Latest news with #SecondCircuitCourtofAppeals
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Admin Admits It Could Game Court System Without Nationwide Injunctions
Here's an interesting hypothetical: the White House wins its nationwide injunction case before the Supreme Court. Judges can no longer issue these national holds on various forms of federal government action, or face an exceedingly high bar to do so. At the same time, the high court has not ruled on the core issue of birthright citizenship. The result: lone people affected by President Trump's executive order have to sue — each individually — to say that the order is illegal. One of them, a New Yorker, makes it up to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and wins. What then? Would the Trump administration then treat its executive order as invalid for everyone else affected within the Second Circuit's jurisdiction, which includes New York, Connecticut and Vermont?. Or would it continue to deny citizenship to every other person born to undocumented parents in the area, forcing each of them to sue and receive an individual order declaring that the executive order was unlawful and cannot be applied to them? An appeal only happens when a losing party believes it is in the right, and wants a higher court to agree, overturning and adverse ruling. But would the Trump administration do that in this case? It could, hypothetically, refuse to appeal to the Supreme Court, which could then issue a national, precedent-setting order striking down the executive order. By not appealing, it could force thousands of people to file individual lawsuits against an executive order widely known and affirmed to be unconstitutional, but that, in a world without lower-court injunctions, only the Supreme Court can block. This was the nightmare scenario articulated by Justice Elena Kagan, and further buttressed by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, at oral arguments in the birthright citizenship nationwide injunction case on Thursday. The hypothetical illustrates the potentially very messy consequences of the Supreme Court stripping district courts of their ability to issue nationwide injunctions in cases like those challenging the birthright citizenship executive order. Justice Kagan raised it to Solicitor General John Sauer as an extreme example, the kind of hypothetical that he would need to confront in order to buttress his argument for why this could work in practice. But Sauer couldn't reassure Kagan or, later, Barrett. He said that 'our practice generally is to respect circuit precedent within the circuit.' Kagan replied that it 'generally is your practice.' She added: 'I am asking whether it would be your practice in this case?' Sauer replied more clearly: 'There are circumstances, as I was suggesting, where we think we would want to continue to litigate that in other district courts in the same circuit.' Kagan replied later, after Sauer said that the administration would obey a Supreme Court ruling finding the executive order invalid, that for the years it would take for a case to wind its way up from the district level, through the appellate courts, and on to the high court, 'there are going to be an untold number of people who, according to all the law this court has ever made, ought to be citizens who are not being treated as such.' Sauer replied with the same: individuals could always go to court and ask a judge to declare that the executive order was unlawful and cannot be applied to them. It's a stunning argument, in part because of the nature of the order. The government would not be treating them as U.S. citizens. They would be subject to deportation, though it's not clear to where: some of them could be stateless, obtaining neither the citizenship of their parents nor that which the U.S. Constitution has guaranteed them for 150 years. The administration could further game the system, Kagan suggested. She asked Sauer to assume that they 'lose in the lower courts as uniformly as you have been,' and that the government then never decides to appeal. Doing so would only offer the court with a chance to invalidate the policy nationally; not appealing would mean that they could keep the executive order in effect while losing each individual lawsuit. 'Why would you take this case to us?' Kagan asked, adding later: 'If I were in your shoes, there is no way I would approach the Supreme Court in this case.' 'The government has no incentive to bring this case to the Supreme Court, because it's not really losing anything,' she added. Sauer said eventually that a person injured by the government's failure to comply with a Second Circuit precedent could file a lawsuit that eventually makes its way up to the Supreme Court. Later on, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed on the same point: would the administration continue to implement the executive order in the Second Circuit, even if it lost an individual case about the same order in the same circuit? Sauer replied again by saying that there were some cases where certain precedents were 'not categorical.' He added that he believed it was nothing new: all administrations do that. Barrett replied with a loud 'really?' to that argument. She remarked later that Sauer seemed to be saying that the government would respect 'the opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court' but that it would only respect the 'judgment but not necessarily the opinion of the lower court.' The practical impact of this all would be to allow the government to continue enforcing its executive order — depriving people born in the U.S. of their citizenship — even after appeals courts ruled it unlawful. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson summed up the result later. 'Your argument turns our justice system into a catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime from the standpoint of the executive where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people's rights,' she said.
Boston Globe
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Rümeysa Öztürk bail hearing set for Friday in Vermont
Sessions could rule from the bench or take the matter under advisement to issue a ruling at a later time. He has previously written that he will seek to resolve the matter 'expeditiously.' Öztürk's case comes amid a crackdown on what the Trump administration calls antisemitism on college campuses. The administration has Advertisement They say she has been held and the administration has moved to deport her because she coauthored an op-ed for the student newspaper that was critical of Israel and in support of Palestinians, what they called a violation of her free speech and due process rights. Advertisement Öztürk has not been charged with a crime. Sessions had previously ordered the government to return Öztürk from Louisiana, as he considers her petition that she is being unlawfully detained. The government appealed that decision. On Wednesday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals The appeals court gave the administration until May 14 to transfer Öztürk to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in St. Albans, Vt. But Öztürk's lawyers pushed to have her bail hearing held as soon as possible, even if it meant their client taking part remotely. They say she has suffered several asthma attacks while in detention, and that her health is at risk. Sean Cotter can be reached at
USA Today
05-05-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial kicks off with jury selection
Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial kicks off with jury selection Show Caption Hide Caption The dark side of Diddy's infamous White Parties Sean 'Diddy' Combs, accused of over 120 sexual assault charges, rose to fame in the late 1990s for his influence in music and his star-studded parties. unbranded - Entertainment The criminal trial for Sean "Diddy" Combs is kicking off with day one of jury selection. As many as 150 potential jurors will be brought into a Manhattan courtroom one by one and questioned by Judge Arun Subramanian, the prosecution and defense to determine whether they are qualified to serve on Combs' jury. The goal is to get through all potential jurors in three days. The embattled hip-hop mogul, 55, who at one time was among the most powerful figures in the music industry, has experienced a sharp fall from grace after facing a bevy of lawsuits and criminal charges accusing him of rape and sexual assault. He is headed to court to battle federal sex crimes charges, to which he has pleaded not guilty. During his final court hearing on May 2, Combs confirmed he turned down a potential plea deal. A judge previously rejected a request from the rapper's legal team to delay the start of the trial. Combs could spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted. How can I watch Diddy's trial? The trial will not be televised, as cameras are typically not allowed in federal criminal trial proceedings. USA TODAY will be reporting live from the courtroom. What is Diddy on trial for? Combs is facing federal sex crimes and trafficking charges in a sprawling suit that has eroded his status as a power player and king-maker in the entertainment industry. Is Diddy in jail? Despite repeated attempts at bail, Combs was ordered to remain in custody at the Special Housing Unit in Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center ahead of trial — a ruling his legal team has challenged in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He's been jailed since his arrest on Sept. 16. Contributing: KiMi Robinson, Anika Reed, Aysha Bagchi and Brendan Morrow, USA TODAY
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rümeysa Öztürk's return to Vermont delayed by federal appeals court
Editor's note: This story was updated at 10:03 a.m. on April 29, 2025 to add a comment from Rümeysa Öztürk's legal team. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit paused a court order requiring Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk to be brought to Vermont pending a hearing next week. A Vermont District Court judge ordered Öztürk to be brought from Louisiana, where she is detained, to Vermont by May 1, to facilitate a hearing on her petition challenging her detention. Federal prosecutors appealed that decision, and asked Judge William K. Sessions III to pause his order while their appeal was pending. Sessions denied the request. But the Second Circuit Court of Appeals paused Sessions' order so that a three-judge panel could review the government's appeal, which is set to be argued at a May 6 hearing. Sessions' order will remain paused until the court rules on the appeal one way or the other. 'The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the merits of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion,' a brief filing reads. Both federal prosecutors and Öztürk's lawyers could appeal the Second Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a response through the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Öztürk's legal team said their client should 'never should have been arrested and detained, period.' 'We are ready to argue her case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and we won't stop fighting until she is free,' Öztürk's lawyers stated. Öztürk, a 30-year-old Turkish national, has been in federal custody since March 25, when plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested her on the street and whisked her away to New Hampshire, then Vermont, and finally Louisiana. She has yet to be charged with a crime. Öztürk's lawyers claim the Trump administration revoked her student visa without warning because she co-authored a pro-Palestinian op-ed in Tufts' student newspaper last year. Federal officials say she supports Hamas, but have not provided specific evidence to support the claim. Öztürk has been held in a 14-person cell with two dozen other women since being moved to Louisiana. She has had multiple asthma attacks during her detention, according to her court filings. Government 'obligated' to bring Rümeysa Öztürk to Vermont, judge rules College news media forced to adapt to protect students afraid of deportation Government appealing judge's order to transfer Rümeysa Öztürk to Vermont Read the original article on MassLive.
USA Today
25-04-2025
- Entertainment
- USA Today
Diddy's attorneys hash out trial preparations ahead of federal sex crimes case: Updates
Diddy's attorneys hash out trial preparations ahead of federal sex crimes case: Updates Show Caption Hide Caption The controversial legacy of Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Here's what we know Sean 'Diddy' Combs faces federal sex crime charges. Here's what we know about his controversial legacy. NEW YORK — Less than two weeks before Sean "Diddy" Combs is set to go to trial in his federal sex crimes case, the hip-hop mogul's legal team is back in court. Combs' attorneys met with Judge Arun Subramanian on April 25 at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in Manhattan to hash out trial preparations with prosecutors. The pretrial conference comes as attorneys for Combs dispute key aspects of the legal proceeding with the U.S. government, such as the identities of Combs' alleged victims on the witness stand and the scope of expert testimony presented to jurors in the case. Combs, whose trial is set to begin May 5, was arrested in September 2024 at a Manhattan hotel and was subsequently charged with racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pleaded not guilty to all five counts. What charges does Diddy face? Diddy is charged with two counts of sex trafficking, two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution and one count of racketeering. When does Diddy's trial start? Combs' trial, which will take place in downtown Manhattan, is set to begin with jury selection on May 5. The trial's start date is the same day as the Met Gala at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, just miles from the courthouse. Judge Subramanian previously ruled against Combs' defense team's request to delay the start of his federal trial by two months. Is Diddy still in jail? Despite repeated attempts at bail, Combs was ordered to remain in custody at the Special Housing Unit in Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center ahead of trial — a ruling his legal team has challenged in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. He's been jailed since his arrest on Sept. 16, 2024.
