Latest news with #judges
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Globee® Awards for Innovation Invites Industry Experts to Join 2025 Judging Panel
Help Recognize the Most Groundbreaking Innovations in Business and Technology SAN FRANCISCO, June 26, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- The Globee® Awards for Innovation, also known as the Golden Bridge Awards®, is now accepting applications from industry professionals, innovators, and subject matter experts to participate as judges in the 2025 awards cycle. Judges will evaluate submissions that showcase breakthroughs in products, services, processes, and initiatives across all industries. The judging process is 100% merit-based, with all evaluations conducted independently by qualified peers from around the world. Scores are transparently shared with both winners and non-winners. Apply now to participate as a judge: Judges who complete their assignments receive a verified eCertificate of participation, and their name and company are published on the official Globee® Awards Judges page. About the Globee® Awards The Globee® Awards present recognition across ten annual programs and competitions, celebrating achievements in business, innovation, technology, leadership, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and more. With global participation and evaluations from industry experts worldwide, the Globee® Awards have become a widely accepted standard for honoring excellence and impact across all sectors and organization sizes. To learn more about the Globee® Awards, please visit: Follow: @globeeawards Hashtags: #globeeawards #globeeInnovation #innovationawards #goldenbridgeawards All trademarks belong to their respective owners. View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Globee Awards
Fox News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Trump DHS sues entire bench of federal judges in Maryland district court over automatic injunctions
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is suing all 15 judges on the Maryland federal bench, arguing the court's policy of automatically pausing certain immigration cases that come before it is unlawful. Attorneys for the Trump administration argued to the very court they are suing that the policy, imposed through an order the court issued in May, is an "egregious example of judicial overreach." "A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law," the attorneys wrote in a filing Tuesday. "Nor does their status within the judicial branch." The Maryland court's standing order requires clerks to immediately enter temporary administrative injunctions in cases brought by alleged illegal immigrants who are challenging their detention. The automatic injunctions in these cases, known as habeas corpus cases, temporarily bar the DHS from deporting or changing the legal status of the immigrant in question for two business days. In its order, the court said it did this out of scheduling convenience to make sure the "status quo" is preserved when a case is filed. The order cited a higher volume than usual of cases involving detained immigrants who are attempting to prevent the government from keeping them detained or deporting them. "The recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees purportedly subject to improper and imminent removal from the United States that have been filed after normal court hours and on weekends and holidays has created scheduling difficulties and resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive," the court order stated. The Trump administration also asked the court in a follow-up motion that all the judges-turned-defendants recuse themselves from the case and bring in an outside judge to take over or transfer the case to a different court district. The unusual lawsuit comes as President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda encounters roadblocks involving individual immigrants using legal avenues afforded to them through U.S. immigration laws to raise challenges and appeals to their deportations. In Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis, who is now one of the named defendants in the new case, ordered the Trump administration to return to the United States a Salvadoran national named Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador in March before he was returned months later to face trafficking charges. The case became the first known instance of the Trump administration erroneously deporting an illegal immigrant before affording him legally-required due process.
Reuters
4 days ago
- Reuters
Sticky situations when judges lose their cool over decorum breaches
June 23 (Reuters) - Federal judges routinely deal with some of the worst human behavior, presiding over cases that might include murder, bank robbery, kidnapping and all manner of shady business dealings. Then there's the conduct that U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II in Pensacola, Florida, called 'absolutely disgusting' — something that after 23 years on the bench, he said he 'never dreamed' he would have to address. Someone stuck gum under the counsel's table in his courtroom. Wetherell's order, opens new tab earlier this month taking the gum-sticking plaintiff to task strikes me as an instant classic in the long and cantankerous genre of judges castigating lawyers and litigants for breaches of decorum over attire, ringing cell phones, font choice and more. For example, this spring U.S. Magistrate Judge Ray Kent in the Western District of Michigan struck a filing, opens new tab by an attorney from a firm called Dragon Lawyers because each page of the complaint included a cartoon logo of a dragon wearing a suit. The logo is 'juvenile and impertinent,' Kent wrote. 'The Court is not a cartoon.' Or remember when now-FBI director Kash Patel, then a lawyer in the U.S. Justice Department's counterterrorism section, was raked over the coals in 2016 by Houston-based U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes for failing to wear a suit and tie in court? 'If you want to be a lawyer, dress like a lawyer,' Hughes said, according to a transcript, opens new tab of the hearing, unmollified by Patel's explanation that he'd come straight from Tajikistan, where he was on a work trip, and hadn't packed a suit. An FBI spokesperson did not respond to my request to reach Patel for comment, and Hughes — who went on to kick Patel out of his courtroom — has since assumed inactive senior status. As for judges getting peeved when cell phones ring in court, stories abound, though it's hard to top an incident in 2005. Then-judge Robert Restaino in Niagara Falls City Court in New York revoked the release of 46 defendants appearing for their weekly check-ins as part of a domestic violence program after no one took responsibility for a cell phone trilling in the courtroom, the State of New York Commission on Judicial Conduct found, opens new tab. Restaino, who is now mayor of Niagara Falls, did not respond to a request for comment. By comparison, Wetherell was a model of restraint in dealing with the plaintiff, a former lottery winner enmeshed in a battle over her late husband's estate, who confessed to affixing the wad. Wetherell issued an admonishment but no sanctions — though he made it clear he wouldn't be so forgiving in the future. If 'anything like this happens again,' he wrote, he would come up with a punishment 'commensurate with the schoolchild-nature of the violation — maybe sitting in the courtroom under the supervision of a court security officer handwriting 'I will not stick my gum under a courtroom table again' 100 times on notebook paper.'' Wetherell declined comment via a spokesperson from his chambers. The errant gum was discovered when a federal prosecutor got some stuck on her skirt after brushing against the underside of the table, Wetherell wrote. Additional gum, 'still fresh and stringy' remained hanging, the judge said. (A post-incident photo documenting the stretched-out gum can be found at docket entry 51, opens new tab.) Given the gum's elasticity, Wetherell surmised it had been placed there during the morning hearing, a seemingly routine evidentiary proceeding. Plaintiff Lorraine Padavan, together with her now-deceased husband, won $96 million in 2021 in the New York State lottery. The pair separated but remained married until his death. She's now challenging changes to his estate plan that benefit another woman. Padavan's lawyer, John Adams of GrayRobinson in Pensacola, did not respond to a request for comment on behalf of himself or his client. In a letter to the court, opens new tab, Padavan apologized to the assistant U.S. attorney and offered to pay for her dry cleaning or buy her a new skirt, as well as compensate the court for any damage to the table.
Free Malaysia Today
20-06-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
The real roots of judicial power in Malaysia
In the English legal tradition, judicial power is understood as the authority of courts to adjudicate disputes, interpret statutes and common law, and provide remedies. It includes the power to review executive actions for legality and, in some cases, to develop the common law through precedent. However, English courts do not possess the authority to strike down legislation—a limitation that distinguishes their role from that of courts in constitutional democracies like Malaysia. Malaysia's judiciary, while inheriting many functions from the English system, is constitutionally empowered to go further. Our courts do not only interpret and apply the law but also possess the authority to invalidate legislation, constitutional amendments, or executive actions that contravene the Federal Constitution. This power is not derived from Article 4(1) or Article 121(1) alone, but fundamentally from the Oath of Office taken by judges—a jurisprudential foundation that has been underdeveloped and underappreciated since independence. Article 4(1) declares the constitution as the supreme law of the Federation. However, it does not, in itself, confer judicial power. Rather, it sets the constitutional framework within which all branches of government must operate. The true source of judicial power lies in the solemn Oath of Office undertaken by judges, which binds them to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. This oath is not ceremonial—it is constitutional in nature and substance. Similarly, members of the legislature and executive are also bound by their respective oaths to uphold the constitution. When any law, amendment or executive act violates Article 4(1), it is the judiciary's constitutional duty—rooted in their oath—to strike it down. This is not judicial activism; it is judicial fidelity to constitutional supremacy. The Federal Court's decision in Dato Yap Peng v Public Prosecutor (1987) exemplified this principle. In that case, the court struck down a legislative provision as unconstitutional, affirming its role as guardian of the constitution. In response, Parliament amended Article 121(1) in 1988, removing the explicit vesting of judicial power in the High Courts and instead stating that courts shall have such jurisdiction and powers 'as may be conferred by or under federal law'. This amendment was widely interpreted as a curtailment of judicial power. For over two decades, the legal community operated under the assumption that the judiciary's constitutional authority had been diminished. Yet this interpretation overlooked a critical truth: judicial power in Malaysia does not originate from legislative grace. It is constitutionally embedded through the oath of office and the foundational structure of the constitution itself. Calls to amend Article 121(1) to 'restore' judicial power—such as those made by a former law minister—are therefore misplaced. If the 1988 amendment was intended to strip the courts of their constitutional authority, it was a sterile move. Judicial power, like legislative and executive power, flows from the constitution and is anchored in the oaths taken by officeholders. No statutory amendment can override that constitutional reality. My own judicial tenure allowed me to explore and articulate what I call the 'Oath of Office Jurisprudence.' This framework situates judicial power within the broader architecture of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law. It draws from established principles of judicial review and affirms that the judiciary's role is not to dominate, but to safeguard the constitutional order. Unlike the 'basic structure' doctrine developed in India, which courts have used to limit parliamentary power, Malaysia's oath-based jurisprudence avoids judicial hegemony while still providing robust constitutional protection. In my view, the use of the basic structure doctrine to challenge the constitutionality of laws which touch on shariah issues is flawed jurisprudence. In contrast, the oath of office jurisprudence offers a superior route to ensuring that constitutional functionaries and federal and state laws fall in line with the intentions of our founding fathers. Indeed, judicial hegemony—the idea that courts should wield unchecked power—was rejected as early as the Magna Carta in 1215. Our constitutional framers were equally cautious. They ensured that the responsibility to uphold the constitution rests not solely with the judiciary, but with all four pillars of the state: the executive, legislature, judiciary, and the Malay rulers. My contributions to this jurisprudence, including judgments such as Aluma Mark Chinonso, have helped crystallise the parameters of judicial power consistent with the constitution. Since 2017, a series of Federal Court decisions have reaffirmed the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, effectively burying the notion that judicial power was ever truly removed. It is time for Malaysian jurists to invest in developing this uniquely Malaysian jurisprudence. As the late Justice Gopal Sri Ram observed, the oath of office framework introduces a new dimension to the rule of law. It compels all branches of government to banish arbitrariness and act within constitutional bounds. It also offers a broader and more integrated foundation for constitutional review than the imported basic structure doctrine. If embraced, this approach could restore judicial review to its rightful place—not as a 'disabled creature with a thousand tongues and no teeth', but as a principled and effective check on arbitrary power. Doing so would strengthen the rule of law and advance the cause of social justice in Malaysia. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.
The Independent
20-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Lawyer who once defended drug kingpin 'El Chapo' questions critics of her judicial victory
Of the roughly 2,600 judges elected for the first time by Mexicans earlier this month, Silvia Delgado García received more attention than almost any other because she once helped represent drug kingpin Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán. That single client in a nearly two decade career as a criminal defense attorney in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from El Paso, Texas, made Delgado standout in the historic June 1 election, name recognition that may have helped her victory formally certified Thursday. Delgado won a spot as a criminal court judge in Ciudad Juarez in the June 1 election. At Thursday's ceremony, Delgado smiled, got emotional and received hugs. Speaking to reporters later, she said it was time for her defense work to stop being described as a 'tie' to the drug lord. She was just doing her job, she said. 'The only thing that we do is a job,' she said. 'The decision to enter in this electoral process was very simple: I wanted to strengthen my career helping the community. I've helped so many here, helping defend.' In 2016, Delgado García was a member of Sinaloa cartel leader Guzmán's legal team when he was temporarily held in a prison in Ciudad Juarez before being extradited to the United States. He was eventually tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison in the U.S. Some critics of electing judges, and a human rights litigation group called Defensorxs, had labeled Delgado García 'high risk' before the vote, because 'she defends alleged drug traffickers.' Hailed as a way to make corrupt judges accountable to the people and clean up Mexico's judiciary by former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the historic elections that covered more than 2,600 positions ranging up to the country's Supreme Court, drew only a paltry 13% voter participation. Critics feared it would politicize the judiciary and offer organized crime an easier path to influencing judicial decisions. Mexico's governing Morena party was poised to gain control of the Supreme Court as a majority of the winners had strong ties to the party or were aligned ideologically. On Thursday, Delgado noted that she had been called out for petitioning the court that Guzmán be given a blanket in prison. 'Is it bad that if a person is not accustomed to the cold that he have a blanket?' she asked. 'I have been in the eye of the hurricane for that reason.'
