Latest news with #federal court
France 24
14 hours ago
- Politics
- France 24
US court to decide if climate collapse is 'unconstitutional'
The case, Lighthiser v. Trump, at a Montana federal court is among the most high-profile in a new wave of US climate litigation That's the question a federal judge in Montana will weigh this September, as a group of young Americans sues the Trump administration -- arguing its aggressive fossil fuel agenda is not only accelerating climate change but violating their constitutional rights. Courts worldwide are emerging as tools for driving climate action against political inertia, with the International Court of Justice set to deliver a landmark ruling Wednesday. "It's very intimidating to think about my future," lead plaintiff Eva Lighthiser told AFP during a recent protest outside Congress, where she and other youth plaintiffs were joined by Democratic lawmakers. "The climate is very unreliable, it's destabilized, and it's going to get worse -- and that is a lot to reconcile with as somebody who's just entering adulthood," said the 19-year-old from Livingston, Montana. Eva Lighthiser, 19, of Montana, the lead plaintiff in Lighthiser v. Trump, said it was 'intimidating' thinking of her future due to the climate crisis © Alex WROBLEWSKI / AFP Their case, Lighthiser v. Trump, is among the most high-profile in a new wave of US climate litigation. It hinges on the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which prohibits the government from depriving people of fundamental rights without due process of law. Twenty-two young plaintiffs -- including several minors -- are represented by the nonprofit Our Children's Trust. They are aiming to build on two recent state-level wins. In 2023, a Montana judge sided with youth plaintiffs who argued the state's failure to consider climate impacts when issuing oil and gas permits violated their right to a clean environment. A year later in Hawaii, young activists reached a settlement to accelerate decarbonization of the transport sector. Wildfires, floods, anxiety Now, they're targeting President Donald Trump's second-term executive orders, which declared a "National Energy Emergency." Trump directed agencies to "unleash" fossil fuel production while stalling clean energy projects. The suit also alleges the administration unlawfully suppressed public access to federal climate science. Mat Dos Santos, general counsel for Our Children's Trust, told AFP the conservative-dominated Supreme Court has shown willingness to hear "right to life" cases. "We're trying to make sure that the right to life really extends to living children," they said, "and that it means you have the right to enjoy your planetary existence." In an unusual move, 19 state attorneys general led by Montana have filed to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration -- a sign of how seriously the case is being taken, said Dos Santos. "Growing up in rural Montana, there's a lot of emphasis on our natural surroundings," said Lighthiser. Smoke-choked skies, relentless floods, and her family's climate-forced relocation have shaped her short life. In an unusual move, 19 state attorneys general led by Montana have filed to intervene on behalf of the Trump administration -- a sign of how seriously the case is being taken © Alex WROBLEWSKI / AFP She plans to study environmental science and says she struggles with anxiety and depression -- common among the plaintiffs AFP interviewed. Joseph Lee, a 19-year-old student at UC San Diego, said the threat of climate disaster has made him question whether he should start a family. Raised near an oil refinery in California, he suffered severe asthma as a child. His family briefly moved to North Carolina to escape the pollution, only to face worsening flash floods. Patrick Parenteau, an emeritus environmental law professor at Vermont Law School, said the case draws on the same constitutional logic as rulings on interracial marriage, desegregation, and -- until recently -- abortion rights. But while he supports it in principle, he doubts it will succeed. Long shot Judge Dana Christensen, who will hear the case September 16–17, has issued environmentally friendly rulings before. But even if he sides with the plaintiffs, the case is likely to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. "I think the plaintiffs understand that's an uphill battle, certainly with the Supreme Court we have," Parenteau said. "But the point is, they need to try." Other scholars are less sympathetic. Jonathan Adler, a law professor at William & Mary, dismisses such efforts as more geared toward public opinion than legal victory. Lighthiser v. Trump is "based on a very expansive and unmoored theory of what the power of federal courts is," Adler told AFP, calling it ungrounded in legal doctrine. He said more viable strategies include suing agencies over specific regulations or filing tort claims against polluters -- not sweeping constitutional challenges. "Climate change is a serious problem, and we should be doing more about it," Adler said. "But the sorts of legal strategies in court that are most viable aren't the sorts of things that are tailored for attention." © 2025 AFP
The Independent
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6B research cuts were illegal
File about 6 EDT Mon. Desk edited 7/19 by jjcooper. —- Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college — a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government. If U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decisionmaking at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
Al Arabiya
2 days ago
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Harvard Is Hoping Court Rules Trump Administration's $2.6b Research Cuts Were Illegal
Harvard University will appear in federal court Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6 billion from the storied college – a pivotal moment in its battle against the federal government. If US District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the Trump administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money. 'This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard,' the university said in its complaint. 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear: Allow the Government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions.' A second lawsuit over the cuts, filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter, has been consolidated with the university's. Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics, and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue. The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later, the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism. The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism – a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Trump administration orders release of Epstein court documents amid mounting pressure
Update: Date: 2025-07-19T07:55:16.000Z Title: Trump administration orders release of Epstein court documents Content: The US Department of Justice asked a federal court on Friday to unseal grand jury transcripts in Jeffrey Epstein's case at the direction of Donald Trump amid a firestorm over the administration's handling of records related to the wealthy financier. The move – coming a day after a Wall Street Journal story put a spotlight on Trump's relationship with Epstein – seeks to contain a growing controversy that has engulfed the administration since it announced that it would not be releasing more government files from Epstein's sex trafficking case. Todd Blanche, the US deputy attorney general, filed motions urging the court to unseal the Epstein transcripts as well as those in the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein. Epstein killed himself in 2019 shortly after his arrest while awaiting trial. The justice department's announcement that it would not be making public any more Epstein files enraged parts of Trump's base in part because members of his own administration had hyped the expected release and stoked conspiracies around the well-connected financier. Trump's demand to release the grand jury transcripts came after the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday on a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter bearing Trump's name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, 'Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret,' according to the newspaper. The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely. Trump denied writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory' and promised to sue. Trump said he spoke to both to the paper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, and its top editor, Emma Tucker, and told them the letter was 'fake'. In other developments: Attorney general Pam Bondi called the case 'a matter of public concern' in a formal request asking a federal judge to unseal grand jury transcripts from the 2019 investigation into Epstein, the late sex offender and longtime associate of Donald Trump. Dick Durbin, the senior Democrat on the senate judiciary committee wrote to Bondi to ask about the work of the 1,000 FBI personnel who reviewed approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in March. 'My office was told that these personnel were instructed to 'flag' any records in which President Trump was mentioned', Durbin wrote. 'What happened to the records mentioning President Trump once they were flagged?' he asked. Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has called for Barack Obama and former senior US national security officials to be prosecuted after accusing them of a 'treasonous conspiracy' intended to show that Trump's 2016 presidential election win was due to Russian interference. The Trump administration has decided to destroy $9.7m worth of contraceptives rather than send them abroad to women in need. A state department spokesperson confirmed that the decision had been made – a move that will cost US taxpayers $167,000. Marco Rubio, the secretary of state barred Brazilian supreme court justice Alexandre de Moraes from the United States in retaliation for the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil who has been charged for his role in allegedly leading an attempted coup following his loss in the 2022 election. Democrats are condemning CBS for its decision to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, noting the news comes a few days after its host criticized the network's parent company, Paramount, for settling a $16m lawsuit with Donald Trump. Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who appeared as a guest on Colbert's show on Thursday night, later wrote on social media: 'If Paramount and CBS ended the Late Show for political reasons, the public deserves to know. And deserves better.'
Fox News
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Diddy beats RICO, found not guilty of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking
The jury in Sean "Diddy" Combs' sex trafficking and racketeering trial reached a verdict on all counts Wednesday. The jury found Diddy not guilty of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. He was found guilty on both counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. COUNT 1 - RICO: NOT GUILTY COUNT 2 - SEX TRAFFICKING, CASSIE VENTURA: NOT GUILTY COUNT 3 - MANN ACT TRANSPORTATION, CASSIE VENTURA: GUILTY COUNT 4 - SEX TRAFFICKING, JANE: NOT GUILTY COUNT 5 - MANN ACT TRANSPORTATION, JANE: GUILTY A federal RICO violation can result in a 20-year sentence. The transportation to engage in prostitution charge could carry a sentence of up to 10 years, while sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion may carry a 20-year sentence. "We've been saying all along in this case that it's been overcharged by the government, that they were taking these very nuanced relationships, and trying to make them criminal," Harvey Weinstein's former lawyer, Donna Rotunno, told Fox News. "I think Marc [Agnifilo] did a really good job in his closing arguments, highlighting that to the jury. Overall, this is a huge loss to the government, the money that they spent on this prosecution, the amount of press, notoriety, this is a definite win for Mr. Combs." DIDDY JURY DEADLOCKED AFTER RAPPER'S DEFENSE PLAYED 'HIGH STAKES POKER': EXPERT Diddy's jury seemed to believe that his relationships were genuine, according to Fox News contributor Paul Mauro. "At the end of the day, the jury did not believe that the sex trafficking was coercive," the retired NYPD inspector said. "They seemed to believe the relationships were genuine and/or transactional. That took those charges and the RICO with it. It argues that the case was overcharged under the evidence the government had." Parties will be granted a few hours to arrange arguments regarding Diddy's detention. The judge joked that he assumed Diddy does not want to return to MDC Brooklyn. The rapper shook his head very exaggeratedly and then looked up with his hands together as if praying. After the judge left, Diddy knelt down with his arms on the chair in front of him. He then got up, faced the gallery and started clapping. The courtroom opened up in applause and cheers for him. Combs could be heard saying "thank God" and "I love you" several times. The lawyers all hugged. Defense attorney Teny Geragos was crying as she hugged Combs' family. The family all embraced sharing hugs and handshakes. People in the courtroom shouted "dream team" to the lawyers. WATCH: CROWDS GATHER OUTSIDE NYC COURTROOM AFTER DIDDY'S VERDICT REVEALED DIDDY JURY SETBACK COULD INDICATE A 'STEALTH JUROR,' MIGHT SIGNAL MAJOR ADVANTAGE FOR DEFENSE: EXPERT Cassie Ventura's lawyer reacted to the verdict on behalf of his client. Cassie, who dated Diddy from 2007 until 2018, testified during the sex trafficking and racketeering trial. "This entire criminal process started when our client Cassie Ventura had the courage to file her civil complaint in November 2023. Although the jury did not find Combs guilty of sex trafficking Cassie beyond a reasonable doubt, she paved the way for a jury to find him guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution. By coming forward with her experience, Cassie has left an indelible mark on both the entertainment industry and the fight for justice. We must repeat – with no reservation – that we believe and support our client who showed exemplary courage throughout this trial. She displayed unquestionable strength and brought attention to the realities of powerful men in our orbit and the misconduct that has persisted for decades without repercussion. This case proved that change is long overdue, and we will continue to fight on behalf of survivors." Diddy returned to the courtroom Wednesday morning wearing another beige sweater while the jury continued deliberating. He hugged his lawyers and waved to his mother and a supporter who was whispering, "Hi Diddy" to him. The rapper also made the heart symbol with his hand. Combs then spoke to the court marshals briefly before standing and facing his family. He said a brief prayer, asking God to watch over his family and bless the jurors. The family all bowed their heads and said "amen" when Diddy finished. The family then clapped. On Tuesday, after nearly 14 hours of deliberation, the jury revealed they had reached a verdict on four of the five counts Diddy faces. The jury indicated they couldn't reach a unanimous decision on the racketeering charge, one of the most serious counts against the disgraced music mogul. After receiving the fourth note of substance from the jury, the court directed them to continue deliberating on the racketeering conspiracy. The jury was brought out and a portion of the instructions were re-read by Judge Arun Subramanian. When the jury was brought back into the courtroom, the judge asked them to keep deliberating, saying it is their duty to discuss among themselves and form opinions. Judge Subramanian said the jurors must reach a unanimous verdict, but must not give up their convictions merely to return a verdict or satisfy the rest of the jurors. The jury was then dismissed back to the jury room. WATCH: CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY 'NOT SURPRISED' BY PARTIAL VERDICT IN DIDDY TRIAL DIDDY JURY REACHES PARTIAL VERDICT IN SEX TRAFFICKING, RACKETEERING TRIAL Jurors began deliberating on Monday, June 30, after hearing seven weeks of trial testimony. The prosecution chose to rest the case on June 24. Special Agent Joseph Cerciello was the final witness to take the stand for the prosecution, making him the 34th person to testify. Diddy's defense called no witnesses. Diddy pleaded not guilty to charges of racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. The disgraced music mogul was arrested in September 2024, months after Homeland Security Investigations raided the Los Angeles and Miami homes of the rapper. LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS During closing arguments, Diddy's attorney, Marc Agnifilo, insisted the rapper was innocent. He noted that it takes courage for a juror to acquit. "Return him to his family who have been waiting for him." He also accused the prosecution of bringing a "fake trial" against Diddy, claiming the government went after his "private sex life." According to his lawyer, none of the prosecution witnesses testified to engaging in racketeering. Agnifilo pointed out the disgraced music mogul's former employees all described working for him as hard, but also said it was like "going to Harvard Business School." CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER Before the defense's closing arguments, the government explained how the trial testimony proved each charge against Diddy – two counts of sex trafficking, racketeering and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution – over the course of roughly four hours. The government emphasized in their argument that Diddy ran an alleged criminal enterprise with full control. The prosecution pointed out that the jury heard testimony, saw texts, viewed bank records and heard audio allegedly showing the "Last Night" rapper committing crime after crime for decades. Prosecutors argued the disgraced music mogul used his inner circle, money and influence to cover up the alleged crimes he committed. "Over the last several weeks, you've learned a lot about Sean Combs," Slavik said at the start of closing statements. "He's a leader of a criminal enterprise. He doesn't take no for an answer." CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
