Latest news with #28U.S.C
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Court of Appeals temporarily blocks NC ruling to throw out Supreme Court votes
RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) — A federal court has put another pause on the voting results of the state Supreme Court election from six months ago, in November 2024. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of Democratic candidate Allison Riggs Tuesday evening, citing that the thousands of votes cannot be thrown out until her federal court filing is completed. 'Recognizing that the district court has not yet had the opportunity to exercise its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 and address Riggs' motion for preliminary injunction based on her federal constitutional claims, we grant her motion for a stay,' the court file said. 'In furtherance of federal jurisdiction, we enjoin the North Carolina State Board of Elections from mailing any notice to any potentially affected voter pending the district court's resolution of Riggs' motion for a preliminary injunction,' the file went on to say. The North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Republican candidate Jefferson Griffin on April 4 that over 65,000 votes were liable to be thrown out due to having incomplete information. On April 11, the NC Supreme Court ruled that tens of thousands of votes would remain in the election count that partially overturned the Court of Appeals ruling. Riggs filed a Motion for Stay and Injunction Pending Appeal on April 14 with the US Court of Appeals to prevent the 7,000-plus votes from being thrown out. The current ruling by the US Court of Appeals also ordered the NC Board of Elections not to contact any potentially affected voters until the Riggs appeal goes through. The election of the state Supreme Court seat has been quite controversial over the past six months, sparking multiple protests and advertising calling for an end to the election. In November, the results were a tight margin, with Riggs defeating Griffin by 625 votes. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Paramount files motion to dismiss Trump's CBS lawsuit, calls it 'an affront to the First Amendment'
Paramount Global filed a motion to dismiss President Trump's $20 billion lawsuit on Thursday, hoping to end his high-stakes legal battle against CBS News. Trump has alleged election interference over CBS' handling of a "60 Minutes" interview, and feels the network aided his Democrat rival, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, through deceptive editing one month before they faced off in the presidential election. According to court documents reviewed by Fox News Digital, Paramount argued the lawsuit was wrongly filed by Trump's legal team in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, despite the fact that neither Paramount nor CBS News are located in the Lone Star state nor did any production of the "60 Minutes" interview at the center of the lawsuit have any affiliation with the state. "First, none of the Defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas on these claims. CBS Broadcasting Inc. is a New York corporation, CBS Interactive Inc. and Paramount Global are Delaware corporations, and all three have their principal place of business in New York," the filing states. "Accordingly, general jurisdiction does not lie. Specific jurisdiction also does not lie. Defendants did not purposefully direct their suit-related conduct at Texas more than other states: The interview of Vice President Kamala Harris, excerpts of which aired on Face the Nation and 60 Minutes, was not filmed, edited, or produced in Texas, nor was Texas in any way the subject of the interview. If this district has personal jurisdiction merely because CBS programs are broadcast nationwide, so too does every district court in the country. That is not the law," it continues. Trump And Paramount Seeking Mediator, Fueling Settlement Chatter In Cbs News Lawsuit Read On The Fox News App "Second, the Northern District of Texas is not a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). There can be no dispute that this case could have been brought in the Southern District of New York. And Plaintiffs do not allege nor could they that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Texas," the filing continued. "Third, even if the Court were to find that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate and that this district is a proper venue, the private interest and public interest factors overwhelmingly support transfer to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Among other relevant considerations, the evidence and witnesses are in New York, such that litigating there would be far more convenient for the parties, and New York has strong policy interests in regulating the conduct of its citizens and media," it stated. In a separate filing, Paramount argued Trump's lawsuit is "an affront to the First Amendment and is without basis in law or fact," seeking to "punish a news organization for constitutionally protected editorial judgments they do not like." "They not only ask for $20 billion in damages but also seek an order directing how a news organization may exercise its editorial judgment in the future," the filing states. "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that public officials like Plaintiffs cannot hold news organizations like CBS liable for the simple exercise of editorial judgment… Whether Plaintiffs believe the entire unedited Interview should have aired or only edited in a way they approve, they are not entitled under the First Amendment to demand only news that fits their wishes." However, Trump's legal team remains confident. "President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in fake news, hoaxes, and lies to account," Trump attorney Ed Paltzik told Fox News Digital in a statement. "CBS and Paramount committed the worst kind of election interference and fraud in the closing days of the most important presidential election in history," Paltzik added. "President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion." Cbs News Remains 'Adrift' As Network Marred In Controversy, Ratings Woes The filing comes just days after Fox News Digital confirmed that both President Trump and Paramount were seeking a mediator, further fueling speculation that both parties would settle his $20 billion lawsuit. The lawsuit stems from a "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, when she appeared to answer the same question with two different answers in a preview clip that aired on "Face the Nation" and in the exchange that aired during the primetime special. In the preview clip, Harris was asked by "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't listening to the U.S. "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region," Harris responded in the "Face the Nation" clip. Harris was mocked by conservatives for offering a lengthy "word salad" to Whitaker. But when that same question aired the following night in the primetime election special, a shorter, more focused answer from the vice president followed. "We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end," Harris said in the special. Trump Amps Up The Pressure On Cbs With Massive Discovery Demand As '60 Minutes' Lawsuit Moves Forward Critics accused CBS News of editing Harris' "word salad" answer to shield her from further backlash. Trump's lawsuit accuses the network of election interference. FCC Chair Brendan Carr ordered CBS News to hand over the unedited transcript and footage as part of its investigation into whether the network violated the FCC's "news distortion" policy after a complaint was filed. The FCC released the transcript, which showed CBS News had aired only the first half of Harris' response to Whitaker's question on "Face the Nation" and aired only the second half of her response during the primetime special. "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end," Harris responded, according to the unedited transcript. CBS parent company Paramount Global is reportedly considering settling the suit ahead of a planned merger with Skydance Media in hopes of preventing potential retribution by Trump's FCC, which has the authority to halt the multibillion-dollar transaction. Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, is reportedly in favor of settling with the president. A settlement from Paramount would be the latest in Trump's string of legal victories as he reached multimillion-dollar settlements with ABC News, Meta and article source: Paramount files motion to dismiss Trump's CBS lawsuit, calls it 'an affront to the First Amendment'
Fox News
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Paramount files motion to dismiss Trump's CBS lawsuit, calls it 'an affront to the First Amendment'
Paramount Global filed a motion to dismiss President Trump's $20 billion lawsuit on Thursday, hoping to end his high-stakes legal battle against CBS News. Trump has alleged election interference over CBS' handling of a "60 Minutes" interview, and feels the network aided his Democrat rival, then-Vice President Kamala Harris, through deceptive editing one month before they faced off in the presidential election. According to court documents reviewed by Fox News Digital, Paramount argued the lawsuit was wrongly filed by Trump's legal team in the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, despite the fact that neither Paramount nor CBS News are located in the Lone Star state nor did any production of the "60 Minutes" interview at the center of the lawsuit have any affiliation with the state. "First, none of the Defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas on these claims. CBS Broadcasting Inc. is a New York corporation, CBS Interactive Inc. and Paramount Global are Delaware corporations, and all three have their principal place of business in New York," the filing states. "Accordingly, general jurisdiction does not lie. Specific jurisdiction also does not lie. Defendants did not purposefully direct their suit-related conduct at Texas more than other states: The interview of Vice President Kamala Harris, excerpts of which aired on Face the Nation and 60 Minutes, was not filmed, edited, or produced in Texas, nor was Texas in any way the subject of the interview. If this district has personal jurisdiction merely because CBS programs are broadcast nationwide, so too does every district court in the country. That is not the law," it continues. "Second, the Northern District of Texas is not a proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). There can be no dispute that this case could have been brought in the Southern District of New York. And Plaintiffs do not allege nor could they that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in Texas," the filing continued. "Third, even if the Court were to find that the exercise of jurisdiction is appropriate and that this district is a proper venue, the private interest and public interest factors overwhelmingly support transfer to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Among other relevant considerations, the evidence and witnesses are in New York, such that litigating there would be far more convenient for the parties, and New York has strong policy interests in regulating the conduct of its citizens and media," it stated. In a separate filing, Paramount argued Trump's lawsuit is "an affront to the First Amendment and is without basis in law or fact," seeking to "punish a news organization for constitutionally protected editorial judgments they do not like." "They not only ask for $20 billion in damages but also seek an order directing how a news organization may exercise its editorial judgment in the future," the filing states. "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that public officials like Plaintiffs cannot hold news organizations like CBS liable for the simple exercise of editorial judgment… Whether Plaintiffs believe the entire unedited Interview should have aired or only edited in a way they approve, they are not entitled under the First Amendment to demand only news that fits their wishes." However, Trump's legal team remains confident. "President Trump is committed to holding those who traffic in fake news, hoaxes, and lies to account," Trump attorney Ed Paltzik told Fox News Digital in a statement. "CBS and Paramount committed the worst kind of election interference and fraud in the closing days of the most important presidential election in history," Paltzik added. "President Trump will pursue this vital matter to its just and rightful conclusion." The filing comes just days after Fox News Digital confirmed that both President Trump and Paramount were seeking a mediator, further fueling speculation that both parties would settle his $20 billion lawsuit. The lawsuit stems from a "60 Minutes" interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, when she appeared to answer the same question with two different answers in a preview clip that aired on "Face the Nation" and in the exchange that aired during the primetime special. In the preview clip, Harris was asked by "60 Minutes" correspondent Bill Whitaker why it seemed like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't listening to the U.S. "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region," Harris responded in the "Face the Nation" clip. Harris was mocked by conservatives for offering a lengthy "word salad" to Whitaker. But when that same question aired the following night in the primetime election special, a shorter, more focused answer from the vice president followed. "We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end," Harris said in the special. Critics accused CBS News of editing Harris' "word salad" answer to shield her from further backlash. Trump's lawsuit accuses the network of election interference. FCC Chair Brendan Carr ordered CBS News to hand over the unedited transcript and footage as part of its investigation into whether the network violated the FCC's "news distortion" policy after a complaint was filed. The FCC released the transcript, which showed CBS News had aired only the first half of Harris' response to Whitaker's question on "Face the Nation" and aired only the second half of her response during the primetime special. "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region. And we're not going to stop doing that. We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end," Harris responded, according to the unedited transcript. CBS parent company Paramount Global is reportedly considering settling the suit ahead of a planned merger with Skydance Media in hopes of preventing potential retribution by Trump's FCC, which has the authority to halt the multibillion-dollar transaction. Shari Redstone, Paramount's controlling shareholder, is reportedly in favor of settling with the president. A settlement from Paramount would be the latest in Trump's string of legal victories as he reached multimillion-dollar settlements with ABC News, Meta and X.
Boston Globe
24-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Federal Judge Bruce Selya was known for his extensive vocabulary. Here are some of his brilliant decisions.
Related : If you have the time today, here's a rundown of some of Selya's brilliant decisions during his tenure on the bench. 👨⚖️ 'This rebuttal is all foam and no beer.' – Decision denying appeal former fall river mayor Jasiel Correia, who was convicted on corruption charges. Advertisement 👨⚖️ 'Most people would think that bilking a widow out of her life's savings is outrageous; some would think that charging $5.25 for a salted caramel mocha frappuccino is outrageous. But everyone would agree that the two acts are qualitatively different, and are not deserving of the same level of opprobrium.' – Decision affirming a ruling on the Massachusetts Tips Act. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up 👨⚖️ 'After careful perscrutation of a scumbled record, we conclude that some of the petitioners' claims are unpreserved, some are subject to a jurisdictional bar, and others are simply not actionable. The common denominator is that none of the claims can proceed in the district court.' – Decision affirming the dismissal of a lawsuit related to ICE raids in New Bedford. 👨⚖️ 'In this diversity case, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, governed by the substantive law of Massachusetts, plaintiff-appellant Richard C. Powers had three chances to put the ball in play. He struck out. At the last, the district court dismissed Powers' second amended complaint for failure to state an actionable claim. 12(b)(6). Powers says that the strike-out call was a blunder. We find the side was retired in accordance with the rules and, therefore, affirm the dismissal." – Decision affirming a ruling on lawsuit challenging an employee's contract with a private company. Advertisement 👨⚖️ 'In sum, once Congress has spoken, a court cannot override the unambiguous words of an enacted statute and substitute for them the court's views of what individual legislators likely intended. Any other rule imports a virulent strain of subjectivity into the interpretive task and, in the process, threatens to transfer too large a slice of legislative power from Congress to the courts.' – Decision on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in Rhode Island. Related : 👨⚖️ 'We are equally unpersuaded that the court's policy of keeping all legal memoranda hidden from public view is warranted based upon hypothetical concerns about overzealous counsel behaving badly. Judges deal every day with the need to ensure that lawyers play fair and square, and we are unwilling to assume, without hard evidence, that lawyers who practice in the District of Rhode Island are so unruly that ordinary antidotes to fractiousness (e.g., sanctions, contempt, loss of the right to practice) will prove impuissant.' – Decision on a lawsuit brought by The Providence Journal during Buddy Cianci's corruption trial. 👨⚖️ 'The record evinces egregious governmental misconduct; the FBI agents responsible for handling Barboza exhibited a callous disregard for the scapegoats' rights. But it is our duty to interpret and apply the law even-handedly, regardless of the egregiousness of a defendant's misconduct.' – Decision upholding the award of $101.7 million in damages to mobsters who were framed for a crime they didn't commit. Advertisement 👨⚖️ 'This thriving rental market among college students has proven to be both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, the clamor for student housing is an economic boon to property owners willing to rent their dwellings. On the other hand, the sheer mass of exuberant young people and their predilections have proven to be a threat to the quality of life in a quiet enclave.' – Decision affirming a ruling on the town of Narragansett's 'orange sticker' ordinance. This story first appeared in Rhode Map, our free newsletter about Rhode Island that also contains information about local events, links to interesting stories, and more. If you'd like to receive it via email Monday through Friday, . Dan McGowan can be reached at
