Latest news with #Pillard
Politico
4 days ago
- Business
- Politico
Appeals court clears way for deep cuts, restructuring at CFPB
Pillard's dissent accused Katsas and Rao of taking too narrow a view of the court's ability to prevent the Trump administration from violating the law. 'The President's chosen CFPB leadership may — within those constraints — run the Bureau as it determines best serves the public interest. But it is emphatically not within the discretion of the President or his appointees to decide that the country would benefit most if there were no Bureau at all,' Pillard wrote. 'The notion that courts are powerless to prevent the President from abolishing the agencies of the federal government that he was elected to lead cannot be reconciled with either the constitutional separation of powers or our nation's commitment to a government of laws.' As the legal fight over the CFPB has played out in court, Trump and Republicans have successfully slashed the bureau's funding. The GOP tax and spending megalaw Trump signed in July cuts by roughly half the amount of funding the CFPB can request to finance its operations from the Federal Reserve. And even with the legal roadblocks, Trump administration officials have already moved to curtail much of the agency's work. In recent months the CFPB has dropped lawsuits against companies, reversed settlements and is seeking to drastically reduce its oversight of a range of industries. At the same time, the White House is enlisting the CFPB in its fight against 'debanking,' a crackdown on allegations that banks closed the accounts of conservatives or conservative-aligned industries for political purposes. The CFPB is among the regulators Trump tasked earlier this month with examining whether banks were engaged in that practice. The CFPB has also announced that it plans to rewrite a sweeping Biden-era regulation governing financial data-sharing. Crypto executives and financial technology firms have been lobbying Trump to enforce a Biden-era policy that prohibits banks from charging fees for that data-sharing — which fintechs and crypto firms use to power their services and make it easier for customers to set up accounts and move money.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Yahoo
Suspect charged with Intoxication Manslaughter for Abilene man killed at Possum Kingdom Lake
PALO PINTO COUNTY, Texas () – A suspect has been charged with Intoxication Manslaughter in connection to the death of an Abilene man killed at Possum Kingdom Lake this weekend. Justin Pillard was booked into the Palo Pino County Jail Saturday for Intoxication Manslaughter with Vehicle then was releaed from jail after posting a $30,000 bond. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department says Pillard was operating a boat when the boat's propeller struck and killed a 23-year-old Abilene man who was being pulled in a tube behind. This young man, who has not been publicly identified, was pronounced dead at the scene. No further information is available at this time. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Striking': DC appeals court interrogates Trump admin on Pentagon's transgender military ban policy
A three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C., grilled the Trump administration over its expected implementation of the Pentagon's transgender military ban policy and a lower court's finding of animus behind the ban. Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama-appointee, and Trump-appointees Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao presided over Tuesday's oral arguments over an order blocking President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military from going into effect. "We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus on its face, not directing anyone, any panel of experts, to study this issue, but simply directing the Secretary of Defense to implement a ban on transgender service by transgender persons," Pillard told Justice Department attorney Jason Manion. "And within a month, the Secretary of Defense doing so with no further study other than the Mattis policy." Federal Judge Denies Trump Admin's Effort To Ban Transgender People From Military D.C.-based District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban in March, with Reyes writing in her opinion that the order was "soaked in animus" and discriminated based on a person's transgender status. Rao asked Manion if the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion said they did not. Read On The Fox News App "The relevant question is whether the policy can be explained by any reason other than animus," Manion responded. Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also focused on the finding of animus by the lower court, arguing that the policy at hand "does something that is so extraordinarily unusual." "The government openly, just with complete transparency, expressing animosity towards a group of people and relying on that as a justification and the district court properly noted that," Minter said. Pillard, who notably asked a majority of the questions, also honed in on the "irreparable harm" the government argues it will suffer if the appeals court does not stay Reyes' order. Hegseth Suggests Judge Report To Military Bases After Ruling That Pentagon Must Allow Transgender Troops Manion argued that Reyes' order not only affects the military's competence and readiness as the ban is put on pause, but it also conflicts with the president's constitutional powers. Manion argued that the "main injuries" include the inability to enforce what the Department believes "to be a valid policy." Pillard responded back, asking why the government has not previously expressed such concerns of military readiness and competence in past years before the policy came about. "How has the military worked under a different policy?" Pillard asked. "It's striking to me that the government…has not stymied that." Katsas specifically asked the government how it expected to go about implementing the policy, asking what procedure would take place "on the back end when there is a servicemember serving who… is found to have some condition that would have been disqualifying at the exception stage." "Is it a discretionary judgment by a military board? Is it administrative separation?" Katsas asked. Manion said he believed some conditions "undergo an individualized process" in those situations. Pillard expanded upon this line of questioning, asking if there were any other conditions that did not have to undergo a medical evaluation. Manion said he could not think of any at that moment. "This is a core area of presidential power," Manion said. "[The military] has determined this will increase readiness and not being able to enact it will harm the military and all of those factors add up to irreparable harm here." Minter likewise argued that there is "no other medical condition that puts a person automatically into separation," saying "every other condition goes into a med process are you able to do your job." Skeptical Judge Questions Executive Order Barring Transgender Service Members From Joining The Military "We don't talk about people with diabetes or heart conditions being dishonest… that's just a red flag," Minter said. No ruling was issued, but an opinion is expected in the coming days that will likely be appealed to the high court. Minter told Fox News Digital after the oral arguments that they were "encouraged by the argument and hopeful the court will deny the stay." "The plaintiffs in this case are serving with honor and distinction. They have received medals and commendations, deployed worldwide, and been selected for positions of extraordinary responsibility and leadership," Minter said. "Purging them from the military will not make our country, safer, stronger, or more secure." At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding "trans-identifying medical standards for military service" and to "rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness." In issuing her injunction, Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit "face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm" that would warrant a preliminary injunction." The defendants in the suit, which include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21. Click To Get The Fox News App In the filing, the government argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead "turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class." After the government agreed to push the implementation deadline to March 28 upon Reyes' request, Reyes denied the government's motion to dissolve the injunction, prompting the administration to appeal shortly thereafter. Fox News Digital's Diana Stancy contributed to this report. Original article source: 'Striking': DC appeals court interrogates Trump admin on Pentagon's transgender military ban policy
Fox News
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
'Striking': DC appeals court interrogates Trump admin on Pentagon's transgender military ban policy
A three-judge appeals panel in Washington, D.C., grilled the Trump administration over its expected implementation of the Pentagon's transgender military ban policy and a lower court's finding of animus behind the ban. Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, an Obama-appointee, and Trump-appointees Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao presided over Tuesday's oral arguments over an order blocking President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender individuals from serving in the military from going into effect. "We have a sitting president issuing an executive order that has animus on its face, not directing anyone, any panel of experts, to study this issue, but simply directing the Secretary of Defense to implement a ban on transgender service by transgender persons," Pillard told Justice Department attorney Jason Manion. "And within a month, the Secretary of Defense doing so with no further study other than the Mattis policy." D.C.-based District Judge Ana Reyes had previously blocked the Trump administration from implementing its ban in March, with Reyes writing in her opinion that the order was "soaked in animus" and discriminated based on a person's transgender status. Rao asked Manion if the government conceded that there was animus behind the order, to which Manion said they did not. "The relevant question is whether the policy can be explained by any reason other than animus," Manion responded. Counsel for the appellees, Shannon Minter, also focused on the finding of animus by the lower court, arguing that the policy at hand "does something that is so extraordinarily unusual." "The government openly, just with complete transparency, expressing animosity towards a group of people and relying on that as a justification and the district court properly noted that," Minter said. Pillard, who notably asked a majority of the questions, also honed in on the "irreparable harm" the government argues it will suffer if the appeals court does not stay Reyes' order. Manion argued that Reyes' order not only affects the military's competence and readiness as the ban is put on pause, but it also conflicts with the president's constitutional powers. Manion argued that the "main injuries" include the inability to enforce what the Department believes "to be a valid policy." Pillard responded back, asking why the government has not previously expressed such concerns of military readiness and competence in past years before the policy came about. "How has the military worked under a different policy?" Pillard asked. "It's striking to me that the government…has not stymied that." Katsas specifically asked the government how it expected to go about implementing the policy, asking what procedure would take place "on the back end when there is a servicemember serving who… is found to have some condition that would have been disqualifying at the exception stage." "Is it a discretionary judgment by a military board? Is it administrative separation?" Katsas asked. Manion said he believed some conditions "undergo an individualized process" in those situations. Pillard expanded upon this line of questioning, asking if there were any other conditions that did not have to undergo a medical evaluation. Manion said he could not think of any at that moment. "This is a core area of presidential power," Manion said. "[The military] has determined this will increase readiness and not being able to enact it will harm the military and all of those factors add up to irreparable harm here." Minter likewise argued that there is "no other medical condition that puts a person automatically into separation," saying "every other condition goes into a med process are you able to do your job." "We don't talk about people with diabetes or heart conditions being dishonest… that's just a red flag," Minter said. No ruling was issued, but an opinion is expected in the coming days that will likely be appealed to the high court. Minter told Fox News Digital after the oral arguments that they were "encouraged by the argument and hopeful the court will deny the stay." "The plaintiffs in this case are serving with honor and distinction. They have received medals and commendations, deployed worldwide, and been selected for positions of extraordinary responsibility and leadership," Minter said. "Purging them from the military will not make our country, safer, stronger, or more secure." At issue in the case is a Jan. 27 executive order signed by Trump requiring the Defense Department to update its guidance regarding "trans-identifying medical standards for military service" and to "rescind guidance inconsistent with military readiness." In issuing her injunction, Reyes wrote in her opinion that the plaintiffs in the suit "face a violation of their constitutional rights, which constitutes irreparable harm" that would warrant a preliminary injunction." The defendants in the suit, which include Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, filed a motion to dissolve the injunction on March 21. In the filing, the government argued that the policy is not an overarching ban but instead "turns on gender dysphoria – a medical condition – and does not discriminate against trans-identifying persons as a class." After the government agreed to push the implementation deadline to March 28 upon Reyes' request, Reyes denied the government's motion to dissolve the injunction, prompting the administration to appeal shortly thereafter.
