Latest news with #Sauer
USA Today
9 hours ago
- General
- USA Today
At least 40 city buses catch fire at Philadelphia SEPTA facility
At least 40 city buses catch fire at Philadelphia SEPTA facility Show Caption Hide Caption Blaze burns through SEPTA buses at depot A huge fire erupted at a SEPTA bus depot in Philadelphia's Nicetown neighborhood Thursday morning. Fox - Fox 29 More than 150 firefighters in Eastern Pennsylvania battled a massive blaze at a major Philadelphia transportation depot yard after dozens of buses went up in flames at the yard in the early hours of June 5. The fire broke out sometime around 6 a.m. ET at Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority's (SEPTA) facility in the 2400 block of Roberts Avenue near Pulaski Avenue, the Philadelphia Fire Department reported. The facility is in the city's Nicetown-Tioga neighborhood, about seven miles north of downtown. Shortly before 6:30 a.m. ET, firefighters responded to the depot for a report of multiple buses on fire, SEPTA General Manager Scott Sauer told CBS News. At the scene, SEPTA worked to pull out unaffected buses to facilitate better access for firefighters, PFD said. Initially reported as a two-alarm fire at 6:30 a.m., the number of vehicles on fire, coupled with large plumes of black smoke, quickly escalated the situation to a three-alarm fire. Firefighters confirmed that they had the scene under control by 8:10 a.m. What caused the Philadelphia bus fire? The cause and origin of the fire are under investigation by the Fire Marshal's Office. The fire destroyed approximately 40 buses, including 15 decommissioned electric buses, which Sauer suggested could explain how the fire started. A similar electric bus caught fire in 2022 at a separate SEPTA depot, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. The buses that caught fire were "getting ready to go to the scrap heap," said Andrew Busch, SEPTA's director of communication. What is SEPTA? SEPTA is a public transportation authority servicing five counties in and around Philadelphia. It was created by the state's legislature in 1963 and is one of two transit authorities in the United States that operates all five major types of terrestrial transit vehicles: regional rail, buses, trolleys, subways and a high-speed line. According to its website, the authority connects to transit systems in New Jersey and Delaware. This story has been updated to include new information. Natalie Neysa Alund is a senior reporter for USA TODAY. Reach her at nalund@ and follow her on X @nataliealund.
Business Insider
a day ago
- Business
- Business Insider
Kepler Capital Sticks to Its Hold Rating for Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (0OC2)
Kepler Capital analyst Sven Sauer maintained a Hold rating on Heidelberger Druckmaschinen (0OC2 – Research Report) on June 3 and set a price target of €1.30. The company's shares closed last Tuesday at €1.44. Confident Investing Starts Here: Easily unpack a company's performance with TipRanks' new KPI Data for smart investment decisions Receive undervalued, market resilient stocks right to your inbox with TipRanks' Smart Value Newsletter According to TipRanks, Sauer is a 4-star analyst with an average return of 5.5% and a 43.67% success rate. Sauer covers the Industrials sector, focusing on stocks such as INDUS Holding, Semperit Holding AG, and RENK Group AG. Heidelberger Druckmaschinen has an analyst consensus of Moderate Buy, with a price target consensus of €1.38.
New York Post
4 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
Trump pleads with Supreme Court to resume federal workforce reductions
The Trump administration pleaded with the Supreme Court on Monday to put the brakes on a lower court ruling that stymied its efforts to carry out mass workforce reductions. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer ripped the lower court ruling as 'flawed' and claimed that it is causing 'ongoing and severe harm' to the administration's efforts to fulfill President Trump's reforms. 'That injunction rests on the indefensible premise that the President needs explicit statutory authorization from Congress to exercise his core Article Il authority to superintend the internal personnel decisions of the Executive Branch,' Sauer wrote in an emergency petition to the high court. 'The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the President does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers.' Back in February, Trump issued a sweeping executive order to dramatically pare back the federal workforce, and key agencies such as the Office of Personnel Management promptly followed up with more specific instructions to carry out that order. 3 Federal workers had sued to block the Trump administration from conducting mass firings. Getty Images 3 Elon Musk wrapped up his time as a special government employee to advise on federal workforce reforms and efficiency. AFP via Getty Images Last month, Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston, who as appointed by former President Bill Clinton, concluded that Trump lacked the authority to pursue such a dramatic revamp of the federal workforce without congressional say-so. She specifically paused the administration's mass reductions in force, or RIFs, at 21 federal agencies as well as other related efforts. Then, last Friday, in a 2-1 opinion, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected a plea from the Trump administration to halt that ruling, rendering the Supreme Court the president's last recourse. The appeals court found that Trump's executive order 'far exceeds the President's supervisory powers under the Constitution.' Sauer countered that the lower court injunction exceeds the power of the judiciary and that Trump was within his lawful authority to enact such an order. 'The injunction has brought to a halt numerous in-progress RIFs at more than a dozen federal agencies, sowing confusion about what RIF-related steps agencies may take and compelling the government to retain – at taxpayer expense,' Sauer argued. The Trump administration has been broadly vexed by a slew of universal injunctions from the lower courts that have scuttled some of the president's key actions and priorities. Monday's petition before the high court is the Trump administration's 18th emergency appeal to the Supreme Court during the president's second term. Last month, the Supreme Court declined another Trump administration petition in the same workforce reduction case. In that instance, however, the judge's prior block was only slated to last two weeks. 3 The Supreme Court is evaluating whether to pare back lower courts' authority to impose sweeping injunctions. Getty Images Supreme Court justices are currently considering the president's birthright citizenship case, which has emerged as a proxy for the administration's effort to claw back lower court powers to pump the brakes on key actions. A decision in that case is expected to be handed down by the end of the month.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump admin asks SCOTUS to allow it to move forward with plans to slash federal workforce
The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to immediately intervene and allow them to proceed with plans to slash the size of the federal workforce, arguing in an emergency appeal that the district court's decision had inflicted "ongoing and severe harm" on the executive branch. In its emergency appeal to the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower court ruling is "flawed," and hinges on an "indefensible premise," which is that the executive brach needs Congressional authorization to make personnel decisions, such as the Reductions in Force, or RIFs. The district court order in question had barred the Trump administration from carrying out its large-scale, planned reductions in force across 21 federal agencies, and prevented the Trump administration from taking other, related actions – such as placing federal employees at those agencies on leave, or proceeding with job cuts that had already been in motion under previous RIFs. State Department Now Scrutinizing All Visa Holders Associated With Harvard Sauer argued to the Supreme Court Monday that the lower court ruling "interferes with the executive branch's internal operations and unquestioned legal authority to plan and carry out RIFs, and does so on a government-wide scale." "More concretely, the injunction has brought to a halt numerous in-progress RIFs at more than a dozen federal agencies, sowing confusion about what RIF-related steps agencies may take and compelling the government to retain – at taxpayer expense – thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service the agencies deem not to be in the government and public interest," Sauer said. Read On The Fox News App The request to the high court comes just days after a split panel for the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused on Friday to freeze the lower court order that blocked Trump from fully enforcing its RIFs. Will The Trump Cabinet Undo Musk's Doge Legacy Now That He's Gone? In their decision, judges for the 9th Circuit wrote that the administration's moves were "unprecedented," and noted: "The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution." The emergency appeal marks the 18th such appeal that lawyers for the Trump administration have submitted to the Supreme Court since Trump was sworn in to his second White House term. It comes as the administration and federal judges have sparred in court over a number of executive orders and actions from the president, teeing up a high-stakes clash over the powers of the judiciary and the executive branch. The news comes after Elon Musk departed his official post heading up the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, which had been behind many of the widespread RIFs across federal agencies. His last official day was Friday, as Fox News reported. To date, however, there are no signs that the department will be winding down in his absence, and Musk himself said Friday that his departure does not mark the end of DOGE "but rather, the beginning." Fox News' Diana Stancy contributed to this article source: Trump admin asks SCOTUS to allow it to move forward with plans to slash federal workforce
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
New immigration case arrives to a Supreme Court that appears wary of Trump's deportation policies
An appeal that landed at the Supreme Court Tuesday could test the justices' emerging concern about President Donald Trump's aggressive deportation policies and whether he is willing to defy judicial orders. The new administration case arises from its desire to deport migrants to South Sudan and other places where they have no connection, without sufficient notice or ability to contest their removal. A US district court judge based in Boston said last week that the administration 'unquestionably' violated his order when it began deportation flights and provided little time for migrants to challenge their removal to war-torn South Sudan. Irrespective of how the justices' respond to this latest deportation case, the controversy calls attention to developing distrust among the conservative justices regarding the Trump immigration agenda. This is one area where his norm-busting approach, typically splitting the justices along ideological lines, has driven them together. That was seen in the trajectory of earlier cases involving Venezuelan migrant deportations under the wartime Alien Enemies Act and, separately, in the justices' oral arguments in a dispute related to birthright citizenship. One of the tensest moments in that May 15 hearing came when Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked US Solicitor General D. John Sauer if he was indeed saying the administration could defy a court order. 'Did I understand you correctly to tell Justice (Elena) Kagan,' Barrett began, 'that the government wanted to reserve its right to maybe not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York because you might disagree with the opinion?' 'Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorial practice,' Sauer answered. 'Really?' Barrett said, leaning forward on the bench and pressing on, in search of some answer revealing adherence to court orders. She amended the hypothetical scenario to involve the high court itself. 'You would respect the opinions and judgment of the Supreme Court,' she asked, 'You're not hedging at all with respect to the precedent of this court?' 'That is correct,' Sauer said. Barrett was not the only conservative picking up on concerns voiced by liberal Kagan or asking about Trump administration regard for Supreme Court rulings. 'I want to ask one thing about something in your brief,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said to Sauer. 'You said, 'And, of course, this Court's decisions constitute controlling precedent throughout the nation. If this Court were to hold a challenged statute or policy unconstitutional, the government could not successfully enforce it against anyone party or not, in light of stare decisis.' You agree with that?' 'Yes, we do,' Sauer said. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court is often aligned with Trump. The justices have endorsed many of his arguments for expanded executive branch authority. Last Thursday, the justices by their familiar 6-3 split bolstered the president's control over independent agencies, in that case, intended to protect workers. But when it comes to Trump's immigration crackdown, his uncompromising moves have caused the justices to shrink back. New fissures could emerge with Tuesday's case testing the deportation of migrants to places where they could face persecution and without any meaningful opportunity to contest their removal. The migrants whom the administration intended to send to South Sudan are now being held at a US military base in Djibouti. The migrants are from multiple countries, including Vietnam, Mexico, and Laos, and all have criminal records, according to the Department of Homeland Security. US District Court Judge Brian Murphy, who last week said the administration had violated his order when it undertook the deportation flight, on Monday reiterated his stance that the detainees are owed due process. 'To be clear,' he said, 'the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process.' In the administration's filing to the Supreme Court Tuesday, Sauer contended the administration had fulfilled the requirements of a Department of Homeland Security policy for such third-country deportations. Challenging Murphy's action, he wrote, 'The United States has been put to the intolerable choice of holding these aliens for additional proceeding at a military facility on foreign soil – where each day their continued confinement risks grave harm to American foreign policy – or bringing these convicted criminals back to America.' The court's response to the multitude of Trump cases arising over his many executive orders has been varied, defying any throughline. Even in the immigration sphere, Trump has on occasion prevailed. On May 19, for example, the court allowed him to lift the Biden administration's temporary humanitarian protection for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans living and working in the US. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Yet Trump's drive to swiftly deport migrants deemed dangerous without the requisite due process of law has plainly fueled distrust of the administration across the federal judiciary. At the Supreme Court, the justices' confidence in Trump has been additionally undermined by the administration's stalling on the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongly deported to El Salvador in mid-March and sent to a brutal prison. The justices on April 10 ordered the administration to 'facilitate' the Salvadoran national's return to the US. He is still not home. In a more recent detainee case, on May 16, the Supreme Court majority referred to Abrego Garcia as it expressed new wariness – and a new consensus – on Trump's use of 18th century wartime law for deportations. The first time the justices weighed in on a case involving Trump's effort to invoke the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan migrants accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang, on April 7, the justices divided bitterly. Chief Justice John Roberts and most of the conservatives clashed with the liberals, who warned that the majority's decision largely favoring the administration failed to account for the 'grave harm' the alleged Venezuelan gang members faced if deported to a Salvadoran prison as Trump wanted. 'The Government's conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law,' the liberal justices wrote. 'That a majority of this Court now rewards the Government for its behavior … is indefensible. We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this.' But as Trump has accelerated his deportation tactics, the court's votes on the Alien Enemies Act have shifted. And on May 16, a new majority of liberal and conservative justices voiced fears that migrants would be deported without sufficient due process. It was becoming evident that the Trump team was only grudgingly complying, if at all, with the court's earlier order that the Alien Enemies Act required due process. Lawyers for detainees said they were given scant notification and hasty deadlines for challenging their cases. Lawyers for a group of Venezuelan migrants being held in a north Texas detention center sought an emergency order to ensure they would not be rushed out of the country; the justices responded by imposing a brief freeze in the early morning of April 19 on deportations. After taking more time to review the situation, the court on May 16 extended the freeze and ordered a lower court hearing on whether Trump was lawfully invoking the Alien Enemies Act – a measure that has been used only three times since the country's founding and only during wartime. 'Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA – including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility,' the justices said in an unsigned opinion joined by conservatives and liberals. Referring to the court majority's April 19 middle-of-the-night order preventing those deportations, the justices added, 'Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U.S. court had jurisdiction to order relief.' To underscore that point, the majority referred to the Abrego Garcia case as evidence that the administration might claim it could not return detainees wrongly deported. (Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from that May 16 order suspending use of the Alien Enemies Act.) Perhaps the most important court test in these early months of Trump's second presidency will be resolution of the dispute over injunctions preventing Trump from ending birthright citizenship for babies born in the US to undocumented people or those with temporary status. The right dates to the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment and has been reinforced by Supreme Court precedent going back to 1898. The legal issue in the case heard May 15 is not the bottom-line constitutionality of Trump's move to erase the birthright guarantee but rather the method lower court judges have used to temporarily block Trump's order signed on his first day back in office. US district court judges have employed 'nationwide injunctions,' under which a single judge blocks enforcement of a challenged policy not only in the judge's district but throughout the country. Trump wants the injunctions narrowed to cover only the individual parties to a lawsuit in a specific district. Some justices have in the past suggested lower court judges have exceeded their authority with such sweeping injunctions. But Trump may be forcing some of them to rethink that view because of the move to end more than 150 years of automatic birthright citizenship. 'Let's just assume you're dead wrong,' about the validity of Trump's executive order, Kagan told Sauer. 'Does every single person that is affected by this EO have to bring their own suit? Are their alternatives? How long does it take? How do we get the result that there is a single rule of citizenship that is the rule that we've historically applied rather than the rule that the EO would have us do?' Conservative justice Neil Gorsuch also questioned whether 'patchwork problems,' such as babies born in the US to undocumented migrants having varying citizenship rights depending on the state – could 'justify broader relief.' The remarks reflected the larger dilemma for a court that itself has pushed boundaries. Some Trump positions play to the justices' interests; but some are so extreme that they rattle the justices' own presumptions.
