bid Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Third federal appeals court rejects Trump administration bid on birthright citizenship

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 23:38:17 +0000

Constitutional Law

Third federal appeals court rejects Trump administration bid on birthright citizenship

March 12, 2025, 12:05 pm CDT

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Boston on Tuesday refused to allow President Donald Trump’s order on birthright citizenship to take effect, joining two other federal appeals courts that also ruled against the administration on the issue. (Image from Shutterstock)

The 1st Circuit refused to stay pending appeal a federal judge’s Feb. 13 nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the order. The appeals court joined the 9th Circuit at San Francisco and the 4th Circuit at Richmond, Virginia, which issued similar rulings.

Law360, Reuters, the Associated Press and the Volokh Conspiracy covered the March 11 decision.

Trump’s Jan. 20 order bans birthright citizenship when a mother is in the country illegally or temporarily and when a father was not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident at the time.

U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts had granted a preliminary injunction to 18 states that challenged the order, finding that they were likely to succeed in their argument that it violated the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. The District of Columbia and San Francisco were also plaintiffs.

On appeal, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers did not “make any developed argument” that the government was likely to succeed in showing that Trump’s order was constitutional, the 1st Circuit said. Instead, lawyers claimed that the plaintiffs did not have standing.

The states had countered that they had standing because the order would result in a loss of federal funds for health care, special needs education, child welfare and applications for Social Security numbers.

The 1st Circuit sided with the states, finding that the government had not made the strong showing needed to overcome state arguments.

1st Circuit Chief Judge David J. Barron, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote the opinion in the case, New Jersey v. Trump.

New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin applauded the decision in a statement cited by Law360.

“Every court to consider President Trump’s effort to end birthright citizenship by executive order has found it is flagrantly unconstitutional, and every appellate court has rejected DOJ’s effort to put his order back in place,” Platkin said. “We are thrilled with the 1st Circuit’s decision, and we look forward to standing up for our birthright citizens no matter how far the Trump administration takes this case.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Third federal appeals court rejects Trump administration bid on birthright citizenship appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump DOJ blasts $2B USAID ‘pay-or-else order’ in SCOTUS bid

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 04 Mar 2025 01:29:52 +0000

President Donald Trump signs an executive order barring transgender female athletes from competing in women’s or girls’ sporting events, in the East Room of the White House, Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The Trump administration wants the U.S. Supreme Court to scrub away a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a federal judge late last month that requires it to cough up nearly $2 billion in federal funds — related to contracts and grants formed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and State Department — in what Justice Department lawyers are blasting as a “pay-or-else order.”

Organizations that had entered into contracts or received grants from the State Department and USAID are suing the Trump administration over an executive order that required a blanket freeze of all foreign aid funding, arguing that it was an unconstitutional exercise of presidential power “in contravention of congressional will” as well as an “arbitrary and capricious agency action” that will lead to starvation and the deaths of many. An emergency hearing was held last Tuesday, which led to the Supreme Court intervening by Wednesday evening after Trump requested an emergency stay.

In a Supreme Court brief, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris on Monday said U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali’s ruling from last week — which required the government to fork over $2 billion by Feb. 26 — was carried out at an “emergency hearing” where no additional evidence or briefings were presented. She claimed that this led to the Trump administration doling out “fraudulent” and “improper” payments without any proof that they were needed, with there even being alleged requests for funds related to “already-completed work,” according to Harris.

“The 36-hour pay-or-else order instead arose from respondents’ contentions, on the evening of February 24, about a new emergency,” Harris said. “They insisted that the operations of several respondents and their members would not survive the week unless the government paid the amounts purportedly owed under grants or contracts for work, then demanded immediate payment on all pending requests for all aid recipients. Without asking for additional briefing or any evidence, the district court held an emergency hearing, granted that sweeping relief from the bench, and set a 36-hour clock for the government to ‘pay all invoices and letter of credit drawdown requests on all contracts for work completed prior to the entry of the Court’s TRO on February 13.””

The organizations suing believe the Trump administration should not be allowed to argue for the stay with the Supreme Court and they’ve cited a 2024 concurrent opinion from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, to emphasize the point.

“The government’s application to vacate the district court’s minute order requiring compliance with a TRO of which it has never sought review is extraordinary,” the plaintiffs said Friday. “Review of a district court’s order directing compliance in this ‘very unusual procedural posture’ is unheard of, and this Court ‘should not get into th[at] business.’”

On Monday, Harris argued that there was no feasible way for the federal government to comply with the $2 billion demand in the way it’s been requested.

“The government cannot just press a button and disburse funds in response to any request that fits the district court’s description,” she said. “Instead, the government must undertake a multi-step process that complies with federal statutes before payments are authorized for disbursement.”

A three-judge panel on the D.C. appellate court declined to take up the case and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. granted a government request last week for an administrative stay on Ali’s TRO, giving the full court additional time to decide on the DOJ’s request to block Ali — a Joe Biden appointee — and his order for the foreseeable future.

“Unlike the TRO, this new order does not permit the government to review the payment requests individually, or even limit itself to requests that were actually due or overdue as of February 26 at 11:59 p.m.,” Harris said Monday. “Nor would such a review even be possible on the district court’s invented timeline. Nonetheless, the State Department expedited millions of dollars in identified payments to two respondents, and USAID prioritized the processing of additional payments to other respondents.”

According to Harris, the district court “now stands on the brink” of placing USAID into a court-run receivership.

“Vacating the Feb. 25 order will not prevent them from having their requests for payments processed,” Harris noted. “Agency leadership has already represented that millions of dollars in payments from State were being issued to two of respondents for their already-completed work last week. … What respondents cannot do is leverage their individual equities into a wholesale pay-or-else order affecting untold numbers of requests, disrupting ordinary processes, and thwarting the Executive’s control of foreign-aid disbursements.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Source link

The post Trump DOJ blasts $2B USAID ‘pay-or-else order’ in SCOTUS bid appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Federal appeals judge, 97, loses bid to unseal documents about her suspension

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 15 Feb 2025 06:43:33 +0000

Judiciary

Federal appeals judge, 97, loses bid to unseal documents about her suspension

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 4, 2025, 9:30 am CST

Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in May 2023. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has ruled that federal law does not permit Newman, now age 97, to unseal documents about her suspension. (Photo by Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Federal law does not permit a 97-year-old federal appeals judge to unseal documents about her suspension absent consent of the chief judge of her circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Monday.

Judge Pauline Newman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wanted to unseal the documents in an appeal of a federal judge’s July ruling dismissing her challenge to the disability law governing her case, Law360 reports.

Newman was suspended in September 2023 for refusing to participate in medical evaluations to determine her mental fitness.

Newman had told the D.C. Circuit that the only confidential information in the documents concern her medical history, Law360 reported. The Federal Circuit countered that the documents were of “questionable relevance” and will soon be released with redactions.

Newman was investigated after evidence was said to show “troubling signs” of her cognitive decline. Her expert, an editor of the principal neurosurgery textbook, said Newman had an “extraordinarily high level of cognitive ability” and appears to be a “super-ager.”

The D.C. Circuit said the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act generally does not permit disclosure of records related to investigations unless written consent is obtained from the judge under investigation and the chief judge of the relevant circuit.

Federal appeals judge, 97, who refused to cooperate in fitness probe loses challenge to disability law

Investigations of federal judges are rare and should happen more, former clerk says

Federal appeals judge, 96, fails to overturn suspension order for refusing to cooperate in fitness probe

Speaking at ABA meeting, federal appeals judge, 96, doesn’t address her suspension but mentions opinion pace

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Federal appeals judge, 97, loses bid to unseal documents about her suspension appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

KPMG’s bid to deliver legal services delayed as top Arizona court seeks more information

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 01 Feb 2025 09:21:53 +0000

Law Firms

KPMG’s bid to deliver legal services delayed as top Arizona court seeks more information

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 29, 2025, 3:21 pm CST

The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday pushed back a decision on whether to allow a new subsidiary of accounting company KPMG to practice law in the state. (Photo from Shutterstock)

The Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday pushed back a decision on whether to allow a new subsidiary of accounting company KPMG to practice law in the state.

KPMG Law US is seeking to operate through Arizona’s alternative business structure program, which allows nonlawyers to own or invest in law firms. The state supreme court has requested “additional information or clarification on aspects of the application” before reaching a decision, a court spokesperson told Bloomberg Law and Law.com.

The Arizona Supreme Court’s Committee on Alternative Business Structures had unanimously recommended approval of KPMG’s application earlier this month. The committee acted after a KPMG representative answered questions, including a query about how the firm would provide legal services in other states without violating ethics rules.

The new firm plans to work with staffing agencies and local lawyers to serve clients in other jurisdictions, KPMG compliance lawyer David Rizzo told the committee.

KPMG, which has more than 3,750 employees, already has legal practices in more than 80 jurisdictions.

Law360 recently spoke with Christian Athanasoulas, a U.S. tax partner and head of tax services at KPMG, about the accounting company’s plans.

KPMG Law US plans to hire Arizona-licensed lawyers who will deliver legal services in the state. The new firm does not intend to offer legal services to audit clients but will seek opportunities with clients served by its tax and advisory businesses.

“We’ve recognized that there is a need for services related to legal that are very much adjacent to the services we deliver today,” Athanasoulas said. “That’s not a full portfolio of legal services but rather a handful of pinpointed legal services that address client pain points and are adjacent to our existing portfolio and service offerings.”

Athanasoulas noted that Arizona wants to bring innovation to the legal profession. KPMG has already “invested incredible resources in technology, including AI,” and that investment could help KPMG Law US deliver “a better work product in a faster, more efficient way,” he said.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post KPMG’s bid to deliver legal services delayed as top Arizona court seeks more information appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

SCOTUS denies Trump bid to stop hush-money sentencing

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 10 Jan 2025 07:58:26 +0000

U.S. President Donald Trump (L) introduces 7th U.S. Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his nominee to the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden at the White House September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected Donald Trump’s eleventh-hour request to halt Friday’s sentencing hearing in the president-elect’s criminal hush-money case out of New York.The 5-4 ruling against the 45th and future-47th president was less than one page.

“The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons,” the order reads. “First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.”

Eschewing a typical opinion, the terse ruling goes on to note that Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the application.

In sum, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the justices appointed by Democratic Party presidents.

Trump on Wednesday filed an application asking the justices to step in and stop Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan from formally sentencing him in the case where Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts for payments made to keep his alleged affair with adult film star Stormy Daniels quiet.

In his 51-page application seeking emergency intervention, Trump claimed that Merchan was wrong in refusing to vacate his convictions and dismiss the case against him after he won the 2024 presidential election.

Trump’s controversial argument asserts the novel theory that the immunity from prosecution granted to a sitting president via last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling extends into the transition period following an election.

“President Trump noted that, upon his inauguration as the 47th President of the United States on January 20, 2025, he will be completely immune from all criminal process, state or federal,” Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, wrote in the filing. “President Trump also stated that the doctrine of sitting-President immunity shields him from criminal process during the brief but crucial period of Presidential transition, while he engages in the extraordinarily demanding task of preparing to assume the Executive power of the United States.”

Merchan earlier this week rejected Trump’s theory of president-elect immunity. The state’s intermediate appellate court and highest court both followed suit, refusing to halt Trump’s sentencing hearing.

Prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office pushed back hard on Trump’s immunity claim, imploring the court not to intervene on Trump’s behalf Thursday morning.

The filing from the DA’s office asserted that the “extraordinary” relief Trump is requesting has never before been sought and would set a dangerous precedent for the court by creating a new form of “President-elect immunity” from whole cloth.

“[D]efendant makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now, weeks before he even takes the oath of office, from all state-court criminal process,” the filing stated. “This extraordinary immunity claim is unsupported by any decision from any court. It is axiomatic that there is only one President at a time. Non-employees of the government do not exercise any official function that would be impaired by the conclusion of a criminal case against a private citizen for private conduct. And as this Court has repeatedly recognized, presidential immunity is strictly limited to the time of the President’s term in office.”

Bragg further argued that recognizing Trump’s immunity claim would conflict with the high court’s own precedent as set forth in last year’s landmark case granting a president absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts.

“No judicial decision or guidance from the Department of Justice has ever recognized that the unique temporary immunity of the sitting President extends to the President-elect,” the filing stated. “Such an extension would conflict with this Court’s holdings that Article II vests the entirety of the executive power in the incumbent President alone and that only the incumbent is charged with performance of the executive duty under the Constitution.”

If the justices are not eager to further expand presidential prosecutorial immunity, Trump also claimed that his filing of the appeal should have triggered an immediate and automatic stay of trial court proceedings.

“The commencement of President Trump’s interlocutory appeal raising claims of Presidential immunity causes an automatic stay of proceedings in the trial court under Trump v. United States and related case law,” his attorneys wrote. “This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorney’s politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit.”

The DA’s office argued that the federal court did not have the legal authority to intervene in state criminal court proceedings at such an early stage in the process.

“As a threshold matter, this Court lacks jurisdiction over a state court’s management of an ongoing criminal trial when defendant has not exhausted his state-law remedies and there has been no ‘[f]inal judgment[ ] or decree[ ] rendered by’ the New York Court of Appeals, or even the state trial court,” the filing states.

Despite the Supreme Court refusing his petition, Trump is is unlikely to substantially affected. Merchan earlier this week already signaled that he will let the president-elect off the hook with no meaningful legal consequences, even allowing Trump to appear remotely due to the rigors of the presidential transition period.

“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” the judge wrote.

Source link

The post SCOTUS denies Trump bid to stop hush-money sentencing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Appeals court denies Trump’s bid to delay felony sentencing

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 20:49:09 +0000

Donald Trump speaks at the annual Road to Majority conference in Washington, DC, June 22, 2024. (Allison Bailey/NurPhoto via AP)

An appeals court in New York has rejected Donald Trump’s latest bid to postpone this Friday’s sentencing hearing in his criminal hush-money case, marking the latest blow in the president-elect’s fight to have the case against him dismissed before he takes office later this month.

“After consideration of the papers submitted and the extensive oral argument, movant’s application for an interim stay is denied,” New York First Department Court of Appeals Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer wrote in a brief order following an emergency hearing on Tuesday.

The hearing was held after Trump on Monday asked Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to delay the sentencing hearing while he sought reversal of the judge’s decision not to throw out the case based on landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence granting sitting presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office.

In a 17-page filing, Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche wrote that he was challenging Merchan’s Dec. 16 order rejecting Trump’s claim of “presidential immunity based on evidentiary use of official acts,” as well as Merchan’s Jan. 3 order denying Trump’s motion to dismiss based on his “claim of sitting-presidential immunity as extended into the transitional period while Trump is President-elect.” He also claimed that filing the appeal should trigger an immediate and automatic stay of the proceedings.

Merchan responded later in the day Monday, denying Trump’s motion and saying that the president-elect’s filing was “for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.” In his denial, Merchan appeared to be unmoved by Trump’s arguments.

“This Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” Merchan wrote.

Also on Monday, Trump’s attorneys filed a notice of appeal, reiterating the claim that Merchan’s ruling — that presidential immunity does not extend to the president-elect — was erroneous and should be reversed.

“Justice Merchan’s erroneous decisions threaten the institution of the Presidency and run squarely against established precedent disallowing any criminal process against a President-Elect, as well as prohibiting the use of evidence of a President’s official acts against him in a criminal proceeding,” the appeal stated.

From the outset of Tuesday’s emergency hearing, Gesmer appeared to signal that Trump’s appeal was not going to be successful as she did not appear receptive to Blanche’s argument regarding presidential immunity for the president-elect, according to a report from Courthouse News.

“Do you have any support for the notion that presidential immunity extends to presidents-elect?” Gesmer reportedly asked.

“There has never been any case like this before, so no,” Blanche, who Trump has already named as his deputy attorney general, reportedly replied.

Steven Wu, from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, reportedly jumped on that point.

“The claim is so baseless that there is no support for an automatic stay here,” Wu said. “Defense counsel has not cited any case … that supports the idea that a president-elect has the same immunity as a sitting president.”

Gesmer also rejected arguments about the sentencing being so close to Trump’s inauguration, reportedly explaining to Blanche that Merchan repeatedly delayed the hearing at Trump’s own request.

While Friday’s sentencing hearing is becoming more of a reality for Trump, Merchan has already signaled that he is likely to let the president-elect off the hook with no meaningful legal consequences and will allow Trump to appear remotely due to the rigors of the presidential transition period.

Source link

The post Appeals court denies Trump’s bid to delay felony sentencing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Judge rejects Trump bid to delay hush-money sentencing

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:36:48 +0000

Left: Donald Trump speaks after voting in the Florida primary election in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, March 19, 2024 (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee). Right: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024 (AP Photo/Seth Wenig).

The judge presiding over Donald Trump‘s criminal hush-money case has denied a motion from the president-elect to postpone Friday’s sentencing hearing.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan issued the order late on Monday, calling Trump’s motion “for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.”

Early Monday, Trump had asked Merchan to halt the Jan. 10 sentencing while he appeals the court’s decision to uphold his conviction on 34 felony charges for falsifying business records.

Trump also used the opportunity to malign Merchan and prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for bringing the charges against him in the first place while arguing that the appeal should trigger an immediate halt of the case at the trial level.

“As discussed herein, the commencement of appellate proceedings — which should result in a dismissal of this politically-motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit — seeking interlocutory review of these claims of Presidential immunity immediately results in an automatic stay of proceedings in this Court,” the document states. “Due to the fact that further criminal proceedings are automatically stayed by operation of federal constitutional law, the Court will lack authority to proceed with sentencing, must therefore immediately vacate the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, and suspend all proceedings in the case until the conclusion of President Trump’s appeal on Presidential immunity.”

Trump requested that Merchan rule on his request to stay the proceedings within a few hours, asking the court to notify the parties of his decision by 2 p.m. on Monday.

Hours after filing the stay, Trump’s attorneys filed a notice of appeal, arguing that Merchan’s ruling that immunity does not extend to the president-elect was erroneous and should be reversed.

The Manhattan DA’s Office, for their part, opposed Trump’s motion to delay sentencing, arguing in a motion Monday afternoon that “Contrary to defendant’s claim, the mere fact that he has invoked presidential immunity in an interlocutory appeal does not entitle him to an automatic stay of further trial proceedings pending appeal.”

Prosecutors also informed Merchan of their belief that Trump was unlikely to win his appeal.

Merchan in his denial appeared to be unmoved by Trump’s arguments.

“This Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” Merchan wrote.

Merchan on Friday issued an 18-page order refusing to vacate the case against Trump but signaled that the former and soon-to-be president is not likely not face any real legal consequences and granted Trump’s request to appear virtually for the hearing.

The judge went on to muse that the “most viable solution to ensure finality” and allow Trump to exhaust his appellate rights is by sentencing him to “unconditional discharge.” This form of sentence equates to no further consequences and is typically used when a judge determines there is no practical import to imposing any legal disability on a convicted criminal defendant.

Law&Crime’s Jerry Lambe contributed to this report.

Source link

The post Judge rejects Trump bid to delay hush-money sentencing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Supreme Court rejects bid to lift Trump’s NY gag order

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 09 Dec 2024 20:20:45 +0000

Left: Judge Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024. Merchan is presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York (AP Photo/Seth Wenig). Right: FILE – Former President Donald Trump is escorted to a courtroom, April 4, 2023, in New York (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File).

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a bid to lift the gag order barring Donald Trump from making public statements about officials involved in the New York criminal hush-money case that saw the president-elect convicted on dozens of felony charges.

In a Monday order, the high court declined an application that sought to appeal the gag order set by Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan

“The application for stay addressed to Justice [Samuel] Alito and referred to the Court is denied,” the order list said. There were no additional comments or explanations from the justices.

During the criminal trial, Merchan, the presiding judge, prohibited Trump from speaking about witnesses, prosecutors, jurors, or court staffers and their family members.

On March 27, the day after Merchan issued the order, Trump used a Truth Social media post to criticize the judge, his daughter, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. On March 28, the 45th president leveled several more similar rhetorical jabs.

On March 29, Bragg’s office filed a letter categorizing the defendant’s posts targeting the judge’s daughter as “contumacious” and asking Merchan to “clarify or confirm that the Order protects family members of the Court.” Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche quickly fired back, arguing the state was trying to “expand” the order and that “there was nothing ‘contumacious’ about the social media posts.

By early April, the gag order had been expanded to cover the family members of any participants to the proceedings — a pointed judicial rejoinder to Trump’s criticism of Merchan’s daughter over her political consulting work for the Democratic Party.

On May 30, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records involving the hush-money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election.

In June, the New York Court of Appeals first rejected a Trump appeal to lift the gag order in his hush-money case. The defense responded by mounting yet another appeal, bringing their complaints about acting Merchan to the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, First Department.

A unanimous denial followed in August, as the court defended Merchan’s “narrowly tailored protections,” concluding that the judge “did not act in excess of jurisdiction” when he ordered Trump to “refrain” from “making or directing others to make public statements” about “family members of any counsel, staff member, the Court or the District Attorney, if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or cause others to materially interfere” with their work.

The appellate court, agreeing that there was evidence of ongoing threats to Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s staff, called Trump’s position “unavailing,” since courts are “empowered to protect against the ‘unfair administration of justice”” until sentencing or “some other final disposition” takes place.

“Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the People’s evidentiary submissions in opposition to his motion in Supreme Court demonstrate that threats received by District Attorney staff after the jury verdict continued to pose a significant and imminent threat,” the appellate division said.

In September, the New York Court of Appeals again rejected Trump’s appeal without much of an explanation other than a line saying there was “no substantial constitutional question” directly involved in his petition.

Trump and his allies have long argued, without success, that the gag order runs afoul of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court’s order came in response to an application brought by a podcaster named Joseph Nierman, who operates online under the moniker “Good Lawgic.” The high court previously denied a bid to challenge the gag order filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

Despite Trump being found guilty of felony conduct, Merchan has delayed his sentencing hearing in light of Trump winning the 2024 presidential election. Trump has sought to have the case and his convictions dismissed. Bragg’s office is required to file a motion on Monday explaining why Trump’s convictions should stand. His office has previously indicated that Trump’s sentencing could remain on hold until after he leaves office in 2029.

Matt Naham contributed to this report

Source link

The post Supreme Court rejects bid to lift Trump’s NY gag order appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump cites Biden pardon in bid to end hush-money case

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 04 Dec 2024 02:54:25 +0000

Left to right: Donald Trump speaks Tuesday April 2, 2024, at a rally in Green Bay, Wis. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer), FILE — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg gestures while speaking during a news conference Feb. 22, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II), FILE — Hunter Biden departs from federal court June 11, 2024, in Wilmington, Del. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum), Clarence Thomas (YouTube/Library of Congress).

Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump on Monday asked the judge overseeing his New York City-based hush-money case to dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury’s guilty verdicts.

In an 80-page filing, attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove say three distinct sources of federal law “require” the defense’s requested “result” and those legal sources “require it immediately.”

But the penultimate filing in the case actually begins with an invocation of current events: President Joe Biden’s pardon of his adult son Hunter Biden’s felony gun conviction and any would-be crimes.

“Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any and all crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently,”” the filing, docketed Tuesday, reads.

Trump’s attorneys do not only crib language from the 46th president’s perfidious bout of patrimonial clemency, they also echo the elder Biden’s words targeting the work of federal prosecutors.

“President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice,’” the motion goes on. “These comments amounted to an extraordinary condemnation of President Biden’s own DOJ. This is the same DOJ that coordinated and oversaw the politically-motivated, election-interference witch hunts targeting President Trump.”

The filing accuses Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, of having engaged in “precisely the type of political theater” the president rubbished when he issued his son’s pardon.

Late last month, Bragg’s office made it clear prosecutors intend to push forward and ask for Trump to be sentenced in connection with his 34 felony convictions on charges of falsifying business documents — after he finishes his second term as president in January 2029.

The Damocletian nature of that option is mentioned in the motion.

“With respect to Presidential immunity, it would be egregious and unlawful for this Court to hold the prospect of a 2029 sentencing over President Trump’s head while he continues his service to this Country,” the filing reads. “President Trump would be required to operate ‘under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become. the subject of inquiry’ at a future sentencing.”

Trump’s attorneys go on to say the prospect of a president working under such conditions would “seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government.”

And, so the argument goes, simply putting the sentencing of the case on a shelf in a legal freezer would violate the presidential immunity doctrine created by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.

In the filing, Trump’s attorneys tear into Bragg for having “ignored” the recent vintage immunity doctrine — saying the district attorney’s “hubris on that topic” and “stubborn insistence on offering official acts evidence in grand jury proceedings and at trial resulted in damage to the institution of the Presidency.”

The motion also criticizes the court itself for rushing ahead with the case “despite obviously relevant Supreme Court proceedings.”

The motion then lists a direct quote from Justice Clarence Thomas’s influential concurrence to the majority opinion: “Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts.”

Presidential immunity, the motion argues, dovetails with arguments for dismissal sourced from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Local elected officials such as DA Bragg have no valid basis to cause such disruptions, which also violate the Supremacy Clause,” the filing goes on. “Consequently, the federal Constitution is an absolute ‘legal impediment’ to further proceedings, and the case must be immediately dismissed.”

The motion elaborates on this point, at length:

As relevant here, “the Supremacy Clause prohibits state judges and prosecutors from interfering with a President’s official duties.” The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in that fashion to federal employees since the 1800s.

…

The Supremacy Clause adds additional urgency to the need for immediate dismissal because DANY has created the nightmare scenario where a local, biased prosecutor is seeking to interfere with the outcome of the national election by encumbering the people’s choice of a leader with unacceptable burdens and distractions.

The third source of federal law cited by the defense is a statute: the Presidential Transition Act of 1963.

“The Presidential Transition Act applies to President Trump,” the motion goes on. “The Act’s legislative history makes clear that there is no material distinction between the President-elect and the post-inauguration sitting President for these purposes.”

Trump’s attorneys, citing precedent, say a presidential transition is effectively part of an incoming administration that implicates the “national interest” as well as the “public function” of the presidency.

This is essentially an argument that as president-elect, Trump is no longer a private citizen because his job already “includes evaluation of sensitive national security issues and associated grave risks.”

“[Bragg’s] insistence on continuing with these unlawful, failed proceedings intensifies the risk associated with that vulnerability,” the motion goes on. “President Trump has already commenced this complex. sensitive, and intensely time-consuming process. which is a ‘monumental undertaking.’ These proceedings are interfering with that process and must therefore be terminated immediately.”

The district attorney’s office has until Dec. 9, to file their response.

Source link

The post Trump cites Biden pardon in bid to end hush-money case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump asks NY AG to dismiss fraud case in bid for ‘unity’

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 28 Nov 2024 08:05:37 +0000

Inset: New York Attorney General Letitia James speaks during a press conference regarding former President Donald Trump and his family’s financial fraud case on September 21, 2022, in New York (YUKI IWAMURA/AFP via Getty Images). Background: FILE: President-elect Donald Trump attends the Building America’s Future, Southeastern Pennsylvania Roundtable at the Drexelbrook Event Center on October 29, 2024, in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania (Matt Bishop/imageSPACE/Sipa USA via AP Images).

President-elect Donald Trump would like New York Attorney General Letitia James to drop the civil fraud case against him, his adult sons, and his namesake business empire in the Empire State.

In a four-page letter sent Wednesday, attorney D. John Sauer — the likely next solicitor general — framed the request as a potential fig leaf the Democratic Party prosecutor might offer the 45th and 47th president.

“In the aftermath of his historic election victory, President Trump has called for our Nation’s partisan strife to end, and for the contending factions to join forces for the greater good of the country,” the letter begins. “This call for unity extends to the legal onslaught against him and his family that permeated the most recent election cycle.”

“This case, like the many others against President Trump, is a flashpoint of national partisan division,” the letter reads. “You now have the singular opportunity to help cure this division.”

Most of those other cases, of course, have fallen to the wayside.

The two federal cases against Trump were dismissed outright — though for different reasons. The criminal prosecution in Fulton County, Georgia, is mired in appellate limbo and rests on unsure footing due to the November results. Even the criminal prosecution waged by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office — alone among the unavoidably politically-tinged controversies to see a jury trial — is seemingly resting in the legal equivalent of a cryotherapy chamber.

Sauer’s letter takes stock of the post-election landscape — with the exception of the still-extant case in the Peach State.

“Other Democratic officials and prosecutors are abandoning their discredited lawsuits against President Trump,” the letter goes on. “This case warrants the same treatment.”

The civil fraud case dates to 2019 and is premised on sworn congressional testimony from Trump’s former friend and fixer, Michael Cohen. Under questioning by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Cohen claimed the Trump Organization inflated assets to insurance companies and that the company’s tax returns likely contained similar-but-different financial improprieties.

After a multi-year-long investigation, James and her office filed a $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump, his children, and the Trump Organization in September 2022.

In September 2023, Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, several of their top lieutenants, and various corporate organizations that comprise the Trump Organization were found to have committed fraud by a Manhattan judge on motions for summary judgment filed by James. The court also saw fit to issue costly cancellations of numerous licenses that allowed the Trumps to do business in New York State. Additionally, several of Trump’s attorneys were personally sanctioned $7,500 each for purportedly making frivolous arguments.

A bench trial — a trial without a jury — on the extent of liability was held between October 2023 and January of this year.

In February, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron arrived at a civil penalty of some $354 million — somewhat shy of the $370 million that James had requested.

The case wore on.

James threatened to seize Trump’s assets; Trump said James was violating the law by trying to collect on the verdict while sidestepping procedure; Engoron rebuffed efforts to slow things down. Then, after Trump posted a bond to appeal the verdict, James asked the court to rule the bond was simply not good enough but Trump pushed back, eventually catching a substantial break this spring.

On appeal, Trump and his business appear likely to fare much better.

During a hearing in late September, Trump’s arguments received a much warmer reception from the court than those essayed by James’ office. One judge on the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, First Department said the “immense penalty” issued against the Trump Organization in the case was “troubling.”

In the letter, Sauer repeats many well-tread arguments — rubbished by Engoron — that seemingly held the day with the court of appeals. But he begins with one the appeals court appeared unmoved by.

“[T]he statute of limitations bars claims and liability,” the letter reads. “[T]he Supreme Court erroneously and disrespectfully applied the continuing-wrong doctrine to resuscitate long-defunct claims. This led to an indefensible judgment that directly violates the statute of limitations. The case should be dismissed on that basis alone.”

Other arguments rejected by Engoron received something not entirely unlike a bearhug of an embrace by the appellate court — including the idea that there were no victims in the case, that Mar-a-Lago had been drastically undervalued by the trial court, that Trump’s profits had been similarly undervalued, and that reliance certain accounting principals might inure to the defendant’s arguments.

Since then, the appeals court has not given any indication of what it might do — or even mulled-out-loud a timeline for their decision. Still, Trump and his business would like a denouement sooner than later.

So, now, the once-and-future president is looking for a straight flush — and framing it as an opportunity for James to avoid a potential embarrassment in the long-running case.

“As detailed in our appellate briefing, this action exceeds the New York Attorney General’s authority,” the letter goes on. “Stipulating to the vacatur of the judgment and the dismissal of the case would restore the NYAG’s power to its more legitimate scope.”

Sauer also, however, also argues that the case has to end — or will be more or less forestalled — because of the lead defendant’s status.

“President Trump will soon take office as the 47th President of the United States,” the letter continues. “Thus, the continued pendency of this lawsuit raises ‘grave and doubtful constitutional questions,’ and greatly disserves the national interest.”

The request to vacate the judgment also cites a longstanding U.S. Department of Justice internal rule that advises against pursuing criminal enforcement actions against sitting presidents.

The letter then continues in this vein, at length:

The federal Special Counsel’s office relied on this opinion yesterday in voluntarily dismissing the criminal case against President Trump. The same concerns arise from a civil fraud enforcement action, like this one, where six of the seven causes of action are based on alleged violations of criminal law. Indeed, it would be “perilous” to permit such an action to remain pending against a sitting President, because doing so “would risk imposing … burdens that would make it impossible for a President to effectively carry out his constitutional duties.”

“Likewise, the Supremacy Clause prevents state prosecutors from proceeding against the sitting President in any way,” the letter goes on.

Sauer then offers a lengthy series of references to mythologized presidents of the past — like Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy — and quotes their paeans to national unity and accord.

This argument gives James something not entirely unlike the chance to vindicate herself in the eyes of history as-seen-by Trump.

“Invoking the same spirit of unity, we request that you stipulate to the vacatur of the Judgment and dismissal of this case with prejudice,” the letter concludes.

Source link

The post Trump asks NY AG to dismiss fraud case in bid for ‘unity’ appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.