Latest news with #PaulNiemeyer
Fox News
06-08-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Dems wanted to draw every Republican out of Maryland but now lambast Texas redistricting
Democrats nationwide are supporting Texas lawmakers who fled the state to block a GOP-led mid-cycle redistricting vote — a sharp contrast to their stance a decade ago, when Maryland Democrats faced little criticism for a plan that nearly wiped out every Republican congressional seat. After the Old Line State lost a congressional seat in the 2010 census, Annapolis was tasked with drawing new lines for the now-eight remaining, and then-Gov. Martin O'Malley ultimately testified about his eagerness to box-out the GOP. While overwhelmingly Democratic, Maryland features conservative strongholds at its geographic extremes — the Western Panhandle and Eastern Shore — and a smattering of Republican-majority communities throughout the more densely-populated center of the state. One of the newly-drawn seats — the 3rd District represented by then-Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., — resembled what Fourth Circuit federal Judge Paul Niemeyer called a "broken-winged pterodactyl, lying prostrate across Maryland." Appearing to painstakingly connect some of the state's wealthier suburban communities while steering clear of inner-city Baltimore and the military installation at Fort George Meade, the district had the rare distinction of being one that a person would be unable to drive across. It began along I-795 northwest of Baltimore, curved east to form a thread-thin line across the city's northern border, drew in some northeastern suburbs before returning to linear form southward and again widening to encompass Inner Harbor and suburbs Halethorpe and Arbutus. At one point near US-1 in Elkridge, someone could walk for a few minutes and enter three different congressional districts, including the 3rd as it traversed Ducketts Lane. The "pterodactyl" then swung southwest to form its "body" north of Washington, D.C., before boomeranging into a different part of Howard County than it had just passed through — then shifting south again to trace the disconnected coastline of the Patapsco River and Chesapeake Bay. Tucked in between Elkridge and Glen Burnie, a distance of only a few miles, was a tendril of another congressional district, the 2nd, otherwise centered east of Baltimore City. Between Gibson Island and Annapolis, the "pterodactyl" 3rd crossed peninsulas and islands that precluded people from being able to traverse its entire length without crossing water, while narrowly separating the waterway from another district anchored closer to Washington. The third district drew nationwide infamy but was staunchly defended by Maryland Democrats at the time, as they sought to draw out any congressional Republican they could. Previously, Maryland Democrats shifted the boundaries of suburban D.C. districts in 2002 to help force out the last Beltway-area Republican congresswoman, Rep. Connie Morella. That area is now represented by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. The 2010 decennial redraw that created the 3rd also sought to boot the rest of the GOP delegation, and eventually succeeded in making it halfway. Then-Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., an eccentric octogenarian who leaned conservative and represented the Western Panhandle's rural, blue-collar expanse, saw his district shifted to include very liberal, white-collar D.C. suburbs along I-270. The entrenched now-99-year-old lost the following election to Democrat John Delaney by nearly the amount he won his previous race by, and moved far into West Virginia and settled off the grid. Rep. Andy Harris, the House Freedom Caucus chair and last remaining congressional Maryland Republican, remained — but not because his presence was missed. As the Atlantic reported at the time, Maryland Democrats drew up a "7-1" map after the 2010 census, in hopes of booting Bartlett, but also briefly theorized an "8-0" map that would have forced Harris out. The prospect of stretching safe Democratic districts too thin in hopes of swapping out the staunch conservative in the state's largest district by size proved too much of a risk, the outlet reported, noting concerns about even worse-looking district lines criss-crossing the Bay. But, after the latest redistricting that proverbially killed the "pterodactyl" and other squiggly districts scrutinized in the lawsuit, Harris said it was clear his 1st District was again becoming more competitive. "The Democrats can't defeat me at the ballot box so they're going to defeat me on the gerrymander vote, or at least they're going to attempt to," he told WYPR. In a 2017 deposition amid a lawsuit over Maryland's map, O'Malley admitted to seeking Bartlett's ouster or better: "That was my hope." He worked with Maryland's Democratic legislature to craft such a map. "It was my intent to create… a district where the people would be more likely to elect a Democrat than a Republican." Bartlett said at the time he wanted to work with O'Malley to create a fairer map that also avoided racial gerrymandering around Washington. The Washington Post repeatedly bashed the gerrymandered map, being one of the first to report the judge's "pterodactyl" moniker. "Democratic Party leaders went overboard in carving up territory so that Democratic votes would be deployed to maximum advantage, even if it meant stitching them into districts resembling violently spilled coffee," one 2012 editorial read. After leaving office and taking the reins at the DNC for a time, O'Malley struck a more critical tone against gerrymandering, telling a group at Boston College in 2017 that "we must, on a state-by-state basis push for an end to gerrymandering…" He also acknowledged his own history, remarking, "I held that redistricting pen in my own Democratic hand. I was convinced that we should use our political power to pass a map that was more favorable for the election of Democratic candidates."
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Yahoo
Appeals Court vacates Mosby's mortgage fraud conviction, upholds perjury charges
A federal appeals court on Friday vacated former Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's mortgage fraud conviction, while upholding two separate perjury convictions, according to newly filed court records. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 2-1 that Mosby's mortgage fraud case had been improperly tried in Maryland. Judges Stephanie Thacker and G. Steven Agee ruled in favor of the former prosecutor. Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote a separate opinion, concurring in part and dissenting in part of the majority decision. The court said the jury received 'erroneous instruction' about the proper venue for the case, and as a result, it reversed the conviction and the federal government's seizure of her Florida condominium. 'We agree with Appellant that the district court's jury charge with respect to venue in her mortgage fraud trial was erroneous,' Thacker wrote in the filing. 'On that ground, we vacate Appellant's mortgage fraud conviction without reaching her remaining arguments. And because the district court's forfeiture order hinges on the mortgage fraud conviction, it is likewise vacated.' An attorney for Mosby was not listed in court records, and she could not be reached for comment. In upholding Mosby's two perjury convictions, the panel sided with the trial judge's determination that evidence concerning her retirement fund withdrawals was both relevant and admissible. 'We discern no error in the district court's adjudication of Appellant's perjury convictions,' the court wrote. Mosby, 45, completed a year-long sentence of home detention on June 20, according to a judge's order. The ruling came after she filed motions earlier in the week seeking the return of her passport and a waiver of a $1,447.23 location monitoring fee — conditions that had restricted her ability to travel. Mosby, who served as Baltimore's State's Attorney from 2015 to 2023, was convicted of two counts of perjury and one count of mortgage fraud — all federal offenses — after leaving office. She was sentenced to home detention in May 2024 and began serving her sentence the following month. The perjury charges stemmed from Mosby's use of the federal CARES Act, which allowed individuals facing financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic to withdraw retirement funds without penalties. Prosecutors argued that she falsely claimed hardship to access tens of thousands of dollars from her retirement account, despite earning more in 2020 than she had in the previous year. In a separate trial in 2024, a jury found Mosby guilty of using those retirement funds as down payments on two luxury vacation properties in Florida valued at more than $1 million combined. Mosby was confined to her Fells Point home and common areas of her apartment complex while on home detention but was still permitted to travel for work, childcare responsibilities, medical appointments and meetings with her legal team. Mosby had to get permission to travel to all other events, such as a barbecue held in her honor that she attended last summer in Clarksville. Mosby first rose to national prominence in 2015 when she charged six Baltimore police officers in connection with the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old Black man who died in police custody. The case drew national attention amid widespread protests and unrest. After three trials ended without convictions, Mosby dropped charges against the remaining officers. Have a news tip? Contact Todd Karpovich at tkarpovich@ or on X as @ToddKarpovich.
Reuters
10-05-2025
- Automotive
- Reuters
Federal appeals court skeptical over NASCAR antitrust case
May 10 - Although Michael Jordan's 23XI Racing team and Front Row Motorsports won a preliminary injunction in their antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR last December, it might not stand up to scrutiny on appeal. The case went before a panel of three judges in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday in Richmond, Va. The judges appeared to lean toward NASCAR's argument that the basis of the injunction was flawed. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports were granted an injunction that allowed them to operate as chartered NASCAR teams despite not signing a charter. The two teams had refused to sign a take-it-or-leave-it charter agreement presented last September, which the other 13 organizations in the Cup Series signed. NASCAR filed its appeal in February. NASCAR asserted that U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell misapplied antitrust laws and portrayed the release of claims as standard business practice, not anti-competitive conduct. "If you don't want the contract, you don't enter into it and you sue," U.S. Circuit Court Judge Paul Niemeyer said. "Or if you want the contract, you enter into it, and you've given up past releases. But I think our Omega observation (referencing a 1997 case between a travel agency and TWA) is you can't have your cake and eat it too." If the injunction is overturned and the two teams can no longer operate as chartered members, they can still compete in the Cup Series as open teams. NASCAR attorney Christopher Yates noted that the teams would have qualified for every race so far this season even without charter status. However, the attorney representing 23XI and Front Row, Jeffrey Kessler, argued that it would be too disruptive to overturn the initial ruling midstream. "It will cause havoc to overturn this injunction in the middle of the season, while if it just stays into effect till November, we're done," Kessler said. "And then we'll have a trial and we'll either win or lose." NASCAR's recent countersuit against 23XI and Front Row said they were engaging in an "illegal cartel" to try to extract more favorable contracts from the racing league. A trial is set for Dec. 1, but it is unknown whether the panel will make a decision regarding the injunction anytime soon. --Field Level Media
Reuters
27-01-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Citigroup wins appeal against military personnel over credit card rates
NEW YORK, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Citigroup (C.N), opens new tab can force military personnel to arbitrate claims that its Citibank unit charged unfairly high interest rates on their credit card balances after they returned to civilian life, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Monday. Reversing a trial judge, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress did not intend when adopting the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to override a federal law providing enforcement of arbitration agreements. With roots dating to the Civil War, the act relieves military personnel of mortgage foreclosures, default judgments and other burdens while they serve their country. Four plaintiffs sought to pursue a class action against Citibank after it began charging civilian interest rates on card balances they accumulated during active duty, when rates were capped at 6%. One plaintiff, Army Sergeant Jeremy Bell, saw his rate jump to 25.99%, court records show. Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, however, wrote for the three-judge panel that because the SCRA was silent on arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act required the plaintiffs to arbitrate disputes individually. The panel directed the North Carolina trial judge to review whether the federal Military Leave Act, which caps some rates and overrides arbitration agreements, applies to the plaintiffs' card accounts. Leah Nicholls, a lawyer at the nonprofit Public Justice representing the plaintiffs, said they may seek a rehearing. She said the decision conflicted with how the U.S. Supreme Court has assessed Congress' intent to displace arbitration agreements. "We are obviously disappointed," she said. Citigroup, based in New York, declined to comment. Class actions let groups of plaintiffs seek potentially higher recoveries at lower cost than if members arbitrated claims individually. A similar case is pending against American Express (AXP.N), opens new tab in the North Carolina court. It was put on hold until the appeals court could rule. In March 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice sided with the plaintiffs in both cases, saying the SCRA gave servicemembers an "unwaivable right" to pursue class actions even if they agreed to arbitrate. Consumer protection had been a focus of then-Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden's domestic agenda. The case is Espin et al v Citibank NA, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2083.
