Tag Archives: Jordan Rubin

MSNBC: Why Trump is appealing the New York civil fraud ruling after claiming ‘TOTAL VICTORY’

Posted on by
Reply

The president won a significant victory but not a complete one. That’s why he’s seeking further relief from New York’s highest state court.

When New York’s mid-level appeals court threw out the nearly half-billion-dollar penalty against Donald Trump last week, New York Attorney General Letitia James quickly vowed to appeal. But now, the president is seeking to appeal the civil fraud ruling despite having claimed “TOTAL VICTORY” last week.

That Trump is appealing might seem curious at first glance, especially if one was the under the impression that the ruling was, as the president claimed, a complete win for him. But as I explained when the ruling came out, it was a messy one that made both James’ and Trump’s celebrations awkward.

To be sure, Trump notched a serious win in wiping out the massive monetary penalty. But the bottom-line result, amid a tangle of three separate opinions spanning 323 pages, led James to craft her own victory statement.

In it, she embraced the Appellate Division’s ruling for affirming that Trump, his company and his sons Eric and Don Jr. “are liable for fraud,” and for upholding limits on the Trumps’ ability to do business in the state. Though James didn’t directly mention the massive money loss, her statement ended by saying her office “will seek appeal to the Court of Appeals and continue to protect the rights and interests of New Yorkers.”

The Court of Appeals is New York’s highest state court.

As James touted, there are aspects of the ruling that Trump and his civil co-defendants did lose. Their notice of appeal, filed Tuesday, makes clear that that’s what they’re challenging: the Appellate Division’s order to the extent that it “affirms in part” James’ trial-court win.

Appellate Division justices themselves acknowledged the possibility that their jumble of opinions wouldn’t be the last word. Their three separate decisions each had different rationales, none of them garnering a true majority on the five-justice panel. Two of the justices wrote that they only reluctantly joined two others for the purposes of technically rendering a decision, to allow “the option of further review of this matter by the Court of Appeals.”

So it won’t be surprising if the Court of Appeals endeavors to issue a clearer decision in the matter, which carries implications for business dealings throughout the state, not limited to this Trump case. Whatever that high court does, both sides have reason to fight for a different outcome than the one that’s currently on the table.

Why Trump is appealing the New York civil fraud ruling after claiming ‘TOTAL VICTORY’
The president won a significant victory but not a complete one. That’s why he’s seeking further relief from New York’s highest state court.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-new-york-civil-fraud-appeal-rcna227440

MSNBC: How a routine drug case could decide Alina [Bimbo #4] Habba’s fate as U.S. attorney

Posted on by
Reply

A New Jersey defendant argues that [Bimbo #4] Habba can’t lawfully prosecute the case because she isn’t legally the U.S. attorney for New Jersey.

When Julien Giraud Jr. was federally indicted on drug and gun charges last year in New Jersey, he had little reason to think his case would double as a challenge to the lawfulness of Alina [Bimbo #4] Habba’s position as U.S. attorney. But that challenge is now playing out, as the defendant argues that the Trump ally isn’t lawfully serving in her position and therefore the office she purports to lead lacks the authority to prosecute him.

Whether or not she is lawfully in the role of U.S. attorney could have vast implications beyond this one case.

The challenge involves rather technical issues about federal law over vacancies and how they can be filled, so take a deep breath before taking in the following background.

[Bimbo #4] Habba had been temporarily serving as U.S. attorney since March, but her temporary period expired this month without her being confirmed by the Senate to serve full time. New Jersey’s federal judges used their legal authority to appoint a different prosecutor from the office, Desiree Leigh Grace, as the new interim U.S. attorney. But the Trump administration moved to fire Grace. President Donald Trump also withdrew his nomination of [Bimbo #4] Habba, she technically resigned, and the administration then reinstalled her through another mechanism to keep her in the job as acting U.S. attorney.

Got all that? I told you it was technical.

So what’s Giraud’s argument? In a motion filed Sunday ahead of his trial set for next week, his lawyer Thomas Mirigliano wrote that Habba’s reappointment violated federal law because the fact that Trump submitted [Bimbo #4] Habba’s nomination to the Senate prevents her from serving in an acting capacity, regardless of whether Trump subsequently withdrew her nomination or not. He argued that being prosecuted by an unauthorized U.S. attorney undermines his due process rights, so he asked U.S. District Judge Edward Kiel, the New Jersey judge handling his case, to dismiss the indictment or at least to block [Bimbo #4] Habba or any prosecutor acting under her authority from prosecuting him.

The New York Times reported that federal court proceedings throughout New Jersey “were abruptly canceled on Monday because of uncertainty over” Habba’s authority, citing Giraud’s case and others. [Bimbo #4] Habba is one of several lawyers who represented Trump in his personal capacity and have gone on to high-ranking Justice Department posts during his second term.

After Giraud filed his motion, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, which covers New Jersey and nearby states, tapped Pennsylvania’s chief federal trial judge for the state’s middle district, Matthew Brann, to preside over the matter. The chief circuit judge made the move under a law that says chief circuit judges “may, in the public interest, designate and assign temporarily any district judge of the circuit to hold a district court in any district within the circuit.”

The 3rd Circuit, incidentally, is the appeals court to which another Trump personal lawyer-turned-Trump DOJ lawyer, Emil Bove, is awaiting Senate confirmation. Several whistleblowers have come forward against him to raise concerns about his conduct at DOJ and his truthfulness to lawmakers at his confirmation hearing last month.

Opposing Giraud’s motion on Tuesday, the DOJ maintained that [Bimbo #4] Habba is lawfully in her role and that even if she weren’t, “there would be no basis for dismissing this indictment or prohibiting everyone in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey (USAO-NJ) from participating in this prosecution.” The DOJ asked that the motion be denied and the case be transferred back to Kiel in New Jersey.

Brann ordered a status conference with the parties to take place Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 p.m., so the direction in which the matter is headed could become clearer later Tuesday. Whatever happens at the trial court level might not be the last word on this consequential and thorny issue, so this could be just the start of drawn-out litigation.

How a routine drug case could decide Alina Habba’s fate as U.S. attorney
A New Jersey defendant argues that Habba can’t lawfully prosecute the case because she isn’t legally the U.S. attorney for New Jersey.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/alina-habba-us-attorney-julien-giraud-lawsuit-rcna221696

MSNBC: Judge warns of Trump’s ‘pernicious’ law firm targeting in ruling against it

Posted on by
Reply

It’s the latest ruling striking down one of Trump’s revenge orders against law firms the president doesn’t like.

Fully blocking Trump’s order against the firm Jenner & Block, the George W. Bush appointee noted that the order in this case is one of several targeting firms that “did not bow to the current presidential administration’s political orthodoxy.” The judge said the order went after the firm “because of the causes Jenner champions, the clients Jenner represents, and a lawyer Jenner once employed.”

Sitting in Washington, D.C., Bates called the order “doubly violative of the Constitution.”

“Most obviously,” he wrote, quoting a recent Supreme Court precedent, “retaliating against firms for the views embodied in their legal work — and thereby seeking to muzzle them going forward — violates the First Amendment’s central command that government may not ‘use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’”

The judge also highlighted the “more subtle but perhaps more pernicious” issue of “the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy.”

He said the order “seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.”

Judge warns of Trump’s ‘pernicious’ law firm targeting in ruling against it
It’s the latest ruling striking down one of Trump’s revenge orders against law firms the president doesn’t like.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/judge-jenner-block-trump-law-firms-rcna208847

MSNBC: Divided Supreme Court backs Trump’s power to fire independent agency members

Posted on by
Reply

The Democratic appointees said in dissent that the majority “favors the President over our precedent.”

The Supreme Court backed President Donald Trump’s power to fire independent federal agency members over dissent from the court’s three Democratic appointees, who said the majority “favors the President over our precedent.”

The majority on Thursday highlighted the president’s executive power and said he can “remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.” The majority formally halted lower court orders against the government while litigation continues on the subject, with the majority saying that the government is likely to succeed in this case involving the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, but that the court isn’t making an ultimate determination now.r

So basically the Supreme Court is saying that King Donald can continue screwing things up with regard to firing and replacing most independent agency members, which will work to our advantage in the long run. Eventually King Donald’s ineptitude will catch up to him.

Divided Supreme Court backs Trump’s power to fire independent agency members
The Democratic appointees said in dissent that the majority “favors the President over our precedent.”

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-trump-humphreys-precedent-agencies-rcna201176

MSNBC: Judge blocks Trump administration from dismantling the Education Department

Posted on by
Reply

There’s no evidence the government’s actions are making the department more efficient, a federal judge wrote.

A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Education Department, calling out the government’s “efficiency” efforts in the process as anything but. U.S. District Judge Myong Joun wrote that there’s “no evidence” that a massive reduction in force “has actually made the Department more efficient.”

“Rather,” he wrote Thursday, “the record is replete with evidence of the opposite.”

The Biden-appointed judge made that observation when he granted a preliminary injunction, ordering the government to, among other things, halt the reduction in force and reinstate federal employees who were already terminated.

…

Noting that Congress created the department in 1979, the judge explained that the president can’t shut it down without congressional approval. And yet, he found the government is trying to effectively dismantle it without such approval.

Judge blocks Trump administration from dismantling the Education Department
There’s no evidence the government’s actions are making the department more efficient, a federal judge wrote.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-education-department-judge-blocks-efficiency-rcna208572

MSNBC: Judge says Trump administration violated court order with South Sudan deportation flight

Posted on by
Reply

It’s the latest instance of a judge calling out the administration’s law-breaking.

A federal judge on Wednesday said the Trump administration violated a court order when it put a group of migrants on a plane to war-torn South Sudan without giving them a proper chance to challenge their removal. It’s the latest example of the administration breaking the law in carrying out Donald Trump’s agenda.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts last month had ordered the government to apply those safeguards before sending people to countries they aren’t from, or so-called third countries. Murphy said at a Wednesday hearing that the administration had “unquestionably” violated his order with Tuesday’s flight. The Biden appointee raised the possibility of contempt but didn’t make a final decision about that at the hearing.

Murphy had issued a separate order on Tuesday for the government to “maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful.”

… a federal appeals court judge wrote Monday, “As is becoming far too common, we are confronted again with the efforts of the Executive Branch to set aside the rule of law in pursuit of its goals.” The judge continued, “It is the duty of courts to stand as a bulwark against the political tides that seek to override constitutional protections and fundamental principles of law, even in the name of noble ends like public safety.”

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/south-sudan-trump-violated-court-order-rcna208308

MSNBC: Trump says the Supreme Court is stopping him from deporting criminals. He’s wrong.

Posted on by
Reply

Contrary to the president’s reaction, the Supreme Court on Friday emphasized that the government can still conduct normal removals.

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday was significant for checking President Donald Trump’s attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations with little notice to the people targeted for removal. But the decision didn’t go as far as the president claimed in response, when he published on his social media platform: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!”

It’s true that the ruling kept a hold on the government removing certain people under that particular wartime authority, which had only been invoked three previous times in U.S. history, all during declared wars. Judges around the country have almost uniformly deemed Trump’s invocation illegal. The justices have yet to decide the ultimate legality of the act’s use in this situation.

But the court ended its ruling Friday by emphasizing: “The Government may remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities.”

That is, nothing stops the government from carrying out removals the way it always has, under long-approved methods that don’t require courts to analyze novel questions about the president’s attempt to use the apparently inapplicable 18th century act. Especially if the Supreme Court ultimately rejects Trump’s use of the act, that would affirm that the administration (not the court) has needlessly made its own deportation efforts more difficult.

Trump says the Supreme Court is stopping him from deporting criminals. He’s wrong.
Contrary to the president’s reaction, the Supreme Court on Friday emphasized that the government can still conduct normal removals.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-supreme-court-alien-enemies-act-deportations-rcna207643

MSNBC: Supreme Court says Trump needs to give more notice in Alien Enemies Act deportations

Posted on by
Reply

The court previously granted Texas detainees emergency relief, over dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

The Supreme Court on Friday extended its block on the Trump administration’s ability to immediately deport a group of migrants in Texas under the Alien Enemies Act.

The court had already blocked such deportations in a previous order and, in Friday’s ruling, said more notice before carrying out deportations is needed, sending the case back to the lower court for further litigation. The court did not decide the underlying question of Trump’s use of the wartime act to carry out deportations.

Supreme Court says Trump needs to give more notice in Alien Enemies Act deportations
The court previously granted Texas detainees emergency relief, over dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-alien-enemies-act-deportations-trump-rcna202101

MSNBC: Trump administration suspended clearances of lawyers from targeted firm

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s administration is still working to exact his vengeance against at least one of the law firms he has targeted, even as several firms are fighting back in court — largely successfully so far.

The latest evidence of the administration’s efforts comes from a court filing Tuesday to the judge handling the case of WilmerHale, one of the firms that sued instead of settling or preemptively cutting a deal with Trump. The firm told U.S. District Judge Richard Leon that two WilmerHale lawyers received letters from a government agency telling them their security clearances have been suspended.

“This development underscores that the Executive Branch stands ready and willing to implement the Executive Order absent judicial intervention,” wrote attorney Paul Clement, who’s representing the firm. He didn’t specify which agency sent the letters but said he would provide them under seal to the court if the judge asked to see them.

Trump administration suspended clearances of lawyers from targeted firm
It shows the government’s willingness to implement Trump’s order “absent judicial intervention,” WilmerHale told the judge.

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-wilmerhale-security-clearances-suspended-rcna206730

MSNBC: Trump-appointed judge calls Trump’s Alien Enemies Act invocation ‘unlawful’

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act has faced intense preliminary litigation in courts around the country, leading to rulings such as the Supreme Court’s insistence that people potentially subject to the act must receive due process. But a new and significant ruling from a Trump-appointed judge Thursday gets to the heart of the matter, deeming the president’s invocation itself “unlawful.”

…

But U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. said that Trump’s invocation “exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful.” The judge said the administration therefore can’t use the act to detain Venezuelans, transfer them within the U.S. or remove them from the country. The ruling applies to a class of plaintiffs in the Southern District of Texas.

Trump-appointed judge calls Trump’s Alien Enemies Act invocation ‘unlawful’
President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act has faced intense preliminary litigation in courts around the country, leading to rulings such as the Supreme Court’s insistence that people potentially subject to the act must receive due process.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-appointed-judge-calls-trump-s-alien-enemies-act-invocation-unlawful/ar-AA1E0Asw