didnt Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t have standing, Supreme Court says while staying rehiring order

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 07:10:14 +0000

U.S. Supreme Court

Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t have standing, Supreme Court says while staying rehiring order

April 8, 2025, 1:31 pm CDT

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a federal judge’s preliminary injunction that required the federal government to rehire as many as 16,000 fired probationary employees. (Image from Shutterstock)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a federal judge’s preliminary injunction that required the federal government to rehire as many as 16,000 fired probationary employees.

In its April 8 order, the Supreme Court said the injunction entered by Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Alsup of the Northern District of California was based solely on claims by nine nonprofit plaintiffs. But those groups did not have standing, the Supreme Court said.

The injunction was not based on claims by other plaintiffs in the lawsuit before Alsup. Alsup didn’t rule on claims by the labor union plaintiffs because he found that he probably didn’t have the power to hear them, according to SCOTUSblog.

The Supreme Court stay will remain in place throughout the litigation.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

SCOTUSblog, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Politico are among the publications with coverage.

According to Politico, “the decision’s ultimate impact is murky because another federal judge has issued a separate order reinstating many of the same probationary workers.”

Alsup had granted the preliminary injunction in a March 13 ruling from the bench, he said in a March 14 memorandum opinion. He ordered the employees’ reinstatement based on a finding that the Office of Personnel Management had no authority to fire employees of another agency. That authority belongs to each agency, he said.

Alsup’s injunction reinstated probationary workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Treasury, according to a March 13 press release.

The government has contended that the firings can only be contested by individual employees before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The case is Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees.

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

Source link

The post Nonprofits that challenged mass firings didn’t have standing, Supreme Court says while staying rehiring order appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 13 Apr 2025 13:28:58 +0000

Judiciary

Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 11:36 am CDT

Judge Stephen A. Vaden of the U.S. Court of International Trade responds to a question during a U.S. Senate hearing to examine his nomination to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture on April 8. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA/Sipa via the Associated Press)

A judge on the U.S. Court of International Trade did not violate ethics rules by refusing to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University, according to the judicial council of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Chicago.

In an April 8 decision, the council dismissed the complaint against Judge Stephen A. Vaden, one of 13 federal judges who participated in the boycott and explained why in a letter to the school.

Law360, Reuters and the Volokh Conspiracy have coverage.

President Donald Trump has nominated Vaden to be the deputy secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Reuters reports. A U.S. Senate panel had a hearing on his nomination Tuesday.

The judges had refused to hire law clerks who attended Columbia University or Columbia Law School because of the university’s handling of disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian protesters. Columbia has become “an incubator of bigotry,” the judges said in their letter to Columbia, and the judges have lost confidence in the institution.

Vaden’s boycott and his signature on the letter do not harm the integrity of the judicial office, do not harm public confidence in the judiciary, and do not cast doubt on his impartiality, the judicial council said.

“A judge may refuse to hire law clerks from a law school or university that has, in the judge’s view, failed to foster important aspects of higher education, like civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech and viewpoint nondiscrimination,” the opinion said.

The chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade had transferred the ethics complaint against Vaden to the 7th Circuit’s judicial council for review. The person who filed the ethics complaint is in prison for his role in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish synagogues.

Vaden was represented by the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit conservative legal organization, and Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly.

Judicial councils have also tossed ethics complaints against 11 of the other 12 boycotting judges, including, apparently, two federal appeals judges: Judge James C. Ho of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans and, according to Reuters, Judge Elizabeth L. Branch of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta.

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

Source link

The post Federal judge’s Columbia clerk boycott didn’t harm public confidence in judiciary, judicial council rules appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

SCOTUS lawyer didn’t report millions in poker winnings: DOJ

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 20 Jan 2025 12:27:34 +0000

Supreme Court attorney Tom Goldstein (UNC School of Law/YouTube).

A lawyer known for handling high-profile cases and co-founding the popular Supreme Court news and analysis site SCOTUSblog has been indicted on federal tax evasion charges for allegedly failing to report millions of dollars that he won gambling in high-stakes poker matches, according to federal prosecutors. The attorney, Tom Goldstein, is also accused of using his former law firm’s assets to “satisfy” gambling debts.

“Between 2016 and 2022, Goldstein engaged in a scheme to evade the assessment of taxes, file false tax returns and fail to pay his tax obligations when they were due,” the Department of Justice alleges in Goldstein’s 22-count indictment filed in the District of Maryland last week.

Goldstein, 54, has been part of more than 40 cases in front of the Supreme Court, including the 2000 presidential election battle between Al Gore — his client — and George W. Bush. He co-founded SCOTUSblog with his wife, Amy Howe, in 2002 and stepped away from his old firm, Goldstein & Russell P.C., in 2023 after announcing that he was retiring.

“Thomas C. Goldstein, of Chevy Chase, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., was the sole owner of Goldstein & Russell P.C., a boutique law firm specializing in appellate litigation, including litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court,” DOJ prosecutors state in a Jan. 16 press release. “Goldstein was allegedly also a high-stakes poker player, frequently playing in games involving millions of dollars.”

DOJ prosecutors say Goldstein — an expert at Texas Hold ’em — willfully failed to pay more than $5.3 million in taxes that he allegedly owed the IRS. He “falsely understated his gambling winnings” by more than $3.9 million on his 2016 Form 1040, according to his indictment, causing the filing of a false Form 1040 and the evasion of a substantial amount of his 2016 income tax.

“In March 2018, Goldstein falsely told an IRS Revenue Officer seeking to collect his unpaid taxes for 2016 that his unpaid tax liability for that year was attributable to a legal case resulting in a large payment to Goldstein whereas, in truth, his liability was attributable principally to gambling income,” the indictment says. “Goldstein used over $1.1 million of G&R funds to pay personal debts in 2016, including gambling debts owed to poker players … causing the filing of false Forms 1120S and 1040 and the evasion of a substantial amount of his 2016 income tax.”

Between March 2016 and late December 2016, Goldstein allegedly engaged in a series of heads-up poker matches — those that involve only two people playing against each other — with three “ultra-wealthy individuals,” according to prosecutors. Two of them were located in Asia and one in Beverly Hills, California, per the indictment.

He allegedly won over $50 million.

“In preparation for these matches, Goldstein sought and obtained guidance and coaching from two professional poker players, as well as others, to study the historical playing patterns and betting strategies of his three opponents and hone his strategy against them,” the indictment says.

Goldstein allegedly won $13.8 million in his first match against one of the opponents in Asia, who is described in the indictment as “Foreign Gambler-1.” He allegedly won $26.4 million against the man in the United States — identified as “California Businessman-2” — and $8.8 million against the other opponent in Asia, “Foreign Gambler-2.”

“In addition to the 2016 poker matches described above, Goldstein was involved in other heads-up and ringpoker matches during 2016 in which he lost millions of dollars,” the indictment says. “To pay some of those gambling debts, Goldstein caused four wire transfers totaling $871,600 to be sent from the G&R bank account to the winners of those matches. Goldstein also caused wire transfers in the amounts of $200,000 and $100,000 to be sent from the G&R bank account to California Businessman-1 to pay down the amounts Goldstein owed.”

Prosecutors say Goldstein “failed to inform” his former law firm that payments he was sending — totaling over $1.1 million — were to “satisfy his personal debts rather than those of G&R,” which led to the transfers being falsely classified as “Legal Fee” expenses.

Speaking to CNBC, Goldstein’s lawyers John Lauro and Christopher Kise — both of whom have represented Donald Trump in high-profile cases of his own — described Goldstein last week as a “prominent attorney with an impeccable reputation” who should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

“We are deeply disappointed that the government brought these charges in a rush to judgment without understanding all of the important facts,” they told the outlet in a statement. “Our client intends to vigorously contest these charges and we expect he will be exonerated at trial.”

A 2008 Washington Post article about Goldstein’s gambling prowess describes him as a “high-roller poker maniac” who first entered the card world after he “got caught up” watching poker on ESPN, the lawyer said. His indictment accuses him of being “an ultrahigh-stakes poker player, frequently playing in matches or series of matches in the United States and abroad involving stakes totaling millions, and even tens of millions, of dollars.”

In addition to tax evasion, Goldstein is charged with aiding and assisting the preparation of false tax returns, willful failure to pay taxes, and false statement on loan applications.

Source link

The post SCOTUS lawyer didn’t report millions in poker winnings: DOJ appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

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

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 06 Nov 2024 23:58:08 +0000

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. (Image from Shutterstock)

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.

Source link

The post Judge who allowed secretary to work remotely didn’t violate ethics rules, state supreme court says appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Lawyer chooses lethal injection for inmate who didn’t want to make decision

homesafetytechpros — Thu, 03 Oct 2024 06:25:27 +0000

Death Penalty

Lawyer chooses lethal injection for inmate who didn’t want to make decision

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 10, 2024, 8:50 am CDT

A South Carolina lawyer has picked lethal injection as the execution method for a client who didn’t want to make the decision because of religious qualms. (Image from Shutterstock)

A South Carolina lawyer has picked lethal injection as the execution method for a client who didn’t want to make the decision because of religious qualms.

Lawyer Emily Paavola of Columbia, South Carolina, said in a statement she made the best decision that she thought was possible on behalf of her client, Freddie Owens, given the information available to her, Law.com reports.

Owens didn’t want to make the decision because he considers the choice to be tantamount to suicide, which his Muslim religion considers a sin, according to the Associated Press.

If Paavola had not made the choice, Owens would be executed by the state’s default method, the electric chair. A third option is a firing squad.

Owens’ execution for the 1997 shooting death of a store clerk is scheduled for Sept. 20. In the past, South Carolina has used a three-drug combination in executions but switched to just one drug, pentobarbital, because it was easier to obtain.

In a statement that Paavola gave to the AP and Law.com, she said she made the decision “in light of the information currently available to me.” She had sought more information from the state about testing and storage of the drug to ensure that it would not cause her client unbearable pain or agony.

But the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled last week that prison officials had released sufficient details, according to Law.com, the AP and the Post and Courier.

Source link

The post Lawyer chooses lethal injection for inmate who didn’t want to make decision appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 27 Sep 2024 09:07:42 +0000

Judiciary

2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

September 17, 2024, 10:10 am CDT

Two federal judges who said they wouldn’t hire future law grads from Columbia University did not commit misconduct, according to a review panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta’s judicial council. (Photo from Shutterstock)

The review panel appeared to be referring to U.S. Circuit Judge Elizabeth Branch and U.S. District Judge Tilman E. Self III of the Middle District of Georgia, the only judges who signed a letter announcing the boycott within the 11th Circuit.

Law360, Reuters and Bloomberg Law covered the Aug. 12 order released last week.

Branch and Self were among 13 federal judges who signed the letter pledging not to hire future Columbia grads for clerkships because of the school’s handling of campus disruptions. All 13 judges were appointees of former President Donald Trump.

The judges’ May 2024 letter deemed Columbia to be “an incubator of bigotry” and said the university should embrace viewpoint diversity and impose serious consequences for students and faculty who participate in campus disruptions and violate university rules.

The no-misconduct finding follows an August 2024 decision drawing the same conclusion by a review panel of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans’ judicial council. The 5th Circuit review panel found no ethics violations by eight federal judges within the 5th Circuit, including, apparently, Circuit Judge James C. Ho.

The 11th Circuit review panel affirmed a decision by the 11th Circuit Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. The order included Pryor’s June 2024 decision dismissing the complaint.

There is no basis for a finding of misconduct, Pryor had said.

“Federal judges routinely hire law clerks and must consider applicants’ educational backgrounds in determining whether an applicant is qualified for and will succeed in the job. As part of that consideration, judges are permitted to make reasonable conclusions regarding the value and quality of a school’s educational program,” he wrote.

A person who filed a complaint against the judges with the 11th Circuit said there is every reason to think that judges who are willing to punish a university and its graduates “will skew their judicial rulings in a similar manner.”

“It is no stretch of the imagination,” the complainant wrote, to conceive that the judges will “attempt to discern the political views of the parties and counsel before them and discriminate and retaliate against them.”

The complainant also called for an investigation into whether “outside organizations or foreign governments” orchestrated the judges’ letter.

Pryor responded that that the complainant’s claims lack sufficient evidence, including insufficient evidence to show that the judges “treated or will treat individuals in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner.”

Source link

The post 2 federal judges who boycotted Columbia law grads didn’t commit misconduct, review panel says appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Law student’s suit alleges Chicago Bears didn’t hire him as ‘legal diversity fellow’ because he is white man

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 07 Apr 2024 05:00:12 +0000

Law Students

Law student’s suit alleges Chicago Bears didn’t hire him as ‘legal diversity fellow’ because he is white man

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2024, 10:05 am CDT

A first-year student at the DePaul University College of Law in Chicago claims in a lawsuit that the Chicago Bears football team refused to consider him for a “legal diversity fellow” position because he is a white man. (Photo from Shutterstock)

Student Jonathan Bresser Jr. claims in the March 11 suit that he is qualified for the position because he has more than two years of experience as a litigation paralegal at the Trent Law Firm, which is also representing him in the case.

Law360 and Bloomberg Law have coverage, while JD Supra has analysis of the case, filed in federal court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit includes a sentence from the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down race-conscious university admissions programs at two schools.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” the Supreme Court said, citing an earlier case.

A job posting emailed in November 2023 said the Chicago Bears team was looking for a “person of color and/or female law student,” according to the suit. Bresser applied, intending to submit his grades as a supplement to his application when they became available, as the job posting allowed.

Bresser was rejected Jan. 5, before he submitted his grades. The previous month, Bresser said, he received a notification that his LinkedIn profile had been viewed by a Chicago Bears employee. The LinkedIn profile included a photo.

On March 1, nearly two months after rejecting Bresser, the Chicago Bears requested Bresser’s grades transcript, “attempting to claw back” the rejection, the suit says. The request happened after the team received Bresser’s charge of discrimination and right to sue letter.

Bresser alleges race and sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act, race discrimination in contracting in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act, civil conspiracy, and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in violation of Section 1985 of the Civil Rights Act.

A Chicago Bears spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by Law360.

Source link

The post Law student’s suit alleges Chicago Bears didn’t hire him as ‘legal diversity fellow’ because he is white man appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Officer allegedly didn’t investigate murder suspect brother

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:32:03 +0000

D’Marquivius Jamon (D.J.) King (via Facebook/City of Griffin, Ga.)

A Georgia police officer has been indicted on charges that he deliberately failed to investigate his half brother as a potential suspect in a murder case.

D’Marquivius “D.J.” King, 25, has been indicted on a felony count of Violation of Oath of Office, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation announced Friday. The indictment stems from the result of an investigation launched in February of last year over King’s handling of the investigation into the murder of a man named Javarreis Reid, who was shot to death in May 2021 at age 25.

King had been assigned to the case — but according to the GBI, he failed to fulfill his obligation as a police investigator.

“The investigation shows that King, while employed as an investigator with the Griffin Police Department, discovered that his brother, Damon Beck, was involved in the murder of Reid,” the GBI statement says. “King failed to properly investigate the murder.”

A Spalding County grand jury heard evidence on March 20, the statement said, and returned the indictment. On March 22, King turned himself in and was booked into the Spading County Jail, according to the GBI.

The indictment comes more than a year after concerns were first raised about King’s role in the matter. As Atlanta ABC affiliate WSB reported, King failed to properly investigate after learning his brother, Damon Beck, was potentially involved in Reid’s murder.
wsb
Local NBC affiliate WXIA reported that internal records showed King’s brother, Damon Beck, was a suspect in Reid’s murder — and he didn’t tell anyone.

“It was determined during the investigation that Investigator King’s brother Damon Beck is involved in the murder,” an internal reprimand from November 2021 states, according to WXIA. “Investigator King failed to notify his chain of command of the conflict of interest and did not list Damon Beck as a suspect on any documentation.”

The reprimand said that King was in violation of the department policy that police department employees have a duty “not to give false or misleading information.”

Then-police chief Michael Yates said at the time that Beck was King’s half brother and the two had never lived together, and that King’s only wrongdoing was “poor documentation of his casework,” WXIA reported. Yates was placed on “non-disciplinary, administrative leave” in April 2023 and retired shortly after, the WXIA story said.

King was put on administrative leave on Feb. 27, 2023, as the GBI investigation was underway. He resigned from the police department in September, WXIA reported.

His resignation came after the district attorney’s office wrote in a September 2023 letter to Griffin City Manager Jessica O’Connor that the investigation into King and Yates revealed “policy violations” by both men.

“These violations are egregious enough to have destroyed my Office’s confidence in both Officer King and Chief Yates to effectively perform their duties,” the letter said, adding that prosecutors could no longer rely on King as a witness.

Beck, meanwhile, wasn’t apprehended until 2023, at which point he was accused of murder and aggravated assault. He is one of three defendants in the case and is currently being held in the Spalding County Jail on $750,000 bond, WSB reported.

King joined the force in 2017. As WXIA reported, he was considered a rising star in the department, and had even been the focus of a promotional segment by the city in which he spoke enthusiastically about his job.

Spalding County jail records did not indicate whether King was in custody as of Sunday.

The charge of Violation of Duty is punishable in Georgia by a sentence of one to five years in prison.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Officer allegedly didn’t investigate murder suspect brother appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Ex-NRA CEO didn’t consult GCs office about key legal decisions, general counsel testifies

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 06 Feb 2024 12:27:27 +0000

Trials & Litigation

Ex-NRA CEO didn’t consult GCs office about key legal decisions, general counsel testifies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 31, 2024, 12:31 pm CST

Former National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre didn’t consult his general counsel before the group sued its advertising agency and sought bankruptcy protection, two legal filings that didn’t end well for the NRA, according to testimony Tuesday. (Image from Shutterstock)

Updated: Former National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre didn’t consult his general counsel before the group sued its advertising agency and sought bankruptcy protection, two legal filings that didn’t end well for the NRA, according to testimony Tuesday.

General counsel John Frazer testified that he wasn’t consulted about the lawsuit against ad agency Ackerman McQueen, which was very costly, or the bankruptcy filing, which was dismissed after a judge found that it was not filed in good faith.

Law.com and Courthouse News Service covered the testimony.

Frazer, LaPierre and the NRA are among the defendants in the civil fraud case filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The suit alleges that LaPierre exploited the NRA for the benefit of himself and his inner circle, using donor money to pay for private jets, expensive meals and family vacations.

James contends that Frazer was hired as general counsel for his loyalty, rather than his legal experience, according to Courthouse News Service.

NRA Watch concluded that Frazer’s testimony “painted a picture of a chief legal officer that was largely out of the loop on big legal decisions, and an organization that had largely given control of such legal decisions to” its outside law firm, Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors. NRA Watch receives funding from Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit organization, according to the Brewer firm.

The NRA had sued the Ackerman McQueen agency in 2019 to obtain details about its contract with Oliver North, a former NRA president, who left the NRA after unsuccessfully seeking financial information from LaPierre. The ad agency counterclaimed. North testified about his rift with the NRA last week, Courthouse News Service and Newsweek reported.

Legal filings in the civil fraud case indicate that the NRA paid more than $12 million in settlement funds to Ackerman McQueen, according to a PRWeek story that ran in April 2023.

On Tuesday, Frazer was asked whether it was true that the Brewer firm received more than $100 million in legal fees from the NRA from 2018 to 2022. Frazer said he never calculated the amount.

Updated Jan. 31 at 2:15 p.m. to add information about NRA Watch’s funding.

Source link

The post Ex-NRA CEO didn’t consult GCs office about key legal decisions, general counsel testifies appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.