Latest news with #Dugan
Fox News
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
As Trump intervenes in DC's crime crisis, another violent city's DA gets a challenger from inside the tent
A former municipal judge who lost to Philadelphia's Soros-linked city prosecutor in the May Democratic primary announced over the weekend he would be registering for the Republican Party line in November's election, as President Donald Trump brings a new focus on urban crime. Philadelphia Judge Patrick Dugan, of the city's Far Northeast, earned enough write-in votes in May's contest – where no Republican was on that party's primary ballot – to be able to run on the party line in November. However, it wasn't until the weekend that Dugan formally announced he would take the GOP mantle in hopes of ousting Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner. Trump, meanwhile, announced on Monday he is usurping control of the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., for the statutory 48 hours allowed under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 due to violent crime he declared is on par with several capitals in Central America. Dugan said in a statement that he expects Krasner to try to tie him to Trump and call him an "extremist," but only "because he knows his record is one of failure, and he cannot defend the rampant crime his policies have caused." "I know that Philadelphians are smart enough to believe their eyes, and what they see is more crime, more drugs, more victims abandoned, more shootings, and more criminals let loose on the streets," Dugan said in a statement. The former jurist also reportedly said that although he will be on the Republican line, he identifies as an "Independent-Democrat." That wasn't enough to quell Philadelphia Democratic Party boss Bob Brady, who called Dugan a "disgrace" and appeared to kick him out of the party. "He's got zero integrity… he's out of our party… I don't need liars in our party," the former congressman told the Philadelphia Inquirer. The Associated Press had called the Krasner-Dugan primary with the incumbent earning at least 60% of the vote. Dugan, however, garnered 53,000 Democratic votes and a shocking 6,400 write-ins. Because Pennsylvania is a closed-primary state, those voters were likely – if not entirely – Republicans. Dugan said Saturday he would be a DA for "all of Philadelphia," regardless of party affiliation. "I cannot stand by and allow Mr. Krasner's failed policies to continue to hold our city hostage. Every Philadelphian has a real choice this fall, and I believe they will stand with me for common sense and safety." Philly GOP chair Vince Fenerty added that the city now has a "real choice" between Dugan and Krasner, a "proven advocate for the very criminals he is supposed to prosecute." Pennsylvania state Sen. Joe Picozzi, a fellow Northeast Philly Republican, called Dugan a "proven leader" and said "firing Larry Krasner" is a top priority for him. Picozzi himself shocked the commonwealth when he unseated a Democrat in 2024, making him the first Republican state senator to represent America's birthplace in decades. Krasner criticized Dugan for being a Democrat embraced by Republicans. Since Krasner's rise, Philadelphia has battled a crime crisis, as well as the prosecutor's penchant not to prosecute marijuana possession, certain sex work offenses and other low-level crimes. However, during some of the looting amid the George Floyd riots, Krasner indicated there had been 550 arrests for burglary and that he would "vigorously prosecute" many of them. "Some of them, on the other hand, are an 18-year-old who's never had contact with the criminal justice system before, not even an arrest, who's going in through a broken window and coming out with a T-shirt," he added, according to CBS News. Violent crime as a category, however, has declined some in the past few years, with a decrease of about 17%, according to the Penn Capital-Star, to which critics have pointed to the custom of dropping charges on some crimes. Trump previously called Krasner the "worst district attorney," and asked Philadelphians who attended a 2019 rally in Hershey to "get yourself a new prosecutor." In a January statement after Trump took office, Krasner hit back, telling the president in a statement that "arrests and prosecutions are based on probable cause, not on whether you agree or disagree with a political position." "Unlike the current president, who this week pardoned or commuted sentences for over 1,000 lawfully convicted and sentenced insurrectionists, my office and others will continue to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law," Krasner said.
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple doesn't threaten Visa, Mastercard, judge rules
This story was originally published on Payments Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Payments Dive newsletter. Apple, Visa and Mastercard won dismissal last week of a lawsuit filed by merchants alleging that the technology giant took money from the two largest U.S. card networks to avoid building a competing payment system that would have lowered fees on card purchases. The merchants, led by Mirage Wine & Spirits of O'Fallon, Illinois, failed to show evidence that Apple had considered establishing its own payment network to challenge the incumbents, U.S. District Judge David Dugan ruled July 9 in the Southern District of Illinois, dismissing the lawsuit. However, the merchants can amend and refile their complaint, he said. Attorneys for the merchants, Apple and Visa did not respond to emails Friday seeking comment. Mastercard has no comment on the case, a spokesperson said. For decades, merchants have pursued antitrust complaints against Visa and Mastercard, seeking damages over the interchange fees the networks assess retailers, restaurants and other businesses when a consumer pays with a credit or debit card. The federal court case, filed in December 2023 by Mirage and four other local merchants, included Apple as a defendant. Apple accepted 'a very large and ongoing cash bribe' from Visa and Mastercard to avoid competing with them, which was worth hundreds of millions of dollars per year, according to the complaint. Dugan found that plaintiffs had offered 'a slew of circumstantial allegations' about the defendants' actions in payments but those are 'too speculative and conclusory' to 'adequately represent' antitrust law violations. The judge said he was persuaded by Apple's arguments about 'the allegations that it could succeed in the seemingly monumental task of disintermediating Defendants Visa and Mastercard from the payment network market.' The merchants may be correct that Apple 'was uniquely situated to reap the high potential reward for disintermediating Defendants Visa and Mastercard from the payment network market; however, their allegations completely ignore the difficulties, costs and time, risks, and potential for failure associated with such an endeavor,' he wrote in the order. The notion of Apple as a market player paid off to avoid competing also figures heavily in allegations the Justice Department made last year, accusing Visa of operating an illegal monopoly in the debit card market. Apple was one of the potential network competitors to Visa the government cited in its September lawsuit, which also identified PayPal Holdings and Square as likely payment rivals, if not for incentive agreements the fintechs had struck with Visa. Last month, a federal judge in New York denied Visa's bid to dismiss the U.S. lawsuit. In their lawsuit, which sought class action certification, the merchants said that Apple 'possessed a unique ability' to disrupt the card-payment market, given the ubiquity of its iPhone and near-field communication (NFC) technology to connect with point-of-sale hardware. 'If Apple allowed this functionality, it could have charged Merchants a fee for acceptance that was highly profitable to Apple but significantly below the Entrenched Networks' inflated Merchant fees, while incentivizing consumers to use the cash balances in their Apple Wallets to make purchases,' the merchants said in their complaint. Apple's agreement with Visa and Mastercard dates to August 2014. Following the agreement, Apple excluded PayPal's bank-transfer solution from its iPhone, according to the lawsuit. Recommended Reading How Visa stymied big tech rivals Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US Judge drops anti-competitive lawsuit against Apple, Visa, Mastercard
US District Judge David Dugan has dismissed a lawsuit against Apple, Visa, and Mastercard for alleged anti-competitive payment practices, reported Reuters. The plaintiffs alleged that the companies conspired to prevent competition and caused merchants to incur higher transaction fees. The plaintiffs had accused Apple of accepting what they termed a "very large and ongoing cash bribe" from Visa and Mastercard to prevent it from entering the market, an arrangement that allegedly led to higher fees for merchants on transactions. Dugan, however, found the evidence presented by the merchants to be insufficient, describing their case as reliant on "a slew of circumstantial allegations." While the judge allowed for the possibility of amending the lawsuit to present a stronger argument, the current claims were not upheld. The defendants, including Apple, Visa, and Mastercard, have denied the allegations. They had previously called for the dismissal of the lawsuit, asserting that no anti-competitive conduct took place. Apple, which launched its Apple Pay service in 2014, allows iPhone users to make payments at businesses where the service is accepted. Apple contended that the complaint did not demonstrate any concrete plans or intentions by the company to enter the payments network market. In his ruling, News agency further quoted him as saying: merchants' allegations 'completely ignore the difficulties, costs and time, risks, and potential for failure associated with such an endeavour.' Representatives for Mastercard and the plaintiffs have declined to comment on the ruling. Apple has not issued a comment, and Visa has not responded to a request for comment by Reuters. Last month in UK, the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled that Visa and Mastercard's default multilateral interchange fees (MIFs) violate UK and Irish competition law. "US Judge drops anti-competitive lawsuit against Apple, Visa, Mastercard " was originally created and published by Electronic Payments International, a GlobalData owned brand. The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
Chicago Tribune
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Judge recommends that case against Wisconsin Judge Hannah Dugan proceed
A federal magistrate judge recommended Monday that the case proceed against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted on allegations that she helped a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse. Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested in April and indicted on federal charges in May. She pleaded not guilty. The case highlighted a clash between President Donald Trump's administration and local authorities over the Republican's sweeping immigration crackdown. Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition. Dugan filed a motion in May to dismiss the charges against her, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. She argued that the federal government violated Wisconsin's sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on Monday recommended against dropping the charges. The ultimate decision is up to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who can accept the other judge's recommendation or reject it. 'We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,' Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement. 'This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.' Joseph wrote in her recommendation that while judges have immunity from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts, that does not apply to criminal charges like those in this case. 'A judge's actions, even when done in her official capacity, does not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law,' Joseph wrote. Dugan also argued that the prosecution under federal law violated the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers because it overrides the state of Wisconsin's ability to administer its courts. Whether Dugan broke the law as alleged, or she was merely performing her judicial duties as Dugan contends, are questions for a jury to decide and can't be determined in a motion to dismiss, Joseph said. Joseph also noted that both sides disagree on facts related to the case, which also can't be resolved in a motion to dismiss. 'It is important to note that nothing said here speaks to the merits of the allegations against Dugan,' the judge said in the recommendation. 'Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.' No trial date has been set. Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country without permanent legal status. Agents arrested Ruiz outside of the courthouse after a brief foot chase. Dugan could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts. Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
USA Today
08-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
A judge allegedly helped an undocumented man avoid arrest. Her case just moved forward.
A judge allowed the case against Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan to proceed, a setback for the official as she faces charges for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade law enforcement. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph issued her decision late July 7, rejecting Dugan's bid to have the case tossed as her lawyers argue she's protected by judicial immunity. Joseph's 37-page report and recommendation directed prosecutors and Dugan's lawyers to resolve any differences regarding the facts of the case at a trial. "Dugan disputes the government's version of events, and the government will have the burden of proving its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt at trial," Joseph wrote. "However, these contested facts cannot be resolved at this juncture." Dugan was indicted May 13 on charges she obstructed a federal agency and helped a man named Eduardo Flores-Ruiz elude federal agents in the Milwaukee County Courthouse. Flores-Ruiz, 31, was arrested April 18 following a short chase outside the courthouse. Dugan herself was arrested by the FBI at the courthouse a week later, placing her at the center of the ongoing dispute between the Trump administration and the nation's courts. Dugan, 66, has pleaded not guilty to the charges, one a felony and the other a misdemeanor. If convicted, she could face a maximum penalty of six years in prison and a $350,000 fine, but sentences in cases involving nonviolent offenses typically are much shorter. However, the judge's bid to have her case tossed isn't over. Joseph's report will now go to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, the trial judge who will make the final decision on the motion to dismiss. "We are disappointed in the magistrate judge's non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it," Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic said in a statement. "This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts." Dugan's lawyers filed a memo May 29 arguing her federal prosecution is improper, violating the 10th Amendment and amounting to federal overreach. Prosecutors countered that the judicial immunity argument is flawed and doesn't align with previous cases, saying Dugan is "not above the law." A scheduling hearing is set for July 9. No trial date has been set. Joseph's decision to allow the charges against Dugan to move forward cited multiple previous cases, including the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that President Donald Trump had immunity from prosecution. However, she said the ruling doesn't apply to Dugan's case – calling the arguments by the Milwaukee judge's lawyers "a leap too far." "While Dugan asserts that Trump simply extended to the President the same immunity from prosecution that judges already have, this argument makes a leap too far. Trump says nothing about criminal immunity for judicial acts," Joseph wrote. Joseph said she agrees with Dugan's attorneys that judges have great power, but that does not give her absolute immunity. The magistrate judge's report also noted that judges have immunity from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages when engaging in so-called "judicial acts." But Joseph said such immunity does not apply in criminal cases. "A judge's actions, even when done in her official capacity, do not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law." Still, Joseph added that "Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.'
