Latest news with #U.S.HouseJudiciaryCommittee
Reuters
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Sentencing Commission's expansion of compassionate release was invalid 'power grab,' court rules
A gavel sits on the chairman's dais in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing room on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 14, 2019. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab April 23 (Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court ruled that a policy adopted in 2023 by the U.S. Sentencing Commission which allowed judges to deem changes in law as "extraordinary and compelling" reasons justifying granting inmates early release from prison, is invalid and amounts to a "heavy-handed and unseemly power grab." A 2-1 panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday rejected bids, opens new tab by three inmates serving lengthy prison sentences to be released early based on the commission's new policy, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in June curbing agencies' regulatory power. Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here. That decision by the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority scrapped a 40-year-old legal doctrine known as "Chevron deference" that had required courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of the laws they administer when those statutes are ambiguous. U.S. Circuit Judge Alice Batchelder said under that decision, courts no longer need to defer to policy statements from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, a judicial-branch agency charged with crafting sentencing guidelines, just because a statute is ambiguous. She said the commission's policy statement contradicted the text of the statute governing compassionate release and the 6th Circuit's earlier 2022 interpretation of it holding that a non-retroactive change in the law is not an "extraordinary and compelling reason' for a sentence reduction. "We conclude that the Commission overstepped its authority and issued a policy statement that is plainly unreasonable under the statute and in conflict with the separation of powers," Batchelder wrote. As a result, the court rejected arguments by inmates Jason Bricker, Ellis McHenry and Lois Orta that they were deserving of a compassionate release under the commission's policy as they were all serving sentences that were much longer than what they would have received today for the same offense. Bricker, for example, was serving a 24-1/2 year sentence for a 2005 armed bank robbery, but if re-sentenced today would face a sentencing guidelines range of 70 to 87 months. Tuesday's decision reversed a judge's decision to reduce his sentence. Batchelder's opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judge Chad Readler, a fellow appointee of a Republican president. U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Stranch, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, dissented, saying the majority misconstrued the end of Chevron deference to reach its conclusion. A spokesperson for the Sentencing Commission declined to comment. Lawyers for the inmates did not respond to requests for comment. Two of the inmates had sought early release based on changes in law contained in the First Step Act, a bipartisan measure that Republican President Donald Trump signed into law in his first term in 2018 that reformed stricter sentencing laws. The U.S. Sentencing Commission lost its quorum shortly after the law's enactment, preventing it for three years from updating sentencing guidelines to implement the law, including provisions to provide greater opportunities for inmates to seek compassionate release. In the absence of any guidance from the panel, courts were left to decide for themselves what circumstances qualified as "extraordinary and compelling" that would warrant granting prisoners' requests for compassionate release, often leading to splits in the courts about how to interpret the law. The Sentencing Commission finally, under Democratic former President Joe Biden, regained a quorum and on a 4-3 vote in April 2023 approved a policy statement which said that changes in law could be considered "extraordinary and compelling" if a defendant serving at least 10 years had received an "unusually long sentence. The case is U.S. v. Bricker, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-3286. For the United States: Andrew Noll of the U.S. Department of Justice For Bricker: David O'Neil of Debevoise & Plimpton For McHenry: Christian Grostic of the Office of the Federal Defender, Southern District of Ohio For Orta: Alex Trieger of Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick Read more: US appeals court rejects sentencing panel's compassionate release policy US Supreme Court curbs federal agency powers, overturning 1984 precedent U.S. panel votes to expand compassionate release for prisoners U.S. Justice Department tells panel changes in law don't warrant cutting sentences Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab Nate Raymond Thomson Reuters Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Georgia Senate committee pushes for subpoena enforcement in DA Willis probe
The Brief The Georgia Senate Special Committee on Investigations has been reauthorized to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, linked to the Georgia election interference case involving former President Donald Trump. The committee is seeking enforcement of a legislative subpoena against Willis, claiming she has waived objections and failed to prove her privilege claims, with the court previously denying her petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. Willis has agreed to provide certain documents related to her election interference case, but disputes remain unresolved, and the court has yet to rule on the committee's motion to compel her testimony. ATLANTA - The Georgia Senate Special Committee on Investigations is asking a Fulton County judge to enforce a legislative subpoena against District Attorney Fani Willis. In a motion filed last week, attorneys for the state legislative branch argued Willis has waived her objections and failed to prove her claims of privilege. The backstory The Georgia Senate Special Committee on Investigations, chaired by state Sen. Bill Cowsert, has been reauthorized this year by Senate Resolution 5 to investigate allegations of misconduct involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis and her former special prosecutor, Nathan Wade. This investigation has gained significant attention due to its connection to the Georgia election interference case involving former President Donald Trump. What we know The committee is urging a Fulton County judge to enforce a legislative subpoena against Willis, arguing that she has waived her objections and failed to substantiate her claims of privilege. In a recent court filing, attorneys for the committee responded to Willis' arguments regarding her compliance with subpoenas issued by the panel. Click to open this PDF in a new window. The Superior Court of Fulton County previously denied Willis' petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in December 2024, and after Willis failed to appeal that ruling, the court directed her to clarify objections she raised to a witness subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum, which seeks documents. Willis has agreed to produce documents she previously shared with the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and in public filings related to her election interference case against Trump. Both sides agree this satisfies her current obligation under the subpoena duces tecum but does not resolve future disputes. What they're saying The committee contends that Willis' updated response remains deficient. "Petitioner has waived her objections to the Witness Subpoena and this Court should order Petitioner comply with the Witness Subpoena at a time and date designated by the Special Committee," attorneys for the committee wrote. They also argue that Willis has not proven an attorney-client relationship with Wade, stating both acted as agents of the Fulton County District Attorney's Office rather than in a traditional client-attorney structure. "Petitioner's characterization of the purported attorney-client relationship between herself, the FCDA, and Mr. Wade is inaccurate," the committee's lawyers wrote. The other side Willis, represented by former Gov. Roy Barnes and attorney John R. Bartholomew of The Barnes Law Group, has claimed that the committee's subpoenas are now moot. However, the panel reiterated that the court has already rejected that argument, noting the Senate reauthorized the committee in the current session and that such matters are "capable of repetition yet evading review." Willis' objections based on law enforcement privilege were also dismissed by the committee's attorneys, who argued that the privilege does not apply outside the context of open records law. "Petitioner enjoys no 'Law Enforcement Privilege' against the disclosure of records compelled by a legislative subpoena," the filing asserts. What's next The court has not yet ruled on the committee's motion to compel Willis to testify. The legal fight continues to draw national attention due to its ties to the Georgia election interference case and broader scrutiny of Willis' conduct in that prosecution. The committee is represented by attorneys Josh Belinfante and Vincent R. Russo of the Robbins Firm. SEE ALSO: Fulton County DA Fani Willis ordered to pay $54K to attorney in Trump case Georgia's reimbursement bill would allow Trump to recover costs Fulton County judge rejects DA Willis' Bid to quash Senate committee subpoenas Georgia Senate committee to reissue subpoena for DA Fani Willis in Trump election probe Trump's mug shot from Fulton County Jail hangs in White House The Source Details for this article come from court documents obtained from the Fulton County Superior Court and previous FOX 5 Atlanta reporting.
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US House panel subpoenas Alphabet over content moderation
(Reuters) - The U.S. House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Alphabet on Thursday seeking its communications with former President Joe Biden's administration about content moderation policies. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican, also asked the YouTube parent company for similar communications with companies and groups outside government, according to a copy of the subpoena seen by Reuters. The subpoena seeks communications about limits or bans on content about President Donald Trump, Tesla CEO and close Trump ally Elon Musk, the virus that causes COVID-19 and a host of other conservative discussion topics. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have taken aim at Big Tech companies over policies they say lead to suppression of conservative viewpoints online. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson has said companies that coordinated their policies with others or misled users about their own policies may have violated the law. Last year under scrutiny from Jordan's House panel, Meta Platforms said the Biden administration had pressured it to censor content. The company ultimately dialed back its content moderation in January. "Alphabet, to our knowledge, has not similarly disavowed the Biden-Harris Administration's attempts to censor speech," Jordan said in a letter to the company on Thursday. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company will "continue to show the committee how we enforce our policies independently, rooted in our commitment to free expression.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
06-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US House panel subpoenas Alphabet over content moderation
(Reuters) - The U.S. House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Alphabet on Thursday seeking its communications with former President Joe Biden's administration about content moderation policies. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican, also asked the YouTube parent company for similar communications with companies and groups outside government, according to a copy of the subpoena seen by Reuters. The subpoena seeks communications about limits or bans on content about President Donald Trump, Tesla CEO and close Trump ally Elon Musk, the virus that causes COVID-19 and a host of other conservative discussion topics. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have taken aim at Big Tech companies over policies they say lead to suppression of conservative viewpoints online. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson has said companies that coordinated their policies with others or misled users about their own policies may have violated the law. Last year under scrutiny from Jordan's House panel, Meta Platforms said the Biden administration had pressured it to censor content. The company ultimately dialed back its content moderation in January. "Alphabet, to our knowledge, has not similarly disavowed the Biden-Harris Administration's attempts to censor speech," Jordan said in a letter to the company on Thursday. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company will "continue to show the committee how we enforce our policies independently, rooted in our commitment to free expression.' Sign in to access your portfolio
Reuters
06-03-2025
- Business
- Reuters
US House panel subpoenas Alphabet over content moderation
March 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Alphabet (GOOGL.O), opens new tab on Thursday seeking its communications with former President Joe Biden's administration about content moderation policies. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican, also asked the YouTube parent company for similar communications with companies and groups outside government, according to a copy of the subpoena seen by Reuters. The subpoena seeks communications about limits or bans on content about President Donald Trump, Tesla (TSLA.O), opens new tab CEO and close Trump ally Elon Musk, the virus that causes COVID-19 and a host of other conservative discussion topics. The Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have taken aim at Big Tech companies over policies they say lead to suppression of conservative viewpoints online. U.S. Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson has said companies that coordinated their policies with others or misled users about their own policies may have violated the law. Last year under scrutiny from Jordan's House panel, Meta Platforms said the Biden administration had pressured it to censor content. The company ultimately dialed back its content moderation in January. "Alphabet, to our knowledge, has not similarly disavowed the Biden-Harris Administration's attempts to censor speech," Jordan said in a letter to the company on Thursday. Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said the company will "continue to show the committee how we enforce our policies independently, rooted in our commitment to free expression.'
