Latest news with #FederalRuleofCivilProcedure
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
A Showdown Over The Power Of The Courts Is Headed To The Senate
In the House of Representatives' recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, something ugly lurks beneath the surface. It is a provision — a single paragraph found about halfway through the bill's 1,000-plus pages — that could hamstring judges, reduce access to the courts for the average person and reverse a number of the Trump administration's legal setbacks and defeats. What is the provision, and how likely is it to become a reality? HuffPost breaks down what it all means. Section 70302 of the bill states that 'no court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), whether issued prior to, on, or subsequent to the date of enactment of this section.' In simple terms, this means that judges wouldn't be able to issue contempt orders against defendants who defy the courts unless the person who first sued for an injunction or restraining order had forked over a bond at the very start of their lawsuit. Contempt citations, which occur when a person fails to obey court orders, can carry financial penalties as well as jail time. Bonds are taken to limit financial damages to the person or entity being sued. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) has offered guidance on this point since 1938, telling judges they can only hand down preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders if they first issued a bond that was 'proper.' A preliminary injunction stops a party in a legal dispute from taking any further action; a temporary restraining order is similar but it only lasts for a short window of time, usually 10 days. A judge ultimately decides what that 'proper' bond amount should be. Federal courts often do not set bonds at all due to the large disparity in power and resources between the United States and an individual plaintiff, judges often put practicality first when it comes to lawsuits against the federal government and Rule 65 is applied at their discretion: A single person would likely never be able to put up a financial bond big enough to cover the full cost of potential injury the federal government may experience if hit with an injunction. As a result, a judge might set such a bond for a nominal amount, like $1 or even $0. This lowers the hurdle that the public must climb over when contesting the actions of its own government. Importantly, the provision in the bill passed by the House applies retroactively, without any stated time limit. This could mean that injunctions handed down by the courts years ago — like those instructing the government to stop segregating schools, for example, and any other where a bond was not taken — could potentially be undone if a bond was not taken first, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and distinguished professor of law at Berkeley Law School, recently told HuffPost. The language in the provision is somewhat vague, and it's not clear whether bonds set by a judge at $0 would be swept up, too. The biggest hurdle the provision faces is that it likely doesn't meet the requirements of the Byrd Rule, which prohibits passing a budget bill that includes anything 'extraneous' or not related to fiscal spending. There are six tests senators must use to determine if a provision is 'extraneous,' according to the Congressional Research Service: 1, if the provision does not produce any change in revenue or the amount of funds spent on something; 2, if it produces an increase in the amount of funds spent on something or a decrease in revenue; 3, if it is outside the jurisdiction of the congressional committee that submitted the provision to begin with; 4, if it only changes revenue or spending in a way that is 'merely incidental'; 5, it increases the deficit in a fiscal year beyond what was already covered in a budget bill; and 6, it would amend specific parts of the Social Security Act relevant to old age, survivors and disability insurance. The provision in the tax bill attempts to meet that criteria by saying courts can't use 'appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation.' Although judges have the power to hold someone in contempt, the related penalties — for example, whether someone gets arrested and is taken to jail — are left up to the U.S. Marshals service, Chemerinsky explained. That agency is housed under the Justice Department, which has its funds appropriated by Congress. Khadijah Silver, the supervising attorney for civil rights at Lawyers for Good Government, told HuffPost the U.S. Marshals Service 'connection is incredibly thin.' 'The Byrd Rule requires budget reconciliation measures to have a direct fiscal impact, and this is fundamentally about restricting judicial power, not spending,' Silver said. 'More importantly, as the Supreme Court established nearly a century ago in Michelson v. United States, Congress cannot undermine the essential functions of federal courts. The contempt power is integral to judicial authority under Article III — without it, court orders become meaningless suggestions that the executive branch can ignore at will.' At least one Republican senator demurred when asked whether the provision was likely to make it to the final bill. During a town hall in Iowa on Friday, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told attendees that every provision in the 1,100-page bill would go through a review process before it came up for a vote — and said Republicans in the chamber wouldn't be making the final call. 'We're not the ones who make those decisions, folks. If you follow Senate procedures, it's nonpartisan parliamentarians who make that decision. … And they are very strict about this as well. I don't think any argument that could ever be made that this [provision] impacts mandatory spending or revenues — I just don't see it getting into the Senate bill,' Ernst said. The current Senate parliamentarian is Elizabeth MacDonough, who was appointed to the role by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, in 2012. But what Ernst failed to mention was that senators could vote to overrule MacDonough if she were to suggest tossing the provision — and that a simple majority is all that is needed to do so when it comes to budget bills. Republicans hold the majority in the Senate. If the provision were passed, it would have the potential to unwind injunctions or restraining orders that judges have already set against the Trump administration as the president has pushed through executive orders attempting to dismantle the federal government or target groups he perceives as a threat to his administration's agenda, from people born to immigrant parents to law firms he claims are weaponized against him, to trans people serving in the U.S. military. Judges in the nation's lower courts have ruled against the administration 96% of the time so far, according to an analysis by political science professor Adam Bonica of Stanford University. Many cases where an injunction was issued could be in jeopardy if the provision is left intact, and the threat of a judge issuing future contempt citations against the administration evaporates as well. There is little question the provision would 'embolden government excesses and hobble judges' ability to enforce their rulings,' Silver said. 'This is most problematic in cases where the injunction is based on the government's breach of the Constitution,' they said. 'It forces private actors who have been harmed and are being harmed to pay for the privilege of having those harms brought before the court.' In short, it's now up to the Senate whether the judicial system will change drastically and quickly. 'This provision would render hundreds of existing court orders unenforceable overnight. We're talking about everything from school desegregation orders to police reform mandates to protection of immigrants' due process rights,' Silver said. 'It would create a 'catch me if you can' system where the government could violate the Constitution faster than courts could stop them. This isn't about fiscal responsibility — it's about neutering the last meaningful check on executive power when it tramples our constitutional rights.' House Passes Trump's Tax And Spending Cuts The Long Shadow Of Bill Clinton Over The 'One Big Beautiful Bill' Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Faces Uphill Battle In The Senate
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ripple and SEC case faces a shocking turn
In another twist to the years-long SEC vs. Ripple case, Judge Analisa Torres has denied the joint motion for an indicative ruling on their settlement, lawyer James Filan informed on X on May 15. Judge Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that to vacate the final judgement would be "procedurally improper" since the parties didn't file the correct procedural motion. As earlier reported, Ripple — the blockchain and payments firm — and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a joint settlement on May 8. The motion requested Judge Torres for an indicative ruling to dissolve the injunction in the Aug. 7, 2024 judgment that prohibited Ripple from "unlawful offer and sale of securities." It also requested the court to reduce the civil penalty on Ripple from $125 million to $25 million. The court has now ruled that both parties have failed to satisfy the heavy burden the court must overcome to "vacate the injunction" and "substantially reduce" the penalty by classifying their motion as one for "settlement approval." It also underlined that such a request is properly made under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Relief from judgment is granted "only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances," Judge Torres wrote. 'If jurisdiction were restored to this Court, the Court would deny the parties' motion as procedurally improper.' The federal securities regulator sued Ripple in December 2020, arguing that the firm was allegedly engaged in the sale of unregistered XRP token securities worth $1.3 billion. In July 2023, the matter took a different turn as Judge Torres delivered a landmark ruling that said that while the sale of tokens to institutional investors violated securities laws, their sale to retail investors on public exchanges didn't violate the same. Following the latest ruling, XRP fell 3% to trade at $2.44 at the time of writing. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Yes, the Lopez v. Apple lawsuit over Siri allegedly snooping on users is real. Here's how to cash in
Claim: A class-action lawsuit known as the "Lopez Voice Assistant Settlement" or "Lopez v. Apple" is an authentic settlement with Apple over claims that the company's voice assistant, Siri, eavesdropped on users. Rating: In early May 2025, Snopes readers began inquiring about an alleged class-action lawsuit against Apple over claims that the company's voice assistant service, Siri, eavesdropped on its device users. "I got a suspicious email from Lopez voice assistant class action suit about Siri," one reader wrote. Social media users on platforms like X and Reddit also claimed people could cash in on the purported settlement. This is an authentic $95 million settlement over claims that Apple "violated users' privacy by allegedly recording private and confidential conversations without consent" through Siri, and the company "disclosed such conversations to third parties, who listened to and transcribed the audio as part of an effort to improve Siri and Apple's dictation service," per a news release from the plaintiffs' lawyers in the case. Those who used Siri from Sept. 17, 2014, to Dec. 31, 2024, are eligible for a small portion of the sum as long as they file a claim by July 2, 2025. Thus, this is not a scam and we rate it legitimate. A court document confirming the existence of the settlement is available here; one of the plaintiff's names is Fumiko Lopez, hence "Lopez v. Apple." Page 2 describes certification and who's eligible (emphasis ours): Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), the Settlement Class is preliminarily certified for the purpose of Settlement only as follows: All individual current or former owners or purchasers of a Siri Device, who reside in the United States and its territories, whose confidential or private communications were obtained by Apple and/or were shared with third parties as a result of an unintended Siri activation between September 17, 2014 and December 31, 2024. The Settlement Agreement defines "Siri Device" as a Siri-enabled iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, MacBook, iMac, HomePod, iPod touch, or Apple TV. Under the terms of the document, Apple denies all liability for Siri's alleged snooping; officially, the courts did not rule in favor of either Apple or Lopez, instead allowing both sides to agree to the settlement. The official website for this settlement is the FAQ page lists the lawyers in the lawsuit as contact information for any inquiries from prospective claim beneficiaries. The website notes you can submit a claim form for $20 for up to five devices with Siri installed, or $100 total. This aligns with Page 6 of the court document (emphasis ours): Settlement Class Members may submit claims for up to five Siri Devices on which they claim to have experienced an unintended Siri activation during a conversation intended to be confidential or private. Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims shall receive a pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Amount for a Class Payment up to a cap of $20 per Siri Device. As of this writing, a final approval hearing for the courts to affirm the terms of the settlement will happen on Aug. 1, 2025, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and should the settlement be approved, users will "promptly" receive the cash, per the website's FAQ page (emphasis theirs): The Court will hold a hearing on August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. (the "Final Approval Hearing"), to decide whether to approve the Settlement. The Court may move the Final Approval Hearing to a different date or time without providing further Notice to the Class. The date and time of the Final Approval Hearing can be confirmed on this website. If the Settlement is approved, there may be appeals. The appeal process can take time. If there is no appeal, your settlement benefit will be processed promptly. Please be patient. Levis, Christian. "Lowey Dannenberg." Lowey Dannenberg, 3 Jan. 2025, Accessed 9 May 2025. "Lopez v. Apple, Inc., 4:19-Cv-04577 - CourtListener, Accessed 9 May 2025. "Lopez Voice Assistant Settlement." Accessed 9 May 2025. White, Jeffrey S. "[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION for PRELIMINARY APPROVAL of CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT; PRELIMINARILY CERTIFYING SETTLEMENT CLASS; and APPROVING FORM and CONTENT of CLASS NOTICE." CourtListener, 10 Feb. 2025, Accessed 9 May 2025.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump wants 'activist' groups that sue the government to put up money if they lose
FIRST ON FOX: President Donald Trump signed a memo Thursday directing government agency heads to ask federal judges to require financial guarantees to hold "activist" groups that sue the government financially responsible if an injunction is found to be unnecessary. The memo comes as the Trump administration faces more than 90 lawsuits stemming from executive orders, memos and executive proclamations issued since Jan. 20 that legal groups, labor organizations, and other state and local plaintiffs are challenging. Specifically, the memo instructs federal agencies to coordinate with Attorney General Pam Bondi to request federal courts adhere to a rule that mandates financial guarantees from those requesting injunctions. While federal judges ultimately have the final say on whether these financial guarantees are required, the Department of Justice can request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) that judges implement the rule to require financial guarantees from plaintiffs that are equal to the potential costs and damages the federal government would incur from a wrongly issued preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. Scotus Rules On Nearly $2B In Frozen Usaid Payments The memo signed Thursday applies to all lawsuits seeking preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders "where the government can demonstrate monetary harm from the requested relief," according to a White House fact sheet. Read On The Fox News App "Agencies must justify security amounts based on reasoned assessments of harm, ensuring courts deny or dissolve injunctions if plaintiffs fail to pay up, absent good cause," the White House said in the fact sheet obtained by Fox News Digital. As a result, the White House said the order will rein in "activist judges" and keep "litigants accountable." "Unelected district judges have issued sweeping injunctions beyond their authority, inserting themselves into executive policymaking and stalling policies voters supported," the White House said in its fact sheet. The lawsuits challenging the Trump administration already have started to make their way up to the Supreme Court. For example, the high court issued a 5-4 ruling Wednesday upholding a district judge's order requiring the Trump administration to pay almost $2 billion in foreign aid money. The Supreme Court said that since the district court's Feb. 26 deadline for the Trump administration to pay the USAID funding contracts has expired, it directed the case back to the lower court to hash out future payment plans. Trump Temporarily Thwarted In Doge Mission To End Usaid "Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines," the court said. Fox News' Kerri Urbahn and Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report. Original article source: Trump wants 'activist' groups that sue the government to put up money if they lose
