Latest news with #USDistrictCourt
GMA Network
2 hours ago
- Sport
- GMA Network
Ex-NBA star Gilbert Arenas facing federal charges for illegal poker games
Former NBA All-Star guard Gilbert Arenas and five other defendants were arrested Wednesday on a federal indictment alleging they operated an illegal gambling business running high-stakes poker games at Arenas' mansion in Encino, Calif., according to the United States Attorney's Office of the Central District of California. Arenas, 43, of Woodland Hills, Calif., is charged with one count of conspiracy to operate an illegal gambling business, one count of operating an illegal gambling business, and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. He is scheduled to make his initial appearance and be arraigned on Wednesday afternoon in US District Court in downtown Los Angeles. If convicted, he would face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison for each count. Also charged on Wednesday in the indictment were Yevgeni "Giora" Gershman, 49, of Woodland Hills; Allan "Elica" Austria, 52, of West Hills,Calif.; and Evgenni "Eugne" Tourevski, 48, Yarin "YC" Cohen, 27 and Ievgen Krachun, 43, all of Tarzana, Calif. Gershman is a suspected high-level organized crime figure from Israel, according to the news release from the US attorney's office. Arenas and the other defendants operated an illegal gambling business from September 2021 to July 2022, according to the indictment that was unsealed on Wednesday. Arenas rented out the Encino mansion for the co-conspirators to host the illegal "Pot Limit Omaha" poker games, among other illegal games, with a fee charged from each pot either as a percentage or a fixed amount per hand. Gershman hired women who were paid in tips and served drinks, provided massages and offered companionship to the poker players -- with the women charged a percentage of their earnings by the business operators, per the indictment. Chefs, valets and armed security guards also were hired to staff the games. Arenas was a three-time All-Star, and All-NBA second-team selection in 2006-07 and third team in 2004-05 and 2005-06. He averaged 20.7 points, 5.3 assists, 3.9 rebounds and 1.6 steals in 552 regular-season games (455 starts) for the Golden State Warriors (2001-03), Washington Wizards (2003-10), Orlando Magic (2010-11) and Memphis Grizzlies (2012). His NBA career was overshadowed by a locker-run incident in December 2009 in which he and Washington teammate Javaris Crittenden brought guns into the locker room two days after having a dispute on a flight during a card game. Arenas was suspended for the remainder of the 2009-10 season. The Warriors selected Arenas in the second round (31st overall) of the 2001 NBA Draft out of Arizona. —Field Level Media/Reuters
India Today
a day ago
- Health
- India Today
More than 20 states sue Trump admin over medicaid cuts targeting planned parenthood
More than 20 states, mostly led by Democrats, filed a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging the Trump administration's recent move to cut Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood and similar health providers. The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for Massachusetts, argues that the cuts are both vague and dispute centres on a provision in a new package of tax breaks and spending cuts signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. One section eliminates Medicaid reimbursements for a year for major providers of family planning services, specifically those receiving more than USD 800,000 in Medicaid funding in 2023. While aimed at Planned Parenthood, the rule also affects other providers, including Maine Family New York, Connecticut, Washington, DC, and other plaintiffs argue that the measure unlawfully targets Planned Parenthood for its advocacy of abortion rights, violating the First Amendment's free speech protections. They also claim the rule threatens access to essential health care for millions of low-income Americans who depend on these clinics for services like cancer screenings, birth control, and STI treatment. 'This attack isn't just about abortion,' said California Attorney General Rob Bonta. 'It's about denying vulnerable communities access to care they rely on every day.'The Department of Health and Human Services, named in the suit, defended the measure. 'States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,' said spokesperson Andrew G. Parenthood and Maine Family Planning have filed separate legal challenges. Planned Parenthood says the law doesn't name it directly but clearly targets its nearly 600 clinics in 48 states. The organization warns that about a third of its clinics could close, affecting more than a million patients.A federal judge recently ruled that Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood must continue nationwide, for now. However, Maine Family Planning says it can only continue serving Medicaid patients without reimbursement through October due to limited reserves. About half of its non-abortion patients rely on Attorney General William Tong warned of higher state costs if the cuts proceed. 'Either we comply and violate Planned Parenthood's constitutional rights, or we spend millions more to cover the gap,' he law already restricts using taxpayer money for most abortions, but critics argue these cuts use a backdoor approach to undermine access to broader reproductive health care.- EndsWith inputs from Associated PressMust Watch
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
5 weapons in the Trump–Harvard war: The saga of frozen funds, fragile visas and more
American universities were once imagined as citadels of intellectual independence, buffered from the caprices of politics. The Trump–Harvard confrontation has stripped that illusion bare. What began as a technical dispute over federal grants and immigration policy has now ballooned into a courtroom brawl with nationwide stakes. Two major lawsuits are pending in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts—one over a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze, another over the revocation of SEVP certification threatening thousands of international students. Meanwhile, a potential $500 million settlement hangs over the proceedings, even as Judge Allison Burroughs weighs rulings that could redefine the limits of executive power over universities. Billions remain locked away, students and faculty are left in limbo, and a constitutional question looms: can the White House turn academic freedom into a pay-to-play privilege? Here, we dissect how funding, visas, social media, litigation, and students themselves have become weapons and pawns in this high-stakes battle for intellectual freedom in the United States. Funding as political dynamite The $2.2 billion freeze wasn't triggered by budget shortfalls or scientific failures—it was political muscle flexing. The administration argued that universities failing to align with 'agency priorities' could lose funding at will, turning federal research grants from investments in knowledge into ideological cudgels. The looming $500 million settlement proposal underscores the stakes: even the wealthiest university may need to effectively 'pay tribute' to regain funds it was already awarded, setting a dangerous precedent where political loyalty, not merit, decides who gets to pursue science. Visa as a weapon The SEVP decertification move effectively threatened deportation for thousands of Harvard's international students. These are scholars who cleared every legal hurdle to study in the US, only to find their right to remain tied to an unrelated political feud. If courts uphold this, international education becomes a high-risk gamble: one tweet, one order, and your legal status evaporates. Social Media as a policy trigger On April 15, a single Truth Social post railing against 'elite universities undermining American values' preceded real-world policy actions within days. The spectacle replaced deliberation; a digital rant reshaped immigration policy and funding flows. Governance by tweet means policy can be unpredictable, personal, and weaponised against institutions without due process. Litigation as the only shield Harvard filed two lawsuits in as many months simply to keep functioning. Litigation is expensive, slow, and reactive—but in this climate, it is the only defence left. Most universities don't have Harvard's $50 billion endowment to bankroll legal wars, meaning many will pre-emptively self-censor or comply to avoid conflict, shrinking the space for dissent long before courts rule. Students as pawns in a political chessboard Students bore the brunt of the standoff: research stipends frozen, lab projects stalled, international enrolments in limbo, and campus life upended. Their futures became bargaining chips in a broader ideological war between a populist White House and an academic institution asserting its independence. The lesson for students is stark: in this new order, their education is negotiable collateral. Harvard's win or everyone's loss? The lawsuits grind on, a potential $500 million settlement looms, but a precedent has already been set: A US president can attempt to dictate campus policy, freeze billions, and threaten thousands of students' futures in mere months. If the courts endorse this power play, academic freedom will become conditional, not constitutional. Even Harvard, with all its wealth and clout, is vulnerable. For the vast majority of universities and students, this battle is more than a headline—it's a preview of an American education system where intellectual independence survives only until the next political whim decides otherwise. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
News18
2 days ago
- Politics
- News18
Justice Department Seeks Disciplinary Action Against DC Judge Over Trump Remarks
The complaint was submitted under the name of Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) has launched a formal complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court in Washington, D.C., accusing him of judicial misconduct over comments he allegedly made about President Donald Trump's administration. The complaint was filed on Monday, as reported by CNN. US Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the development in a post on X (formerly Twitter), stating, 'Today at my direction, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration." The complaint was submitted under the name of Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff, and delivered to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The allegations stem from comments Boasberg is reported to have made during a judicial conference held in March. According to a report by POLITICO, which reviewed the contents of the formal complaint, Judge Boasberg allegedly implied that the Trump administration might 'disregard rulings of federal courts," thereby risking a 'constitutional crisis." The letter further claims Boasberg sought to improperly influence Chief Justice John Roberts and around two dozen other judges with his remarks. Mizelle argued that the judge's comments violated the 'presumption of regularity," a legal principle that assumes government officials act lawfully and in good faith. She also defended the administration's actions, stating that it had complied with existing court orders. Notably, Boasberg had previously blocked a Trump administration effort to deport a group of Venezuelan nationals to a prison facility in El Salvador. In an emergency hearing, held shortly after the controversial invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, Boasberg ordered that any aircraft already en route to El Salvador should be rerouted back to the US. However, reports suggest that the administration went ahead with its plans, successfully transferring many of the Venezuelan detainees despite the ruling. The complaint by Mizelle further alleges, 'Having assumed President Trump would defy court orders, Judge Boasberg issued a [temporary restraining order] and threatened sanctions, all on a false premise." Mizelle has called for disciplinary measures against Boasberg, including a public reprimand, and has requested that the Alien Enemies Act case currently assigned to him be reassigned to a different judge during the course of the investigation. According to protocol, judicial complaints in the US are usually reviewed by the chief appellate judge, who may dismiss them or order an investigation. A council of judges then decides on possible actions, such as a reprimand or reassigning cases. Removal from the bench, however, requires impeachment and a two-thirds Senate vote. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: July 29, 2025, 20:32 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
DOJ files misconduct complaint against federal judge James Boasberg over anti-Trump remarks, seeks recusal from key case
US Attorney General Pam Bondi on announced that the Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg. The DOJ alleges Boasberg made 'improper public comments' about President Donald Trump and his administration during a closed-door judicial conference. 'Today at my direction, [DOJ] filed a misconduct complaint against US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,' Bondi wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter). The complaint was submitted to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was authored by Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff. According to the document, the remarks were made on March 11 at a Judicial Conference of the United States meeting attended by Chief Justice John Roberts and roughly twelve other judges. Mizelle alleges Judge Boasberg strayed from administrative topics and 'attempted to improperly influence' his colleagues by predicting that the Trump administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and cause 'a constitutional crisis.' 'The Department of Justice respectfully submits this complaint alleging misconduct by US District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg… that have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,' the complaint reads, as quoted by Fox News. Mizelle further stated: 'Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders.' The complaint also notes that Judge Boasberg failed to cite any examples of non-compliance, making his 'unprecedented predictions' all the more troubling. The DOJ points out that Boasberg made the remarks just days before presiding over a case involving Trump's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. According to the complaint, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order on March 15 blocking deportation flights—an order that was later vacated by the Supreme Court. 'Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders,' Mizelle wrote. The DOJ is asking for the complaint to be referred to a special investigative committee to determine whether Boasberg's conduct amounts to 'conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.' Additionally, the DOJ is requesting that Boasberg be removed from the ongoing case involving deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador to 'prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds.' Boasberg, 62, is an appointee of former President Barack Obama and currently serves as the chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Mizelle argued that Boasberg's comments and judicial actions reflect 'bias' and violate the Code of Conduct for US Judges, which requires impartiality. 'Taken together, Judge Boasberg's words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation,' the complaint concludes. Judge Boasberg has not yet responded publicly to the allegations.
