Latest news with #USConstitution
Mint
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Mint
Who is Maurene Comey? US Justice Department fires prosecutor in cases involving Sean 'Diddy' Combs, Epstein case
The US Justice Department fired Maurene Comey, the federal prosecutor in the cases involving Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell and music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs, sources told Reuters on Wednesday. Maurene Comey could not immediately be reached for comment. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The development was reported earlier by Politico and ABC News. Maurene Comey was not provided an explanation for her firing and was given a memo that cited the president's powers to terminate employees under Article 2 of the US Constitution, the two sources said, asking not to be identified. Maurene Comey had successfully prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and associate of Epstein. Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2022 for helping accused sex offender and globetrotting financier Epstein sexually abuse teenage girls. Epstein, a wealthy financier and convicted sex offender, was facing federal charges of sex-trafficking minors when he died by suicide in jail in 2019. He had pleaded not guilty, and the case was dismissed after his death. The Epstein case has been in the news recently after the Trump administration reversed course last week on its pledge to release documents it had suggested contained major revelations about Epstein and his alleged clientele. The reversal has enraged some of Trump's most loyal followers. Maurene Comey also prosecuted Combs, who is to be sentenced on October 3 after the music mogul was convicted on charges of transporting prostitutes to engage in drug-fueled sexual performances. Combs, 55, remains in the Brooklyn jail where he has been held since his arrest last September. Jurors cleared him recently of the most serious charges he faced. Maurene Comey is also the eldest daughter of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director James Comey. James Comey was fired by US President Donald Trump during his first term in the White House, and he is currently under investigation along with former CIA Director John Brennan. Trump has previously attacked both Brennan and James Comey for their roles in the investigations about claims of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, which Trump won. The Justice Department has been firing prosecutors who have worked on cases involving Trump or his political allies. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday fired several more DOJ employees who worked for Special Counsel Jack Smith to investigate Trump's retention of classified records and efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Why Supreme Court's approval of 1,400 US Education Department layoffs is called 'willfully blind' and 'naive'
US Education Department layoffs: Why Supreme Court's decision to allow 1,400 cuts is 'willfully blind' and 'naive,' judges warn US Education Department layoffs 2025: The US Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to proceed with his plan to lay off nearly 1,400 employees from the US Department of Education, effectively enabling a large-scale downsizing of the agency. This ruling reverses a preliminary injunction issued by Boston's Judge Myong Joun, who had blocked the layoffs, citing concerns that the cuts would cripple the department's operations. The decision has sparked sharp criticism from three liberal justices, who dissented, branding the Supreme Court's ruling as "willfully blind" and "naive." The dissenters argue that the ruling threatens the constitutional principle of separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to effectively dismantle a federal agency by firing its employees. Supreme Court backs Trump's plan despite legal challenges The Supreme Court's order permits the Trump administration to move forward with the mass layoffs, pausing Judge Joun's injunction that had prevented the terminations. The Education Department staff affected by the layoffs had been on paid leave since March, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without the injunction, these employees would have been terminated in early June. The case involves two consolidated lawsuits, one filed by several school districts in Massachusetts and education groups including the American Federation of Teachers, and another by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. Both suits argue that the layoffs amount to an illegal closure of the Education Department, leaving it unable to fulfil its statutory duties such as supporting special education, distributing financial aid, and enforcing civil rights laws. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, wrote that the majority was "either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive," warning of a "grave" threat to the US Constitution's separation of powers, as reported by the Associated Press. Department of Education response and ongoing disputes Education Secretary Linda McMahon criticised the delay caused by the lower court's injunction and welcomed the Supreme Court's intervention, calling it "a shame" it took the highest court to confirm the president's authority over federal staffing and agency operations, as reported by the Associated Press. Meanwhile, more than 20 US states have filed lawsuits against the administration over billions of dollars in frozen education funding that support after-school care, summer programmes and other initiatives. The department has indicated it is "actively assessing how to reintegrate" the affected employees, requesting updates on their employment status to ensure a smooth return to duty if possible. Summary of key details Issue Detail Number of layoffs Nearly 1,400 employees Initial court action Judge Myong Joun issued an injunction blocking layoffs Supreme Court ruling Allowed layoffs to proceed in a 6–3 decision Dissenting justices Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan Lawsuits Filed by Massachusetts school districts, education groups, and 21 Democratic attorneys general Department duties affected Special education, financial aid distribution, civil rights enforcement Employee status On paid leave since March; no full return to work during injunction The Supreme Court ruling thus permits the Trump administration's controversial downsizing plan to continue despite ongoing legal challenges and warnings from dissenting justices about the potential damage to the Education Department's capacity and constitutional governance. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Explained: US supreme court allows Donald Trump to dismantle education department - why it is a big deal
Image viaTL;DR Trump slashes Ed Department : Supreme Court lets Trump fire 1,300+ employees, gutting the federal education agency. Civil rights hit hard : Office for Civil Rights loses over half its branches. Congress bypassed : Critics say only lawmakers can shut down departments — Trump's doing it by pink slip. Court gives green light : Ruling is temporary but clears path for mass firings. Backlash begins : Unions, Democrats warn of chaos for students and lost protections. Trump cheers win : Calls it a "major victory" for parents, promises to shift control to states. In a seismic decision that could redefine the limits of presidential power, the US Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump to effectively dismantle the Department of Education—firing more than 1,300 employees and gutting key civil rights protections—without a single vote from Congress. The move, effectively halving the department's workforce, marks a dramatic escalation in the administration's effort to shrink the federal role in American education. Here's a breakdown of what the ruling means, how it happened, and what's likely to come next. What happened? On July 14, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned emergency order allowing the Trump administration to proceed with firing over 1,300 employees at the Department of Education. That amounts to more than 50 percent of its staff. The order did not include a vote count or legal reasoning, which is typical for such applications. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that President Trump had no authority to unilaterally dismantle an agency created by Congress. What is Trump trying to do? On March 20, Trump signed an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling the department. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Get ₹2Cr life cover@ ₹700 p.m. ICICI Pru Life Insurance Plan Get Quote Undo The order cited low test scores and bureaucratic inefficiency. McMahon claimed the plan would promote 'efficiency and accountability' while returning education policymaking to the states. The department oversees college loans, enforces civil rights in schools, monitors academic performance, and supports students with disabilities. Critics argue its dismantling would erode all of these functions. Why is this legally controversial? The Department of Education was established by Congress in 1979. Under the US Constitution, only Congress can create or eliminate federal agencies. That's the argument made by 21 Democratic state attorneys general, several school districts, and the American Federation of Teachers, who sued to block Trump's executive order. In May, Judge Myong J. Joun of the District of Massachusetts ruled in their favour, ordering the reinstatement of fired workers. He held that Trump's order amounted to an unconstitutional shutdown of a congressionally authorised agency. An appeals court upheld the ruling. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now allowed the firings to proceed while the case continues. What's left of the Education Department? Before Trump returned to office, the department had over 4,000 employees. After the mass terminations, fewer than 2,000 remain. Particularly hard-hit is the Office for Civil Rights, with seven of its twelve regional offices closed. Administration officials insist that statutory duties will still be performed, but acknowledge that 'many discretionary functions are better left to the states.' What are critics saying? Justice Sotomayor warned the decision would cause 'untold harm' to students, delaying or denying them educational opportunities and leaving them vulnerable to discrimination without federal enforcement mechanisms. 'This isn't streamlining. It's sabotage,' said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Sheria Smith, president of the Education Department workers' union, called it 'an effort to play with the futures of millions of Americans.' Why does this matter beyond education? The court's ruling reflects a broader expansion of executive power. Just last week, the justices allowed Trump to proceed with sweeping cuts across several other departments, including State, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development. The Education Department case raises a crucial constitutional question: can a president sideline an entire agency without congressional approval, simply by gutting its personnel? If the answer is yes, it sets a precedent that future presidents — of either party — could use to shrink or even hollow out other federal departments without legislative input. What happens next? Although the Supreme Court's order is technically temporary, its effects are immediate. Workers who had been reinstated will now be terminated again. The department will continue to operate with a skeleton crew while the case plays out in court. Congress could intervene to limit or reverse the firings, but that appears unlikely in the current political climate. Republicans control the House, and Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate. Bottom line The Supreme Court's decision allows Donald Trump to execute his most radical reorganisation of the federal government to date. By hollowing out the Department of Education, he has advanced a long-standing conservative goal: returning control of schools to the states and curbing federal oversight. Supporters see it as overdue reform. Opponents see it as reckless and authoritarian. Either way, American education — and American governance — may never be the same. A Proper Education | Yes, Prime Minister | BBC Comedy Greats FAQ — Quick Answers to a Messy Situation Q: Did Trump really just fire half the Education Department? Yes — more than 1,300 jobs gone. The department is now running at half strength. Q: Wait, can a president just kill a federal agency? Not officially. Only Congress can. But Trump is hollowing it out without technically "abolishing" it. Q: What about students? Expect less oversight. Civil rights enforcement, special ed, and student loan support could take a big hit. Q: Is this permanent? Not yet. The Supreme Court ruling is temporary — but the damage may already be done. Q: What's the legal fight about? Opponents say Trump overstepped. Supporters say he's just streamlining. Courts will decide. Q: Who's angry? Democrats, teachers' unions, civil rights groups — and three Supreme Court justices in dissent. Q: Who's celebrating? Trump, his base, and anyone who wants to shrink the federal government. Q: So what now? The department limps on, the lawsuits roll forward — and the precedent gets more dangerous by the day.
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Straits Times
US nuclear regulator asks job seekers political questions
WASHINGTON - A job notice posted by the US nuclear power regulator asks applicants political questions as the administration of President Donald Trump seeks to increase influence over an independent agency. The posting, seen by Reuters on July 14, asks applicants how their commitment to the US Constitution and founding US principles inspired them to pursue the job. The specific opening is for a senior operations engineer serving as an inspector in the division of operating reactor safety at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Also among the questions asked are how applicants would use their experience to improve government efficiency and effectiveness, and, 'How would you advance the President's Executive Orders and policy priorities in this role?'. Mr Trump has been trying to speed up NRC approvals of nuclear power plants as the United States faces the first hike in power demand in 20 years, driven by the boom in artificial intelligence and data centres. The Republican president signed executive orders in May seeking to overhaul the NRC and directing the agency, which was founded as a regulator independent of the executive branch, to rule on new licences within 18 months. Mr Scott Burnell, an NRC spokesperson, said on July 14 that the agency was 'following Office of Personnel Management requirements regarding job postings', referring to the US government's human resources agency. Under previous US administrations, questions in NRC job postings typically emphasised the applicant's work experience pertaining to operating a nuclear reactor, not an applicant's political opinions, said a person who works at the agency who requested anonymity. In addition, a former chairman of the NRC told Reuters on July 14 that the questions on the posting amount to a political litmus test. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. World Trump arms Ukraine and threatens sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil Multimedia From local to global: What made top news in Singapore over the last 180 years? Singapore Turning tragedy into advocacy: Woman finds new purpose after paralysis Singapore HSA intensifies crackdown on vapes; young suspected Kpod peddlers nabbed in Bishan, Yishun Opinion Sumiko at 61: When beauty fades, why do some accept it better than others? Singapore Man charged over distributing nearly 3 tonnes of vapes in one day in Bishan, Ubi Avenue 3 Singapore Man allegedly attacks woman with knife at Kallang Wave Mall, to be charged with attempted murder Singapore Ex-cop charged after he allegedly went on MHA portal, unlawfully shared info with man 'If I saw something like this as Chairman, I would tell the staff to replace them immediately with relevant professional questions, not something that reads like a lost chapter from Animal Farm on how to destroy professional expertise in government,' said Mr Greg Jaczko, who served as NRC chairman from 2009 to 2012 under former President Barack Obama. Mr Jaczko was referring to George Orwell's 1945 satirical novel. In the current job posting at issue, not all of the six questions were related to politics. One, for example, asks how work ethics have contributed to the applicant's achievements, another asks them to confirm that they did not use AI in their responses. Mr Trump last month fired Mr Chris Hanson, a Democratic NRC commissioner, a move that was criticised by nearly 30 former NRC officials and employees. Mr David Wright, the current NRC chair, told a Senate committee last week that a representative from Mr Trump's Department of Government Efficiency is working within the NRC on reforming the agency. REUTERS
DW
3 days ago
- Politics
- DW
Can Trump revoke Rosie O'Donnell's US citizenship? – DW – 07/14/2025
In an escalating feud, the US-born actor fired back at the president's threat to take away her citizenship. But could he even legally do it? "Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her Citizenship," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Saturday. "She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her." Is revoking the citizenship of the actor, who was born in the US, something President Trump could legally do? Following the post over the weekend, experts were quick to point out that the threat is unconstitutional, citing the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, which established that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." "The president has no authority to take away the citizenship of a native-born US citizen," University of Virginia School of Law professor Amanda Frost told news agency the Associated Press. "In short, we are a nation founded on the principle that the people choose the government; the government cannot choose the people." US citizens can voluntarily renounce their citizenship, but the process is strictly regulated. It involves two separate interviews and requires taking an "oath of renunciation of US nationality," as outlined by the State Department. The US president has similarly threatened to strip away citizenship from naturalized citizens, notably of his former ally, billionaire Elon Musk, who was born in South Africa. He also questioned the citizenship status of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic politician was born in Uganda, and moved to New York City at age 7, becoming a US citizen in 2018. A Supreme Court ruling from 1967 determined that the government can't usually strip citizenship without the person's consent, but it can still happen in cases where fraud was involved in the citizenship process. "Denaturalization is no longer so rare," Cassandra Burke Robertson, a professor at Case Western Reserve University's law school, told news site Axios. The increase began under the Obama administration, she noted, as new digital tools allowed authorities to track down potential naturalization fraud cases. "But the Trump administration, with its overall immigration crackdown, is taking denaturalization to new levels," Robertson added. The Trump administration is also seeking to end birthright citizenship. On July 10, a US federal judge issued a new nationwide ruling blocking Trump's executive order, but the constitutionality of the order is still unresolved. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video The feud between Trump and O'Donnell spans nearly two decades, as the talk show host first publicly commented on Trump's lack of moral standards in 2006 amid a "Miss USA Pageant" controversy. That prompted a vicious reaction from the then-host of reality TV show "The Apprentice." The grudge only deepened when Trump became president in 2016, as the comedian kept criticizing his policies. At the beginning of 2025, O'Donnell left the US in reaction to Trump's reelection: "It's been heartbreaking to see what's happening politically and hard for me personally as well," she said on TikTok in March, as she revealed having moved to Ireland with her child. She is reported to be in the process of securing Irish citizenship through descent. She has since pursued her criticism of Trump's policies from abroad. Most recently, in a TikTok that some observers believe could have prompted Trump to react with his threat on Truth Social, she criticized his administration's response to the Texas floods, claiming the president gutted "all of the early warning systems and the weathering‑forecast abilities of the government." Following Trump's headline-grabbing Truth Social post, O'Donnell fired back on Sunday with an Instagram post featuring a photo of Donald Trump with his arm over the shoulder of child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In the post, O'Donnell dares Trump: "You want to revoke my citizenship? Go ahead and try, King Joffrey with a tangerine spray," she wrote, referring to a much loathed, sadistic, authoritarian character from "Game of Thrones." She also listed some of the simple things that make her threatening to the president: "You call me a threat to humanity — but I'm everything you fear: a loud woman, a queer woman, a mother who tells the truth, an American who got out of the country before you set it ablaze."
