Latest news with #DistrictCourt
Washington Post
8 hours ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries.
Al Arabiya
9 hours ago
- Business
- Al Arabiya
Judge Rejects Another Trump Executive Order Targeting the Legal Community
A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. US District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. The Susman Godfrey firm suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie, and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. 'In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full,' AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
Sunday World
12 hours ago
- Sunday World
Off-duty garda got ‘paralytic drunk' at stag and assaulted hotel porter, court told
'Mr Fitzmaurice had four or five drinks and all of a sudden he was paralytic drunk and he had to be brought home' Caoileann Fitzmaurice (31)l leaves Ennis courthouse after escaping a conviction for an assault on a hotel porter during a 'stag' weekend in Ennis in January 2023 Photo: Press 22 An off-duty garda and former inter-county GAA star got 'paralytic drunk' during an 'alcohol-fuelled' stag weekend before assaulting a hotel porter, a court in Clare has been told. At Ennis District Court, Judge Alec Gabbett said: 'It is a shame really that but for the isolated incident on a stag night where Caoileann Fitzmaurice drank sambuca he probably wouldn't be here at all." Judge Gabbett said: 'Mr Fitzmaurice had four or five drinks and all of a sudden he was paralytic drunk and he had to be brought home. Then he was confronted by this nice man (Olufegun Lawal) who was trying to direct him to the right place when the melee ensued.' The judge described Mr Fitzmaurice, who has represented Roscommon at senior inter-county football level, as having been on 'an alcohol-fuelled weekend'. Fitzmaurice (31), who is stationed at Pearse Street Garda Station in Dublin, pleaded guilty to assaulting Olufegun Lawal at the Queen's Hotel, Abbey Street, Ennis, Co Clare, on January 21, 2023. Caoileann Fitzmaurice (31)l leaves Ennis courthouse after escaping a conviction for an assault on a hotel porter during a 'stag' weekend in Ennis in January 2023 Photo: Press 22 News in 90 Seconds - June 27th Judge Gabbett said that he would not be imposing a conviction on Mr Fitzmaurice for the late-night assault and instead imposed the Probation Act on the man and made a compensation order for €5,000, which was handed over to Mr Lawal. He said would not convict Mr Fitzmaurice 'due to the exemplary fashion in which he has engaged with the Probation Services'. The manner in which Mr Fitzmaurice – who has no previous convictions – had met the case was 'an example to others'. 'He has met the case head on, shown remorse, apologised, faced up to it and paid compensation,' the judge said. It is a very, very good probation report. Mr Fitzmaurice's own insight into the offending is excellent which comes out in the report. 'He has given up alcohol, he has engaged in counselling, he is getting married, he has engaged in very pro-social activities.' Mr Fitzmaurice was described by the judge as 'a very well educated gentleman and has a qualification in criminology". 'There is obviously a significant future here for him in his current job with his qualifications.' Mr Fitzmaurice was 'mortified' by what occurred. 'He has received significant publicity for this crime, which is very difficult for his family, his club mates and his colleagues. 'I am very conscious of the notoriety that this case has brought him - unfortunately Mr Google will follow him around for a long time.' Judge Gabbett said he wouldn't expect to see Mr Fitzmaurice in a court again other than in his role as a state witness. It was never easy for a member of An Garda Siochana to be before the courts. Judge Gabbett said he was conscious of the internal disciplinary proceedings within An Garda Siochana which, he said, would have to happen because it is an assault. The significant aspect of the disciplinary proceedings would be to get Mr Fitzmaurice "off administrative duties and back to his normal duties of preventing crime'. Cian Kelly BL, counsel for Mr Fitzmaurice, asked that the case be struck out due to the manner in which Mr Fitzmaurice had met the case. Judge Gabbett said that he didn't think it would change the outcome of the disciplinary process if the case was struck out. Mr Kelly said: 'Unfortunately having dealt with the minutiae of that disciplinary process, I am very conscious that minute differences have significant ramifications in that process.' Judge Gabbett said: 'The court has come as much as it can in terms of sanction.' State Solicitor for Clare Aisling Casey said: 'From the very outset, the victim wanted an acknowledgement that he had done nothing wrong and the accused was apologetic to him.' Mr Lawal opted not to provide a victim impact statement to the court. On his way out of the courtroom, Mr Fitzmaurice shook hands with Mr Lawal. In the prosecution against Mr Fitzmaurice taken by the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission (GSOC), Sarah Jane Comerford BL previously outlined the facts in the case to the court. Ms Comerford said on January 21, 2023, Mr Fitzmaurice was off-duty on the night and out with friends in Ennis. He was brought back to the Queens Hotel by a number of friends. Ms Comerford said: 'He was exceptionally intoxicated and in a confused state and was brought back by friends for the purpose of putting him to bed. 'But they left him in the care of hotel porter Mr Lawal and asked Mr Lawal to bring him up to his room. 'Unfortunately, Garda Fitzmaurice was in such an intoxicated state that he started walking around the hotel. He was very disoriented - he dropped the key to his hotel room and Mr Lawal who was at all times trying to assist him picked up the key and at that point, Garda Fitzmaurice struck him two times - once in the nose and once in the left eye and Mr Lawal caught the third blow. Mr Lawal suffered a bloody nose and he did get some medical attention later that morning. 'The incident spilled out onto the street where a witness saw Mr Fitzmaurice holding onto Mr Lawal and kicking out. The incident was also captured on CCTV footage." Mr Kelly previously said Mr Fitzmaurice attested as a garda in 2017. Prior to the Ennis incident, Mr Fitzmaurice was a garda on beat patrol and was currently on office duties Mr Kelly said that Mr Fitzmaurice was still heavily involved in GAA where he captains local senior football team Michael Glaveys in Roscommon.
Otago Daily Times
14 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Ex-nurse accused of hate crime avoids conviction
A controversial former nurse who was accused of a hate crime at a pro-Palestine rally has avoided conviction over the incident. Jennifer May Scott, 37, appeared in the Dunedin District Court yesterday facing charges of disorderly behaviour, resisting police and failing to remain stopped. Prosecutor Sergeant Simon Reay, though, confirmed Scott had completed diversion on the latter charge and the other counts were withdrawn. The police diversion scheme allows predominantly young or first-time offenders to make amends for their crimes — sometimes by making a reparation payment, writing an apology letter, attending counselling or completing voluntary work — to avoid a mark on their criminal record. However, Scott already has a conviction for intentional damage from 2023 after spray-painting explicit phrases on an ex-boyfriend's ute. The terms of her recent diversion were not discussed in open court. The charges stemmed from an incident on June 1 last year when Scott was allegedly driving in the Octagon. She was accused of filming pro-Palestine protesters with her phone and yelling "Palestine rapes and murders babies. Palestine isn't a country". Scott allegedly ignored police instructions in the aftermath and resisted officers trying to handcuff her. Yesterday's withdrawal of charges was a rare win for Scott after last year was littered with setbacks. The woman, who has called herself "Terf [trans-exclusionary radical feminist] of the South" online, courted controversy in August after setting up an online fundraising page, complete with a photo of her and her partner, claiming they were homeless and needed money for a campervan. The partner was identified as a double-murderer formally known as Gresham Marsh and Corrections confirmed he had a home and was being "closely managed". The photo and all reference to him was subsequently removed from the web page. The following month, after a hearing Scott failed to attend, the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal cancelled her nursing registration. The ruling pointed to her spreading of vaccine disinformation and repeated episodes of transphobia as reasons for the decision. Tribunal chairwoman Theo Baker said the misconduct brought discredit to the profession and was "sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary sanction". Scott was also ordered to pay costs of more than $45,000. Then in October, she was on the wrong end of a decision by the Tenancy Tribunal. Ms Scott made "wide-ranging claims" including assault, unlawful entry, breaches around storage, withholding of goods and breach of privacy after being evicted from a Macandrew Bay property. But adjudicator Rex Woodhouse said the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear her case because she was a "squatter" and it was therefore not a dispute between tenant and landlord. The house had been sold earlier in the year and the tribunal issued a possession order in favour of the new owners. Court reporter
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Live updates on Supreme Court decisions: Latest news, reaction to bombshell rulings
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court voted to lift temporary blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings temporarily blocking Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." It did not decide whether the order is constitutional - a question that is being argued in lower federal courts. More: In win for Trump, Supreme Court orders courts to reconsider limits on birthright citizenship and other policies In other decisions on the last day of the court's term, the justices ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare provision that forces health insurers to cover certain medicines and services, like HIV-preventive medication and cholesterol-lowering drugs; allowed parents to remove their elementary school children from classes where the books include gay characters; and upheld a Texas law requiring age verification for users of pornographic web content. More: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been targeted by some MAGA activists for siding against President Trump, but he had nothing but praises for her after a key decision. Barrett wrote the majority opinion in a 6-3 decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions by federal courts, something the Trump administration has railed against. 'I have great respect for her, I always have, and her decision was brilliantly written today,' Trump said June 27 during a press conference celebrating the ruling. Barrett earlier had ruled against the Trump administration's efforts to freeze foreign aid funding, drawing criticism from the right. -Zac Anderson The Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring pornographic websites to verify their users are at least 18. The case pitted concerns about protecting minors against worries about violating the First Amendment rights of adults. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority that the law survived 'because it only incidentally burdens the protected speech of adults.' Eighteen other, largely conservative states have enacted similar laws in recent years as access to a growing cache of online pornography has exploded and the material has become more graphic. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen More: Supreme Court upholds Texas' age verification law for porn sites The Supreme Court sided with a group of parents who want to withdraw their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. In a 6-3 decision that divided along ideological lines, the court said a Maryland public school district's refusal to allow opt-outs likely burdens parents' First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. They said the school must allow opt-outs while the legal challenge continues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed with the ruling, saying children of all faiths and backgrounds deserve an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. "That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality," Sotomayor said. "Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs." Their decision continues a recent trend of high court rulings backing claims of religious discrimination, sometimes at the expense of other values like gay rights. -Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen The Supreme Court on June 27 upheld an $8 billion federal program that subsidizes high-speed internet and phone service for millions of Americans, rejecting a conservative argument that the program is funded by an unconstitutional tax. The case was decided by a 6-3 majority, with Justice Elena Kagan writing the opinion. The court endorsed the way the Federal Communications Commission funds its multi-billion dollar program to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries. The decision overturned a lower-court ruling that the FCC's funding mechanism employing mandatory contributions from telecommunications companies had effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on consumers in violation of the Constitution. The case raised questions about how much Congress can 'delegate' its legislative authority to a federal agency and whether the Supreme Court should tighten that standard. -Maureen Groppe, Bart Jansen The court ruled against a challenge to an Obamacare board that determines which preventative care must be covered by insurance companies. The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's appointment of a Department of Health and Human Services task force is constitutional. The decision upheld a key part of Obamacare that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care such as cancer screenings at no cost to patients. Individuals and small businesses had challenged the structure of the task force that makes recommendations about preventive services that insurers would be required to cover at no additional cost to patients. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch disagreed. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court decided to lift nationwide blocks on President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. More: Trump wants to end birthright citizenship. How many people would that impact? The court ruled 6-3 that District Court rulings that temporarily blocked Trump's order "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts." Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority that the lower courts should review their temporary blocks on Trump's policy. She explicitly said the court wasn't deciding whether Trump's order was constitutional. -Bart Jansen Several important Supreme Court decisions will be announced after 10 a.m. Eastern time on June 27. These will be the final rulings of court's current term. The opinions will be announced in order of the author, with the most junior justice going first. The justice who wrote the opinion will read a summary of the decision, which usually takes several minutes. If there's a dissenting opinion, that may also be summarized but is usually done only in major cases. That's happened only once so far this term. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read parts of her dissent from the majority's opinion upholding Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors. -Maureen Groppe One of the most hotly anticipated Supreme Court decisions of the year deals with President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship for the children parents who were in the country temporarily or without legal authorization. But how the justices will resolve case is anyone's guess. The Justice Department asked the high court to ignore for now the constitutionality of Trump's executive order. Instead, the department asked the justices to allow his order signed his first day back in office to go into effect while the case is litigated. But states and immigration advocates contend the order is clearly unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Lower courts in three states temporarily halted Trump's order while the cases are argued. The justices could lift the pause on those lower-court rulings – or not. Or fully decide Trump's order is constitutional – or not. Or ask for more arguments for the next court session beginning in October. Or maybe something else. -Bart Jansen Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy warned 'freedom is at risk' as he expressed concern about the "tone of our political discourse" as he defended the role judges play. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Kennedy made his comments during an online forum June 26 called 'Speak Up for Justice,' which featured judges from other countries warning about how attacks on courts can threaten democracies. "And if they see a hostile, fractious discourse, if they see a discourse that uses identity politics rather than to talk about issues, democracy is at risk," Kennedy said. "Freedom is at risk. Kennedy, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan and retired during President Donald Trump's first term, stressed that the rest of the world looks 'to the United States to see what democracy is, to see what democracy ought to be." -Reuters The latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act takes aim at 2010 law's popular requirement that insurers cover without extra costs preventive care such as cancer screenings, cholesterol-lowering medication and diabetes tests. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argue that the volunteer group of experts that recommends the services health insurance must cover is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Supreme Court decided only three cases out of more than 60 decisions along strict ideological lines during the current year-long term ending June 27. The three cases so far decided on votes of the six justices appointed by Republicans and opposed by three justices appointed by Democrats were: A decision June 18 upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. A ruling June 26 siding with South Carolina's effort to deprive Planned Parenthood of public funding, A case about unsolicited faxes. -Bart Jansen The Supreme Court has nine justices: John G. Roberts Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown Jackson Six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents and three by Democrats. But their rulings often do not split along strictly ideological lines, other than in political cases or those involving thorny cultural issues. -Bart Jansen and Anna Kaufman The Supreme Court still has to decide the last of three cases brought this year by religious groups. The justices will say if parents should be allowed to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being read. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court decisions live updates: Latest news on bombshell rulings
