Latest news with #TomHals
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Harvard seeks end to US funding cuts, says national security, public health research in peril
By Tom Hals WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -Harvard University asked a federal judge on Monday to issue a summary judgment ruling to unfreeze $2.5 billion in funding blocked by President Donald Trump's administration, which Harvard said was illegal. Harvard's filing in the U.S. District Court in Boston said that it had received 957 orders since April 14 to freeze funding for research pertaining to national security threats, cancer and infectious diseases and more since the country's oldest and wealthiest school rejected a White House list of demands. Trump has said he is trying to force change at Harvard - and other top-level universities across the U.S. - because in his view they have been captured by leftist "woke" thought and become bastions of antisemitism. The Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs has set arguments for July 21 on Harvard's motion for summary judgment, which is a request for a judge to decide a dispute without a trial to determine material facts. Harvard sued the Trump administration in April, alleging the funding freeze violated the school's right to free speech and was arbitrary and capricious. In Monday's court filing, Harvard detailed the terminated grants, including $88 million for research into pediatric HIV, $12 million for increasing Defense Department awareness of emerging biological threats and $8 million to better understand dark energy. The school said ending the funding would destroy ongoing research into cancer treatments, infectious disease and Parkinson's. The Trump administration has opened numerous investigations into Harvard. Some are looking at threats against Jewish students and faculty after pro-Palestinian protests broke out following the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent Israeli military actions in Gaza. Other investigations are probing whether Harvard discriminates based on sex and gender, along with the school's ties to foreign governments and international students. The Trump administration revoked Harvard's ability to enroll international students last month, which a judge temporarily blocked after Harvard sued in a separate case. Harvard and other universities say Trump's attacks are threats to freedom of speech and freedom of academics, as well as threats to the schools' very existence.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill includes provision to weaken court powers
By Tom Hals WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -The sweeping tax-and-spending bill that would enact President Donald Trump's policy agenda includes a provision that critics said would weaken the power of U.S. judges to enforce contempt when the government defies court orders. The one-sentence provision in the 1,100-page bill prevents federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from enforcing contempt orders unless the plaintiffs have posted a monetary bond, which rarely happens in cases against the government. "No court of the United States may enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued," the provision says. It applies retroactively. "Security" refers to monetary bonds that can be used in private litigation when one party seeks to ask a judge to issue an injunction blocking the actions of another party, such as a company trying to prevent a rival from selling a product. If it turns out the injunction is later reversed, the bond helps cover the defendant's losses. The provision follows a White House memo in March that directed heads of government agencies to request that plaintiffs post a bond if they are seeking an injunction against an agency policy. The Trump administration said the measure would deter frivolous lawsuits. The Trump administration and the House Judiciary Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump has attacked judges who ruled against his government but he has also said he would obey the Supreme Court. Judges often don't require bonds in cases against the government. In a case by two small toymakers against the Trump administration tariffs, the plaintiffs said the bond that had been requested by the government would be more costly than tariffs and would nullify the benefit of an injunction. The judge on Thursday set the bond at $100 and blocked the tariffs against the two companies. Federal courts have been a major check on Trump in his second term, as plaintiffs in dozens of cases have gotten judges to block White House policies. Bonds were not required in the vast majority of those cases, so if the House bill provision became law, judges would be unable to enforce contempt orders. While no judge has issued a contempt order, several federal judges have said Trump administration officials appeared to be defying court orders and are at risk of being held in contempt. Judges use contempt to bring a party into compliance, usually by ratcheting up measures from fines to jail. Once the party complies, the penalties cease. In 2022, when Trump was out of office, he was held in contempt and fined $10,000 by a New York state judge for each day that he failed to produce documents that were subpoenaed in a civil probe of his private business practices that was led by New York's attorney general. Trump eventually complied after paying $110,000. The House passed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on May 22 by a one-vote margin, without any votes from Democrats. The bill is now heading to the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-47 vote margin. Several Republicans said they will seek to modify the bill. Twenty-one Democrats from the House wrote to Speaker Mike Johnson on May 20 and urged him to strike the provision from the bill. "This provision would neutralize valid injunctions and leave courts powerless to act in the face of open defiance," said the letter. Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel with the Campaign Legal Center, said judges could comply with the provision by setting bonds at a nominal amount and old cases could be reopened, but he said it would be time-consuming and burdensome. "You know what the government is going to do in the meantime? It's free to ignore those orders," said Kashdan, whose organization has sued the Trump administration over a voting policy.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Musk's election PAC sued over alleged failure to pay $100 to petition signers
By Tom Hals WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -Elon Musk's political action committee failed to pay registered swing state voters as promised during last year's U.S. election in return for signing a petition or referring other voters, according to a proposed federal class action lawsuit. Musk's America PAC helped Republican President Donald Trump beat Democratic challenger Vice President Kamala Harris. In the lead-up to the November election, Musk offered voters in seven states that were considered key to the election $47 and later $100 for signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution. Registered voters were also promised payments for referring voters in the seven states who signed the petition. The three plaintiffs, residents of Pennsylvania, Nevada and Georgia, claim that America PAC breached a contract by failing to pay in full. The lawsuit, filed on May 8 in Philadelphia, seeks to represent a class of everyone who signed or referred someone to sign the petition and was not paid in full. Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and the world's richest person, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. His PAC also pledged to give away $1 million daily to someone who signed the petition in support of Constitutional guarantees to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. A separate proposed class action has claimed the giveaway was a fraud.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
In Tesla's wake, more big companies propose voting 'Dexit" to depart Delaware
By Tom Hals WILMINGTON, DEL. (Reuters) -In the coming weeks, investors in nine public companies worth at least $1 billion each will vote on proposals to ditch Delaware as their place of incorporation, potentially denting the state's longtime reputation as Corporate America's capital, Reuters has found. Five companies with a stock market value of at least $1 billion have moved their legal home out of Delaware since last year, in what some have nicknamed "Dexit." Tesla made a high-profile move to Texas last year and in April, President Donald Trump's social media company Trump Media & Technology, which owns the Truth Social platform, decamped to Florida. Most of the companies are dominated by a significant shareholder or founder. Delaware judges have expanded the court's most stringent legal standard to a growing range of situations involving controllers, increasing the risk of shareholder lawsuits. The decisions culminated with the blockbuster ruling last year that rescinded Musk's $56 billion pay package from Tesla. Less than an hour after the ruling, Musk said on X: 'Never incorporate your company in the state of Delaware.' Musk's SpaceX and Tesla soon reincorporated in Texas. Musk did not respond to a request for comment. Trump Media, which is controlled by a trust that owns shares on behalf of President Trump and is overseen by his oldest son, said in its March proxy statement that Delaware's "increasingly litigious environment facing corporations with controlling stockholders has created unpredictability in decision-making.' The company cited the Musk pay ruling as an example. It is now incorporated in Florida. Dropbox and The Trade Desk, which each has a large shareholder, and Cannae Holdings have moved their charter to Nevada from Delaware. They did not respond to a request for comment. Among the companies set to vote on proposals to leave are Simon Property Group, which is seeking shareholder approval on Wednesday to reincorporate in Indiana, and gaming platform Roblox, which wants to move to Nevada. Unlike many of the other companies that have proposed a "Dexit," Simon does not have a controlling shareholder. It declined to comment on its reasons for proposing a move, referring to its latest proxy statement. Roblox said that Nevada law provides greater predictability. To be sure, the share of Delaware-based companies in the Russell 3000 index, which covers nearly all public companies, continues to grow, rising to 62% last year from 56% in 2020, according to ISS-Corporate. However, 2024 was the first year that more companies in the Russell Index left Delaware than moved their incorporation to the state. 'On the Richter scale, it's not that high,' said Benjamin Edwards, a professor at the UNLV School of Law, of the changes. 'But it's still shaking the ground.' FEARING AN EXODUS Delaware, which has no sales tax, gets around a third of its general budget revenue from fees and taxes related to chartering businesses. Fearing an exodus of companies leaving after the judicial rulings, the state enacted legislation in March that limits the role of the state's judges in reviewing certain corporate deals. It also limited the scope of so-called "books and records" requests, a legal tool often used by shareholder attorneys to try to obtain directors' emails and texts. Despite the recent changes, corporate law in Delaware remains relatively strict when it comes to insiders making deals that would likely benefit them directly, such as a deal to buy assets from a controlling shareholder or Musk and his Tesla pay arrangement, legal experts said. "That's one area where Delaware has consistently said, 'Look, we're going to kick the tires of those decisions with a little bit extra force'," said Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School. Delaware law typically requires a company that strikes a deal with a controlling shareholder to prove the arrangement met a strict standard showing the price and process were fair, unless it was negotiated by independent directors or approved by shareholders. In Nevada, the same controlling shareholder deal would likely be protected by a legal standard known as the business judgment rule, which shields against lawsuits, regardless of how it was negotiated and approved, legal experts said. Talley said Nevada directors are protected unless they engage in fraud. "It's actually okay to engage in self-dealing, as long as you don't lie about it," he said. A state's corporate law governs a company's relationship with shareholders and typically does not affect legal rights of employees or consumers. In Texas, where Tesla and SpaceX are now incorporated, lawmakers last week approved amendments to its corporate law that are aimed at reducing the threat of shareholder litigation, in part by allowing companies to set stock ownership thresholds for lawsuits. The plaintiff in the Musk pay case owned just nine shares when he filed suit in 2018. Governor Greg Abbott has not signed the bill and his office did not respond to a request for comment. Eric Lentell, the general counsel at Delaware-chartered Archer Aviation, said the aircraft developer is considering reincorporating in Texas and believes directors of other public companies should reconsider Delaware. After a Delaware judge refused last year to recognize a vote by Tesla investors to reinstate Musk's pay, Lentell said it signaled that Delaware judges 'have become kind of activist in nature" by appearing to rewrite settled law. 'I think that's where people get nervous,' he said. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Time of India
25-04-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Musk's X sues to block Minnesota 'deepfake' law over free speech concerns
By Tom Hals X (formerly Twitter) is suing Minnesota over its AI deepfake election law.X claims the law violates free speech lawsuit argues the law replaces platform judgment with state judgment, risking censorship. Elon Musk 's social media platform X sued Minnesota on Wednesday over a state law that bans people from using AI-generated "deepfakes" to influence an election, which the company said violated protections of free speech. The law replaces social media platforms ' judgment about the content with the judgment of the state and threatens criminal liability if the platforms get it wrong, according to the lawsuit that was filed in Minnesota federal court. "This system will inevitably result in the censorship of wide swaths of valuable political speech and commentary," X said in its complaint. Musk has described himself as a free speech absolutist and he did away with Twitter's content moderation policy when he bought the company in 2022 and renamed it X. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, the named defendant, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Minnesota's law bans the use of deepfakes - videos, pictures or audio clips made with AI to look real - to influence an election. At least 22 states have enacted some form of prohibition on the use of deepfakes in elections, according to data compiled by Public Citizen, which says that AI can be used to manipulate voters. X asked the federal judge to declare the law violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Minnesota's constitution and that it was impermissibly vague. It also wants the judge to find the law is precluded by what is known as Section 230, a federal law that protects social media companies from being held liable for content posted by users. The company wants a permanent injunction preventing the law from being enforced. The Minnesota law has already been challenged on similar grounds by a Republican state lawmaker Mary Franson and social media influencer Christopher Kohls. In January, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino rejected their bid for a preliminary injunction to block the law, which they appealed. Provinzino's ruling did not address the merits of the lawsuit.
