Latest news with #Republican-appointed
Los Angeles Times
4 hours ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
HelloFresh settles consumer protection lawsuit with Santa Clara County for $7.5 million
HelloFresh agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a consumer protection lawsuit brought by Santa Clara County. The lawsuit, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleged the meal-kit company had misled customers and made it difficult for them to cancel their subscriptions. As part of the settlement, which was approved last week, HelloFresh will pay $6.38 million in civil penalties, $120,000 in investigative costs, and $1 million in restitution to California consumers. 'Misleading automatic renewal subscriptions and false advertising practices don't sell products — they sell deception,' said Santa Clara County Dist. Atty. Jeff Rosen in a Monday news release about the settlement. 'Stop means stop.' California consumers eligible for the pay out must have been enrolled in HelloFresh's automatic renewal product subscription between Jan. 1, 2019, and Aug. 18, 2025, and charged for the first shipment without their knowledge. They also must have canceled their subscription after that shipment and failed to receive a refund from HelloFresh. HelloFresh denied wrongdoing. 'We take our commitment to customer transparency very seriously, and our subscription model and cancellation policies have been consistently clear to customers throughout the whole customer journey,' said HelloFresh spokesperson Abby Dreher in an email. 'While we deny any wrongdoing, we have cooperated fully with the coalition of California District Attorneys and have entered into a settlement agreement with them to resolve the matter amicably.' The Santa Clara County district attorney's office led the case alongside the Los Angeles County district attorney's office, as well as other members of the state's 'Automatic Renewal Task Force,' which also includes the district attorney's offices of San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz counties, as well as Santa Monica's city attorney. The company enrolled customers in subscriptions with automatic renewal but did not clearly disclose those terms or offer a simple way to cancel the subscription, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office said. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's office also said the company had failed to provide terms and conditions of free meal perks, bonus gifts and offers for free shipping — actions that are violations of the state laws governing automatic renewal and false advertising. Millions of consumers pay for services or goods without their consent, and regulators at the federal level have sought to establish rules that prevent this practice — but with little success. Although the Federal Trade Commission last year finalized a 'click to cancel' rule requiring that it be as easy to cancel a recurrent subscription as to sign up for one, an appeals court of Republican-appointed judges threw out the rule last month after business groups brought a legal challenge. The failure in court came less than a week before the law was to take effect and after years of regulatory work to hash out the specifics.
New Straits Times
07-07-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
At trial, US professors criticise arrests of pro-Palestinian students
NEW YORK: A group of US university professors told a court Monday that President Donald Trump's administration has created a climate of fear on campuses by seeking to deport foreign students with pro-Palestinian views. Academics from institutions including Harvard University claim students are being targeted based on their ideologies, breaching free speech protections under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The Trump administration, which has clashed with elite US colleges over refuted claims of anti-conservative bias and anti-Semitism, has said it is simply adhering to existing immigration and visa laws. However, the arrests of several pro-Palestinian student activists, such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, have stirred anger in recent months. During the two-week trial in Boston, the group of professors is hoping to persuade Republican-appointed Judge William Young to protect students and staff who engage in pro-Palestinian advocacy from being deported. Nadje Al-Ali, a Middle East and anthropology professor at Brown University, told the court she could face repercussions for her work. "Although these were students, I felt like, okay, next in line will be faculty, and so it definitely felt vulnerable and targeted as a result," she said. Al-Ali, a German citizen with Iraqi roots, said she had avoided attending protests against the Trump administration's policies out of fear of being filmed and then "targeted." In the case of Khalil, a Columbia University student who was born in Syria to Palestinian parents, the US government argued that his presence in the country posed a threat to US national security. "The case is an immensely important test of the First Amendment at a moment when we need the First Amendment's protections more than ever," said the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit.
Time of India
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Is Trump gambling with America's future?
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel From Iran to Capitol Hill, President Trump is governing as if he believes all the constraints that limited him during his first term have may be right in that assessment. But if he is, both he and his party could ultimately regret his decision last week to bomb Iran. The problem of Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon has vexed presidents for decades. Yet Vice President JD Vance, reflecting the courtier mindset that has come to dominate Trump's White House,insisted that other presidents hadn't bombed Iran only because they were 'dumb.'Actually, as I was told in conversations last week with several former senior national security officials from the Joe Biden and Barack Obama administrations, those presidents also seriously considered bombing Iran. But both concluded that military action might only slow, not stop, Iran's nuclear effort — and could ultimately increase its determination to secretly build a bomb for deterrence. They recognized that even an attack that initially met its military goals could trigger unintended consequences and ultimately hurt America's long-term because Trump has spent a lifetime dodging accountability in the legal system, the idea that his actions could have unintended consequences seems foreign to him. He has especially good reason to feel unbound now. The institutions that might have restrained him — and usually did restrain other presidents — are buckling under his relentless drive to centralize more presidential events over just the past week have captured the breadth of this capitulation. The six Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices signaled again that they see themselves less as hindrances than handmaidens to Trump's accumulation of power when they voted to essentially bar lower courts from imposing nationwide injunctions against his policies. Two of the tiny handful of Congressional Republicans who have maintained a degree of independence — Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska and Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina — announced that they would not seek reelection, showing the president's success at eradicating dissent within his party. Congressional Republican leaders again demonstrated that they will not defend the institution's authority when they justified Trump's refusal to consult Congress (or even inform Democrats) before he bombed Iran. The decision by the University of Virginia's president to resign under pressure from the administration underscored how many institutions in civil society are surrendering to Trump's unprecedented incursions on their was just one is nothing if not a student of human weakness. And he has clearly taken note of how many institutions are splintering under his assaults. In response, Trump is indulging his most aggressive instincts and taking political and policy gambles that might have seemed too reckless during his first term. On issue after issue, he is treating an extremely confrontational position as merely his opening ante — before immediately doubling down with even more extreme tendency was evident from his first day back in office when he pardoned not only the Jan. 6 defendants who broke into the Capitol, but also those who violently assaulted police officers. He's not only dropped federal investigations against political allies, but has directed his administration to launch investigations of individuals he considers adversaries — most recently saying he would consider deporting friend-turned-foe Elon Musk. In Los Angeles, Trump went beyond federalizing the state National Guard over the objection of California Governor Gavin Newsom and also deployed active-duty Marines into the city. Then, he not only used troops to defend federal buildings in LA, but also to provide security for federal immigration and drug enforcement agents on raids. The 'one big beautiful bill' staggering through Congress not only extends the tax cuts he passed in 2017, but would cause nearly as many people to lose health insurance as his failed first-term attempt to repeal the Affordable Care has been equally unconstrained in international affairs. He hasn't applied punishing tariffs only to China, but to close allies including Canada and Mexico. He has moved from America-first isolationism to threatening to seize territory from friendly nations. And as noted above, he not only acquiesced as Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities, but joined the attack with the biggest non-nuclear bombs in America's arsenal. The former senior Biden and Obama national security officials told me any administration would have considered a military strike after Israel opened a window of opportunity by degrading Iran's air defenses and disabling its key regional proxies. But the officials also said that the continuing uncertainty over how much the attack actually set back Iran's nuclear program validated the conclusion in those prior administrations that a diplomatic agreement offered a better chance of lasting common thread linking Trump's second-term choices is that he appears to view himself as both infallible and invulnerable. ('I run the country and the world,' he has declared.) He partially retreated when bond markets rebelled against his tariffs, but no other external force has cowed him. And unlike his first term, he's filled his government with loyalists more prone to flatter than challenge him. Business executives and international leaders have followed suit, sacrificing their independence (and in some cases self-respect).That lack of pushback appears to be encouraging him to take yet more gambles. None have entirely blown up on him yet. But he is rushing onto so many ledges that any could crumble beneath him. Iran eventually could respond to his attack with a destabilizing act of terrorism or a sprint toward a bomb; his National Guard deployments into blue cities could trigger a Kent State moment when civilians are killed; trade wars could derail the economy; voters could recoil from a budget bill that cuts taxes for the top 0.1% by over $230,000 annually while revoking health insurance from more people than any previous University political scientist Corey Brettschneider points out that when other presidents have sought to aggrandize their power and undermine Constitutional freedoms, the system's supposed checks from Congress and the Supreme Court have usually failed. According to Brettschneider, who explored that history in his powerful recent book The Presidents and The People, what has slowed those presidents (from John Adams through Woodrow Wilson) is 'citizens pushing back' and building 'a coalition in opposition' when rights and liberties are history points to the real danger of Trump's towering overconfidence. It has emboldened him to take serial risks that may ultimately hurt the American people and provoke a public backlash, particularly among the swing voters that he — and more immediately his party in 2026 —need to retain is repeatedly raising his bets as if he believes he can draw only aces from the deck. He might do well to remember that back in Atlantic City, his ventures into the casino business more than once ended in bankruptcy.(The article is an opinion piece by Bloomberg's Ronald Brownstein.)
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How Democrats can weaponize the Supreme Court's recent rulings
In a string of cases Friday, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court handed the Republican Party win after win. The court restricted nationwide injunctions against President Donald Trump's order on birthright citizenship, greatly hindering the powers of lower federal courts to constrain the president. It allowed parents to opt their kids out of public school education that offended their religious upbringing. And it let the state of Texas require age verification before anyone looks at online porn. There is no question that each of these cases is a significant victory for conservatives in the short term. However, each also gives liberals an opening to try to accomplish their policy goals, but only if they are willing to be aggressive and break norms they've previously wanted to maintain. First, in the birthright citizenship case, the Supreme Court's six Republican-appointed justices addressed a procedural question, not the issue of whether the president's order rejecting the idea of birthright citizenship is unconstitutional (even though it clearly is under the Fourteenth Amendment and federal statutory law). On the procedural issue, the court held that lower federal court orders stopping the president's unlawful actions could apply only to the people who brought those cases. In other words, even if a president issues a plainly unconstitutional order, all lower courts can do is provide relief to the individuals who had the foresight and resources to sue in federal court. The order cannot apply to everyone else in the country. Yes, there are some exceptions. Cases can be brought as class actions, meaning a small number of people can bring the case on behalf of all other people in the country like them, but the court has spent the past two decades making such cases harder to bring. Also, states might be able to sue on behalf of their citizens and get nationwide relief under the theory that a citizen of, say, New Jersey, travels to other states and needs protection there. However, several justices have been skeptical of cases brought on behalf of others, so the future viability of such a strategy is unknown. Finally, never shy about giving itself more power, the Supreme Court said it can issue nationwide injunctions. However, the court's holding against universal injunctions from lower court judges is now the law of the land. And as a legal rule, in theory, this decision should apply in all cases regarding universal injunctions, not just cases brought against Republican policies. Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized this in her dissenting opinion: 'Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.' Justice Sotomayor's tit-for-tat warning was directed at the justices in the majority, but it could also be seen as an invitation to Democrats willing to push boundaries. The next Democrat in the Oval Office or even Democrats now in charge of state governments can look at the Supreme Court decision and take new actions knowing that lower courts shouldn't have the power to issue nationwide or statewide injunctions stopping them. A health care directive promoting reproductive freedom? An executive order forgiving student loans? A state initiative that restricts gun sales? A vaccination requirement that some religious people object to? An environmental directive that might infringe on some business' claimed right? After Friday's decision, even if these policies are challenged before very conservative federal judges, those judges shouldn't have the power to stop these Democratic actions beyond just the parties to the case, no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional these judges believe them to be. Liberals can apply the same thinking to the Supreme Court's ruling about LGBTQ+ books and religious exemptions. In that case, the conservative majority said that schools that teach books that burden parents' religious beliefs violate the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion. In order to avoid this, schools must offer kids an opt-out so they aren't forced to learn about gay marriage or trans people. Critics of the court's decision worry that parents might cite their faith to push back against books that include depictions of interracial marriage, women in the workplace or evolution. But liberals can have beliefs grounded in religion, too. Which means they, too, can throw a monkey wrench into the system on behalf of their liberal agenda. For instance, schools around the country are adopting 'Baby Olivia' videos to promote anti-abortion views. A religious family who believes bodily autonomy and women's rights are central to their religion can object and force the school to create an opt-out process. Finally, there's the age verification case involving online porn. In this case, the conservative justices said that while adults have the right to view pornography, minors don't. Thus, Texas is allowed to put what the majority of the court viewed as a minimal burden on adults — the online age verification process — in order to stop minors from viewing porn, even though some adults viewed the process as violating their privacy. Once again, liberals can play this game, as well. For instance, if Texas wants age verification for porn websites, California could require age verification for websites that sell or advertise guns. Sure, some or all of these actions might not survive the court's eventual scrutiny. Each of the doctrines at issue in these cases and hypotheticals have exceptions and complicated sub-rules. Moreover, if the Supreme Court doesn't care about law and cares only about furthering a conservative ideological agenda, it will find a way to rule against liberal causes and politicians while ruling for conservatives. But Democrats and liberals need to force the court's hand by using these supposedly neutral rules to push their own agenda. The court may be tilted ideologically against them, but that doesn't mean giving up ahead of time. Instead, they should use the tools given to them to accomplish their policy goals and dare the Supreme Court to display blatant hypocrisy by stopping them. This article was originally published on
The Hill
30-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
NJ attorney general: Universal injunctions still possible after Supreme Court ruling
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin (D) argued Monday that sweeping injunctions blocking the Trump administration's policies could still be achieved, despite a Supreme Court ruling against them last week. '[The Supreme Court] said very clearly: States still may need nationwide relief if, in fact, the harms that we experience as states … the consequences to states are enormous; so, they asked lower courts to consider that question,' Platkin, one of the state attorneys general who has advocated on behalf of the injunctions, told CNN's Kate Bolduan in an interview. 'I think we will very clearly be able to meet the standard that even this Supreme Court set out for states to meet should we need nationwide relief.' The high court issued a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines Friday that pushed back on judicial holds that have been used to stymie the president's agenda since his return to the White House in January. 'These injunctions — known as 'universal injunctions' — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court's six Republican-appointed justices, after the Trump administration argued that judicial overreach was entrenching on the president's powers. The justices ordered the lower courts to move 'expeditiously' to reconsider their injunctions and comply with the Friday ruling. Platkin told Bolduan he thinks that leaves room for universal injunctions in some cases. 'Notably, it was a rhetorically very strong opinion, but it actually was quite a middle of the road opinion for what the administration wanted,' he said. The case that prompted the court's decision centered on an executive order Trump signed earlier this year to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to immigrants. The court didn't weigh in on the merits of birthright citizenship. 'Look, I think it's important to remember what the Supreme Court did not do on Friday,' Platkin said. 'They didn't opine on the merits of birthright citizenship because everyone, for the last 157 years, has understood that babies born on U.S. soil since the Civil War have been treated as citizens.'
