Latest news with #DCCircuit
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US court says Trump can remove Democrat from labor board, for now
By Daniel Wiessner (Reuters) -A U.S. appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trumpto remove a Democratic member from a federal labor board while his administration appeals a ruling that said her firing was illegal and had reinstated her. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit paused the lower court decision pending the appeal, saying a law shielding members of the Federal Labor Relations Authority from being removed at will likely violated Trump's broad powers to control the executive branch. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington had ruled otherwise in March and ordered the reinstatement of Susan Tsui Grundmann, who had been fired by Trump a month earlier. The three-member FLRA, which was created by Congress to be independent from the White House, hears disputes between federal agencies and their employees' unions. It can order agencies to bargain with unions and in some cases prevent agencies from firing unionized workers.
Fox News
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Appeals court grants Trump short-term win over Boasberg in immigration ruling
A U.S. appeals court agreed to pause a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to provide due process to hundreds of Venezuelan migrants deported from the U.S. to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act in a near-term victory for the Trump administration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted the Justice Department's request for an administrative stay, putting on hold a lower court order handed down last week by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Last Wednesday, Boasberg ruled that the migrants deported solely on the basis of the Alien Enemies Act immigration law did not have prior notice of their removals or the ability to challenge their removals in court, in a violation of due process. He ordered the Trump administration to provide migrants deported under the law the opportunity to seek habeas relief, and the opportunity to challenge their alleged gang member status that the administration had pointed to as the basis for their removal. Boasberg had given the Trump administration through Wednesday to submit to the court plans for how it would go about providing habeas relief to the plaintiffs in CECOT, the maximum security prison in El Salvador. This week, lawyers for the Trump administration filed an emergency motion to stay the ruling in both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday, one day before that plan was due, seeking additional time to respond to the underlying merits of Boasberg's ruling. Justice Department officials argued that Boasberg did not have jurisdiction in the case, as the migrants are detained in El Salvador, and said his order interfered "with the president's removal of dangerous criminal aliens from the United States." Boasberg's final order last week did not attempt to determine who had jurisdiction. Instead, he set the matter aside, and said the individuals could remain in custody at CECOT, so long as the government submitted plans to the court for how they would be provided a chance to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration still took umbrage with that ruling, which it blasted earlier this week in their appeal as "unprecedented, baseless and constitutionally offensive." "The district court's increasingly fantastical injunctions continue to threaten serious harm to the government's national-security and foreign-affairs interests," they told the circuit court. The court "correctly ruled that the United States lacks constructive custody over the aliens held at CECOT and therefore that this Court lacks jurisdiction over their habeas claims," attorneys for the Justice Department said in their motion. "That should have been the end of this case." That order sparked fierce backlash from senior Trump officials, who have blasted Bosaberg and other federal judges who have ruled in ways unfavorable to them as "activist judges." Boasberg, however, was the first federal judge to try to block Trump's attempt to use the law to summarily deport certain migrants to El Salvador earlier this year, putting him squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. On March 15, he granted a temporary restraining order attempting to block the first wave of deportation flights to El Salvador, and ordered the administration to "immediately" return to the U.S. all planes that had already departed. That did not happen, however, and the planes landed hours later in El Salvador. In the months since, Boasberg attempted to hold various fact-finding hearings to determine who knew what, and when, about the flights. He later found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt of the court, citing the government's "willful disregard" for his March 15 emergency order, though those proceedings were later halted by a federal appeals court.
Boston Globe
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
The ‘reverse discrimination' US Supreme Court ruling could've been much worse
I was struck by the fact that the opinion was written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's only Black woman and someone who was nominated after former President Joe Biden vowed to install a Black woman on the court. Chief Justice John Roberts, when he is in the majority of a decision of the court, is the one who decides which justice will write the opinion. Lots of considerations go into who an opinion's author is, including how many other cases that justice has written compared to others. Advertisement And, as 'It also was a strategic assignment by Roberts,' Coyle observed. 'Justice Jackson, a member of a minority group, led the court in a discrimination case involving a member of a majority group. It gave the final decision an extra dollop of credibility.' Advertisement So was it some kind of subtle troll by Roberts to assign an opinion that will likely open the door to more so-called reverse discrimination cases? Only Roberts knows his thought process. But what is clear is this: When it comes to protecting the ability of people to bring employment discrimination claims, this ruling could have been much, much worse. And for that, I'm grateful for Jackson's leadership. After all, some of her colleagues, like Justice Brett Kavanaugh, have gone on record questioning whether the framework for proving employment discrimination claims that the court established more than half century ago should be tossed out. That framework, established 52 years ago in Then, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show a 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason' for the adverse employment action. Then the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer's nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for actual discrimination. But when Kavanaugh was a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, he questioned whether that framework should come into play at all when an employer seeks to dismiss a case in the early stages of litigation before the case has a chance to go to trial. Advertisement But dropping the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting standard in such early challenges to litigation would risk slamming the door on many meritorious claims. That's because it is very hard, before the parties have had a chance to obtain and produce crucial evidence of their case, for an employee to make a full evidentiary showing that their case is likely to succeed if it goes to a jury. Burden-shifting schemes are meant to avoid this, and striking down McDonnell Douglas would have the immediate effect of making all discrimination claims more difficult to bring and prove. Enter Jackson, with a reasonable alternative that the court could unanimously back: applying the McDonnell Douglas framework to all cases, whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a minority group or not. After all, as Jackson reasoned, that is what the plain reading of Title VII — the civil rights-era law that federal employment discrimination claims are brought under — calls for. That is originalism in action — declaring that a statute says what it says, based on its plain text. And if that is the narrow holding that Jackson knew she could get everyone on board for, then good for her. There are bigger battles ahead to fight. This is an excerpt from , a newsletter about the Supreme Court from columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Advertisement Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Associated Press challenges ruling limiting access to White House
In a filing Tuesday, the Associated Press asked that all the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit review a 2-1 decision by a smaller panel of the court Bloomberg The Associated Press is challenging a ruling that allowed President Donald Trump to exclude the news agency from 'restricted' spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One. In a filing Tuesday, the Associated Press asked that all the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit review a 2-1 decision by a smaller panel of the court. On Friday, the panel, which included two judges appointed by Trump, halted a lower-court's order that restored the wire service's ability to participate in a rotating pool of reporters who cover the president's daily movements. The news agency sued the Trump administration in February when the White House press office started limiting the access of AP reporters and photographers. The wire service had refused to update its style guide to rename the 'Gulf of Mexico' the 'Gulf of America' following a Trump executive order. Patrick Maks, a spokesman for the AP, said the news wire is seeking a rehearing by the full appellate court because the panel's ruling 'allows the White House to discriminate and retaliate over words it does not like, a violation of the First Amendment.' The case is Associated Press v. Budowich, 25-5109, DC Circuit Court of Appeals (Washington)
Japan Times
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Japan Times
Trump can bar AP from some White House events for now, U.S. appeals court says
President Donald Trump is free to bar the Associated Press from some White House media events for now, after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The divided ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The 2-1 ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao wrote that the lower court injunction "impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces" and that the White House was likely to ultimately defeat the Associated Press' lawsuit. The Associated Press in a statement said it was disappointed by the decision and weighing its options. Trump in a statement on his social media platform Truth Social called the D.C. Circuit order a "Big WIN over AP today." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement on X said the Associated Press "is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations." She said the White House "will continue to expand access to new media." In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former U.S. President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with "any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy." The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. "The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets. The AP says in its stylebook that the Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years and, as a global news agency, the AP will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen.
