Latest news with #NinthCircuitCourtofAppeals
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump's Judge Pick Tung, Kennedy ROAST Dems In Senate Showdown: 'Women Better Right? Not Worse...'
President Trump's judicial nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Eric Chunyee Tung, faced an intense line of questioning during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. On July 30, Democratic Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla grilled Tung over controversial writings from his college years, including past views on gender roles and labor unions. In a moment that sparked laughter and surprise, Republican Senator John Kennedy jumped in—first appearing to defend Tung with deadpan humour, then pivoting to press him on free speech issues. Tung repeatedly emphasised the transformation that occurs when one "puts on the robe," pledging fairness and impartiality in all cases.
Time of India
02-08-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Google asks court for emergency stay as it has just 14 days to enact Major changes to Play Store and …
successfully secured an emergency stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, temporarily halting sweeping changes to its Android ecosystem that were set to begin within two weeks following Epic Games' second major antitrust victory against the tech giant. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The emergency filing revealed Google had just 14 days to implement significant modifications to its operations and business relationships with phonemakers, carriers, and app developers . These changes would have fundamentally altered how Google conducts business across its Android platform, potentially affecting millions of users and over 500,000 app developers. Court victory forces Google to abandon anti-competitive practices The required changes stem from Judge James Donato 's permanent injunction following Epic's successful lawsuit. Key provisions would have forced Google to stop requiring apps to use Google Play Billing , allowing developers to freely direct users to alternative payment methods and app stores. Additionally, Google would have been prohibited from sharing revenue or offering perks to secure exclusive app store arrangements with device manufacturers and carriers. Google argued in its emergency stay request that implementing these changes within 14 days would "expose users and developers to substantial risks and jeopardize the entire Android ecosystem." The company claimed concerns about malware exposure and payment security vulnerabilities if developers could link to external downloads and bypass Google's billing system. Bigger changes to Android app store ecosystem still coming While the emergency stay provides temporary relief, Google faces more substantial changes ahead. The injunction will eventually require Google to carry rival app stores within Google Play and share its complete app catalog with competitors like the Epic Games Store and Microsoft Xbox Store. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now However, Judge Donato granted Google eight months to develop security procedures for these provisions, meaning rival stores won't appear inside Google Play until 2026 at the earliest. The three-year injunction, running until November 2027, mirrors some victories Epic achieved against Apple in separate antitrust litigation. Google has signaled potential appeals to both the full Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court as it continues fighting the court-ordered dismantling of what judges have affirmed constitutes an illegal monopoly.
San Francisco Chronicle
26-07-2025
- Business
- San Francisco Chronicle
S.F. may soon ban natural gas in homes and businesses undergoing major renovations
San Francisco may soon ban natural gas in residential and commercial buildings undergoing major renovations, a move that supporters say will help combat greenhouse gas emissions and improve public health. The proposed ordinance, which could take effect next year, would require 'major renovation' projects to include plans for replacing gas utilities with all-electric ones to get a permit. There are numerous exceptions, however. The proposal is sponsored by Board of Supervisors President Rafael Mandelman and builds on the city's existing ban on natural gas in new buildings, first passed in 2020. 'The climate imperatives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are certainly no less urgent than they were in 2020,' Mandelman said. The bill defines major renovations as projects that involve altering walls or ceilings on over two-thirds of the building, or renovating load-bearing elements that support over 30% of the building's floors or ceilings. Projects must also include plans to replace the majority of heating lines and other mechanical systems to meet the definition. The all-electric requirement also applies to any substantial additions to existing buildings that involve installing new utility systems. 'You're already taking out the mechanical systems, you're doing these really major alterations in the property,' said San Francisco Environment Director Tyrone Jue. 'That's the time to be designing for the future and not rebuilding with legacy systems.' The proposed policy would impact about 785,000 square feet of residential renovations each year, according to estimates from the city's environment department. About 250,000 square feet of commercial renovations each year would also fall under the bill. The department does not track total square feet of renovations. San Francisco's current all-electric requirement for new buildings was first passed in 2020, mirroring a 2019 ordinance adopted in Berkeley — the first city in the nation to pass a measure of this kind. But Berkeley repealed its natural gas ban in 2024 after a federal court said the legislation, which was challenged by the California Restaurant Association, conflicted with a 1975 U.S. law that gave federal officials the sole power to set energy regulations for certain appliances, raising legal uncertainty about similar policies passed in more than 70 California cities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that by prohibiting project developers from installing natural gas in new buildings, Berkeley was indirectly regulating gas-powered appliances that fell under federal jurisdiction under the Energy Policy and Conversion Act, or EPCA. The law has allowed federal officials to set standards for most gas appliances, including furnaces, water heaters, stoves and clothes dryers. Though the ruling only impacted Berkeley's ordinance, it led San Francisco to amend its gas ban on new buildings to include an exception for all EPCA appliances. The newly proposed ordinance on major renovations outlines a similar exception. By creating a carve-out for EPCA appliances, the proposed legislation seems to 'protect against a lot of the litigation risks that could arise,' said environment and energy lawyer Ted Lamm, the associate director of UC Berkeley's Center for Law, Energy and the Environment. Because EPCA has set standards for most gas-powered appliances, the exemption would legally allow many property owners to evade the potential ban by claiming that their gas installations would solely serve one of the many EPCA-covered appliances. However, property owners are unlikely to take this route, Lamm said. The exception still requires renovated buildings to be 'electric-ready' — prepared to transition away from gas appliances. In most cases, property owners would find that reinstalling natural gas lines for just one or a handful of gas appliances is not worth the cost and opt to go all-electric instead, Lamm explained. The bill outlines other exceptions for affordable housing projects, major renovations that convert non-residential buildings to residential sites and projects that can prove that going all-electric is physically or technically infeasible, among others. It also proposes an exception to the all-electric requirement for major renovations on buildings that include an area for commercial food services — often restaurants or cafes — which mirrors a similar carve-out in the existing natural gas ban for new buildings. Cooking with gas is 'integral to restaurants,' said Laurie Thomas, the executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. 'If we were to have buildings retrofitted that excluded that, we all think it would be a real detriment to the industry.' Taken together, these exemptions can narrow the potential avenues for litigation by making it difficult for people to sue solely on the substance of the policy, Lamm said. But some critics say that the current exemptions are not enough. Developer Eric Tao of San Francisco-based L37 Development supports the bill's goal of banning natural gas for voluntary renovations, but fears the additional requirements will discourage certain property owners from making necessary repairs that may trigger the natural gas ban. 'You don't want to be financially prohibited from making sure your building doesn't fall down because you feel like all of a sudden it will trigger this,' he said. Members of the city's Building Inspection Commission shared similar fears. During the commission's July 16 meeting, Commissioner Bianca Neumann, who works for an affordable housing developer, pointed to how the proposal exempts projects that can prove physical or technical difficulty, but not financial challenges. Major renovations are often less predictable than new constructions and thus may create unplanned costs, she said. The commission ultimately recommended the bill to the Land Use and Transportation Committee, but with proposed amendments to delay implementation of the ban to 2027, to create an exemption for projects undergoing voluntary seismic retrofits, and to remove the 2028 expiration of the affordable housing exception. The land use committee will hear it on Monday. Commissioner Kavin Williams, the only commissioner to vote against the recommendation, called the bill 'red tape for the sake of red tape' and a 'bureaucratic nightmare.' 'The electrification is already happening on its own,' Williams said, pointing to the existing ban on natural gas in new construction and a trend of developers voluntarily converting projects to all-electric buildings. Mandelman said his office is still considering the proposed amendments and hopes to produce a revised draft of the bill ahead of the Monday committee hearing. He's confident the legislation will receive approval. 'I'm hopeful that even without legislation, that improvements in the market and the products would naturally be leading to this outcome,' Mandelman said. 'But I still think there's a role, potentially for local government, or state government, in pushing folks along to make this choice.' Natural gas combustion in buildings accounts for about 40% of San Francisco's community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, making buildings a key area that the city would likely need to address to achieve its goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2040. The bill would reduce emissions by 45,000 metric tons, according to estimates from the 2021 Climate Action Plan. This represents just over one percent of the city's carbon footprint. The proposal would represent the third largest reduction in emissions among the climate action plan's proposed emission reduction strategies. It would also have key health benefits, such as reducing the benzene emissions that people breathe when using indoor gas stoves.
India Today
25-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
American-born babies are American: Judge halts Trump birthright citizenship order
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents, calling the move unconstitutional and legally ruling by US District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston marks the third federal court to stop the executive order in its tracks since the Supreme Court last month narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide Sorokin ruled that an exception applied in this case, where more than a dozen states demonstrated real financial harm tied to the order. 'A patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states,' Sorokin wrote, noting the high mobility of residents between states and slamming the administration's failure to explain how a more limited injunction would function.'They have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.'The decision maintains a nationwide injunction that preserves birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, pending further review by the courts. Sorokin added that his ruling is not the final word on the issue, but emphasized the constitutional implications of the executive action.'The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen,' Sorokin said. 'Trump and his administration are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.'The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of states led by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who hailed the ruling as a critical defence of constitutional norms.'American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' Platkin said in a statement. 'I'm thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.'Government lawyers had argued that the injunction should be limited in scope to states' financial interests. Still, Sorokin rejected the idea, saying the administration failed to offer any coherent legal or administrative plan for how such limits would is the third time the executive order has been blocked. Earlier this month, a federal judge in New Hampshire prohibited the rule in a class-action lawsuit. That decision went into effect after no appeal was filed. On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco also ruled against the order, upholding a nationwide injunction.A fourth ruling may be on the way. A Maryland judge said she would issue a similar decision if the appeals court agrees. - EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
USA Today
24-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Federal appeals court rules Trump birthright citizenship order unconstitutional
A federal appeals court affirmed on July 23 a district court ruling that said President Donald Trump's executive order seeking to limit birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was written by Ronald M. Gould, a Clinton appointee, and included a partial dissent from Patrick J. Bumatay, a first-term Trump appointee. "The district court correctly concluded that the Executive Order's proposed interpretation, denying citizenship to many persons born in the United States, is unconstitutional. We fully agree," the ruling reads. The lawsuit was filed by the states of Washington, Arizona, Illinois and Oregon in response to Trump's day-one executive order. The opinion follows a July 10 ruling made by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante that barred enforcement of the order after immigrant rights advocates filed a class action lawsuit in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions. This is a developing story.
