Latest news with #JodyGodoy
Yahoo
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US judge clears the way for imminent deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan
By Jody Godoy and Nate Raymond (Reuters) -Eight migrants lost their last-ditch effort to halt their deportation to South Sudan by the Trump administration on Friday, clearing the way for their imminent transfer after a judge in Massachusetts denied their request. Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said the men were scheduled to be flown to South Sudan on Friday at 7:00 pm Eastern Time after two courts considered the request on an emergency basis on July 4, when courts are otherwise closed for the Independence Day holiday. Lawyers for the migrants had filed new claims in Washington late Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a judge in Massachusetts could no longer require the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to hold them. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington paused the deportation briefly on Friday afternoon, but sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston. Murphy said the Supreme Court order required him to deny their bid, saying their claims that deportation was being used as a form of punishment were "substantially similar" to the ones he had ruled on previously. The order was the latest round in the fight over the legality of the Trump administration's campaign to deter immigration through high-profile deportations to countries where migrants say they face safety concerns, and which has already gone from lower courts to the Supreme Court twice. Jennie Pasquarella, a lawyer with the Seattle Clemency Project who represents the migrants, called the ruling disappointing. No court will hear their claim that the Trump administration is unconstitutionally using deportation to dangerous countries as a form of punishment, on top of criminal sentences the men have already served, she said. "Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives. That is what is so tragic about where we came out," she said. Pasquarella said the men do not plan to file an appeal. A spokesperson for Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday. Department of Justice attorney Hashim Mooppan told Moss during Friday's hearing that court orders halting agreed-upon deportations pose a serious problem for U.S. diplomatic relations and would make foreign countries less likely to accept transfers of migrants in the future. The men have been convicted of various crimes, with four of them convicted of murder, the Department of Homeland Security has said. South Sudan has long been dangerous even for locals. The U.S. State Department advises citizens not to travel there due to violent crime and armed conflict. The United Nations has said the African country's political crisis could reignite a brutal civil war that ended in 2018. The eight men, who their lawyers said are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan and Vietnam, argue their deportations to South Sudan would violate the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. "It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical well-being is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others," Moss said during the hearing. But he ultimately found their new claims should be heard by the court in Massachusetts. The Friday effort to prevent the deportations came after months of back and forth between Murphy, the Supreme Court, and the Trump administration. Murphy ruled in May to block the U.S. from immediately moving the men to South Sudan after he found that officials had violated his earlier ruling in a class action lawsuit concerning the due process rights of migrants. That ruling, in April, had blocked the administration from sending migrants to countries where they have no ties without giving them the chance to raise safety concerns. The Supreme Court on June 23 put Murphy's April injunction on hold. But Murphy that same day said the high court ruling did not apply to his May order. Calling Murphy's decision a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify its decision. The nine-member Supreme Court on Thursday, over the dissent of two of its liberal justices, sided with the Trump administration and said its decision serves to reverse Murphy's May order blocking the deportations to South Sudan.
Japan Today
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
U.S. judge briefly pauses deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan
U.S. flag and Judge gavel are seen in this illustration taken, August 6, 2024. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo By Jody Godoy and Nate Raymond A federal judge briefly halted the Trump administration on Friday from placing eight migrants on a plane destined for conflict-ridden South Sudan, to give the men time to make their argument to a court in Massachusetts. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington issued the order less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court clarified that a federal judge in Boston could no longer require U.S. Department of Homeland Security to keep custody of the men, who the administration has kept for six weeks on a military base in Djibouti rather than bring back to the United States. The order stops the U.S. government from moving the men until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. They were scheduled to be removed to South Sudan on a 7 p.m. flight. South Sudan has long been dangerous even for locals. The U.S. State Department advises citizens not to travel there due to violent crime and armed conflict. The United Nations has said the African country's political crisis could reignite a brutal civil war that ended in 2018. The eight men, who their lawyers said are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan and Vietnam, filed a new legal challenge to their deportation late Thursday after the Supreme Court ruled. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
Yahoo
01-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Apple loses bid to dismiss US smartphone monopoly case
By Jody Godoy (Reuters) -Apple must face the U.S. Department of Justice's lawsuit accusing the iPhone maker of unlawfully dominating the U.S. smartphone market, a judge ruled on Monday. U.S. District Judge Julien Neals in Newark, New Jersey, denied Apple's motion to dismiss the lawsuit accusing the company of using restrictions on third-party app and device developers to keep users from switching to competitors and unlawfully dominate the market. The decision allows the case to go forward in what could be a years-long fight for Apple against enforcers' attempt to lower what they say are barriers to competition with Apple's iPhone. An Apple spokesperson said the company believes the lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and will continue to vigorously fight it in court. A spokesperson for the DOJ declined to comment. Sales of the world's most popular smartphone totaled $201 billion in 2024. Apple introduced a new budget model iPhone in February with enhanced features priced at $170 more than its predecessor. The lawsuit filed in March 2024 focuses on Apple's restrictions and fees on app developers, and technical roadblocks to third-party devices and services -- such as smart watches, digital wallets and messaging services -- that would compete with its own. DOJ, along with several states and Washington, D.C., says the practices destroy competition and Apple should be blocked from continuing them. Apple had argued that its limitations on third-party developers' access to its technology were reasonable, and that forcing it to share technology with competitors would chill innovation. The case is one of a series of U.S. antitrust cases against Big Tech companies brought during the Biden and first Trump administrations. Facebook parent Meta Platforms and are facing lawsuits by antitrust enforcers alleging they illegally maintain monopolies, and Alphabet's is facing two such lawsuits.
Time of India
26-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Debate over future of US AI regulation hinges on broadband funding
By Jody Godoy and David Shepardson WASHINGTON: The fight over a proposed 10-year federal moratorium on state regulation of artificial intelligence heated up on Wednesday, with Republican and Democratic Senate leaders differing on whether such a measure would be tied to billions of dollars in funding to help states improve broadband infrastructure. Major AI companies including Alphabet 's Google and OpenAI have expressed support for Congress taking AI regulation out of the hands of states, to free innovation from a panoply of differing requirements. But opponents of the measure, including the Teamsters union -- which raised concerns on Wednesday about worker surveillance and self-driving vehicles -- say states should be able to protect their residents. The proposed moratorium, part of President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill, faces mounting pressure from critics ahead of crucial votes by the U.S. Senate expected this week. A previous version of the measure would have secured compliance by blocking states that regulate AI from the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program, known as BEAD. Unions, state lawmakers and attorneys general, faith leaders and the conservative Heritage Foundation have all opposed the measure, as have at least three Senate Republicans concerned that it would erode states' rights and erase state protections for creative workers and children online. Amid that criticism, Republican Senator Ted Cruz , who leads the commerce committee, released an updated version on Wednesday, which he said would only restrict states that tap a new $500 million fund to support AI infrastructure. "This pause in AI regulation is voluntary and not a federal mandate on states," Cruz's office said in a fact sheet. Senator Maria Cantwell, senior Democrat on the commerce committee, disputed that interpretation, saying the measure continues to hold the BEAD funding hostage, "forcing states to choose between protecting consumers and expanding critical broadband infrastructure to rural communities." U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick voiced his support for the measure in a post on social media site X, saying it would end "the chaos of 50 different state laws and makes sure American companies can develop cutting-edge tech for our military, infrastructure, and critical industries--without interference from anti-innovation politicians." A Commerce Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry from Reuters whether compliance with the moratorium would be voluntary as Cruz's office stated. Earlier on Wednesday, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters -- a union representing more than 1.3 million workers, many of them in blue-collar jobs such as trucking -- had called the measure "a disaster for communities and working people." Teamsters President Sean O'Brien, who spoke at the Republican National Convention last year, said in a letter posted on social media site X that the measure "denies citizens the ability to make choices at the local or state level." "Pure and simple, it is a giveaway to Big Tech companies who reap economic value by continuing to operate in an unregulated void where their decisions and behavior are accountable to no one," he said.
Time of India
16-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Meta's $14.8 billion scale AI deal latest test of AI partnerships
By Jody Godoy Facebook owner Meta 's $14.8 billion investment in Scale AI and hiring of the data-labeling startup's CEO will test how the Trump administration views so-called acquihire deals , which some have criticized as an attempt to evade regulatory scrutiny. The deal, announced on Thursday, was Meta's second-largest investment to date. It gives the owner of Facebook a 49% nonvoting stake in Scale AI, which uses gig workers to manually label data and includes among its customers Meta competitors Microsoft and ChatGPT creator OpenAI. Unlike an acquisition or a transaction that would give Meta a controlling stake, the deal does not require a review by U.S. antitrust regulators. However, they could probe the deal if they believe it was structured to avoid those requirements or harm competition. The deal appeared to be structured to avoid potential pitfalls, such as cutting off competitors' access to Scale's services or giving Meta an inside view into rivals' operations - though Reuters exclusively reported on Friday that Alphabet's Google has decided to sever ties with Scale in light of Meta's stake, and other customers are looking at taking a step back. In a statement, a Scale AI spokesperson said its business, which spans work with major companies and governments, remains strong, as it is committed to protecting customer data. The company declined to comment on specifics with Google. Alexandr Wang, Scale's 28-year-old CEO who is coming to Meta as part of the deal, will remain on Scale's board but will have appropriate restrictions placed around his access to information, two sources familiar with the move confirmed. Large tech companies likely perceive the regulatory environment for AI partnerships as easier to navigate under President Donald Trump than under former President Joe Biden, said William Kovacic, director of the competition law center at George Washington University. Trump's antitrust enforcers have said they do not want to regulate how AI develops, but have also displayed a suspicion of large tech platforms, he added. "That would lead me to think they will keep looking carefully at what the firms do. It does not necessarily dictate that they will intervene in a way that would discourage the relationships," Kovacic said. Federal Trade Commission probes into past "aquihire" deals appear to be at a standstill. Under the Biden administration, the FTC opened inquiries into Amazon's deal to hire top executives and researchers from AI startup Adept, and Microsoft's $650 million deal with Inflection AI. The latter allowed Microsoft to use Inflection's models and hire most of the startup's staff, including its co-founders. Amazon's deal closed without further action from the regulator, a source familiar with the matter confirmed. And, more than a year after its initial inquiry, the FTC has so far taken no enforcement action against Microsoft over Inflection, though a larger probe over practices at the software giant is ongoing. A spokesperson for the FTC declined to comment on Friday. David Olson, a professor who teaches antitrust law at Boston College Law School, said it was smart of Meta to take a minority nonvoting stake. "I think that does give them a lot of protection if someone comes after them," he said, adding that it was still possible that the FTC would want to review the agreement. The Meta deal has its skeptics. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts who is probing AI partnerships involving Microsoft and Google, said Meta's investment should be scrutinized. "Meta can call this deal whatever it wants - but if it violates federal law because it unlawfully squashes competition or makes it easier for Meta to illegally dominate, antitrust enforcers should investigate and block it," she said in a statement on Friday. While Meta faces its own monopoly lawsuit by the FTC, it remains to be seen whether the agency will have any questions about its Scale investment. The U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust division, led by former JD Vance adviser Gail Slater, recently started looking into whether Google's partnership with chatbot creator was designed to evade antitrust review, Bloomberg News reported. The DOJ is separately seeking to make Google give it advance notice of new AI investments as part of a proposal to curb the company's dominance in online search.
