Breaking Legal News - Legal News

McMahon says Columbia University’s changes put it on track to recover funding

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/03/24 13:01

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Columbia University is “on the right track” toward recovering federal funding after the elite New York City university agreed to implement a host of policy changes demanded by the Trump administration.

Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, McMahon described “great conversations” with Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong.

“She said she knew that this was her responsibility to make sure that children on her campus were safe,” McMahon said. “She wanted to make sure there was no discrimination of any kind. She wanted to address any systemic issues that were identified relative to the antisemitism on campus.”

Armstrong announced Friday that the university would put its Middle East studies department under new supervision and overhaul its rules for protests and student discipline. It also agreed to adopt a new definition of antisemitism and expand “intellectual diversity” by staffing up its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, according to an outline posted on its website.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration pulled $400 million in research grants and other funding over how the university handled protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. In order to consider restoring those funds and billions more in future grants, federal officials demanded nine separate changes to the university’s academic and security policies.

Armstrong’s decision acceding to the administration’s demands drew condemnation from some faculty and free speech groups, who accused the university of caving to President Donald Trump’s largely unprecedented intrusion on academic freedom.

Asked whether the university had done enough to secure its funding, McMahon said: “We are on the right track now to make sure the final negotiations to unfreeze that money will be in place.”

The Trump administration’s crackdown on Columbia University, where a massive pro-Palestinian protest movement began with a tent encampment last spring, has thrust the campus into crisis and sparked fears of similar actions at colleges across the country.

Federal immigration officials on March 8 arrested Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who served as a spokesperson and negotiator for pro-Palestinian demonstrators last year. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, is challenging his detention and potential deportation in court.

New York’s top court blocks NYC from letting noncitizens vote

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/03/20 21:26

New York state’s top court put an end Thursday to New York City’s effort to empower noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.

In a 6-1 ruling, the high court said “the New York constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens.”

New York City never actually implemented its 2022 law. Supporters estimated it would have applied to about 800,000 noncitizens with legal permanent U.S. residency or authorization to work in the nation. The measure would have let them cast a ballot for mayor, city council and other local offices, but not for president, Congress or state officials.

State Republican officials quickly sued over the law, and state courts at every level rejected it. Republicans hailed Thursday’s ruling from the state’s highest court, called the Court of Appeals.

“Efforts by radical Democrats on the New York City Council to permit noncitizen voting have been rightly rejected,” NYGOP Chair Ed Cox said in a statement. The Republicans’ attorney, Michael Hawrylchak, said they were pleased that the court recognized the state constitution’s “fundamental limits” on voter eligibility.

The heavily Democratic City Council passed the law, and its leaders took the case to the high court. Speaker Adrienne Adams said she was disappointed in the outcome but respected the court. “The council sought to strengthen our city’s democratic process and increase civic engagement by enfranchising the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who pay taxes and contribute to our communities but are unable to make their voices heard in local elections,” she said in a statement.

Democratic Mayor Eric Adams had neither vetoed nor signed the measure but allowed it to become law without his signature. An Adams spokesperson, Kayla Mamelak Altus, said the administration respects the court’s decision.

A handful of Maryland and Vermont towns let noncitizens cast ballots in local elections, and noncitizen residents of Washington, D.C., can vote in city races. San Francisco allows noncitizen parents to participate in school board elections.

Farther south in California, residents of Santa Ana rejected a noncitizen voting measure last year. Some other states specifically prohibit localities from enfranchising noncitizens.

In New York, the state constitution says “every citizen shall be entitled to vote” if at least 18 years old and a state resident. The document adds that county and municipal election voters must live in the relevant county, city or village.

New York City argued that “every citizen” doesn’t mean “citizens only,” and that the city had a self-governance right to choose to expand the franchise for its own elections. The law’s supporters said it gave an electoral voice to many people who have made a home in the city and pay taxes to it but face tough paths to citizenship.

The GOP accused Democrats of violating the state constitution in order to make partisan gains.

A push to limit lawsuits in Georgia is getting increasing blowback

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/03/18 15:38

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s priority bill to limit lawsuits and large jury verdicts has gotten increasing pushback after an initial boost in support as the legislative session enters its final weeks.

Crowds of business owners and doctors swarmed the Capitol to back Kemp when he announced the proposal, also called tort reform. Now, people who have sued businesses are rallying as Democrats argue the bill is a handout to businesses and insurance companies.

And a number of House Republicans remain skeptical, even though House Speaker Jon Burns said he is confident it will pass.

“There are two Republicans that are trial lawyers, but I’ve heard a more broad group of people express concerns with the bill as currently written,” said Rep. Trey Kelley, a Cedartown Republican.

Millions of dollars have gone into lobbying for and against Kemp’s package. Here are some reasons why people are concerned. Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.

Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.

“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.

There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.

“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.

Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.

Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.

“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.

There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.

“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.

Trial lawyers are worried that other changes would drag out trials and delay preparation. Lawyers and doctors dispute whether fair compensation is the face value of a medical bill or only the portion an individual directly paid.

Opponents also question whether the problems the bill claims to address exist, and if it would actually solve them.

For example, doctors have said unfair lawsuits make it hard to recruit talent to rural areas and lead them to administer unnecessary medical tests. They also say they’re getting slammed by rising medical malpractice premiums. In an analysis for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Northwestern University Professor Bernard Black said it’s difficult to recruit doctors outside of urban areas nationwide.

Lawsuit against abortion accommodations in the workplace can proceed

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/02/28 13:52

A lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions may proceed, a federal appeals court ruled.

The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision on Thursday reverses Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr.'s dismissal of the case in June after he found that the states lacked standing to sue. Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003, wrote in Thursday’s opinion that the states do have standing since they are subject to the federal rules.

Led by Republican state attorneys general in Tennessee and Arkansas, the 17 states sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April challenging its rules on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 2022 bipartisan law requiring employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees.

In addition to more routine pregnancy workplace accommodations like time off for prenatal appointments, more bathroom breaks, or permission to carry snacks, the rules say that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.

“The Biden-era EEOC’s attempt to turn a good law into an ideological weapon to force broad elective abortion accommodations is illegal,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in an emailed statement. “The EEOC’s unlawful regulations undermine the constitutional authority of the people’s elected representatives and we are vindicated by the Court’s decision to let our suit proceed.”

The lawsuit — joined by state attorneys in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia — is one of several legal challenges to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act rules. One case in Texas seeks to overturn the law in its entirety.

The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision to revive the case comes after a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door to state abortion bans, and as bills to track and charge women who get abortions with murder have gotten attention in Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma state legislatures this month.

The EEOC, which enforces U.S. anti-discrimination laws, during former President Joe Biden’s administration published regulations that provide guidance for employers and workers on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In them, the agency said that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure, along with pregnancy-related medical conditions like miscarriage, stillbirth and lactation. Citing numerous court rulings, the EEOC in its regulations said it was conforming to decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy-related discrimination laws include abortion.

But many Republican lawmakers, including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who co-sponsored the bill, were furious when the EEOC stated that the law covered abortions. Both Republican EEOC commissioners voted against the rules at the time. A spokesperson for the EEOC said the agency will “refrain from discussing litigation” but referred The Associated Press to Acting Chair Andrea Lucas’ position on the Commission’s PWFA regulations, which she voted against.

“I support elements of the final rule. However, I am unable to approve it because it purports to broaden the scope of the statute in ways that, in my view, cannot reasonably be reconciled with the text,” she wrote in a statement at the time explaining her decision to vote against the rules.

The EEOC has undergone significant change since President Donald Trump took office last month. After naming Lucas, a Republican, as acting chair, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners of the five-member bipartisan EEOC before their terms expired in an unprecedented move. Had the commissioners been allowed to carry out their terms, the EEOC would have had a Democratic majority well into Trump’s term. The administration also dismissed Karla Gilbride as the EEOC’s general counsel, replacing her with Andrew Rogers as acting counsel.

Without a quorum, the EEOC cannot rescind its own rules, although Lucas in the statement said she intends for the EEOC to reconsider portions of the rules she believes are unsupported by law once a quorum is re-established.

The Department of Justice represents the EEOC in court, and under Trump, it remains to be seen whether it will continue to fight the states’ lawsuit.

Federal workers sue over Elon Musk’s demand for accomplishments

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/02/24 16:04

Billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk violated the law with his weekend demand that federal employees explain their accomplishments or risk being fired, attorneys for the workers said Monday in a lawsuit.

The updated lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in California and was provided to The Associated Press, is trying to block mass layoffs pursued by Musk and President Donald Trump, including any connected to the email distributed by the Office of Personnel Management on Saturday. The office, which functions as a human resources agency for the federal government, said employees needed to detail five things they did last week by end of day on Monday.

“No OPM rule, regulation, policy, or program has ever, in United States history, purported to require all federal workers to submit reports to OPM,” said the amended complaint, which was filed on behalf of unions, businesses veterans, and conservation organizations represented by the group State Democracy Defenders Fund. It called the threat of mass firings “one of the most massive employment frauds in the history of this country.”

Musk, who’s leading the Republican president’s efforts to overhaul and downsize the federal government, continued to threaten federal workers Monday even as confusion spread through the administration and some top officials told employees not to comply.

“Those who do not take this email seriously will soon be furthering their career elsewhere,” Musk posted on X, his social media platform.

He also escalated Trump’s demand for employees to stop working remotely, saying those who fail to return to the office will be placed on administrative leave.

The latest round of turmoil began over the weekend, when Trump posted on his social media website: “ELON IS DOING A GREAT JOB, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HIM GET MORE AGGRESSIVE.”

Musk followed by saying “all federal employees will shortly receive an email requesting to understand what they got done last week.” He claimed “failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.” The directive echoed how the entrepreneur has managed his own companies.

The Office of Personnel Management sent out its own request afterward.

“Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished last week and cc your manager,” the message said. However, it said nothing about the potential for employees being fired for noncompliance. The deadline was listed as 11:59 p.m. EST Monday.

There was swift resistance from several key U.S. agencies led by the president’s loyalists — including the FBI, the State Department, Homeland Security and the Pentagon — which instructed their employees over the weekend not to respond. Lawmakers in both major political parties said Musk’s mandate may be illegal, while unions threatened to sue.

One message Sunday morning from the Department of Health and Human Services, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., instructed its 80,000 employees to comply. That was shortly after the acting general counsel, Sean Keveney, had instructed some not to. And by Sunday evening, agency leadership issued new instructions that employees should “pause activities” related to the request until noon Monday.

Attorney general will investigate why NYC mayor's criminal case isn't dropped

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/02/14 16:04

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said she would “look into” why the corruption charges against New York City’s mayor have not yet been dropped, two days after a senior Justice Department official ordered federal prosecutors to ditch the case.

Speaking with reporters Wednesday evening, Bondi said she was unaware that the case against Mayor Eric Adams hadn’t yet been dismissed. She said she also hadn’t spoken personally with the prosecutor in New York who is, for now, overseeing the case, acting U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon.

But Bondi said other senior officials had spoken with Sassoon about the directive to dismiss the charges.

“So that case should be dropped,” Bondi said. “I did not know that it had not been dropped yet, but I will certainly look into that.”

In a two-page memo sent Monday, acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove directed Sassoon to dismiss the charges against Adams “as soon as is practicable.” He claimed the case was politically motivated and was interfering with the mayor’s ability to assist in the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration and crime.

In the days since then, both Adams and his attorney have expressed confidence that the charges — which focused on bribes and illegal campaign donations — were permanently quashed. But the Justice Department memo left the door open to the case being brought back next fall following a review.

As of early Wednesday evening, prosecutors had not filed the legal papers needed to start the process of dismissing the charges.

Bove’s memo had indicated that before that could happen, Adams would be required to sign an acknowledgement that prosecutors could refile the charges against him at any point. Adams’ lawyer said Wednesday morning that the mayor had not signed any documents yet in connection with the possible dismissal.

Sassoon has not commented publicly since the Justice Department directive became public. Prosecutors in New York had, until this week, indicated that they believed they had a strong case, and that the investigation had uncovered additional evidence of misconduct by Adams.

Sassoon’s power to resist the Justice Department directive, if she were to choose to do so, is limited. The U.S. attorney general has the power to replace U.S. attorneys at will, meaning anyone who opposes directives from Washington could potentially be removed.

At a press conference Wednesday morning, Adams’ lawyer, Alex Spiro, claimed victory. He said he didn’t believe prosecutors would ever bring the case back.

“There is no looming threat. This case is over. It will not be brought back,” he said. “Despite a lot of fanfare and sensational claims, ultimately there was no evidence that he broke any laws ever.”

Bove’s memo said the directive to halt the case was made without “assessing the strength of the evidence.” It also said the prosecutors should review the matter in November following the mayoral election.

Those unusual terms have drawn skepticism from some Democrats, and fierce rebuke from the mayor’s Democratic primary challengers, who contend that Adams has agreed to carry out Trump’s hardline immigration agenda in exchange for his freedom.

Spiro denied that Adams had made any such promise. But he acknowledged that immigration and other policy issues were discussed at a meeting between the mayor’s legal team and Justice Department officials before the issuing of the directive to halt the case.

“The functioning of the government, and the mayor’s ability to enforce national security issues, terrorism threats, immigration issues and everything else, of course it came up,” Spiro said.

Adams pleaded not guilty in September to charges that he accepted illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals and took about $100,000 of free or deeply discounted international flights and hotel stays from people looking to buy his influence.

Prosecutors also allege he personally directed campaign staffers to solicit donations from foreign nationals, which are banned under federal law. Those contributions were disguised in order to allow Adams to qualify for a city program providing a generous, publicly funded match for small-dollar donations.

Elon Musk has called for the U.S. government to eliminate entire agencies

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/02/13 14:33

by breakinglegalnews.com

Elon Musk, during a video call on Thursday at the World Governments Summit in Dubai, UAE, called for the United States to “delete entire agencies” from the federal government, pushing for drastic spending cuts and a restructuring of national priorities under President Donald Trump.

Musk, who was speaking remotely, painted a broad picture of his view on the Trump administration's goals, interweaving topics of “thermonuclear warfare” and the risks posed by artificial intelligence. He criticized what he saw as the dominance of bureaucracy over democratic governance.

“I think we do need to delete entire agencies, rather than just leaving a few behind,” Musk continued. “If we don’t remove the roots of the weed, it’s easy for it to grow back.”

Although Musk has appeared at the summit before, this time his comments carried more weight, as he now holds significant control over certain government functions, especially with Trump’s endorsement, after taking charge of the Department of Government Efficiency. His role has involved sidelining long-term government officials, gaining access to sensitive data, and prompting legal debates about presidential power limits.

In his remarks, Musk also expressed an isolationist stance regarding U.S. influence in the Middle East, especially given the ongoing legacy of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Musk emphasized that under Trump, the U.S. has become “less interested in interfering with the affairs of other countries,” suggesting that the U.S. had sometimes been overly aggressive in international affairs. Speaking to the UAE audience, Musk noted, “There are times the United States has been kind of pushy in international affairs, which may resonate with some members of the audience,” acknowledging the UAE's autocratic governance.

On domestic matters, Musk touched on the Trump administration's push to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, linking it to the potential risks of AI. He joked, “If hypothetically, AI is designed for DEI, you know, diversity at all costs, it could decide that there’s too many men in power and execute them.”

Regarding AI, Musk revealed that X’s new AI chatbot, Grok 3, would be ready in about two weeks, calling it “kind of scary.” He also criticized Sam Altman’s leadership at OpenAI, comparing it to a nonprofit dedicated to saving the Amazon rainforest that becomes a lumber company. Musk recently made a $97.4 billion bid to take over OpenAI, and a court filing on his behalf stated that he would withdraw the offer if OpenAI proceeds with its plan to become a for-profit entity.

Musk also shared plans for a new “Dubai Loop” project as part of his work with the Boring Company, which has been digging tunnels in Las Vegas to accelerate transit. According to a later statement from Dubai’s crown prince, Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed Al Maktoum, Dubai and the Boring Company would explore the development of a 17-kilometer (10.5-mile) underground network with 11 stations capable of transporting over 20,000 passengers per hour. No financial terms were disclosed.

Trump Enacts Laken Riley Act: First Bill of Second Presidency

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/02/04 15:53

by breakinglegalnews.com

President Donald Trump signed the first bill of his new administration on Wednesday—a piece of legislation bearing the name of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student whose tragic death galvanized supporters during his White House campaign.

Trump expressed gratitude for the bipartisan support that marked this inaugural legislative effort since his January 20 inauguration. The law, known as the Laken Riley Act, mandates that federal officials detain unauthorized immigrants accused of crimes ranging from theft to acts of violence. The measure garnered support in both the House and Senate, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) present at the signing ceremony at the White House.

Laken Riley’s story lends a poignant note to the act. At 22, while running on February 22, 2024, Riley—a student at Augusta University College of Nursing—was fatally attacked by Jose Antonio Ibarra. Prosecutors detailed that during a struggle, Ibarra killed Riley, later choosing to waive his right to a jury trial. A judge, acting as the sole arbiter in the case, found Ibarra guilty of murder and other related crimes, sentencing him to life without parole.

In the fallout from her death, Trump and other Republicans have pointed fingers at former President Joe Biden. They contend that Ibarra, who had been arrested for illegal entry near El Paso, Texas in September 2022 amid a surge in migration, was released to pursue his case in immigration court—a decision they argue indirectly paved the way for the tragedy. “If this act had been the law of the land, he never would have had the opportunity to kill her,” stated Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican from Georgia.

Laken Riley’s name has also surfaced in broader discussions on immigration policy. Biden referenced her during his last State of the Union address when addressing border security, a moment further amplified when U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene passionately urged, “Say her name!”

Under the Laken Riley Act, any migrant arrested or charged with crimes such as shoplifting, assaulting a police officer, or offenses resulting in injury or death must be detained. “If you come into this country illegally and you commit a crime, you should not be free to roam the streets of this nation,” said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who was instrumental in shepherding the bill through the Senate.

Moreover, the act empowers state attorneys general to sue the federal government for any harm caused by shortcomings or decisions in immigration enforcement—whether that’s releasing migrants from custody or neglecting to detain those with deportation orders. This aspect of the legislation provides states with a measure of control over immigration policy, reflecting ongoing disputes with executive decisions during both the Trump and Biden administrations.

In essence, the Laken Riley Act stands as both a tribute to a young life lost too soon and a firm policy stance on immigration, encapsulating a significant moment in the current political landscape.

Trump announces significant new tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/02/02 16:36

by breakinglegalnews.com

President Trump’s decision to impose 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, alongside a 10% tariff on goods from China, marks a significant escalation in U.S. trade policy. This move, effective immediately, is likely to impact both the targeted countries and U.S. consumers, as tariffs typically lead to higher prices on goods imported from these nations.

Trump’s justification for these tariffs largely centers on issues like illegal immigration and the illicit fentanyl trade, though they are also positioned as part of a broader strategy to boost domestic manufacturing. However, these tariffs could potentially backfire by increasing costs for U.S. businesses and consumers, especially in sectors like energy, automotive, and agriculture, where Mexico, Canada, and China are key trading partners.

The international reaction has been swift, with both Mexico and Canada planning retaliatory tariffs, and China signaling its intention to take legal action through the World Trade Organization (WTO). This could spark a trade war that could destabilize not only the economies of the targeted nations but also that of the United States. The situation is complex and could lead to further economic uncertainty if tensions continue to escalate.

This move by President Trump, imposing substantial tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, certainly stirs up a lot of economic and political debate. While the president's main justification for the tariffs is to combat illegal immigration and the fentanyl trade, the potential economic impact is significant. A 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico and a 10% tariff on goods from China could lead to higher prices for consumers, particularly in sectors like energy, automotive, and agriculture. This could end up reversing some of the gains made in lowering inflation, which was one of Trump's major talking points.

The retaliatory measures from Mexico, Canada, and China are likely to escalate tensions, potentially leading to a full-blown trade war. The effects of this could ripple through global supply chains, increase the cost of living for U.S. consumers, and cause instability in international trade relations.

The political fallout is also worth noting. Many critics, including Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, argue that Trump is attacking U.S. allies when the focus should be on China, which has been a longstanding trade rival. It seems like this strategy could backfire, especially with voters who were hoping for more economic stability and lower costs.

It will be interesting to see how these developments unfold and whether Trump's administration can navigate the potential economic storm without alienating too many domestic and international stakeholders.

President Trump proposes 'getting rid of FEMA' - UPDATE

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/01/25 15:59

by breakinglegalnews.com

President Trump, during recent visits to disaster-stricken areas in California and North Carolina, has proposed the possibility of dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He criticized FEMA as being overly bureaucratic and slow, suggesting that individual states should manage their own disaster responses, with the federal government providing financial assistance directly to them. This proposal has raised concerns among experts and lawmakers, particularly in disaster-prone states like Florida, where officials warn that without FEMA's support, handling the aftermath of powerful storms could be financially overwhelming. It's important to note that eliminating FEMA would require congressional approval, as the agency was established by an executive order under President Jimmy Carter.

[Image credit: YouTube]

Why Biden pardoned Milley, Fauci and family members? [Q&A]

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/01/20 15:55

President Joe Biden on Monday pardoned Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired Gen. Mark Milley and members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, in an extraordinary use of the powers of the presidency in his final hours to guard against potential “revenge” by the incoming Trump administration.

In a significant move just before leaving office, President Joe Biden issued preemptive pardons to Dr. Anthony Fauci, retired General Mark Milley, and members of the House committee that investigated the January 6 Capitol attack. This action aims to protect these individuals from potential politically motivated prosecutions by the incoming administration of President Donald Trump.

Dr. Fauci, who served as the nation's top infectious disease expert, and General Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both faced criticism from Trump and his allies. Members of the January 6 committee have also been targets of political attacks. By granting these pardons, Biden seeks to shield them from what he perceives as unjustified

It's important to note that these pardons are preemptive, meaning they were issued before any charges were filed, and do not imply that the individuals committed any crimes. This move underscores the deep political divisions in the country and highlights concerns about the potential use of the justice system for political retribution.

by breakinglegalnews.com

Ohio Supreme Court hears arguments in watchdog group’s records dispute

Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/01/14 15:46

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a long-running public records case pitting the state’s top law enforcement officer against a national watchdog group that is digging into his ties with the Republican Attorneys General Association.

At issue is whether GOP Attorney General Dave Yost should be required to provide records to an appeals court that had been requested by the Center for Media and Democracy, which pertain to the nonprofit Republican association as well as its fundraising arm, the Rule of Law Defense Fund. Yost’s office also is fighting a magistrate’s order requiring the attorney general to be deposed in the now five-year-old case.

The center, an investigative group, is seeking records from a period when RAGA — a nonprofit that accepts corporate donations — organized a letter opposing clean air restrictions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that was signed by Republican attorneys general. More recently, the association came under fire for soliciting thousands of supporters of Donald Trump to march on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Ohio Solicitor General T. Elliot Gaiser told the court Wednesday that its decision could have ramifications for public records law in the state.

“Essentially, this is a question of if a precedent is set for a deposition of an attorney general in this case, it would be open season for lawfare and the weaponization of the public records act for witchhunts by every gadfly,” Gaiser said.

The center initially requested the documents in March 2020, including records associated with RAGA’s winter meeting of that year.

Yost responded at the time that his office had no pertinent records to turn over or that the information being sought wasn’t a record. As part of a legal challenge by the center, a Tenth District Court of Appeals magistrate ordered his office to answer a series of questions about the communications and subsequently directed him to produce certain documents for private, in-camera review.

The lower court said a review of the requested materials would help it determine whether they were public records or not — dependent on factors such as whether the communications were carried out on state time, were conducted by public employees or involved Yost’s official duties.

Yost appealed the magistrate’s orders to the state’s high court, arguing in part that searching for the requested records would potentially reach into the communications of Republican attorneys general in other states as well as his own staff’s personal and campaign email accounts.

He has also said that the discovery could potentially sweep in irrelevant information having nothing to do with RAGA or its fundraising arm, such as communications about multistate lawsuits his office might be involved in, say, against an e-cigarette maker or Google.

Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy asked Wednesday whether the lower court’s order might be asking too much of the state — for it to produce information, as opposed to records. Justice Jennifer Brunner, the panel’s lone Democrat, asked whether allowing the public official to determine on their own that records aren’t public would be a slippery slope.

“Depending on how this decision comes out, if an official decided to engage in illegal or unethical behavior, he would just simply do it on a private email and the public would probably not be able to find out,” she said.

Jeffrey Vardaro, the Center for Media and Democracy’s attorney, reminded the court that the outstanding order would merely allow the Tenth District magistrate — not the center or the public at large — to review certain documents. He said that undercuts the state’s argument that the lawsuit is intended to harass or embarrass Yost, who he reminded has the job of enforcing Ohio’s public records law.

Vardaro warned the court against making a decision that could allow a public official to unilaterally determine that “entire categories of what should be public records are not public,” prevent courts from weighing in, and empower the official to “refuse to testify about what the records were even about.”

“And so it would take the Sunshine Act and turn it into a black box,” he added.

Legal News | Breaking News | Terms & Conditions | Privacy

ⓒ Breaking Legal News. All Rights Reserved.

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by BLN as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case. Affordable law firm web design company