Latest news with #legalprotection
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Elon Musk attacked the courts. Now they're his best hope against Trump.
In the end, the fight between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk may see the latter turning to the same institution that he has tried to tear down over the last year in the president's name: the courts. And the truth is, even the richest man in the world deserves legal protection. That's how the Constitution and the rule of law work, despite Musk's best efforts to run over both. Musk spent months and hundreds of millions of dollars to support Trump's campaign in 2024. He then spent the first several months of Trump's second presidency helping to cut government programs and employees and criticizing the administration's foes. One frequent target of his attacks has been the courts. He called for the impeachment of judges who resisted the administration's agenda and even tried to sway a judicial election in Wisconsin for a seat on its Supreme Court. Last month, the Republican majority in the House (which Musk claims to have saved) passed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which would explode the deficit, cut taxes mostly for the wealthy, cut services for the poor and kill the tax break for electronic vehicles such as Teslas. Earlier this week, Musk began speaking out against the bill, calling it 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination.' The feud became more personal Thursday, with Trump criticizing Musk in the Oval Office. As Musk continued to fire back, Trump said he will explore cutting his administration's extensive contracts with Musk's companies, including Starlink and SpaceX. 'I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!' Trump wrote. Musk likewise doubled down, sharing footage of Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and approving a social media post that called for Trump's impeachment. By the end of the day, Musk had gestured at conciliation, but as of Friday, the president was not in the same mood, with a senior White House aide telling NBC News that Trump was 'not interested' in a call to cool tensions. So, where might Musk turn to stop the Trump train from running over his companies? It wasn't long ago that Musk threatened to use his wealth to fund primary challenges against any Republican who might seek to rein in Musk's activities through his so-called Department of Government Efficiency. But the leverage there relied as much on Trump's sway over the GOP base as on Musk's funds. It is certainly possible that Musk could spend enough to sway elected officials to slow down such attacks on his companies. Yet such an approach, even if successful, would take a significant amount of time, with only marginal gains in the short term. Ironically, should the president seek to cut the federal government's ties with Musk's companies based on his criticism, it is the courts that will likely serve as the best forum in which to challenge any retribution. Over the last month, three law firms — Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale — have all succeeded in defeating Trump's efforts to punish them for standing up to him. They have all relied, in part, on a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court from last year, NRA v. Vullo. In that case, a unanimous court found that a government official in New York could not punish the NRA and the companies with which it did business for the organization's political speech (in that case, opposing gun regulation). Under the First Amendment, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the court, 'government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.' One would be hard-pressed to say that what the administration is threatening to do against Musk's companies doesn't fall squarely under the prohibitions the court identified in that case. Despite railing against the institutions that might stand in the way of his and Trump's agenda for months, Musk will now have to trust in those institutions. But that is how our First Amendment, our courts and the rule of law function; they typically protect even their fiercest critics. This article was originally published on
Fox News
6 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Biden-appointed judge blocks deportation of Boulder attack suspect's family despite visa violations
In an emergency ruling, a Biden administration-appointed federal judge in Colorado halted the deportation of the wife and five children of Mohamed Soliman, the Egyptian national under federal investigation for the Boulder firebombing attack. The temporary restraining order (TRO), issued by U.S. District Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, prevents federal immigration authorities from removing Soliman's wife, Hayem El Gamal, and the couple's five children from the country—at least for now. "Defendants are temporarily restrained and enjoined from removing Hayem El Gamal and her five minor children from the State of Colorado or the United States," Gallagher wrote in the order. The ruling will remain in effect until a scheduled hearing on June 13. The order came after El Gamal's friend, Susanna Dvortsin, sought emergency legal protection for the family. She argued that the family faced imminent deportation by the Trump administration without the opportunity to present their case in court. Gallagher agreed, writing that the family's deportation would cause "irreparable harm." The judge ruled that Dvortsin must submit a supporting legal brief by June 6, with government attorneys required to file a response by June 11. A hearing is set for June 13 at the Byron G. Rogers Courthouse in Denver. According to Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin, citing sources, El Gamal and her five children have all overstayed their visas. However, an asylum application had already been submitted on their behalf by Soliman. The central question is whether deportation should move forward in spite of the family's pending asylum claim. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has publicly addressed the detention and potential deportation of El Gamal and her five children. In a social media video Tuesday, Secretary Noem confirmed that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had taken Soliman's family into custody. "Mohamed's despicable actions will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but we're also investigating to what extent his family knew about this horrific attack," Noem said in the X post. "If they had any knowledge of it or if they provided any support to it." The Boulder attack triggered a political firestorm in Washington and Colorado, as Republican lawmakers have slammed it as a lack of immigration enforcement through sanctuary policies and poor management during the Biden administration. "This is a direct result of failed sanctuary states like Colorado and California," Rep. Gabe Evans, R-Colo., said in the aftermath of the attack. "For the sake of our state, Democrats MUST stop putting illegals ahead of Americans. There are lives on the line." Meanwhile, Gov. Jared Polis' office said they were never aware of any threat from the suspect." "The reality is that Colorado is not a sanctuary state and state, federal and local law enforcement work together closely to apprehend criminals, whether they are from this country or not," a spokesperson for Polis' office told Fox News Digital, adding that the governor "expects to see the suspect prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law." "There were no requests from federal law enforcement agencies regarding this individual, and if there had been then the state would have eagerly cooperated. Reports indicate that this person's legal presence ended in March, nearly three months ago, and we are not aware of any attempt by any federal agency to deport him," the spokesperson added. In addition, some Democrats in Colorado also faced scrutiny for attending a fundraiser with Rep. Ilhan Omar in nearby Denver roughly 30 minutes after the attack, as she's had a past history of anti-Semitic remarks and intense criticism of Israel.
BBC News
10-05-2025
- General
- BBC News
Newcastle-under-Lyme green spaces may be protected forever
More than 80 green spaces across Newcastle-under-Lyme could benefit from legal protection to safeguard them forever. The borough council may enter into legally-binding agreements with the Fields in Trust charity to ensure popular council-owned land remains publicly means 88 parks, open spaces, playgrounds, sports fields and cemeteries would stay public for recreational activities and nature appreciation in the Park, Brampton Park, Lyme Forest at Keele, Sandy Lane in Newcastle and Wolstanton Marsh are the sites currently being assessed for lodging Deeds of Dedication applications. This involves a landowner permanently designating land for a specific public use without transferring ownership. The council said securing the special status would provide an "additional layer of protection" for much-loved spaces in the borough from being considered for development. 'Hugely valuable assets' Leader Simon Tagg said the authority was committed to enhancing and preserving these said: "Newcastle-under-Lyme is home to many wonderful natural environments from amenity green spaces and award-winning parks to green corridors and nature reserves. "These areas are hugely valuable community assets; they boost residents' health and well-being, provide habitats for a diverse range of wildlife and capture and store vast amounts of harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."Tagg said giving the sites a Fields in Trust status would mean "permanent protection forever"."They would be retained as public parks, playing fields and recreation grounds for generations to come", he added. Follow BBC Stoke & Staffordshire on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
