Latest news with #8thCircuitU.S.CourtofAppeals
UPI
23-07-2025
- Politics
- UPI
MyPillow's Mike Lindell wins appeal over 2020 election claim contest
MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell takes a selfie on July 2 with White House border czar Tom Homan (R) outside the White House in Washington, D.C. On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled Lindell did not have to pay out a $5 million award over a past contest tied to conspiracies related to the 2020 election. Photo by Francis Chung/UPI | License Photo July 23 (UPI) -- MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell got a break Wednesday in one of the multiple lawsuits against the noted conspiracy theorist and ardent supporter of U.S. President Donald Trump. The Missouri and Minnesota-based 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which covers seven states, reversed a lower court decision in a 12-page ruling. It said a previous panel of deciders overstepped by forcing Lindell to pay a man who won Lindell's contest related to his discredited conspiracies surrounding the 2020 election. The three-judge panel -- two appointed by former President George H.W. Bush and one by Trump -- handed down a unanimous decision by ruling that a past panel of arbiters exceeded power by altering already clear contractual terms. "Fair or not, agreed-to contract terms may not be modified by the panel or by this court," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge James Loken, a Bush-appointee. Lindell claimed to be in possession of digital files that, he said, proved China interfered in the 2020 election. He then held in 2021 the "Prove Mike Wrong Challenge" in South Dakota, in which he vowed to award $5 million to any person who could show that his Internet data was not valid election data. Robert Zeidman, a contestant and software developer, produced a 15-page report that explained Lindell's "data" was not related to the election. The challenge judges ruled that he did not meet the requirements for the $5 million award. Zeidman in April 2023 won a filed arbitration lawsuit in the case. In his opinion, Loken stated that the three judges concluded the panel had "effectively amended the unambiguous Challenge contract when it used extrinsic evidence to require that the data provided was packet capture data, thereby violating established principles of Minnesota contract law and our arbitration precedents." On Wednesday, Zeidman's attorney Brian Glasser said people can judge for themselves if the 8th Circuit's ruling was "more persuasive, or rings in truth louder, than the unanimous contrary decision of three arbitrators who heard all the evidence, including one appointed by Mr. Lindell," he told The Hill. It comes weeks just weeks after a federal jury required Lindell to pay more than $2 million in a separate lawsuit to an ex-employee of Dominion Voting Systems in a two-week defamation trial.
The Independent
14-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Trump administration moves to dismiss lawsuits against Iowa and Oklahoma over immigration laws
The Trump administration on Friday moved to dismiss lawsuits against Iowa and Oklahoma brought by the Biden administration's Department of Justice, which challenged the states' immigration laws making it a crime for someone to be in the state if they are in the U.S. illegally. Republican governors and lawmakers across the country had accused then-President Joe Biden of failing to enforce federal immigration law and manage the southern border. In response, the two states enacted similar laws last year, following in Texas' footsteps. The Biden administration sued Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma over their laws. The more expansive Texas law was in effect for only a few confusing hours last March before a federal appeals court put it on hold. The Iowa and Oklahoma laws have themselves been on hold while courts consider whether they unconstitutionally usurp federal immigration authority. Trump ran for office on a pledge to crack down on illegal immigration and deport many who are living in the U.S. illegally, promises he acted on with executive orders during his first week in office that conflicted with the prior administration's legal position in the two cases. The Iowa and Oklahoma laws let state and local officials arrest and charge people who have outstanding deportation orders or who previously were removed from or denied admission to the U.S. An immigrant rights group also sued Iowa last May over its law, but the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that complicates the legal battle now that the Trump administration has withdrawn the federal government's complaint. The appellate court said the lawsuit filed by Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice should be dismissed by the district court judge, arguing the U.S. v. Iowa lawsuit made it moot. Lawyers representing Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice in February filed a petition for rehearing with the appellate court.
Associated Press
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Trump administration moves to dismiss lawsuits against Iowa and Oklahoma over immigration laws
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — The Trump administration on Friday moved to dismiss lawsuits against Iowa and Oklahoma brought by the Biden administration's Department of Justice, which challenged the states' immigration laws making it a crime for someone to be in the state if they are in the U.S. illegally. Republican governors and lawmakers across the country had accused then-President Joe Biden of failing to enforce federal immigration law and manage the southern border. In response, the two states enacted similar laws last year, following in Texas' footsteps. The Biden administration sued Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma over their laws. The more expansive Texas law was in effect for only a few confusing hours last March before a federal appeals court put it on hold. The Iowa and Oklahoma laws have themselves been on hold while courts consider whether they unconstitutionally usurp federal immigration authority. Trump ran for office on a pledge to crack down on illegal immigration and deport many who are living in the U.S. illegally, promises he acted on with executive orders during his first week in office that conflicted with the prior administration's legal position in the two cases. The Iowa and Oklahoma laws let state and local officials arrest and charge people who have outstanding deportation orders or who previously were removed from or denied admission to the U.S. An immigrant rights group also sued Iowa last May over its law, but the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently issued a decision that complicates the legal battle now that the Trump administration has withdrawn the federal government's complaint. The appellate court said the lawsuit filed by Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice should be dismissed by the district court judge, arguing the U.S. v. Iowa lawsuit made it moot.
