Tag: lawsuit

In a video statement, Attorney General Ken Paxton said San Antonio Police Chief William McManus ordered the release of the immigrants when his officers responded to a suspected human smuggling operation in the back of a tractor-trailer. "A San Antonio police officer alerted federal immigration authorities, but Police Chief William McManus ordered the release of the immigrants in violation of Senate Bill 4," Paxton said. In the lawsuit filed in a Travis County district court, Paxton named McManus, the San Antonio Police Department, the city of San Antonio and San Antonio City Manager Sheryl Sculley as defendants. In a 25-page complaint, Paxton alleges that McManus "skirted normal San Antonio PD protocol by ignoring repeated requests by homeland security to investigate and take custody of the suspected illegal aliens." "Chief McManus called a private entity to take the aliens away from Homeland Security, and their status remains unknown," Paxton said. "The police department did not sufficiently check the background or criminal history of the suspected aliens, nor did it contact Texas Child Protective Services to investigate the safety of a minor who was being smuggled." Paxton petitioned the court to force the city of San Antonio and its police department to comply with requests from federal immigration authorities. "Senate Bill 4 guarantees cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement to protect Texans," Paxton said. "The very reason law enforcement officials from across the state are against SB 4 is that it ruins the trust and relationship between officers and the communities they serve," said Manny Garcia, the party's deputy executive director. A federal district court in San Antonio temporarily blocked the law last August, but a federal appeals court allowed the majority of it to go into effect in March.

The second involves AfriForum and Parliament, over land. Given the strategists involved in the ANC nowadays, it is entirely possible that there was a little bit of orchestration with the timing of Pravin Gordhan’s decision to walk into a police station and lodge crimen injuria charges against Malema and the EFF. However, the risk AfriForum might take in the case is that while they may from time to time have legal victories, they will continue to lose on the politics of it. It is entire possible for some in the ANC to point fingers loudly at AfriForum, to turn the election into a poll about identity. This might actually suit AfriForum, because it would create a situation that strengthens their base. Meanwhile, while Gordhan may well be on stronger ground legally, Malema may also believe that he has much to gain from a legal process. To make matters more complicated for the EFF leader, he himself said on Monday that he would be instituting criminal charges against Gordhan. Which may mean the case can return almost at any moment. That is extremely difficult in a country with so many fringe players as in South Africa today. DM Support DAILY MAVERICK & get FREE UBER vouchers every month An increasingly rare commodity, quality independent journalism costs money, though not nearly as much as its absence can cost global community.

It is in this context that businesses, particularly manufacturers, have become skeptical of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s legal action against ExxonMobil as a centerpiece of her efforts to combat global climate change. Along with her counterpart in New York, she is breaking new ground by using state police power against a business to achieve a public policy goal. The latest twist and turn in Healey’s inquiry is that the US Supreme Court has now asked Healey to explain why her investigation of ExxonMobil’s climate change activities is a legitimate use of her authority. This investigation is part of a multi-front effort to use courts and lawsuits to circumvent Congress and drive climate change policy. drive divestment from Exxon, [and] drive Exxon and climate change into the center for the 2016 election.” These same lawyers have also been behind lawsuits that towns and counties have been filing in the past couple of years to make ExxonMobil and other energy companies pay for sea walls and infrastructure projects to deal with impacts of climate change. Sending a civil investigative demand to a private business is a powerful law enforcement tool. Now, all eyes are on the Supreme Court. Justice Ruth Ginsburg, writing for the court, explained that suing energy producers over climate change is not the proper way to set American energy policy. The question for the court this time is whether Healey has the jurisdiction to conduct this investigation. If the court takes the case, it could help curb politically motivated litigation against the private sector.

In a case whose title sums up the hostile relations between the Trump administration and the media – Cable News Network, Inc V Donald J Trump – rival lawyers for CNN and the US government tussled over two hours of argument about the nature of political reporting and free speech. Play Video 1:41 The dramatic courtroom battle was prompted by the contentious decision of the White House last week to revoke media access to CNN’s chief White house correspondent, Jim Acosta, following a confrontation at a press conference between the reporter and Trump. James Burnham, a justice department attorney presenting the White House case, told the court: “As for CNN, I don’t think there’s any harm at all.” He said that Acosta had had his credentials removed not for reasons relating to his coverage or views, but because of his objectionable and disruptive behavior at the press conference. Soon after the press conference, Acosta’s pass was suspended until further notice. The cable network said the move was the “culmination of years of hostility by President Trump against CNN and Acosta based on the contents of their reporting – an unabashed attempt to censor the press and exclude reporters from the White House who challenge and dispute the President’s point of view.” The news outlet cast its legal action in the broadest context of press freedom, arguing that Trump had violated the first amendment of the US constitution guaranteeing press freedom. CNN warned that “the revocation of Acosta’s credentials is only the beginning; as the President explained, there ‘could be others also’ who get their credentials revoked.” A few hours before Wednesday’s hearing, Trump further inflamed the row by telling the rightwing news site The Daily Caller that “guys like Acosta” were “bad for the country”. Fox News broke ranks with the president, putting out a statement in support of its cable news rival that said that White House press access should “never be weaponized”. The Department of Justice filed a 28-page memo with the DC court hours before Wednesday’s hearing in which it dispensed with decades of precedent and tradition by arguing that it was entirely up to the US president to decide which journalists could gain access to the White House. How Sarah Sanders became Trump's liar-in-chief Read more “The President and the White House possess … broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists,” the memo said. “The broad discretion necessarily includes discretion over which journalists receive on-demand access to the White House grounds and special access during White House travel.” The White House justification for taking such a hardline against Acosta was notably different in Wednesday’s court filing than in previous public statements.

CNN anchor Poppy Harlow told viewers on Tuesday that the network’s decision to sue the Trump administration over its revocation of White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press credentials is "not about politics" but instead "about constitutional rights.” In the lawsuit filed Tuesday morning, CNN accuses President Trump and other White House officials of violating Acosta’s First and Fifth Amendment rights, the latest escalation of an ongoing feud between Trump and CNN. “I think, Ted, we should remind our viewers this is not about politics," Harlow said during an interview with Ted Boutrous, who is representing CNN in the suit. And Ted Olson and I, we come from different political viewpoints, actually, even though we have been partners for 30 years," replied Boutrous. "That’s the whole point." So this ruling will protect everyone in the press and every citizen, no matter what their political affiliation, so they get as much information as they can get so they can govern themselves," he continued. It is a First Amendment issue that is really important to our society.” Boutrous's argument on CNN echoes that of the language in the lawsuit, which says the White House decision to revoke Acosta's pass has a "dangerous chilling effect for any journalist." "If left unchallenged, the actions of the White House would create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials." The legal action comes six days after a combative exchange between Acosta and Trump in the White House East Room that dominated headlines for days. The exchange came to a head Acosta fired off a series of questions while openly debating the president of his portrayal of a migrant caravan as an “invasion.” When Trump tried to move on to another reporter after Acosta attempted to ask a fourth question, Acosta initially refused to surrender the microphone to a White House intern. The following day, Sanders announced that Acosta's "hard pass" was being revoked as a result.

CNN is filing a lawsuit against President Trump and several of his aides, seeking the immediate restoration of chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's access to the White House.

President Trump responded to a federal judge's dismissal of a defamation lawsuit filed against him by adult film star Stormy Daniels, saying that he, "can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas."

A lawsuit brought against Fox News by the parents of a Democratic National Committee employee killed in 2016 was dismissed Thursday by a judge who said it lacked the detail necessary to proceed to trial. The US district judge George Daniels said the lawsuit brought by Seth Rich’s parents required specific instances of wrongdoing by the defendants to survive. The lawsuit claimed Fox News turned Seth’s death into a “political football” by claiming he had leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks during the presidential campaign. Daniels said it was understandable that Joel and Mary Rich “might feel that their grief and personal loss were taken advantage of, and that the tragic death of their son was exploited for political purposes”. But he said a general allegation that Fox News and one of its contributors had an agreement to collaborate against the parents was not enough. Wheeler had claimed that Fox put words in his mouth when it posted the WikiLeaks story. Wheeler alleged in his August lawsuit that the comments were false and were put in the story to discredit investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The judge wrote that Wheeler and Fox News “embarked on a collective effort to support a sensational claim regarding Seth Rich’s murder”. He said Wheeler “cannot now seek to avoid the consequences of his own complicity and coordinated assistance in perpetuating a politically motivated story not having any basis in fact”. A message seeking comment from attorneys for Wheeler was not immediately returned.

Montana voted in laws to disclose donors because they really don't like "Dark Money" in their politics. Every state should follow their example! Kimberly Reed’s new project “Dark Money” pulls off what so many campaign reformers have trouble doing: She captures the personal impact of the flood of cash that has flowed into elections following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. So much focus on money in politics is on Senate and House races; “Dark Money,” which opens this weekend, looks at state lawmakers in Montana who found themselves driven from office by a flood of pre-election day attack ads. The sources were opaque groups, financed by out-of-state corporate money, often with the message that the incumbents are too moderate. “The characters I ran into were really heroic, everyday characters, and most of them were Republicans who were being attacked by their own party, by the far right-wing of their own party,” Reed said. What makes “Dark Money” work is that it traces what has happened in the state over several election cycles, as she followed political figures and journalists over the course of five years. She also digs into the state’s tradition of clean politics, which at times is threatened by corporate interests. “As a native Montanan, I know how to talk to these people. I knew how to get the access that I needed, and also because of that, I had a sense that you really needed to stick to this tale,” she said.

The prime minister was asked on the BBC’s The Andrew Marr Show what the “brutal” Brexit negotiating advice was that Trump had talked about in their joint press conference outside the prime minister’s Chequers country retreat. Trump leaves the UK this afternoon to fly to Helsinki to meet the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. On Friday, Trump had said he gave May “a suggestion, I wouldn’t say advice” about how to handle the Brexit talks, without revealing what it was. I gave her a suggestion, not advice. May indicated she would seek to fight off any challenge, saying: “I want to focus people’s minds on how you ensure you achieve that prize, the benefits of leaving the European Union.” She added: “I have always said I’m in this for the long term.” However, her immediate prospects took a blow, when the MP who took over from David Cameron said he was resigning as a junior minister so that he could vote against the government in the Commons in the taxation (cross border trade) bill on Monday. Robert Courts said that he had taken the “very difficult decision” to resign “to express discontent” in votes. “This seems to be a hopeless way to negotiate, to accept what the other side says at an early stage of negotiations as holy writ.” He added: “This is why I think she is a remainer, who has remained a remainer.” But Rees-Mogg repeatedly declined to call for a change of leader, instead saying it was necessary for May to change policy. He said ERG members would mount a show of strength on Monday evening, by voting for hard-Brexit amendments on the customs bill. “The inevitable consequence of the parliamentary arithmetic,” he said, “is she will need to change it [Brexit policy] if she is to keep the party united.” The prime minister was initially embarrassed by Trump when he gave an interview to the Sun, published on the morning of the press conference, in which he appeared to say that May’s Brexit plan would prevent a trade deal with the US and said Johnson would make a good prime minister. Trump subsequently apologised to May in private and partially backtracked on the remarks on Friday, saying that the UK should pursue its own Brexit policy and trade negotiations but: “Just make sure you can trade with us.” Marr also asked May if she believed Trump had “a medical problem” with stairs because he frequently takes her hand when the pair find themselves facing a step or two.