Latest news with #FourthCircuitCourtofAppeals
NBC Sports
12 hours ago
- Automotive
- NBC Sports
Questions, answers about appeal court ruling in NASCAR's favor in matter with 23XI, Front Row
Here is a breakdown of Thursday's court decision and its impact: WHAT HAPPENED THURSDAY? A three-judge panel from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled to vacate the preliminary injunction that a U.S. District court judge had granted 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports to run as chartered teams despite not signing the charter agreement. HOW DOES THURSDAY'S DECISION IMPACT MATTERS THIS WEEKEND AT MICHIGAN? It does not in any way. WHY? 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports can file a petition for rehearing (requesting the court reconsider its decision) or a petition for rehearing en banc —meaning the full Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals addresses the matters instead of the three-judge panel. This must be filed within 14 calendar days after entry of judgment (June 5). So that would put the deadline at June 19. IF THE TEAMS DO NOT SEEK A REHEARING, THEN WHAT HAPPENS? The decision by the three-judge panel becomes effective seven days after the expiration of time for filing a petition for rehearing. In this matter, that would mean the panel's decision could become effective on June 26 — two days before the Atlanta race. WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT SITUATION? The 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports cars would be classified as open cars instead of chartered cars. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THEIR CHARTERS? That would be up to NASCAR. SO 23XI RACING AND FRONT ROW MOTORSPORTS COULD CONCEIVABLY FAIL TO QUALIFY FOR RACES IF THEY LOST THEIR CHARTERS? If they were an open team, yes, but, in the 50 races since the start of last year, only two — the Daytona 500 last year and this year — had any cars fail to qualify. BUT BOTH TEAMS WOULD EARN LESS MONEY AS AN OPEN TEAM, CORRECT? Yes, but before one goes too far down this road, let's see what 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports decide to do after today's court opinion. For now, 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports remain chartered teams and their six cars are all chartered cars. WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE FROM THE TEAMS THURSDAY? This is the statement from Jeffrey Kessler, the lead attorney for 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports: 'We are disappointed by today's ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and are reviewing the decision to determine our next steps. This ruling is based on a very narrow consideration of whether a release of claims in the charter agreements is anti-competitive and does not impact our chances of winning at trial scheduled for December 1. We remain confident in our case and committed to racing for the entirety of this season as we continue our fight to create a fair and just economic system for stock car racing that is free of anticompetitive, monopolistic conduct.' WHAT DID THE THREE-JUDGE PANEL STATE IN ITS OPINION? 'In entering a preliminary injunction in this case, the district court held that the plaintiffs (23XI and Front Row) were likely to succeed on the merits of their antitrust action against the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, LLC (NASCAR), and its CEO, James France, because NASCAR, as an alleged monopolist, required the plaintiffs, as a condition of doing business with them, to enter into a release for past conduct. Because that theory of antitrust law is not supported by any case of which we are aware, we conclude that it was not a likely basis for success on the merits and vacate the injunction.' The judges later stated in their opinion … 'In short, because we have found no support for the proposition that a business entity or person violates the antitrust laws by requiring a prospective participant to give a release for past conduct as a condition for doing business, we cannot conclude that the plaintiffs made a clear showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits of that theory. And without satisfaction of the likelihood-of-success element, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction. … We therefore conclude that the district court abused its discretion in entering the preliminary injunction that it did. HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE LAWSUIT 23XI RACING AND FRONT ROW MOTORSPORTS FILED LAST YEAR VS. NASCAR? It does not. Trial is scheduled for Dec. 1.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
West Virginia track state champion makes political statement during award ceremony
CHARLESTON, (WBOY) — West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey was not the only person to make a public statement about the currently unenforceable Save Women's Sports Act over the weekend. During the West Virginia State Track Meet over the weekend, Hadley Horne, a senior from Grafton High School, became a repeat West Virginia state champion in the Class AA girls 300 meter hurdles, with a time of 45.41, more than a second faster than second place and the third fastest time across all three classifications. During her award ceremony, Horne chose to wear a shirt that said 'Men don't belong in women's sports.' A photo of the ceremony is going viral on social media, with thousands of people voicing their opinions on the Save Women's Sports Act, the West Virginia law that says student athletes must compete based on the sex they were assigned at birth. The law was deemed unconstitutional by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last year and is not currently enforceable. North central West Virginia athletes win 26 events at State Track Meet Horne's shirt was likely in response to transgender athlete Becky Pepper-Jackson competing in the girls AAA discus and shot put at the championship meet. Pepper-Jackson, who was assigned male at birth and competed as a freshman for Bridgeport High School, finished 3rd place in the girls discus throw and 8th place in the girls shot put, scoring a total of seven points for Bridgeport's girls team. The case of Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.) vs the West Virginia Board of Education regarding West Virginia's Save Women's Sports Act has been ongoing since 2021. Gov. Morrisey, who has been trying to get the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, said on Saturday that he is 'urging officials to keep separate scores so that the true winners can be awarded once we win in court,' calling Pepper-Jackson competing on the girls' side 'wrong and unfair.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump wants to destroy fundamental rights that have existed for 800 years
As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Revolutionary War, it is appropriate to recall the core principles that fueled Americans' fight against tyranny. Central to this struggle was the liberation from arbitrary governmental violations of civil liberties, particularly the right to due process before imprisonment. As Alexander Hamilton warned in The Federalist No. 84, 'The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.' This ancient right, developed through centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, is not a mere convenience. It is a bedrock of our legal system. The foundations of due process and habeas corpus trace back to Magna Carta, the 'Great Charter' that the English barons imposed on King John at Runnymede in 1215. Chapter 39 of Magna Carta proclaimed, 'No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we [King John] proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.' The framers of the Constitution were deeply influenced by their Anglo-Saxon legal heritage. The colonists of the 1770s felt they were being denied their rights as Englishmen. The Declaration of Independence accused King George III of establishing 'an absolute tyranny over these states,' improperly influencing the judiciary, depriving colonists 'of the benefits of trial by jury' and 'transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences.' That is why these protections were enshrined in the Constitution. Article I explicitly protects habeas corpus, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee due process. The Fifth Amendment declares: 'No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' Trump's recent immigration actions represent a stark departure from these foundational principles. The U.S. government paid El Salvador to imprison more than 200 immigrants from Venezuela and El Salvador in a notorious maximum-security prison. The basis for their imprisonment was that they were suspected of being members of criminal gangs, though the government did not provide compelling evidence of this, and the men did not have the opportunity to prove that they were not gang members. The Fifth Amendment's 'no person' clause does not limit its guarantees to citizens; it explicitly prohibits deprivation of liberty without due process. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the government had to facilitate and effectuate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. to provide him with the opportunity to question the government's assertion that he was a gang member. Reagan-appointed Judge Harvie J. Wilkinson, writing for the majority, denied the government's motion for an emergency stay in the Garcia case, stating, 'The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.' Wilkinson rejected the notion that transferring custody absolved the government of its constitutional obligations. The Supreme Court's subsequent order that the government facilitate the return of Garcia was met with defiance from the White House, which tweeted, 'He's NOT coming back.' Furthermore, Trump's statements during an Oval Office press conference, where he threatened to send 'homegrown criminals' to the same foreign prison, reveal a chilling intent to expand this practice. 'Homegrown criminals are next … You gotta build about five more places,' he told President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. When asked in a television interview if he had to uphold the Constitution, Trump said, 'I don't know.' His top White House aide, Stephen Miller, later said that the administration was 'actively looking at' suspending habeas corpus. This stance contradicts the essence of American jurisprudence. As Justice Antonin Scalia argued in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 'the very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive.' Trump says that giving each accused person a 'trial' would take too long. But due process does not necessarily mean a full trial; it could be a hearing before an immigration or administrative judge. The core principle is the right of people accused of breaking the law to have the opportunity to defend themselves. As a popular social media post states, 'You can't say criminals don't deserve due process — due process is the thing that decides if they are criminals. Otherwise you're just kidnapping people you don't like.' Defending due process is not about shielding criminals, it is about safeguarding every individual from the arbitrary power that America's founders fought to abolish. Trump's actions and statements signal a profound threat to the very liberties that define our nation. James P. Pfiffner is professor emeritus in the Schar School at George Mason University. He has written or edited 15 books on the presidency and American government. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump wants to destroy fundamental rights that have existed for 800 years
As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Revolutionary War, it is appropriate to recall the core principles that fueled Americans' fight against tyranny. Central to this struggle was the liberation from arbitrary governmental violations of civil liberties, particularly the right to due process before imprisonment. As Alexander Hamilton warned in The Federalist No. 84, 'The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.' This ancient right, developed through centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence, is not a mere convenience. It is a bedrock of our legal system. The foundations of due process and habeas corpus trace back to Magna Carta, the 'Great Charter' that the English barons imposed on King John at Runnymede in 1215. Chapter 39 of Magna Carta proclaimed, 'No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we [King John] proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.' The framers of the Constitution were deeply influenced by their Anglo-Saxon legal heritage. The colonists of the 1770s felt they were being denied their rights as Englishmen. The Declaration of Independence accused King George III of establishing 'an absolute tyranny over these states,' improperly influencing the judiciary, depriving colonists 'of the benefits of trial by jury' and 'transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences.' That is why these protections were enshrined in the Constitution. Article I explicitly protects habeas corpus, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee due process. The Fifth Amendment declares: 'No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.' Trump's recent immigration actions represent a stark departure from these foundational principles. The U.S. government paid El Salvador to imprison more than 200 immigrants from Venezuela and El Salvador in a notorious maximum-security prison. The basis for their imprisonment was that they were suspected of being members of criminal gangs, though the government did not provide compelling evidence of this, and the men did not have the opportunity to prove that they were not gang members. The Fifth Amendment's 'no person' clause does not limit its guarantees to citizens; it explicitly prohibits deprivation of liberty without due process. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the government had to facilitate and effectuate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. to provide him with the opportunity to question the government's assertion that he was a gang member. Reagan-appointed Judge Harvie J. Wilkinson, writing for the majority, denied the government's motion for an emergency stay in the Garcia case, stating, 'The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.' Wilkinson rejected the notion that transferring custody absolved the government of its constitutional obligations. The Supreme Court's subsequent order that the government facilitate the return of Garcia was met with defiance from the White House, which tweeted, 'He's NOT coming back.' Furthermore, Trump's statements during an Oval Office press conference, where he threatened to send 'homegrown criminals' to the same foreign prison, reveal a chilling intent to expand this practice. 'Homegrown criminals are next … You gotta build about five more places,' he told President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. When asked in a television interview if he had to uphold the Constitution, Trump said, 'I don't know.' His top White House aide, Stephen Miller, later said that the administration was 'actively looking at' suspending habeas corpus. This stance contradicts the essence of American jurisprudence. As Justice Antonin Scalia argued in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 'the very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the executive.' Trump says that giving each accused person a 'trial' would take too long. But due process does not necessarily mean a full trial; it could be a hearing before an immigration or administrative judge. The core principle is the right of people accused of breaking the law to have the opportunity to defend themselves. As a popular social media post states, 'You can't say criminals don't deserve due process — due process is the thing that decides if they are criminals. Otherwise you're just kidnapping people you don't like.' Defending due process is not about shielding criminals, it is about safeguarding every individual from the arbitrary power that America's founders fought to abolish. Trump's actions and statements signal a profound threat to the very liberties that define our nation. James P. Pfiffner is professor emeritus in the Schar School at George Mason University. He has written or edited 15 books on the presidency and American government.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge's order for Trump to return deported migrant temporarily halted on appeal
A U.S. appeals court will review the Trump administration's bid to avoid returning a 20-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker who was deported to El Salvador earlier this year, keeping him in Salvadoran custody for now. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed last week to take up Trump's appeal – staying through May 15 a lower court's ruling that required the Trump administration to immediately return him to U.S. soil. The appeals court also ordered plaintiffs in the case to submit their response to the court before noon on Monday. The Trump administration will have through 9 a.m. Tuesday to respond. At issue is the case of Daniel Lozano-Camargo, a 20-year-old Venezuelan national previously referred to in court documents as "Cristian," who was deported to El Salvador in March in the Trump administration's early wave of Alien Enemies Act removals. Federal Judge Orders Return Of Deported Migrant To Us, Rejecting Trump Request U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, ruled in April that his deportation violated an agreement the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) struck in 2024 with Lozano-Camargo and a group of young asylum seekers who had entered the U.S. as unaccompanied children. Read On The Fox News App Under that agreement, DHS agreed not to deport the migrants in question until their requests for asylum could be fully adjudicated in U.S. court. Last month, Gallagher said Lozano-Camargo's deportation was a "breach of contract," since his asylum case had not yet been heard, and ordered the U.S. government to facilitate his release. She reiterated that decision in court last week, rejecting a new filing from the Justice Department that said it had determined Lozano-Camargo was eligible for removal under the law, citing his earlier arrest and conviction for cocaine possession in Houston this year. Justice Department officials claimed in earlier court documents that Lozano-Camargo was a member of a "violent terrorist gang" but have not linked him to Tren de Aragua. Portions of their most recent court filing have been redacted. Gallagher had specifically ordered the Trump administration to make a "good faith request to the government of El Salvador" to "release Cristian, [or Lozano-Camargo], to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS," which it had not done. Boasberg Grills Doj Over Remarks From Trump And Noem, Floats Moving Migrants To Gitmo In Action-packed Hearing Gallagher emphasized in court last week that her decision has nothing to do with the strength of his asylum request, and is based solely on due process protections. "I don't think that this is a case about whether or not Cristian is going to eventually get asylum," she told lawyers for the Trump administration. "Process is important. We don't skip to the end and say, 'We all know how this is going to end so we'll just skip that part,'" she said. "Whether he ultimately receives asylum is not the issue. The issue is – and has always been – one of process." Still, Gallagher agreed to stay her ruling for 48 hours, giving the administration time to appeal it to the higher court, which it article source: Federal judge's order for Trump to return deported migrant temporarily halted on appeal
