Latest news with #FourthCircuit
Wall Street Journal
01-08-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Georgia-Pacific Asbestos Unit Beats Appeal to Stay in Bankruptcy
A federal appeals court kept Georgia-Pacific's Bestwall asbestos unit in bankruptcy, once again ruling against asbestos-injury claimants who want the chapter 11 case dismissed because of the parent company's solvency. On a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., said Friday that federal courts have jurisdiction to oversee chapter 11 cases filed by businesses that aren't in financial distress.
Fox News
23-07-2025
- Business
- Fox News
Supreme Court says Trump can proceed with firing Democrat-appointed CPSC members
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said President Donald Trump could proceed with the firing of three Democratic members of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) who were fired and then reinstated to their roles on the board — the latest high-stakes court clash centered on Trump's authority as authority to remove or otherwise control the fate of independent agency. The majority sided with the Trump administration in a 6-3 vote on the emergency order, the last of the Supreme Court's current term. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court in early July to stay the decision of a lower court judge in Maryland who sided with the three ousted board members, Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, ruled that their firings were unlawful and ordered they be reinstated to their roles. The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to grant the Trump administration's request to stay the order, clearing the way for the administration to appeal the matter to the Supreme Court. In its emergency filing to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer pointed to the court's decision in another, factually similar emergency case reviewed by the high court earlier this year, in which justices agreed to temporarily block the reinstatements of board members for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Sauer pointed to the factual similarities underpinning both cases, and argued that the high court's emergency decision there "squarely controls this case." The CPSC board members disputed that notion in their own Supreme Court filing — arguing that their removals from the CPSC would "disrupt the status quo" from an agency dedicated to consumer protection and safety. They also pointed to the timing of their removals, noting that the Trump administration made no attempt to oust them for four months — a delay they argue shows no urgency and undercuts any claim of "irreparable harm," a key standard for emergency court action. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected the government's request to temporarily freeze Maddox's order, the government appealed it to the Supreme Court. In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does "not interfere with" Trump's executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The case is the latest in a string of challenges centered on Trump's ability to remove members of independent boards. Like the NLRB and MSPB rulings, it centers on the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. Maddox invoked the uncertainty created by the preliminary posture of the NLRB and MSPB cases, which saw both plaintiffs removed and reinstated to their positions multiple times — which he said was the basis for ordering more permanent injunctive relief. "Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again," said Maddox. "The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment." In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does "not interfere with" Trump's executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
CBS News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Federal judges in Maryland request dismissal of Trump administration's lawsuit over immigration
Maryland's 15 federal judges are requesting the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against them by the Trump administration, citing a lack of jurisdiction. The motion, filed Monday, claims that the allegations in the lawsuit may not have a remedy. The Trump administration filed the lawsuit in June after Maryland District Chief Judge George Russell III signed an order blocking the immediate deportation of migrants who challenge their detention status by filing a habeas corpus petition. The order ensured that migrants can access their attorneys and participate in court proceedings. The Trump administration's lawsuit argued that the pause on deportations violated a Supreme Court ruling and interfered with the president's power to enforce immigration laws. The administration calledJudge Russell's order a "judicial overreach" and said he couldn't issue an injunction preventing the government from removing people who file habeas corpus petitions. According to the Associated Press, it's rare for the federal government to sue a whole federal bench. In the motion to dismiss, the Maryland judges argue that the "unprecedented lawsuit" has disrupted operations. "If allowed to proceed, the tensions between the branches produced by such a suit would only escalate," the judges said in the lawsuit. "...If this suit succeeds, it will not be the last – and the next suit could name the Fourth Circuit and cause greater disruption still," the lawsuit continues. The motion also touches on safeguards aimed at protecting migrants from immediate deportation, the judge said, arguing that the consequences of those actions can be "stark and potentially irreversible." The judges argue that courts around the country have used temporary stays for short periods when migrants request relief from immediate deportation. "That brief interval enables a court to ensure that it does not lose all chance of granting meaningful relief before it can make even a preliminary assessment of whether it has a basis to intervene," the judges said in the motion. The tension between these federal judges and the Trump administration comes as Kilmar Abrego Garcia's immigration case continues to play out in court. Abrego Garcia was deported from the U.S. to a prison in El Salvador in March, in what U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials admitted was a mistake. He was later returned to the U.S. to face federal human smuggling charges, though court proceedings continued as his attorneys raised concerns that he could be deported again. District Judge Paula Xinis, who was named in the lawsuit against Maryland judges, has pushed back against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia's deportation, calling the move illegal. On Monday, Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked that his release from custody be delayed by 30 days to give him time to evaluate his options as he faces another potential deportation.
Arab News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Thousands of Afghans face possible deportation after court refuses to extend their legal protection
VIRGINIA: Thousands of Afghans in the US are no longer protected from deportation after a federal appeals court refused to postpone the Trump administration's decision to end their legal status. A three-judge panel of the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia said in a ruling late Monday there was 'insufficient evidence to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a postponement' of the administration's decision not to extend Temporary Protected Status for people from Afghanistan and Cameroon. TPS for Afghans ended July 14, but was briefly extended by the appeals court through July 21 while it considered an emergency request for a longer postponement. The Department of Homeland Security in May said it was ending Temporary Protected Status for 11,700 people from Afghanistan in 60 days. That status — in place since 2022 — had allowed them to work and meant the government couldn't deport them. CASA, a nonprofit immigrant advocacy group, sued the administration over the TPS revocation for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon, which expire August 4. It said the decisions were racially motivated and failed to follow a process laid out by Congress. A federal judge allowed the lawsuit to go forward but didn't grant CASA's request to keep the protections in place while the lawsuit plays out. A phone message for CASA on Tuesday was not immediately returned. Without an extension, TPS holders from Afghanistan and Cameroon face a 'devastating choice — abandoning their homes, relinquishing their employment, and uprooting their lives to return to a country where they face the threat of severe physical harm or even death, or remaining in the United States in a state of legal uncertainty while they wait for other immigration processes to play out,' CASA warned in court documents. In its decision on Monday, the appeals court said CASA had made a 'plausible' legal claim against the administration, and urged the lower court to move the case forward expeditiously. It also said many of the TPS holders from the two countries may be eligible for other legal protections that remain available to them. Temporary Protected Status can be granted by the Homeland Security secretary to people who face safety concerns in their home countries because of armed conflict, environmental disaster or other conditions. They can't be deported and can work legally in the US, but they don't have a pathway to citizenship. The status, however, is inherently precarious because it is up to the Homeland Security secretary to renew the protections regularly — usually every 18 months. The Trump administration has pushed to remove Temporary Protected Status from people from seven countries, with Venezuela and Haiti making up the biggest chunk of the hundreds of thousands of people affected. Homeland Security officials said in their decision to end the Temporary Protected Status for Afghans that the situation in their home country was getting better. Groups that help Afghan TPS holders say the country is still extremely dangerous. 'Ending TPS does not align with the reality of circumstances on the ground in Afghanistan,' Global Refuge President and CEO Krish O'Mara Vignarajah said in a statement. 'Conditions remain dire, especially for allies who supported the US mission, as well as women, girls, religious minorities, and ethnic groups targeted by the Taliban.' He called on Congress to provide Afghan TPS holders with a 'permanent path to safety and stability.'
TimesLIVE
15-07-2025
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
US court upholds protected status for Cameroonians and Afghans — for now
A US appeals court has blocked for now a bid by President Donald Trump's administration to strip temporary protected status from thousands of Afghans in the US, court documents showed, allowing them more time to argue the case. Monday's order by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted an administrative stay on the termination until July 21, following a request from immigration advocacy organisation CASA. The group's lawsuit against the US department of homeland security (DHS) challenged the termination of temporary protected status (TPS) for Afghans and Cameroonians unveiled by the administration in April. The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time of the April announcement, it had said conditions in Afghanistan and Cameroon no longer merited the protected status. The TPS programme provides protection against deportation and provides work permits for periods of six to 18 months to those from countries stricken by natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event.
