Latest news with #CornellLawSchool
TimesLIVE
4 days ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
Officials from Sudan, Chad, Somalia express dismay at Trump travel ban
The visa ban takes effect on June 9 at 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT). Visas issued before that date will not be revoked, the order said. In total, just under 162,000 immigrant visas and temporary work, study, and travel visas were issued in fiscal year 2023 to nationals of the affected countries in the now banned visa categories, according to the Migration Policy Institute. The ban is likely to face legal challenges. But Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired professor of immigration law at Cornell Law School, said he expected those lawsuits to face an uphill climb, because the latest ban contains various exemptions and cited specific security concerns with each country. The ban includes exemptions, such as for dual nationals, permanent residents, immigrant visas for immediate family members of US citizens and athletes traveling for major sporting events like the World Cup. "Trump has learned from the mistakes of earlier travel bans," he said. Some foreign officials said they were prepared to work with the US to address Trump's security concerns. "Somalia values its longstanding relationship with the United States and stands ready to engage in dialogue to address the concerns raised," Dahir Hassan Abdi, the Somali ambassador to the United States, said in a statement.
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 6 — Cornell Law School offers an insightful read on qualified immunity. It says that qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right. A plaintiff is the party who sues in a civil suit. A defendant is the party sued. It says further that qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. (Emphasis added) When determining whether a right was 'clearly established,' courts in the US consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages , but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. (Emphasis added) Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery. Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials' actions. (Emphasis added) Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. Does qualified immunity apply to a prime minister in Malaysia? That's the constitutional question proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court. Some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the proposed constitutional questions which have been called preposterous, absurd and 'legal nonsense'. But if they are such, let the court having the ultimate authority say it.
The Herald Scotland
30-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Paul Ingrassia picked to head U.S. Office of Special Counsel
He graduated from Cornell Law School in 2022 and worked at a law firm for 10 months, according to his profile on LinkedIn. The Office of Special Counsel investigates and prosecutes allegations of prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) of federal employees and applicants, especially retaliation for whistleblowing. The office also investigates allegations of wrongdoing within the executive branch and enforces the Hatch Act, which restricts partisan political activity by government employees. In a post on X, Ingrassia wrote that he would make "every effort to restore competence and integrity to the Executive Branch -- with priority on eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal workforce and revitalize the Rule of Law and Fairness in Hatch Act enforcement." The previous occupant of the position, Hampton Dellinger, was fired by Trump in February. He sued to keep his job, and while a federal judge initially issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling clearing the way for his firing. Dellinger ended his legal battle against Trump on March 6. In February, Dellinger wrote in a statement that the mass firings of probationary employees led by the Department of Government Efficiency appear illegal. He asked a specialized labor board to pause the terminations of six employees in six different federal agencies so the watchdog organization could investigate. Dellinger wrote in a statement that the terminations appear "contrary to a reasonable reading of the law," particularly the law about reductions in force. Federal law generally requires 60 days' notice for a reduction in force and prohibits probationary employees from being fired for reasons unrelated to performance or conduct. Ingrassia also briefly served as the White House liaison for the Department of Justice shortly after Trump returned to office in January. But he was reassigned to DHS after pushing to recruit candidates showing "exceptional loyalty" to Trump, and his efforts sparked clashes with Attorney General Pam Bondi's top aide, Chad Mizelle, ABC News reported in February. Contributing: Erin Mansfield
The Herald Scotland
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Major Supreme Court decisions coming on Trump, religion, transgender care
Their upcoming decision is one of nearly three dozen left for the court to hand down in the coming weeks. Those opinions may not rise to the level of blockbusters from recent terms such as presidential immunity, overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, new tests for gun restrictions or upending affirmative action. But some will have a major impact, particularly three big religious rights cases. A freedom of religion term "I think this is a big freedom of religion term," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. The court's 6-3 conservative majority is likely to continue its trend of siding with people who say their freedom of religion is being infringed upon over those who say there's too much entanglement between the government and religion. "This term, in many ways, is going to be the culmination of a number of cases that began eight to 10 years ago," Levinson said. While another major decision to come - whether states can ban gender affirming care for minors - is not about the free exercise of religion, it came to the court as part of the same cultural upheaval driving the religions rights case, said Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School. "Certainly for the people who are involved in these cases, they see it as part of the same broader clash," he said. More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case? Moving in a more conservative direction, not charting a new legal course Dorf agreed the coming decisions will likely be more of a continuation of past rulings, mostly in a very conservative direction, rather than the court charting a new course. But there is a difference: the Trump administration. "We're living in pretty unprecedented circumstances given all of the ways in which the Trump administration is, at the very least, testing the boundaries of what is lawful," he said. That means the court's decision on whether to limit the ability of judges to block Trump's policies will be one of its most consequential, according to Dorf. "If you think about any area where there's an executive order," Levinson said, "if federal judges don't have the ability to stop that order from being implemented nationwide, that could significantly change the legal landscape." Here's a look at what to expect. Limiting challenges to Trump's executive authority Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship has been put on hold by judges across the country who ruled it's probably unconstitutional. During the May 15 oral arguments, none of the justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory that the president's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and past Supreme Court decisions about that provision. But several of the justices have expressed concern about the ability of one judge to block a law or presidential order from going into effect anywhere in the country while it's being challenged. It was unclear from the oral arguments how the court might find a way to limit nationwide - or "universal" - court orders and what that would mean for birthright citizenship and the many other Trump policies being challenged in court. 'Spaghetti against the wall?' Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies Religious rights versus separation of church and state Of the three religious rights cases, the biggest is the Catholic Church's bid to run the nation's first religious charter school. Although the court has previously allowed the use of vouchers for religious schools and said scholarship programs can't exclude religious schools, this case could allow governments to establish and directly fund religious schools for the first time. "That really does go beyond anything we've seen before," Dorf said. In the other religious rights cases, the court is likely to side with Catholic Charities in a dispute over when religious groups have to pay unemployment taxes. And the court's conservative majority sounded sympathetic to Maryland parents who raised religious objections to having their elementary school children read books with LGBTQ+ characters. The battle over transgender rights Transgender rights cases were already making their way to the Supreme Court from state actions and now the Trump administration policies targeting transgender people will accelerate that trend. The court has already granted the administration's emergency request that it be allowed to enforce its ban on transgender people serving in the military while that restriction is being challenged. In one of the court's biggest pending decisions, the justices will decide whether states can ban minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy. During December's oral arguments, a majority seemed to agree states can do that. But how they reach that conclusion will affect how much their decision applies to other transgender rights case including those about transgender athletes, whether health plans have to cover gender affirming care, where transgender inmates must be housed and if transgender people can serve in the military. Implications for parental rights While the court seems likely to rule against the parents challenging Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, they sounded poised to back the Maryland parents who want their elementary school children excused from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. And in a case about Texas' requirement that websites verify users are 18 or over, one justice expressed her own parental frustration over trying to control what her children see on the internet. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, said she knows from personal experience how difficult it is to keep up with the content blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. But while the justices were sympathetic to the purpose of Texas' law, they may decide a lower court didn't sufficiently review whether it violates the First Amendment rights of adults so must be reconsidered. Gun cases could bring mixed results In one of the court's biggest decisions so far this year, a 7-2 majority upheld the Biden administration's regulation of untraceable "ghost guns," ruling that the weapons can be subject to background checks and other requirements. But the court is expected to reject Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence caused by Mexican drug cartels armed with their weapons. A majority of the justices sounded likely to agree with the gun makers that the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes is too lengthy to blame the industry. Neither case is directly about the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. The court is still deciding whether to take up next year two cases about that right - Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. Planned Parenthood, but not abortion directly, is an issue Unlike last year when the court considered two cases about abortion access, that hot button issue is not directly before the court. But the justices are deciding whether to back South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding for other health services because it also provides abortions. The issue is whether the law allows a Medicaid patient to sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. If the court says the patient can't sue, other GOP-led states are expected to also kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid. And anti-abortion advocates are pushing for a national ban. Conservative challenges to Obamacare and internet subsidies The court is considering conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. The justices seemed likely to reject an argument that the telecommunications program is funded by an unconstitutional tax, a case that raised questions about how much Congress can "delegate" its legislative authority to a federal agency. The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It seems unlikely that a majority of the justices were persuaded by that argument. Multiple discrimination challenges The court is deciding a number of cases about alleged discrimination in the workplace, at school and in drawing congressional boundaries. The justices appeared likely to rule that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay, a decision that would make it easier to file "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. The court may also side with a Minnesota teenager trying to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue her school for not accommodating her rare form of epilepsy that makes it difficult to attend class before noon. It's less clear whether the court will agree with non-Black voters in Louisiana that the state's congressional map, which includes two majority-Black districts, discriminates against them. Decisions in all the cases are expected by the end of June or early July.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
Rodney Hinton Jr.'s Manslaughter Case Has A Strange New Development
Rodney Hinton Jr., a Black father accused of avenging the police killing of his son by fatally hitting a deputy with his car, pleaded not guilty to the murder charges he faces. He also appeared as the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the police department. However, it's unclear if he was even the one who actually filed it. A lawsuit filed May 8 against Cincinnati police in Hinton's name accuses the sheriff's deputies of Hamilton County of 'excessive force' the day of his arrest, claiming he appeared 'visibly beaten' before going to court, per NBC News. The suit also claims Hinton was subject to an 'atmosphere of fear, surveillance, and intimidation' when he appeared at his bond hearing, walking in to see a crowd of sheriff's deputies staring him down. Authorities say Hinton struck and killed Hamilton County Special Deputy Larry Henderson on May 2 just hours after viewing body camera footage of his son being fatally killed by other deputies from the department. The suit claims Hinton was unlawfully detained without due process, and also lists allegations of conspiracy to deprive rights and emotional distress. The suit seeks $5 million in compensatory damages and $20 million in punitive damages. Filing a whole lawsuit while behind bars on murder charges is definitely a plot twist we didn't see coming. However, there's an even bigger twist: Hinton's criminal attorney claims his client actually had nothing to do with the filing. 'I had nothing to do with it. My client had nothing to do with it. We were totally unaware of it until it was reported by the media,' said attorney Clyde Bennett II, per The Cincinnati Enquirer. So… who filed the lawsuit? The report says it was a woman named Antoinette Holloway, who is not listed as an attorney on the suit, but as a 'next friend' — a legal term that Cornell Law School describes as a person who 'appears in court in place of another who is not competent to do so.' When asked why she appeared to file the lawsuit without having even spoken to Hinton himself, she told The Enquirer she felt compelled to do so after following the news coverage of his case. She also stated she didn't believe Hinton was provided adequate legal counsel. She also filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court requesting Hinton be released from custody. Hinton was denied bond after being booked on counts of murder, aggravated murder and felonious assault. For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
