Latest news with #4thCircuitCourt
The Independent
18 hours ago
- The Independent
Court overturns ex-state attorney's mortgage fraud conviction but upholds perjury convictions
A federal appeals court on Friday overturned a mortgage fraud conviction of former Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who gained a national profile for charging police officers in a Black man's death. But the court upheld two perjury convictions relating to real estate she purchased. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 decision that jury instruction in the mortgage fraud case was 'erroneously overbroad" concerning the proper court venue. The case was tried in Maryland relating to property she bought in Florida. 'As a result of our decision to vacate the mortgage fraud conviction, the forfeiture order related to Appellant's Longboat Key Condo, which was obtained as the fruit of the alleged mortgage fraud, is also vacated,' Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote. Judge Paul Niemeyer dissented in part. While the majority ruling contended that the government failed to introduce evidence sufficient to show that the crime was committed in Maryland and that the district court's venue instruction was erroneous, Niemeyer wrote he would have rejected both arguments and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court upheld two perjury convictions, saying it found 'no error in the district court's adjudication of Appellant's perjury convictions.' The court rejected arguments by Mosby that the admitted evidence misled jurors. 'In sum, the district court did not err in permitting the Government to introduce evidence as to how Appellant utilized the funds she withdrew from her retirement accounts,' the court said. 'That evidence was probative as to whether Appellant suffered 'adverse financial consequences.' And the probative value of that evidence was not substantially outweighed by a risk of undue prejudice or jury confusion.' Mosby, 45, was spared jail time at her sentencing last year. Her sentence included 12 months of home confinement, which she concluded last month. She also was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and three years of supervised release. Mosby was convicted of lying about her finances to make early withdrawals from retirement funds during the COVID-19 pandemic and fraudulently claiming that her own $5,000 was a gift from her then-husband as she closed on a Florida condominium. Mosby, who was Baltimore's state's attorney from 2015 to 2023, has maintained her innocence. Mosby gained national attention when she charged officers in the 2015 death of Freddie Gray, which led to riots and protests in the city. After three officers were acquitted, Mosby's office dropped charges against the other three officers. She ultimately served two terms as state's attorney before she was indicted and lost reelection. In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, Mosby withdrew $90,000 from Baltimore city's deferred compensation plan and used it to make down payments on vacation homes in Kissimmee and Longboat Key, Florida. Prosecutors argued that Mosby improperly accessed the funds under provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act by falsely claiming that the pandemic had harmed her travel-oriented side business. Mosby's lawyers argued that the retirement funds came from her own income and that no one was defrauded because she paid an early-withdrawal penalty and all federal taxes on the money. The government said that money remained the property of the city until she was legally eligible, and her perjury harmed everyone who followed the rules during the coronavirus pandemic. The mortgage fraud conviction overturned by the appeals court on Friday stemmed from a $5,000 'gift letter' she submitted when taking a loan to buy the Longboat Key property. Prosecutors said the letter falsely stated that Mosby's husband was giving her a $5,000 gift for the closing when it actually was her own money. Mosby applied for a presidential pardon last year. In a letter to then-President Joe Biden, the Congressional Black Caucus expressed support for her cause. Biden did not grant a pardon.
Los Angeles Times
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court to decide if federal law bars transgender athletes from women's teams
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to weigh in on the growing controversy over transgender athletes and decide if federal law bars transgender girls from women's school sports teams. 'Biological boys should not compete on girls' athletics teams,' West Virginia's attorney general said in an appeal the court voted to hear. The appeal had the backing of 26 other Republican-led states as well as President Trump. In recent weeks, Trump threatened to cut off education funds to California because a transgender athlete participated in a women's track and field competition. Four years ago, West Virginia adopted its Save Women's Sports Act but the measure has been blocked as discriminatory by the 4th Circuit Court in 2-1 decision. Idaho filed a similar appeal after their laws were blocked by the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco. The court said it would hear that case together with the West Virginia case. At issue is the meaning of Title IX, the federal education law which has been credited with opening the door for the vast expansion of women's sports. Schools and colleges were told they must give girls equal opportunities in athletics by providing them with separate sports teams. In the past decade, however, states and their schools divided on the question of who can participate on the girls team. Is it only those who were girls at birth or can it also include those whose gender identity is female? West Virginia told the court its 'legislature concluded that biological boys should compete on boys' and co-ed teams but not girls' teams. This separation made sense, the legislature found, because of the 'inherent physical differences between biological males and biological females'.' California and most Democratic states allow transgender girls to compete in sports competitions for women. In 2013, the Legislature said a student 'shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and with his or her gender identity.' The Supreme Court had put off a decision on this issue while the divide among the states grew. Two years ago, the justices turned down a fast-track appeal from West Virginia's lawyers on a 7-2 vote and allowed a 12-year old transgender girl to run on the girls' cross country team. Becky Pepper-Jackson and her mother sued after the school principal said she was barred by the state's law from competing on the girls' teams at her middle school in Bridgeport, W. Va. She 'has lived as a girl in all aspects of her life for years and receives puberty-delaying treatment and estrogen hormone therapy, so has not experienced (and will not experience) endogenous puberty,' her mother said in support of their lawsuit. ACLU lawyers said then the court should stand aside. They said B.P.J. was eager to participate in sports but was 'too slow to compete in the track events' on the girls team. Last year, West Virginia tried again and urged the Supreme Court to review the 4th Circuit's decision and uphold its restrictions on transgender athletes. The state attorneys also said the would-be middle school athlete had become a track star. 'This spring, B.P.J. placed top three in every track event B.P.J. competed in, winning most. B.P.J. beat over 100 girls, displacing them over 250 times while denying multiple girls spots and medals in the conference championship. B.P.J. won the shot put by more than three feet while placing second in discus,' they told the court. Last year, the court opted to rule first in a Tennessee case to decide if states may prohibit puberty blockers, hormones and other medical treatments for young teens who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. On June 18, the court's conservative majority said state lawmakers had the authority to restrict medical treatments for adolescents who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria, noting the ongoing debate over the long-term risks and benefits. The ruling turned aside the contention that law reflected unconstitutional sex discrimination. On Thursday, the justices released their final orders list before their summer recess granting review of new cases to be heard in the fall. Included were the cases of West Virginia vs. BJP and Little vs. Hecox. In response to the appeals, ACLU lawyers accused the state of seeking to 'create a false sense of national emergency' based on a legal 'challenge by one transgender girl.' The lawsuit said the state measure was 'part of a concerted nationwide effort to target transgender youth for unequal treatment.' The suit contended the law violated Title IX and was unconstitutional because it discriminated against student athletes based on their gender identity. West Virginia's lawyers saw a threat to Title IX and women's sports. They said the rulings upholding transgender rights 'took a law designed to ensure meaningful competitive opportunities for women and girls—based on biological differences—and fashioned it into a lever for males to force their way onto girls' sports teams based on identity, destroying the very opportunities Title IX was meant to protect.'
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children
The Supreme Court justices sounded ready on Tuesday to give parents a constitutional right to opt out of public school lessons for their children that offend their religious beliefs. At issue are new "LGBTQ-inclusive" storybooks used for classroom reading for pre-kindergarten to 5th grade in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington where three justices reside. In recent years, the court's six conservatives have invoked the "free exercise of religion" to protect Catholic schools from illegal job-bias claims from teachers and to give parents an equal right to use state grants to send their children to religious schools. During an argument on Tuesday, they strongly suggested they would extend religious liberty rights to parents with children in public schools. Read more: Supreme Court temporarily halts more Venezuelan detainee removals under Alien Enemies Act "They are not asking to change what is taught in the classroom," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told an attorney for the court. "As a lifelong resident of the county, I'm mystified at how it came to this. They had promised parents they would be notified and allow to opt out" if they objected to the new storybooks, he said. "But the next day, they changed the rule." Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also live in Montgomery County, and both have been reliable supporters of religious liberty claims. Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. When the new storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when "unsustainably high numbers" of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule. They explained this state rule applied to older students and sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children. In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children be removed from class during the reading lessons. They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children. A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court refused to intervene. Those judges said the "free exercise" of religion protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs, neither of which were at issue in the school case. But the Supreme Court voted to hear the parents' appeal in the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor. Representing the parents, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stressed they "were not objecting to books being on the shelf or in the library. No student has a right to tell the school which books to choose," he said. "Here, the school board is imposing indoctrination on these children." Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the school board, said its goal for the new storybooks was "to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect." He cautioned the court against adding a broad new right for parents and students to object to ideas or messages that offend them. Read more: As Muslims' status as political punching bag fades, some are fighting against LGBTQ+ acceptance The Becket attorneys in their legal brief described seven books they found objectionable. One of them, "Pride Puppy," is a picture book directed at 3- and 4-year-olds. It "describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there," they said. "The book invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' [drag] king' and [drag] queen.'" Another — "Love, Violet" — is about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. "Born Ready" tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy. "Intersection Allies" is a picture book also intended for early elementary school classes. "It invites children to ponder what it means to be 'transgender' or 'non-binary' and asks 'what pronouns fit you?'' they said. Teachers were told "to instruct students that, at birth, doctors 'guess about our gender,' but '[w]e know ourselves best.'" They said teachers were instructed to 'disrupt the either/or thinking' of elementary students about biological sex. After the case reached the Supreme Court, two of the seven books were dropped by the school board, including "Pride Puppy." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court appears to favor parents' right to opt out of LGBTQ+ stories for their children
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded ready on Tuesday to give parents a constitutional right to opt out of public school lessons for their children that offend their religious beliefs. At issue are new 'LGBTQ-inclusive' storybooks used for classroom reading for pre-kindergarten to 5th grade in Montgomery County, Md., a suburb of Washington where three justices reside. In recent years, the court's six conservatives have invoked the 'free exercise of religion' to protect Catholic schools from illegal job-bias claims from teachers and to give parents an equal right to use state grants to send their children to religious schools. During an argument on Tuesday, they strongly suggested they would extend religious liberty rights to parents with children in public schools. 'They are not asking to change what is taught in the classroom,' Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told an attorney for the court. 'As a lifelong resident of the county, I'm mystified at how it came to this. They had promised parents they would be notified and allow to opt out' if they objected to the new storybooks, he said. 'But the next day, they changed the rule.' Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch also live in Montgomery County, and both have been reliable supporters of religious liberty claims. Nearly every state, including Maryland and California, has a law that allows parents to opt out of sex education classes for their children. When the new storybooks were introduced in the fall of 2022, parents were told their young children could be removed from those lessons. But when 'unsustainably high numbers' of children were absent, the school board revoked the opt-out rule. They explained this state rule applied to older students and sex education, but not to reading lessons for elementary children. In reaction, a group of Muslim, Catholic and Ukrainian Orthodox parents filed a suit in federal court, seeking an order that would allow their children be removed from class during the reading lessons. They said the books conflicted with the religious and moral views they taught their children. A federal judge and the 4th Circuit Court refused to intervene. Those judges said the 'free exercise' of religion protects people from being forced to change their conduct or their beliefs, neither of which were at issue in the school case. But the Supreme Court voted to hear the parents' appeal in the case of Mahmoud vs. Taylor. Representing the parents, Eric Baxter, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stressed they 'were not objecting to books being on the shelf or in the library. No student has a right to tell the school which books to choose,' he said. 'Here, the school board is imposing indoctrination on these children.' Alan Shoenfeld, an attorney for the school board, said its goal for the new storybooks was 'to foster mutual respect. The lesson is that they should treat their peers with respect.' He cautioned the court against adding a broad new right for parents and students to object to ideas or messages that offend them. The Becket attorneys in their legal brief described seven books they found objectionable. One of them, 'Pride Puppy,' is a picture book directed at 3- and 4-year-olds. It 'describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there,' they said. 'The book invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of 'underwear,' 'leather,' 'lip ring,' [drag] king' and [drag] queen.'' Another — 'Love, Violet' — is about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. 'Born Ready' tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy. 'Intersection Allies' is a picture book also intended for early elementary school classes. 'It invites children to ponder what it means to be 'transgender' or 'non-binary' and asks 'what pronouns fit you?'' they said. Teachers were told 'to instruct students that, at birth, doctors 'guess about our gender,' but '[w]e know ourselves best.'' They said teachers were instructed to 'disrupt the either/or thinking' of elementary students about biological sex. After the case reached the Supreme Court, two of the seven books were dropped by the school board, including 'Pride Puppy.'
Los Angeles Times
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Supreme Court says government should seek return of wrongly deported Maryland man
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday the Trump administration should seek the return of the Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador, but stopped short of ordering that he be returned to this country. The justices gave a partial win to Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was sent to a Salvadoran prison because of what the government conceded was an 'administrative error.' In an unsigned order, the high court said it agreed for the most part with U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who ruled for him. Her 'order properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.' That would include an opportunity for him and his lawyer to show that he was not a gang member and should not be deported. But the court added that the judge's demand the government 'effectuate' his return 'is unclear and may exceed the district court's authority. ... The district court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.' None of the nine justices dissented, although the court's three liberals said the government's appeal should have been denied entirely. Trump's lawyers agreed Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported on March 15 to the Terrorism Confinement Center, Salvador's huge maximum security prison. The Maryland man was arrested by federal agents on March 12 on the grounds that he had been identified six years earlier as a member of the MS-13 gang, which he denied. An immigration judge said in 2019 he could be 'removed' or deported, but he could not be sent to his native El Salvador because he could face gang persecution there. But when the Trump administration began its roundup of alleged members of foreign criminal gangs, Abrego Garcia was detained in Texas with other migrants facing deportation and then wrongly put on to a plane to El Salvador. Since then, his wife and her lawyer have been trying desperately to win his return. They said he has no criminal record, is a father of three children and was employed as a sheet metal worker in Baltimore. But Trump administration insisted it has no duty and no intent to demand his return. Their lawyers have also argued that judges had no authority to intervene. 'The Constitution charges the President, not federal district courts, with the conduct of foreign diplomacy and protecting the Nation against foreign terrorists,' Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court in an appeal file on Monday. Last week, Xinis ordered the government to 'facilitate and effectuate' Abrego Garcia's return by Monday at midnight. The administration appealed, but the 4th Circuit Court upheld her order. 'The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,' wrote Judge Stephanie Thacker, an Obama appointee. She said it was 'unconscionable' for the government to argue that the 'courts are powerless to intervene.' But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. paused the judge's order while the justices decided how to rule. In his appeal on behalf of the Trump administration, Sauer said the judge had ordered 'unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil.' The administration says the native of El Salvador entered this country illegally in 2011 and was arrested in 2019 and held after he was identified 'as a ranking member of the deadly MS-13 gang.' He had a hearing before an immigration judge who agreed the 'evidence show[ed] that [Abrego Garcia] is a verified member of MS-13.' The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that conclusion. But in a subsequent hearing, an immigration judge decided he should not be removed to El Salvador because he could face gang persecution. Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, says her husband came to this country at age 16 to escape the gangs in El Salvador. 'My husband, Kilmar, was abducted by the U.S. government,' she told reporters at a rally on Friday. 'In the blink of an eye, our three children lost their father, and I lost the love of my life.' The judges who ruled on the case said the government did not show proof that Abrego Garcia had been gang member. 'The government's 'evidence' was thin, to say the least,' Thacker said. It was based on him 'wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie' and a 'vague and uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13's Western clique in New York — a place he has never lived.'
