Latest news with #plaintiffs
The Independent
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Supreme Court rules in Trump birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court's conservative majority has stripped federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions that have blocked key parts of Donald Trump's agenda. The court's anticipated ruling in a case attached to a question of whether the president can unilaterally redefine who gets to be a citizen states that nationwide injunctions 'exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the federal courts.' A series of federal court rulings across the country struck down the president's attempt to block citizenship from newborn Americans who are born to certain immigrant parents. But the government argues those decisions should only impact the individual states — and the unborn children of pregnant mothers in them — who sued him and won. Opponents have warned that such a decision would open a backdoor to begin stripping constitutional rights. Allowing the president to unilaterally redefine who gets to be a U.S. citizen in states subject to Trump's unilateral rewriting of the 14th Amendment would create a patchwork system of constitutional rights and citizenship benefits — including voting rights. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump's order, according to the plaintiffs. In January, more than 20 states, immigrants' advocacy groups and pregnant plaintiffs sued the administration to block the president's executive order that attempts to redefine the Constitution to determine who is eligible for citizenship. Three federal judges and appellate court panels have argued his order is unconstitutional and blocked the measure from taking effect nationwide while legal challenges continue. During oral arguments, the Supreme Court's liberal justices appeared shocked at the president's 'unlawful' measure. But the administration used the case not necessarily to argue over whether he can change the 14th Amendment but to target what has become a major obstacle to advancing Trump's agenda: federal judges blocking aggressive executive actions. The government asked the court to limit the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have imperiled a bulk of the president's agenda, which has thus far been dictated largely through an avalanche of executive orders, not legislation. The government pushed the Supreme Court to reduce the federal judiciary's power to issue nationwide injunctions, cutting off one of the few critical checks and balances against an administration that critics warn is mounting an ongoing assault against the rule of law. More than half of the injunctions issued over the last 70 years were against the Trump administration, according to the Harvard Law Review, as Trump pushed the limits of his authority. In Trump's first term in office, his administration faced 64 injunctions, compared to 14 injunctions against Joe Biden and 12 against Barack Obama The second administration faced 17 within its first two months. In arguments to the Supreme Court, Trump's personal attorney John Sauer, who was appointed by the president to serve as U.S. solicitor general, called the 'cascade of universal injunctions' against the administration a 'bipartisan problem' that exceeds judicial authority. 'The vision of the district courts that's reflected in the issuance of these nationwide injunctions is a vision of them as a roving commission to correct every legal wrong that they can consider and to exercise general legal oversight over the executive branch,' he said. Trump's allies, however, have relied on nationwide injunctions to do the very same thing they commanded the Supreme Court to strike down. Critics have accused right-wing legal groups of 'judge shopping' for ideologically like-minded venues where they can sue to strike down — through nationwide injunctions — policies with which they disagree. After the government's arguments fell flat in front of a mostly skeptical Supreme Court last month, Trump accused his political opponents of 'playing the ref' through the courts to overturn his threat to the 14th Amendment. 'The Radical Left SleazeBags, which has no cards remaining in its illegal bag of tricks, is, in a very coordinated manner, PLAYING THE REF with regard to the United States Supreme Court,' Trump wrote. 'They lost the Election in a landslide, and with it, have totally lost their confidence and reason. They are stone cold CRAZY! I hope the Supreme Court doesn't fall for the games they play,' he added. In a separate post, written in all-caps, he claimed the nation's high court is 'BEING PLAYED BY THE RADICAL LEFT LOSERS' whose 'ONLY HOPE IS THE INTIMIDATION OF THE COURT, ITSELF.' The 14th Amendment plainly states that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' But under the terms of Trump's order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn't a citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The president's attempt to define a key component of the 14th Amendment is central to his administration's sweeping anti-immigration agenda. His administration has effectively ended entry for asylum seekers, declaring the United States under 'invasion' from foreign gangs to summarily remove alleged members, and stripped legal protections for more than 1 million people — radically expanding the pool of 'undocumented' people now vulnerable for arrest and removal. The administration has also effectively 'de-legalized' tens of thousands of immigrants, and thousands of people with pending immigration cases are being ordered to court each week only to have those cases dismissed, with federal agents waiting to arrest them on the other side of the courtroom doors. The White House has also rolled back protections barring immigration arrests at sensitive locations like churches and bumped up the pace of immigration raids in the interior of the country. To carry out the arrests, the administration has tapped resources from other state and local agencies while moving officers from federal agencies like the FBI and DEA to focus on immigration.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Do Crocs Shrink in Heat? The Issue Is at the Center of a New Lawsuit
Do Croc shoes shrink in heat and under direct sunlight, and did the company know about any deficiencies? Those are some of the questions that Crocs Inc. will have to answer in a federal district court lawsuit filed in California in San Francisco. It's one that also is expected to seek class-action status. More from WWD This Kaia Gerber-Approved On Sneaker Style Is Just What You Need to Master the Season's Pastel-Purple Shoe Trend The 13 Best White Sneakers for Women That Go With Everything in Your Wardrobe Shoe Executive Richard Kirschenbaum and G-III Trade Legal Barbs The case is already before a judge as the complaint was filed by four plaintiffs last December. They are seeking class-action status, but due to a technicality in the start of the purported class-action period, U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson gave them the ability to amend the case with the appropriate timing adjustment. The lawsuit cited some legal claims that were dismissed by Thompson, and the plaintiffs were told that while they could refile seeking class-action status, they basically can't add new causes of action to the suit without court approval. That ruling on Friday also stuck down one component of the plaintiffs attempt to sue for fraud because the original complaint wasn't specific enough on which marketing material relied upon misrepresented the shoes or where they saw them. She did allow the allegation of duty to disclose to proceed, noting that Crocs 'allegedly received thousands of complaints regarding the shrinkage problems and is aware of customer complaints posted on Defendant's website.' The judge also sided with Crocs and dismissed the charge that the company violated an express warranty, but that was because there was no allegation that the shoes were defective at the time they were bought. According to the suit, the plaintiffs charged that Crocs failed to alert consumers that its shoes are constructed of a material that shrinks when exposed to ordinary heat and/or direct sunlight. That shrinkage, or warping, resulted in the shoes no longer fitting the purchaser's feet. Calling that a design flaw, the plaintiffs alleged that the shoes are unsuitable for ordinary use. The majority of Crocs shoes use a proprietary resin material called Croslite. Crocs still has to answer questions about whether it knew of the alleged defect under implied warranty claims. Friday's order said there were enough allegations to 'sufficiently allege' that the shoes lacked a basic degree of fitness, as well as a minimum level of quality. 'Crocs is pleased with the Court ruling in that plaintiffs' fraud-based claims and many of its arguments related to Crocs' warranties and various class allegations were dismissed. These claims were fundamental to plaintiffs' arguments and Crocs looks forward to prevailing on the remaining claims through its summary judgment motion, should that be required,' a Crocs Inc. spokesperson said. 'Crocs stands by the quality and safety of its products and will continue to aggressively defend frivolous and unsubstantiated claims made by plaintiffs' counsel.' The plaintiffs have until July 9 to refile an amended complaint, and failure to do so will result in the dismissal of the case with prejudice. And even presuming the timely filing of the amended paperwork, the plaintiffs still need to prove their allegations at trial. Best of WWD All the Retailers That Nike Left and Then Went Back Mikey Madison's Elegant Red Carpet Shoe Style [PHOTOS] Julia Fox's Sleekest and Boldest Shoe Looks Over the Years [Photos]
Reuters
7 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
- Labcorp was the blockbuster Supreme Court case that wasn't
June 23 (Reuters) - When the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year agreed to take up medical testing company Laboratory Corporation of America's appeal of a class certification order, it was one of the buzziest cases of the term. The parties, along with amici in 19 friend-of-the-court briefs and the legal press – me included – cast it as a potentially monumental matter, one that could upend class action litigation by making it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring cases. What we got instead was … nothing. A little over a month after oral argument, the high court on June 5 dismissed the case, opens new tab as improvidently granted, though Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the majority's one sentence order. In issuing the so-called dismiss as improvidently or DIG, the justices tacitly admitted that it was a mistake to grant certiorari in the first place, though presumably not because of the question presented. The question that remains unanswered is whether a class be certified if it contains uninjured members – an issue that the high court circled in two prior class certification decisions, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo in 2016 and TransUnion v. Ramirez in 2021, but left open. Why instead of a firecracker did Labcorp v Davis turn out to be a dud? The most likely answer is procedurally nuanced, involving a tangle of superseding district court orders. Still, how the case unspooled offers a window into when and why the justices DIG a case, a rare move where the court takes no action, instead leaving the appellate decision in place. Here, it meant a win for a class of blind plaintiffs suing Labcorp for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, allowing them to proceed with their suit in Los Angeles federal court. An unconventional move by Deepak Gupta, who represented the class action plaintiffs, could also provide a model for advocates looking to DIG a case – but more on that later. Labcorp did not respond to requests for comment, and the company's outside counsel, Jones Day partner Noel Francisco, declined to comment through a firm spokesperson. A bit of context: Legal scholars say that from 1955 to 2005, the justices disposed of an average of two to three cases per term via DIGs, a move that typically requires agreement from at least six justices. There was one such dismissal in 2023-2024 and a total of three this term. (The other two were both securities class actions, with Gupta also getting a DIG in litigation against chipmaker Nvidia. The other case involved Meta's Facebook.) The court often declines to offer an explanation for DIG-ing a case, leaving onlookers to speculate on what went awry, said Michael Solimine, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law and co-author of the DIG study, opens new tab, via email. For example, after oral argument the justices might realize there was a jurisdictional issue, or they might identify another problem that made the case a poor vehicle to address the question at hand, Solimine said. 'Or it could simply be that there was no majority that could decide the case.' In Labcorp, according to Kavanaugh's dissent, the obstacle that kept the court from deciding the case was mootness – meaning, technically, that the class certification order that Labcorp appealed was no longer in effect and had been supplanted by subsequent district court orders. Kavanaugh, however, deemed the concern 'insubstantial' and wrote that he would have ruled in favor of the company on the merits. Originally filed in 2020, the suit against Labcorp was brought on behalf of visually impaired people who were unable to use check-in kiosks when arriving for blood draws or other medical tests. Labcorp argued that thousands of class members were uninterested in using the kiosks, preferring to check in with a person at the front desk. That meant they sustained no injury and lacked standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Labcorp said. U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Olguin in May of 2022 certified a damages class. Labcorp had appealed the order, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year in an 8-page, unpublished opinion, opens new tab had upheld Olguin's decision. But there was a wrinkle. While Labcorp's interlocutory appeal was pending, the district court modified the class certification order two times to tweak how the class was defined. That meant the order before the Supreme Court was inoperative, Gupta argued for the class action plaintiffs. With no live controversy, any decision by the high court would be nothing more than an advisory opinion, the Gupta Wessler co-founder said. This jurisdictional argument wasn't something the class action plaintiffs initially flagged in opposing, opens new tab Labcorp's cert petition (though they raised it in their respondent's brief, opens new tab when they suggested that the court DIG the case, as did seven law professors in an amicus brief, opens new tab). In an unusual step, Gupta, who was hired after cert was granted, filed a letter, opens new tab with the court on April 23, six days before oral argument and after briefing was complete, to reiterate the jurisdictional problems and again ask the court to DIG the case. Sending the letter felt like 'waving a red flag in front of a bull,' Gupta told me, drawing the focus on procedural questions rather than the merits. 'I wanted to make sure the court understood the problem here.' Writing in response, opens new tab, Francisco called the letter 'nothing more than an improper surreply,' and said the arguments were meritless. The justices' interest was piqued. During oral arguments in April, Justice Clarence Thomas asked why the court had jurisdiction to rule on a lower court's "inoperative" order. Later, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, 'I still don't see how this is not an advisory opinion.' And Justice Elena Kagan remarked, 'We're staring at the wrong order.' Little wonder the court opted for a DIG.
Washington Post
21-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
The ACLU bet big on a trans rights case. Its loss was predictable.
It was clear from oral arguments that the ACLU was going to lose U.S. v. Skrmetti, a challenge to Tennessee's ban on gender transition treatments for minors. But really, it was clear long before that. The plaintiffs were facing six conservative justices who needed to be convinced that such treatments are so compelling — as the litany goes, 'lifesaving, evidence-based and medically necessary' — that states could have no good reason to ban them.
New York Times
18-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Federal Judge Certifies Class Action for Transgender People Seeking Passports
A federal judge in Boston granted class-action status to transgender and nonbinary Americans on Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging a U.S. State Department policy that requires passports to reflect only the holder's sex recorded on their original birth certificate. The order extends a preliminary injunction blocking the State Department from enforcing the policy against six plaintiffs to apply to all class members who apply for or update passports while the case proceeds. In the earlier order from April, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick concluded that the passport policy likely violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee because it discriminates based on sex and is 'rooted in irrational prejudice toward transgender Americans.' The State Department filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction last week. The government maintains that it has a strong interest in passports that accurately reflect the holder's sex. The State Department adopted the new policy earlier this year to comply with an executive order from President Trump directing all government agencies to limit official recognition of transgender identity and mandating that federal documents reflect what it termed the 'immutable biological classification as either male or female.' In court documents, plaintiffs argued that a mismatch between the sex listed on their passport and their gender identity puts them at risk of suspicion and hostility that other Americans do not face. During the first weeks of Mr. Trump's administration, several plaintiffs received passports with an 'F' or 'M' marker contrary to the one they had requested. Another learned that selecting an 'X' marker, indicating a nonbinary gender identity, was no longer an option, though it had been allowed since 2022. The government argued against certifying trans and nonbinary passport holders as a legal class in the case, contending that gender identity is subjective and that a class-wide injunction would create an undue administrative burden. Judge Kobick, who was nominated by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., found that those claims did not outweigh significant harm faced by transgender and nonbinary passport holders. She noted that plaintiffs in the case had described being forced to 'effectively 'out' themselves every time they presented their passports,' leading to anxiety and fear safety fears. 'These are the types of injuries that cannot adequately be measured or compensated by money damages or a later-issued remedy,'' she wrote.
