Latest news with #ThirdCircuit
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Voter ID law in Texas wins at appeals court after Biden admin lawsuit
Texas scored a victory on Monday when a federal appeals court upheld a state law requiring voters using mail-in ballots to include a state ID number or partial Social Security number. A three-judge panel reversed a district court's decision, saying unanimously that the law did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as some critics claimed, because it is material to confirm voter eligibility, as required under the statute. Judge James Ho began the unanimous opinion with a blunt statement, "Mail-in ballots are not secure," citing Veasey v. Perry, which later became Veasey v. Abbott. The case, later known as Veasey v. Abbott on appeal, involved Texas's voter ID law and included findings confirmed by the Fifth Circuit that "mail-in ballot fraud is a significant threat." READ THE COURT RULING – APP USERS, CLICK HERE: "The ID number requirement is obviously designed to confirm that each mail-in ballot voter is precisely who he claims he is. And that is plainly 'material' to 'determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote,'" Judge James Ho wrote in the opinion. Ho and the other judges on the panel aligned with their colleagues on the Third Circuit, which held that "the materiality provision applies only to voter qualification determination." He said the Third Circuit's analysis was "persuasive." Additionally, Ho notes that while the plaintiffs argue that "there isn't enough evidence to show the ID number requirement would meaningfully reduce voter fraud," the state disagrees on the matter. "Our precedents compel us to side with Texas. We have made clear that states have a legitimate interest in combating voter fraud, and thus enjoy 'considerable discretion in deciding what is an adequate level of effectiveness to serve [their] important interests in voter integrity,'" Ho wrote in the opinion. The Fifth Circuit — the same court that ruled in favor of Texas — has allowed for the tightening of voter rules in the past. Recently, judges with the Fifth Circuit ruled that mail-in ballots must arrive by Election Day to be counted, Politico reported. Texas' Election Integrity Protection Act of 2021 was signed in September of that year, following the 2020 presidential election. At the time, several Republican states began cracking down on voter identification. Additionally, according to the Texas Tribune, the law limited local control of elections by prohibiting counties from offering expanded voting options. Fox News Digital has reached out to the office of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
Fox News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
MIKE DAVIS: Confirmation of Emil Bove a triumph of new over old
The Senate's confirmation this week of President Trump's pick, Emil Bove, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with a razor-thin 50–49 vote was a huge win for conservatives, despite the cheap shots from Democrats and nominal Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Bove isn't just qualified, he's exceptional. He clerked for top judges and made his name as a sharp, tough prosecutor in New York. Even the left-leaning American Bar Association gave him their highest rating: "Well Qualified." That's a big deal coming from an organization that rarely plays fair with conservative nominees. So why all the pushback? Simple. Bove stood up when it mattered. When President Trump was under constant legal attack, Bove was one of the few who fought back. He played a key role in keeping the radical left from throwing Trump in prison on bogus charges. That alone made him a target for Trump-haters across the spectrum: Democrats, Never Trumpers, and the establishment legal elite. As principal associate deputy attorney general, Bove also helped stop the politically motivated prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams. And he did it by standing up to out-of-control federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, the ones who like to pretend they run their own "sovereign district" separate from the rest of the country. Bove told them to follow orders or leave. They left. That's leadership. Some in the conservative legal world weren't thrilled with Bove's confirmation to a lifetime term, either. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a piece worrying that Bove's confirmation might make some Republican-appointed judges refuse to retire. Here's the truth: Those judges had their chance to retire during Trump's first term and didn't. That's on them, not Bove. Others breathlessly claimed Bove's confirmation marked the end of the conservative legal movement. That's nonsense. If Kamala Harris had won wthe presidency and stacked the courts with left-wing radicals, the damage would've been catastrophic. Instead, President Trump is putting solid, constitutionalist judges on the bench, judges like Emil Bove. Of course, the opposition resorted to the same tired smear tactics they always do. So-called "whistleblowers" came forward with flimsy claims. One former DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, accused Bove of telling officials to ignore court orders, then turned around and signed legal documents confirming the orders were followed. On top of that, Reuveni undercut the Trump administration's immigration cases and violated attorney-client privilege. He was fired, and rightfully so. This is who the anti-Bove crowd chose as their star witness. Two more "whistleblowers" popped up just before the final vote — classic last-minute character assassination. One had no firsthand knowledge. The other's allegations were never made public by Senate Democrats. Sound familiar? It should. It's the same playbook they used against Justice Kavanaugh. Remember the ridiculous accusations, including the one about a gang-rape boat? All lies. All desperate. All failed. The Article III Project proudly fought for Bove's confirmation. This wasn't just about one seat. This was about pushing back against the old guard — the milquetoast Republicans and the liberal machine — and ushering in a new generation of bold, fearless constitutionalists. Tuesday's vote showed the old tricks don't work anymore. The left couldn't smear their way to a win. The establishment couldn't stall this one. Trump's nominee made it through. They'll keep trying to derail the president's agenda, especially when it comes to the courts. But we'll keep fighting. Because what's at stake isn't just the next judge. It's the future of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of the American people. The old guard lost. America won. And this is only the beginning. Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.
Bloomberg
6 days ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Law: DOJ Escalates Fight with Judiciary
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses the Trump administration ratcheting up its attacks on the federal judiciary. Constitutional law professor Harold Krent, of the Chicago-Kent College of Law, discusses a Third Circuit ruling that deals a blow to labor judges. Federal judiciary expert Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, discusses the controversial Trump nominee, Emil Bove, winning confirmation to the Third Circuit. June Grasso hosts.
Al Jazeera
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Why critics fear Emil Bove's confirmation will start a MAGA judicial shift
The United States Senate has confirmed President Donald Trump's controversial nominee for a prestigious and lifelong position as a federal appeals court judge. The nomination of Emil Bove has stoked criticism from both Trump's political opponents and, perhaps most notably, from the conservative legal establishment. While US presidents have wide-ranging powers to nominate federal judges, some have seen Bove as a harbinger of more ideologically driven appointments during Trump's second term. Critics have framed Trump's actions as an attempt to mould the judiciary in the likeness of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate mustered a simple majority, 50 to 49, to confirm Bove's seat on the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals. With only two Republicans voting against the confirmation, some observers see little political will among the party to curtail Trump's actions. 'This nomination threatens to portend a broader turn toward the appointment of result-oriented loyalists to the judiciary,' Gregg Nunziata, the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a conservative legal group, wrote in a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. He urged lawmakers to oppose Bove's nomination. 'In Mr Bove, the president believes he has found his MAGA warrior.' Why is Bove controversial? Despite a panoply of firebrand nominations, Trump's decision to pick Bove stands out. That is in part due to the longevity of the appointment, which will see the 44-year-old lawyer wield influence over federal appeals cases for decades in a region that covers Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Trump's second term, Bove worked as the president's personal lawyer, unsuccessfully defending him against criminal charges in New York. But on January 20, Trump's first day back in office, he named Bove to serve as acting deputy attorney general. His actions in that role have fuelled outrage over what critics have called Bove's dismal ethics record. During his nearly six-month tenure, Bove has been the subject of at least three whistleblower complaints. Some of the complaints relate to allegations that Bove sought to end the federal prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for a crackdown on migrants in the city – and that he later lied about it to the Senate. Two of the whistleblowers, meanwhile, reported that Bove told members of the Department of Justice to defy court orders that ran contrary to Trump's policies. Bove's comments allegedly included the advice to tell courts 'f*** you' if they opposed Trump's deportation efforts. US media has further reported that Bove led a purge at the Justice Department against Trump's perceived political opponents. They included career government employees involved in the prosecution of rioters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. During his Senate hearing, however, Bove categorically denied that he has acted as Trump's 'henchman'. Still, Senator Lisa Murkowski, one of the two Republicans to oppose the confirmation, said the evidence presented in the chamber portrayed Bove as 'somebody who has counseled other attorneys that you should ignore the law, you should reject the law'. 'I don't think that that individual should be placed in a lifetime seat on the bench,' Murkowski added. Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, in an interview with MSNBC after Bove's confirmation, gave a more blunt assessment: 'This is a genuinely bad guy.' A new approach? In his first term, from 2017 to 2021, Trump already helped to transform the US judiciary, appointing a total of 226 federal judges. They include 54 appellate judges and three justices to serve on the nine-member Supreme Court. Those appointments, largely based on chance vacancies, are almost always pulled from a pool of candidates approved by conservative groups like the Federalist Society. That organisation has sought to reshape the country's legal landscape with a rightward bent. The Federalist Society says it advocates for 'individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law', and it has helped lay the groundwork for major conservative victories, including the overturning of Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that had protected the nationwide right to abortion access. But early this year, Trump signalled a break from the group, lashing out at its former leader, Leonard Leo, whom he called a 'sleaze bag' and a 'bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America'. Trump argued that Leo had given him 'bad advice', leading him to appoint a Federalist Society-approved judge during his first term. That judge was among a panel that ruled against the president's signature tariff policy in May. While the Federalist Society has been conspicuously mum on Bove's nomination, legal experts from both conservative and left-leaning circles have questioned his commitment to jurisprudence. Nunziata, from the Society of the Rule of Law, wrote that Trump's past judicial appointees generally exhibited 'judicial excellence and a commitment to the rule of law'. 'Many of them have proven their mettle in contentious litigation involving the president or his policies,' he explained. But he proceeded to describe Bove's conduct as 'unthinkable' for a federal judge. 'The Bove nomination represents a stark and apparently intentional break from this successful model and should raise concerns across the ideological spectrum,' he wrote. The progressive Alliance for Justice expressed a similar sentiment, writing that Bove's 'allegiance lies not with civil rights or the rule of law but with Trump and his authoritarian agenda to expand executive power far beyond the limits set by the Constitution'. 'Emil Bove's record makes clear he is unfit for a lifetime seat on the federal bench.' What comes next? Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary – aimed at judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats alike – have been unprecedented in their own right. Judges have openly speculated that the Trump administration may be found in contempt for ignoring court orders. And Trump himself has openly criticised judges as 'deranged' or 'lunatic' for opposing his policies. But it remains unclear if Trump's caustic approach to the judiciary will manifest in more controversial appointments like Bove. Some analysts noted that Trump has generally nominated judges from the more traditional conservative pipeline. It remains to be seen if Bove will be the exception or the start of a new trend. Just this week, the Trump administration signalled it may continue to take an aggressive stance in its approach to the judiciary. For example, the Justice Department filed a complaint on Monday that seeks to censure US District Court Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to block Trump-ordered deportation flights in March. The complaint accused Boasberg of making inappropriate comments about the president's administration, but critics see it as an effort to discredit a judge who has issued high-profile rulings against Trump. On the day of Bove's appointment, Trump also took aim at a Senate custom that gives the minority party – in this case, the Democrats – an opportunity to block some lower-level federal judicial and prosecutorial nominations. Under the so-called 'blue slip' tradition, lawmakers are given the ability to veto the confirmation of federal district judges or federal prosecutors who will serve in their state. The practice, more akin to a gentleman's agreement than an official policy, has long been seen as one of the last vestiges of bipartisanship in the US legislature. While the custom does not apply to higher federal judges, including appellate or Supreme Court justices, its removal would make it easier for Trump to more fully assert his influence over all levels of the federal judiciary. On Truth Social, Trump called upon Republican senators to end the tradition, which he called 'ancient and probably Unconstitutional', as well as a 'hoax'. With the 'blue slip', he added, Democrats 'have an ironclad stoppage of Great Republican Candidates'. Republican leaders in the Senate, however, have voiced reluctance to ending the tradition.
The Guardian
31-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Republicans reward Emil Bove for Trump loyalty with lifetime judgeship
When more than 80 judges signed a letter opposing Emil Bove's judicial nomination, they implored the US Senate to do its job in interrogating and investigating a host of serious claims that undermine the independence and credibility of his potential judgeship. Now, Bove is among them – a member of the judiciary. The Senate narrowly – and quickly – confirmed Bove for a lifetime appointment to the United States court of appeals for the third circuit, on a 50-49 vote, without looking deeply into allegations from multiple whistleblowers. The retired judges, in their 15 July letter, warned that elevating to the judiciary someone like Bove – who allegedly has shown a disregard for court orders, fired prosecutors who don't align politically with Trump, and once personally represented the president – would 'set a dangerous precedent that judicial power may be wielded in service of personal fealty rather than constitutional duty'. Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an adviser at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said the senators who voted to confirm Bove 'failed their constituents and our country'. 'For the future of our courts and our democracy, this cannot be the new normal for the US Senate,' Zwarensteyn said. Bove's confirmation fits the tenor of the second Trump administration: loyalty to the president is the primary litmus test for elected Republicans who largely line up behind him with minimal questioning. The Senate is tasked with the power to 'advise and consent' on judicial nominees. 'The constitution gives the Senate the authority to advise and consent for a reason,' said Allyson Duncan, a retired fourth US circuit court of appeals judge. 'And the process has to serve that purpose, and it does not serve that purpose if it's truncated.' Trump has raged against judges who ruled against him – including conservatives and his own appointees. His administration has openly defied court orders and flouted the rule of law. These attacks have led to death threats and harassment against judges, and led to rare public comments by high-profile members of the judiciary who have called for turning down the rhetoric. Stocking the judiciary with people who will not defy him is an extension of this battle for control of a separate branch of government. Loyalty as litmus test was apparent in Trump's announcement that he would nominate Bove. Alongside his legal bona fides – a Georgetown Law degree, a near-decade as assistant US attorney in the southern district of New York – Trump highlighted his allegiance. 'He will end the Weaponization of Justice, restore the Rule of Law, and do anything else that is necessary to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Emil Bove will never let you down!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. Quinta Jurecic, a writer for the Atlantic, detailed how Bove's confirmation was a 'sign of the times' and a signal to young lawyers of what it will take to get ahead now. 'Whatever approach Bove takes from here, his path so far has demonstrated that total sycophancy to the president can be a fantastic career move for ambitious lawyers,' she wrote. Bove's work in the past six months as acting deputy attorney general and then principal associate deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice includes a host of legal and ethical issues that, if he had been nominated to a prestigious and lifelong judicial position in years past, would have probably led to months of hearings and, potentially, disqualification. The Senate judiciary committee chair, Chuck Grassley, a Republican, panned Democrats who called for Bove to be rejected. He said Democrats had engaged in a 'delay-and-obstruction tactic' and claimed he had 'thoroughly' vetted the nominee and whistleblower claims. 'My message to the three whistleblowers is this: just because I may disagree with the conclusions in a whistleblower disclosure, it doesn't mean that I don't support a whistleblower's right to come forward,' Grassley said. Whistleblower Erez Reuveni, a fired justice department official, claims Bove told department lawyers that they 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order' that would block them from sending immigrants to El Salvador. Bove has denied this, though Reuveni has provided messages that back up his claims. A second, unidentified whistleblower represented by the non-profit Whistleblower Aid also provided evidence that corroborated Reuveni's allegations, the organization said. More than 900 former justice department lawyers wrote in a letter that 'Bove has been a leader in this assault' on the rule of law and on career employees who sought to uphold it. Bove 'directed the termination' of more than a dozen prosecutors who worked on cases related to January 6, the letter says. A third whistleblower has alleged that Bove misled Congress about his role in dropping corruption charges against the New York mayor, Eric Adams, the Washington Post reported. Some veteran prosecutors resigned their roles instead of following orders to end the prosecution of Adams for several fraud and bribery charges. Bove's confirmation 'does undermine faith in the judiciary', said the retired federal judge Shira Scheindlin, who served in the southern district of New York and signed the letter from retired judges. 'This man is the wrong person to sit on a federal appellate court. He doesn't have the right background, the right qualifications. Actions speak louder than anything.'
