Latest news with #U.S.DistrictCourthouse
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
QC residents hold multiple anti-ICE protests
Quad Cities residents made their voices heard about the ongoing ICE raids in Los Angeles. Three different ICE-related protests were held throughout Davenport Tuesday at the corner of Brady and Locust, outside of the U.S. District Courthouse, and at Bechtel Park. A variety of the signs and chants called the recent ICE raids an example of totalitarianism. A couple of people told Our Quad Cities News that they were shocked to see military personnel being deployed against protesters. 'It makes it extremely more personal to me seeing familiar faces, familiar people, people who speak like me, look like me, being taken by ICE, ripped away from their kids and families, and everything they call home,' said Alex Friend, a protester. 'You can't have justice without compassion and mercy. Otherwise, you are just a brutal dictator, and that is what Trump is showing himself to be,' said Rich Hendricks, a protester. More than 20 people participated in each of the different protests. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Another round of 50501 protests took to the streets of downtown Peoria
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) — A throng of people gathered in Downtown Peoria once again to protest President Donald Trump and one of his close advisors, Elon Musk. The Hands Off, 50501 movement, which stands for 50 protests, 50 states, and 1 movement, aims to protest the 'anti-democratic and illegal actions of the Trump administration and its plutocratic allies,' the movement's website said. On Saturday, April 19, protestors marched down Hamilton Boulevard to the U.S. District Courthouse before ending the march a few blocks away at the Peoria County Courthouse. An event organizer, Theresa Kuhlmann, said the protestors were there to speak out against Trump and his attempt to 'take away our liberties.' 'It was 250 years ago, yesterday, that Paul Revere sent out the warning that the British were coming, the British aren't coming right now, but we have a man who wants to be king and take away our liberties,' she said. Among other things, she said they were there to protest and to get 'hands off' democracy, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, among many others. Kuhlmann said she was 'loving' the number of people who showed up to the protest and march, stating that the number of people keeps growing. 'It just keeps growing and growing, there are cars coming down to park and the line was long, and it kept getting longer and longer and same thing with the people who are marching,' she said. Marchers were shouting and were seen carrying signs saying things such as 'hands off our democracy,' 'liberty and justice for all,' and 'you can't spell hatred without red hat.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
09-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal court issues order allowing Dartmouth Ph.D. student from China to continue research
The U.S. District Courthouse in Concord, Wednesday, April 9, 2025. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin) On April 3, Xiaotian Liu was continuing research for his computer science doctorate at Dartmouth College. On April 4, he was informed by the college that he needed to stop. The college had run a check on Xiaotian's F-1 student immigration status and discovered something unusual: Without warning, his status had been revoked. Without the status, Xiaotian could not continue with his work. Five days later, that decision has been halted, temporarily, after a federal judge in New Hampshire said Wednesday she would block the Trump administration's apparent revocation of the status. But it remains unclear why the student's immigration status was revoked in the first place — and whether the change in status was intentional or accidental. Xiaotian sued the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire to block that change, arguing it had deprived him of due process rights by not informing him of the change or allowing him to respond. After a hearing Wednesday morning, Judge Samantha Elliott said she would issue a temporary restraining order against the department, which would reverse the change in status for two weeks. The same court will hold a hearing in the next two weeks on a much more extensive motion for a preliminary injunction against the status change. Xiaotian is one of two Dartmouth students to see their immigration status changed last week — and one of nearly 300 students across the country in recent days, according to the New York Times. The F-1 status is given to international students to allow them to complete their studies at an American college or university. It is different from an entry visa; there is currently no indication that Xiaotian's visa has been revoked. Representatives of the Department of Homeland Security did not inform Xiaotian that his immigration status had been changed, according to his attorneys. He learned of the change on Friday, after the college informed him of it after reviewing its records, they said. The doctoral student is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire and Ronald Abramson of Shaheen & Gordon. Because Xiaotian has lost his status, he has had to pause his Ph.D. research and is no longer receiving compensation for his work, his attorneys said in court Wednesday. He is also fearful of being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as other students have been, his attorneys said. On March 25, a video of a Tufts student, Rumeysa Ozturk, being detained on the street in Somerville, Mass., by ICE officers sparked alarm among immigration advocates and students, and fueled protests. A lawyer for the U.S. Attorney's Office, Raphael Katz, argued the court should not issue the restraining order because Xiaotian had not established that he would suffer 'immediate and irreparable harm' if the court did nothing. Katz said Xiaotian could continue attending classes at Dartmouth College, even if he can't continue his research. And he said Xiaotian could transfer his credits to a university outside of the U.S. if he wanted. Katz said he could not provide the court information about why Xiaotian's status was changed or confirm whether Xiaotian's status was even changed. He said he was still awaiting information from the Department of Homeland Security. 'I don't have the facts to establish why the change in status happened,' he said in court. 'At this point, can you tell me whether this was intentional or a mistake?' Elliott asked. Katz said he could not. And Katz declined to tell the court whether there was a risk that Xiaotian might be detained. 'Unfortunately, the government can't make any representation on its enforcement priorities,' he said. Elliott said that plaintiffs had sufficiently shown that there is irreparable harm. 'He's not getting paid; he's not working toward his Ph.D.,' she said. In making their case, attorneys for Xiaotian stressed the unusual nature of the government's action. Typically, colleges and universities will monitor their own international students and recommend to the federal department if a student's F-1 status should be revoked. That arrangement — where schools police their own students — has been the case under the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS, which was created in 2003 in response to the September 11 attacks. 'What typically happens is that the status change is at the initiative of the university, because the university becomes aware of the fact, for example, that a student is no longer in school, (or) the student has dropped out,' said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, at a press conference after the hearing. 'This reverse situation is what's incredibly novel and unique, and it's one of the reasons why there's not a lot of legal authority out here on this with respect to case law.' In Xiaotian's case, DHS has provided no explanation for the halt. In court, Kim noted he had no criminal record. 'The plaintiff hasn't committed any crime,' said SangYeob Kim, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of New Hampshire. 'Not even a parking ticket. He doesn't even own a car.' It is not immediately clear when the hearing for Xiaotian's preliminary injunction motion will take place, but attorneys said they expected it within the next week. Attorneys for the Department of Homeland Security are expected to show up at that hearing to make the government's case, Katz said. The New Hampshire lawsuit is one of several waged across the country by students who also had their F-1 status abruptly terminated. Two students at two different colleges in California are suing the department. And one student in Pennsylvania has initiated a class-action lawsuit, seeking to represent all people whose F-1 status has been revoked because of criminal charges that do not interfere with students' 'normal progress toward completion of a course of study.' At the press conference, Bissonnette did not comment on whether the ACLU has been in contact with the second Dartmouth student whose F-1 status was reportedly revoked. But he said that regardless of Elliott's ruling, each affected student will likely need to sue the government independently in order to reverse the status change. But he said a favorable district court ruling could set a precedent that others could follow. And Abramson noted the revocation of the F-1 status came despite no apparent criminal violation. 'The presidential campaign and the messaging coming out of the administration has been that we're going to focus on serious criminals and that that's the problem with immigration in this country,' said Abramson. 'This sort of process, and the fact that we have to expend nonprofit resources, private resources, government resources to respond to this situation flies in the face of that and makes us have to question if that's really the motivation here at all.'
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Taxing digital ads opened Maryland up to litigation. McKee wants Rhode Island to do it anyway.
The U.S. District Courthouse in Baltimore. The state of Maryland has faced an avalanche of legal attacks in state and federal court from the tech companies and trade groups after its Democratic legislature passed a digital advertising tax in 2021, overriding the veto of then-Gov. Larry Hogan. (Photo by Danielle E. Gaines/Maryland Matters) Is a $20 million boost to state coffers worth risking years of court battles — and potentially big financial losses — with technology giants like Apple and Meta? The question hung, unanswered, over the second floor of the Rhode Island State House Thursday, where the Rhode Island Senate Committee on Finance gave an initial vetting to a proposed state tax on billion dollar companies for money made locally on digital advertising. No votes were taken, as is customary in preliminary committee hearings. Gov. Dan McKee pitched the 10% tax as part of his proposed fiscal 2026 budget. If enacted, the tax on the local share of digital advertising for companies with $1 billion or more in gross revenue would bring in $9.6 million in fiscal 2026, rising to $19.6 million in fiscal 2027. But the reward might not be worth the risk; just ask Maryland, the only state with a similar tax policy. Maryland's Democratic legislature passed a digital advertising tax in 2021, overriding the veto of then-Gov. Larry Hogan. Maryland has since faced an avalanche of legal attacks in state and federal court from the tech companies and trade groups representing them. A federal judge Baltimore has tossed many of the lawsuits, which make claims ranging from First Amendment violations to commerce and due process concerns. A separate set of complaints are still open in Maryland Tax Court, with a judge in January calling for an extended discovery process in one case filed by Apple, Google, Meta and Peacock, according to news reports. Zachary Lilly, deputy director of state and federal affairs for NetChoice, a trade group representing large tech and social media companies, warned Rhode Island lawmakers that the Ocean State could be facing a similar set of legal challenges if it enacts a digital advertising tax. 'It's wiser to wait until legal proceedings in Maryland run their course,' Lilly said. 'Otherwise those dollars will need to be returned, costing the state and the taxpayer far more than they ever gained. Sen. Sam Zurier, a Providence Democrat and civil attorney, was already worried, even before Lilly spoke. Earlier in the hearing, he peppered Neena Savage, state tax administrator, with questions about the status of the Maryland cases and potential consequences if Rhode Island faces, and loses, similar legal battles. Savage's answers hardly offered reassurance. She said Rhode Island could 'potentially' have to repay the companies it taxed if it lost a lawsuit. She was 'not certain' whether the state might also have to cover attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs if that was the case. As for the likelihood of getting sued? 'There's always a potential for litigation with any tax law enacted,' Savage said. 'We would have to weigh the consequences and risks at that time.' A report prepared by the Rhode Island Senate Fiscal Office found Rhode Island's proposal avoids potential commerce-related violations by using a flat tax, rather than the tiered structure in Maryland. But both rely on another sore spot to tech companies: a 'pass-through clause' which prevents the advertising companies from passing on the tax to consumers through an extra fee or surcharge. Also unclear from initial discussion Thursday: how the state determines the amount of revenue it can tax. McKee's budget calls for two new tax employees — with a $550,000 price tag — to help develop rules and regulations, and enforcement of the new tax. Broadly, the plan would be to calculate ad revenue from Rhode Island based on the proportion of devices tracked by a given company, like Meta, that are located within the physical boundaries of the Ocean State, Savage said. That proportion would be applied to total revenues to determine revenue specific to Rhode Island, with the smaller figure then subject to a 10% tax. But what happens if someone's browsing the internet using a Virtual Private Network, which would mask their identity and location, asked Sen. Lou DiPalma, a Middletown Democrat. Savage wasn't sure. Relatedly, Deb Peters, a former South Dakota state senator who now represents the Association of National Advertisers, testified about the lack of clarity around device data collected from people who travel through Rhode Island, but don't actually live there. The original version of McKee's plan would have also taxed media companies, affecting the parent companies of The Providence Journal, WPRI-TV and WJAR-TV. However, McKee has since put in a budget amendment exempting news media and broadcast entities, according to a Feb. 3 letter from Joe Codega, state budget officer. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
