Latest news with #EleventhCircuit
Newsweek
a day ago
- Sport
- Newsweek
Patrick Reed's $750 Million Lawsuit vs. Media Tossed out of Court
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. The tension between golfers and the media has been simmering for years, but in 2022, Patrick Reed just turned that feud into a full-blown legal war with $750 lawsuit. But that lawsuit appears to officially be over! On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of Reed's defamation case against a lineup of golf media figures and outlets, including Golf Channel's Damon Hack, Shane Bacon, and Eamon Lynch, as well as Golfweek and its parent company, Gannett. AUGUSTA, GEORGIA - APRIL 12: Patrick Reed of the United States leaves the fifth tee during the third round of the 2025 Masters Tournament at Augusta National Golf Club on April 12, 2025 in Augusta,... AUGUSTA, GEORGIA - APRIL 12: Patrick Reed of the United States leaves the fifth tee during the third round of the 2025 Masters Tournament at Augusta National Golf Club on April 12, 2025 in Augusta, Georgia. (Photo by) More Getty Images The lawsuit, originally filed in August 2022 in Texas and refiled in Florida a month later, accused the defendants of conspiracy, injurious falsehood, tortious interference, and acting "in concert as joint tortfeasors." Reed claimed the media had painted him as a cheater and villain, costing him millions in endorsements. But the court was not convinced. "Reed simply failed to plead facts that addressed the element of 'actual malice' in the context of defamation against a public figure," the ruling stated. Reed Unable to Prove Actual Malice Actual malice is the reason so many public figures sue overseas. It does not exist there. But in America, the plaintiff must prove the defendants knowingly made falsities or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. It is a high bar to prove. The ruling added that Reed had two chances to present viable claims and failed both times. "Any further amendment would, therefore, be futile." Judge Timothy Corrigan, who dismissed the suit in 2022, reiterated in a 78-page ruling: "Many of the statements are not about Reed. Some statements are about LIV Golf, of which Reed is a member, but not specifically about Reed. "Others are matters of opinion or permissible rhetorical hyperbole. Still others are statements of fact, the truth of which are not challenged," Corrigan noted during the 2nd dismissal. One of the most cited examples was Reed's time at Augusta State University, where he was suspended from matches after teammates allegedly voted him off the team. Judge Robert Luck noted, "If they are true stories, whether they are negative or not, how can a bunch of true stories be actual malice?" Reed's attorney, Anthony Lake, argued this May that his client had never been "determined to be a cheater," and that the media's portrayal was unfair. But U.S. Circuit Judges Nancy Abudu and Robert Luck argued that articles had presented both sides, and many of the negative claims were based on well-known and documented history, including Reed's suspension from college. As the ruling hit headlines, Eamon Lynch couldn't resist a sarcastic jab. "Must cancel that check for eleventy billion dollars," he posted on X. The post, dripping in sarcasm, was a clear taunt, mocking the astronomical damages Reed had sought. The dismissal marks the end of a feud that blurred the lines between media scrutiny and legal overreach. More Golf: JJ Spaun notice 'complete 180' in players' attitude after U.S. Open win
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Yahoo
In NCLA Amicus Win, Supreme Court Revives Innocent Family's Suit over FBI's Wrong-House Raid
Curtrina Martin, et al. v. United States of America, et al. Washington, DC, June 13, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of Martin v. United States, an Atlanta family's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit against the government for a wrong-house raid in 2017. FBI agents invaded the home of Trina Martin and her family, shackling her partner on the floor and holding a half-naked Ms. Martin at gunpoint, while she expressed concern for her seven-year-old son's safety elsewhere in the house. One big problem: the FBI SWAT team had knocked down the door of the wrong home, on the wrong street, because the agent in charge had failed to verify its clearly marked address. The Justices remanded the case to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration. As NCLA's amicus curiae brief urged, the Eleventh Circuit should ultimately rule on remand that the FTCA does not shield the government from liability when federal law enforcement officers raid the wrong house. Ms. Martin and her family filed FTCA claims against the government for assault, battery, and false imprisonment, as well as Fourth Amendment claims against the individual FBI agents. The Eleventh Circuit below upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, concluding that the agents' actions violated no 'clearly established' law. It ruled that the family suffered harm resulting from an agent's 'discretionary act' (i.e., failing to check the house address), warranting total governmental immunity and no path to relief for the Martin family. The Eleventh Circuit also determined that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution could shield the FBI and its agents from FTCA suits. NCLA's amicus brief forcefully argued that the Eleventh Circuit's mode of inquiry—which departed from the analytical process employed by all sister circuits—was inconsistent with the language and intent of the FTCA. Congress amended the FTCA in 1974 expressly to ensure that innocent people subjected to wrong-house raids and similar abuses by federal law enforcement officers would have a cause of action to sue. By expanding the FTCA's discretionary-function exception to encompass wrong-house raids such as this one, the Eleventh Circuit's decision effectively nullified the 1974 law. As Justice Sotomayor underscored in her concurrence (joined by Justice Jackson), 'Courts … should not ignore the existence of the [1974 amendment], or the factual context that inspired its passage, when construing the discretionary-function exception. … [A]ny interpretation should allow for liability in the very cases Congress amended the FTCA to remedy.' Today's Supreme Court ruling does not decide whether the 'discretionary function' exception applies in this case, an issue that the Court ordered the Eleventh Circuit to resolve, but the Justices found that the Supremacy Clause is not a defense the government may invoke in FTCA lawsuits. Justice Gorsuch explained in his opinion for the Court: 'The FTCA is the 'supreme' federal law addressing the United States' liability for torts committed by its agents. It supplies the 'exclusive remedy' for damages claims arising out of federal employees' official conduct.' NCLA released the following statements: 'The Supreme Court rightly held that innocent civilians should not be stripped of any meaningful remedy when they suffer abuse at the hands of federal law enforcement. The Martin family deserves their day in court. On remand, NCLA trusts that the Eleventh Circuit will carefully evaluate what qualifies as 'reasonable' law enforcement—and recognize that a trained FBI agent who fails to check a clearly marked house number before commencing a raid because 'it was dark outside' does not qualify.'— Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'Law enforcement officers should not be able to evade accountability for entering the wrong house and terrorizing an innocent family in the middle of the night when Congress intentionally provided for redress in cases against the federal government in such circumstances. Thankfully, the Supreme Court's decision reaffirms that the Eleventh Circuit was wrong to preclude relief in this case and others like it.'— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'All too often, court-created doctrines are used to reduce the government's liability to people whose civil liberties it has violated. Congratulations to our friends at the Institute for Justice for convincing the Supreme Court to clip the wings of such a doctrine in this case—at least where Congress had explicitly created a cause of action to sue.'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 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
The Hill
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court revives lawsuit over mistaken FBI raid
The Supreme Court on Thursday revived an Atlanta family's lawsuit over a botched FBI raid on their home in 2017 but put off deciding its ultimate fate. In a unanimous decision, the justices instead sent the case back to a lower court to take another crack at deciding whether the lawsuit can move forward. Federal agents smashed through Trina Martin's front door in 2017 while executing a search warrant at the wrong address, believing it was the home of an alleged violent gang member. Martin and her boyfriend at the time were startled out of bed with a flash-bang grenade and guns raised, as her 7-year-old son screamed from another room. She sued the government in 2019, accusing the agents of assault and battery, false arrest and other violations, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which waives the government's sovereign immunity and lets people injured by certain actions of federal officers bring some claims for damages against it under state law. But a federal judge in Atlanta dismissed the suit and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. The justices now say the lower courts erred. 'Where does all that leave the case before us?' Justice Neil Gorsuch asked in the court's opinion. 'We can say this much: The plaintiffs' intentional-tort claims survive their encounter with subsection (h) thanks to the law enforcement proviso, as the Eleventh Circuit recognized. But it remains for that court on remand to consider whether subsection (a)'s discretionary-function exception bars either the plaintiffs' negligent or intentional-tort claims,' he wrote. Patrick Jaicomo, Martin's lawyer, argued before the justices that 'innocent victims' of the government's mistakes must have an available legal remedy. The FTCA was amended in 1974 after a pair of wrong-house raids made headlines, which he suggested makes clear that Martin's lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. Exceptions to the law make it more complicated. Frederick Liu, who argued for the government, said that an exception to the FTCA preventing plaintiffs from suing the government for damages that arise out of an officer's discretionary acts applies to the case. He also suggested that entering the wrong home was a 'reasonable mistake' and an example of the 'policy trade-offs' officers make when placed in risky situations. In the court's opinion, Gorsuch acknowledged that lower courts have taken different views on the discretionary-function exception and that 'important questions' must be weighed regarding under which circumstances they apply. 'But those questions lie well beyond the two we granted certiorari to address,' Gorsuch wrote. 'And before addressing them, we would benefit from the Eleventh Circuit's careful reexamination of this case in the first instance. 'It is work enough for the day to answer the questions we took this case to resolve, clear away the two faulty assumptions on which that court has relied in the past and redirect it to the proper inquiry,' he said. DEVELOPING
Miami Herald
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Florida attorney general loses appeal to overturn order blocking immigration law
A judicial appeals panel has upheld a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of a new state law criminalizing undocumented immigrants when they arrive in Florida — notching another victory for immigration advocates in a case that has drawn Florida's attorney general into conflict with a Miami federal judge. The Friday afternoon ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta keeps in place a lower court order temporarily preventing police and prosecutors from making arrests and pursuing charges under Florida's SB-4, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in February. The law makes it a crime for immigrants to enter the state of Florida if they have been deported or denied entry into the country, or eluded immigration officers when coming into the United States. 'This is a difficult case, and this order does not finally resolve the issues,' states the order, issued by judges Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom and Embry Kidd. The unsuccessful appeal at the heart of Friday's ruling was brought by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, who sought to stay the temporary injunction. Uthmeier has argued that District Court Judge Kathleen Williams overstepped in April when, responding to a lawsuit brought by several undocumented Florida residents who said the law was unconstitutional, she blocked the enforcement of the law. Williams initially issued a restraining order preventing the enforcement of SB-4, and then ordered a broader temporary injunction after learning that state police had continued to make arrests — including an American citizen. Uthmeier's attorneys argued that while Williams' order had bound them from enforcing the law, it didn't apply to 'independent' law enforcement agencies like the Florida Highway Patrol. The attorney general was so adamant in his position that, days later, he wrote a letter to law enforcement agencies telling them he didn't think Williams' order was legitimate — leading the judge to initiate contempt proceedings. In their Friday ruling, the judges waded into the legal skirmish, writing that Uthmeier 'may well be right that the district court's order is impermissibly broad. But that does not warrant what seems to have been at least a veiled threat not to obey it.' A spokesman for Uthmeier's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The American Civil Liberties Union, whose attorneys have worked on the case, celebrated the ruling as a significant victory, not just in Florida but around the country as red states move to implement strict immigration laws. 'This ruling is not just a legal victory — it's a resounding rejection of cruelty masquerading as policy,' said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU of Florida. The case, brought by the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida, will continue on before Judge Williams, who has yet to issue her ruling on whether Uthmeier will be held in contempt of court.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Florida AG Uthmeier again defends his stance in state immigration case
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier in Tampa on June 2, 2025. (Photo by Mitch Perry/Florida Phoenix) Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says it's pretty basic why he won't tell local law enforcement officers in Florida to stand down from enforcing a new state law on immigration enforcement, as a federal judge ordered him to do earlier this year. He says it's because he's not their boss. 'These guys — they don't work for me,' Uthmeier said on Monday in Tampa, referring to two Florida sheriffs standing next to him: Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey and Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister. 'They're independently elected county officers and they do a great job, but at the end of the day, they are their own officers. I'm not going to direct them when I don't have the authority and I don't believe the judge has the authority to do so.' Uthmeier spoke just days after U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams heard legal arguments about whether she should hold him in contempt of court regarding the implementation of a new state law on immigration (SB 4-C), which makes it a misdemeanor for people in the U.S. illegally to enter Florida. Following a legal challenge by attorneys representing immigrant rights organizations, Williams blocked enforcement of the law on April 4. The issue that remains tethered to Uthmeier is a letter he sent to state law enforcement agencies, sheriffs, and police chiefs on April 23, when he wrote that he couldn't stop them from making arrests under the new law, and that, to him, 'no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida's new illegal entry and reentry laws.' Judge Williams has said that Uthmeier not above the law and must abide by the court's orders. Uthmeier said on Monday that the issue goes to the separations of powers and legal jurisdictions. 'Nobody respects the rule of law more than me,' he said in response to an inquiry by a Phoenix reporter. 'But on your first day in law school you learn about the jurisdiction that judges have. And the orders of judges apply to parties before the judge in the case. The case in question in the Southern District. There have been prosecutors that have been sued in that case but no law enforcement agencies. So, when that judge asked me to direct law enforcement to stand down on enforcing the law, I'm not going to do that, because I do not have the authority to do that.' Uthmeier's office as well as the statewide prosecutor and state's attorneys have appealed Williams injunction barring enforcement of the law to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 'Again, I'm abiding by the court's order, but law enforcement has a job to do, and as long as they're not a party in the case and there's no injunction that is lawfully binding them, then I'm not going to stand in the way,' he said. Uthmeier, a former chief of staff to Gov. Ron DeSantis, was appointed by the governor to succeed Ashley Moody and become Florida's attorney general in February. He has already announced that he will run for a full term next year. DeSantis is backing Uthmeier's stance in this case, saying last month in Tampa that the federal judge in this case has gone beyond her authority in calling on Florida law enforcement agencies to stop making immigration arrests. 'She's trying to exercise authority that she does not possess. Fine,' DeSantis said at the time. 'There's parties to the case and she's rendered a decision even though it's a flawed decision that will be appealed. … You can't go out and then say some sheriff in the Panhandle is somehow subject to your order — they were not involved in the litigation at all.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
