logo
Federal judge considers penalizing DeSantis-picked attorney general over Florida immigration law

Federal judge considers penalizing DeSantis-picked attorney general over Florida immigration law

Yahoo5 days ago

MIAMI — A federal judge seemed wary of arguments during a Thursday court hearing that state Attorney General James Uthmeier, an appointee of Gov. Ron DeSantis, hadn't tried to undermine her court order blocking a Florida immigration law.
Yet U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams said she would take the defense of Uthmeier's attorney, Jesse Panuccio, into consideration and review a past court case outlining the standards for potentially holding Uthmeier in contempt. She promised to issue a ruling soon — one that could result in Uthmeier receiving a fine or jail time if she does determine he's in contempt.
The law in question makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants to enter Florida. Williams, an Obama-era appointee, put a temporary hold on it last month after the ACLU challenged the law, and predicted it would be found unconstitutional. She said state and local law enforcement officials could not use the law to arrest people.
Thursday's nearly two-hour hearing centered on a memo Uthmeier sent on April 23 — a few weeks after Williams' hold — that disagreed with the ruling and argued 'no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida's new illegal entry and reentry laws.'
The ACLU said those comments indicated Uthmeier was telling law enforcement officials to disobey the judge's order and arrest people anyway. But Florida's attorney general argued in court filings that he was merely stating his legal objections. He argued he did obey the order by telling officers in an earlier letter, issued five days prior, to put enforcement on hold until the case made its way through the courts.
Panuccio argued Thursday that both letters needed to be considered in context together. He said the intent of the second letter was for Uthmeier to clarify news reports that appeared to show he told officers not to enforce the immigration law. In reality, he said, the order had been the judge's. The second letter was also supposed to update the public on how Uthmeier appealed Williams' ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and why, he added. (Uthmeier was not present for the hearing.)
Williams appeared skeptical about Uthmeier's intent, calling herself a 'very linear thinker.' At one point she dug into Panuccio over Uthmeier's comments — not just from his letter last month, but remarks he made during news interviews disagreeing with her ruling. In one instance, Uthmeier said he was 'not going to rubber stamp' the order or 'direct law enforcement to stand down on enforcing the Trump agenda or carrying out Florida's law.'
'That was just one,' she said of the example she quoted loosely. 'There are buckets.'
Panuccio disputed using the comments from that interview during the hearing, saying the court should only be focused on briefs entered into the court record rather than what officials say during media interviews. Using the comments to make a final decision about court contempt could raise constitutional concerns about free speech and the power of the states, he added.
Williams shot back: 'You're inviting me to consider context and I'm considering context.' She also noted that Panuccio had himself raised an unspecified news report in arguing one of the reasons Uthmeier wrote the second letter.
'When someone tells you who they are, you should listen,' she said later in the hearing.
But Panuccio also repeatedly referenced a case about standards for issuing contempt of court decisions, including that there should be no ambiguity in how the comments can be interpreted. Williams said she wanted to look at the case more closely as she makes her decision.
Uthmeier, who was appointed to his role by DeSantis in February, has the governor's support over his actions. He was previously DeSantis' chief of staff and will be running to keep his job in the 2026 election.
ACLU deputy director Cody Wofsy, who argued against Uthmeier in court Thursday, insisted the second letter's wording was 'more damning than the next' and said Uthmeier should have rushed to clarify his words if he hadn't meant them to come across the way they did.
'He may have held those goals,' he said of Panuccio's description of Uthmeier's letter, 'but they don't explain the decision of issuing the letter.'
The judge signaled she was open to his argument. 'There needs to be an appreciation and abiding by court order or else this all becomes anarchy,' she said.
But Panuccio rebutted with the fact that local law enforcement officials had made no arrests under that portion of the law since Uthmeier's April 18 letter. (Dozens had been arrested before.) That, he said, serves as evidence that Williams' ruling is widely seen as binding among law enforcement. An attorney for the state backed him up at one point after Williams asked whether they'd checked to confirm that no one had been arrested.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

South Korea's liberal new president Lee Jae-myung vows economic revival, judgement against martial law
South Korea's liberal new president Lee Jae-myung vows economic revival, judgement against martial law

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

South Korea's liberal new president Lee Jae-myung vows economic revival, judgement against martial law

By Joyce Lee and Ju-min Park SEOUL (Reuters) -South Korea woke on Wednesday to a new liberal president, Lee Jae-myung, who vowed to raise the country from the turmoil of a martial law crisis and revive an economy reeling from slowing growth and the threat of global protectionism. Lee's decisive victory in Tuesday's snap election stands to usher in a sea change in Asia's fourth-largest economy, after backlash against a botched attempt at military rule brought down Yoon Suk Yeol just three years into his troubled presidency. With 100% of the ballots counted, Lee had won 49.42% of the nearly 35 million votes cast while conservative rival Kim Moon-soo had taken 41.15% in the polls that brought the highest turnout for a presidential election since 1997, according to National Election Commission data. The 61-year-old former human rights lawyer called Tuesday's election "judgment day" against Yoon's martial law and his People Power Party's failure to stop the ill-fated move. "The first mission is to decisively overcome insurrection and to ensure there will never be another military coup with guns and swords turned against the people," Lee said in a victory speech outside parliament. "We can overcome this temporary difficulty with the combined strength of our people, who have great capabilities," he said. Lee was officially confirmed as president by the National Election Commission early on Wednesday and immediately assumed the powers of the presidency and commander in chief. An abbreviated inauguration is planned at parliament within hours of the official confirmation. A slate of economic and social challenges await the new leader, including a society deeply scarred by divisions following the martial law attempt and an export-heavy economy reeling from unpredictable protectionist moves by the United States, a major trading partner and a security ally. The martial law decree and the six months of ensuing turmoil, which saw three different acting presidents and multiple criminal insurrection trials for Yoon and several top officials, marked a stunning political self-destruction for the former leader and a drag on an economy already slowing in growth. Lee has pledged to boost investment in innovation and technology to fuel the country on another growth trajectory while increasing support for middle and low-income families. Lee is expected to be more conciliatory toward China and North Korea, and has pledged to continue the Yoon-era engagement with Japan.

FBI wants to investigate doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Experts question its legal basis
FBI wants to investigate doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Experts question its legal basis

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

FBI wants to investigate doctors who provide gender-affirming care to minors. Experts question its legal basis

The Federal Bureau of Investigation began Pride month by asking Americans to report doctors, hospitals and clinics who offer gender-affirming surgeries to minors, claiming that those procedures amount to child mutilation. In social media posts Monday, the FBI and its chief spokesperson asked for tips on 'any hospitals or clinics who break the law and mutilate children under the guise of 'gender affirming care.'' But experts say the FBI's new push isn't backed up by federal law and may only be intended to scare medical practitioners away from offering those services. 'The only purpose of a tweet like this is to create fear and confusion for transgender youth, their families and their medical providers,' Josh Block, a senior attorney with the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Projects, told CNN. 'It simply has no legal basis.' The reporting initiative is among the most dramatic moves in a multipronged effort by President Donald Trump's administration to challenge gender-affirming care across the country, spawned by a January executive order that initiated a crackdown on what the president called 'chemical and surgical mutilation' of individuals under 19 years old. It also comes as the Trump administration broadly continues an anti-transgender agenda. The Justice Department on Monday, for instance, issued warnings to California school districts that have allowed transgender student athletes to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity. 'Today at work… put 1600+ California schools on blast for violating equal protection in girls' sports,' Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said on X. There is no federal law that outlaws gender-affirming surgeries on minors – a rare practice that is not recommended by major medical organizations. The Trump executive order instructed that the Justice Department prioritize enforcement actions under a criminal statute that protects against female genital mutilation. The FBI did not immediately respond to an inquiry about the legal backing for any future investigation. Federal prosecutors, however, have conceded in court that the female genital mutilation law 'differs markedly' from Trump's executive order, according to a ruling earlier this year from a federal judge who said that parts of the order targeting federal funding should be paused indefinitely. The judge, Lauren King, who was nominated by Joe Biden, said that gender-affirming surgery is considered medically necessary – a key legal hurdle when prosecuting someone for mutilation. She also noted that prosecutors 'acknowledge that non-surgical options 'are generally the only treatments minors can receive.'' Referencing that law in the executive order, King concluded, 'seems misplaced, and could be construed as a bad-faith attempt to make parents and providers fear prosecution.' Gender-affirming care for trans youth is largely focused on social aspects like names, pronouns and clothing. If a minor does move forward with any sort of medical intervention – treatment that is typically focused on medications whose effects are reversable instead of surgeries – a team of doctors and the child's family will consider what is appropriate for that child's needs and stage of development. 'A strong body of medical evidence supports the safety and efficacy of this care,' said Jennifer Levy, the senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law. 'These efforts make it more difficult for parents to secure the health care their children need to thrive.' Still, nearly 30 states have passed legislation banning gender-affirming medical care for people under 18 years old. Several of those states, including Alabama, Florida and North Carolina, are defending those bans in court. One of the challenges, which was brought over a Tennessee law that bans puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments for minors, is currently under consideration by the US Supreme Court. A decision is expected this month.

Wells Fargo asset cap axed by Fed after ‘substantial progress' from fake accounts scandal
Wells Fargo asset cap axed by Fed after ‘substantial progress' from fake accounts scandal

New York Post

timean hour ago

  • New York Post

Wells Fargo asset cap axed by Fed after ‘substantial progress' from fake accounts scandal

The Federal Reserve on Tuesday voted to scrap a near-$2 trillion asset cap imposed on Wells Fargo over a 2016 scandal that uncovered millions of fake accounts and other consumer abuses. The decision closes the door on a decade of regulatory woes for the nation's fourth-largest lender and is a major victory for Wells Fargo CEO Charlie Scharf — allowing the bank to pursue growth by boosting loans, stepping up its Wall Street business and doing deals. Wells Fargo will no longer have to operate under a $1.95 trillion asset cap that the Federal Reserve imposed on the bank in 2018 following its long-running sales practices scandal. REUTERS Scharf was hired in 2019 to clean up the mess after the firm was hit by billions of dollars in fines. The Fed said in a statement that the removal of the $1.9 trillion asset cap, imposed in 2018, 'reflects the substantial progress the bank has made in addressing its deficiencies.' It was one of Janet Yellen's final actions during her tenure as chair of the Federal Reserve. She would go on to serve as Treasury Secretary in the Biden administration. Wells Fargo stock soared more than 2% in after-hours trading following the announcement. Shares had closed at $75.65, up from $59.34 a year ago. The bogus accounts scandal toppled two Wells Fargo chief executives. John Stumpf was let go in 2016 when news of the unauthorized accounts first broke. The Fed said in a statement that the bank had made 'substantial progress' in addressing its deficiencies. CEO Charlie Scharf, above. Getty Images His successor, Tim Sloan, quit just over a year after the asset cap was put in place. Some elements of the Yellen-era enforcement order will remain in place, meaning the bank will still face increased scrutiny from regulators. 'Removal of the asset cap represents successful remediation to the required standard based on focused management leadership, strong board oversight, and strict supervision holding the firm accountable,' said Fed Governor Michael Barr, who quit as vice chair for banking supervision earlier this year. 'All three will need to continue for the firm to have a sustainable approach,' he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store