Latest news with #BloombergLaw
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
DoJ whistleblower provides emails backing claim Emil Bove defied courts over deportations
Erez Reuveni, a former justice department attorney who was dismissed from his post, has provided text messages to the Senate judiciary committee supporting his whistleblower complaint involving Emil Bove, a top department official who is currently being considered for a seat on the federal bench. Reuveni's initial complaint, filed last month, included the explosive allegation that Bove had told justice department lawyers that they 'would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order' blocking efforts to remove immigrants to El Salvador. Related: DoJ leader suggested defying courts over deportations, whistleblower says The text messages Reuveni provided to the Senate judiciary committee include Reuveni and his boss, August Flentje, referencing Bove's comments, according to Bloomberg Law. 'Guess we are about to say fuck you to the court' – 'Super,' Reuveni texted a colleague, according to Bloomberg. The colleague replied: 'Well Pamela Jo Bondi is' and 'Not you.' A former New York City-based federal prosecutor, Bove was hired by Donald Trump to defend him against the four state and federal indictments he faced before winning re-election last year. He then appointed Bove as acting justice department deputy attorney general in his first weeks back in the White House, during which time Bove fired prosecutors who brought charges against January 6 rioters and requested a list of FBI agents who worked on the cases. During a hearing before the Senate judiciary committee last month, Bove denied that he had ever instructed justice department attorneys to defy a court order. 'I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,' he said. But the messages released by Reuveni suggest that justice department lawyers were, at the very least, aware of the possibility they might have to ignore judicial orders. One of the newly disclosed emails shows that Bove gave the OK to deplane flights on foreign soil that were carrying immigration detainees from the US, despite an order from US district judge James Boasberg to turn the planes around. According to the email, Bove gave the legal advice that it was OK to deplane the detainees because the planes had left US airspace before Boasberg's written order had been filed on the court docket. Before issuing his written order, Boasberg had issued an oral order from the bench. 'At this point why don't we just submit an emoji of a middle finger as our filing,' Reuveni wrote in one 19 March message. 'A picayune middle finger.' 'So stupid,' his boss wrote back. The messages provide an unusual and remarkable level of insight into how justice department lawyers knew they were defying court orders. Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, responded to the issue on X on Thursday. 'We support legitimate whistleblowers, but this disgruntled employee is not a whistleblower – he's a leaker asserting false claims seeking five minutes of fame, conveniently timed just before a confirmation hearing and a committee vote,' she wrote. 'As Mr Bove testified and as the Department has made clear, there was no court order to defy, as we successfully argued to the DC Circuit when seeking a stay, when they stayed Judge Boasberg's lawless order. And no one was ever asked to defy a court order. 'This is another instance of misinformation being spread to serve a narrative that does not align with the facts. This 'whistleblower' signed 3 briefs defending DOJ's position in this matter and his subsequent revisionist account arose only after he was fired because he violated his ethical duties to the department.' Chris Stein contributed reporting The best public interest journalism relies on first-hand accounts from people in the know. If you have something to share on this subject you can contact us confidentially using the following methods. Secure Messaging in the Guardian app The Guardian app has a tool to send tips about stories. Messages are end to end encrypted and concealed within the routine activity that every Guardian mobile app performs. This prevents an observer from knowing that you are communicating with us at all, let alone what is being said. If you don't already have the Guardian app, download it (iOS/Android) and go to the menu. Select 'Secure Messaging'. SecureDrop, instant messengers, email, telephone and post See our guide at for alternative methods and the pros and cons of each.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Full List as Supreme Court Rules for Donald Trump 15 Times in a Row
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In a sweeping series of rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court granted all 15 of President Donald Trump's emergency applications since April, enabling him to reshape the federal government with unprecedented speed. From firing civil servants to gutting entire departments, the court's quiet assent is fueling a dramatic remaking of American governance. Why It Matters The Supreme Court's emergency rulings are allowing Trump to rapidly reshape key federal institutions without full judicial review. By granting stays and lifting injunctions—often without explanation—the court has enabled him to fire civil servants, restructure or eliminate agencies like the Department of Education and enforce controversial immigration policies. The Supreme Court justices, including three nominated by Trump in a 6-3 conservative majority, have facilitated actions such as revoking legal protections for more than 1 million immigrants, dismissing thousands of federal employees, barring transgender individuals from military service, and replacing leaders of independent government agencies, among other measures, bypassing normal checks and balances, accelerating Trump's agenda while limiting transparency and oversight. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump on recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, in the briefing room at the White House on June 27, 2025, in Washington. Getty Images/AFP What To Know When June Grasso asked professor David Super of Georgetown Law on the July 16 Bloomberg Law podcast if Trump could effectively dismantle the Department of Education, he replied: "What has certainly been done is that given the court's previous rulings for Trump, especially last week's ruling that allowed the administration to begin mass firings at federal agencies, this one came without any explanation at all. "What the court's done in prior cases upholding the administration is nitpick the challengers to death finding small, often semantic defect in what they've done, construing jurisdiction extraordinarily strictly. "But in this case, they simply allowed the president to go forward with activities that seem patently illegal without giving any explanation as to why it was acceptable." Here's a consolidated summary of the 15 emergency rulings granted by the U.S. Supreme Court since April in response to Trump's applications, with vote details where available: 1. Federal Workforce Reductions Trump v. AFGE Issue: Nationwide injunction blocked mass federal worker terminations. Nationwide injunction blocked mass federal worker terminations. Supreme Court Vote: 6-3, Justices Sotomayor, Brown Jackson and Kagan dissented. Justices Sotomayor, Brown Jackson and Kagan dissented. Result: Injunction stayed; Trump allowed to proceed with cuts. 2. Education Department Reinstatements McMahon v. New York Issue: Required rehiring of Education Department officials. Required rehiring of Education Department officials. Supreme Court Vote: 5-4 . . Result: Lower court order paused, enabling Trump to proceed with agency overhaul. 3. Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Trump v. CASA Issue: Trump seeks to end birthright citizenship via executive order. Trump seeks to end birthright citizenship via executive order. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, emergency stay granted. emergency stay granted. Result: Injunctions lifted; birthright citizenship restrictions allowed to proceed pending appeal. 4. DHS Deportation Policy DHS v. D.V.D. Issue: Blocked deportations without torture risk assessments. Blocked deportations without torture risk assessments. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified . . Result: Deportations resumed under revised policy. 5. Labor Board Reinstatements Trump v. Wilcox Issue: Removal of NLRB and MSPB members challenged. Removal of NLRB and MSPB members challenged. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, stay granted. stay granted. Result: Trump removals upheld for now. 6. DHS Parole Policy Repeal Noem v. Doe Issue: End of categorical parole for certain nationalities. End of categorical parole for certain nationalities. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified . . Result: Trump policy allowed to proceed. 7. Social Security Access Limits SSA v. AFSCME Issue: Restricted union access to SSA systems. Restricted union access to SSA systems. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified . . Result: Restriction allowed to take effect. 8. DOGE FOIA Disclosures U.S. Doge Service v. CREW Issue: FOIA request for DOGE-related records. FOIA request for DOGE-related records. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified . . Result: Disclosure blocked pending further review. 9. Immigration Removals to Third Countries Trump v. J.G.G. Issue: Deportation under Alien Enemies Act. Deportation under Alien Enemies Act. Supreme Court Vote: 5-4 . . Result: Deportations permitted. 10. Deportation Notice Requirements W.M.M. v. Trump Issue: Due process in deportation to unsafe nations. Due process in deportation to unsafe nations. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, remanded for notice standards. remanded for notice standards. Result: Some removals delayed pending notice review. 11. Firing of Federal Watchdog Bessent v. Dellinger Issue: Independent oversight official terminated. Independent oversight official terminated. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, stay lifted. stay lifted. Result: Trump firing allowed. 12. Education Grant Rule Reversal Education Department v. California Issue: Funding obligations reinstated by lower court. Funding obligations reinstated by lower court. Supreme Court Vote: 6-3 . . Result: Reinstatement order blocked. 13. CDC Parole Program Rollback Noem v. National TPS Alliance Issue: Removal of TPS status for Venezuelans. Removal of TPS status for Venezuelans. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified . . Result: TPS rollbacks allowed. 14. Judicial Reinstatement for State Representative Libby v. Fecteau Issue: State court removed lawmaker over "insurrection" claim. State court removed lawmaker over "insurrection" claim. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified . . Result: Reinstatement ordered. 15. Alien Enemies Deportation Procedure A.A.R.P. v. Trump Issue: Minimum due-process rights before removal. Minimum due-process rights before removal. Supreme Court Vote: Not specified, emergency stay modified, requiring basic notice. emergency stay modified, requiring basic notice. Result: Deportations can proceed with notice safeguards. What People Are Saying Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, was asked on June Grasso's July 16 Bloomberg Law podcast: "Can you hazard a guess as to why they're giving Trump everything he wants? Are they just throwing up their hands and saying he's the president?" Super: "Well, the chief justice has long been known for wanting to present as united a court as possible. I'm guessing that the chief justice has reached the point of despairing of getting his colleagues to join him and is not eager to override the administration on bare 5-4 or 6-3 votes."
Newsweek
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Dozens of Green Card Applicants Sue Trump Admin After Process Derailed
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Dozens of Iranian employment-based green card applicants filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that a new presidential travel ban has unlawfully derailed their immigration process. Why This Matters The plaintiffs allege that although the ban theoretically allows for national interest exceptions, in practice, none have been granted to date. The complaint forms part of a broader legal pushback against recent Trump administration immigration measures, which have included heightened scrutiny of green card applicants and sweeping changes to application procedures. Newsweek contacted the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for comment via email. What To Know The legal complaint, submitted on Friday, challenges a proclamation issued by President Donald Trump on June 4, which restricts entry to the United States for individuals from Iran and 18 other countries. The pending case, Ariani v. Blinken, asks the court to compel the State Department to adjudicate applications that, according to the plaintiffs, should not be blocked while the ban is being challenged. The group of 33 plaintiffs includes pilots, medical researchers and experts in artificial intelligence and machine learning—sectors often highlighted as critical to U.S. innovation and national interest—according to Bloomberg Law. Despite having completed consular interviews, these individuals remain in limbo because of administrative delays compounded by the travel ban. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reviewing lists of names and hearing times and locations inside the Federal Plaza courthouse in New York before making arrests on June 27. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reviewing lists of names and hearing times and locations inside the Federal Plaza courthouse in New York before making arrests on June 27. BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP via Getty Images Lawyers for the group, represented by immigration attorneys at Red Eagle Law LC in San Diego, said the Department of Homeland Security already deemed the plaintiffs' entry to be in the national interest, yet they have faced indefinite postponement and uncertainty. The suit argues that the policy exceeds the president's legal authority and seeks both a reversal of the ban and immediate decisions from the State Department on their pending visa applications. Newsweek contacted Red Eagle Law for comment via email and social media. Travel Ban and National Interest Exception The president's June proclamation, which updated already strict vetting policies, said exceptions would be made for those whose U.S. entry served the national interest. However, the lawsuit alleges that not one exception has been processed for this plaintiff group, creating a de facto blanket ban. Broader Changes Affecting Green Card Seekers The Trump administration has rolled out additional policy changes affecting legal immigrants. On June 11, USCIS instituted a rule requiring all green card applicants to submit a renewed medical examination form with their applications, regardless of prior compliance. The adjustment, which immediately went into effect, removed previous grace periods and could require applicants caught in administrative delays to repeat medical exams—at an extra cost of $100 to $500 per test. Legal Backdrop: Multiple Lawsuits Challenge Administration's Immigration Moves The complaint by the Iranian green card applicants joins a series of legal actions brought against the Trump administration's immigration executive orders and policies. These include challenges to travel bans, restrictions on health coverage and procedural barriers that lawyers argue violate established statutes or constitutional protections. What People Are Saying The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote on X on May 5: "Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law." It said in a later post: "USCIS works alongside our @DHSgov and @StateDept partners each day to keep America, and Americans, safe. From designating foreign terrorist organizations to imposing sanctions, we're taking action to protect and secure our nation for your families, friends, and future." Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in March: "If you apply for a student visa to come to the United States and you say you're coming not just to study, but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos, we're not giving you that visa." What Happens Next The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is set to decide whether the State Department must review the plaintiffs' applications and whether the travel ban can be reversed or amended for national interest waivers. The outcome may influence other pending cases where legal immigrants allege that new Trump administration directives have unlawfully disrupted their paths to permanent residency.
Newsweek
24-05-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Top Democratic Lawyer, 3 Others Leave Paul Weiss To Start New Firm: Reports
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Months after Paul Weiss reached a settlement with the Trump administration, four senior partners at the firm are leaving to start their own practice, according to The New York Times and Bloomberg Law. Why It Matters The partners' exit comes several months after Paul Weiss settled with the Trump administration to avoid having to face the consequences—legal or otherwise—of Trump's March executive order terminating all federal government contracts with the firm and revoking the security clearances of its lawyers. Trump's executive order targeting the firm specified that it was being singled out because one of its lawyers, Mark Pomerantz, investigated Trump's business dealings when he was in the Manhattan district attorney's office. Demonstrators outside the law offices of Paul Weiss in New York on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, are protesting the firm's agreement to do free legal services for the Trump administration. Demonstrators outside the law offices of Paul Weiss in New York on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, are protesting the firm's agreement to do free legal services for the Trump administration. Ted Shaffrey/AP What To Know One of the four partners leaving is Karen Dunn, a top Democratic lawyer who helped then Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with debate preparation during their presidential campaigns, according to The New York Times. Dunn also spearheaded a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the organizers of the far-right "Unite The Right" protest in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017, Bloomberg reported. Another partner exiting Paul Weiss is Jeannie Rhee, who worked as a prosecutor on the special counsel Robert Mueller's team, which investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its efforts. The other two partners leaving the firm are Bill Isaacson, a well-known antitrust lawyer, and Jessica Phillips, who once clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, The Times reported. Paul Weiss came under fire after it settled with Trump to sidestep fighting his March executive order. As part of the arrangement, the firm agreed to scrap its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, as well as provide $40 million worth of pro bono services to support Trump's agenda. Trump subsequently rescinded his executive order. In the wake of the settlement, Paul Weiss faced a firestorm of criticism and the head of the firm's pro bono arm, Steven Banks, resigned. More than 170 alumni of the firm also signed an open letter to the firm's chairman, Brad Karp, calling the decision to settle "cowardly" and adding that "the very independence of lawyers and the legal profession is at stake." In total, the nine major law firms that settled with the Trump administration have agreed to provide about $1 billion in legal work, according to Bloomberg. What People Are Saying Dunn, Rhee, Isaacson and Phillips said in an email to the firm on Friday both Bloomberg and The Times reported: "We were disappointed not to be able to tell each of you personally and individually the news that we have decided to leave Paul, Weiss to start a new law firm." Brad Karp, the chairman of the firm, told The Times in a statement: "We are grateful to Bill, Jeannie, Jessica and Karen for their many contributions to the firm. We wish them well in their future endeavors." Neera Tanden, a prominent Democratic activist, wrote on X (formerly Twitter): "Proud of these legal leaders. They are putting principle first. Hope all lawyers at Paul Weiss of conviction join them." Jason Kint, a digital media veteran and the CEO of Digital Content Next, wrote on X: "Wow. Paul Weiss just lost the top attorneys representing Google in its adtech antitrust case just as remedies are getting underway. It will be interesting to see how Google handles this since this is fallout for the law firm being first to do a Trump deal." What Happens Next At least three law firms—Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block—have fought Trump's executive orders in court. On Friday, a federal judge appointed by George W. Bush blocked Trump's order targeting Jenner & Block after finding that it violated the Constitution.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Morgan Stanley Upgrades Price Target for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) on Cat Bond Surge and Clean Energy Deal
Morgan Stanley analyst Nigel Dally upgraded the price target for Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE:PRU) from $108 to $117 on May 19, 2025. A financial advisor is sitting with a customer in a living room discussing their financial future. On May 15, 2025, Hedge Fund Fermat Capital Management forecasted in Bloomberg Law a 20% growth in the market for catastrophe bonds before the end of 2025. Subsequently, the outlook for financial companies dealing with insurance packages went up. One of the chief beneficiaries was Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE:PRU). On the same day, PGIM Private Capital, the $1.4 trillion global investment management business of Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE:PRU), entered into a $175 million long-term partnership with Solar Landscape, one of the U.S.'s leading commercial rooftop developers. The partnership aims to financially support the increasing portfolio of Solar Landscape's projects, which feed electricity directly into the distributed grid. The company primarily intends to cover Maryland and Illinois. Following these announcements, the company's insider transactions also went up. Notably, the company's directors including Scovanner Douglas A, Poon Christine A, Todman Michael increased their stakes in the company, bringing the insider transaction to 476.22%. Prudential Financial, Inc. (NYSE: PRU), headquartered in New Jersey, has been serving clients for over 149 years since its founding in 1875. Backed by strong growth potential and a stable core performance, Morgan Stanley anticipates Prudential Financial's recovery in the second half of 2025. While we acknowledge the potential of PRU as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than PRU and that has 100x upside potential, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: Disclosure: None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
