They can.
Maybe not great plans or ones that are well-executed, but they can plan to some degree.
update - Federal court of appeal finds Trump's birthright citizenship exec order unconstitutional, blocks it
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Maybe not great plans or ones that are well-executed, but they can plan to some degree.
President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Alina Habba, was admonished in a New Jersey court when Judge André Espinosa of U.S. District Court found her arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka inappropriate.
Raw Story reported in May that the dressing down of the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey by the judge was so significant that the mayor was caught on a hot mic commenting: “Jesus, he tore these people a new a--hole. Good grief.”
Baraka was arrested on trespassing charges on May 9 after attempting to enter an ICE facility in Newark with members of Congress. The charges were dropped days later, but Habba still went to court.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
But more details about the dressing down were released Monday.
National security expert Marcy Wheeler posted the full transcript, as provided by the court reporter, in a post on X on Monday.
Habba's last day in her interim post is Tuesday, unless a panel of judges steps in to extend her job. So far, the appointment has been stalled in the Senate.
"I don't want to belabor the proceeding today," the judge began, noting that they were there after Habba's office claimed to be prosecuting the mayor, only to drop the charges before discussing the case in court.
The judge then eviscerated Habba's office.
"Please consider sharing with your colleagues this modest reminder of your unique duty as federal prosecutors. Your Office serves the 9.5 million people who live in the District of New Jersey, and your colleagues are charged with working to protect those people and the 13 interests of the Constitution under which we all live and that you and every one of your colleagues swore to uphold when you joined that Office," the judge said.
"This is an immense responsibility with which comes an imperative for meticulous diligence and unwavering integrity."
He cited a 1940 address by the Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, who warned against the temptation to prosecute for every possible offense. He told prosecutors, "the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes."
Espinosa said it's clear Jackson understood the duty of the prosecutor was for the people, not for a political party or others.
"Justice Jackson warned against using the immense power of the government to pursue weak cases or to make examples without sufficient cause," the judge continued. "Your discretion, therefore, is not merely a legal tool but a moral compass guiding the exercise of immense power. It demands a judicious restraint, a deep respect for individual liberty, and an unwavering commitment to the principle that justice is never served by arbitrary or ill-conceived actions."
In this case, in particular, the judge stated that the arrest was "hasty" and "followed by the swift dismissal a mere 13 days later."
He blasted Habba, claiming that arresting a public figure isn't to trigger an investigation. It's the other way around; the investigation should lead to an arrest. It has been key for the office "particularly over the last two decades," Judge Espinosa added.
The legacy has been "one of careful deliberative action," the judge said. It implies that in this case, it was clearly ignored. He said that the office only brings charges after an "exhaustive" search for evidence.
"So let this incident serve as an inflection point and a reminder to uphold your solemn oath to the people of this district and to your client Justice itself and ensure that every charge brought is the product of rigorous investigation and earned confidence in its merit mirroring the exemplary conduct that has long defined your Office," he said.
Read the full comments here.
Judge gives Alina Habba lesson in law during blistering rebuke
Raw Story reported in May that the dressing down of the interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey by the judge was so significant that the mayor was caught on a hot mic commenting: “Jesus, he tore these people a new a--hole. Good grief.”
Baraka was arrested on trespassing charges on May 9 after attempting to enter an ICE facility in Newark with members of Congress. The charges were dropped days later, but Habba still went to court.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
But more details about the dressing down were released Monday.
National security expert Marcy Wheeler posted the full transcript, as provided by the court reporter, in a post on X on Monday.
Habba's last day in her interim post is Tuesday, unless a panel of judges steps in to extend her job. So far, the appointment has been stalled in the Senate.
"I don't want to belabor the proceeding today," the judge began, noting that they were there after Habba's office claimed to be prosecuting the mayor, only to drop the charges before discussing the case in court.
The judge then eviscerated Habba's office.
"Please consider sharing with your colleagues this modest reminder of your unique duty as federal prosecutors. Your Office serves the 9.5 million people who live in the District of New Jersey, and your colleagues are charged with working to protect those people and the 13 interests of the Constitution under which we all live and that you and every one of your colleagues swore to uphold when you joined that Office," the judge said.
"This is an immense responsibility with which comes an imperative for meticulous diligence and unwavering integrity."
He cited a 1940 address by the Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, who warned against the temptation to prosecute for every possible offense. He told prosecutors, "the citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes."
Espinosa said it's clear Jackson understood the duty of the prosecutor was for the people, not for a political party or others.
"Justice Jackson warned against using the immense power of the government to pursue weak cases or to make examples without sufficient cause," the judge continued. "Your discretion, therefore, is not merely a legal tool but a moral compass guiding the exercise of immense power. It demands a judicious restraint, a deep respect for individual liberty, and an unwavering commitment to the principle that justice is never served by arbitrary or ill-conceived actions."
In this case, in particular, the judge stated that the arrest was "hasty" and "followed by the swift dismissal a mere 13 days later."
He blasted Habba, claiming that arresting a public figure isn't to trigger an investigation. It's the other way around; the investigation should lead to an arrest. It has been key for the office "particularly over the last two decades," Judge Espinosa added.
The legacy has been "one of careful deliberative action," the judge said. It implies that in this case, it was clearly ignored. He said that the office only brings charges after an "exhaustive" search for evidence.
"So let this incident serve as an inflection point and a reminder to uphold your solemn oath to the people of this district and to your client Justice itself and ensure that every charge brought is the product of rigorous investigation and earned confidence in its merit mirroring the exemplary conduct that has long defined your Office," he said.
Read the full comments here.
Judge gives Alina Habba lesson in law during blistering rebuke
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to delay releasing him from jail in order to prevent the Trump administration from trying to swiftly deport the Maryland construction worker.
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, U.S. officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.
Brianna O'Keefe yells as she holds a portrait of Kilmar Obrego Garcia during a protest outside the federal courthouse Wednesday, June 25, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV)© The Associated Press
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, center, wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, leaves the federal courthouse in Nashville, Tenn., Wednesday, July 16, 2025. (AP Photo/George Walker IV)© The Associated Press
The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn’t charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
U.S. officials have said they'll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn't El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he's a danger to the community.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he's not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.
Holmes' ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government’s plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw's decision imminent, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to “evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.”
Earlier this month, U.S. officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That's where Abrego Garcia's American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.
U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.
Following the immigration judge's decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement each year, his attorneys have said. But U.S. officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia's supervised release.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland have asked U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation.
His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he's released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
Ben Finley, The Associated Press
Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawyers ask judge to delay release from jail over deportation fears
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, U.S. officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.
Brianna O'Keefe yells as she holds a portrait of Kilmar Obrego Garcia during a protest outside the federal courthouse Wednesday, June 25, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV)© The Associated Press
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
Jennifer Vasquez Sura, center, wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, leaves the federal courthouse in Nashville, Tenn., Wednesday, July 16, 2025. (AP Photo/George Walker IV)© The Associated Press
The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn’t charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called “preposterous.”
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
U.S. officials have said they'll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn't El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he's a danger to the community.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he's not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.
Holmes' ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government’s plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw's decision imminent, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to “evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.”
Earlier this month, U.S. officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That's where Abrego Garcia's American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.
U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.
Following the immigration judge's decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement each year, his attorneys have said. But U.S. officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia's supervised release.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland have asked U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation.
His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he's released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
Ben Finley, The Associated Press
Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawyers ask judge to delay release from jail over deportation fears
A federal court in Maryland has responded to President Donald Trump's out-of-the-box plan to sue judges who ruled against him — and pulled no punches.
Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland instituted a two-day pause in deportations as part of a habeas ruling in favor of immigrants challenging their detention in that state. Trump's Justice Department responded by suing the court and every judge sitting on it.
“Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect. In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch,” said the complaint.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
But the court has issued its own response to the lawsuit, tearing it apart at every level.
This lawsuit, the court wrote, "is impermissible."
"It is an effort by one branch in its institutional capacity to sue another branch in its institutional capacity seeking what amounts to an advisory opinion unmoored from any specific case or controversy. The courts have confronted similar efforts by legislators to sue in their official capacity, and have routinely rejected them on nonjusticiability grounds."
"While the Executive enjoys the distinct power to sue in the name of the United States to enforce laws and ensure that they are faithfully executed, it does not enjoy any free-floating authority to sue a coordinate branch of government," the response continued. "Such a suit is nonjusticiable, and the fate of the standing orders can and should be resolved in an ordinary case or controversy."
The District Court of Maryland went on to add that Trump could simply have appealed their decision if he disagreed with it, that judges are immune from being sued over their rulings, and that even if Trump did have the power to sue judges over the habeas ruling, "the executive’s claims fail, as the standing orders are valid exercises of federal courts’ inherent authority to afford themselves time to determine their own jurisdiction."
'Impermissible': Trump hit with blistering court response in bid to sue judges
Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland instituted a two-day pause in deportations as part of a habeas ruling in favor of immigrants challenging their detention in that state. Trump's Justice Department responded by suing the court and every judge sitting on it.
“Every unlawful order entered by the district courts robs the Executive Branch of its most scarce resource: time to put its policies into effect. In the process, such orders diminish the votes of the citizens who elected the head of the Executive Branch,” said the complaint.
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
But the court has issued its own response to the lawsuit, tearing it apart at every level.
This lawsuit, the court wrote, "is impermissible."
"It is an effort by one branch in its institutional capacity to sue another branch in its institutional capacity seeking what amounts to an advisory opinion unmoored from any specific case or controversy. The courts have confronted similar efforts by legislators to sue in their official capacity, and have routinely rejected them on nonjusticiability grounds."
"While the Executive enjoys the distinct power to sue in the name of the United States to enforce laws and ensure that they are faithfully executed, it does not enjoy any free-floating authority to sue a coordinate branch of government," the response continued. "Such a suit is nonjusticiable, and the fate of the standing orders can and should be resolved in an ordinary case or controversy."
The District Court of Maryland went on to add that Trump could simply have appealed their decision if he disagreed with it, that judges are immune from being sued over their rulings, and that even if Trump did have the power to sue judges over the habeas ruling, "the executive’s claims fail, as the standing orders are valid exercises of federal courts’ inherent authority to afford themselves time to determine their own jurisdiction."
'Impermissible': Trump hit with blistering court response in bid to sue judges
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuela's attorney general's office said on Monday that it has opened an investigation into El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele for alleged mistreatment and human rights violations against Venezuelan migrants.
The migrants in question spent months detained in a maximum-security prison in the Central American country after being deported by the United Sates.
Attorney General Tarek William Saab said his office decided to open the probe after some of the migrants informed Venezuelan authorities of the alleged mistreatment. The investigation includes El Salvador's Justice Minister Gustavo Villatoro and the head of the prison system, Osiris Luna.
More than 250 migrants were held since March in a mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, which was built to hold alleged gang members in Bukele’s war on the country’s gangs.
They were released on Friday by El Salvador in exchange for 10 U.S. nationals jailed in Venezuela, and as part of a three-country arrangement.
Bukele's office didn't reply immediately to a request for comment.
The Associated Press
Venezuela opens an investigation into El Salvador's Bukele for alleged mistreatment of migrants
The migrants in question spent months detained in a maximum-security prison in the Central American country after being deported by the United Sates.
Attorney General Tarek William Saab said his office decided to open the probe after some of the migrants informed Venezuelan authorities of the alleged mistreatment. The investigation includes El Salvador's Justice Minister Gustavo Villatoro and the head of the prison system, Osiris Luna.
More than 250 migrants were held since March in a mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, which was built to hold alleged gang members in Bukele’s war on the country’s gangs.
They were released on Friday by El Salvador in exchange for 10 U.S. nationals jailed in Venezuela, and as part of a three-country arrangement.
Bukele's office didn't reply immediately to a request for comment.
The Associated Press
Venezuela opens an investigation into El Salvador's Bukele for alleged mistreatment of migrants
Obama-appointed Florida judge to preside over Trump’s $10B suit against Murdoch and WSJ
The federal judge randomly assigned to oversee Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal is a former federal prosecutor appointed to the bench by Barack Obama.
Judge Darrin P. Gayles with the Southern District of Florida is a former U.S. attorney who was appointed by the former president in 2014. He was unanimously confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 98-0.
The Howard University and George Washington University School of Law graduate became the first openly gay Black man to serve on the federal bench.
Trump’s lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami on July 18 accuses the newspaper, its parent companies, executives and journalists of falsely accusing the president of writing a 50th birthday card to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.
The lawsuit names right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp, WSJ publisher Dow Jones, executive Robert Thomson, and two WSJ journalists whose bylines appeared on the story.
The birthday greeting is described by the newspaper as including a sexually suggestive drawing and a birthday wish that says “may every day be another wonderful secret.”
The defendants “failed to attach the letter, failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained,” according to the lawsuit.
“The reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing exists,” the complaint claims.
Trump’s 18-page complaint accuses the WSJ and its reporters of “concocting” a story in an effort to “malign President Trump’s character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.”
Judge Gayles’s appointment to the case, which is by random drawing, followed the president’s Truth Social post of an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested inside the Oval Office as Trump smiles and laughs next to him.
Trump and top administration officials have repeatedly accused Obama of conspiring against Trump’s 2016 campaign in an apparent effort to redirect coverage in the wake of the WSJ’s reporting and increased scrutiny of Trump’s relationship with Epstein.
The Trump administration is desperate to change the subject as he faces intense scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein (AFP via Getty Images)
The president has posted about Obama roughly 20 times on Truth Social since filing the lawsuit, including the fake video of Obama’s arrest and another fake image of Obama and former administration officials in orange prison jumpsuits.
Trump’s national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard has accused the Obama administration of committing “treasonous conspiracy” in her office’s attempt to undermine an eight-year-old assessment that Russia favored Trump’s election in 2016.
Multiple intelligence findings, including a Republican-led Senate report, have backed up claims that Russia sought to influence the election by damaging Trump’s then-opponent Hillary Clinton while boosting Trump.
In an apparent attempt to discredit those reports, Gabbard’s report states that “foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure” to alter election outcomes. But intelligence reports have long held that Russian hackers did not manipulate votes; Gabbard’s report instead falsely conflates cyber attacks with a broader influence campaign as she tries to argue that the Obama administration pressured the intelligence community to change its conclusions.
Top Democrats on congressional intelligence committees have blasted Gabbard’s report as baseless and an attempt to weaponize intelligence to bolster Trump’s bogus election conspiracy theories.
The district in which Trump filed the lawsuit is also the same as that of Judge Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed to the bench and has since repeatedly praised.
Cannon presided over — and eventually dismissed — the blockbuster federal indictment accusing the president of hoarding government documents and classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago compound after leaving office in 2021, and then obstructing law enforcement’s attempts to get them back.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart
The federal judge randomly assigned to oversee Donald Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal is a former federal prosecutor appointed to the bench by Barack Obama.
Judge Darrin P. Gayles with the Southern District of Florida is a former U.S. attorney who was appointed by the former president in 2014. He was unanimously confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 98-0.
The Howard University and George Washington University School of Law graduate became the first openly gay Black man to serve on the federal bench.
Trump’s lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami on July 18 accuses the newspaper, its parent companies, executives and journalists of falsely accusing the president of writing a 50th birthday card to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.
The lawsuit names right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his News Corp, WSJ publisher Dow Jones, executive Robert Thomson, and two WSJ journalists whose bylines appeared on the story.
The birthday greeting is described by the newspaper as including a sexually suggestive drawing and a birthday wish that says “may every day be another wonderful secret.”
The defendants “failed to attach the letter, failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained,” according to the lawsuit.
“The reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing exists,” the complaint claims.
Trump’s 18-page complaint accuses the WSJ and its reporters of “concocting” a story in an effort to “malign President Trump’s character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.”
Judge Gayles’s appointment to the case, which is by random drawing, followed the president’s Truth Social post of an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested inside the Oval Office as Trump smiles and laughs next to him.
Trump and top administration officials have repeatedly accused Obama of conspiring against Trump’s 2016 campaign in an apparent effort to redirect coverage in the wake of the WSJ’s reporting and increased scrutiny of Trump’s relationship with Epstein.
The Trump administration is desperate to change the subject as he faces intense scrutiny over his relationship with Epstein (AFP via Getty Images)
The president has posted about Obama roughly 20 times on Truth Social since filing the lawsuit, including the fake video of Obama’s arrest and another fake image of Obama and former administration officials in orange prison jumpsuits.
Trump’s national intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard has accused the Obama administration of committing “treasonous conspiracy” in her office’s attempt to undermine an eight-year-old assessment that Russia favored Trump’s election in 2016.
Multiple intelligence findings, including a Republican-led Senate report, have backed up claims that Russia sought to influence the election by damaging Trump’s then-opponent Hillary Clinton while boosting Trump.
In an apparent attempt to discredit those reports, Gabbard’s report states that “foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure” to alter election outcomes. But intelligence reports have long held that Russian hackers did not manipulate votes; Gabbard’s report instead falsely conflates cyber attacks with a broader influence campaign as she tries to argue that the Obama administration pressured the intelligence community to change its conclusions.
Top Democrats on congressional intelligence committees have blasted Gabbard’s report as baseless and an attempt to weaponize intelligence to bolster Trump’s bogus election conspiracy theories.
The district in which Trump filed the lawsuit is also the same as that of Judge Aileen Cannon, who Trump appointed to the bench and has since repeatedly praised.
Cannon presided over — and eventually dismissed — the blockbuster federal indictment accusing the president of hoarding government documents and classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago compound after leaving office in 2021, and then obstructing law enforcement’s attempts to get them back.
The Independent has always had a global perspective. Built on a firm foundation of superb international reporting and analysis, The Independent now enjoys a reach that was inconceivable when it was launched as an upstart
A right-wing legal advocacy group known for filing lawsuits against the regulatory state is once again targeting President Donald Trump's powers to unilaterally enact tariffs on imported goods.
In a new statement released on Monday, the New Civil Liberties Alliance unveiled its new legal complaint against the tariff system imposed by the Trump administration, filed in the Western District of Texas.
"He has cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but that statute authorizes emergency actions like economic sanctions and asset freezes to protect the United States from foreign threats," said the statement. "It does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Representing FIREDISC, the nonprofit Game Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Ryan Wholesale, NCLA asks the District Court to find jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit and issue summary judgment for Plaintiffs, setting aside the unlawful tariffs."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
“These unlawful tariffs are a presidential power grab that usurps Congress’s right to control tariffs and upsets the Constitution’s separation of powers. They are especially crushing to small businesses—including our clients in this case. The court should hold the tariffs unlawful and strike them down," said senior NCLA counsel Andrew Morris in an individual statement.
This is not the first NCLA action against Trump's tariffs. Another lawsuit was filed earlier this year on behalf of a home management products company in Florida.
This comes as Trump has publicly turned against Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society kingmaker who helped advise on Trump's conservative judicial nominations in his first term. Leo is affiliated with organizations that help fund NCLA.
'Strike them down!' Right-wing group takes Trump to court — again
In a new statement released on Monday, the New Civil Liberties Alliance unveiled its new legal complaint against the tariff system imposed by the Trump administration, filed in the Western District of Texas.
"He has cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), but that statute authorizes emergency actions like economic sanctions and asset freezes to protect the United States from foreign threats," said the statement. "It does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Representing FIREDISC, the nonprofit Game Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Ryan Wholesale, NCLA asks the District Court to find jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit and issue summary judgment for Plaintiffs, setting aside the unlawful tariffs."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
“These unlawful tariffs are a presidential power grab that usurps Congress’s right to control tariffs and upsets the Constitution’s separation of powers. They are especially crushing to small businesses—including our clients in this case. The court should hold the tariffs unlawful and strike them down," said senior NCLA counsel Andrew Morris in an individual statement.
This is not the first NCLA action against Trump's tariffs. Another lawsuit was filed earlier this year on behalf of a home management products company in Florida.
This comes as Trump has publicly turned against Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society kingmaker who helped advise on Trump's conservative judicial nominations in his first term. Leo is affiliated with organizations that help fund NCLA.
'Strike them down!' Right-wing group takes Trump to court — again
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump said CBS parent company Paramount paid $16 million on Tuesday as part of a lawsuit settlement.
Paramount earlier this month agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" with former Vice President Kamala Harris that the network broadcast in October.
Paramount needs approval from the Federal Communications Commission for its $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. The FCC did not make a decision by the 180-day informal deadline in mid-May and FCC Chair Brendan Carr has denied Trump's lawsuit was a factor.
Paramount could not immediately be reached for comment.
Trump and CBS formally agreed on Tuesday to the dismissal of his lawsuit, according to a court filing.
"We have just achieved a BIG AND IMPORTANT WIN in our Historic Lawsuit against 60 Minutes, CBS, and Paramount... Paramount/CBS/60 Minutes have today paid $16 Million Dollars in settlement, and we also anticipate receiving $20 Million Dollars more from the new Owners," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
Trump says he received $16 million payment after Paramount lawsuit settlement
Paramount earlier this month agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over an interview on CBS' "60 Minutes" with former Vice President Kamala Harris that the network broadcast in October.
Paramount needs approval from the Federal Communications Commission for its $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. The FCC did not make a decision by the 180-day informal deadline in mid-May and FCC Chair Brendan Carr has denied Trump's lawsuit was a factor.
Paramount could not immediately be reached for comment.
Trump and CBS formally agreed on Tuesday to the dismissal of his lawsuit, according to a court filing.
"We have just achieved a BIG AND IMPORTANT WIN in our Historic Lawsuit against 60 Minutes, CBS, and Paramount... Paramount/CBS/60 Minutes have today paid $16 Million Dollars in settlement, and we also anticipate receiving $20 Million Dollars more from the new Owners," Trump said in a post on Truth Social.
Trump says he received $16 million payment after Paramount lawsuit settlement
President Donald Trump's Justice Department played a new card in the exploding Jeffrey Epstein case scandal on Tuesday morning, with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche both announcing they would be questioning Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in Epstein's child sex trafficking ring.
"Justice demands courage," Blanche wrote in his announcement on X, adding, "I intend to meet with [Maxwell] soon. No one is above the law — and no lead is off-limits."
This move may have been intended to quell the rising anger from Trump's own base that the DOJ has been unable to deliver on their promise of turning over all files on the Epstein case, including the rumored "client list" of wealthy and powerful people who indulged in Epstein's dark acts with him — which has no evidence of existing and which the DOJ has stated does not exist, but which has persisted in the narrative of conspiracy theorists on both the left and right for years.
But the timing of the announcement, coupled with longstanding knowledge that Trump himself used to be friends with Epstein, has spurred a more sinister theory from some political and legal observers on social media: that administration officials are moving to secure Maxwell's silence, or maybe even offer her a presidential pardon, something Trump biographer Michael Wolff alleged he has considered in the past.
"Now the Trump DOJ is rushing to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell to try to find out what she knows. Not suspicious [at] all," wrote the liberal news and podcasting network Meidas Touch.
"Ghislaine Maxwell Pardon Watch starts now," wrote Bulwark reporter Will Sommer.
"They are going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her silence on what she knows about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein," wrote New York health care activist Melanie D'Arrigo. "The coverup will continue, and the Trump administration will rewrite the entire official story, release it, and treat it as fact. Pay attention."
"It is a near certainty that what the Deputy AG is planning to do in this meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell would best be described as witness tampering," wrote former federal prosecutor and district court clerk Elizabeth de la Vega.
'Pardon watch starts now': Analysts smell 'witness tampering' as DOJ meets Epstein partner
"Justice demands courage," Blanche wrote in his announcement on X, adding, "I intend to meet with [Maxwell] soon. No one is above the law — and no lead is off-limits."
This move may have been intended to quell the rising anger from Trump's own base that the DOJ has been unable to deliver on their promise of turning over all files on the Epstein case, including the rumored "client list" of wealthy and powerful people who indulged in Epstein's dark acts with him — which has no evidence of existing and which the DOJ has stated does not exist, but which has persisted in the narrative of conspiracy theorists on both the left and right for years.
But the timing of the announcement, coupled with longstanding knowledge that Trump himself used to be friends with Epstein, has spurred a more sinister theory from some political and legal observers on social media: that administration officials are moving to secure Maxwell's silence, or maybe even offer her a presidential pardon, something Trump biographer Michael Wolff alleged he has considered in the past.
"Now the Trump DOJ is rushing to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell to try to find out what she knows. Not suspicious [at] all," wrote the liberal news and podcasting network Meidas Touch.
"Ghislaine Maxwell Pardon Watch starts now," wrote Bulwark reporter Will Sommer.
"They are going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell in exchange for her silence on what she knows about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein," wrote New York health care activist Melanie D'Arrigo. "The coverup will continue, and the Trump administration will rewrite the entire official story, release it, and treat it as fact. Pay attention."
"It is a near certainty that what the Deputy AG is planning to do in this meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell would best be described as witness tampering," wrote former federal prosecutor and district court clerk Elizabeth de la Vega.
'Pardon watch starts now': Analysts smell 'witness tampering' as DOJ meets Epstein partner
