Latest news with #FederalRules
Newsweek
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Justice Samuel Alito Accuses Supreme Court of Taking 'Shortcut'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas took issue with the Supreme Court's opinion issued on Friday in regards to the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), saying the court has no authority to issue the kind of relief his colleagues approved. Alito accused his fellow justices of "a mischaracterization" of events leading up to the request for injunctive relief and offered a reinterpretation of those events. He stressed that in his view, "the Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut" in regards to how the court certified a class of plaintiffs to resist the AEA use. Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment via email on Friday afternoon. Why It Matters President Donald Trump has made mass deportations a centerpiece policy of his second administration. He promised to enact those deportations upon taking office, and had much public backing to do so, according to polling at the time. However, he has faced legal gridlock on various aspects of his efforts, including his use of the 1798 AEA. Trump used the act to target alleged members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which his administration has designated as a terrorist organization. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas are pictured at the conclusion of the inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20 in Washington, D.C. U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, left, and Clarence Thomas are pictured at the conclusion of the inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20 in Washington, To Know The Supreme Court in April issued an 11th-hour injunction blocking the administration's use of the AEA on certain persons in order to better consider the case. The court on Friday then issued a full opinion on the matter, in which the justices argued that the administration must provide greater notice than 24 hours that it intends to deport someone under the act. Alito dissented from the per curiam opinion (meaning the opinion was issued from the court as a whole rather than a particular justice as the author), with only Thomas joining him in dissent. Part of Alito's dissent took issue with the class of Venezuelan migrants at question, accusing his fellow justices of preferring to "ignore the important step of class certification and skip directly to the adjudication of the class members' rights." "The Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut," Alito wrote, separately noting in his dissent that the case of the two individuals—identified as A.A.R.P. or W.M.M.—have key differences from the putative class at the heart of the case, and continued to take issue with how the court has treated class certification and qualification. "Instead of merely ruling on the application that is before us—which asks for emergency relief pending appeal—the Court takes the unusual step of granting certiorari before judgment, summarily vacating the judgment below dismissing the applicants' appeal, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals with directions regarding the issues that court should address," Alito wrote. "From the Court's order, it is not entirely clear whether the Court has silently decided issues that go beyond the question of interim relief," he wrote, adding, "(I certainly hope that it has not.) But if it has done so, today's order is doubly extraordinary." He concluded: "If the Court has gone beyond that question, it has blazed a new trail. It has plucked a case from a district court and decided important issues in the first instance. To my eyes, that looks far too much like an expansion of our original jurisdiction," saying that he "must therefore respectfully dissent." What People Are Saying Trump wrote on Truth Social: "The Supreme Court has just ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse. The result of this decision will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public. It will also encourage other criminals to illegally enter our Country, wreaking havoc and bedlam wherever they go. The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. Sleepy Joe Biden allowed MILLIONS of Criminal Aliens to come into our Country without any "PROCESS" but, in order to get them out of our Country, we have to go through a long and extended PROCESS. In any event, thank you to Justice Alito and Justice Thomas for attempting to protect our Country. This is a bad and dangerous day for America!" What Happens Next The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to consider appropriate procedures on how to properly alert potential deportees of their impending removal.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
23XI, Front Row seek courts to compel NBA, NFL, NHL, Formula 1 to share relevant financial info
Attorneys representing 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have asked courts in New York and Colorado to order Liberty Media Corporation, owner of Formula 1, the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball to share financial documents showing how each league shares revenue with its teams. The two Cup teams asked the court in a March 31 filing to compel the NFL, NBA and NHL to produce documents requested. The two Cup teams filed a memorandum Monday for the court to compel Liberty Medial to share requested financial information. This is a part of the antitrust lawsuit 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filed against NASCAR last year. The case is scheduled to go to trial Dec. 1. NASCAR is contesting the suit and countersued the two teams on March 5. NASCAR countersues 23XI Racing, Front Row Motorsports, 23XI co-owner Curtis Polk NASCAR stated in court documents that the two teams and Curtis Polk 'embarked on a strategy to threaten, coerce, and extort NASCAR into meeting their demands for better contract and financial terms.' Dustin Long, Dustin Long, In court papers, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports stated why documents from the other leagues are important: "NASCAR has exploited its monopoly power to impose anticompetitive terms on the teams that compete in Cup Series races, including by providing teams with lower shares of revenues (such as TV revenues from NASCAR's $7.7 billion media rights deal) than they would receive in a competitive market. … Plaintiffs' subpoenas to the leagues seek financial information relevant to proving antitrust injury and calculating the damages incurred by Plaintiffs under the well-accepted 'yardstick' measure of estimating damages in an antitrust litigation.' The two Cup teams seek documents that show team and league revenues and how those are split. The two Cup teams also seek valuations of expansion or current teams in those leagues. The two Cup teams seek information from Jan. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2024. NASCAR's charter system debuted ahead of the 2016 season. In court documents, the two Cup teams state that the NHL, NFL and NBA have refused to provide information on revenue and valuation information. Major League Baseball, citing the start of its season, requested additional time to respond. The NFL and NBA objected in court documents, stating: "The Subpoena is based on the flimsiest of premises: that because Plaintiffs are suing NASCAR, they can obtain -by way of federal process - financials, financial projections, research, studies, analyses, and other highly confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information belonging to almost every other major sports league in the United States. To be clear, there is no legitimate basis for any assertion that the information sought has any direct connection to the substantive dispute between the parties or that the Subpoena complies with the strictures of the Federal Rules." Liberty Media stated, in court documents, its objections to the sharing its financial info, noting, among other reasons, that 'Liberty Media objects to the Subpoena because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents that are neither relevant to claims or defenses in, nor proportionate to the needs of, the Action.'
NBC Sports
09-04-2025
- Automotive
- NBC Sports
23XI, Front Row seek courts to compel NBA, NFL, NHL, Formula 1 to share relevant financial info
Attorneys representing 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports have asked courts in New York and Colorado to order Liberty Media Corporation, owner of Formula 1, the NFL, NBA, NHL and Major League Baseball to share financial documents showing how each league shares revenue with its teams. The two Cup teams asked the court in a March 31 filing to compel the NFL, NBA and NHL to produce documents requested. The two Cup teams filed a memorandum Monday for the court to compel Liberty Medial to share requested financial information. This is a part of the antitrust lawsuit 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports filed against NASCAR last year. The case is scheduled to go to trial Dec. 1. NASCAR is contesting the suit and countersued the two teams on March 5. Dustin Long, In court papers, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports stated why documents from the other leagues are important: 'NASCAR has exploited its monopoly power to impose anticompetitive terms on the teams that compete in Cup Series races, including by providing teams with lower shares of revenues (such as TV revenues from NASCAR's $7.7 billion media rights deal) than they would receive in a competitive market. … Plaintiffs' subpoenas to the leagues seek financial information relevant to proving antitrust injury and calculating the damages incurred by Plaintiffs under the well-accepted 'yardstick' measure of estimating damages in an antitrust litigation.' The two Cup teams seek documents that show team and league revenues and how those are split. The two Cup teams also seek valuations of expansion or current teams in those leagues. The two Cup teams seek information from Jan. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2024. NASCAR's charter system debuted ahead of the 2016 season. In court documents, the two Cup teams state that the NHL, NFL and NBA have refused to provide information on revenue and valuation information. Major League Baseball, citing the start of its season, requested additional time to respond. The NFL and NBA objected in court documents, stating: 'The Subpoena is based on the flimsiest of premises: that because Plaintiffs are suing NASCAR, they can obtain -by way of federal process - financials, financial projections, research, studies, analyses, and other highly confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive information belonging to almost every other major sports league in the United States. To be clear, there is no legitimate basis for any assertion that the information sought has any direct connection to the substantive dispute between the parties or that the Subpoena complies with the strictures of the Federal Rules.' Liberty Media stated, in court documents, its objections to the sharing its financial info, noting, among other reasons, that 'Liberty Media objects to the Subpoena because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome and seeks documents that are neither relevant to claims or defenses in, nor proportionate to the needs of, the Action.'
