Vice President JD Vance took to X on Sunday and suggested that President Donald Trump has “legitimate power” to ignore judges when carrying out executive orders, claiming courts “aren’t allowed” to overrule the new POTUS.

“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,” Vance wrote in an X post. “If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge who allowed secretary to work remotely…

Judiciary

Judge who allowed secretary to work remotely didn’t violate ethics rules, state supreme court says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 29, 2024, 8:45 am CDT

The New Jersey Supreme Court has tossed a pending ethics complaint against a judge who sometimes allowed his secretary to work remotely in violation of office policy.

The New Jersey Supreme Court found no ethics violations by New Jersey Judge Douglas H. Hurd in an Oct. 16 order, report Law360 and Law.com. Hurd is civil presiding judge in the Mercer vicinage in Trenton, New Jersey.

It is rare for the New Jersey Supreme Court to dismiss a disciplinary case before a ruling by the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct, sources told Law.com.

New Jersey courts were working remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. When in-person operations resumed, a new policy allowed remote work for one and then two days per week. But the new policy did not apply to judges, secretaries of judges, and judicial law clerks, according to the Jan. 30 ethics complaint.

Despite the requirement for in-office work, Hurd’s secretary was allowed to work remotely “on a periodic basis” for about six months in 2022, the ethics complaint said.

Hurd thought that he had discretion to allow remote work in light of the secretary’s “incredible work ethic,” according to an amended answer to the ethics complaint.

The secretary worked remotely about three to six days per month during a five- to six-month period. Hurd immediately ended his approval for remote work when he was advised that he didn’t have the discretion to allow it.

Hurd declined to comment on the dismissal of the complaint when Law360 contacted a representative.

Law.com spoke with lawyers who were relieved to hear that the ethics complaint was tossed.

Michael Donahue, managing shareholder of Stark & Stark in Hamilton, New Jersey, told Law.com that Hurd had “an unblemished reputation.” While the complaint was pending, Hurd “kept his head up and the vicinage running,” Donahue said.

“I am incredibly relieved and gratified to hear the news that the New Jersey Supreme Court has seen the right side of this issue,” Donahue said.

A new policy adopted after the ethics complaint was filed allows law clerks and secretaries to work remotely up to four days per month with judicial approval, according to Law.com.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 5th Circuit rules for prisoner allowed to…

Eighth Amendment

5th Circuit rules for prisoner allowed to sleep no more than 3.5 hours per night

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2024, 3:10 pm CDT

A sleep-deprived prisoner can show that his treatment constituted cruel and unusual punishment without proving that his health issues stemmed from the restricted bedtime hours, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans ruled for Texas inmate Michael Garrett in a March 22 opinion. He is incarcerated in the Estelle Unit in Huntsville, Texas, where inmates are afforded only three and a half hours of sleep per night.

Bedtime is 10:30 p.m., and breakfast begins at about 2 a.m. But sleep is not continuous. The prison conducts an inmate count at 1 a.m.

The author of the March 22 opinion is Judge Edith Brown Clement, an appointee of former President George W. Bush. Her opinion was joined by two appointees of former President Donald Trump, Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt and Judge Andrew S. Oldham.

Garrett suffers from migraines, seizures, vertigo, a skin condition, edema, hypertension and kidney disease.

A federal judge had ruled against Garrett for two reasons. First, the judge said, Garrett didn’t prove a substantial risk of serious harm because he didn’t show a cause-and-effect relationship between the sleep deprivation and his health complaints. Second, the judge said, Garrett hadn’t established deliberate indifference by prison officials because the schedule was based on a legitimate penological interest.

The 5th Circuit said the judge was wrong on both issues.

A prisoner only had to show a substantial risk of serious harm, not actual harm, the appeals court said. And, under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a prison’s penological purpose has no bearing on conditions-of-confinement claims, the appeals court said.

The case returns to the district court for application of the correct legal standards, according to a March 25 press release by Haynes Boone, which represented Garrett on a pro bono basis.

“This ruling marks an important victory and key step in Mr. Garrett’s decadelong quest for an ordinary night’s sleep,” said Hanes Boone associate Chris Knight in the press release.

He argued the case before the 5th Circuit in December.

The case is also important, Knight said, because it abrogates 5th Circuit decisions that had applied the wrong standard.

Arguments continue to be made in the disqualification controversy targeting Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade as the judge overseeing the matter considers the evidence and relevant legal standards.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee is, inevitably, being inundated with post-hearing filings as 15 co-defendants still remain in the racketeering (RICO) and election subversion case against Donald Trump. Most, if not all, of those co-defendants have signed onto the effort to remove Willis and her entire office from the case.

An 11-page brief filed in Fulton County Superior Court on Wednesday by co-defendant Jeffrey Clark, a former U.S. Department of Justice lawyer charged in the fake electors plot, accuses Willis of ratifying perjury, misstating the law, and several “actual” conflicts of interest.