care of. This Administration has backtracked on that core promise and put servicemembers at risk of losing access to health care their children desperately need.”

    This article originally appeared on Advocate: Military families sue Trump administration over gender-affirming care ban

    RELATED

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal judge upholds Hamtramck’s Pride flag ban, dismisses lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    Viola Klocko

    Someone waves a Pride flag in front of Hamtramck City Hall.

    A federal judge on Monday upheld Hamtramck’s ban on flying Pride flags on city property, dismissing a lawsuit that argued the restriction was unconstitutional.

    U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson said the city’s flagpoles are reserved for government speech, not a public forum for residents.

    In his 12-page opinion, Lawson ruled against Hamtramck Human Relations Commission members Russ Gordon and Cathy Stackpoole, both of whom filed the lawsuit in November 2023. In an act of defiance, Gordon and Stackpoole displayed a Pride flag on public property on Joseph Campau Avenue on July 9. Two days later, the city council removed the pair from the commission.

    As a matter of law, the plaintiffs’ claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments fail, the judge ruled, saying the “well-settled rule that government speech in a nonpublic forum is not subject to First Amendment regulation.”

    The ruling is a victory for mayor Amer Ghalib and Hamtramck’s all-Muslim city council, which in June 2023 unanimously adopted a “flag neutrality” ordinance allowing only government and national flags to be displayed on public poles. Although the resolution barred religious, political, and ethnic flags, it was widely understood to target the Pride flag after months of heated debate in the city, where more than half of the residents are believed to be Muslim.

    In their lawsuit, Gordon and Stackpoole argued the flag ban violated their free speech and equal protection rights.

    “It is unconstitutional for the government to select what speech will be permitted, and what speech will be prohibited, based on the content or viewpoint of the message conveyed by the speech,” the lawsuit alleged.

    But Lawson rejected that argument, holding that Hamtramck was entitled to close the flagpoles to private expression and reclaim them “for government speech.”

    “The First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does not prevent the government from declining to express a view,” the judge wrote.

    Lawson also dismissed claims that the ordinance favored religion or discriminated against LGBTQ+ residents, noting that the resolution only authorized American, Michigan, Hamtramck, and Prisoner of War flags, along with flags of nations reflecting the city’s international character.

    Police remove an LGBTQ+ Pride flag in Hamtramck. - Viola Klocko

    Viola Klocko

    Police remove an LGBTQ+ Pride flag in Hamtramck.

    “No such transparent motive to advance religiosity is patent in the resolution entered here, which did not endorse the flying of any banner representing any religious sect or creed, and where the roster of flags prescribed consists exclusively of secular standards of local, state, national, and international entities,” Lawson wrote.

    City attorney Odey K. Meroueh said the decision vindicated the city’s policy.

    “Today’s ruling confirms that Hamtramck has the right to decide what it communicates on its own property,” Meroueh said in a written statement. “The Court’s decision vindicates Mayor Amer Ghalib and the City Council for adopting a neutral policy that treats every group and every viewpoint the same. The plaintiffs were removed from their appointed seats on the Human Relations Commission because they knowingly violated a valid rule while acting in their official roles. This case was about neutral rules, fair enforcement, and responsible city governance, not about suppressing anyone’s speech.”

    The case highlights a growing cultural clash in Hamtramck, where conservative Muslims have teamed up with right-wing groups opposing LGBTQ+ rights. Since the 2023 ban, residents have reported vandalism of Pride flags on private property and growing hostility toward LGBTQ+ people.

    The ordinance reversed a 2021 council vote that allowed the Pride flag to fly outside City Hall. That decision was one of the final acts of then-Mayor Karen Majewski, who lost reelection after Ghalib campaigned against the flag policy.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Detroit father of 5 released from ICE detention after federal court order

    [ad_1]

    Steve Neavling

    The Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building in downtown Detroit, where immigration hearings take place.

    A longtime Detroit resident and father of five U.S. citizen children was released from immigration detention on Wednesday after a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully denied him due process.

    Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos, who has lived in the U.S. for 26 years and has no criminal record, was arrested during a traffic stop in June and held for more than two months without a chance to seek bond.

    The ACLU of Michigan took up his case and sued on his behalf. In response to the suit, U.S. District Judge Brandy R. McMillion ruled that the Trump administration’s new directive to deny bond hearings is “not only wrong but also fundamentally unfair.”

    Lopez-Campos walked free Wednesday.

    “I am happy to finally be with my family with the help of my legal team,” Lopez-Campos said in a statement. “I hope to continue to fight my case.”

    The Trump administration’s directive in July attempted to reverse decades of policy by eliminating access to bond hearings for immigrants facing civil detention. If left in place, the directive would have subjected immigrants to mandatory detention without judicial review, a process that can take months or even years, legal experts said.

    “There are hundreds, if not thousands, of others still being wrongly denied what Juan just experienced: the opportunity to fight your immigration case from home,” Ramis J. Wadood, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan, said. “Because of that, we will not rest until every affected individual is allowed to exercise the same right to due process and has a chance to come home to their families.”

    Lopez-Campos’s attorney, Shahad Atiya, who worked with the ACLU on the case, said the government had “no legitimate reason” to keep him locked up.”

    “The cruelty was the point, but we’re glad that justice prevailed,” Atiya said.

    Lopez-Campos was one of more than 1,400 immigrants who were arrested by federal agents since President Donald Trump took office in January. Most of them had no criminal convictions.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Hotel CEO accused of sexually assaulting manager at Justin Timberlake concert in Detroit

    [ad_1]

    Steve Neavling

    Little Caesars Arena in Detroit.

    A former hotel manager has filed a federal lawsuit accusing Amerilodge Group CEO Asad Malik of sexually harassing and assaulting her during a company outing to a Justin Timberlake concert in Detroit earlier this year, and then retaliating against her when she reported the incident.

    Stephanie Starling, who managed the Courtyard Marriott in Bay City, alleges Malik groped her and tried to force a kiss during the Feb. 20 concert at Little Caesars Arena.

    While in the arena’s concession area, Malik told Starling that he wanted to kiss her and that he “bet it would be a good kiss too,” according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

    “Probably later tonight,” he added, saying he was “just looking at her lips” and thinking about the kiss, the lawsuit alleges.

    Starling says Malik slid into a booth beside her and put his hands under her thigh and onto her butt.

    Starling “was noticeably trembling in fear and her hand was shaking as she tried to eat,” the lawsuit states.

    Starling fled to the bathroom with a coworker and avoided Malik during most of the concert. Afterward, she says Malik drove her to a dark area near a hotel and told her, “Time for that kiss,” according to the lawsuit. When she refused, Malik allegedly grew agitated and asked, “What do you mean you CAN’T?”

    She threatened to walk back to the hotel in the snow if he didn’t return her, and Malik eventually relented, according to the lawsuit. Starling’s boyfriend drove from Bay City to pick her up.

    Starling “cried the entire ride home and was unable to work the next day,” the lawsuit states.

    Amerilodge Group is based in Bloomfield Hills and manages, operates, and owns hotels in Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio under the brands Hilton, Marriott, and InterContinental Hotel Group.

    The lawsuit was filed by Jack W. Schulz of Schulz Ghannam PLLC.

    Starling reported Malik’s behavior to Amerilodge’s human resources director two days later. She was told the incident would be investigated confidentially by a neutral third party. Instead, the lawsuit alleges, the lawsuit was conducted by Amerilodge’s own defense attorneys and amounted to “a complete sham.”

    The complaint says coworkers openly discussed her allegations despite assurances of confidentiality at work. On March 12, Starling’s company email was cut off after she told a supervisor she was overwhelmed by stress from the incident but had no plans to resign.

    The following day, Amerilodge sent her an email saying it was “upholding [her] resignation.”

    But, according to the lawsuit, “Starling never resigned.”

    Instead, “she was terminated,” the complaint states.

    On April 1, she was told investigators could not substantiate her claims and was offered money to waive her rights against Malik and Amerilodge, which she rejected. The law firm that carried out the investigation later represented Amerilodge in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filing, the lawsuit states.

    Starling alleges sexual harassment, assault, battery, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional stress. She also contends other women had made similar allegations against Malik but were “silenced” by the company.

    Schulz wrote in the complaint that Amerilodge “made a conscious effort to silence these women in an effort to protect a predator rather than to assure this horrendous conduct ends.”

    Metro Times left a message for Amerilodge Group and is awaiting a response.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • The White Stripes reunite in court to sue Trump

    The White Stripes reunite in court to sue Trump

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Jack and Meg White in 2007.

    Detroit rocker Jack White is taking his battle with Donald Trump to the courtroom, making good on his pledge to pursue legal action against the Trump campaign after it used a clip of White’s hit “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post.

    White and his former White Stripes bandmate Meg White are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

    White posted a copy of the first page of the lawsuit on Instagram and wrote, “This machine sues fascists,” a nod to Woody Guthrie’s famous slogan “This machine kills fascists.”

    The Whites are seeking a jury trial in the Southern District of New York.

    They are suing Trump; the campaign organization Trump for President 2024, Inc.; and the campaign’s deputy director of communications Margo Martin for the unauthorized use of the White Stripes’ iconic song “Seven Nation Army.”

    The legal dispute arises from a video posted by Martin on social media last month, which featured Trump embarking on trips to Michigan and Wisconsin, set to the tune of “Seven Nation Army.”

    In response to the video, White took to Instagram, calling Trump a “scum” and his team “fascists.”

    At the time, White pledged to sue Trump “to add to your 5 thousand others.”

    “Oh….Don’t even think about using my music you fascists,” White wrote on Instagram. “Law suit coming from my lawyers about this.”

    White’s criticism follows a demand from the Swedish band Abba earlier this week for Trump to stop using their music, following the unauthorized use of their songs and video footage at a campaign event.

    Other prominent artists who have objected to Trump or his team using their work include Céline Dion, Beyoncé, Johnny Marr of the Smiths, the family of the late soul legend Isaac Hayes, and the estate of the late Irish pop star Sinéad O’Connor.

    White also blasted Trump over a recent controversy during his visit earlier this week to a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. According to an Army spokesperson on Thursday, an employee attempting to enforce rules against political activities on cemetery grounds was pushed aside in an altercation reportedly involving two members of Trump’s campaign staff.

    “And as long as I’m here, a double fuck you DonOLD for insulting our nation’s veterans at Arlington you scum,” White wrote. “You should lose every military family’s vote immediately from that if ANYTHING makes sense anymore.”

    In November, White removed his record label, Third Man Records, from what was then called Twitter after the company’s new CEO and right-wing polemicist Elon Musk restored Trump’s account.

    “So you gave trump his twitter platform back. Absolutely disgusting, Elon,” White wrote. “That is officially an asshole move.”

    In October 2019, White performed to a crowd of more than 5,000 Bernie Sanders supporters at his alma mater, Cass Technical High School in Detroit.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Lawsuit alleges Dearborn cop killed father of four by kneeling on his neck

    Lawsuit alleges Dearborn cop killed father of four by kneeling on his neck

    [ad_1]

    A federal lawsuit alleges a Dearborn cop killed a 38-year-old father of four by pinning him to the ground at a motel and kneeling on his neck as he suffocated to death in September 2021.

    Salvatore “Sal” Cipolloni was in mental distress and yelling for help at the Falcon Inn Motel when the manager called the police.

    When officers Ashley Kusnir and Matthew Wilson arrived, they found Cipolloni barricaded behind an emergency exit door, according to the lawsuit, filed last week by civil rights attorney Jon Marko on behalf of the mother of Cipolloni’s four children. Cipolloni was making grunting noises and pleading for help.

    About two minutes later, Wilson grabbed Cipolloni’s left arm and shouted, “On the ground!” Wilson grabbed the back of Cipolloni’s neck and forced him to the ground, the officers’ body-worn cameras show.

    “Mr. Cipolloni was in obvious distress and kept asking to be let up,” the lawsuit states.

    Wilson ignored Cipolloni’s cries for help, and Kusnir knelt on the man’s neck while holding his wrists, according to the lawsuit. At the same time, Wilson knelt on Cipolloni’s upper legs.

    “Mr. Cipolloni’s breathing became obviously distressed,” the lawsuit states. “His breathing was faint. Mr. Cipolloni grasped for air.”

    Two minutes after Kusnir placed her knee on Cipolloni’s neck, she checked for a pulse and claimed she found one.

    click to enlarge

    Dearborn Police Department

    Body-worn camera footage shows one of the officers kneeling on Salvatore “Sal” Cipolloni’s neck.

    Cipolloni was pronounced dead later that night, and the medical examiner determined the cause of death was not natural.

    “The officers had a front-row seat to Cipolloni’s death and did not help him while Kusnir knelt on Cipolloni’s neck for over two minutes,” Marko said Monday. “They failed to render aid to Mr. Cipolloni when they should have and could have saved his life.”

    The lawsuit names the two officers and the city of Dearborn and alleges excessive force, deliberate indifference, failure to intervene, and gross negligence.

    The incident came more than a year after a Minneapolis cop murdered George Floyd by kneeling on his neck.

    “This incident, as evidenced by the video footage, unfortunately shows another instance of a police officer violating an innocent individual’s civil rights,” Marko said.

    Metro Times couldn’t reach Dearborn police for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • Wayne County public defender sues judges for alleged bias against lower-income defendants

    Wayne County public defender sues judges for alleged bias against lower-income defendants

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Attorney Sundus Jaber filed a whistleblower lawsuit against 35th District Court over the treatment of her indigent clients.

    A young public defender claims in a federal lawsuit that she was pushed out of her job at 35th District Court in Plymouth for passionately fighting on behalf of her lower-income clients.

    Sundus K. Jaber filed a whistleblower lawsuit in U.S. District Court in late March, claiming she was prevented from representing indigent defendants in criminal cases in Judge James Plakas’s courtroom in retaliation for vigorously defending her clients.

    Jaber, a Muslim who wears a hijab, says she was mistreated and harassed by judges and their staff at the expense of her clients.

    On her first day as a public defender, Judge Ronald Lowe advised Jaber that she would be removed if she fights too much on behalf of her clients, saying she “needs to understand that 95% of the people she will represent are guilty,” according to the lawsuit.

    Lowe then said, “If you contest more than 5% of cases, we will boot you out of here,” the suit alleges.

    Lowe’s alleged remarks fly in the face of the 6th Amendment, which entitles criminal defendants to “effective assistance of counsel,” regardless of their income.

    “The ability of a person charged in the criminal system to pay for counsel should not dictate whether they receive constitutionally-sound representation that is free from interference by the judiciary,” the lawsuit states.

    Jaber, who became a licensed attorney in 2020, says the experience has been eye-opening and disheartening, but she won’t be deterred.

    “It is hard to be a young lawyer trying to build her skills and reputation, and realizing how much power a judge has to influence your career and standing in the legal community,” Jaber tells Metro Times. “It has been difficult to stay working under these conditions and worry about whether my belief in providing a vigorous defense will hurt my career. But I know I’m doing the right thing.”

    Numerous studies nationwide have shown that public defenders grapple with overwhelming caseloads, hindering their ability to offer adequate legal support to individuals charged with crimes.

    After Jaber launched complaints that her indigent defendants were mistreated at the hands of Plakas, Lowe, and court staff, the judges asked for her removal.

    Jaber filed her complaints with the Regional Managed Assigned Counsel Office (RMACO), which is a nonprofit that assigns public defenders to district courts in Wayne County. According to the suit, RMACO Director Teresa Patton, who originally recruited Jaber to serve as one of the two lead public defenders for the 35th District Court, didn’t take her complaints seriously and refused to meet with Jaber after she retained counsel.

    On Feb. 13, Patton notified Jaber that she could only represent indigent clients in front of Judge Michael J. Gerou, one of three judges for the 35th District Court. The move cut “her workload and thus her income by half,” the lawsuit states.

    Patton warned Jaber that if she filed a lawsuit over the issue, she would be removed entirely from the court system.

    The lawsuit alleges the judges and RMACO violated her First Amendment Rights, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act.

    Jaber says her experience demonstrates the systematic mistreatment of indigent defendants at 35th District Court, which has a reputation among criminal defense attorneys of being unfair to defendants, especially those who cannot afford to hire their own attorneys.

    “Wayne County has a difficult time recruiting a criminal defense attorney to accept appointments for indigent defendants at the 35th District Court because of the Court’s reputation among the bar as being generally inhospitable to public defenders who vigorously defend cases and generally allowing its staff to be extremely and inappropriately hostile,” the suit alleges.

    Four defense attorneys told Metro Times on condition of anonymity that they try to avoid the 35 District Court because their clients often receive unfair treatment.

    “It is hard enough to be a defendant in this justice system, and I always wonder if you can ever get a fair shake,” Jaber says. “When a court and its personnel treat people like this, I know it makes defendants lose hope and faith that the outcome is unfair. Defendants represented by someone who won’t put the work into their defense can face potential life-changing consequences with longer loss of liberty or more serious convictions that affect their future, even at the district court level.”

    Metro Times couldn’t reach the 35th Circuit judges or RMACO for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Steve Neavling

    Source link

  • No shorter jail sentence for marijuana trafficker Masecchia – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    No shorter jail sentence for marijuana trafficker Masecchia – Medical Marijuana Program Connection

    [ad_1]

    A judge has rejected a request for a shorter prison sentence from a former schoolteacher who admitted receiving help from a federal agent, Joseph Bongiovanni, in trafficking marijuana into Buffalo and its suburbs.






    Michael Masecchia, left, walks out of federal court accompanied by his lawyer, Patrick Brown, after being sentenced to 7 years in prison for trafficking marijuana. 

    Michael Masecchia, who in May 2022 was sentenced to seven years in prison, recently wrote the federal court in Buffalo seeking a retroactive sentence reduction and a court-appointed lawyer to help him make his case for the reduction.

    Masecchia based his request on sweeping changes to sentencing guidelines by the U.S. Sentencing Commission that took effect in November.

    The changes lowered the guideline sentencing ranges for defendants under…

    [ad_2]

    MMP News Author

    Source link

  • Sorority Says Rules Allow Transgender Woman At Wyoming Chapter

    Sorority Says Rules Allow Transgender Woman At Wyoming Chapter

    [ad_1]

    CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Sorority rules allow a transgender woman to belong to its University of Wyoming chapter, and a court can’t interfere with that, a sorority being sued over the matter says in seeking the lawsuit’s dismissal.

    Seven members of Kappa Kappa Gamma at Wyoming’s only four-year state university sued in March, saying the sorority violated its own rules by admitting Artemis Langford last year. Six of the women refiled the lawsuit in May after a judge twice barred them from suing anonymously.

    The Kappa Kappa Gamma motion to dismiss, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne, is the sorority’s first substantive response to the lawsuit, other than a March statement by its executive director, Kari Kittrell Poole, that the complaint contains “numerous false allegations.”

    “The central issue in this case is simple: do the plaintiffs have a legal right to be in a sorority that excludes transgender women? They do not,” the motion to dismiss reads.

    The policy of Kappa Kappa Gamma since 2015 has been to allow the sorority’s more than 145 chapters to accept transgender women. The policy mirrors those of the 25 other sororities in the National Panhellenic Conference, the umbrella organization for sororities in the U.S. and Canada, according to the Kappa Kappa Gamma filing.

    The sorority sisters opposed to Langford’s induction could presumably change the policy if most sorority members shared their view, or they could resign if “a position of inclusion is too offensive to their personal values,” the sorority’s motion to dismiss says.

    “What they cannot do is have this court define their membership for them,” the motion asserts, adding that “private organizations have a right to interpret their own governing documents.”

    Even if they didn’t, the motion to dismiss says, the lawsuit fails to show how the sorority violated or unreasonably interpreted Kappa Kappa Gamma bylaws.

    The sorority sisters’ lawsuit asks U.S. District Court Judge Alan Johnson to declare Langford’s sorority membership void and to award unspecified damages.

    The lawsuit claims Langford’s presence in the Kappa Kappa Gamma house made some sorority members uncomfortable. Langford would sit on a couch for hours while “staring at them without talking,” the lawsuit alleges.

    The lawsuit also names the national Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority council president, Mary Pat Rooney, and Langford as defendants. The court lacks jurisdiction over Rooney, who lives in Illinois and hasn’t been involved in Langford’s admission, according to the sorority’s motion to dismiss.

    The lawsuit fails to state any claim of wrongdoing by Langford and seeks no relief from her, an attorney for Langford wrote in a separate filing Tuesday in support of the sorority’s motion to dismiss the case.

    Instead, the women suing “fling dehumanizing mud” throughout the lawsuit “to bully Ms. Langford on the national stage,” Langford’s filing says.

    “This, alone, merits dismissal,” the Langford document adds.

    One of the seven Kappa Kappa Gamma members at the University of Wyoming who sued dropped out of the case when Johnson ruled they couldn’t proceed anonymously. The six remaining plaintiffs are Jaylyn Westenbroek, Hannah Holtmeier, Allison Coghan, Grace Choate, Madeline Ramar and Megan Kosar.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge Aileen Cannon Is A Wildcard In Trump Documents Trial — And It’s Causing Controversy

    Judge Aileen Cannon Is A Wildcard In Trump Documents Trial — And It’s Causing Controversy

    [ad_1]

    Aileen Cannon, the U.S. district judge appointed to oversee former President Donald Trump’s trial over his handling of classified documents, faces heavy scrutiny after her previous decision favoring Trump in a related case was overturned and found to be riddled with errors.

    Democrats in Congress have called for Cannon to recuse herself from overseeing the case against the former president on 37 felony counts, which include mishandling classified documents, obstruction and making false statements, because of her previous favorable disposition toward him.

    “I’m very concerned about her prior rulings and her potential mindset in this case,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “In the interests of justice, she might well consider recusing herself.”

    “The standard … is whether it would cause a reasonable person to question the integrity and impartiality of the proceedings, and I think she has come very close to completely discrediting her own potential impartiality and objectivity with respect to Donald Trump, so that would be the wiser way for her to go, but obviously that’s up to her,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

    In this video image provided by the Senate Judiciary Committee, Aileen Cannon testifies virtually during her nomination hearing on July 29, 2020. She was nominated by President Donald Trump to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, with her confirmation coming a week after Trump lost the presidential election.

    Senate Judiciary Committee via Associated Press

    Senate Judiciary Committee chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he was “concerned” about her selection as the trial judge for this case but hopes “that she really does her very best to be neutral and a good judge.”

    Trump was arraigned at a Miami federal courtroom on Tuesday and pleaded not guilty to all charges against him.

    Cannon, one of the youngest and least experienced federal judges, was nominated by Trump for the U.S. District Court seat in 2020 and confirmed a few days after Trump lost the election. She came into the spotlight in September 2022 after she released an opinion that temporarily suspended the investigation into Trump’s possession of classified documents following an FBI search of his residence at the Mar-a-Lago private club in Florida. Her opinion ordered investigators not use the seized classified documents until a special master appointed by her reviewed the documents, as Trump’s lawyers had requested.

    In doing so, she declared that Trump, as a former president, faced “reputational harm” of a “decidedly different order of magnitude” than another person who faced a similar search, seizure and potential indictment. Trump is again seeking the presidency in the 2024 election.

    A panel of two Trump nominees and one Barack Obama nominee on the U.S. Circuit Court for the 11th District overturned Cannon’s opinion in strong terms later in September. In repeatedly noting Cannon’s multiple errors and omissions, the court declared that “the district court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over [Trump’s] motion as it concerns the classified documents.”

    The strong rebuke revealed Cannon’s decision to be a sop to Trump. This is what tarnished her reputation as potentially biased in favor of the president who nominated her to the federal bench. And now, by random assignment, Cannon will have power to help Trump again. She was randomly assigned the case from a pool of five available judges within the U.S. District Court that hears cases in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties.

    Her appointment produced a broad outcry from Democrats and legal observers across the political spectrum, who worried that her previous flawed decision after the Mar-a-Lago FBI search showed that she could not appear as an unbiased judge in another case involving Trump.

    “Given the importance of this case, perhaps the most important criminal trial in the history of the United States — certainly the most watched — and in light of what Judge Cannon did in the search-and-seizure case last year, I think she must step aside,” Stephen Gillers, an expert on judicial ethics at the New York University School of Law, told The New Yorker.

    “For a case as important as this one, it’s critical to have a judge who is experienced, smart, and impartial,” Michael Bromwich, a former Department of Justice inspector general and lawyer for the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra scandal of the late 1980s, tweeted. “Judge Cannon fails on each of these dimensions. If she has any self-awareness, she should recuse herself.”

    This isn’t to say that she will be biased in her second go-around hearing arguments on Trump’s alleged illegal retention of classified documents.

    Former President Donald Trump waves as he makes a visit to the Cuban restaurant Versailles in Miami after he pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges on Tuesday.
    Former President Donald Trump waves as he makes a visit to the Cuban restaurant Versailles in Miami after he pleaded not guilty to 37 federal charges on Tuesday.

    Alon Skuy via Getty Images

    “There is a need for caution in terms of people’s hyperbole regarding the likelihood that Judge Cannon will preside over this prosecution,” Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security cases, said via email. “The earlier procedural matters before her were different in terms of nature (they were civil) and substance (it was only about a Special Master review).”

    Still, the presiding judge in a trial like this one does have significant leeway to delay or derail a prosecution if they so desire.

    There are questions of what evidence will be allowed to be admitted into court. Trump’s lawyers have already sought to strike testimony and evidence from Trump’ ex-lawyer Evan Corcoran as a violation of attorney-client privilege. They are also likely to challenge everything from the legality of the search warrant to the ability of Trump to hold the government documents in question under the Presidential Records Act.

    In each instance, Cannon will be able to rule on what evidence can be admitted and whose testimony can be heard. If she sides with Trump, the prosecution can appeal, but that will create further delays as campaigning for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination is already underway.

    Cannon can also influence the case during the jury selection process. Since trial judges have a lot of leeway to call out potential juror bias, Cannon could pack the jury with people who are sympathetic to Trump. With the jury needing to reach a unanimous verdict, even one biased juror could cause a mistrial.

    Any and all of these decisions could be appealed by the prosecution. And evidence of favoritism toward Trump could lead to a later request for Cannon’s recusal.

    “If she was acting out of the traditional bounds of what are very commonplace procedures, the 11th Circuit and the prosecutors would note it very quickly,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Still, this all threatens to drag out the proceedings.

    “While the odds are not in Mr. Trump’s favor on any of those issues, judges can be wild cards and there is always the possibility that the government will be forced to seek immediate appellate review of any adverse pre-trial rulings,” Moss said in an email. “If nothing more, that review could further delay the start of a trial and risk pushing it back until after the 2024 election.”

    That works to Trump’s benefit. He wants to delay a verdict as long as possible because his indictment now stalls all other ongoing investigations. More important, he hopes that he can win the 2024 election and, once in the White House again, he would be protected from prosecution and could even attempt to pardon himself.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans Rip Biden Court Pick For Bungling Questions On Constitution

    Republicans Rip Biden Court Pick For Bungling Questions On Constitution

    [ad_1]

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Tuesday criticized one of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees for blanking on basic questions about the U.S. Constitution in her confirmation hearing last week.

    Charnelle Bjelkengren, a county superior court judge in Washington and former assistant state attorney general nominated to a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, couldn’t answer when quizzed by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) about Article II and Article V of the Constitution, and about a judicial philosophy known as “purposivism.”

    Article II sets up the presidency and the executive branch, while Article V outlines the process for amending the Constitution. Bjelkengren said she couldn’t recall what either of them did as she sat before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Wednesday.

    “Goodness gracious,” McConnell said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “Is this the caliber of legal expert with which President Biden is filling the federal bench? For lifetime appointments? Is the bar for merit and excellence really set this low?”

    Kennedy is known for his pop quizzes to judicial nominees that come before the committee. He’s done it to nominees from presidents in both parties, including one of former President Donald Trump’s nominees, Matthew Peterson, who withdrew his nomination after a particularly humiliating exchange with the Republican senator.

    Kennedy told HuffPost on Tuesday that he plans to oppose Bjelkengren’s nomination because she failed to answer his questions.

    “If you want to be an auto mechanic,” he said, “you gotta know what a spark plug is.”

    “If you want to be an auto mechanic, you gotta know what a spark plug is,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.).

    Bjelkengren’s flub clearly wasn’t great for Democrats, but they are chalking the moment up to nerves that first-time judicial nominees often experience when testifying before Congress.

    “The honest answer is there aren’t many members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who can answer all those questions,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), chairman of the committee, said of Kennedy’s propensity for asking obscure or curveball questions.

    Asked if he thinks judicial nominees should be familiar with Article II of the Constitution specifically, Durbin said, “Of course, but what I’m saying is, you’re in the middle of a hearing, a little nervous to start with…. It happens.”

    Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who put forward Bjelkengren’s nomination to Biden, is also standing by her pick.

    “Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren was recommended to me by a nonpartisan judicial merit selection committee that includes Democrats and Republicans, she has strong support from the community she would serve, and she was rated qualified by the ABA,” Murray said in a statement to HuffPost. “When we make these kinds of decisions it’s important to judge these candidates holistically — we need to look at the whole picture. I’m working to continue to build support for Judge Bjelkengren, and I hope my Republican colleagues will also support her.”

    Washington State Superior Court Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren answers questions during her Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 25, 2023.
    Washington State Superior Court Judge Charnelle Bjelkengren answers questions during her Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 25, 2023.

    The reality is that Democrats don’t need any Republicans to support Bjelkengren to get her confirmed. They now hold a 51-49 majority in the Senate, which makes a world of difference for confirming judges compared to the 50-50 split they had to contend with in the last Congress. It may only be the difference of one additional seat, but that one seat means Republicans can no longer hold up Biden’s court picks in committee or delay them on the Senate floor.

    That said, how bad is it that a nominee to a U.S. district court seat couldn’t answer questions about Article II and Article V of the Constitution?

    Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor and expert on judicial nominations, said it was a hiccup but nothing that should derail her confirmation given her background.

    “District judges never face Article V issues and Eastern District of Washington judges rarely have constitutional questions,” said Tobias. “She does have a decade of experience as a judge and state assistant attorney general, so I think she will do fine.”

    Republicans eager to pounce on Bjelkengren’s misstep are also hoping you’ll forget about how they unanimously confirmed piles of Trump’s judges who earned a rare and embarrassing “not qualified” rating by the American Bar Association.

    In his four years in office, Trump nominated 10 people to be lifetime federal judges who were rated “not qualified” for the job, and Republicans went ahead and put eight of them on the courts anyway. For some context, none of President Barack Obama’s court picks got the rating in eight years. Six of President George W. Bush’s nominees earned the rating in his two terms.

    Bjelkengren earned a “qualified” rating by the American Bar Association.

    If confirmed, Bjelkengren would be the first woman of color to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. She would also be the first Black woman to serve on any federal district court in the state of Washington.

    [ad_2]

    Source link