Latest news with #Levinson
The Herald Scotland
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Major Supreme Court decisions coming on Trump, religion, transgender care
Their upcoming decision is one of nearly three dozen left for the court to hand down in the coming weeks. Those opinions may not rise to the level of blockbusters from recent terms such as presidential immunity, overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, new tests for gun restrictions or upending affirmative action. But some will have a major impact, particularly three big religious rights cases. A freedom of religion term "I think this is a big freedom of religion term," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. The court's 6-3 conservative majority is likely to continue its trend of siding with people who say their freedom of religion is being infringed upon over those who say there's too much entanglement between the government and religion. "This term, in many ways, is going to be the culmination of a number of cases that began eight to 10 years ago," Levinson said. While another major decision to come - whether states can ban gender affirming care for minors - is not about the free exercise of religion, it came to the court as part of the same cultural upheaval driving the religions rights case, said Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law School. "Certainly for the people who are involved in these cases, they see it as part of the same broader clash," he said. More: What LGBTQ+ books are at the center of a new Supreme Court case? Moving in a more conservative direction, not charting a new legal course Dorf agreed the coming decisions will likely be more of a continuation of past rulings, mostly in a very conservative direction, rather than the court charting a new course. But there is a difference: the Trump administration. "We're living in pretty unprecedented circumstances given all of the ways in which the Trump administration is, at the very least, testing the boundaries of what is lawful," he said. That means the court's decision on whether to limit the ability of judges to block Trump's policies will be one of its most consequential, according to Dorf. "If you think about any area where there's an executive order," Levinson said, "if federal judges don't have the ability to stop that order from being implemented nationwide, that could significantly change the legal landscape." Here's a look at what to expect. Limiting challenges to Trump's executive authority Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship has been put on hold by judges across the country who ruled it's probably unconstitutional. During the May 15 oral arguments, none of the justices voiced support for the Trump administration's theory that the president's order is consistent with the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause and past Supreme Court decisions about that provision. But several of the justices have expressed concern about the ability of one judge to block a law or presidential order from going into effect anywhere in the country while it's being challenged. It was unclear from the oral arguments how the court might find a way to limit nationwide - or "universal" - court orders and what that would mean for birthright citizenship and the many other Trump policies being challenged in court. 'Spaghetti against the wall?' Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies Religious rights versus separation of church and state Of the three religious rights cases, the biggest is the Catholic Church's bid to run the nation's first religious charter school. Although the court has previously allowed the use of vouchers for religious schools and said scholarship programs can't exclude religious schools, this case could allow governments to establish and directly fund religious schools for the first time. "That really does go beyond anything we've seen before," Dorf said. In the other religious rights cases, the court is likely to side with Catholic Charities in a dispute over when religious groups have to pay unemployment taxes. And the court's conservative majority sounded sympathetic to Maryland parents who raised religious objections to having their elementary school children read books with LGBTQ+ characters. The battle over transgender rights Transgender rights cases were already making their way to the Supreme Court from state actions and now the Trump administration policies targeting transgender people will accelerate that trend. The court has already granted the administration's emergency request that it be allowed to enforce its ban on transgender people serving in the military while that restriction is being challenged. In one of the court's biggest pending decisions, the justices will decide whether states can ban minors from receiving puberty blockers and hormone therapy. During December's oral arguments, a majority seemed to agree states can do that. But how they reach that conclusion will affect how much their decision applies to other transgender rights case including those about transgender athletes, whether health plans have to cover gender affirming care, where transgender inmates must be housed and if transgender people can serve in the military. Implications for parental rights While the court seems likely to rule against the parents challenging Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, they sounded poised to back the Maryland parents who want their elementary school children excused from class when books with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. And in a case about Texas' requirement that websites verify users are 18 or over, one justice expressed her own parental frustration over trying to control what her children see on the internet. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has seven children, said she knows from personal experience how difficult it is to keep up with the content blocking devices that those challenging Texas' law offered as a better alternative. But while the justices were sympathetic to the purpose of Texas' law, they may decide a lower court didn't sufficiently review whether it violates the First Amendment rights of adults so must be reconsidered. Gun cases could bring mixed results In one of the court's biggest decisions so far this year, a 7-2 majority upheld the Biden administration's regulation of untraceable "ghost guns," ruling that the weapons can be subject to background checks and other requirements. But the court is expected to reject Mexico's attempt to hold U.S. gunmakers liable for violence caused by Mexican drug cartels armed with their weapons. A majority of the justices sounded likely to agree with the gun makers that the chain of events between the manufacture of a gun and the harm it causes is too lengthy to blame the industry. Neither case is directly about the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. The court is still deciding whether to take up next year two cases about that right - Maryland's ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island's ban on high-capacity magazines. Planned Parenthood, but not abortion directly, is an issue Unlike last year when the court considered two cases about abortion access, that hot button issue is not directly before the court. But the justices are deciding whether to back South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding for other health services because it also provides abortions. The issue is whether the law allows a Medicaid patient to sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program. If the court says the patient can't sue, other GOP-led states are expected to also kick Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid. And anti-abortion advocates are pushing for a national ban. Conservative challenges to Obamacare and internet subsidies The court is considering conservative challenges to Obamacare and to an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans. The justices seemed likely to reject an argument that the telecommunications program is funded by an unconstitutional tax, a case that raised questions about how much Congress can "delegate" its legislative authority to a federal agency. The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. It seems unlikely that a majority of the justices were persuaded by that argument. Multiple discrimination challenges The court is deciding a number of cases about alleged discrimination in the workplace, at school and in drawing congressional boundaries. The justices appeared likely to rule that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay, a decision that would make it easier to file "reverse discrimination" lawsuits. The court may also side with a Minnesota teenager trying to use the Americans with Disabilities Act to sue her school for not accommodating her rare form of epilepsy that makes it difficult to attend class before noon. It's less clear whether the court will agree with non-Black voters in Louisiana that the state's congressional map, which includes two majority-Black districts, discriminates against them. Decisions in all the cases are expected by the end of June or early July.
Business Insider
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Business Insider
Trump is expected to receive a luxury jet from Qatar. Here's why the gift is raising red flags for legal experts.
Reports that President Donald Trump's administration is expected to receive a luxury jet as a gift from the Qatari royal family have drawn questions and criticism from legal experts. At the core of the concern is the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution, which prevents a person in a government office from accepting gifts or benefits from foreign parties without congressional consent. "This definitely violates the foreign emoluments clause unless Congress gives consent," Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration and a professor of corporate law at the University of Minnesota, told Business Insider. "The fact that the plane goes to his presidential library after four years does not change that." The gift from Qatar, a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet, will be used as the new Air Force One, multiple outlets reported on Sunday, citing anonymous sources. It will be donated to Trump's presidential library when he leaves office. A new 747-8 costs about $400 million. Trump appeared to confirm the reports in a Truth Social post on Sunday night. "So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane," Trump wrote. Ali Al-Ansari, Qatar's media attaché to the US, told BI in a statement that the transfer of an aircraft for temporary use as Air Force One is "currently under consideration." The matter "remains under review by the respective legal departments, and no decision has been made," Al-Ansari said. Boeing did not respond to a request for comment from BI. An 'unprecedented' gift Jessica Levinson, a law professor and the director of the Public Service Institute at Loyola Law School, said that in addition to the foreign emoluments clause, federal statutes, such as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act and anti-bribery laws, may come into play. "Outside of the legal context, it is fair to ask whether the acceptance of this gift could give rise to an apparent conflict of interest or corruption," she told BI. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, told BI in a statement that any gift from a foreign government is "always accepted in full compliance with all applicable laws." Levinson also pointed to the size of the gift. "Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that the acceptance of a gift of this size from a foreign government is unprecedented in our nation's history," Levinson added. "Hence we do not have any direct historical analogs for this situation." When asked about the legal mechanisms for addressing a violation of the foreign emoluments clause, Painter pointed to Congress. "Investigation and possible impeachment is one remedy, but that's up to Congress," Painter said. US politicians react The reports drew criticism online from some leading US Democrats and at least one far-right activist with close ties to Trump. "Nothing says 'America First' like Air Force One, brought to you by Qatar. It's not just bribery, it's premium foreign influence with extra legroom," Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer wrote on Facebook. Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff quoted part of the foreign emoluments clause in a post on X, and wrote, "Seems pretty clear that a $400 million 'air palace' from a foreign emir qualifies. The corruption is brazen." Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin also took to X to criticize the gift. "Trump must seek Congress' consent to take this $300 million gift from Qatar. The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present 'of any kind whatever' from a foreign state without Congressional permission. A gift you use for four years and then deposit in your library is still a gift (and a grift)," Raskin wrote. Laura Loomer, a far-right activist with direct ties to Trump, also took to social media to criticize news of the gift. "This is really going to be such a stain on the admin if this is true. And I say that as someone who would take a bullet for Trump," Loomer wrote on X. Trump has been putting pressure on Boeing to deliver the next Air Force One, which is behind schedule and over budget. Boeing was first tapped in 2015 to deliver the two new presidential planes. The delivery was initially set for 2024, then delayed until 2027 or 2028. Last week, a US Air Force official said Boeing could deliver the new Air Force One jets by 2027, while Trump is still in office.
Business Times
07-05-2025
- Automotive
- Business Times
Amazon's Zoox to scale up robotaxi production for US expansion
AMAZON'S self-driving start-up Zoox will increase production next year as it ramps up plans for a commercial rollout of its robotaxi fleet in the US, the Financial Times reported on Wednesday. The company will open a new site in California's Bay Area to expand its footprint beyond a small production facility in Fremont, Zoox co-founder Jesse Levinson told the newspaper. Zoox will use the facility to increase its fleet, having deployed about two dozen bespoke test vehicles across six US cities so far, Levinson told FT. The firm plans to launch public rides in Las Vegas this year, followed by San Francisco, FT said, adding that the new site will enable Zook to get 'ready to make hundreds and then thousands' of its custom-built robotaxis. Zoox and Amazon did not immediately respond to Reuters' requests for comment outside regular business hours. US President Donald Trump's administration said last month it aims to speed up deployment of self-driving vehicles by exempting some from certain safety requirements and easing rules requiring reporting of safety incidents. Car manufacturers including Tesla and Google-owned Waymo develop autonomous vehicles for the robotaxi market. US auto regulators have previously opened investigations into self-driving vehicles operated by GM's Cruise, Waymo and Zoox. REUTERS
Shafaq News
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Washington sanctions Iran intel over FBI case
Shafaq News/ On Tuesday, the United States announced sanctions on three Iranian intelligence officers linked to the disappearance and probable death of former FBI agent Robert Levinson. The action, taken by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in coordination with the FBI, was implemented under Executive Order 14078, which targets "individuals responsible for hostage-taking and wrongful detention, including by foreign state actors." According to the US Department of the Treasury, the designated individuals—Reza Amiri Moqadam, Gholamhossein Mohammadnia, and Taqi Daneshvar—are affiliated with Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and are allegedly involved in Levinson's abduction, detention, and subsequent concealment of information related to the case. MOIS was previously designated under the same executive order in 2023 for its role in the detention of US citizens, including Levinson, with the authorization of senior Iranian officials. The Treasury noted that the three individuals acted on behalf of the ministry. The Department of State continues to offer a reward of up to $20 million for information leading to Levinson's recovery or the identification of those involved in his disappearance. Earlier, the Treasury imposed sanctions on Iranian Oil Minister Mohsen Paknejad and several Hong Kong-flagged vessels linked to oil exports in a "Shadow Fleet" used to evade sanctions on Iranian oil exports, in addition to a private Chinese " teapot" refinery and entities accused of facilitating Iranian oil sales. The US and its allies have voiced concern over Iran's uranium enrichment nearing weapons-grade levels, despite Tehran's claims of peaceful intent. The issue escalated after US President Donald Trump revived his 'maximum pressure' campaign on Iran.
The National
25-03-2025
- Politics
- The National
US sanctions on three Iranians accused in relation to cover-up and probable death of Bob Levinson
The US has imposed sanctions on three Iranian intelligence officers for their alleged involvement in the disappearance of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, the Treasury and State departments said in news releases on Tuesday. The sanctions against Reza Amiri Moghadam, Gholamhossein Mohammadnia and Taqi Daneshvar of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security are the latest linked to the disappearance of the former FBI agent, who Washington believes was abducted in Iran and died in captivity. As a result of the sanctions, any property of the men under US jurisdiction must be blocked and Americans are generally barred from dealing with them. Foreign citizens could also be blacklisted for dealing with them. 'Iran's treatment of Mr Levinson remains a blight on Iran's already grim record of human rights abuse,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement. 'The Department of the Treasury will continue to work with US government partners to identify those responsible and shine a light on their abhorrent behaviour.' Mr Levinson, who was working as a private investigator, disappeared in March 2007 after travelling to an island controlled by Iran for a meeting seeking information on alleged corruption involving former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. The three sanctioned people all played a role in Mr Levinson's abduction, detention and probable death, as well as efforts to cover up Iran's responsibility, the Treasury Department said. 'Today's action by our partners at the Department of the Treasury demonstrates that we continue to work together to identify additional Iranian officers involved in Bob's abduction,' said FBI Director Kash Patel. 'Our investigation continues. We will pursue all options to hold Iran accountable. The FBI will not waver in our commitment to provide answers to the Levinson family about what happened to Bob.' The sanctions are being imposed under an executive order signed by former president Joe Biden, which seeks to hold to account terrorist organisations, criminal groups and other "malicious actors" who take hostages for financial or political gain. The US imposed sanctions on two other Iranian officials in December 2020, accusing them of involvement in Mr Levinson's disappearance. Since 2019, the State Department has offered a reward of up to $20 million for information leading to his location, recovery and return, and the identification of those responsible for his disappearance. Iran has refused to admit culpability for his disappearance, but in 2020, a US judge ruled that Iran was responsible and ordered Tehran to pay damages of $1.46 billion to Mr Levinson's family. In a statement to The National in 2023, his family said they were "still without answers" and that "those responsible for this heinous crime have still faced no consequences for their actions".
