|
|
|
Appeals court rules Trump can fire board members of independent labor agencies
Legal Business |
2025/03/28 15:46
|
An appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump can fire two board members of independent agencies handling labor issues from their respective posts in the federal government.
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to lift orders blocking the Trump administration from removing Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox.
On March 4, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that Trump illegally tried to fire Harris. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Trump did not have the authority to remove Wilcox.
The Justice Department asked the appellate court to suspend those orders while they appeal the decisions.
President Joe Biden nominated Harris to the MSPB in 2021 and nominated Wilcox to a second five-year term as an NLRB member in 2023.
Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, said the administration likely will succeed in showing that the statutory removal protections for NLRB and MSPB members are unconstitutional.
“The Government has also shown that it will suffer irreparable harm each day the President is deprived of the ability to control the executive branch,” Walker wrote.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush, wrote an opinion concurring with Walker. Henderson said she agrees with Walker on many of the “general principles” about the contours of presidential power under the Constitution.
Judge Patricia Millett, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote a dissenting opinion. She said her two colleagues on the case “rewrite controlling Supreme Court precedent and ignore binding rulings of this court, all in favor of putting this court in direct conflict with at least two other circuits.”
“The stay decision also marks the first time in history that a court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, has licensed the termination of members of multimember adjudicatory boards statutorily protected by the very type of removal restriction the Supreme Court has twice unanimously upheld,” Millett wrote.
Government lawyers argued that Trump had the authority to remove both board members. In Wilcox’s case, they said Howell’s “unprecedented order works a grave harm to the separation of powers and undermines the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution.” They also argued that MSPB members like Harris are removable “at will” by the president.
Wilcox’s attorneys said Trump couldn’t fire her without notice, a hearing or identifying any “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” on her part. They argued that the administration’s “only path to victory” is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to “adopt a more expansive view of presidential power.”
Harris’ attorneys claimed the administration was asking the appeals court to ignore Supreme Court precedent.
“Make no mistake: The government’s radical theory would upend the law,” they wrote. “It would jeopardize not only this board, but also the Federal Reserve Board and other critical entities, like the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
The five-member NLRB lacked a quorum after Wilcox’s removal. The three-member MSPB enforces civil rights law in the workplace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump order aims to end federal support for gender transitions for those under 19
Legal Business |
2025/01/29 08:03
|
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order aimed at cutting federal support for gender transitions for people under age 19, his latest move to roll back protections for transgender people across the country.
“It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another, and it will rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures,” the order says.
The order directs that federally-run insurance programs, including TRICARE for military families and Medicaid, exclude coverage for such care and calls on the Department of Justice to vigorously pursue litigation and legislation to oppose the practice.
Medicaid programs in some states cover gender-affirming care. The new order suggests that the practice could end, and targets hospitals and universities that receive federal money and provide the care.
The language in the executive order — using words such as “maiming,” “sterilizing” and “mutilation” — contradicts what is typical for gender-affirming care in the United States. It also labels guidance from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health as “junk science.”
On his Truth Social platform, Trump called gender-affirming care “barbaric medical procedures.”
Major medical groups such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics support access to care.
Young people who persistently identify as a gender that differs from their sex assigned at birth are first evaluated by a team of professionals. Some may try a social transition, involving changing a hairstyle or pronouns. Some may later also receive puberty blockers or hormones. Surgery is extremely rare for minors.
“It is deeply unfair to play politics with people’s lives and strip transgender young people, their families and their providers of the freedom to make necessary health care decisions,” said Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson.
The order encourages Congress to adopt a law allowing those who receive gender-affirming care and come to regret it, or their parents, to sue the providers.
It also directs the Justice Department to prioritize investigating states that protect access to gender-affirming care and “facilitate stripping custody from parents” who oppose the treatments for their children. Some Democratic-controlled states have adopted laws that seek to protect doctors who provide gender-affirming care to patients who travel from states where it’s banned for minors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TikTok asks Supreme Court to temporarily block law that could ban site in U.S.
Legal Business |
2024/12/15 06:47
|
TikTok on Monday asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis to block the federal law that would ban the popular platform in the United States unless its China-based parent company agreed to sell it.
Lawyers for the company and China-based ByteDance urged the justices to step in before the law’s Jan. 19 deadline. A similar plea was filed by content creators who rely on the platform for income and some of TikTok’s more than 170 million users in the U.S.
“A modest delay in enforcing the Act will create breathing room for this Court to conduct an orderly review and the new Administration to evaluate this matter — before this vital channel for Americans to communicate with their fellow citizens and the world is closed,” lawyers for the companies told the Supreme Court.
President-elect Donald Trump, who once supported a ban but then pledged during the campaign to “save TikTok,” said his administration would take a look at the situation.
“As you know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. His campaign saw the platform as a way to reach younger, less politically engaged voters.
Trump was meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Mar-a-Lago on Monday, according to two people familiar with the president-elect’s plans who were not authorized to speak publicly about them and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity.
The companies have said that a shutdown lasting just a month would cause TikTok to lose about a third of its daily users in the U.S. and significant advertising revenue.
The case could attract the court’s interest because it pits free speech rights against the government’s stated aims of protecting national security, while raising novel issues about social media platforms.
The request first goes to Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees emergency appeals from courts in the nation’s capital. He almost certainly will seek input from all nine justices.
On Friday, a panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied an emergency plea to block the law, a procedural ruling that allowed the case to move to the Supreme Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Republicans take Senate majority and eye unified power with Trump
Legal Business |
2024/11/07 06:07
|
Republicans have taken control of the U.S. Senate and are fighting to keep their majority in the U.S. House, which would produce a full sweep of GOP power in Congress alongside President-elect Donald Trump in the White House.
A unified Republican grip on Washington would set the course for Trump’s agenda. Or if Democrats wrest control of the House, it would provide an almost certain backstop, with veto power over the White House.
Trump, speaking early Wednesday at his election night party in Florida, said the results delivered an “unprecedented and powerful mandate” for Republicans.
He called the Senate rout “incredible.” And he praised House Speaker Mike Johnson, who dashed from his own party in Louisiana to join Trump. “He’s doing a terrific job,” Trump said.
From the U.S. Capitol, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, privately a harsh Trump critic, called it a “hell of a good day.”
Vote counting in some races could go on for days, and control of the House is too early to call.
The rally for Republicans started early on election night in West Virginia, when Jim Justice, the state’s wealthy governor, flipped the seat held by retiring Sen. Joe Manchin. From there, the Republicans marched alongside Trump across the Senate map.
Republicans toppled Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown in Ohio, the first incumbent senator to fall, with GOP luxury car dealer and blockchain entrepreneur Bernie Moreno. They chased Democrats in the “blue wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, where Vice President Kamala Harris strained to carry the party forward, though Democrats avoided a total wipeout as Elissa Slotkin won an open Senate seat in Michigan and Sen. Tammy Baldwin was reelected in Wisconsin.
Democratic efforts to oust firebrand Republicans Ted Cruz of Texas and Rick Scott of Florida collapsed. The unexpected battleground of Nebraska pushed Republicans over the top. Incumbent GOP Sen. Deb Fischer brushed back a surprisingly strong challenge from independent newcomer Dan Osborn.
In one of the most-watched Senate races, in Montana, Democrat Jon Tester, a popular three-term senator and “dirt farmer” in the fight of his political career, lost to Trump-backed Tim Sheehy, a wealthy former Navy SEAL, who made derogatory comments about Native Americans, a key Western state constituency.
All told, Senate Republicans have a chance to scoop up a few more seats, potentially delivering their most robust majority in years — a coda to outgoing GOP Leader McConnell, who made a career charting a path to power, this time by recruiting high-wealth Republicans aligned with Trump.
He told reporters at a Capitol news conference that a Senate under Republican control would “control the guardrails” and prevent changes in Senate rules that would end the filibuster.
McConnell declined to answer questions about his past stark criticism of Trump or about the prospects of potential nominees in a new administration. He also said he viewed the election results as a referendum on the Biden administration.
“People were just not happy with this administration and the Democratic nominee was a part of it,” McConnell said. Ohio Republicans have tightened their grip on the Ohio Supreme Court from 4-3 to 6-1 by ousting two incumbent Democratic justices and winning a third, open seat, the Associated Press projects based on unofficial results. Results remain unofficial until they are certified by local county boards of elections and the Ohio Secretary of State.
The Ohio Supreme Court will rule on a variety of issues that affect the daily lives of Ohioans ranging from education and environmental issues to gerrymandering and elections to civil and reproductive rights.
The state’s highest court has been under Republican control since 1986 and Republicans currently have a 4-3 majority that will increase to 6-1 starting in 2025.
Republican Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judge Megan Shanahan defeated incumbent Democratic Justice Michael P. Donnelly, according to unofficial results.
“I’m honored and grateful to the millions of Ohioans who have put their trust in me to be their Ohio Supreme Court Justice,” Shanahan posted on her campaign Facebook page. “I’ll be true to what I campaigned on and will be a Supreme Court Justice who knows that my job is to interpret the law, not to make it. I’ll go to work each day and focus on protecting Ohio’s citizens, communities, and constitution.”
Incumbent Republican Justice Joseph Deters defeated incumbent Democratic Justice Melody Stewart — ousting her from the court, unofficial results show.
Deters decided not to run for his current seat and won a full six-year term. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Deters, a former prosecutor, to a vacant seat in January 2023, even though he had no prior experience as a judge.
In the race for an open seat, Republican Judge Dan Hawkins defeated Democratic Judge Lisa Forbes, the AP projected.
This race was for Deters’ open seat, a term that expires on Dec. 31, 2026. Hawkins currently serves on the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and Forbes is on the 8th District Court of Appeals. Hawkins will face reelection for a full six-year term in 2026.
In 2021, Republican state lawmakers added party labels to the Ohio Supreme Court races, which were previously nonpartisan.
Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner’s seat will be up in 2026. The seats of Republican Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, Republican Justice Pat DeWine, and Republican Justice Pat Fischer will be up in 2028. The fight for control of the House became a state-by-state slog, much of which unfolded far from the presidential race.
House races are focused in New York and California, where Democrats are trying to claw back some of the 10 or so seats where Republicans have made surprising gains in recent years.
Other House races are scattered around the country, with some of the most contentious in Maine, the “blue dot” around Omaha, Nebraska, and in Alaska.
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the House “remains very much in play.”
To gain control of the House, Democrats need to flip four seats from Republicans, while holding all of their own, a tall task especially in congressional districts where Trump has won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
US court to review civil rights lawsuit alleging environmental racism
Legal Business |
2024/10/07 10:39
|
A federal appellate court is set to hear oral arguments Monday in a civil rights lawsuit alleging a south Louisiana parish engaged in racist land-use policies to place polluting industries in majority-Black communities.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is reviewing a lawsuit filed by community groups claiming St. James Parish “intentionally discriminated against Black residents” by encouraging industrial facilities to be built in areas with predominantly Black populations “while explicitly sparing White residents from the risk of environmental harm.”
The groups, Inclusive Louisiana, Rise St. James and Mt. Triumph Baptist Church, seek a halt to future industrial development in the parish.
The plaintiffs note that 20 of the 24 industrial facilities were in two sections of the parish with majority-Black populations when they filed the complaint in March 2023.
The parish is located along a heavily industrialized stretch of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, known as the Chemical Corridor, often referred to by environmental groups as “Cancer Alley” because of the high levels of suspected cancer-causing pollution emitted there.
The lawsuit comes as the federal government has taken steps during the Biden administration to address the legacy of environmental racism. Federal officials have written stricter environmental protections and committed tens of billions of dollars in funding.
In the Louisiana case, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana in November 2023 dismissed the lawsuit largely on procedural grounds, ruling the plaintiffs had filed their complaint too late. But he added, “this Court cannot say that their claims lack a basis in fact or rely on a meritless legal theory.”
Barbier said the lawsuit hinged primarily on the parish’s 2014 land-use plan, which generally shielded white neighborhoods from industrial development and left majority-Black neighborhoods, schools and churches without the same protections. The plan also described largely Black sections of the parish as “future industrial” sites. The plaintiffs missed the legal window to sue the parish, the judge ruled.
Yet the parish’s land-use plan is just one piece of evidence among many revealing ongoing discrimination against Black residents in the parish, said Pamela Spees, a lawyer for the Center of Constitutional Rights representing the plaintiffs. They are challenging Barbier’s ruling under the “continuing violations” doctrine on the grounds that discriminatory parish governance persists, allowing for industrial expansion in primarily Black areas.
The lawsuit highlights the parish’s decision in August 2022 to impose a moratorium on large solar complexes after a proposed 3,900-acre (1,580-hectare) solar project upset residents of the mostly white neighborhood of Vacherie, who expressed concerns about lowering property values and debris from storms. The parish did not take up a request for a moratorium on heavy industrial expansion raised by the plaintiffs, the lawsuit states.
These community members “have tried at every turn to simply have their humanity and dignity be seen and acknowledged,” Spees said. “That’s just been completely disregarded by the local government and has been for generations.”
Another part of the complaint argues the parish failed to identify and protect the likely hundreds of burial sites of enslaved people by allowing industrial facilities to build on and limit access to the areas, preventing the descendants of slaves from memorializing the sites. The federal judge tossed out that part of the lawsuit, noting the sites were on private property not owned by the parish.
At its core, the complaint alleges civil rights violations under the 13th and 14th amendments, stating the land-use system in the parish allowing for industrial buildout primarily in majority-Black communities remains shaped by the history of slavery, white supremacy and Jim Crow laws and governance.
Lawyers for St. James Parish said the lawsuit employed overreaching claims and “inflammatory rhetoric.” St. James Parish did not respond to a request for comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Firm Web Design Information |
| Law Promo has worked with attorneys, lawyers and law firms all over the world in designing beautiful law firm websites that look great on all devices, from desktop computers to mobile phones. Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive law firm website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the mobile world. Solo Practice Law Firm Website Design |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
