Latest news with #federaljudge
Reuters
7 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
Judge sides with Trump again in fight over fired Copyright Office head
July 31 (Reuters) - In a preliminary win for the White House, a federal judge in Washington declined for the second time to reinstate U.S. Copyright Office director Shira Perlmutter as she challenges President Donald Trump's decision to fire her in May. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly rejected Perlmutter's request, opens new tab for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the administration from removing her while the court considers her case, ruling that failing to reinstate her would not cause "irreparable harm." Kelly denied Perlmutter's bid for an emergency restraining order against the administration in May on similar grounds. Several federal judges have ruled that Trump's firings of members of independent agencies were illegal and ordered officials to be reinstated. Appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have paused those rulings pending appeals, including a decision involving a consumer product safety board that the Supreme Court paused last week. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said on Thursday that the Perlmutter decision "reaffirms that the Trump Administration is lawfully exercising its authority to remove officers." Attorneys for Perlmutter did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. A spokesperson for the Copyright Office declined to comment. The administration fired Perlmutter by email on May 10. Her removal sparked a backlash from Democratic politicians who said that Congress had "purposely insulated" the Copyright Office, a department of the Library of Congress, from political influence. Perlmutter sued the administration on May 22, calling her removal "blatantly unlawful." The administration has countered that the Library of Congress is "not an autonomous organization free from political supervision." The administration also fired Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden on May 9, citing her advancement of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Kelly said on Wednesday that Perlmutter's loss of her job was not the type of irreparable harm that would justify a preliminary injunction against her firing. The case is Perlmutter v. Blanche, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-01659. For Perlmutter: Don Verrilli, Ginger Anders and Kuruvilla Olasa of Munger Tolles & Olson; Brian Netter and Allyson Scher of Democracy Forward For the administration: Christopher Hall and Stanley Woodward of the U.S. Department of Justice Read more: Trump fires head of U.S. Copyright Office US Copyright Office director sues Trump administration over firing Judge denies US Copyright Office director's request to halt her firing
Al Jazeera
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Why critics fear Emil Bove's confirmation will start a MAGA judicial shift
The United States Senate has confirmed President Donald Trump's controversial nominee for a prestigious and lifelong position as a federal appeals court judge. The nomination of Emil Bove has stoked criticism from both Trump's political opponents and, perhaps most notably, from the conservative legal establishment. While US presidents have wide-ranging powers to nominate federal judges, some have seen Bove as a harbinger of more ideologically driven appointments during Trump's second term. Critics have framed Trump's actions as an attempt to mould the judiciary in the likeness of his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. On Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate mustered a simple majority, 50 to 49, to confirm Bove's seat on the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals. With only two Republicans voting against the confirmation, some observers see little political will among the party to curtail Trump's actions. 'This nomination threatens to portend a broader turn toward the appointment of result-oriented loyalists to the judiciary,' Gregg Nunziata, the executive director of the Society for the Rule of Law, a conservative legal group, wrote in a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. He urged lawmakers to oppose Bove's nomination. 'In Mr Bove, the president believes he has found his MAGA warrior.' Why is Bove controversial? Despite a panoply of firebrand nominations, Trump's decision to pick Bove stands out. That is in part due to the longevity of the appointment, which will see the 44-year-old lawyer wield influence over federal appeals cases for decades in a region that covers Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Trump's second term, Bove worked as the president's personal lawyer, unsuccessfully defending him against criminal charges in New York. But on January 20, Trump's first day back in office, he named Bove to serve as acting deputy attorney general. His actions in that role have fuelled outrage over what critics have called Bove's dismal ethics record. During his nearly six-month tenure, Bove has been the subject of at least three whistleblower complaints. Some of the complaints relate to allegations that Bove sought to end the federal prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for a crackdown on migrants in the city – and that he later lied about it to the Senate. Two of the whistleblowers, meanwhile, reported that Bove told members of the Department of Justice to defy court orders that ran contrary to Trump's policies. Bove's comments allegedly included the advice to tell courts 'f*** you' if they opposed Trump's deportation efforts. US media has further reported that Bove led a purge at the Justice Department against Trump's perceived political opponents. They included career government employees involved in the prosecution of rioters who stormed the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. During his Senate hearing, however, Bove categorically denied that he has acted as Trump's 'henchman'. Still, Senator Lisa Murkowski, one of the two Republicans to oppose the confirmation, said the evidence presented in the chamber portrayed Bove as 'somebody who has counseled other attorneys that you should ignore the law, you should reject the law'. 'I don't think that that individual should be placed in a lifetime seat on the bench,' Murkowski added. Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, in an interview with MSNBC after Bove's confirmation, gave a more blunt assessment: 'This is a genuinely bad guy.' A new approach? In his first term, from 2017 to 2021, Trump already helped to transform the US judiciary, appointing a total of 226 federal judges. They include 54 appellate judges and three justices to serve on the nine-member Supreme Court. Those appointments, largely based on chance vacancies, are almost always pulled from a pool of candidates approved by conservative groups like the Federalist Society. That organisation has sought to reshape the country's legal landscape with a rightward bent. The Federalist Society says it advocates for 'individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law', and it has helped lay the groundwork for major conservative victories, including the overturning of Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that had protected the nationwide right to abortion access. But early this year, Trump signalled a break from the group, lashing out at its former leader, Leonard Leo, whom he called a 'sleaze bag' and a 'bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America'. Trump argued that Leo had given him 'bad advice', leading him to appoint a Federalist Society-approved judge during his first term. That judge was among a panel that ruled against the president's signature tariff policy in May. While the Federalist Society has been conspicuously mum on Bove's nomination, legal experts from both conservative and left-leaning circles have questioned his commitment to jurisprudence. Nunziata, from the Society of the Rule of Law, wrote that Trump's past judicial appointees generally exhibited 'judicial excellence and a commitment to the rule of law'. 'Many of them have proven their mettle in contentious litigation involving the president or his policies,' he explained. But he proceeded to describe Bove's conduct as 'unthinkable' for a federal judge. 'The Bove nomination represents a stark and apparently intentional break from this successful model and should raise concerns across the ideological spectrum,' he wrote. The progressive Alliance for Justice expressed a similar sentiment, writing that Bove's 'allegiance lies not with civil rights or the rule of law but with Trump and his authoritarian agenda to expand executive power far beyond the limits set by the Constitution'. 'Emil Bove's record makes clear he is unfit for a lifetime seat on the federal bench.' What comes next? Trump's attacks on the federal judiciary – aimed at judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats alike – have been unprecedented in their own right. Judges have openly speculated that the Trump administration may be found in contempt for ignoring court orders. And Trump himself has openly criticised judges as 'deranged' or 'lunatic' for opposing his policies. But it remains unclear if Trump's caustic approach to the judiciary will manifest in more controversial appointments like Bove. Some analysts noted that Trump has generally nominated judges from the more traditional conservative pipeline. It remains to be seen if Bove will be the exception or the start of a new trend. Just this week, the Trump administration signalled it may continue to take an aggressive stance in its approach to the judiciary. For example, the Justice Department filed a complaint on Monday that seeks to censure US District Court Judge James Boasberg, who attempted to block Trump-ordered deportation flights in March. The complaint accused Boasberg of making inappropriate comments about the president's administration, but critics see it as an effort to discredit a judge who has issued high-profile rulings against Trump. On the day of Bove's appointment, Trump also took aim at a Senate custom that gives the minority party – in this case, the Democrats – an opportunity to block some lower-level federal judicial and prosecutorial nominations. Under the so-called 'blue slip' tradition, lawmakers are given the ability to veto the confirmation of federal district judges or federal prosecutors who will serve in their state. The practice, more akin to a gentleman's agreement than an official policy, has long been seen as one of the last vestiges of bipartisanship in the US legislature. While the custom does not apply to higher federal judges, including appellate or Supreme Court justices, its removal would make it easier for Trump to more fully assert his influence over all levels of the federal judiciary. On Truth Social, Trump called upon Republican senators to end the tradition, which he called 'ancient and probably Unconstitutional', as well as a 'hoax'. With the 'blue slip', he added, Democrats 'have an ironclad stoppage of Great Republican Candidates'. Republican leaders in the Senate, however, have voiced reluctance to ending the tradition.
Forbes
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
DOJ Files Complaint Against Judge Boasberg—Whose Deportation Rulings Angered Trump
The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against federal judge James Boasberg, who has previously been a target of Trump's ire over his rulings on deportation matters. James Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, attends a panel ... More discussion at the annual American Board Association (ABA) Spring Antitrust Meeting at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, DC. AFP via Getty Images Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the move in a post on X on Monday night, saying she has directed the DOJ to file the complaint against the chief judge of the U.S. federal court for the District of Columbia 'for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration.' The complaint letter signed by Bondi's chief of staff was sent to the U.S. Circuit of Court of Appeals in Washington, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan. According to a copy of the letter published by Politico, the DOJ alleges that Boasberg made 'improper public comments' at a closed-doors judicial conference in March and tried to 'improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges.' The complaint claims that during the event, Boasberg strayed from 'traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and trigger 'a constitutional crisis.'' The letter said the 'comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis' before alleging that they had no basis, as the Trump administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' The complaint notes that after making these alleged comments, Boasberg blocked the administration from deporting hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador, which Mizelle's letter claims the judge 'lacked authority to do.' In her X post, Bondi claimed Boasberg's alleged comments 'have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that.' In March, Boasberg blocked Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals, who the administration alleged were members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. As some deportations still moved forward despite the order, Boasberg later ruled that the Trump administration likely committed criminal contempt. The Supreme Court eventually overturned Boasberg's ruling blocking Trump's use of the wartime act in April. What Has Trump And His Allies Said About Boasberg? Boasberg's efforts to block the deportation drew outrage both from Trump and his allies. In a post on his Truth Social platform back in March, Trump attacked Boasberg, calling him a 'radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama.' The president then insisted that Boasberg should be 'IMPEACHED.' Billionaire Elon Musk, then a close ally of Trump, also attacked Boasberg's rulings, tweeting: 'This is a judicial coup. We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people.' Trump admin escalates its war with the courts — this time targeting Judge Boasberg (Politico) Chief Justice John Roberts Rebukes Trump's Call To Impeach Judge Overseeing Deportation Case (Forbes)
Al Jazeera
28-07-2025
- Health
- Al Jazeera
US judge blocks Trump's effort to defund reproductive health organisation
A United States federal judge has ruled against President Donald Trump's effort to defund Planned Parenthood, a reproductive health services organisation that has long attracted conservative ire. In a decision on Monday, US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that Planned Parenthood clinics must continue to receive reimbursements for Medicaid, a government health programme for the poor. 'Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,' Talwani stated in her Monday order. 'In particular, restricting Members' ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.' Planned Parenthood had filed a lawsuit over a provision in a recent Republican tax and spending bill that cut off Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers who received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The US already prevents federal funds from paying for abortion services, and organisations that provide abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, also offer reproductive health services such as contraception, pregnancy tests and STD testing. The organisation estimated that the provision in the bill could result in the closure of 200 clinics across 24 states, with more than one million patients at risk of losing coverage. Conservative politicians have long sought to restrict access to federal funds for Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider, as part of a larger push to roll back access to reproductive health services. Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, a previous 1973 decision that had established abortion as a constitutional right, in June 2022, numerous Republican-led states have passed new restrictions on abortion or banned it entirely. 'Today, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction, blocking the provision in the reconciliation law that unconstitutionally 'defunds' Planned Parenthood from going back into effect,' Planned Parenthood said in a statement on Monday. 'This means that patients can use Medicaid at Planned Parenthood health centers, and Planned Parenthood health centers can receive reimbursements for the essential services they provide.'
Associated Press
28-07-2025
- Health
- Associated Press
Judge blocks Trump administration's efforts to defund Planned Parenthood
A federal judge on Monday says Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue to be reimbursed for Medicaid funding as the nation's largest abortion provider fights President Donald Trump's administration over efforts to defund the organization in his signature tax legislation.
