New York's ethics watchdog ruled constitutional by state's top court
The Commission on Ethics and Lobbying in Government had been fighting for its survival after Cuomo's lawyers persuaded lower courts that the panel was given unconstitutional enforcement powers. Cuomo contended that the law creating the agency violated the separation of powers mandated under the state constitution, since enforcing ethics laws is a power that belongs to the executive branch.
The Court of Appeals sided with the commission in a 4-3 vote, reversing lower court rulings.
Judge Jenny Rivera wrote in a majority opinion that the law creating the commission gives it narrow powers to avoid having top state officials regulating their own ethics.
" Trust in government is essential to democracy because its erosion leads to apathy, disaffection, and the breakdown of civic institutions," Rivera wrote. 'Given the danger of self-regulation, the Legislature and the Governor have determined that there is an urgent need for the robust, impartial enforcement of the State's ethics and lobbying laws.'
The commission was formed by the Legislature and Gov. Kathy Hochul as a more independent alternative to a previous ethics panel widely criticized for being overly beholden to top government officials. It debuted in the wake of Cuomo's 2021 resignation in a sexual harassment scandal.
Cuomo was fighting an attempt by the commission that could force him to forfeit $5 million he got for writing a book about his administration's efforts during the COVID-19 pandemic. State officials claim Cuomo hadn't kept a promise not to use any state resources on the book. Cuomo denies those allegations.
A trial court judge sided with Cuomo in 2023, noting that enforcing ethics laws is a power that belongs to the executive branch, yet the governor cannot control ethics commission members, force them to explain their actions or remove them for neglecting their duties, the judge wrote. A mid-level appeals court upheld the judge's ruling in May.
The ruling Tuesday lifts a cloud of uncertainty that has been looming over the commission for more than a year and was cheered by good government advocates.
The commission's leadership released a prepared statement saying the top court's validation 'is especially important now, when the need for an agency with our mission is as great as it has ever been."
Judge Michael Garcia wrote in a dissent that the law forming the commission violated constitutional 'bedrock principles' requiring a separation of powers. He accused the majority of focusing on the individual powers granted to the commission under the statute and pronouncing 'each, in turn, not wolf. But step back — it's not grandma; it's a wolf.'
'We intend to file for reconsideration — as is our right,' Cuomo spokesperson Richard Azzopardi wrote in an email, 'but it is disturbing that any judge of NY's highest court would countenance flagrant violations of the constitution when it conflicts with what is most convenient to the political class.'
Cuomo resigned in August 2021 after the attorney general released the results of an investigation that concluded he had sexually harassed at least 11 women. Cuomo has denied those allegations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
5 hours ago
- Metro
Thousands of mice, rats and birds have plagued Parliament for the last five year
Thousands of pests have been caught in the corridors of Westminster, Metro can reveal. Pest controllers have had to tackle over 3,000 reports of mice, rats, insects and birds in Parliament, data from the House of Commons and Lords shows. Issues with unpleasant critters appear to be on the up as well, with the first six months of 2025 seeing almost as many call-outs as the whole of 2022. Westminster's pest team logged more than 3,000 reports of pests in the Parliamentary Estate since 2020. An army of mice is causing MPs and Lords the most issues, with more than 1,000 incidents to do with the small rodents. The problem has become so bad that Labour peer Lord Gardiner of Kimble called for cats to be brought in to tackle the vermin in July. They aren't the only challenge, though. Pesky moths flapping around have triggered more than 150 reports in the last five years. Others pests have also been caught scuttling around the corridors of Westminster. Dozens of rats and other 'mammals' have also been discovered in recent years. Parliament's pest control team has also been dispatched to eradicate scores of unspecified 'insects' and flies in the lobbies and grounds. Despite already employing baits, traps and hawks to prevent pests, issues appear to be on the rise. During the first two years of the Covid pandemic, there were fewer than 400 pests reported in the Lord's and shared spaces. But in 2022, that was at 578, and by last year it had hit 773. In the first six months of 2025, pest controllers have already tackled 516 reports. The pest control data was uncovered through Freedom of Information requests filed by Metro. The House of Lords provided numbers dating back to 2020, covering not just the House of Lords but also spaces shared with the House of Commons in Parliament. The House of Commons only revealed its pest incidents from August 2024 onwards. Some of the data covered in both responses might be duplicates of the same pest report, the House of Lords stressed. The Parliamentary Estate itself is massive, covering 16 football pitches, over 1,000 rooms and three miles of passageways. With buildings that date back to the tenth century, and its location next to the River Thames, the site has always been vulnerable to pests. It was revealed last year that Parliament has paid over £100,000 a year for pest control since 2014. In 2023-24 that figure rose to £136,000 – £10,000 higher than the previous 12 months, according to Daily Mail. More Trending A spokesperson for UK Parliament stressed it is a safe and hygienic place to work. They told Metro: 'With an area of over 250,000 m2, the number of pest control callouts for the Parliamentary Estate remains broadly in line with expectations, given the size and complexity of our building portfolio – one of the largest in Westminster and representing dozens of sites. 'We are committed to maintaining a humane and ethical pest control programme, focussed on preventative measures and the use of various control methods 'Increases in costs can be attributed to both inflation and increased building work on the Estate, though value for money remains a key consideration and we continue to follow all regulatory obligations.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Man arrested at pro-Palestine protest after police misread 'Plasticine Action' T-shirt MORE: 'Brazen' drug dealers selling cocaine during Mass at the UK's biggest Catholic cathedral MORE: MPs being landlords would be comical if it wasn't so offensive
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump goal to abolish mail-in voting sparks debate for next elections
"The Constitution gives states and Congress the power to run elections," said Michael Waldman, CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. "Presidents have no lawful role." But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Aug. 19 that Trump would work with lawmakers to end mail-in voting because "this is a priority for the president." Here's what you need to know: How popular is mail-in voting? Mail-in voting is widespread and popular. Out of 155 million votes cast in 2024, nearly 47 million were mailed in, according to the Election Assistance Commission. Most states allow absentee voting for no reason, but some states require an excuse to avoid showing up in person. Eight states and Washington, DC, allow elections to be conducted entirely by mail, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington state mail ballots to all registered voters. Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said vote-by-mail elections are secure, accurate and honest. "If he actually understood or cared about the American people, he'd know mail-in-voting is the best way to protect everyone's right to vote, especially rural folks, elderly people and hourly workers," Read said. "Mail-in-voting meets citizens exactly where they are: in their living rooms and around their kitchen tables." Trump seeks to end mail-in voting Trump said Aug. 18 he would sign an executive order to abolish mail-in voting, which he slammed as vulnerable to fraud. Trump has long complained about absentee voting, since before the COVID-19 pandemic that shut down many in-person events. "We're going to end mail-in voting," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "It's a fraud." Trump's announcement came while special House races are pending in Arizona and Tennessee; New Jersey and Virginia will be choosing governors in November this year; and some big-city mayors will be chosen in New York and elsewhere. The whole country will be voting on House races and one-third of the Senate 2026, and for president in 2028. Despite Trump's claims, election experts said voting is the most secure in history. "As we have said repeatedly, our election infrastructure has never been more secure and the election community never better prepared to deliver safe, secure, free and fair elections for the American people," Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, said after the 2024 election. David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research, which works with election officials of both parties to ensure secure elections, said ballots are the most verifiable and recountable in history with only Louisiana not voting on paper. Audits confirm the results, he said. And Congress approved ID requirements to register to vote in the 2002 Help America Vote Act, which followed the razor-thin victory of President George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000. Trump, Democrats expect political fight over mail-in ballots Trump argued the 2020 presidential result was rigged after what his aides called a "red mirage" of an Election Day lead disappeared as mail-in ballots were counted and Joe Biden won the White House. "I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS," Trump said in a social media post Aug. 18 advocating an end to mail-in voting. During the 2024 campaign, Republicans supported mail-in voting to avoid handing Democrats an advantage even as Trump occasionally criticized them. But the GOP sought an Election Day deadline for mailed ballots to be counted. Leavitt said the White House will work with lawmakers at federal and state levels to change the law. "When the Congress comes back to Washington, I'm sure there will be many discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill and also our friends in state Legislatures across the country to ensure we're protecting the integrity of the vote for the American people," Leavitt said. But Democrats vowed to fight Trump efforts to undermine mail-in voting. While Republicans in the House could potentially approve a bill, it would face a steep challenge in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster and where the GOP holds a 53-47 majority. "Senate Democrats will make sure that any and every measure that would make it even more difficult for Americans to vote will be dead on arrival in the Senate and will continue to fight to protect our democracy," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York. Experts: States control election rules, not presidents The Constitution unambiguously says states regulate elections and only Congress can change that, Becker said. "Getting rid of mail voting, which has been around since at least the U.S. Civil War, and which is offered by the vast majority of states, red and blue, is an incredibly bad idea that would make our elections much less secure and vulnerable to interference," said Becker, a former election lawyer at the Justice Department. "He has zero power to change election policy with the swipe of the pen, as the founders expressly stated." Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said Trump "has no constitutional authority to end mail voting by executive order." "The Framers of the U.S. Constitution took care to keep the main responsibility for administering elections with the states and localities, which are in no way mere 'agents' of federal authorities," Olson said. Advocacy groups expect lawsuits if Trump moves against mail-in voting Federal courts have repeatedly recognized the state role in elections, including when a judge largley blocked Trump's March executive order dealing with elections. In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, an appointee of President Barack Obama, blocked parts of Trump's order that sought to require voters to prove they are citizens and to prevent states from counting mail-in ballots after Election Day. Trump is appealing. "The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections," Casper wrote. Advocacy groups said getting rid of mail-in voting could discourage millions of people who appreciate the flexiblity of avoiding voting in person on Election Day. "Many veterans, grappling with service-related disabilities like mobility impairments or PTSD, rely on this accessible method to vote independently and privately from home, avoiding the physical and emotional toll of in-person polling," said Naveed Shah, political director for Common Defense, a group representing military veterans and their families. Advocates from several groups expected lawsuits to challenge any Trump order seeking to abolish mail-in voting. "We are prepared to protect mail-in voting in court against unfounded and unconstitutional attacks, as we have in Pennsylvania, Mississippi and other states," said Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project. "Access to mail-in voting is necessary to a fair and inclusive electoral process."
The Herald Scotland
12 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will the real JK Rowling please stand up?
She also dwelt on her mental health being affected whilst working at Amnesty International. There she interviewed survivors of killing and torture to the extent that 'I began to have nightmares, literal nightmares, about some of the things I saw, heard, and read'. Now fast forward 17 years to the JK Rowling of 2025. The one who published a supposed "critique" of Nicola Sturgeon's biography but which in reality consisted of little more than a litany of personal abuse about the former First Minister set alongside derogatory comments about transwomen. Conspicuously absent was a lack of empathy for others, especially for the "literal nightmares" Ms Sturgeon was experiencing as a result of having to stand in front of the cameras every day during Covid to announce the latest death toll. The First Minister also found herself accused of somehow being personally responsible for these deaths. However, instead of offering sympathy based on her own experiences Ms Rowling opines: 'Her English fans can't be expected to know about every single clusterf*** over which the supposedly competent Sturgeon presided.' Transwomen fare little better, being somewhat simplistically described as merely men who 'put on dresses and call themselves women'. No attempt there at encouraging people 'to wonder how it would feel to have been born other than they are'. Last but not least we have the dreadful irony of somebody whose power and wealth are derived from her ability to communicate with children now having to post a warning that her latest publication is not suitable for a young audience due to the sheer level of profanities contained therein. I have but one question. Which of the above is the real JK Rowling? Robert Menzies, Falkirk. Read more letters Why Sturgeon was feared Day after relentless day, your Letters Pages have been dominated by outpourings of bile directed at Nicola Sturgeon; anyone would think the woman had started an illegal war. During her time in government, Ms Sturgeon introduced policies rooted in social justice, worked tirelessly to keep us safe during the pandemic and tried to make life easier for a small minority of people. Going by the level of nasty, sneering comments, she was clearly feared by unionists as an effective operator, and did a very good job. Ruth Marr, Stirling. Character assassination Reading your correspondents' daily litany of complaints about Nicola Sturgeon's nine years as First Minister (and leaving aside the small fact that she is still alive), I can't help but reflect on Marc Antony's famous oration following the assassination of Julius Caesar – 'The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones.' Cue your correspondents' comparisons of Ms Sturgeon and Caesar perhaps? Iain Stuart, Glasgow. False depiction of a humanitarian It is disappointing that an academic would attempt to misrepresent context in order to promote personal views and to denigrate our first female First Minister. Dr Mireille Pouget (Letters, August 19) makes reference to 'Ms Sturgeon accusing women who disagreed with her of being not just transphobic, but probably racist too, and misogynistic', but this is misleading as it is a different statement from what Nicola Sturgeon actually said: 'There are people who have opposed this bill that cloak themselves in women's rights to make it acceptable, but just as they're transphobic you'll also find that they're deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well.' It would be naïve to believe that this statement applies to women in general and that it is not aimed at far-right protagonists and extremist groups such as the US anti-abortion lobby which has attempted to undermine legislation here in Scotland. The statement that 'she tried very hard to destroy women's rights' is not only misleading but mischaracterises a humanitarian who as First Minister worked hard to help and protect the rights of the poor, the disadvantaged and the marginalised in our hopefully increasingly-compassionate society. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry. Beware the rise of battery parks There is rightly growing anger at the ever-increasing steel forests of pylons, turbines, and substations scarring our countryside to feed distant demand. Yet a far graver threat looms unnoticed: the monstrous battery parks propping up intermittent wind power. To bridge one windless day in Britain, estimates demand 100-200 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of storage – enough to power six million homes for 24 hours. That's millions of electric car-sized batteries. A week-long lull? Multiply that nightmare several times over. These aren't gentle giants. They devour lithium, cobalt, and nickel, ripped from the earth in ruinous, exploitative mines across the DRC, Indonesia, and China. Rivers poisoned, landscapes gutted, 40,000 children toiling in cobalt mines – all to prop up Britain's hollow 'clean' energy mirage. Worse, lithium-ion battery parks are ticking time bombs. Fires, like those in California and South Korea, rage uncontrollably, spewing toxic fumes and defying suppression. Who'd welcome such a menace near their home? The cost? Astronomical. The UK's push for vast battery capacity by 2030 carries a price tag of tens of billions – every penny heaped onto taxpayers and households through crippling bills. Wind power is peddled as cheap and green, yet the Labour and SNP governments push ahead with this reckless agenda, blind to its failures. Sky-high energy costs – the highest in Europe – plunge 5.6 million households into fuel poverty, close businesses, and drive reliance on imported energy, materials, and finished goods from nations scoffing at our environmental standards, gutting our net-zero ambitions and impoverishing us all. This isn't progress; it's folly, a betrayal of families and industries for a green dogma that exports emissions and imports ruin. The truth – rampant mining, hazardous storage, obscene costs – demands exposure. Until politicians dismantle the myth of wind as a silver bullet, their policies deserve our utter contempt. Ian Lakin, Aberdeen. A battery storage park (Image: Getty) Aitken should focus on Glasgow I am sure the leader of Glasgow City Council's plea for financial assistance to help migrants is heartfelt and perhaps true ("I am proud of Glasgow's welcome – but we need help before we break", The Herald, August 18) but I will not be alone in thinking she should concentrate on core local services. I look out of my front window and see broken, hazardous pavements, litter everywhere, endless road works and blocked water drains. I look out of my side window and I see vomit that has been there for days. I look out of my back window and see bins overflowing with rubbish ... and this is in the "posh" West End. Susan Aitken needs to recognise that failure abounds on the streets of her beloved Glasgow and should sort it before her constituents start kicking up a fuss. Migrant issues can be left to "national" politicians, to probably bags up, admittedly. James Miller, Glasgow. But what about Gaza? I find the excitable media commentators reporting about the Euro-leader group trip to Washington utterly bemusing. The ongoing slaughter of their fellow journalists in Gaza, along with the civilian population never elicits that kind of response. Are they all cowed by the possibility of being accused of being terrorist sympathisers? Was it too much to have hope that these very busy leaders might have mentioned Gaza since they are able to prioritise the concerns of a country which has only lost 13,000 civilians in three and a half years in contrast to more than 60,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, in just under half the time? Seriously, it looks as if our foreign policy is led by the recipients of our armaments largesse; it would be very interesting to quantify European aid to both Ukraine and Israel. Meanwhile the "free world" is led by a puerile narcissist who can't even write a sentence without inappropriate capital letters. Marjorie Thompson, Edinburgh.
