U.S. files suit against New York State over courthouse arrest law
The Department of Justice has named New York Gov. Kathleen Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James as the defendants in the lawsuit filed Thursday with the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of New York that seeks to have New York's "Protect Our Courts Act" ruled unlawful.
The act, signed into law in December of 2020, provides a "privilege against civil arrest" for anyone traveling to or from, or involved in court proceedings, whether that be for themselves or in support for family or household members when they need to appear in court.
The law further states that only judicially signed orders or warrants can be executed in court buildings, and such warrants must also be reviewed by the court, which then determines where and when a warrant can be executed, and how it may be implemented.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a press release Thursday that New York is "employing sanctuary city policies to prevent illegal aliens from apprehension."
She added that the suit "underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law."
Chair of the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal responded to the legal action with astatement Thursday in which he called the lawsuit "baseless and frivolous, and "part and parcel of the Trump administration's ongoing assault on the rule of law in New York."
Hoylman-Sigal also insisted that the Protect our Courts Act is "well within the established purview of state law," and doesn't apply to federal or immigration courts, and permits Immigration and Customs Enforcement to make arrests with valid judicial warrants.
"At a time when masked ICE officials are roaming the state and lawlessly detaining New Yorkers without any due process, the law preserves access to justice and participation in the judicial process," Hoylman-Sigal said.
Hel was one of two New York legislators who wrote a letter to state Attorney General James in March when someone was allegedly detained by federal law enforcement while inside a state courthouse.
Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate also said in the Justice Department press release that the act allows New York to obstruct "federal law enforcement and facilitates the evasion of federal law by dangerous criminals, notwithstanding federal agents' statutory mandate to detain and remove illegal aliens."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
New players may have window to disrupt after trucks exit California emissions deals
As the nation's major truckmakers seek to abandon California's stricter-than-federal emissions rules, experts are weighing whether this U-turn could allow new players to disrupt the market. 'All your competitors just announced their strategy,' Craig Segall, former deputy executive officer and assistant chief counsel of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), told The Hill. 'How quickly can you ramp up to eat their lunch?' Segall asked. This now unmasked strategy — an about-face on compliance with the Golden State's heavy-duty vehicle standards — came to light this week when four manufacturers sued California regulators over the matter. Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) declared that a voluntary 'Clean Truck Partnership' between the companies and the state was 'unenforceable.' Then, Friday, the Department of Justice sued California about the same partnership, in a bid to 'advance President Donald J. Trump's commitment to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate.' The week's initial lawsuit, filed Monday by Daimler Truck, International Motors, PACCAR and the Volvo Group, alleged the federal government had deemed California's emissions rules 'unlawful' in June. At the time, President Trump signed off on three congressional resolutions revoking a Biden administration waiver that had allowed the state to set these rules. Under the 1970 Clean Air Act, California can create emissions standards that are stricter than federal norms but must acquire a waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency to do so. In Monday's filing, the truckmakers — also called original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) — argued California's demands have 'threatened' their ability to 'design, develop, manufacture and sell heavy-duty vehicles and engines.' The lawsuit noted the Department of Justice had instructed manufacturers 'to immediately cease and desist compliance with California's preempted and unlawful mandates,' leaving the companies 'caught in the crossfire.' CARB said it would not comment on pending litigation. The FTC declaration that followed on Tuesday determined a 2023 voluntary agreement between truckmakers and CARB — the 'Clean Truck Partnership' — was 'unenforceable.' In that partnership, the companies had agreed to abide by California's emissions standards in exchange for certain concessions. One such standard was the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, requiring 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. A second, the Omnibus Regulation, focused on slashing nitrogen oxide releases by 90 percent and updating engine testing protocols. Segall described Monday's lawsuit as 'an audacious move,' noting in a Thursday op-ed that truckmakers just two years ago supported the Clean Truck Partnership, which he helped negotiate. He accused companies such as Daimler, which controls 40 percent of the country's truck market, of 'badly letting the trucking industry down.' Meanwhile, he warned, China is accelerating electric truck adoption. A possible goal of the sudden turnaround is to move costs onto the industry and 'to drag out the transition from diesel as long as possible,' Segall told The Hill. Because the companies haven't faced serious new competition yet — disruptors such as Tesla in the car space — and have the federal administration 'clearly on their side,' they 'can burn the regulators for the fourth largest economy in the world,' Segall observed. Yet at the same time, Segall noted, the truckmakers are up against a billion-person market in China, where other manufacturers 'are rapidly eating their market share.' The U.S. trucking giants, he continued, could jeopardize their presence in the world market while also getting the country 'stuck in diesel for a few years.' 'That's not a long-term win for them,' Segall said, arguing things may change when a new president enters office in 2029. The new president might realize 'with horror, the U.S. is badly behind on EVs,' Segall said. Policymakers at that point, he explained, could either revive CARB's rules or enact national-level legislation. Rather than leaving the freight system 'stuck in diesel' in 2040, Segall said he believes the industry will return 'hat in hand' to Congress and California. Pointing to the fact that delivery firms such as Amazon have smaller EV trucks operating nationwide, Segall forecast that 'giant semitrailers' will make a similar transition soon. With that in mind, he stressed there is 'an interesting opening' for other competitors, such as Chinese electric truck startup Windrose. Industry veteran Rustam Kocher echoed these sentiments in a recent post on LinkedIn, calling upon Windrose, other Chinese e-truck manufacturers and Tesla Semi to fill in this gap and 'let the market-share eating competition commence.' 'This industry is changing, just like the light-duty industry is changing,' Kocher told The Hill. While Kocher said he believes the companies made their decisions due to the short-term profit margins, he argued that 'the profitability they're going to gain off of combustion engines is going to change.' 'At some point, the resale value of those things is going to drop off the end of the Earth,' he added, noting Windrose or Tesla Semi are 'perfect examples' of market entrants that could perform better and cheaper. Kocher, who is now semiretired in Portugal, worked in various electrification-related roles for Daimler Truck North America from 2011-19 and then served as transportation electrification manager for Portland General Electric. During his time at Daimler, he said he helped launch the e-mobility group and worked on developing fast-charging standards 'with the full support of Daimler Truck, with the full support of everyone else in the trucking OEM world.' Kocher acknowledged that from a business perspective, although electric trucks are viable, they are not currently as profitable as existing diesel trucks and cost more up front. Yet they cost less to operate per mile and save money for fleets due to their reduced maintenance needs — needs that drive profits for truckmakers, according to Kocher. 'Every electric truck they put into the market means they're taking a cut on profit,' he said. 'They're not going to make those maintenance and after-sale part sales.' Recognizing the profitability 'conundrum' that the industry is facing, Kocher expressed sadness that the firms he had held in high esteem decided to choose this direction. 'To see them turn around and do this, it's made me very disappointed and frustrated,' he added.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
This Small Town Is Seeking a 225% Property Tax Increase
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Homeowners in the small town of Wellington, Utah, could soon be facing much larger property tax bills as city authorities are seeking a more than 225 percent increase after years of stalling rates. A looming decision on the property tax hike was postponed on Wednesday by the Wellington City Council after an hourslong public hearing on the same day revealed the depth of residents' concerns over the potential financial burden they could shoulder from a hike. It is a burden that has gotten heavier for millions of Americans across the country in recent years, as property tax bills have raised in step with home values following the pandemic homebuying frenzy. Nationwide, according to a report by Redfin, property taxes rose by nearly 30 percent between 2019 and 2024, reaching a monthly median of $250. 'A Pretty Harsh Thing To Swallow' Under the proposal made by Wellington authorities, the property tax on a $256,000 residence would increase from $216.41 to $704.00, which is $487.59 per year. The tax on a $256,000 business would increase from $393.47 to $1,280.00, which is $886.53 per year. During the public hearing on Wednesday, Wellington Mayor Jack Clark told a room packed with residents critical of introducing such a steep increase that the hike was necessary. "This is a pretty harsh thing to swallow," Clark said, as reported by Castle Country Radio. The revenues generated by higher property taxes, he said, will be used for public safety, road repairs, utilities, and other operations essential to keep the city running." Newsweek reached out to the mayor's office via email. A low-angle shot of house construction in Utah. A low-angle shot of house construction in Utah. Getty Images The tax hike, if implemented, would bring the city's revenues up to $1,646,775—which would still leave a gap of $26,550 when compared to Wellington's total expenses, which amount to $1,673,325 according to the city. Without the tax hike, the city would face a shortfall of $400,000. "This is about preserving the city we have and preserving the future," Clark said. The Highest Increase in the State—but Not the Only One The 225.3 percent property tax hike requested by Wellington authorities was the highest sought by in the entire state of Utah for 2026, according to data shared by the Utah Taxpayers Association, an advocacy group calling for lower taxes and sound tax policy in the state. "Wellington is a victim of its previous elected officials not being willing to make the hard decisions," a spokesperson for the Utah Taxpayers Association told Newsweek. "While the mayor explained in his comments [on Wednesday] that those before him could have done more to prevent such a dramatic increase, he's now left having to figure out how to get the city in a good spot, financially speaking." But Wellington was not the only small town in the state that pursued double-digit increases. Uintah City was seeking a property tax increase of 100 percent; Gunnison City of 78.89 percent; Eureka City of 72.21 percent; Howell City of 65.86 percent; and Willard City of 45.51 percent. Some of these cities still have to hold truth-in-taxation hearings during which residents have a chance to comment on the proposal's to hike their property taxes. During such a meeting on Wednesday, Wellington residents expressed their concerns over such a massive increase being suddenly implemented. "I'm heartbroken because I thought this would be a forever house," resident Erin Hansen said during the meeting, as reported by Castle Country Radio. "But the reality is these taxes are going to be more than my mortgage. I can't afford to live here." City authorities say the proposed hike is so high because Wellington has not increased property taxes since 2017. But residents think that officials should not try to make up for lost time in one large hike. "I'm imploring you guys to make some of those overdue needs overdue some more," resident Bill Barnes said. According to the Utah Taxpayers Association, the state system is setup up "such that elected officials cannot ignore property taxes. They need to make hard decisions and work hard with their constituents to educate and inform them as to why an increase is needed." The group applauds the current elected officials for "having the courage to get Wellington back in the black in its finances but caution them to not forget about property taxes in 5-7 years when it will likely be time to make another adjustment." What Happens Next While the decision to postpone a potential approval of the hike was something of a victory for local residents, city officials could still decide to green light the 225 percent increase later in the year. Wellington City Council has until October to make a decision over the hike.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Americans Fear End of Social Security as They Know It
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Seven in 10 Americans worry that Social Security won't be there for them when they retire, according to new survey from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies (TCRS). TCRS is a division of Transamerica Institute (TI), a nonprofit, private operating foundation, and conducts one of the largest and longest-running annual retirement surveys of its kind. For generations, Social Security, which celebrated its 90th anniversary on August 14, has formed the bedrock of retirement income for tens of millions of Americans, and also pays out benefits to disabled people and survivors of deceased workers. However, despite its enduring popularity and importance, it faces a looming insolvency crisis that lawmakers have less than 10 years to solve. The survey from TCRS, which polled 10,009 adults above the age of 18 between September 11 and October 17, 2024, found that among non-retirees, 71 percent agreed with the statement: "I am concerned that when I am ready to retire, Social Security will not be there for me." Almost nine in 10 Americans (87 percent) have one or more greatest retirement fears, ranging from health to financial. The top two greatest fears are declining health that would require long-term care (39 percent) followed by Social Security being reduced or ceasing to exist in the future (37 percent). According to the latest report from the Social Security Trustees, the program's two trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds—are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would be funded solely through incoming payroll taxes, triggering an automatic cut of around 21 percent unless Congress takes action. While several options have been tabled by lawmakers to fix the issue, such as The Fair Share Act and raising the retirement age, no meaningful progress has been made. Doug Carey, founder of WealthTrace and a chartered financial planner, told Newsweek that the main driver of fears around Social Security's longevity is this political inaction. "I believe it's the political climate and the lack of action over many administrations," he said. "Most politicians do not want to touch benefits since they believe it will only hurt their reputation and reelection chances now. That is why this keeps getting pushed into the future until it simply has to be addressed." Stock image/file photo: An elderly woman holding an empty wallet. Stock image/file photo: An elderly woman holding an empty wallet. GETTY The study also revealed Americans are concerned about seeing their personal savings through their post-working years. Sixty-three percent of Americans said they either believe they won't save enough to meet their needs by the time they retire or, if already retired, they failed to save enough—28 percent "strongly agree" and 35 percent "somewhat agree" with that statement. And for nearly a third of Americans—32 percent—Social Security is expected to be their primary source of retirement income. That compares with 29 percent who expect to rely primarily on retirement accounts, 12 percent on other savings and investments, and 11 percent on continued work. Only 9 percent see a company-funded pension as their main income source. The survey also showed that reliance on Social Security is even greater among retired women with six in 10 women retirees (59 percent) indicating it is their primary source of income, compared with 47 percent of men retirees. For those not yet retired, 29 percent of women and 22 percent of men said Social Security was their expected primary source of retirement income. Carey added that many Americans are already adjusting their retirement plans based on the assumption of reduced benefits. "What many people are doing is simply assuming their benefits will be cut by anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent. They can then plan accordingly by retiring later, saving more, or changing their planned spending in retirement," he said. Some, Carey noted, choose to claim benefits early at age 62 to "lock in" payments, believing they are less likely to be reduced once started. Jackson Ruggiero, co-founder of told Newsweek that the poll's findings are unsurprising. "The program is facing real financial challenges, but just as importantly, people don't trust Congress to fix it in time," he said. "Because of this uncertainty, many people are changing how they plan for retirement. Younger workers especially are focusing more on personal savings through 401(k)s and IRAs, and some are assuming they'll get little or nothing from Social Security. That's understandable, but also a bit extreme." Looking forward, Ruggiero advised a balanced approach for those concerned about their retirement savings and the future of Social Security. "Plan like your benefits might be reduced, not gone. Save what you can now, take advantage of employer retirement plans, and if possible, delay taking Social Security to get a bigger monthly check," he said. Both experts agreed on one point—Congress is moving too slowly to fix the looming insolvency dilemma. "They are doing nothing, and I predict they won't do anything until the year where it's clear Social Security benefits will have to be cut. Currently that is 2033," Carey warned. This is not the first time Social Security has faced a funding cliff. In the early 1980s, the trust funds were similarly close to depletion. Lawmakers responded with reforms that included faster payroll tax increases, a gradual rise in the retirement age, and taxation of some Social Security benefits. "Social Security has served as the cornerstone of retirement income since its establishment nine decades ago. It provides millions of older Americans with guaranteed income, so that they can retire with greater financial security," Catherine Collinson, CEO and president of Transamerica Institute, said. "With the estimated depletion of the Social Security trust funds looming large, now is the time for policymakers to identify reforms that can help ensure the program's sustainability for the next 90 years."
