Latest news with #Orrick
CairoScene
a day ago
- Business
- CairoScene
London-Based Pinsent Masons Expands With New Riyadh Law Firm
The new office marks its fourth location in the Middle East and will focus on transactional legal services. Pinsent Masons has opened an office in Riyadh, marking its fourth location in the Middle East after Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Doha. The new office, which began operations in the beginning of March, is led by Ibrahim Alajaji, a project finance and construction specialist who was previously a partner at Alsabhan & Alajaji. While Pinsent Masons and Alsabhan & Alajaji will now operate independently, the firms will continue their exclusive collaboration, first established in 2018. Alsabhan & Alajaji will focus on local court matters and legislative drafting under the leadership of Naif Alsabhan, while Pinsent Masons Saudi Arabia will focus on transactional legal services. The Riyadh office includes partners Rena Scott, who joined last year from Orrick to lead the firm's Saudi construction advisory and disputes practice, and Tim Armsby, who heads the firm's Middle East finance and projects division. Both Armsby and Alajaji have advised Saudi Arabia's National Centre for Privatisation, which oversees public-private partnerships and government entity privatisations. The new structure is anticipated to allow Pinsent Masons' to further serve clients in the Saudi market and offer opportunities for young Saudi lawyers to gain experience in high-value transactions and complex legal matters. The move follows Saudi Arabia's 2023 legal market reforms, which allow foreign firms to establish their own operations in the Kingdom. These changes have prompted several international law firms to enter or expand their presence in Saudi Arabia, including Clifford Chance, Latham & Watkins, and Addleshaw Goddard.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge warns Trump executive order not ‘run around' for sanctuary cities ruling
A federal judge warned Friday that President Trump's executive order seeking to withdraw funds from 16 sanctuary jurisdictions cannot be used to bypass his previous ruling blocking the effort. U.S. District Judge William Orrick said their 'pre-enforcement standing' grants municipalities legal standing to interact with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the manner they've chosen. 'In light of all these considerations, I clarify that neither Executive Order 14,287 nor any other Government action that postdates the Preliminary Injunction can be used as an end run around the Preliminary Injunction Order,' Orrick, an Obama appointee, wrote. Ollick instructed the government to provide written notice of his order clarifying the preliminary injunction to all departments and agencies by Friday. He noted that the injunction applies to the government's 'proscribed conduct' including existing executive orders and those that are unpublished. The Trump administration has a plethora of court battles regarding wrongful deportation and illegal removals. Since November, White House officials said they would aim to carry out the largest deportation in the country's history. Last September, then President-elect Trump suggested the nation ban sanctuary cities as a whole. 'As soon as I take office, we will immediately surge federal law enforcement to every city that is failing, which is a lot of them, to turn over criminal aliens, and we will hunt down, capture every single gang member, drug dealer, rapist, murderer and migrant criminal that is being illegally harbored,' Trump said during a rally in Wilmington, N.C. 'I will ask Congress to pass a law outlawing sanctuary cities nationwide, and we demand the full weight of the federal government on any jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement],' the president said. The Trump administration has already integrated federal law enforcement and agencies into ICE operations in Florida leading to the arrest of over 1,000 undocumented immigrants. Lawmakers have not yet received a proposal to outlaw sanctuary jurisdictions. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Epoch Times
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Judge Warns Trump's Order May Violate Previous Ruling on Sanctuary Cities
A federal judge has admonished the Trump administration not to use a recent executive order on so-called sanctuary jurisdictions to sidestep a block he already placed on similar orders surrounding those jurisdictions' funding. Sanctuary jurisdictions are municipalities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing immigration law. 'Litigation may not proceed with the coercive threat to end all federal funding hanging over the Cities and Counties' heads like the sword of Damocles,' U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in an That was a threat Orrick said the administration made with two executive orders in January and February. After Orrick His order came in response to a request from various cities and counties, which The Justice Department responded by telling Orrick on May 7 that their request sought 'to curb the Executive Branch's deliberative process concerning federal funding decisions and its internal review of state and local governments' compliance with federal law.' The counties and cities, it added, were acting prematurely because Trump's order 'calls for an evaluation process and no funding has been impacted.' Related Stories 5/7/2025 5/3/2025 Orrick said that identifying funds in a targeted way wouldn't violate his April injunction or the Constitution. A more sweeping approach, he said, would. More specifically, he said the government couldn't target certain funds based on the fact that sanctuary jurisdictions received them. Nor could the administration target all federal funds that sanctuary jurisdictions received. His comments came as Trump pursued multiple avenues for bringing both financial and legal consequences to sanctuary jurisdictions. His recent order, which came four days after Orrick's injunction, accused the states of a 'lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government's obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States.' Trump has also repeatedly denounced the jurisdictions, which he called 'Death Traps' in a TruthSocial post quoted by Orrick. In that post, Trump said he sought to withhold all federal funding. The White House also released a Orrick said these statements didn't 'inspire confidence' that the administration would merely identify funds for termination. 'President Trump's actions, communications, and representations about sanctuary jurisdictions have made it perfectly clear that his ultimate goal is their elimination; directives from executive agencies in his administration have put finer points on his (often informal) expressions,' the California judge said. Under Trump's more recent order, Attorney General Pam Bondi must work with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to publish the list within 30 days and notify the jurisdictions of their defiance of federal immigration law. Other provisions directed the two department heads to take steps in order to stop practices that favored illegal immigrants over Americans, as well as to ensure appropriate eligibility verification is conducted for individuals receiving federal public benefits.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - ‘Here we are again' — federal district courts piling on injunctions to stop Trump
'Here we are again.' Those words of Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick may be the only uncontested line in his opinion this week, enjoining the Trump Administration from withholding federal funds to 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' In President Trump's first term, efforts to implement sweeping changes on immigration and other issues were met by a slew of injunctions. In 2017, one of those orders was from Judge Orrick, an Obama appointee in San Francisco. Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California. Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term. When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors' orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term. Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden's term. The Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts' issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality. Some judges have already seen their stays lifted by appellate courts. However, in just one day this week, three more major injunctions were issued on sanctuary cities, voter registration, and deportations. Some of these orders appear premature and overbroad. Take Judge Orrick's order. Again, Trump is targeting cities offering sanctuary to unlawful immigrants as imposing high costs on the country, including increasing burdens for federal programs and grants to these cities. Orrick previously stopped that effort in the first Trump term, and he was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the orders are not identical, and so far no action has been taken against these cities. Under one of the orders, titled 'Protecting the American People against Invasion,' Trump has ordered the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to 'evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.' Orrick noted that the term 'sanctuary jurisdiction' was not defined and dismissed the express reservation that such actions can only proceed to the extent that they are allowed under law. The irony is that the opinion itself is overly broad and imprecise. There are indeed cases limiting the ability of the federal government to 'commandeer' states and cities into carrying out federal functions. However, there are also cases upholding the right to withhold federal funds that contravene federal laws and policies. The operative language in the order is the focus on sanctuary policies that 'interfere' or prevent federal enforcement. There must be some accommodation for the federal government in refusing to pay for the rope that it will hang by. Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote in Terminiello v. City of Chicago that the Constitution cannot be construed as a 'suicide pact.' I have never been fond of that quote, which has often been used to justify the curtailment of individual rights. But these cases could bring a new meaning to the quote in immigration cases. If one accepts the Trump administration's data, then continued funding of these jurisdictions might be more akin to being forced to pay for your own hit man and then calling it suicide. There is a reason courts generally wait for these conflicts to become 'ripe.' The administration could easily engage in impermissible 'commandeering,' but it could also 'evaluate and undertake' more focused and defensible withholdings of federal funds. Judge Orrick decided not to wait to find out. These are difficult questions, but the Supreme Court can reduce these cases by actually ruling with clarity. The court has often left these issues mired in ambiguity, kicking cases like cans down the road for any final resolution. Consider the order out of the District of Columbia blocking an effort to change federal voting forms to require proof of citizenship. Trump campaigned on the issue, and, according to a Gallup poll, 84 percent of U.S. adults are in favor of requiring voters to show such identification. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly barred the federal government from changing the standardized national voter registration form and to have federal voter registration agencies 'assess' the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing them a voter registration form. Kollar-Kotelly raises good-faith limits on presidents' ability to regulate elections, a power mainly left to the states. However, this is a policy that does not necessarily impose a new condition on states. After all, non-citizens are barred from voting in federal elections in all states. Again, there must be some ability of the administration to act to address a national priority in the funding of election reforms and practices. The question is whether the court will recognize such a federal interest. The problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed 'here again,' but this is not a good place for anyone. Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
26-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
‘Here we are again' — federal district courts piling on injunctions to stop Trump
' Here we are again.' Those words of Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick may be the only uncontested line in his opinion this week, enjoining the Trump Administration from withholding federal funds to 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' In President Trump's first term, efforts to implement sweeping changes on immigration and other issues were met by a slew of injunctions. In 2017, one of those orders was from Judge Orrick, an Obama appointee in San Francisco. Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California. Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term. When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. That was not due to more modest measures. Biden did precisely what Trump did in seeking to negate virtually all of his predecessors' orders and then seek sweeping new legal reforms. He was repeatedly found to have violated the Constitution, but there was no torrent of preliminary injunctions at the start of his term. Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden's term. The Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts' issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality. Some judges have already seen their stays lifted by appellate courts. However, in just one day this week, three more major injunctions were issued on sanctuary cities, voter registration, and deportations. Some of these orders appear premature and overbroad. Take Judge Orrick's order. Again, Trump is targeting cities offering sanctuary to unlawful immigrants as imposing high costs on the country, including increasing burdens for federal programs and grants to these cities. Orrick previously stopped that effort in the first Trump term, and he was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the orders are not identical, and so far no action has been taken against these cities. Under one of the orders, titled 'Protecting the American People against Invasion,' Trump has ordered the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to 'evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.' Orrick noted that the term 'sanctuary jurisdiction' was not defined and dismissed the express reservation that such actions can only proceed to the extent that they are allowed under law. The irony is that the opinion itself is overly broad and imprecise. There are indeed cases limiting the ability of the federal government to 'commandeer' states and cities into carrying out federal functions. However, there are also cases upholding the right to withhold federal funds that contravene federal laws and policies. The operative language in the order is the focus on sanctuary policies that 'interfere' or prevent federal enforcement. There must be some accommodation for the federal government in refusing to pay for the rope that it will hang by. Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote in Terminiello v. City of Chicago that the Constitution cannot be construed as a 'suicide pact.' I have never been fond of that quote, which has often been used to justify the curtailment of individual rights. But these cases could bring a new meaning to the quote in immigration cases. If one accepts the Trump administration's data, then continued funding of these jurisdictions might be more akin to being forced to pay for your own hit man and then calling it suicide. There is a reason courts generally wait for these conflicts to become 'ripe.' The administration could easily engage in impermissible 'commandeering,' but it could also 'evaluate and undertake' more focused and defensible withholdings of federal funds. Judge Orrick decided not to wait to find out. These are difficult questions, but the Supreme Court can reduce these cases by actually ruling with clarity. The court has often left these issues mired in ambiguity, kicking cases like cans down the road for any final resolution. Consider the order out of the District of Columbia blocking an effort to change federal voting forms to require proof of citizenship. Trump campaigned on the issue, and, according to a Gallup poll, 84 percent of U.S. adults are in favor of requiring voters to show such identification. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly barred the federal government from changing the standardized national voter registration form and to have federal voter registration agencies 'assess' the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing them a voter registration form. Kollar-Kotelly raises good-faith limits on presidents' ability to regulate elections, a power mainly left to the states. However, this is a policy that does not necessarily impose a new condition on states. After all, non-citizens are barred from voting in federal elections in all states. Again, there must be some ability of the administration to act to address a national priority in the funding of election reforms and practices. The question is whether the court will recognize such a federal interest. The problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed 'here again,' but this is not a good place for anyone.
