Judge in Adams Case Has Faced Trump Administration in Court Before
Dale E. Ho ran the American Civil Liberties Union's voting rights litigation department when President Trump's first administration tried to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.
The question, he said at the time, would 'wreck the once-in-a-decade count of the nation's population' by intimidating immigrants legal and not. In his first appearance before the Supreme Court, he argued against the plan, and the court blocked it. The administration eventually abandoned the effort.
Now, as a federal jurist in Manhattan, Judge Ho is facing the Trump administration from the other side of the bench. He is presiding over the criminal prosecution of Mayor Eric Adams and on Wednesday will hold a hearing on the government's contentious motion to dismiss the charges against the mayor. The move set off mass resignations in the Justice Department.
From the moment Mr. Adams's case was randomly handed to him in September, Judge Ho was thrust into a singular position: overseeing the first federal criminal prosecution of a sitting mayor of New York City — one who has recently allied himself closely with the president the judge once argued against in court.
Before joining the bench, he worked at the American Civil Liberties Union for about a decade. Dale E. Ho in a scene from 'The Fight,' a 2020 documentary he was featured in. Credit... Magnolia Pictures
David D. Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University, who worked closely with him at the organization, said Judge Ho was 'diligent, careful, and unstinting in his pursuit of justice.'
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New York judge blocks ICE office from opening on Rikers Island
NEW YORK (PIX11) — The Supreme Court of the State of New York has issued a preliminary injunction to block New York City Mayor Eric Adams from opening an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office at Rikers Island. The ruling on Friday came after Adams previously announced that Homeland Security would work with the NYPD and the city's Department of Correction to investigate gang activity at Rikers Island. More Local News 'The State Supreme Court's ruling will effectively prevent thousands of New Yorkers a year from being deported simply because they were accused – not even convicted – of a crime,' said the President and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition Murad Awawdeh. 'New York City should not be in the business of carrying out Donald Trump's mass disappearance agenda, which is in fact illegal under our local laws,' the statement continued. More: Latest News from Around the Tri-State ICE previously had officers on Rikers Island until 2014 when the City Council passed sanctuary laws that banned the organization from operating in NYC jails. Advocates had been hoping to block immigration officials from reestablishing an office on Rikers Island saying that the agency had been depriving defendants of due process, some of whom may be in the U.S. legally. According to court documents, judges found that reestablishing an ICE office on Rikers Island would risk 'damage to reputation, loss of goodwill, and brand tarnishment' to New York City due to its reputation as a 'Sanctuary City.' 'Moreover, the imminent threat of the loss of public trust in government institutions serves as a basis for injunctive relief,' the court document reads. The injunction makes it so that all other NYC government officials, officers, personnel and agencies are barred from creating an ICE office on Rikers until the end of the proceeding. Dominique Jack is a digital content producer from Brooklyn with more than five years of experience covering news. She joined PIX11 in 2024. More of her work can be found here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Broward judge denies violating judicial conduct code over deepfake AI call
Broward County Judge Lauren Peffer in a new court filing Friday formally denied the ethics charges filed against her, stemming from her promotion of a scandalous book and a deepfake AI recording during her campaign last year. In the routine filing with Florida's Supreme Court, Peffer denied the Judicial Qualifications Commission's charges filed last month that she violated judicial ethics rules that govern 'inappropriate political activity.' Peffer, a first-time judicial candidate, won her seat in August and began her term in January. During her campaign, which centered on trustworthiness and ethics in the judiciary, Peffer referenced in an endorsement interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board a book written and published by a former courthouse employee in the Orlando area called, 'The Ninth Circus Court of Florida, My 30-Year Job from Hell!' The book, written by someone who had been terminated, 'portrays the judiciary in the Ninth Judicial Circuit as corrupt and incompetent and attacks the character' of numerous judges, including current Chief Judge Lisa Munyon, according to the JQC's charging document. Peffer wrote in response to a Sun Sentinel editorial board questionnaire that the book's 'recent revelations' had 'highlighted an image crisis within Florida's judiciary,' according to the JQC's notice of formal charges. At the time Peffer cited the book in the Sun Sentinel interview, it lacked any published reviews and appeared to have generated no public discourse or impact, the Sun Sentinel previously reported. Asked by the Sun Sentinel about evidence of the book creating public mistrust, Peffer sent the newspaper a link to an 18-minute recording of what purported to be a phone call about the book between Munyon, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz and Justice Renatha Francis, according to the notice of charges. But the recording was fake, likely made with generative AI, and could be deemed so by 'any reasonable person,' the JQC said in its notice of charges. Broward judicial candidate drops Orlando author's self-published tell-all from her campaign stump speech Peffer was forwarded the link to the recording 'by another lawyer,' her response filed Friday said. Peffer in her response to the charges on Friday acknowledged that she had not 'carefully listened to the call but had a recollection that the judiciary was being criticized in the recording' and did not try to determine its veracity before providing it to the newspaper. 'Judge Peffer acknowledges that she should have more carefully listened to the recording before referencing it in her answers to the editorial board. In responding to these proceedings, Judge Peffer listened to the recordings without distraction, and it was immediately apparent that the purported phone call was a 'deep fake,'' her response said. However, she denied that she shared the recording 'despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,' as the JQC alleged in its charges. In her response, Peffer also admitted that she never read the disgruntled employee's book before referencing it to the Sun Sentinel and did not research the claims the employee made. 'Judge Peffer did not intend to promote the validity of the book but instead, she intended to point to the book as an example of criticism of the judiciary,' her response said. She previously acknowledged issues with the book in a July interview with the Sun Sentinel and said she would stop citing it. Peffer denied that she 'ignored' the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's training on campaign ethics as the notice of charges alleged and denied that she 'helped facilitate the former employee's farce,' according to her response.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Biden-appointed judge thwarts Trump's attempt to clean house at consumer safety agency
A federal judge in Maryland on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and ordered their reinstatement — teeing up another high-stakes court clash centered on Trump's ability as commander-in-chief to remove or otherwise control the members of independent agencies. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, sided with the three ousted members of the board — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — in ruling that their firings were unlawful and ordered all three members to be reinstated to their posts. In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does "not interfere with" Trump's executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Appeals Court Blocks Trump From Firing Federal Board Members, Tees Up Supreme Court Fight The decision is a near-term blow for Trump, and comes just weeks after the Supreme Court last month agreed to uphold, for now, Trump's removal of two Democratic appointees from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB). Both board members had challenged their terminations as "unlawful" in separate lawsuits filed in D.C. federal court. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in May to temporarily allow the firing of both board members, siding with lawyers for the Trump administration, who had urged the justices to keep both members on the job while the case continued to move through the lower courts. Read On The Fox News App In his ruling, Maddox sought to distinguish those cases from the terminations of members of the CPSC board and said that the Trump administration, in this case, had failed to identify neglect or malfeasance by any other Senate-confirmed commissioners on the CPSC, which is required by law to justify their removals. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda "For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds no constitutional defect in the statutory restriction on Plaintiffs' removal and that Plaintiffs' purported removal from office was unlawful," he said in the order. "The Court shall enter an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion, denying Defendants' motion, and providing declaratory and injunctive relief permitting Plaintiffs to resume their duties as CPSC Commissioners." The decision clears the way for the members to return to their roles on the board, pending an appeal to higher courts by the Trump administration. The case is the latest in a string of challenges centered on Trump's ability to remove members of independent boards. Like the NLRB and MSPB rulings, it centers on the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. Maddox invoked the uncertainty created by the preliminary posture of the NLRB and MSPB cases, which saw both plaintiffs removed and reinstated to their positions multiple times — which he said was the basis for ordering more permanent injunctive relief. "Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again," said Maddox. "The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment."Original article source: Biden-appointed judge thwarts Trump's attempt to clean house at consumer safety agency
