Latest news with #contempt
CBS News
6 days ago
- General
- CBS News
Judge considers whether Florida Attorney General Uthmeier should be held in contempt over state immigration law
A federal judge was considering Thursday whether Florida's attorney general disobeyed her order prohibiting the enforcement of a new state law making it a misdemeanor for people in the U.S. illegally to enter Florida, and whether he should be held in contempt and sanctioned. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams specified in her ruling last month that her temporary restraining order against enforcing the Florida law applied to all of the state's local law enforcement agencies. The Miami judge later noted that there was a substantial likelihood that the Florida law would be found unconstitutional. But Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier sent out an April 23 letter to Florida's law enforcement agencies saying that he couldn't prevent law enforcement officers from enforcing the law "where there remains no judicial order that properly restrains you from doing so." "As set forth in the brief my office filed today, it is my view that no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida's new illegal entry and reentry laws," Florida's attorney general said in the letter. Florida's immigration law has led to dozens of arrests Dozens of people, including a U.S. citizen, have been arrested under the law. Uthmeier has appealed the judge's order to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. In court papers, Uthmeier said that he was merely notifying local law enforcement agencies in the April 23 letter that he had filed a court brief that held a legal view disagreeing with the judge's order. He had obeyed the judge's order by notifying local law enforcement agencies in an April 18 letter that they couldn't enforce the law while the court case proceeded, according to Uthmeier's court filings. "There is no basis for contempt or sanctions," Uthmeier said. "Interpreting an order to prohibit a state attorney general from disagreeing with a federal order — while following it — would also be an extraordinary, first-of-its-kind assertion of federal judicial power, implicating grave constitutional concerns." But attorneys for an immigrants rights groups that challenged the Florida law said it was unacceptable that the Florida attorney general's April 23 letter "encouraged arrests that he fully understood were specifically prohibited." Florida's attorney general has only added to the confusion, opponents say Even if Uthmeier's arguments are taken at face value, that he was merely stating his legal position, he has done nothing to clear up the confusion despite given ample opportunities, said lawyers for the Florida Immigrant Coalition. They said the options the judge could consider include financial sanctions and referring Uthmeier's conduct to the Florida Bar for disciplinary proceedings or to federal authorities for prosecution. "Considered objectively and in the context of the earlier letter, the Attorney General's second letter plainly undermined the notice he was directed to provide, and invited arrests which he knew would be violations of this court's order," the immigrants rights' lawyers said in court papers. "That is quintessential contempt of court."
Yahoo
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The most 'beautiful' part of Trump's bill is it helps him defy federal courts
Federal judges keep issuing orders blocking some of President Trump's actions – not because there is some judicial conspiracy to thwart him, but because he clearly doesn't care about following the law. In case after case, lawyers for the Trump administration play fast and loose with the facts, trying to game the system, to circumvent the authority of the judiciary, a co-equal branch of our government with the presidency and Congress. Judges have noticed. Some are getting fed up. Contempt of court is looming. Trump's Republican allies in Congress are trying to help him hobble those judges, slipping into the oxymoronically named "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that passed in the U.S. House on May 22 a short provision that would hamper judges from enforcing "contempt citations for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining orders." Those are exactly the type of recent rulings that have so enraged Trump. And the bill doesn't just stymy judges going forward. It would apply retroactively to rulings already in place. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed in the House by the narrowest of margins and now goes to the U.S. Senate, is a budget package that offers tax cuts for the wealthy while ending Medicaid health insurance coverage for millions of low-income Americans and driving the country deeper into debt. One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond. Opinion: I asked Team Trump why they now hate a 'woke' bill he himself signed into law Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, called that "unprecedented." "The greatest impact will be in preventing enforcement of all existing temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions if a bond has not been posted — and rarely were there bonds required," Chemerinsky wrote me in an email. The many components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act have received great scrutiny, but the restriction on legal challenges has received less. Opinion newsletter: Sign up for our newsletter on people, power and policies in the time of Trump from columnist Chris Brennan. Get it delivered to your inbox. "I think it has not received much attention because it is a provision of a large budget bill and because the implications are not obvious," Chemerinsky wrote. "But it will make most existing court orders unenforceable." Trump isn't alone in raging against federal judges who insist that his administration follow the law. That disdain for judicial oversight trickles down through the ranks. Vice President JD Vance, in a May 21 interview with the New York Times, repeatedly said that federal judges should be "deferential" to Trump on matters involving immigration and deportation. And he was clearly offended by recent comments from U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who said federal courts should "check the excesses of Congress or the executive." That's our vice president, a Yale Law School graduate, chafing at the American government's system of checks and balances. Opinion: Supreme Court reminds Trump to follow the law, signaling concern that he won't Another Ivy League-trained lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, refused to commit to the Trump administration obeying federal appellate court rulings when he was questioned by a pair of U.S. Supreme Court justices on May 15. 'We generally respect circuit precedent, but not necessarily in every case," said Sauer, a Harvard Law School graduate. Dan Bongino, a conspiracist podcaster named by Trump to be the FBI deputy director, used one of his last broadcasts in February to urge his new boss to just ignore federal judges who get in his way. "Who's going to arrest him?" Bongino scoffed on his podcast. "The marshals? You guys know who the U.S. Marshals work for? Department of Justice. That is under the executive branch. Donald Trump's going to order his own arrest? This is ridiculous." That's the Trump theme running through all this: a taunt, a dare, a defiance of the law. That must certainly appeal to Trump's most fervent supporters, but it's not what the vast majority of Americans want. A Marquette Law School Poll national survey released on May 22 found that 79% of the 1,004 people asked said that Trump should obey federal court orders. And that number increased to 84% when asked about obeying Supreme Court rulings. A survey in April from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania found that 69% of the 1,363 people asked said, "The president should follow a Supreme Court ruling, even if the president believes the ruling prevents him from protecting the country from a terrorist attack." Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The Pew Research Center, in another survey in April, found that "just 14% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats say that if the Supreme Court rules an action by the administration illegal, it does not have to follow the Supreme Court's ruling." Trump doesn't care about following the law, so he isn't likely to care that the American people want him to do exactly that. He's on the hunt for workarounds − legislative escape clauses to help him ignore judges and avoid responsibility. The Senate, now mulling the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, should strike this very ugly provision. They can take a stand for the rule of law and America's system of checks and balances that Republicans in the House tried to discard. Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan. Sign up for his weekly newsletter, Translating Politics, here. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump's big, beautiful, court-defying bill needs Senate help | Opinion
CNA
23-05-2025
- Politics
- CNA
Najib files contempt proceedings against ex-AG over house arrest royal addendum order
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has filed an application to initiate contempt proceedings against a former attorney-general for allegedly failing to reveal a royal addendum order that would allow the jailed leader to serve his remaining sentence under house arrest. In a statement on Friday (May 23), Najib's legal team said it filed the application against Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh, who is now a Federal Court judge, on Wednesday. Najib's lawyers claim it is based on evidence that Terrirudin had knowledge of the purported addendum order issued by former king Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah, who is the Pahang ruler, but had chosen to 'mislead the High Court', reported news outlet New Straits Times. According to the lawyers, a copy of the order, dated Jan 29, 2024, was delivered to Najib through his son Mohamad Nizar Najib and its authenticity was confirmed in writing almost a year later, on Jan 4 this year, by the Pahang Royal Council. The document was personally addressed to Terrirudin, who allegedly instructed his officers to dismiss Najib's claims as 'a fishing expedition, speculative and based on hearsay evidence' when the issue was raised. 'As a public officer, the former AG (Attorney-General) owed the court a paramount duty of candour,' said the statement by Najib's lawyers, as quoted by Free Malaysia Today. 'A deliberate failure to do so undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and indeed an obstruction of justice itself,' it added. Contempt of court refers to acts that hinder the functionality of the judiciary. Legal proceedings can be initiated to sanction such behaviour but prior approval – or leave – from the court is required. Najib's lawyers said the application for leave is a necessary first step in holding Terrirudin accountable by giving him the opportunity to respond to the allegations, The Edge reported. Terrirudin was appointed as a Federal Court judge in November last year and previously evaded queries from reporters on the matter of the royal addendum issued by the former king, Free Malaysia Today reported. Najib's lawyer Shafee Abdullah told the Court of Appeal during a hearing in January that the addendum was sent by the palace to Terrirudin on Jan 29 last year. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim confirmed in January this year that the purported addendum order was received by Terrirudin but it was sent back to the Istana Negara or National Palace after current king Sultan Ibrahim was inaugurated. Shafee voiced the intention to initiate contempt proceedings in February, and current Attorney-General Mohd Dusuki Mokhtar wrote to him to reconsider the move, The Edge reported. ROYAL ADDENDUM SAGA STILL ROILING POLITICAL WATERS Najib's fight to serve the remainder of his jail term for corruption related to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) scandal at home has roiled Malaysia's political waters. It has sparked friction in Anwar's unity government, which comprises four coalitions, including the one headed by United Malays National Organisation (UMNO). Najib was the former president of UMNO. Najib began serving his prison term in August 2022 and had his sentence reduced from 12 to six years by the Pardons Board in February last year. The board also reduced his RM210 million (US$49.38 million) fine to RM50 million. Najib claimed that former king Sultan Abdullah had issued an order for him to be under house arrest during a Jan 29, 2024 meeting of the Pardons Board, one day before Sultan Abdullah ended his reign as Malaysia's monarch. In January this year, the Court of Appeal granted Najib leave to initiate judicial review proceedings to serve house arrest. The following month, however, the Malaysian government launched a challenge to the Court of Appeal ruling. UMNO leaders aligned with Najib have called for the current king Sultan Ibrahim Sultan Iskandar to grant the jailed politician – who is still facing other 1MDB-related corruption charges in the Malaysian courts – a full pardon. But the unity government's other partners opposed the move, insisting that Najib had received a fair trial. Sultan Abdullah in February had called on all parties to 'stop further discussions' regarding the royal order he had allegedly issued, stressing that the matter was before the courts and called on all parties to respect the 'legal process'. In January, the AGC had also sought a gag order to ban public discussion of Najib's judicial review claim that the royal addendum decree existed.
Malay Mail
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
AGC defends ex-AG Terrirudin, says Najib's contempt bid ‘premature and unfair' as appeal on royal addendum pending
KUALA LUMPUR, May 23 – The Attorney General's Chambers (AGC) has reiterated today that contempt proceedings filed against former attorney general Tan Sri Ahmad Terrirudin Mohd Salleh are premature, as related matters are still under appeal at the Federal Court. In a statement, the AGC confirmed that the application for leave to initiate contempt proceedings, filed by Datuk Seri Najib Razak on May 21, concerns issues that are already the subject of an unresolved appeal scheduled to be heard on July 1 and 2. 'To initiate contempt proceedings while the appeal is ongoing is unfair, premature, and prejudicial,' the AGC said. It also defended Terrirudin, stating he had acted in accordance with his constitutional duties as attorney general and denied allegations that he had misled the court. The AGC stressed that the High Court had granted a stay on April 28 for all proceedings related to the judicial review until the Federal Court rules on the matter. On May 22, the High Court issued written confirmation that the stay applies to all current and future proceedings, including the contempt application. 'Any attempt to initiate or continue with contempt proceedings while the stay order remains in effect is a direct violation of the Court's directive,' the AGC warned, adding it would move to dismiss such applications as an abuse of court process. The AGC also urged all parties to respect the judicial process and refrain from actions or statements that could interfere with the Federal Court's deliberations. 'Justice must be upheld within the framework of the rule of law, not through public statements or side litigation,' the statement concluded. Earlier today, Najib's legal representatives accused Terrirudin of failing to act on a royal Addendum Order that purportedly called for Najib to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest. In February 2024, the Federal Territories Pardons Board — chaired by Al-Sultan Abdullah — halved Najib's sentence from his SRC International trial conviction to six years. Najib subsequently claimed that Al-Sultan Abdullah had also issued a 'royal addendum' for him to serve the remaining sentence under house arrest.
Free Malaysia Today
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Najib files contempt action against ex-AG Terrirudin
Former prime minister Najib Razak's lawyer told the Court of Appeal that the house arrest addendum was sent by the Pahang palace to then attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh (right) on Jan 29, 2024. PETALING JAYA : Najib Razak has filed an application to initiate contempt proceedings against former attorney-general Ahmad Terrirudin Salleh. In a statement today, his legal team, Messrs Shafee & Co, said the application was filed on May 21. They claimed that Terrirudin, while serving as AG, failed to reveal the former king's royal addendum allowing Najib to serve the remainder of his jail sentence under house arrest. According to the lawyers, a copy of the order was delivered to Najib through his son, Nizar, and its authenticity was confirmed in writing by the Pahang Royal Council on Jan 4. They alleged that the document was personally addressed to Terrirudin and, thus, suggested that the former AG had knowledge of it. Despite allegedly being aware of the order, Najib's lawyers claimed that Terrirudin had instructed his officers to dismiss Najib's claims as 'a fishing expedition, speculative and based on hearsay evidence' when the matter was raised. 'As a public officer, the former AG owed the court a paramount duty of candour,' the statement read. 'A deliberate failure to do so undermines public confidence in the administration of justice, and indeed an obstruction of justice itself,' they said. However, they also acknowledged the sensitivity of the proceedings and called for all parties to refrain from speculation, saying the courts should be allowed to handle the matter 'in the ordinary course of justice'. During a hearing in January, Najib's senior counsel Shafee Abdullah told the Court of Appeal that the addendum was sent by the palace to Terrirudin on Jan 29, 2024. Terrirudin, who was appointed as a Federal Court judge last November, previously evaded queries from reporters on the matter of the royal addendum issued by the former king, Al-Sultan Abdullah Sultan Ahmad Shah of Pahang. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has confirmed that the addendum was received by Terrirudin but said it was sent back to Istana Negara after Sultan Ibrahim became the 17th Yang di-Pertuan Agong. Najib obtained leave from the Court of Appeal to begin judicial review proceedings to enforce a royal decree, but all proceedings have since been suspended pending disposal of the current AG's appeal to the Federal Court. The Federal Territories Pardons Board announced on Feb 2 last year that Najib's prison sentence in his SRC International case had been halved from 12 years to six, and his fine reduced from RM210 million to RM50 million. The former prime minister is currently serving his jail sentence at Kajang prison.
