Latest news with #U.S.DistrictCourt
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- General
- Yahoo
Ex-Yale student released from immigration jail; U.S. judges limit ICE arrest authority in CT courts
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents released Afghan refugee Saifullah Khan on bond Friday evening, nearly a month after they immobilized him with Taser fire and detained him as he and his wife left an immigration hearing in Hartford's federal building. In a related development, Connecticut's U.S. District Court judges issued an order less than a month after Khan's arrest limiting the authority of federal immigration agents to make arrests and detain people in buildings that house the state's three federal courts. Khan, who was born in a Pakistani refugee camp after his family was forced by the Taliban to flee Afghanistan, came to the United States to study at Yale University. He has applied for asylum and the application had been pending for nine years when he was detained on May 9. Witnesses said plain clothes ICE agents confronted Khan without identifying themselves as he left an immigration hearing. When he tried to return to the courtroom to seek assistance from the judge, he was hit seven times with Tasers and required medical attention. Immigration Judge Theodore Doolittle tried to intervene in the arrest, but was not allowed to do so by immigration agents, the witnesses said. The arrest took place on the sixth floor of a secure Ribicoff Federal Building on Main Street. Khan was held at immigration detention centers in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania since his arrest — including the three days since Tuesday when an immigration judge in Massachusetts issued an order releasing him on a $7,500 bond. During a brief conversation after his release in Pennsylvania Friday night, as he was driven to a meeting with family members, Khan said he has not been given an explanation as to what led to his arrest, why he was not immediately allowed to post a court-ordered bond and why he ultimately was released. Immigration authorities did not respond to questions about the case. 'While I was hospitalized, they told me: 'We were in hot pursuit. We were going to get you. You shouldn't have run,'' Khan said. 'I was at court,' he said. 'I am law abiding. I was presenting myself to the judge. Even if it is a final order for removal, I am very grateful for the time I have been in the United States. I have been here for 14 years. I am very lucky to have spent so much time here and been given the opportunity to assimilate. And I would like to have that opportunity and privilege in the future as well. I would love to be an American citizen. I would love to be able to call myself an American.' Khan's arrest followed his decision to sue in an effort to compel a decision on his asylum application after years of what his lawyers characterized as government inaction. The suit names senior Trump administration figures, including Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem. Within weeks of naming Noem and the others, Khan received a notice that ICE had begun proceedings to deport him and he was ordered to appear at the hearing, after which he was detained. He has no criminal record, but was accused by a Yale classmate of sexually assaulting her after a date in 2015. He was acquitted of all charges after a trial in criminal court. When Yale expelled him in spite of the acquittal, he sued the school for defamation and related rights violations. The suit is pending. The order Thursday by the federal judges concerning arrests in federal court buildings prevents immigration agents from making arrests and detaining people in areas of the buildings occupied by the federal courts and restricts authority to do so to the U.S. Marshal Service. In Hartford's Ribicoff Federal Building, which is larger than federal court buildings in New Haven and Bridgeport and houses federal agencies other than the courts on upper floors, Department of Homeland Security agents can continue to make arrests on non-judicial floors, according to the order. The order appears to be limited to judicial areas of the Ribicoff building because of questions about whether the security authority of the federal judiciary extends to areas of federal buildings that house operations of executive branch agencies, such as Homeland Security and its subsidiary agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration courts are not part of the federal judiciary, but are operated by executive branch appointees for the purpose of adjudicating immigration questions. Increasingly aggressive efforts by federal immigration authorities to arrest non citizens — including decisions to target courts for enforcement efforts — has led to concerns about safety and other issues among some court administrators. The federal judiciary said its order limiting arrest authority in Connecticut's U.S. District Court is based on a commitment to ensure 'the orderly conduct of court proceedings and the safety of litigants, witnesses, attorneys, the public, and court personnel.' Similar questions are being analyzed by officials working in the state judiciary, which has a far greater case volume than the federal courts. Among other things, there have been discussions in both court systems about whether immigration agents should be allowed to enter courtrooms while proceedings are underway in order to detain suspected non-citizens. Among other things, prosecutors warn that such detentions could lead eventually to dismissal of charges against criminal defendants who have been the subject of protracted criminal investigation and prosecution. The federal court order makes certain exceptions, including for circumstances in which suspects turn themselves in for arrest and agents transport people arrested elsewhere to court.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Held lawsuit plaintiffs file climate change lawsuit against Trump, federal agencies
Glenns Lake in Glacier National Park (Photo by Jeff Pang via Glacier National Park and Flickr | CC-BY-SA 2.0). Twenty-two young plaintiffs, led by a contingent of Montanans who earned a landmark victory in the constitutional climate change lawsuit Held v. Montana, filed suit in U.S. District Court on Thursday against the federal government over a series of climate and energy policies. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Lighthiser v. Trump, argue three of Trump's executive orders issued earlier this year to 'unleash' the fossil fuel industry and remove climate protections threaten their constitutional rights to life and liberty. 'President Trump's EOs falsely claim an energy emergency, while the true emergency is that fossil fuel pollution is destroying the foundation of Plaintiffs' lives,' the lawsuit states. 'These unconstitutional directives have the immediate effect of slowing the buildout of U.S. energy infrastructure that eliminates planet-heating fossil fuel greenhouse gas pollution … and increasing the use of fossil fuels that pollute the air, water, lands, and climate on which Plaintiffs' lives depend.' The lead plaintiff, 19-year-old Eva Lighthiser, from Livingston, is one of several Montana plaintiffs who also filed the landmark Held case, which prevailed in Montana District Court and, in late 2024, in the Montana Supreme Court. Lighthiser is joined in the suit by Rikki Held, Lander and Badge Busse — sons of former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Ryan Busse — and five others from the Montana lawsuit, as well as young people from Hawai'i, Oregon, California, and Florida. Plaintiffs from Hawai'i were also involved in a successful youth-led climate lawsuit against the state's Department of Transportation. During a seven-day bench trial before Lewis and Clark District Court Judge Kathy Seeley in 2023, Held and 15 youth plaintiffs were found to have a right to a stable climate system under Montana's constitutional right to a 'clean and healthful environment.' The Held decision, affirmed by the state Supreme Court in December, is mentioned numerous times in the Lighthiser case, and several of the same law firms are representing the plaintiffs in the new suit. Eleven federal agencies and their respective agency heads, including the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and NASA, are named as defendants along with the president. Three of Trump's executive orders — 14156, 14154 and 14261 — declare a 'national energy emergency' and direct numerous federal agencies to 'unleash American energy' by accelerating oil, gas and coal production on federal lands, and bolster fossil fuel development. They also roll back funding that bolstered climate protections, including through the Inflation Reduction Act. Various clean energy grant programs, including wind, solar battery storage and electric vehicles, were also targeted in the orders. The 126-page complaint argues that the federal directives threaten the plaintiffs' health and wellbeing by accelerating harms from the fossil fuel industry and climate change. 'Plaintiffs were born into and now live in a destabilized climate system. Fossil fuel pollution has created this emergency—a dangerous situation for Plaintiffs requiring immediate action,' the suit states. '… EPA reports that climate change effects, including heat, displacement, financial or food insecurity, loss of recreation, loss of sleep, and risk of PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), harm children's health.' The plaintiffs are asking for the court to find the three executive orders 'and any implementing executive actions' unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid, and seek a permanent injunction against implementing and enforcing the orders. In a statement, Deputy White House press secretary Harrison Fields said the executive orders are part of President Donald Trump's efforts to protect Americans. 'Promoting domestic energy production is crucial for shielding American families from price volatility and securing a stable energy supply for our nation and its allies. The President has a proven history of bolstering American energy production and will restore our nation's position as a global energy leader,' Fields said in a statement. A representative for the Department of Justice declined to comment. In a press release about the lawsuit, Lighthiser said Trump's executive orders amount to a 'death sentence for my generation.' 'I'm not suing because I want to — I'm suing because I have to. My health, my future, and my right to speak the truth are all on the line. He's waging war on us with fossil fuels as his weapon, and we're fighting back with the Constitution.' In the suit, the plaintiffs list harms experienced in their young lives related to climate change, including from longer wildfire seasons that affect their health, increasingly extreme weather patterns that affect their livelihoods, and changes to their local environments and cultural homes. The suit also mentions the executive orders' effect on decreasing career opportunities for some plaintiffs, through canceled climate science research and study programs. The complaint also condemns the federal government's directives to implement the executive orders by 'a wholesale scrubbing, suppression and dismantling of government agencies' climate science, thereby blinding the government,' and argues that the President exceeded his constitutional and statutory authority— 'acting ultra vires' — in issuing the executive orders. The youth are represented by Our Children's Trust, an Oregon-based law firm, along with Gregory Law Group, McGarvey Law in Kalispell, and Public Justice. l'These young plaintiffs refuse to be collateral damage in a fossil fuel war on their future,' lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust said in a press release. 'They are demanding accountability where it still matters—in a court of law. The executive branch is not above the Constitution, and these young people are here to prove it.'
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Federal judge stands by block on Naples, Florida restrictions on 'PrideFest' drag show
Amid legal wranglings over a pro-LGBT organization that wants to host an outdoor drag show open to all ages in Naples, Florida, next week, a Clinton-nominated federal judge denied an emergency motion to stay a preliminary injunction pending appeal. Earlier this month, Judge John Steele of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued a preliminary injunction to block the city from prohibiting the drag performance from being held outdoors at Cambier Park and to prohibit the imposition of an age requirement for attendance. Then this week, Steele slapped down a bid to stay his preliminary injunction. The Naples PrideFest, which is free for children under 12, is scheduled to take place on June 7 and include a drag performance, Naples Pride notes on its website. According to a legal challenge lodged last month by Naples Pride, the city council voted 5-2 to issue a permit for the event, "but only on the conditions that (1) the drag performance take place indoors at the Norris Center; and (2) no one under 18 be admitted to the drag performance, even if accompanied by an adult parent or guardian." Drag Queen Group Mocks Jesus, Christianity In Easter Show Marketed To Kids Read On The Fox News App The organization objected to those limitations and to the size of the security fee it said the Naples Police Department indicated the organization would need to pay to hold the drag performance. "During the 2025 permit application process, the Naples Police Department initially told Naples Pride that it would have to pay $30,697.50 in security fees alone—on top of other permit fees—to hold the performance indoors, and $44,160.00 in security fees to hold it outdoors," the complaint noted. In a statement provided to Fox News Digital, the city of Naples noted, "On May 27th, U.S. District Court Judge Steele denied the City's emergency motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal." This Progressive Actor Describes The Unlikely Political Evolution That Drove Him To Donald Trump "While this outcome was anticipated, the City's legal team is reviewing the order and determining next steps with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The City remains confident it has both the legal responsibility and the authority to attach reasonable restrictions on special event permits to ensure public safety. Beyond this, and as a matter of policy, the City does not comment in detail on legal strategy for active litigation." U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fl., issued a post on X in which he declared, "You have to be an adult to enter a strip club, but Clinton-appointed Judge John Steele wants sexually-explicit drag shows to take place next to a popular children's playground in Naples. This ruling is atrocious & the City of Naples should appeal this case to the Supreme Court." But Naples Pride hailed the judge's decision. Parents Can't Opt K-5 Children Out Of Lgbtq Curriculum: Appeals Court "Drag performances are a protected form of expression — period," Naples Pride spokesperson Callhan Soldavini noted in a statement the organization provided to Fox News Digital. "The district court's decision is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and firmly rooted in longstanding constitutional principles. Naples Pride will continue to stand for free speech and the rule of law, which safeguards the rights of all people."Original article source: Federal judge stands by block on Naples, Florida restrictions on 'PrideFest' drag show
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Duke Energy settles data breach lawsuit
Duke Energy settled a class-action lawsuit over a data breach that happened last year, according to court documents from the U.S. District Court for Western North Carolina. According to The Charlotte Observer, the 2024 breach impacted thousands of customers and exposed information to cybercriminals. ALSO READ: 23andMe Data Breach Deadline: How to file a claim The Observer reported that terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the latest filings. Court documents show at least 100 people were involved in the lawsuit with claims adding up to over $5 million. Some of the information leaked in the data breach included names, account numbers, emails, Tax IDs and Social Security numbers. VIDEO: How to protect your data on public Wi-Fi
a day ago
- Politics
PBS suing Trump administration over defunding, three days after NPR filed similar case
PBS filed suit Friday against President Donald Trump and other administration officials to block his order stripping federal funding from the 330-station public television system, three days after NPR did the same for its radio network. In its lawsuit, PBS relies on similar arguments, saying Trump was overstepping his authority and engaging in 'viewpoint discrimination' because of his claim that PBS' news coverage is biased against conservatives. 'PBS disputes those charged assertions in the strongest possible terms,' lawyer Z.W. Julius Chen wrote in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington. 'But regardless of any policy disagreements over the role of public television, our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of the content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.' It was the latest of many legal actions taken against the administration for its moves, including several by media organizations impacted by Trump's orders. PBS was joined as a plaintiff by one of its stations, Lakeland PBS, which serves rural areas in northern and central Minnesota. Trump's order is an 'existential threat' to the station, the lawsuit said. A PBS spokesman said that 'after careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television's editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations.' Through an executive order earlier this month, Trump told the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and federal agencies to stop funding the two systems. Through the corporation alone, PBS is receiving $325 million this year, most of which goes directly to individual stations. PBS, which makes much of the programming used by the stations, said it gets 22% of its revenue directly from the feds. Sixty-one percent of PBS' budget is funded through individual station dues, and the stations raise the bulk of that money through the government. Trump's order 'would have profound impacts on the ability of PBS and PBS member stations to provide a rich tapestry of programming to all Americans,' Chen wrote. PBS said the U.S. Department of Education has canceled a $78 million grant to the system for educational programming, used to make children's shows like 'Sesame Street,' 'Clifford the Big Red Dog' and 'Reading Rainbow.' For Minnesota residents, the order threatens the 'Lakeland Learns' education program and 'Lakeland News,' described in the lawsuit as the only television program in the region providing local news, weather and sports. Besides Trump, the lawsuit names other administration officials as defendants, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. PBS says its technology is used as a backup for the nationwide wireless emergency alert system.
