update - Federal judge blocks Trump deploying troops to Portland

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
President Donald Trump and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer have announced a deal to lower the price of several prescription drugs.

The administration said in a press conference Monday that 'virtually Pfizer's entire portfolio of drugs' will be offered at lower prices on TrumpRx, a 'site soon to be launched.'


more

Chris Klomp, senior advisor to Department of Health and Human Services secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, said Monday that the deal will bring the highest reductions in price reductions 'in American history.'

The plan will adopt 'most-favored-nation' drug pricing, which searches for the lowest available medication price in other developed nations and adopts that price tag.

Klomp said: 'This is a major win in the battle for affordable healthcare and affordable drugs.’

A Pfizer spokesperson said in a statement: 'We can confirm an agreement has been reached.'

Albert Bourla, Pfizer CEO, said at the press conference that the deal will enable the company to provide a 'greater' focus to innovations like cancer treatments and new, effective vaccines.

He said: 'This is a historic day. Today we are turning the tide and reversing an unfair situation.'



Trump announces major overhaul of drug pricing with pharma giant Pfizer

Trump announces major overhaul of drug pricing with pharma giant Pfizer
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Minnesota, its two largest cities and a county over so-called sanctuary policies that the agency says interfere with the federal government's authority to enforce immigration policies.

The lawsuit alleges the policies result in the release of dangerous criminals who would otherwise be subject to deportation, and it asks a federal court to invalidate state and local laws and policies that it says impede immigration enforcement. The suit filed Monday targets the state as well as Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis.

more

“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

Minnesota is one of the latest jurisdictions targeted over their immigration enforcement policies by the Trump administration, which has sued Colorado, Illinois, New York and New Jersey as well as several cities including Boston,Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, New York City and Rochester, New York.



Attorney General Pam Bondi listens as President Donald Trump speaks after signing an executive order regarding TikTok in the Oval Office at the White House, Thursday, Sept. 25, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)© The Associated Press
On a separate front, federal authorities said Tuesday they found widespread immigration fraud in a first-of-its-kind surge operation they conducted in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area this month. And they said they’re planning to expand the strategy to “many” other cities, but declined to name them.


more

Authorities say a sweep found widespread immigration fraud in the Twin Cities

“Operation Twin Shield” targeted over 1,000 suspicious immigration cases involving more than 900 individuals, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security. Investigators said they discovered evidence of fraud or other red flags in 275 cases. They referred 42 noncitizens for possible enforcement action, and arrested four. They said they expect those numbers to increase as more investigations are completed. No criminal charges were announced.



Attorney General Pam Bondi attends a ceremony to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Thursday, Sept. 11, 2025, at the Pentagon in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)© The Associated Press
“What they found should shock all of America,” Joseph Edlow, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said at a Minneapolis news conference. He said officers encountered “blatant marriage fraud,” overstays and other visa abuses, and people claiming to work at businesses that may not exist. The agency did not say how many more cases than normal it analyzed.



more

Edlow singled out “troubling patterns” with sponsors for the “ Uniting for Ukraine ” program that he said should have raised serious concerns for President Joe Biden’s administration. Biden launched it in 2022 as a humanitarian parole program that allowed Ukrainians to temporarily stay and work in the U.S. if they found American sponsors. President Donald Trump’s administration put the program on hold in January.

Edlow said his officers got “great cooperation among our federal partners, and that’s where the cooperation ended,” due to what he said were local sanctuary policies.

The lawsuit against Minnesota

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said his state is not stopping the federal government from partnering with local law enforcement to prosecute dangerous individuals.

“This baseless lawsuit is just more political retaliation against Minnesota and we will respond in court,” Ellison, a Democrat, said in a statement.


The lawsuit cities a nonbinding advisory opinion Ellison issued in February that said neither state nor federal law authorizes state or local authorities to hold individuals for immigration detainers if they would otherwise be released from custody. The lawsuit says many counties cite that opinion as a reason not to turn over people who could be subject to deportation. The state also bars sharing driver's license data for immigration enforcement, the lawsuit notes.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said his city “proudly welcomes immigrants, refugees, and families seeking opportunity” and won't back down.

“Donald Trump has built his career on attacking immigrants and dividing Americans, and now he’s dragging our city into court with a fear-driven, politically motivated lawsuit," Frey said in a statement.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was among three Democratic governors summoned by a U.S. House oversight committee back in June for a grilling over their states' immigration policies. Walz rejected the assertion that Minnesota is a sanctuary state. It has no statewide law protecting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally from deportation.


Minneapolis, St. Paul and Hennepin County, however, restrict the extent to which their law officers and other employees can cooperate with immigration enforcement, the lawsuit noted. The Hennepin County jail, for example, won't hold people solely for administrative immigration detainers and doesn't notify immigration authorities when individuals subject to those detainers are released.

What exactly is a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction?’

There’s no legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction, but the term generally refers to governments with policies limiting cooperation with immigration authorities. Courts previously have upheld the legality of such laws.

Minnesota was among 14 states and hundreds of cities and counties listed earlier this year by the Department of Homeland Security as “sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law.” The list later was removed from the department’s website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump’s immigration policies.

___

Beck reported from Omaha, Nebraska.

Trump administration targets Minnesota in latest sanctuary policy lawsuit
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
New York City Bar Association Statement


These are not ordinary times. The indictment of former FBI Director James Comey is the latest—and most troubling—action by a Justice Department increasingly wielded as the personal instrument of the President of the United States. The circumstances surrounding this indictment reflect a profound betrayal of the American principle of prosecutorial independence and discretion. As President Trump himself warned: “There’ll be others.”[1] These words underscore the peril of this moment. We are at a turning point in our history.


The prosecution of Mr. Comey did not arise from a neutral, evidence-based assessment by seasoned Justice Department professionals. To the contrary, multiple reports indicate that career prosecutors—after impartial review—recommended against bringing charges. Their judgment was discarded. In its place, the President demanded that Mr. Comey be prosecuted, citing personal grievances rather than legal standards. When career prosecutors resisted, they were removed. He instead appointed his personal attorney, someone with no prosecutorial experience, who secured an indictment in less than a week.[2] That sequence—presidential directive, dismissal of professionals, installation of a replacement, and swift indictment—is the anatomy of a political prosecution. It is not independence, but submission.


Such politically motivated prosecutions strike at the very core of our democratic system. They weaponize the criminal process to punish individuals who have run afoul of the President primarily for carrying out their lawful roles within our constitutional order. The Department of Justice’s own manual is unequivocal: charges may be brought only when admissible evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and prosecutions may never be pursued on the basis of political association or belief.[3] The standard for federal prosecutors has always been clear: apply the law “without fear or favor.” Yet in Mr. Comey’s case, both fear and favor were determinative—favor toward the President who demanded the indictment, and fear of the retribution visited on those who defy him. When these safeguards collapse, the Justice Department ceases to be a bulwark of fairness and becomes an instrument of vengeance.


The Constitution itself rejects prosecutions pursued for improper ends. The Supreme Court has long recognized that prosecutions animated by impermissible motives are unconstitutional. In United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), the Court affirmed that selective prosecution violates equal protection. In United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (1982), it held that prosecutions motivated by retaliation against lawful conduct violate due process. The Comey indictment exemplifies both dangers: it is selective, retaliatory, and antithetical to the rule of law.


Nor is this episode an aberration. It fits into a troubling pattern of systemic attacks on the justice system. Career prosecutors have been dismissed for refusing to bend to presidential demands. Others, unwilling to compromise their professional and ethical duties, have resigned in protest. Lawyers and law firms have been vilified and economically threatened with blocked access to federal buildings and courthouses, withdrawal of security clearances, and the cancellation of their clients’ government contracts for representing clients in cases unpopular with the President. Bar associations have been menaced for speaking out. This case is but the most recent in which federal judges have been subjected to personal attacks, targeted for impeachment, or maligned as “political” merely because they were appointed by a President whom the current administration sees as an adversary. Indeed, immediately after the indictment Mr. Trump not only disparaged Mr. Comey but also attacked the randomly assigned judge: “He is a Dirty Cop, and always has been, but he was just assigned a Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge, so he is off to a good start.”[4]


This is not the America envisioned by our Constitution. The rule of law is not an abstraction—it is the framework of daily life in a free society. It ensures that all people are equal before the law, that businesses can operate without political coercion, and that disputes are resolved in courtrooms rather than in the streets. Without the rule of law, liberty cannot endure.


The indictment of James Comey—and the threat of “others” to come—is a stark warning. The protections we too often take for granted—fairness, impartiality, independence—are under sustained assault. If we fail to defend them now, they may not be there when we most need them.


The New York City Bar Association reaffirms its unwavering commitment to prosecutorial independence, the impartial administration of justice, and the preservation of constitutional norms. Consistent with its mission and long history, the City Bar speaks out: the justice system must never be used as a weapon of politics. Speaking out now is not optional. It is our collective duty.

 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
A federal judge has paused the Trump administration’s plan to lay off more than 500 employees of the U.S. Agency for Global Media — most from Voice of America — while warning that senior officials there had repeatedly failed to comply with his orders to preserve the international broadcaster’s key operations.
U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said the agency’s “concerning disrespect” for court orders under the leadership of longtime Trump ally Kari Lake would justify contempt proceedings. He said the agency appeared to mislead him about its plan for layoffs despite his repeated concerns that leaders were cutting staff so deeply that the agency couldn’t comply with legal requirements to broadcast into areas of the world with limited freedom of the press.

“The Court no longer harbors any doubt that defendants lack a plan to comply with the preliminary injunction, and instead have been running out the clock on the fiscal year while remaining in violation of even the most meager reading of USAGM and Voice of America’s statutory obligations,” wrote Lamberth, a Reagan appointee based in Washington.

Lamberth, in particular, noted that USAGM’s deep cuts had led the agency to fall short of legal requirements that it broadcast in places to subvert censorship by authoritarian regimes, like North Korea, as well as in certain areas of Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
A USAGM spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision.
Lamberth’s biting ruling followed similarly scathing criticism of him by Lake in a court-ordered deposition. Lake, asked about her public criticism of Lamberth, ticked through a list of his rulings: his handling of numerous criminal cases involving Jan. 6 defendants; his blockade of the Trump administration’s effort to move transgender women inmates to men’s prisons;
“I think some of his rulings have been absurd, as I said, terrible,” Lake said of the judge in the Sept. 9 session, a transcript of which was made public last week. “He went crazy on the J6ers. He wants transgender men who are violent, cross-dressing men who are mentally ill to be in a jail cell with women. I actually know the difference between men and women, and I actually give a shit about women and their safety. So I don’t love his rulings, but I don’t have any disdain in my heart for this man.”
During a hearing earlier Monday, Lamberth raised another deposition taken in the case and said it was “shocking” that the director of the Voice of America’s Persian service was unaware until she was questioned in the case under oath that she had been designated as the acting director of VOA.
In his order Monday night, Lamberth also gently pushed back at the Supreme Court’s practice in recent months of issuing emergency orders with little or no reasoning or explanation, then sometimes reacting with surprise when judges don’t reach the same result in other cases.



“The Court, of course, accords the utmost respect to the Supreme Court’s stay-posture rulings,” Lamberth wrote. “Yet any appellate decision cannot provide precedential guidance without a statement of reasons from which the [district] Court can analogize to the present facts.”
Lamberth said the Trump administration was seeking to “fill in the blanks of the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings” and he did not believe that the justices have directed lower courts to allow that.
Lamberth has also been an irritant to USAGM officials by issuing a series of orders requiring the agency to make monthly payments to continue operations of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, despite the Trump administration’s attempts to shut them down. A panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily lifted some of Lamberth’s directives but the full bench of the appeals court later decided to leave his orders in place, over the dissent of all the court’s Republican appointees.

 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
A federal judge in New York admonished the Trump administration Tuesday for trying to bypass public filing protocols by privately emailing crucial spreadsheets, insisting that “we have no secrets here.” The judge ordered the government to immediately place the documents on the public docket.




more

"We have no secrets here. The government needs to file everything publicly and needs to do so now," the judge said, per CNN reporter Kyle Cheney.

The court filing shows that the administration sought to transmit key data via private email rather than adhering to court rules requiring that all substantive documents be formally filed and publicly accessible.

Judge Colleen McMahon (presiding in the Southern District of New York) rebuked the tactic, reminding the administration that “the government needs to file everything publicly and needs to do so now.” The judge’s language suggested deep frustration with efforts to skirt transparency.

The judge’s directive comes in a case involving the American Council of Learned Societies et al. v. McDonald et al., in which plaintiffs are challenging recent National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) actions.




more

Defendants include Michael McDonald (Acting Chairman of the NEH), NEH, and officials tied to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), plus others. The plaintiffs challenge sweeping changes at the NEH — including mass terminations of staff, cancellation of grants, dismantling of programs and divisions — that they say violate multiple federal laws and constitutional rights.

The court earlier recognized the high public interest in ensuring that agencies remain accountable under the Administrative Procedure Act, stressing that “there is no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”

'We have no secrets here': Judge rebukes Trump admin for hiding crucial information
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump has ruled against the Trump administration in a case involving a late-night attempt to deport dozens of children on flights out of the country. The ruling marked a bold rebuke of the president’s hardline immigration policies, Knewz.com can report.
Argument failed to hold water

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the order to keep the planes from taking off “disgusting and immoral.” By: Wesley Tingey on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
Trump-appointed Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued a preliminary injunction halting the federal government’s plan to deport Guatemalan kids in the dead of night, finding that the Trump administration’s actions likely breached federal immigration and human trafficking laws. While government officials claimed the deportations were a “reunification” effort, Judge Kelly found that argument “crumbled like a house of cards.” According to Mediaite, Guatemala’s attorney general provided evidence that parents of more than 600 minors did not request their children be returned.

What happened

District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan was sworn in during a Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing in 2024. By: Rod Lamkey – CNP / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
About 70 children between 10 and 17 were awakened from U.S. shelters in September where they were being held and bussed to planes, Mediaite reported. At 1 a.m., lawyers rushed to court in an effort to stop the Guatemala-bound flights, arguing that some of the children, who arrived in the U.S. alone, still had unresolved asylum cases or other legal protections, cautioning that U.S. law prohibits children from being “whisked off under cover of darkness at the whim of any government.” Another judge, Sparkle Sooknanan — a nominee of former President Joe Biden — granted an emergency order to stop the flights from taking off. Judge Kelly later expanded that order, putting the deportations on hold indefinitely.

Many children were terrified

The children were in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services when they were “roused from their beds in the middle of the night and driven to an airport, where some were loaded onto planes,” Judge Timothy J. Kelly wrote. By: Shalom de León on Unsplash© Knewz (CA)
The judge’s ruling revealed one child was “so scared that she vomited.” Another minor said he felt he’d “lost [his] breath.” Some children explained in declarations they didn’t want to be sent back to Guatemala because they were afraid of violent gangs and worried they would be neglected or even killed if they were returned to the Central American country. According to Judge Kelly, “It goes without saying that makes that irreparable harm.”

The Trump administration responds

Stephen Miller, a key adviser to President Donald Trump, is the architect of the administration’s hardline immigration agenda. By: ZUMAPRESS.com / MEGA© Knewz (CA)
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin responded to Judge Kelly’s ruling, saying, “This judge is blocking efforts to reunify children with their families. Now these children will have to go to shelters. All just to ‘get Trump.’ This is disgraceful and immoral.” White House immigration advisor Stephen Miller, who is also Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, criticized Judge Sooknanan for grounding the flights. “The minors have all self-reported that their parents are back home in Guatemala,” he wrote on X. “But a Democrat judge is refusing to let them reunify with their parents.” Efrén C. Olivares of the National Immigration Law Center, which filed the lawsuit to prevent the kids from being deported, thanked the judges who intervened. “In the dead of night … the Trump administration ripped vulnerable, frightened children from their beds and attempted to return them to danger in Guatemala,” he said in a statement. “We are heartened the court prevented this injustice from occurring before hundreds of children suffered irreparable harm.”


Trump-appointed judge rules against the president
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
The Trump administration is under fire after Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought froze $18 billion in federal funds for New York City infrastructure projects, saying the move — announced just hours after the federal government shutdown amid a battle with Democrats — is intended “to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional DEI principles.”



more

Coincidentally, the move affects the hometown of House and Senate Democratic leaders, one day after they met — unsuccessfully — with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office in an attempt to avoid a government shutdown. The President subsequently posted several “deep fake” videos considered racist, mocking the Democratic leaders.

Director Vought, one of the chief architects of Project 2025, later added that the roughly $18 billion freeze would apply to the Hudson Tunnel Project and the Second Avenue Subway project. He did not elaborate on how “DEI” was involved.

“Hours before the shutdown on Tuesday, Trump had threatened that he could ‘get rid of a lot of things’ that would prominently affect Democrats,” NBC News reported.

Reuters’ David Shepardson reported that the hold on the “mega” infrastructure projects includes a refusal to “process reimbursements, pending review that it says is impacted because of the government shut down.”



“Is the Queens Midtown Tunnel woke now?” asked Professor of History Aaron Astor.

“Trump Republicans are so cruel and incompetent that they’re now playing games with billions in funding for critical infrastructure projects, putting the literal foundations of our city at risk. This is extortion, plain and simple,” wrote New York Democratic State Senator Andrew Gounardes.

“How can you negotiate with Republicans in Congress to fund the government when as soon as you reach an agreement you know that Trump’s OMB director will just withhold the funds?” wrote attorney Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of MeidasTouch News.


'Extortion — plain and simple': Trump admin ripped for $18B NYC funds freeze
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) -On January 27, workers at a Philadelphia Whole Foods voted to become the first store in the Amazon-owned grocery chain to unionize. When the result was announced that night, produce worker Ed Dupree, who helped organize the monthslong campaign, ran to the produce cooler with his coworkers.



more

Flanked by fresh celery, apples and broccoli, they shared hugs while some cried tears of joy, savoring a victory that showed Dupree that his employer was not, in his words, an "invincible behemoth."

The celebratory mood quickly evaporated. Later that night in Washington, barely a week into Donald Trump's second term in office, the Republican U.S. president fired Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board who he accused of disfavoring business interests.

Suddenly the NLRB, a 90-year-old U.S. government agency that oversees private sector labor relations, had fewer than the minimum of three members needed to carry out its core functions such as resolving disputed union elections.

Many companies have seized upon this paralysis as they fight labor campaigns, a Reuters review of NLRB filings showed. Since Wilcox's removal, employers have lodged at least 50 appeals with the NLRB challenging union elections to an agency that cannot resolve them, the Reuters review found, with the appeals coming at a highly vulnerable point in the union organizing process. In at least 22 appeals, companies have argued that elections cannot be certified while the board is shorthanded.



more

"Without a quorum, the Board cannot function as Congress intended," Wilcox said in an email to Reuters. "The resulting delays and uncertainty unfairly burden workers seeking to exercise their rights to organize."

A week after Wilcox's firing, Whole Foods challenged the election outcome, arguing among other things that "the NLRB has only two members" and therefore the agency's regional offices lose their power to certify union elections.

The U.S. Supreme Court in April and again in May let Trump's firing of Wilcox remain in effect while her legal challenge to her removal plays out, halting a federal judge's ruling that had briefly reinstated her.

The independent board at full strength has five presidentially appointed members. Trump's firing of Wilcox brought it to two, below the minimum of three needed to decide cases. After another member's term expired, the board now has just a single member.



more

When the NLRB will regain members depends on how quickly the Republican-led U.S. Senate moves to confirm two nominees picked by Trump in July, Boeing's chief labor counsel and an NLRB career staffer. A Senate committee is set to hold hearings on Trump's nominees on Wednesday.

An NLRB spokesman did not respond to a request for comment about the delays. William Cowen, the board's acting general counsel, in an August press release addressing efforts in several states to pass new labor protections said the agency's work has "largely been unaffected" by the lack of quorum.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the impact of Trump's decision to remove Wilcox.

EMPLOYERS APPEAL UNIONIZATION VOTES

Like Whole Foods, other companies also have argued that the board is legally barred from resolving union election disputes until its authority is restored.


The appeals identified by Reuters include a CVS store in Wakefield, Rhode Island, and Discovery Cove, an Orlando-based theme park owned by SeaWorld, that argued that union elections cannot be certified while the board has too few members. Nearly all 22 of the cases that raise this issue were filed by a handful of powerhouse law firms that specialize in union deterrence.

Discovery Cove, SeaWorld and their lawyers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A CVS spokesperson declined to comment.

Erin Schaefer, an attorney representing Whole Foods, discussed the hamstrung board in a podcast that was posted in February to the website of her law firm, Epstein Becker Green, two days after the company submitted its initial NLRB filing objecting to the union election.

"If you have an issue or a decision pending before the board, because the board doesn't have a quorum right now, the board will not be issuing decisions," Schaefer told the podcast.


Schaefer and her firm did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump has sought this year to bring under his sway federal agencies like the NLRB that were set up by Congress to be independent from a president's direct control. The labor law limbo that has stalled unionization efforts provides an example of the real-world impact of a series of Supreme Court interim rulings this year that have let contentious actions by Trump go into effect after lower courts impeded them.

The appeals filed by employers since Trump fired Wilcox involve unionization efforts by more than 2,600 workers in 21 states and Washington, D.C., according to the Reuters review of cases. These have cut across a wide range of professions, from dialysis clinicians in Vallejo, California, to painters in Seattle, to housekeeping employees at a hotel located three blocks from the White House. Four cases are no longer active. Reuters could not immediately determine why they ended.


The rate of election appeals by companies in the time from Wilcox's firing to the end of August was more than double the rate filed during the same time frame last year when the NLRB was fully functional, the Reuters tally showed.

The healthcare industry accounts for more than a quarter of the cases in the Reuters tally of appeals. One example involves a group of Boston-based primary care physicians at Mass General Brigham, the largest healthcare system in Massachusetts, who voted to unionize in May. Organizers cited high levels of burnout and stagnant compensation amid increasing workloads.

"We're a hospital, we're not a business. We're supposed to take care of the sick and needy," said Dr. L. Elizabeth Lincoln, a primary care physician who has helped lead the union drive. "We are not given a seat at the table. That's what we're seeking."


Mass General Brigham filed an NLRB appeal in May, challenging the composition of the group of employees that would be represented by the union. It also argued that the disputed election should not have been permitted to move forward when the board had too few members. Jessica Pastore, a spokesperson for Mass General Brigham, told Reuters that "it would be inappropriate to begin bargaining without a final determination on whom we are bargaining for."

STALLED IN WASHINGTON

Usually, a unionization vote is quickly certified by one of the NLRB's 26 regional offices, triggering an employer's duty to bargain.

Union campaigns are especially vulnerable to being undermined by an employer in their earlier stages, six labor law experts told Reuters. This includes the period arising after an election but before a union has negotiated for better working conditions - the phase that the Philadelphia Whole Foods workers are in.


"Delays are the friend of employers. They undermine worker power, undermine union support and undermine confidence in the government," said Jennifer Abruzzo, who served as the NLRB's general counsel under Democratic President Joe Biden before being fired by Trump on the same night as Wilcox.

'SO SCARY'

Whole Foods filed five objections to the Philadelphia union election, including the NLRB quorum issue and a claim that the union wrongly promised workers that voting for it would result in a pay raise.

The NLRB regional office overruled the objections in May and certified that a majority of workers had voted to be represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers.

The Whole Foods spokesperson told Reuters "we strongly disagree" with the regional office's conclusion. The company filed its appeal to the NLRB in June.

According to Dupree and union officials, Whole Foods has waged a war of attrition at the Philadelphia store during the NLRB's standstill.


Whole Foods has carried out 11 retaliatory firings of pro-union workers since the January election, according to union filings alleging illegal labor practices. One case filed in July alleges that Whole Foods fired three union supporters on the pretext of helping themselves to too many food samples such as cake wedges put out for customers.

"You can use all these tactics to erode the support of the union ... if you make it so scary and so unpleasant and so perilous to be associated with the union," said Michelle Devitt, a lawyer for the union and the fired Whole Foods workers.

Reuters could not independently confirm claims by organizers of retaliation.

Dupree, who has worked at the Whole Foods in Center City Philadelphia since 2016, said that he and his coworkers are persevering as they seek higher wages, more healthcare benefits and greater job security. "Workers organizing is not going to stop just because the NLRB is, you know, stymied," Dupree said.


The Whole Foods spokesperson said the company does not tolerate retaliation and respects the legal rights of its employees. The company declined to comment on specific alleged reprisals. Those allegations are currently under investigation by the NLRB regional office.

(Reporting by John Kruzel in Philadelphia and Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham)

Frozen feud: How Trump and the Supreme Court helped put historic Whole Foods union bid on ice
 

mandrill

monkey
Aug 23, 2001
84,415
123,330
113
(Reuters) -New York Attorney General Letitia James on Tuesday filed a lawsuit and an emergency motion seeking a temporary restraining order against U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the department, accusing them of unlawfully withholding nearly $34 million in funding requested by the state's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).



more

The MTA is the state agency that operates New York City's subway and buses, as well as commuter rail lines that serve nearby suburbs.

In a late Tuesday lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York James is seeking an emergency order by midnight to safeguard the MTA's funding.

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

"DHS today cut New York’s award from nearly $34 million to zero – an unlawful decision," her press office said in a statement, adding that James is not seeking disbursement tonight, only preservation of the funds while the courts resolve the case.

The move, James said, jeopardizes the safety of millions of New Yorkers.

"I am asking the court to act before midnight to stop these funds from vanishing and to ensure that New Yorkers are not put at risk by this administration’s political games," James said.



more

Last month, the U.S. Transportation Department said it may withhold up to 25% of federal transit funding for the MTA if the agency does not improve safety for subway track maintenance workers.

(Reporting by Gnaneshwar Rajan and Mrinmay Dey in Bengaluru; Editing by Kim Coghill)

New York AG James sues Homeland Security for nearly $34 million over transit funding freeze
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts