Latest news with #U.S.9thCircuitCourtofAppeals
Hindustan Times
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
What is 9th Circuit Court of Appeals? Order that reinstates Trump can keep National Guard in LA
On Thursday night, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted a lower court's order that would have required former President Donald Trump to return control of California National Guard troops to Governor Gavin Newsom. The 9th Circuit Court, based in San Francisco, is one of the most powerful federal appeals courts in the country. It covers nine western states, including California. The three-judge panel reviewing this case includes two Trump appointees and one appointed by President Biden. A full hearing is set for Tuesday. The decision followed a 36-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer earlier that day, who said Trump had overstepped his legal authority. Breyer wrote that Trump's move to federalise the Guard during protests over immigration raids was unlawful, saying the action 'violated the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' Breyer wrote. 'The evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids.'
Yahoo
03-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Judge dismisses California's lawsuit over Trump tariffs, citing jurisdiction issue
SACRAMENTO, California — A U.S. District Court judge on Monday dismissed California officials' lawsuit over President Donald Trump's tariffs, concluding the case belongs in an out-of-state court that specializes in trade disputes. The ruling — separate from a pair of high-profile rulings in other courts last week — partially sides with the Trump administration, which argued the case belongs in the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade rather than the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier filed their case. But Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley dismissed the case outright rather than immediately transfer it to the trade court, as Trump's attorneys had requested. By doing so, she granted the state's request to leave a path open for California to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a famously liberal-leaning bench. Still, Scott Corley's decision is a blow to California officials who had hoped the district court would rule on the legality of Trump's unilateral tariffs. Last week, a D.C. District Court judge went the opposite direction and invalidated Trump's tariffs, ruling in favor of two toy-import companies. The trade court also struck down Trump's tariffs last week, although his taxes on imports have largely been left in place while federal litigation plays out. Scott Corley's ruling against California was expected. She had previously signaled that her San Francisco court likely didn't have jurisdiction in the case, noting the trade court has authority over tariff cases — which was designed to prevent a patchwork of tariffs rulings in federal district courts. California in April became the first state to sue Trump over his so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs, claiming the president has no authority to unilaterally tax imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump has invoked tariffs without congressional approval by claiming the country faces a national emergency due to its trade deficits with other countries. Representatives for Newsom and Bonta didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. While Scott Corley's ruling is a setback for the state, California officials joined Democratic leaders across the country last week in celebrating the pair of federal court rulings that determined Trump had overstepped his executive powers. 'It's raining tacos today,' Newsom said on the MeidasTouch Podcast on Thursday, an apparent reference to the TACO acronym that Wall Street investors have used to refer to whiplash over Trump's see-sawing import taxes. The president has bristled at the name, which stands for 'Trump always chickens out.'
Politico
03-06-2025
- Business
- Politico
Judge dismisses California's lawsuit over Trump tariffs, citing jurisdiction issue
SACRAMENTO, California — A U.S. District Court judge on Monday dismissed California officials' lawsuit over President Donald Trump's tariffs, concluding the case belongs in an out-of-state court that specializes in trade disputes. The ruling — separate from a pair of high-profile rulings in other courts last week — partially sides with the Trump administration, which argued the case belongs in the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade rather than the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and state Attorney General Rob Bonta earlier filed their case. But Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley dismissed the case outright rather than immediately transfer it to the trade court, as Trump's attorneys had requested. By doing so, she granted the state's request to leave a path open for California to appeal the ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a famously liberal-leaning bench. Still, Scott Corley's decision is a blow to California officials who had hoped the district court would rule on the legality of Trump's unilateral tariffs. Last week, a D.C. District Court judge went the opposite direction and invalidated Trump's tariffs, ruling in favor of two toy-import companies. The trade court also struck down Trump's tariffs last week, although his taxes on imports have largely been left in place while federal litigation plays out. Scott Corley's ruling against California was expected. She had previously signaled that her San Francisco court likely didn't have jurisdiction in the case, noting the trade court has authority over tariff cases — which was designed to prevent a patchwork of tariffs rulings in federal district courts. California in April became the first state to sue Trump over his so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs, claiming the president has no authority to unilaterally tax imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump has invoked tariffs without congressional approval by claiming the country faces a national emergency due to its trade deficits with other countries. Representatives for Newsom and Bonta didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. While Scott Corley's ruling is a setback for the state, California officials joined Democratic leaders across the country last week in celebrating the pair of federal court rulings that determined Trump had overstepped his executive powers. 'It's raining tacos today,' Newsom said on the MeidasTouch Podcast on Thursday, an apparent reference to the TACO acronym that Wall Street investors have used to refer to whiplash over Trump's see-sawing import taxes. The president has bristled at the name, which stands for 'Trump always chickens out.'
Los Angeles Times
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of the federal workforce
SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process. Har writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington contributed to this report.
Chicago Tribune
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Appeals court keeps block on Trump administration's downsizing of the federal workforce
SAN FRANCISCO — An appeals court on Friday refused to freeze a California-based judge's order halting the Trump administration from downsizing the federal workforce, which means that the Department of Government Efficiency-led cuts remain on pause for now. A split three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the downsizing could have significant ripple effects on everything from the nation's food-safety system to veteran health care, and should stay on hold while a lawsuit plays out. The judge who dissented, however, said President Donald Trump likely does have the legal authority to downsize the executive branch and there is a separate process for workers to appeal. The Republican administration had sought an emergency stay of an injunction issued by U.S. Judge Susan Illston of San Francisco in a lawsuit brought by labor unions and cities, including San Francisco and Chicago, and the group Democracy Forward. The Justice Department has also previously appealed her ruling to the Supreme Court, one of a string of emergency appeals arguing federal judges had overstepped their authority. The judge's order questioned whether Trump's administration was acting lawfully in trying to pare the federal workforce. Trump has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate to remake the federal government, and he tapped billionaire Elon Musk to lead the charge through the Department of Government Efficiency. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs, or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation, and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. Illston's order directs numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote in her ruling that presidents can make large-scale overhauls of federal agencies, but only with the cooperation of Congress. Lawyers for the government say that the executive order and memo calling for large-scale personnel reductions and reorganization plans provided only general principles that agencies should follow in exercising their own decision-making process.
