Latest news with #NinthCircuit
United News of India
3 hours ago
- Business
- United News of India
Trump files appeal to SC over federal mass firings
Washington, June 3 (UNI) The U.S. Trump administration has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court seeking to overturn the federal court's injunction that had prevented federal agencies from carrying out large-scale workforce reductions and reorganizations. In the appeal, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer argued that "controlling the personnel of federal agencies lies at the heartland" of the president's authority, and "the Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise" his core constitutional powers. On May 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's appeal, upholding the temporary injunction issued earlier by Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The injunction barred federal agencies and the Office of Management and Budget from moving forward with broad-scale layoffs and structural reorganizations. The Ninth Circuit held that implementing extensive layoffs and reorganizations would seriously impair many areas, including the national food safety system and veterans' healthcare, and therefore such actions should be suspended while the litigation proceeds. On May 9, Illston issued a two-week temporary injunction requiring federal agencies to halt enforcement of the administrative order signed by President Donald Trump in February, as well as the subsequent memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget. She also ordered agencies to rescind any layoff notices issued under the president's order, to reinstate positions for employees placed on administrative leave, and to provide appropriate compensation. In her ruling, Illston stated that the president must obtain congressional approval in order to reform federal agencies. Agencies may not undertake mass reorganizations or layoffs without authorization from Congress. On May 22, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California further ruled to extend the injunction indefinitely. The Department of Justice filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit the following day. UNI XC GNK
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - China's courtroom espionage strategy demands a federal response
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in a stunning case that should be a wake-up call to lawmakers across the country. In U.S. v. Pangang Group, a Chinese state-owned enterprise admitted in open court that it had engaged in state-sponsored industrial espionage, stealing American trade secrets to achieve strategic goals for China's government. The company even tried to invoke sovereign immunity, claiming that theft for the purpose of national industrial development was a legitimate function of the Chinese state. This brazen confession didn't just confirm China's role in weaponizing commercial enterprises for geopolitical gain — it also underscored how vulnerable our systems remain to economic sabotage. One of the least understood, but potentially most damaging, tools in this arsenal is third-party litigation funding. It's time that Congress wakes up and takes steps to address this looming threat. During my time in Congress, I served on the Committee on National Security and learned about many forms of foreign interference, but few are as insidious as third-party funding. Under this system, outside financiers — often anonymous — fund lawsuits in return for a cut of the potential winnings. There is no federal requirement to disclose these arrangements, including whether the backers are foreign nationals, sovereign wealth funds or shell corporations tied to adversarial governments. That must change. Third-party funding isn't necessarily inherently malicious, but this opacity and the nature of these arrangements opens the door to abuse. Although its backers have historically been hedge funds or other investors in pursuit of healthy returns that are insulated from the broader market — which raises its own set of ethical concerns about subverting the justice system to earn a profit — these actors are generally not seeking to undermine the U.S. more broadly. Foreign-backed funders, on the other hand, can use litigation to drain resources from U.S. companies through prolonged legal battles. Not only that, but they can also use such proceedings to obtain access to proprietary information such as technical data, trade secrets and supply-chain vulnerabilities through the discovery process. For firms tied to sectors like AI, pharmaceuticals, aerospace or semiconductor design, this is a direct national security risk. The FBI has called China's economic espionage the 'greatest long-term threat to our nation's information and intellectual property, and to our economic vitality.' Yet right now, we lack even the most basic safeguards to ensure that our courtrooms aren't being used as intelligence-gathering venues for hostile foreign powers. That is unacceptable. Fortunately, there are solutions that are currently under consideration. Rep. Ben Cline's (R-Va.) Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 would be a critical first step. It would prohibit foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds from investing in third-party litigation funding, require transparency about who is funding litigation, and direct the Department of Justice to report annually on foreign activity in this space. Another promising effort backed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the Litigation Funding Transparency Act, which would mandate disclosure of funding sources in all federal civil cases, ensuring that judges, juries and defendants know who's really pulling the strings behind the scenes. These federal efforts echo a growing movement at the state level. In my home state of Kansas, for example, lawmakers recently enacted Senate Bill 54 — a strong, bipartisan reform that mandates the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements within 30 days of execution. It also requires a sworn statement that identifies all parties to the agreement, whether the funder can influence litigation or settlement decisions, and if any foreign entity is involved in the financing. But piecemeal state action can only go so far, and we need Congress to act quickly. Third-party litigation funding should not be a backdoor for China or any other adversary to undermine American companies, steal our intellectual property, or compromise our national defense base. When state-owned enterprises such as the Pangang Companies can openly admit in court that they steal American innovation for geopolitical gain, we can no longer afford to treat litigation finance as just another investment vehicle. It now has the potential to be a vector of strategic exploitation. National security isn't bounded by state lines, and neither is foreign influence. The threats are real, the stakes are high, and the time for action is now. Let's not wait for the next courtroom confession to learn what China already knows: that America's legal system is a battlefield, and without reform, we're fighting blindfolded. Todd Tiahrt previously represented the 4th District of Kansas in the U.S. House of Representatives and served on the House Committee on National Security. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
10 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
China's courtroom espionage strategy demands a federal response
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit handed down a decision in a stunning case that should be a wake-up call to lawmakers across the country. In U.S. v. Pangang Group, a Chinese state-owned enterprise admitted in open court that it had engaged in state-sponsored industrial espionage, stealing American trade secrets to achieve strategic goals for China's government. The company even tried to invoke sovereign immunity, claiming that theft for the purpose of national industrial development was a legitimate function of the Chinese state. This brazen confession didn't just confirm China's role in weaponizing commercial enterprises for geopolitical gain — it also underscored how vulnerable our systems remain to economic sabotage. One of the least understood, but potentially most damaging, tools in this arsenal is third-party litigation funding. It's time that Congress wakes up and takes steps to address this looming threat. During my time in Congress, I served on the Committee on National Security and learned about many forms of foreign interference, but few are as insidious as third-party funding. Under this system, outside financiers — often anonymous — fund lawsuits in return for a cut of the potential winnings. There is no federal requirement to disclose these arrangements, including whether the backers are foreign nationals, sovereign wealth funds or shell corporations tied to adversarial governments. That must change. Third-party funding isn't necessarily inherently malicious, but this opacity and the nature of these arrangements opens the door to abuse. Although its backers have historically been hedge funds or other investors in pursuit of healthy returns that are insulated from the broader market — which raises its own set of ethical concerns about subverting the justice system to earn a profit — these actors are generally not seeking to undermine the U.S. more broadly. Foreign-backed funders, on the other hand, can use litigation to drain resources from U.S. companies through prolonged legal battles. Not only that, but they can also use such proceedings to obtain access to proprietary information such as technical data, trade secrets and supply-chain vulnerabilities through the discovery process. For firms tied to sectors like AI, pharmaceuticals, aerospace or semiconductor design, this is a direct national security risk. The FBI has called China's economic espionage the 'greatest long-term threat to our nation's information and intellectual property, and to our economic vitality.' Yet right now, we lack even the most basic safeguards to ensure that our courtrooms aren't being used as intelligence-gathering venues for hostile foreign powers. That is unacceptable. Fortunately, there are solutions that are currently under consideration. Rep. Ben Cline's (R-Va.) Protecting Our Courts from Foreign Manipulation Act of 2025 would be a critical first step. It would prohibit foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds from investing in third-party litigation funding, require transparency about who is funding litigation, and direct the Department of Justice to report annually on foreign activity in this space. Another promising effort backed by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the Litigation Funding Transparency Act, which would mandate disclosure of funding sources in all federal civil cases, ensuring that judges, juries and defendants know who's really pulling the strings behind the scenes. These federal efforts echo a growing movement at the state level. In my home state of Kansas, for example, lawmakers recently enacted Senate Bill 54 — a strong, bipartisan reform that mandates the disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements within 30 days of execution. It also requires a sworn statement that identifies all parties to the agreement, whether the funder can influence litigation or settlement decisions, and if any foreign entity is involved in the financing. But piecemeal state action can only go so far, and we need Congress to act quickly. Third-party litigation funding should not be a backdoor for China or any other adversary to undermine American companies, steal our intellectual property, or compromise our national defense base. When state-owned enterprises such as the Pangang Companies can openly admit in court that they steal American innovation for geopolitical gain, we can no longer afford to treat litigation finance as just another investment vehicle. It now has the potential to be a vector of strategic exploitation. National security isn't bounded by state lines, and neither is foreign influence. The threats are real, the stakes are high, and the time for action is now. Let's not wait for the next courtroom confession to learn what China already knows: that America's legal system is a battlefield, and without reform, we're fighting blindfolded. Todd Tiahrt previously represented the 4th District of Kansas in the U.S. House of Representatives and served on the House Committee on National Security.
Car and Driver
a day ago
- Automotive
- Car and Driver
Ford Mustang 'Eleanor' from Gone in 60 Seconds Belongs to the World
A new ruling confirms that the "Eleanor" Ford Mustang from Gone in 60 Seconds is not copyright protected. The ruling states that the Mustang doesn't pass tests that would qualify it as a character. This legal battle has been going on for 20 (!) years and may not yet be over. There are multiple examples in TV and film where the car is the star, or at the very least a supporting character. It's part of what makes movies fun and broadens the appeal of the vehicles far beyond the automotive enthusiast set. Consider: There are plenty of people who wouldn't look twice at a Buick GNX but immediately recognize a DeLorean DMC-12 as the time machine from Back to the Future. Both are 1980s icons; it's just that one's a lot more famous. But even if the fans decide that a car plays a leading role on screen, the law takes a different view. According to the latest legal update in the legal brawl over "Eleanor," the series of Ford Mustangs from the Gone in 60 Seconds movie franchise, a car is not a character and thus cannot be copyrighted. In a published judgment from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, three judges denied the copyrightability of the Eleanor Mustang. The ruling called the car a prop, not a character. This wrangling has been going on for a while, and it relates directly to a feud between the Shelby group and Denice Halicki. As the widow of H.B. Halicki, the stuntman behind the original Gone in 60 Seconds, she holds the copyrights to the films and was involved in the 2000 reboot with Nicholas Cage and Angelina Jolie. In the early movies, Eleanor is a 1971 Ford Mustang Sportsroof. The hero car from the 2000 movie is arguably more famous, a 1967 Mustang Fastback with customization by Chip Foose. It's a very recognizable car with side-exit exhausts, valance-mounted auxiliary lights, and some touches that are consistent with other cars styled by Foose. It's the kind of thing that inspires replicas, both professional and fan tributes. Mecum Auctions Mecum Auctions There's plenty of legalese in the ruling, but it breaks down copyright law via the Towle test, which was a 2015 case involving a builder of Batmobile replicas. In that case, the court ruled that the replicas did indeed violate DC's copyright ownership of the Batmobile in its various iterations. However, the ruling noted that the Batmobile was in fact a character, capable of some autonomy, and of course had very distinctive features. (Holy jet engine, Batman.) In this case, judges ruled that Eleanor failed the three prongs of the Towle test, lacking anthromorphic qualities, consistent traits, and specifically distinctive qualities. For instance, Herbie the Love Bug might pass all three tests. Ecto-1 would be recognizable even if it was a different kind of Cadillac ambulance. Whether a car is a character in law will vary from case to case. Here, the judgment says that Eleanor isn't eligible for copyright as a character. However, seeing that this legal action has been going on for 20 years, not 60 seconds, that might not be the last you hear of things. Brendan McAleer Contributing Editor Brendan McAleer is a freelance writer and photographer based in North Vancouver, B.C., Canada. He grew up splitting his knuckles on British automobiles, came of age in the golden era of Japanese sport-compact performance, and began writing about cars and people in 2008. His particular interest is the intersection between humanity and machinery, whether it is the racing career of Walter Cronkite or Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki's half-century obsession with the Citroën 2CV. He has taught both of his young daughters how to shift a manual transmission and is grateful for the excuse they provide to be perpetually buying Hot Wheels. Read full bio
BBC News
3 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Trump's mass firings to remain on hold, appeals court rules
Mass firings of federal employees which were ordered by US President Donald Trump will remain paused, an appeals court has Trump had signed an executive order in February directing agency heads to begin "large-scale reductions" in staffing. Those efforts to slash the federal workforce were halted by a California judge earlier this Friday in a 2-1 ruling, a San Francisco-based appeals court denied the Trump administration's request to unfreeze that injunction. It is likely the administration will now ask the US Supreme Court to weigh in. "The Executive Order at issue here far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote. "The President enjoys significant removal power with respect to the appointed officers of federal agencies."The Trump administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction which had been given by Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco. The judge questioned how an overhaul of federal agencies could be actioned without congressional case was brought by federal employees unions, local governments and non-profits who argued against Trump's executive order, as well as directives which were issued by the Office of Personnel Management and Office of Management and Budget to implement Trump's cuts are part of the Trump administrations efforts to curtail government spending through funding freezes and firings - led by the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge).Trump has repeatedly promised to slash government spending and reduce the federal workforce. He tasked billionaire Elon Musk and Doge with leading that charge. Tens of thousands of federal workers have reportedly been fired, taken buyouts or been placed on leave since Trump took office. The Trump administration said they plan to fight back against the latest court ruling. "A single judge is attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the Executive Branch," the White House said in a statement to US media.
