Latest news with #attorneysGeneral
Washington Post
01-07-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
HHS layoffs were likely unlawful and must be halted, US judge says
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal judge has ruled that recent mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services were likely unlawful and ordered the Trump administration to halt plans to downsize and reorganize the nation's health workforce. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose granted the preliminary injunction sought by a coalition of attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit filed in early May.
Yahoo
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Second judge blocks Trump order to require proof of citizenship to vote
A second federal judge has rejected parts of Donald Trump's executive order on elections, dealing another blow to his directive that would require proof of citizenship to vote in US elections. The order, described in March by the White House as 'the farthest-reaching executive action taken' in the nation's history, quickly led to multiple lawsuits. In April, a federal judge in Washington DC ruled against the order in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic party and voting rights groups, blocking its implementation. Tuesday's ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general and is one of many legal actions the top prosecutors in blue states have brought against the Trump administration to curb illegality and overreach, the attorneys general have said. Related: Millions in US expected to protest against Trump in 'No Kings' demonstrations Denise J Casper, a federal judge in Massachusetts, ruled that the attorneys general had a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging some provisions of the order, leading her to grant an injunction that stops the provisions from going into effect. 'There is no dispute (nor could there be) that US citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,' Casper wrote. The issue, rather, is whether the president can require documentary proof of citizenship when other parts of the government, such as Congress, have authority for such election requirements, and statutes do not require it, she wrote. The executive order comes amid an ongoing false narrative pushed by the right that large numbers of people without US citizenship are voting in national elections. A bill that was moving through Congress, the Save Act, would have required documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other provisions, which voting rights advocates warned could disenfranchise millions of people, including women who changed their names in marriage. The executive order made extensive changes to voting eligibility and processes, including requiring the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship, empowering federal agencies to cut funding to states deemed non-compliant and instructing the Department of Justice to prosecute what the White House paints as 'election crimes'. One provision, which the ruling on Friday blocked, called on local elections officials to assess citizenship before giving out voter registration forms at public assistance agencies. 'Defendants cannot point to any source of authority for the president to impose this requirement on the states,' Casper noted.
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Second judge rejects parts of Trump's order to require proof of citizenship to vote in elections
A second federal judge has rejected parts of Donald Trump's executive order on elections, dealing another blow to his directive that would require proof of citizenship to vote in US elections. The order, described in March by the White House as 'the farthest-reaching executive action taken' in the nation's history, quickly led to multiple lawsuits. In April, a federal judge in Washington DC ruled against the order in a lawsuit brought by the Democratic party and voting rights groups, blocking its implementation. Tuesday's ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by Democratic state attorneys general and is one of many legal actions the top prosecutors in blue states have brought against the Trump administration to curb illegality and overreach, the attorneys general have said. Denise J Casper, a federal judge in Massachusetts, ruled that the attorneys general had a reasonable likelihood of success in challenging some provisions of the order, leading her to grant an injunction that stops the provisions from going into effect. 'There is no dispute (nor could there be) that US citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,' Casper wrote. The issue, rather, is whether the president can require documentary proof of citizenship when other parts of the government, such as Congress, have authority for such election requirements, and statutes do not require it, she wrote. The executive order comes amid an ongoing false narrative pushed by the right that large numbers of people without US citizenship are voting in national elections. A bill that was moving through Congress, the Save Act, would have required documentary proof of citizenship to vote, among other provisions, which voting rights advocates warned could disenfranchise millions of people, including women who changed their names in marriage. The executive order made extensive changes to voting eligibility and processes, including requiring the federal voter registration form to require proof of citizenship, empowering federal agencies to cut funding to states deemed noncompliant and instructing the Department of Justice to prosecute what the White House paints as 'election crimes'. One provision, which the ruling on Friday blocked, called on local elections officials to assess citizenship prior to giving out voter registration forms at public assistance agencies. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion 'Defendants cannot point to any source of authority for the president to impose this requirement on the states,' Casper noted.
E&E News
29-05-2025
- Business
- E&E News
Democratic states sue Trump administration over NSF cuts
A coalition of Democratic-led states is suing the Trump administration to stop the National Science Foundation from imposing a financial cap on research projects and canceling grants that seek to increase diversity in science, technology, engineering and math. The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the administration in April began terminating projects that focused on increasing the participation of women, minorities and people with disabilities. Earlier this month, the administration announced that it would also limit the amount it will pay for the indirect costs of projects, including laboratory space, equipment and facility services. The moves come as the Trump administration proposes the smallest National Science Foundation budget in decades — with $4.7 billion in cuts mainly focused on research related to climate change, clean energy and 'woke social, behavioral and economic sciences,' according to the White House. Advertisement The 16 Democratic attorneys general who joined the lawsuit argued that the moves jeopardize the United States' status as a catalyst for research.
The Independent
29-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Court blocks Trump's tariffs and says president ‘exceeded his authority'
A three-judge panel of the U.S. court of International Trade ruled that President Trump"exceeded his authority" by imposing tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China, as well as his "Liberation Day" tariffs. The court found that Trump 's tariffs exceeded the authority granted to presidents under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and that they did not address a specific national emergency as required by law. The judges ruled the tariffs would be "vacated" and permanently blocked the government from enforcing them, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, which included attorneys general from twelve states and several small American companies. Kris Mayes, the attorney general of Arizona, celebrated the ruling, stating that the President does not have the authority to implement tariffs unilaterally. A White House spokesperson criticized the ruling, claiming the court had not disputed that foreign countries' nonreciprocal treatment fueled America's trade deficits, which created a national emergency, and that the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address the crisis.
