Rudy Giuliani was found in contempt of court Monday for failing to properly respond to requests for information as he turned over assets to satisfy a $148 million defamation judgment granted to two Georgia election workers.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled after hearing Giuliani testify for a second day at a contempt hearing called after lawyers for the election workers said the former New York City mayor had failed to properly comply with requests for evidence over the last few months.

Liman said Giuliani “willfully violated a clear and unambiguous order of this court” when he “blew past” a Dec. 20 deadline to turn over evidence that would help the judge decide at a trial later this month whether Giuliani can keep a Palm Beach, Florida, condominium as his residence or must turn it over because it is deemed a vacation home.

Because Giuliani failed to reveal the full names of his doctors, a complete list of them, or of his other professional services providers, the judge said he will conclude at trial that none of them were in Florida or had been changed after Jan. 1, 2024. That was the date Giuliani says he established Palm Beach as his permanent residence.

Liman also excluded Giuliani from offering testimony about emails or text messages to establish that his homestead was in Florida.

The judge said Giuliani produced only a dozen and a half “cherry picked” documents and no phone records, emails or texts related to his homestead. He said he can also make inferences during the trial about “gaps” in evidence that resulted from Giuliani’s failure to turn over materials.

Liman said he would withhold judgment on other possible sanctions.

On Friday, Giuliani testified for about three hours in Liman’s Manhattan courtroom, but the judge permitted him to finish testifying remotely on Monday for over two hours from his Palm Beach condominium. By the time the judge issued his oral ruling, Giuliani was no longer present at all.

Joseph Cammarata, Giuliani’s attorney, noted in an email afterward that the election workers were not in the courtroom either and he called the outcome “no surprise.”

“This case is about lawfare and the weaponization of the legal system in New York City,” he said.

Cammarata said the state criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump and the civil litigation against Giuliani were “very similar. It’s the left wing Democrats trying to use liberal Judges in New York to win when they should lose on the merits.”

At the start of the hearing, Giuliani appeared before an American flag backdrop, which he said he uses for a program he conducts over the internet, but the judge told him to change it to a plain background. He also at one point held up his grandfather’s heirloom pocket watch and said he was ready to relinquish.

Giuliani conceded that he sometimes did not turn over everything requested in the case because he believed what was being sought was overly broad, inappropriate or even a “trap” set by lawyers for the plaintiffs.

He also said he sometimes had trouble turning over information regarding his assets because of numerous criminal and civil court cases requiring him to produce factual information.

Liman labeled one of Giuliani’s claims “preposterous” and said that being suspicious of the intent of lawyers for the election workers was “not an excuse for violating court orders.”

Giuliani, 80, said the demands made it “impossible to function in an official way” about 30% to 40% of the time.

After the ruling, the former mayor issued a statement through his publicist saying it was “tragic to watch as our justice system has been turned into a total mockery, where we have charades instead of actual hearings and trials.”

The election workers’ lawyers say Giuliani has displayed a “consistent pattern of willful defiance” of Liman’s October order to give up assets after he was found liable in 2023 for defaming their clients by falsely accusing them of tampering with ballots during the 2020 presidential election.

In an unsparing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court allowed a president to become a “king above the law” in its ruling that limited the scope of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the election.

She called the decision, which likely ended the prospect of a trial for Trump before the November election, “utterly indefensible.”

“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote. She was joined by liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote another dissent referring to the ruling’s consequences as a “five alarm fire.”

Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the courtroom, with a weighty delivery that underscored her criticism of the majority. She strongly pronounced each word, pausing at certain moments and gritting her teeth at others.

“Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them,” Sotomayor said.

Chief Justice John Roberts accused the liberal justices of fearmongering in the 6-3 majority opinion. It found that presidents aren’t above the law but must be entitled to presumptive immunity to allow them to forcefully exercise the office’s far-reaching powers and avoid a vicious cycle of politically motivated prosecutions.

While the opinion allows for the possibility of prosecutions for private acts, Sotomayor said it “deprives these prosecutions of any teeth” by excluding any evidence that related to official acts where the president is immune.

“This majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the presidency and for our democracy,” she said. She ended by saying, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Trump, for his part, has denied doing anything wrong and has said this prosecution and three others are politically motivated to try to keep him from returning to the White House.

The other justices looked on in silence and largely remained still as Sotomayor spoke, with Justice Samuel Alito shuffling through papers and appearing to study them.

Sotomayor pointed to historical evidence, from the founding fathers to Watergate, that presidents could potentially face prosecution. She took a jab at the conservative majority that has made the nation’s history a guiding principle on issues like guns and abortion. “Interesting, history matters, right?”

Then she looked at the courtroom audience and concluded, “Except here.”

The majority feared that the threat of potential prosecution could constrain a president or create a “cycle of factional strife,” that the founders intended to avoid.

Sotomayor, on the other handed, pointed out that presidents have access to extensive legal advice about their actions and that criminal cases typically face high bars in court to proceed.

“It is a far greater danger if the president feels empowered to violate federal criminal law, buoyed by the knowledge of future immunity,” she said. “I am deeply troubled by the idea ... that our nation loses something valuable when the president is forced to operate within the confines of federal criminal law.”

NYC Sperm Donor Parental Rights - Over 35 Years Experience

We provide legal services in the area of Assisted Reproduction Law, also known as Third Party Reproduction, or Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) law. These matters involve matters such as Surrogacy (Compensated or Compassionate), gamete (sperm/egg) donation, embryo donation and embryo disposition. We also file for Judgments of Parentage for ART and Surrogacy matters. We pride ourselves in being collaborative, while at the same time advocating strongly for our clients, and being thorough, detail oriented and efficient. We work throughout the states of New York and New Jersey.

Compassionate Surrogacy Agreements
These are agreements where there is no compensation provided to the Surrogate. These are sometimes referred to as altruistic surrogacy arrangements. It is often a family member or friend being a surrogate for the Intended Parents. Again, we represent one side or the other of those arrangements for the drafting/review and negotiation of the agreement.

Sperm Donation Agreements
The majority of these agreements are known sperm donation agreements, where the Donor and the Intended Parents have chosen to work with one another. Again, we represent one side or the other of those arrangements for the drafting/review and negotiation of the agreement. We will also assist in securing a pre and/or post-birth Judgment of Parentage.

Ovum/Egg Donation Agreements
These agreements can be either known or anonymous. Again, we represent one side or the other of those arrangements for the drafting/review and negotiation of the agreement. We will also assist in securing a pre and/or post-birth Judgment of Parentage.

Embryo Donation Agreements
These agreements can be either known or anonymous. Again, we represent one side or the other of those arrangements for the drafting/review and negotiation of the agreement. We will also assist in secure a pre and/or post-birth Judgment of Parentage.

Embryo Disposition Agreements
New York permits parties to enter into a binding agreement deciding what to do with embryos upon the separation or divorce of Intended Parents. For example, will the embryos be destroyed, donated to research, or will one Intended Parent be allowed to use them while the other Intended Parent has no parental rights or responsibilities to any child born from the embryos. Again, we represent one side or the other of those arrangements for the drafting/review and negotiation of the agreement.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was absent from the court Monday with no explanation.

Thomas, 75, also was not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced Thomas’ absence, saying that his colleague would still participate in the day’s cases, based on the briefs and transcripts of the arguments. The court sometimes, but not always, says when a justice is out sick.

Thomas was hospitalized two years ago with an infection, causing him to miss several court sessions. He took part in the cases then, too.

He is the longest serving of the current justices, joining the Supreme Court in 1991.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy has a two-volume memoir coming out this fall, tracking his life from growing up in California to his 30 years on the court, when he cast key votes on landmark cases ranging from abortion to gay marriage to campaign finance.

Simon & Schuster announced Tuesday that Kennedy’s “Life and Law: The Early Years” and “Life and Law: The Court Years” will be published Oct. 1, as a boxed set and in individual editions, each around 320 pages. Kennedy was widely regarded as a moderate conservative who wrote the majority opinion on such closely divided cases as Obergefell v. Hodges, which found a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations and other outside entities to spend unlimited money on election campaigns.

“In ‘Life and Law,’ he explains the why’s and how’s of judging,” Simon & Schuster’s announcement reads in part.

“The second volume is filled with moving portraits of Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Ginsburg that go along with the account of how Kennedy decided his views in the landmark cases. But it is the first volume about his youth in Sacramento and his decade as a practicing lawyer that explains the judicial giant. Readers will see the child who turns into the man, who shaped America as much as any Washington figure in the 21st century.”

Kennedy, 87, noted in the preface to the first volume that his memoirs proved more expansive than originally planned.

“It was my intent (my right hand is raised to swear it so) to recount my earlier years in a summary way. But something happened on the way to the pencil,” he wrote. “More and more of my recollections turned to how our society and its mindset changed in fascinating ways from the ’40s and ’50s to the ’60s and then again in the ’70s. This seemed relevant to the dynamics that influenced me and our larger society.”

“As each day passes, we should strive to learn more about who we are and whom we should strive to become,” he added. “Writing a memoir is a formal way to do this.”

Kennedy was an associate justice from 1988-2018 and his arrival and departure proved equally newsworthy.

He was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan, but only after the Senate had voted down Reagan’s first choice, Robert Bork, and after the second choice, Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew amid reports he had smoked marijuana. When Kennedy announced in 2018 that he was stepping down, President Donald Trump nominated a former Kennedy law clerk, Brett Kavanaugh, who was narrowly approved by the Senate after contentious confirmation hearings that included allegations Kavanaugh had assaulted a high school acquaintance, Christine Blasey Ford.

Kennedy’s book will arrive soon after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s memoir “Lovely One,” which comes out Sept. 3.

As the first female Native American federal judge, Diane J. Humetewa is frequently asked about growing up in two worlds: participating in school and social activities in Phoenix while adhering to the Hopi way of life as an enrolled member of the tribe.

“It’s one world in my view,” said Humetewa, who serves as a U.S. district judge in the District of Arizona. “I would do all the things that high school kids would do … but perhaps on the weekend we’d have to go to the reservation.”

Judge Humetewa is the subject of a new installment in the Pathways to the Bench video series in which judges talk about challenges they overcame on their way to service as a federal judge.

Growing up in an era when cultural uniqueness was rarely celebrated, Humetewa felt that she couldn’t share her cultural identity widely. She is gratified to see young people today freely sharing their multicultural lives and individuality.

Prior to her historic appointment to the federal bench in 2014, Humetewa was the first Native American woman to serve as a U.S. Attorney in 2007, in the District of Arizona.