Law & Crime: Trump doubles down on claim he has ‘absolute immunity’ from Central Park 5 defamation lawsuit

President Donald Trump is doubling down on his claim that he has “absolute immunity” from a defamation lawsuit filed against him by members of the exonerated Central Park Five over false statements he made about them during a televised debate with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

In an 11-page reply filed Wednesday, the president asserted he is entitled to an automatic stay in the case as an appellate court decides whether he is protected from litigation under Pennsylvania law. The filing argues that the state’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA) — an anti-SLAPP law aimed at preventing defendants from being intimidated or silenced by the threat of expensive lawsuits — applies to the lawsuit and immunizes him against the plaintiffs’ claims.

Trump is appealing an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone in which she refused to dismiss the defamation suit, holding that the Central Park Five’s claims were not barred by UPEPA, which is Pennsylvania’s version of an anti-SLAPP law.

“In enacting the [UPEPA], the Pennsylvania General Assembly explicitly recognized the severe chilling effect that lawsuits which target public participation have on constitutionally protected speech. To combat these abuses of the judicial process, the legislature provided defendants with substantive immunity from suit to spare them the burdens and expenses associated with meritless litigation,” Wednesday’s filing states. “Because the record demonstrates UPEPA immunity was intended to protect defendants from the burdens of litigation, and President Trump’s appeal presents a non-frivolous question, this Court should order an immediate stay.”

Beetlestone last month ruled that UPEPA does not apply in federal court. In his appeal, Trump asserted that the law must be applied in federal court, thereby making him immune from the plaintiffs’ suit. The appeal further argued that because Trump is allegedly entitled to immunity, it is “mandatory” that the court grant his request for a stay pending appeal.

Attorneys for the Central Park Five pushed back on Trump’s claim that a stay in the case is mandatory, claiming the president “does not cite any relevant case for this proposition” and is conflating absolute immunity — being immune from litigation — with being statutorily immune from liability.

For example, a sitting president would be immune from litigation if a lawsuit were based on any official acts taken within the scope of presidential duties, regardless of the merits. On the other hand, immunity based on anti-SLAPP statutes typically requires courts to address the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.

Trump on Wednesday argued that plaintiffs’ position “fundamentally misconstrues the statute,” claiming UPEPA “grants defendants an immediate entitlement to avoid the litigation process itself, which cannot be vindicated once Defendant is subjected to the burdens of litigation.”

“UPEPA immunity is, therefore, like that afforded to defendants under the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity, and the Court should stay the proceedings in this case as it would in cases where such immunities are invoked,” the filing says.

The president further asserted that refusing his request to stay the proceedings while the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would establish a precedent allowing lawsuits to be filed against citizens “for merely voicing their opinions in quintessentially political discussions.”

The wrongly accused quintet sued Trump for false statements he made during last year’s presidential debate with Kamala Harris in which he said the plaintiffs “pled guilty” to the horrific 1989 attack on a Manhattan jogger and “ultimately killed a person.”

Antron McCray, Korey Wise, Kevin Richardson, and Raymond Santana gave police coerced confessions, but never pleaded guilty while Yusef Salaam did not confess or plead guilty. Additionally, no one died in the attack, which was later conclusively proven to have been committed by a man named Matias Reyes.

Crybaby Trump claims no responsibility for defamation of others during a political debate.

Law & Crime: ‘Naked attempt to evade clear law’: Federal judge says Trump admin ‘unequivocally’ acted unlawfully in unilaterally shuttering Job Corps

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has halted the Trump administration’s effort to shutter the Job Corps training program — the nation’s largest residential career training program for thousands of low-income youth — becoming the second to do so within the span of a month.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich — an appointee of President Donald Trump during his first term — on Friday granted the request for a preliminary injunction blocking the closing of 99 Job Corps centers throughout the nation, reasoning that the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) unilateral closing of the program, which was created and authorized by Congress, violated federal law.

The case stems from the Labor Department notifying the 99 private Job Corps centers across the nation on May 29, 2025, that they would “cease operations” by June 30.

The lawsuit was filed last month by a group of seven student-enrollees in the Job Corps program hailing from Georgia, Mississippi, Oregon, North Dakota, and Michigan on behalf of themselves as well as the putative class of students enrolled at all 99 centers affected by the program’s shuttering.

The complaint alleged that the Labor Department was legally required provide advance notice and an opportunity for public comment before closing any Job Corps center, as required by federal law. By failing to do so, the administration’s actions allegedly violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014.

The administration asserted that the shuttering of all Job Corps centers was a “statutorily authorized pause — as opposed to a closure,” a claim that Friedrich said did not stand up to scrutiny.

“This argument fails because DOL’s across-the-board shutdown extended far beyond any ‘pause’ contemplated by the statute,” the judge wrote. “The agency suspended operations at all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers without any expectation of future reopenings. And it effected the mass shutdown without complying with any of the statutory requirements that must precede a ‘pause’ in operations. DOL failed to conduct an individualized assessment or develop a performance improvement plan for any of the 99 centers. It instead suspended all operations based on the perceived failures of the Job Corps program as a whole.”

Friedrich said the nationwide shutdown was “not only unprecedented,” but also” inconsistent with its historic standard of practice.” While earlier “pauses” allowed for the realistic possibility that Job Corps centers would be reopened, here, the administration informed students that they should harbor “no expectation of transfer to another center or return to their current center.”

The court said there was no need to engage in any analysis regarding the difference between a “pause” and a “closure” because “the record unequivocally demonstrates that DOL unlawfully ‘closed’ all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers, in violation of the WIOA.”

“At bottom, DOL’s position is entirely circular: So long as the agency uses the term ‘pause’ and never makes a final decision to ‘formally close’ a center, it is authorized to shutter any Job Corps center indefinitely,” Friedrich wrote. “In DOL’s view, the WIOA’s procedural mandates hinge on the terminology the agency chooses to use, allowing it to sidestep its statutory obligations entirely. That cannot be correct. Because DOL unlawfully ‘closed’ all 99 privately operated Job Corps centers, in violation of the WIOA, the Court finds that the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the merits of their APA claims.”

The plaintiffs are being represented in the case by the Southern Poverty Law Center and Public Citizen. Adam Pulver, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, lauded the ruling.

“The Department of Labor’s decision to abruptly close Job Corps centers across the country, ignoring legal requirements and literally putting vulnerable young people on the street, was callous, and as the Judge today agreed, illegal,” Pulver said in a statement. “The Department’s ludicrous argument to the court, that in shutting down 99 Job Corps centers it was not actually closing those centers, was a naked attempt to evade clear law.”

Law & Crime: ‘Not free to do as it pleases’: Judge says Trump admin lacks authority to unilaterally shutter Job Corps

A federal judge in Manhattan has halted the Trump administration’s effort to shutter the Job Corps training program — the nation’s largest residential career training program for thousands of low-income youth — while litigation on the matter continues.

U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter of the Southern District of New York on Wednesday extended his temporary restraining order (TRO) by granting a request for a preliminary injunction in the case, reasoning that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) unilateral closing of the program created and authorized by Congress violated federal law.

Law & Crime: ‘We are guilty. Period.’: Jan. 6 rioter refuses pardon from ‘felon Trump,’ claims president has been ‘gaslighting’ followers

An Idaho woman who was found guilty of storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and encouraging others to do the same is now working to ensure that she is not among the more than 1,500 rioters to be pardoned by President Donald Trump.

Pamela Hemphill, who was 69 years old in 2022 when she was sentenced to two months in jail for her role in the attack, is actively refusing the president’s clemency, claiming that Trump’s mass pardons and commutations are part of his larger effort to push false claims about the crimes committed by his followers that day.

“The pardons just contribute to their narrative, which is all lies. Propaganda. We were guilty, period,” Hemphill said in a recent interview with CBS News.

Law & Crime: ‘Unquestionably violative of this court’s order’: Judge upbraids Trump admin for deporting migrants to war-torn third country without due process

A federal judge on Wednesday said that the Trump administration had “unquestionably” violated his order by deporting several migrants to South Sudan — a country from which none of the migrants are from — without due process or a reasonable opportunity to raise concerns of their fear of the war-torn nation, an action he said could amount to criminal contempt of court.

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy upbraided attorneys from the Justice Department, accusing them of ignoring the “long history” of legal precedent surrounding due process rights as well as recent orders from the U.S. Supreme Court when they sent seven men to South Sudan with less than 24 hours notice.

Murphy last month issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from deporting migrants to third countries without giving them a “reasonable opportunity” to raise concerns about that country and the possible violence they could face.

Murphy scheduled a hearing after an emergency motion filed by attorneys for the plaintiffs informed the court that at least two of their clients had been notified on Monday evening that they were being removed to South Sudan and were transported out of ICE facilities at around 9:30 a.m. Tuesday morning.

“The department’s actions in this case are unquestionably violative of this court’s order,” Murphy said at Wednesday’s hearing. “It is plain to me that an ‘opportunity to be heard’ of only several hours that were not during business hours, where you couldn’t raise consult with your attorney or your family is insufficient. It was impossible for these people to have a meaningful opportunity to object to their removal to South Sudan.”

Murphy emphasized that even the Supreme Court justices recently confirmed that 24 hours of notice is “plainly insufficient” for the purpose of due process, stating, “I don’t see how anybody could think these people had a reasonable chance to object.”

Law & Crime: In legal turnabout, Trump admin to settle wrongful death lawsuit brought by husband of Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt

The Trump administration is planning on settling a multimillion dollar wrongful death lawsuit filed by Aaron Babbitt, the husband of Ashli Babbitt, who was shot and killed while storming the Capitol during the Jan. 6, riot.

Aaron Babbitt’s lawyer and attorneys with the Justice Department’s Civil Division confirmed that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the case over Ashli Babbitt’s death during a hearing on Friday in Washington, D.C., according to a report from Washington, D.C., CBS affiliate WUSA.

Payola for the criminals! Thank you, King Donald! Wrong does pay!

Perhaps if the family of the poor marksman that shot off King Donald’s ear were to sue, they too could get a nice multi-million dollar settlement at taxpayer expense?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-legal-turnabout-trump-admin-to-settle-wrongful-death-lawsuit-brought-by-husband-of-capitol-rioter-ashli-babbitt/ar-AA1E4ieK

More here:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-administration-agrees-to-settlement-with-family-of-jan-6-rioter-ashli-babbitt/ar-AA1E4yH5

Law & Crime: ‘No such power … is given to the President’: Full appeals court thwarts Trump’s firing of Biden-appointed board members, setting stage for SCOTUS showdown

A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to oust members of two independent federal labor agencies in a pair of back-and-forth cases that will likely set the stage for a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court and have a profound impact on President Donald Trump’s continued effort to slash the federal workforce.

In a 7-4 vote, the full panel of judges on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia blocked the president from removing Cathy A. Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), reasoning that they were improperly dismissed without cause.

“The government has not demonstrated the requisite ‘strong showing that [it] is likely [to] succeed on the merits’ of these two appeals,” the panel wrote in a three-page per curiam order. “The government likewise has not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that there is no available remedy for Harris or Wilcox, or that allowing the district court’s injunctions to remain in place pending appeal is impermissible.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/no-such-power-is-given-to-the-president-full-appeals-court-thwarts-trump-s-firing-of-biden-appointed-board-members-setting-stage-for-scotus-showdown/ar-AA1CsVw1