Latest news with #Boardman
The Hill
3 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Colorado gets new Trump portrait after he balked at last one
Colorado's Democratic lawmakers said Thursday they would temporarily replace a $11,000 portrait of President Trump in the state Capitol with a painting donated by the White House after he previously criticized the original artwork. Former state Sen. Lois Court (D), chair of the Colorado Capitol Building Advisory Committee, made the decision to decommission Sarah Boardman's portrait of the president following his outspoken criticism of the image. The new portrait created by Vanessa Horabuena of Tempe, Ariz., is 'currently being framed' Court told The Colorado Sun. Trump has requested that the painting be printed with a golden border so it would catch the light and 'glimmer,' The Guardian reported. The Colorado Capitol Building Advisory Committee is expected to discuss which Trump portrait will permanently hang in the Capitol by September. 'Nobody likes a bad picture or painting of themselves, but the one in Colorado, in the State Capitol … was purposefully distorted to a level that even I, perhaps, have never seen before,' Trump wrote about Boardman's painting in a March post on Truth Social. 'In any event, I would much prefer not having a picture than having this one,' he added. After his comments, state Republicans urged leaders to remove the painting, which Colorado's former senate president Kevin Grantham (R) raised thousands to commission for 'tourists, visitors, and Colorado history buffs' to enjoy. Boardman, who painted former President Obama's portrait in the Capitol, said her painting of Trump is historically neutral. 'My portrait of President Trump has been called thoughtful, non-confrontational, not angry, not happy, not tweeting. In five, 10, 15, 20 years, he will be another president on the wall who is only historical background and he needs to look neutral,' she told Art News. The image was unveiled in 2019 and Boardman says she has since faced financial repercussions due to the president's criticism, according to The Colorado Sun.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Trump's lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Also Read: US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Popular in NRI Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads President Donald Trump 's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for US citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, US District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the US Supreme Court 's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action judges asked US Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision."They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then."Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order."It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said.
AsiaOne
2 days ago
- Politics
- AsiaOne
Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges, World News
President Donald Trump's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for US citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on Sunday (July 27), a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges. During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, US District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the US Supreme Court's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits. Both judges asked US Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect. Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday. In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday. The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide. But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions. William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. "They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell said. Trump's executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. In Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out. Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognise that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then. "Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the hearing. Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10. Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order. "It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said [[nid:719410]]
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges
By Nate Raymond and Daniel Wiessner Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges June 30 - President Donald Trump's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for U.S. citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal judges. During separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, U.S. District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action lawsuits. Both judges asked U.S. Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes effect. Rosenberg said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and Wednesday. In the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Friday. The Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies nationwide. But while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class actions. William Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. "They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell said. Trump's executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" holder. In Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played out. Those judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a citizen. Immigrant rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order. The Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then. "Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the hearing. Boardman scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July 10. Rosenberg said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order. "It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Boardman residents frustrated with messes left by fiber optic cable companies
BOARDMAN, Ohio (WKBN) — A group of people from one Boardman neighborhood told township trustees on Monday that more needs to be done to hold companies accountable for cleaning up after installing new fiber optic cables. Lawyer and Park Harbour neighborhood resident John Shultz addressed the problems he and his neighbors have had with companies installing fiber optic cables in the neighborhood, where a trencher sits parked on a cul-de-sac surrounded by utility line markers and piles of dirt next to curbs. 'There's one driveway that's almost completely gone at the bottom where it addresses the street, or where it merges right into the street. They have knocked out street lights. They have put holes in,' Shultz said. Boardman Administrator Jason Loree said there's little the township can do when it comes to fiber optic installations, as they're regulated by the Federal Communications Commission. 'They've had some issues in Canfield. They've had some issues in Poland,' Loree said. 'They basically can come in here and work on a right of way, and we really have no way to stop them.' But the township has hired a lawyer to determine if it can require the installation companies to post a bond before being allowed to do the work. 'To ensure that they come into a neighborhood, they leave it the way they found it, and if they don't, we can pull the bond,' Loree said. 'I do like the bond suggestion. I think that's a necessity,' Shultz said. Another complaint was that a second crew follows the installation crew to repair the landscaping damage instead of fixing it as they go. Plus, Loree said, residents should be able to know when the crews are coming. 'Now they're supposed to put it back the way they found it. It doesn't always happen,' Loree said. 'And we're also wanting to make sure that when they are coming in your neighborhoods, they should, out of courtesy, be posting door hangers.' 'We would impose upon you to be our spokesperson to say, 'Hey, not only in Park Harbour, but anywhere — off Glenwood Avenue, off Market Street — these neighborhoods don't deserve this type of treatment,'' Shultz said to the trustees. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
