Latest news with #DanielTraynor
Reuters
4 days ago
- General
- Reuters
US judge warns that law clerk hiring boycotts may cross ethical lines
May 30 (Reuters) - Law clerk hiring boycotts, like the type launched by 13 conservative federal judges last year in protest of Columbia University's handling of pro-Palestinian student demonstrations on its campus, may "cross an important line," a top federal appeals court judge concluded. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Colloton reached that conclusion, opens new tab even as he dismissed a judicial misconduct complaint filed with the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Judicial Council against one of those 13 judges, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor in Bismarck, North Dakota. A five-member panel of the 8th Circuit Judicial Council on Thursday voted to deny a petition to review Colloton's now-public decision. Traynor like the other judges who participated in the boycott was appointed by Republican President Donald Trump during his first term. Colloton said that when Traynor signed the letter, there was no ethical guidance suggesting that such a hiring boycott was forbidden. Traynor was not identified by name in the decision, but he is the only of the 13 judges at issue within the 8th Circuit's jurisdiction. The person who filed the complaint was also not named. Traynor declined to comment. Similar misconduct complaints have been dismissed against the other 12, with chief judges in other circuits concluding that the hiring boycott announced in a May 2024 letter did not constitute misconduct, Colloton noted. Given those circumstances, Colloton said it would be unfair to hold that Traynor's participation in the boycott constituted misconduct under the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges without him having fair notice in advance that it was forbidden. But Colloton, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush, expressed concern about such boycotts, saying they "have the potential to embroil the judiciary in extrajudicial public controversies and to lower public confidence in the courts among reasonable people." "There is thus a substantial question whether judges cross an important line when they go beyond expressing their personal views in an effort to persuade and begin using their power as government officials to pressure private institutions to conform to the judges' preferences," Colloton wrote. He said the issue was one that may be appropriate for study by members of the U.S. Judicial Conference body tasked with revising and interpreting the Code of Conduct. In their letter last year, the Trump-appointed judges had called Columbia an "incubator of bigotry" and argued for "serious consequences" for anyone who participated in the campus demonstrations over Israel's war in Gaza that roiled Columbia's campus. They said Columbia had "become ground zero for the explosion of student disruptions, antisemitism, and hatred for diverse viewpoints on campuses across the nation" and had "disqualified itself from educating the future leaders of our country." As a result, the judges had said they would not hire anyone who attended Columbia as an undergraduate or law student, beginning with students who began their studies at the university in fall 2023. The letter's other signatories included U.S. Circuit Judges James Ho of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Branch of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who participated in similar boycotts of clerks from Yale and Stanford over disruptions of conservative speakers on their campuses. Read more: Trump-appointed judge cleared of wrongdoing over Columbia law clerk boycott US judge boycotting Columbia law clerks won't recuse from protest case US judges cleared of misconduct over Columbia clerk hiring boycott US judiciary to consider new ethical guidance for law clerk hiring Group urges US judiciary to halt conservative judges' clerk boycotts US law clerks in rare anonymous statement decry 'genocide' in Gaza Columbia Law voices confidence in grads in face of conservative judges' boycott Conservative US judges boycott Columbia grads over campus Gaza protests
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge rules U.S. owes North Dakota $28M over oil pipeline protests
April 24 (UPI) -- A federal judge has ruled the U.S. government must pay North Dakota nearly $28 million in damages stemming from the Dakota Access oil pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017. U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor issued his ruling Wednesday, siding with North Dakota's claims of negligence, gross negligence, civil trespass and public nuisance against the United States in connection with the protests. "This is a major win for North Dakota taxpayers and the rule of law," North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong and Attorney General Drew Wrigley, both Republicans, said in a statement in response to the ruling. "As outlined in the trial testimony and Judge Traynor's ruling, decisions made by the Obama administration emboldened protesters and ultimately caused millions of dollars in damage to North Dakota, while endangering the health and safety of North Dakota communities, families and law enforcement officers who responded to the protests." The protests by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against the pipeline garnered wide public and political attention from August 2016 through March 2017, as they erected encampments on land near the confluence of the Cannonball and Missouri rivers. The state's claims focused on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers use of a Special Use Permit to allow the protesters to demonstrate on Corps land. In his ruling on Wednesday, the President Donald Trump appointee said the Corps had not officially granted the SUP despite saying one had been issued, and this so-called de factor permit prevented law enforcement from taking action against the protesters. Traynor described this action as the Corps having "invited and encouraged the DAPL Protesters and their violent and tumultuous behavior," leaving North Dakota to clean up the mess. "The State of North Dakota needed the power of the federal government to protect its citizens from danger. The federal government abandoned its duty," he said. He added that the damage caused by the protests was "unfathomable," highlighting there human excrement pits, makeshift housing structures and violent clashes with law enforcement. "The bottom line: United States had a mandatory procedure, it did not follow that procedure, and harm occurred to the state of North Dakota," Traynor said.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge blasts Army Corps for pipeline protests, orders $28M in damages to North Dakota
Opponents of the Dakota Access Pipeline camp north of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 3, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D. (Photo by) A federal judge has ordered the United States government to pay North Dakota nearly $28 million dollars, finding that the executive branch 'abandoned the rule of law' in its response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016 and 2017. In the lawsuit, filed in 2019, North Dakota requested $38 million in damages from the United States government — the total sum it claims it paid for policing and cleaning up the demonstrations. In a long-awaited decision filed Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor sided with the state, finding the Corps at fault for negligence, public nuisance and civil trespass claims. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage 'While North Dakota was drowning in the chaos of the protests, the United States dropped an anvil into the pool and turned up the turmoil,' he wrote in a nearly 120-page order. Thousands came to south-central North Dakota to protest the construction of the crude oil pipeline in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which views the project as a looming environmental hazard and an encroachment upon Native territory. It has also accused the pipeline of disrupting sacred cultural sites. Demonstrators set up camp near where the pipeline crosses beneath Lake Oahe — a reservoir on the Missouri River managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers less than a half-mile upstream from the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Opponents urged the Army Corps of Engineers — and later, the federal courts — to deny the pipeline's developer, Energy Transfer, the land easement necessary to cross Lake Oahe. The largest demonstration camp was located on land managed by the Corps. The protests lasted from spring of 2016 to February of 2017, when former Gov. Doug Burgum ordered protesters to evacuate the land. 4 highlights from the 4-week DAPL protest trial Traynor wrote the Army Corps was legally required to enforce its property rights as soon as it became aware of the protests — either by requiring the demonstrators to obtain a permit to use its land or forcing the protesters to leave. Early on in the demonstrations, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe was in talks with the Army Corps about obtaining a special use permit, but those negotiations fell through, witnesses testified during the trial last year. In September 2016, the Corps published a press release stating the permit had been granted, despite that the tribe never completed the application process. Had the Corps followed through with the permit, the agency could have prevented millions in damages to the state, Traynor continued. Such a permit could have required demonstrators to handle cleanup, incentivized protest leaders to prevent damage to the land and prohibited protesters from establishing permanent structures at the campsites, he reasoned. He said the agency could have closed its land if protesters refused to comply with these requirements. The Wednesday ruling expands on a prior order published in December 2023, in which Traynor held that the Army Corps had violated its own permitting procedures by not requiring protesters to obtain the permit. Traynor found that the Corps' decision to allow protesters to use its land — coupled with the press release, which he characterized as an endorsement of the demonstrations — prolonged and intensified the movement. The United States argued other factors were responsible for the protest's rise in popularity, like the Corps' pending decision on the pipeline easement, the tribe's historic claims to the land and national media attention. Winona LaDuke, an Indigenous environmental activist, testified during the trial that the Corps' actions surrounding the permit and press release did not affect her decision to be at the camp, for example. Traynor in his Wednesday order called these elements 'red herrings' and 'immaterial' to the Corps' fault in the protests. 'Certainly, protesters had their own independent incentives for why they protested,' Traynor wrote, 'but as discussed above, the facts as adduced at trial show protesters were supported, enabled, and encouraged by the Corps' granting of the de facto special use permit that gave protesters a refuge from which they could conduct repeated illegal and illicit activities.' Lack of federal support overwhelmed law enforcement during DAPL, officials testify The United States has argued that the Corps responded the best it could in an extraordinary situation, and that it did not know the protests would unfold the way they did. Traynor in his decision rejected this claim, finding that evidence presented at trial showed that the U.S. government knew early on that the demonstrations could balloon in size and become unruly. North Dakota on multiple occasions asked for federal law enforcement to assist with managing the demonstrations, which Traynor said indicates the United States was aware that the protests posed a safety threat. The United States also said that it cannot be held liable for the damages because the protests were protected speech. Traynor said that while some protesters engaged in protected speech, the damages at issue in the lawsuit are not covered by the First Amendment since they resulted from violent behavior. He also noted the United States cannot use the First Amendment protections as a defense when no protesters are party to the case. 'The damages here were caused by tumultuous, unsanitary, and otherwise horrific conditions that caused significant violence to the land and responding law enforcement officers,' he wrote. Participants in the protest, including those who testified during the trial, emphasized that not all were violent. Demonstrators also objected to the response of law enforcement in riot gear and tactics of private security personnel. Traynor reduced the award to North Dakota by $10 million, since the U.S. government had already awarded the state a grant of that size to offset the cost of its emergency response to the protests. The state also received a $15 million donation from pipeline company Energy Transfer Partners in connection to the protests. Tribal activist faults North Dakota for high DAPL protest costs Traynor's decision comes more than a year after the case went to trial. During the four-week trial, which kicked off in February 2024, the court heard from a wide-ranging cast of witnesses — including Burgum and former Gov. Jack Dalrymple, Native activists, federal officials and law enforcement. It was not immediately clear whether the United States government would appeal Traynor's decision. The Corps did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday. North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong and Attorney General Drew Wrigley called the decision 'a major win for North Dakota taxpayers and the rule of law.' 'As outlined in trial testimony and Judge Traynor's ruling, decisions made by the Obama administration emboldened protesters and ultimately caused millions of dollars in damage to North Dakota, while endangering the health and safety of North Dakota communities, families and law enforcement officers who responded to the protests,' Armstrong and Wrigley said in a joint statement. Lake Oahe is the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's primary source of water. The pipeline's path also includes unceded land recognized as belonging to the Sioux Nation under an 1851 treaty with the U.S. government. The Dakota Access Pipeline has been in operation since 2017. In a lawsuit brought against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by Standing Rock in 2016, a federal judge found that the Army Corps had violated the law by granting DAPL an easement without first conducting a full environmental review of the pipeline, which is required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The judge vacated the easement and ordered the pipeline to be drained of oil until the Army Corps could complete an environmental impact study. A higher court in 2021 upheld the decision to pull the easement but ruled that DAPL could remain in operation, concluding that Standing Rock had not shown it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the pipeline is not shuttered. The environmental impact study is still in progress. A separate legal challenge brought by Energy Transfer against environmental group Greenpeace related to the DAPL protests went to trial in February. A nine-person jury of Morton County residents found Greenpeace liable for more than $660 million in damages. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Federal judge in North Dakota rules in favor of Catholic employers on abortion protections
The Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, part of the Catholic Diocese of Bismarck, sits on Raymond Street on Sept. 18, 2024. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) A North Dakota federal judge ruled this week that a group of Catholic employers do not have to follow new federal regulations meant to protect workers' access to abortion and fertility treatment, and to shield LGBTQ employees from discrimination. The order, released Tuesday by Judge Daniel Traynor, relates to two documents issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last year. One is a rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and the other updated non-binding guidance on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws workplace discrimination. The Diocese of Bismarck and the Catholic Benefits Association took issue with both of the regulations, arguing in an August federal court complaint that they force Catholic employers to go against their religious beliefs. Bismarck Diocese Bishop David Kagan said in a statement the diocese is thankful for the verdict. 'The Court has upheld our religious freedom rights and that is all we ever wanted,' he said. Judge sides with North Dakota Catholic diocese, suspends abortion, IVF and LGBTQ protections The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, requires employers to provide workplace accommodations for pregnant and postpartum mothers — like food, water and bathroom breaks, reduced physical labor and medical leave. The EEOC was tasked with implementing the law through an administrative rule, which was finalized last spring. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act does not specifically say employers must accommodate employees who seek abortions or infertility treatments. The rule does, however — which prompted the Diocese of Bismarck and Catholic Benefits Association to sue. The plaintiffs alleged that in including protections for employees who seek abortions and infertility treatments, the EEOC went against the will of Congress. They also called the rule a violation of their religious freedoms, since the Catholic Church opposes abortion and certain kinds of fertility procedures. The EEOC's rule doesn't include blanket exemptions for religious employers, though the agency has said religious exemption claims will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Laura Bakst, an attorney for the Department of Justice, said at a September federal court hearing that this allows the federal agency to handle cases more fairly. The plaintiffs argued it's unfair for employers to only be able to request an exemption when they're already facing enforcement action. The lawsuit also took aim at updated workplace harassment guidance published by the EEOC last year. It states that harassment based on reproductive health care decisions — including abortion, fertility treatments and contraception — as well as sexual orientation and gender identity may now be considered sex discrimination under Title VII. It lists refusing to use transgender people's preferred pronouns or not allowing them to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity as examples of possible discrimination, for example. Plaintiffs claimed this guidance would restrict them from following the Catholic Church's religious teachings on reproductive and LGBTQ issues. The guidance 'effectively requires Catholic employers to use false pronouns, to avoid speaking the truth regarding human sexuality around certain employees, and to permit opposite-sex employees to intrude into private spaces reserved to those of the other sex,' their complaint states. Title VII does include an exemption for religious employers, but the Diocese of Bismarck and Catholic Benefits Association said the new guidance flouts this exemption. Employers who don't comply with the regulations can face enforcement action from the EEOC. They can also be sued by their employees. At the September hearing, an attorney for the plaintiffs argued his clients will be forced to choose between accommodating practices they consider immoral or being accused of workplace discrimination. 'We're living in fear that we'll go through thousands of enforcement actions,' Andrew Nussbaum said during the hearing. The EEOC has said that it considered public comment, the intent of Congress and guidance from the courts in writing the regulations. It also rejected the notion that either the rule or the guidance would infringe on employers' ability to practice their faith. Traynor last fall temporarily blocked the EEOC from requiring Catholic Benefits Association members to comply with the challenged portions of the regulations. Tuesday's ruling made those exemptions permanent. In his September order, Traynor found that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act rule and the Title VII guidance 'place a substantial burden' on the plaintiffs' ability to practice their religion. He also wrote that the federal agency did not show it has a compelling interest in leaving the regulations in place, or that the rule and guidance sufficiently minimize the burdens they place on religious organizations. Traynor was appointed a federal judge in 2020 by former President Donald Trump. He served on the board for the North Dakota Catholic Conference from 1999-2001, according to a questionnaire for judicial nominees. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
CBS News
17-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Catholic employers don't have to accommodate workers' abortions and fertility treatments, judge rules
Bismarck, N.D. — More than 9,000 Catholic employers don't need to abide by federal regulations protecting workers who seek abortions and fertility treatments under a ruling issued this week by a federal judge in North Dakota. Last year, the Catholic Benefits Association and the Bismarck Diocese sued the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying it issued regulations and guidelines that "ran roughshod" over their religious rights. U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor later granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the commission's final rule for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and enforcement guidance for harassment protections for workers that includes gender identity under sex-based discrimination. On Tuesday, Traynor issued a permanent block on the regulations, finding the association and the diocese succeeded on the merits of their claim that the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. The judge said the case's facts and evidence haven't changed since the initial block he issued last year. Last year, he wrote: "It is a precarious time for people of religious faith in America. It has been described as a post-Christian age. One indication of this dire assessment may be the repeated illegal and unconstitutional administrative actions against one of the founding principles of our country, the free exercise of religion." The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect in 2023. The law requires covered employers make reasonable accommodations for workers' pregnancy or childbirth-related needs. In 2024, the EEOC issued the rule implementing the law and the harassment enforcement guidance. In earlier court papers, the association and the diocese said, "The combined effect of EEOC's pronouncements is that they require CBA Members, contrary to their Catholic faith, to accommodate their employees' abortions and immoral fertility treatments, to use false pronouns when requested by transitioning employees, to abstain from expressing Catholic teaching regarding sexual issues, and to give employees of one sex access to private spaces reserved to those of the other sex." The EEOC previously asked the judge to deny a permanent injunction and said the other side can't back up its claims. Attorney Martin Nussbaum said his clients are "very thankful to the federal judiciary for vindicating religious freedom rights" in the case and previous ones involving the association. "One of the things that we've seen is an emerging practice on behalf of some of the federal administrations - we also see this in certain states - a desire not only to mandate immoral benefits but to impose speech codes that would be contrary to Catholic values," such as the commission's harassment guidance, Nussbaum said. "But the speech codes go beyond pronouns to even speaking about what Catholic teaching is, and we're just grateful to this court for protecting the freedom of speech of Catholic organizations as well." The Associated Press emailed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeking comment. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 Catholic employers and has about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website.
