Latest news with #federalcourt
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge Torches Trump For Turning Into Henry II With His Wild Rants
A federal judge compared Donald Trump to Henry II for his blatant efforts to punish his administration's critics. While overseeing a lawsuit Monday concerning the Trump administration's crackdown on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian speech, U.S. District Judge Willliam Young referred to the twelfth-century English king while mulling whether the president's penchant for publicizing his every personal problem ever inspired his underlings to take action. Young cited Henry II's famous line, 'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?' The offhand remark led errant knights to murder Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who'd sought to increase the power of the Catholic Church. Trump 'doesn't have errant knights, but he's got Stephen Miller,' Young quipped, according to Politico's senior legal correspondent Kyle Cheney. Young pointed out that whenever the president had a problem with someone, especially in government, that person tended to find themselves facing a spate of problems they hadn't had before. For example, after Trump had his explosive feud with Elon Musk, the government began to review its contracts with SpaceX. After beefing for months with Senator Adam Schiff, last week, the president accused him of 'mortgage fraud' and said he should 'pay the price of prison.' Young also questioned Trump's motor-mouthed attitude, while his administration appeared intent on violating the First Amendment. 'The president is a master of speech and certainly brilliantly uses his right to free speech,' said Young. 'Whether he recognizes or not whether other people have any right to free speech is questionable.' Last week, Young heard testimony from four veteran officers from the Department of Homeland Security who recounted their superiors' unusual requests to arrest green card holders and noncitizen academics who had committed no crime.
Reuters
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Judges reject Trump's pick for top New Jersey federal prosecutor, DOJ removes successor
WASHINGTON, July 22 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department accused a panel of New Jersey federal court judges of political motives for declining to permanently appoint President Donald Trump's former lawyer Alina Habba as the state's top federal prosecutor. The judges on the U.S. District Court in New Jersey named Desiree Grace, the second highest-ranking official in the U.S. attorney's office, to replace Habba on Tuesday. Hours later Attorney General Pam Bondi said Grace also had been removed. "This Department of Justice does not tolerate rogue judges — especially when they threaten the President's core Article II powers," Bondi wrote in a post on X, referring to Trump's authority under the U.S. Constitution. Federal law allows district courts to intervene if an interim U.S. attorney has not received Senate approval within 120 days. Habba has been serving as New Jersey's interim U.S. attorney since her appointment by Trump in March, but was limited by law to 120 days in office unless the court agreed to keep her in place. The U.S. Senate has not yet acted on her formal nomination to the role, submitted by Trump this month. Habba and Grace could not be immediately reached for comment. Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said in a statement on X that the U.S. District Court in New Jersey was trying to "force" Habba out of her job before her term expires at 11:59 p.m. on Friday. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York last week declined to keep Trump's U.S. attorney pick John Sarcone in place after his 120-day term neared expiration. Sarcone managed to stay in the office after the Justice Department found a workaround by naming him as "special attorney to the attorney general," according to the New York Times. The Justice Department cannot make a similar arrangement for Habba, however, because federal law prohibits the government from appointing someone to serve in an acting capacity if the individual was already nominated by the president to serve in that role. Habba's brief tenure as New Jersey's interim U.S. attorney included the filing of multiple legal actions against Democratic elected officials. Her office brought criminal charges against Democratic U.S. Representative LaMonica McIver, as she and other members of Congress and Newark's Democratic mayor, Ras Baraka, tried to visit an immigration detention center. The scene grew chaotic after immigration agents tried to arrest Baraka for trespassing, and McIver's elbows appeared to make brief contact with an immigration officer. Habba's office charged McIver with two counts of assaulting and impeding a law enforcement officer. McIver has pleaded not guilty. Habba's office did not follow Justice Department rules which require prosecutors to seek permission from the Public Integrity Section before bringing criminal charges against a member of Congress for conduct related to their official duties. Habba's office also charged Baraka, but later dropped the case, prompting a federal magistrate judge to criticize her office for its handling of the matter. Until March, Habba had never worked as a prosecutor. She represented Trump in a variety of civil litigation, including a trial in which a jury found Trump liable for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of raping her in the mid-1990s in a department store dressing room. In 2023, a federal judge in Florida sanctioned Trump and Habba and ordered them to pay $1 million for filing a frivolous lawsuit which alleged that Hillary Clinton and others conspired to damage Trump's reputation in the investigation into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
Bloomberg
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
How Trump's Epstein Filing Puts Grand Jury Rules to the Test
In response to a public clamor for more information about Jeffrey Epstein's sex-trafficking case, the Trump administration has asked a federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts. While seeking the files' release allows President Donald Trump to claim that he has nothing to hide about the late, disgraced financier, the request faces legal hurdles, even with Trump's Justice Department contending that disclosure is in the public interest.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Judge Rules Blake Lively Can Choose Deposition Location In Justin Baldoni Legal Battle
A New York federal judge sided with Blake Lively in her choice of a location for a deposition in her legal battle with Justin Baldoni. U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman granted Lively's motion for a protective order, writing that 'Lively will make arrangements for opposing counsel to have a dedicated computer and the ability to print and copy documents in the space chosen by Lively.' More from Deadline A Full Timeline Of Blake Lively & Justin Baldoni's 'It Ends With Us' Feud In Court, Online & In The Media My Texts Ricochet: Blake Lively Loses Effort To Keep Taylor Swift Chats From Justin Baldoni's Legal Team Justice Department Indicts Tim Leiweke In Alleged Live Sports Arena Bid-Rigging Scheme Read the judge's Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni protective order. Lively's legal team claimed that Baldoni's team had been seeking to turn the deposition into 'a media event.' 'Defendants have not denied that their intent is to manufacture a harassing publicity stunt by requiring Ms. Lively to parade through paparazzi, or by inviting unknown attendees to the deposition, including members of the media or social media influencers, or any other number of abusive tactics,' her attorneys wrote to the judge last week. The judge's order also requires the defendants to disclose all of the individuals who will appear at the deposition. Baldoni's lawyers opposed the protective order, arguing that she 'does not present a single fact to support her allegations of a 'plot' to use the deposition as a 'publicity stunt.'' 'Without a whit of evidence, Lively contends that if the location is not changed, she will beassaulted by hordes of paparazzi and the [defendants] may invite the press or hostile thirdparties to the deposition,' the attorneys wrote to the judge. 'This is not only fiction, it is nonsense.' They noted that their location for the deposition, at the law firm of Meiser, Seelig & Fein, is a class A commercial building with a non-public entrance. Lively sued Baldoni last year, alleging retaliation, among other claims, after she accused him of sexual harassment on the set of the movie It Ends With Us. Baldoni filed a counter suit against her for defamation and extortion, with The New York Times also named as a defendant. The judge dismissed that claim last month. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About Amazon's 'Verity' Movie So Far 'Street Fighter' Cast: Who's Who In The Live-Action Arcade Film Adaption 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Emmys, Oscars, Grammys & More
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Harvard argues in court that Trump administration's $2.6bn cuts are illegal
Harvard University appeared in federal court on Monday to make the case that the Trump administration illegally cut $2.6bn from the storied college – a major test of the administration's efforts to reshape higher education institutions by threatening their financial viability. US district judge Allison Burroughs heard arguments from Harvard and the Department of Justice. The cuts, imposed earlier this year, have halted major research efforts and Harvard argues they are a politically motivated attempt to pressure the school into adopting federal policies on student conduct, admissions, antisemitism and diversity. A ruling in favor of the university 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.' The case is being closely watched by other universities that have seen their research funds axed by the administration, which has suspended or threatened billions in grants and contracts from several institutions. The White House is reportedly close to finalizing a deal with Columbia University – the first institution it targeted for cuts – to restore $400m in funding in exchange for the university implementing a series of measures meeting the administration's ideological demands. Harvard is the first – and so far only – university to sue. The university has separately sued the administration over its revocation of Harvard's eligibility to host international students. (Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status, but he has taken no action to that effect so far.) Burroughs is overseeing both of Harvard's cases against the administration and in June issued an injunction stopping the government from barring foreign Harvard students from entering the country. Monday's hearing was the first time the court heard arguments about the legality of the administration's funding cuts. The hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing. Harvard's lawsuit accuses Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an 11 April letter from a federal antisemitism taskforce. 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. A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said in court on Monday that the government has authority to cancel research grants when an institution is out of compliance with the president's directives. He said episodes at Harvard violated Trump's order combating antisemitism. Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make 'ad-hoc' decisions to cancel grants and do so across Harvard without offering evidence that any of the research is antisemitic. She also argued the government had provided 'no documentation, no procedure' to 'suss out' whether Harvard administrators 'have taken enough steps or haven't' to combat antisemitism. 'The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' Burroughs said during Monday's hearing. 'I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong.' Velchik said the case comes down to the government's choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion Alan Garber, Harvard's president, 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 $2.2bn in research grants. Linda McMahon, the US education secretary, 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 $53bn, 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. 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'. While Harvard's cases against the administration proceeds in court, the university is reportedly also negotiating with the administration for a deal that might end the dispute out of court.
