Latest news with #USCourtofAppeals
Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Meghan Markle faces new court drama as half-sister Samantha tries to sue again
Both the Duchess and Samantha's legal teams will be given 15 minutes each to present their argument to the presiding judge at the hearing in Jacksonville, Florida The Duchess of Sussex is set to face a new court hearing as her half-sister tries again to sue her for defamation. Meghan Markle's lawyers have been ordered to appear in person at the United States Courthouse in Jacksonville, Florida, on September 9 to argue against Samantha's case, which is an appeal after her original case was dismissed. The case could prove an unwelcome distraction for Prince Harry's wife, who is trying to build a lifestyle brand and podcast success. A legal document has been sent to both Meghan and Samantha's lawyers by a clerk at the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, The document says: 'The Court has determined that the cases listed on the attached calendar are to be orally argued. Counsel for each party must present oral argument unless excused by the Court for good cause shown.' The document adds both sides will be given 15 minutes each to present their argument to the presiding judge, who was not named. Samantha, 60, originally launched a defamation case against Meghan, 43, nearly four years ago, claiming her reputation had been damaged by her sibling in her and Harry's tell-all interview with Oprah in 2021. She challenged Meghan's claims that she 'grew up as an only child' and didn't have much of a relationship with her - alleging it hurt the sales of her book, The Diary Of Princess Pushy's Sister Part 1. Samantha also claimed she was 'forced to move residences, retract from public outings' and 'faced realistic death threats' as a result of the royal's Netflix documentary, according to a previous court filing. And she accused Meghan of discrediting her by suggesting she did not know her growing up, alleging it hurt her personal and professional reputation and caused her to 'face relentless torment online'. The $75,000 (£55,900) claim was rejected by a judge, who ruled public statements by Meghan were "substantially true". But Samantha, launched an appeal in April last year claiming the judge failed to take into account implied defamation created by omitting facts. Samantha and Meghan share the same dad, Thomas Markle Sr, but have different mums.
TimesLIVE
7 days ago
- Politics
- TimesLIVE
US court upholds protected status for Cameroonians and Afghans — for now
A US appeals court has blocked for now a bid by President Donald Trump's administration to strip temporary protected status from thousands of Afghans in the US, court documents showed, allowing them more time to argue the case. Monday's order by the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted an administrative stay on the termination until July 21, following a request from immigration advocacy organisation CASA. The group's lawsuit against the US department of homeland security (DHS) challenged the termination of temporary protected status (TPS) for Afghans and Cameroonians unveiled by the administration in April. The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment. At the time of the April announcement, it had said conditions in Afghanistan and Cameroon no longer merited the protected status. The TPS programme provides protection against deportation and provides work permits for periods of six to 18 months to those from countries stricken by natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event.
Scroll.in
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
US birthright citizenship: Chaos from Trump's executive order is put off
Legal battles over President Donald Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship continued on July 10 after a New Hampshire federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction that will, if it's not reversed, prevent federal officials from enforcing the order nationally. The ruling by US District Judge Joseph Laplante, a George W Bush appointee, asserts that this policy of 'highly questionable constitutionality … constitutes irreparable harm'. In its ruling in late June, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to deny citizenship to infants born to undocumented parents in many parts of the nation where individuals or states had not successfully sued to prevent implementation – including a number of mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southern states. Trump's executive order limits US citizenship by birth to those who have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident. It denies citizenship to those born to undocumented people within the US and to the children of those on student, work, tourist and certain other types of visas. The preliminary injunction is on hold for seven days to allow the Trump administration to appeal. The June 27 Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship limited the ability of lower-court judges to issue universal injunctions to block such executive orders nationwide. Laplante was able to avoid that limit on issuing a nationwide injunction by certifying the case as a class action lawsuit encompassing all children affected by the birthright order, following a pathway suggested by the Supreme Court's ruling. Beyond universal injunctions In its recent birthright citizenship ruling, Trump vs CASA, the Supreme Court noted that plaintiffs could still seek broad relief by filing such class action lawsuits that would join together large groups of individuals facing the same injury from the law they were challenging. And that's what happened. Litigants filed suit in New Hampshire's district court the same day that the Supreme Court decided CASA. They asked the court to certify a class consisting of infants born on or after February 20, 2025, who would be covered by the order and their parents or prospective parents. The court allowed the suit to proceed as a class action for these infants. What if this injunction doesn't stick If the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit or the Supreme Court invalidates the New Hampshire court's newest national injunction and another injunction is not issued in a different venue, the order will then go into effect anywhere it is not currently barred from doing so. Implementation could begin in as many as 28 states where state attorneys general have not challenged the Trump birthright citizenship policy if no other individuals or groups secure relief. As political science scholars who study race and immigration policy, we believe that, if implemented piecemeal, Trump's birthright citizenship order would create administrative chaos for states determining the citizenship status of infants born in the United States. And it could lead to the first instances since the 1860s of infants being born in the US being denied citizenship categorically. State's role in establishing citizenship Almost all US-born children are issued birth certificates by the state in which they are born. The federal government's standardised form, the US standard certificate of live birth, collects data on parents' birthplaces and their Social Security numbers, if available, and provides the information states need to issue birth certificates. But it does not ask questions about their citizenship or immigration status. And no national standard exists for the format for state birth certificates, which traditionally have been the simplest way for people born in the US to establish citizenship. If Trump's executive order goes into effect, birth certificates issued by local hospitals would be insufficient evidence of eligibility for federal government documents acknowledging citizenship. The order would require new efforts, including identification of parents' citizenship status, before authorizing the issuance of any federal document acknowledging citizenship. Since states control the process of issuing birth certificates, they will respond differently to implementation efforts. Several states filed a lawsuit on January 21 to block the birthright citizenship order. And they will likely pursue an arsenal of strategies to resist, delay and complicate implementation. While the Supreme Court has not yet confirmed that these states have standing to challenge the order, successful litigation could bar implementation in up to 18 states and the District of Columbia if injunctions are narrowly framed, or nationally if lawyers can persuade judges that disentangling the effects on a state-by-state basis will be too difficult. Other states will likely collaborate with the administration to deny citizenship to some infants. Some, like Texas, had earlier attempted to make it particularly hard for undocumented parents to obtain birth certificates for their children. Potential for chaos If the Supreme Court rejects attempts to block the executive order nationally again, implementation will be complicated. That's because it would operate in some places and toward some individuals while being legally blocked in other places and toward others, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in her Trump vs CASA dissent. Children born to plaintiffs anywhere in the nation who have successfully sued would have access to citizenship, while other children possibly born in the same hospitals – but not among the groups named in the suits – would not. Babies born in the days before implementation would have substantially different rights than those born the day after. Parents' ethnicity and countries of origin would likely influence which infants are ultimately granted or denied citizenship. That's because some infants and parents would be more likely to generate scrutiny from hospital employees and officials than others, including Hispanics, women giving birth near the border, and women giving birth in states such as Florida where officials are likely to collaborate enthusiastically with enforcement. The consequences could be profound. Some infants would become stateless, having no right to citizenship in another nation. Many people born in the US would be denied government benefits, Social Security numbers and the ability to work legally in the US. With the constitutionality of the executive order still unresolved, it's unclear when, if ever, some infants born in the US will be the first in the modern era to be denied citizenship.
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump's tariff lawsuits may not slow his larger trade war
A courtroom showdown over President Trump's tariffs is coming at the end of July, just one day before a series of steep duties are scheduled to take effect for dozens of countries around the world. But it could still take a lot longer to permanently settle the legal question of whether the president has authority to impose his wide-ranging tariffs, according to legal experts and even a participant in the current case. "If we win," the Trump administration 'could try to use other statutes' to justify new tariffs, said Ilya Somin, a lawyer for the small business importers that successfully challenged Trump's tariffs before a lower court in May. 'And that would be a lengthy, complex discussion about what [the president] can do,' added Somin, a law professor at George Mason University and constitutional studies chair at the Cato Institute. The small business importers that proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May will make their arguments again on July 31 before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, after also winning a lower court victory. These legal challenges to Trump's escalating trade war don't necessarily pose an immediate danger to Trump's broader tariff plans for a few reasons, according to legal and trade experts. One, even if he loses the current cases on appeal, Trump could turn to other statutes that administration officials believe allow him to also act unilaterally. Any lawsuits designed to stop those moves would likely stretch for months into 2026. Another complicating factor for challengers is that the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for lower courts to issue a nationwide injunction against a presidential action. It did so in a ruling last month in a case stemming from a Trump executive order ending a longstanding US rule on birthright citizenship. The court's decision could be relevant for the tariff cases, since in May the small business importers were able to convince the US Court of International Trade to issue a nationwide injunction against Trump's tariffs after concluding he lacked authority to impose his duties by executive order under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put that order on hold while it considers whether the president has the ultimate legal authority to impose the IEEPA duties, which are now scheduled to take effect on Aug. 1 unless countries are able to negotiate new deals in the coming weeks. 'I think trading partners should take the message and probably do take the message that they can't rely on the courts to protect them from tariff actions from the United States,' said Greta Peisch, an international trade attorney and former general counsel for the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). She and other trade experts say the matter is likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court, though not necessarily on an expedited basis. Peisch also noted the two cases now before appeals courts won't address the president's authority under other statutes that carve out exceptions to Congress' tariff power. These alternative statutes include Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose tariffs on a foreign nation so long as the US Trade Representative finds the nation has violated trade agreements or engaged in unfair trade practices. They also include Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which empowers the president to impose tariffs on certain imports designated as a threat to the US economy, and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 that empowers the president to impose tariffs on countries that unreasonably restrict US goods. There are a lot of questions about how those other laws may work, Peisch said, because some haven't been challenged in court. 'I think what that means for negotiating partners and for importers, is that the outcome of the case and the timing is not something that they can certainly hang their hat on and depend on as something that's going to change the dynamics and the calculus in the next months, maybe even year,' she said. One loophole that the Supreme Court left in place that could work against Trump is that it has kept intact the ability of plaintiffs to seek a widespread block of presidential executive orders through class action lawsuits. The lawyer working with the importers that are challenging Trump's tariffs, Somin, said 'we believe we don't need, necessarily, a class action to get a broad remedy here.' A complete remedy, Somin added, 'requires a broad injunction barring these IEEPA tariffs entirely.' Somin also noted that if the president does turn to other statutes to impose tariffs, they could be more limited than the widespread duties justified under IEEPA. 'What I do not think you can do is start a gargantuan trade war with the entire world, which is what he has tried to use IEEPA to do,' Somin said. Ben Werschkul contributed to this article. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen. Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
New Indian Express
11-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
US appeals court throws out plea deal for alleged mastermind of 9/11 attacks
WASHINGTON: A divided federal appeals court on Friday threw out an agreement that would have allowed accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in a deal sparing him the risk of execution for al-Qaida's 2001 attacks. The decision by a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, DC, undoes an attempt to wrap up more than two decades of military prosecution beset by legal and logistical troubles. It signals there will be no quick end to the long struggle by the US military and successive administrations to bring to justice the man charged with planning one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States. The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors and the Pentagon's senior official for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a year ago, stipulated life sentences without parole for Mohammed and two co-defendants. Mohammed is accused of developing and directing the plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania. The men also would have been obligated to answer any lingering questions that families of the victims have about the attacks. But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, saying a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as Sept. 11 should only be made by the defense secretary. Attorneys for the defendants had argued that the agreement was already legally in effect and that Austin, who served under President Joe Biden, acted too late to try to throw it out. A military judge at Guantanamo and a military appeals panel agreed with the defense lawyers. But, by a 2-1 vote, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Austin acted within his authority and faulted the military judge's ruling. The panel had previously put the agreement on hold while it considered the appeal, first filed by the Biden administration and then continued under President Donald Trump. 'Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the 'families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.' The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,' Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote. Millett was an appointee of President Barack Obama while Rao was appointed by Trump. In a dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, wrote, 'The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred.'
