|
|
|
International Criminal Court hit with cyber security attack
Court Watch |
2025/07/02 10:22
|
The International Criminal Court has been targeted by a “sophisticated” cyberattack and is taking measures to limit any damage, the global tribunal announced Monday.
The ICC, which also was hit by a cyberattack in 2023, said the latest incident had been contained but did not elaborate further on the impact or possible motive.
“A Court-wide impact analysis is being carried out, and steps are already being taken to mitigate any effects of the incident,” the court said in a statement.
The incident happened in the same week that The Hague hosted a summit of 32 NATO leaders at a conference center near the court amid tight security including measures to guard against cyberattacks.
The court declined to say whether any confidential information had been compromised.
The ICC has a number of high-profile investigations and preliminary inquiries underway in nations around the world and has in the past been the target of espionage.
In 2022, a Dutch intelligence agency said it had foiled a plot by a Russian spy using a false Brazilian identity to work as an intern at the court, which is investigating allegations of Russian war crimes in Ukraine and has issued a war crimes arrest warrant for President Vladimir Putin, accusing him of personal responsibility for the abductions of children from Ukraine.
Arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, over Israel’s campaign against Hamas in Gaza have also drawn ire. U.S. President Donald Trump slapped sanctions on its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, in February and earlier this month also sanctioned four judges at the court.
The court is still feeling the effects of the last cyberattack, with wifi still not completely restored to its purpose-built headquarters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What’s next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court’s ruling
Court Watch |
2025/06/28 08:23
|
The legal battle over President Donald Trump’s move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration’s major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions.
Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent.
The high court’s ruling sends cases challenging the president’s birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president’s policy remains uncertain.
Here’s what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court’s ruling and what happens next.
What does birthright citizenship mean?
Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally.
The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,” the amendment states.
Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents’ legal status.
It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.
Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship
Trump’s executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It’s part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a “magnet for illegal immigration.”
Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally.
A series of federal judges have said that’s not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect.
“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,” U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom.
In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that “the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed” Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship.
Is Trump’s order constitutional? The justices didn’t say
The high court’s ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge’s authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president’s authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters.
But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump’s bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.
“The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges’ decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor.
Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is “very confident” that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case.
Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps
The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps.
The Supreme Court’s ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump’s order.
But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor.
“It’s not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,” said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court makes it easier to claim ‘reverse discrimination’ in employment
Court Watch |
2025/06/05 08:07
|
A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn’t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.
The justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups.
“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote.
The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.
Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.
The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing “background circumstances” that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.
The appeals court noted that Ames didn’t provide any such circumstances.
But Jackson wrote that “this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court sides with the FDA in its dispute over vaping products
Court Watch |
2025/04/15 14:26
|
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled for the Food and Drug Administration in its crackdown on sweet-flavored vaping products following a surge in teen electronic cigarette use.
But the justices’ unanimous decision throwing out a federal appeals court ruling is not the final word in the case, and the FDA could change its approach now that President Donald Trump has promised to “save” vaping.
The high court ruled that the FDA, during President Joe Biden’s administration, did not violate federal law when it denied an application from Dallas-based company Triton Distribution to sell e-juices like “Jimmy The Juice Man in Peachy Strawberry” and “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies.” The products are heated by an e-cigarette to create an inhalable aerosol.
Yolonda Richardson, president and CEO of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the decision “a major victory for the health of America’s kids and efforts to protect them from the flavored e-cigarettes that have fueled a youth nicotine addiction crisis.”
The FDA has rejected applications for more than a million nicotine products formulated to taste like fruit, dessert or candy because their makers couldn’t show that flavored vapes had a net public benefit, as required by law.
It has approved some tobacco-flavored vapes, and recently it allowed its first menthol-flavored e-cigarettes for adult smokers after the company provided data showing the product was more helpful in quitting.
But the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Triton, agreeing that the FDA changed its standards with little warning in violation of federal law.
While mainly ruling for the FDA on Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the agency had said the company’s marketing plan would be an important factor in evaluating its application. But it ultimately did not consider the marketing plan, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court.
Attorney Eric Heyer, who represented the company, expressed disappointment with the ruling but said Triton believes “in the great harm reduction potential” of the products and plans to continue litigation.
The appeals court was ordered to consider if the failure to do so is an important mistake that might still lead to a decision in Triton’s favor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court rules Trump can fire board members of independent labor agencies
Court Watch |
2025/03/28 08:55
|
An appeals court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump can fire two board members of independent agencies handling labor issues from their respective posts in the federal government.
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to lift orders blocking the Trump administration from removing Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox.
On March 4, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled that Trump illegally tried to fire Harris. Two days later, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that Trump did not have the authority to remove Wilcox.
The Justice Department asked the appellate court to suspend those orders while they appeal the decisions.
President Joe Biden nominated Harris to the MSPB in 2021 and nominated Wilcox to a second five-year term as an NLRB member in 2023.
Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump nominee, said the administration likely will succeed in showing that the statutory removal protections for NLRB and MSPB members are unconstitutional.
“The Government has also shown that it will suffer irreparable harm each day the President is deprived of the ability to control the executive branch,” Walker wrote.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush, wrote an opinion concurring with Walker. Henderson said she agrees with Walker on many of the “general principles” about the contours of presidential power under the Constitution.
Judge Patricia Millett, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, wrote a dissenting opinion. She said her two colleagues on the case “rewrite controlling Supreme Court precedent and ignore binding rulings of this court, all in favor of putting this court in direct conflict with at least two other circuits.”
“The stay decision also marks the first time in history that a court of appeals, or the Supreme Court, has licensed the termination of members of multimember adjudicatory boards statutorily protected by the very type of removal restriction the Supreme Court has twice unanimously upheld,” Millett wrote.
Government lawyers argued that Trump had the authority to remove both board members. In Wilcox’s case, they said Howell’s “unprecedented order works a grave harm to the separation of powers and undermines the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution.” They also argued that MSPB members like Harris are removable “at will” by the president.
Wilcox’s attorneys said Trump couldn’t fire her without notice, a hearing or identifying any “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” on her part. They argued that the administration’s “only path to victory” is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to “adopt a more expansive view of presidential power.”
Harris’ attorneys claimed the administration was asking the appeals court to ignore Supreme Court precedent.
“Make no mistake: The government’s radical theory would upend the law,” they wrote. “It would jeopardize not only this board, but also the Federal Reserve Board and other critical entities, like the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
The five-member NLRB lacked a quorum after Wilcox’s removal. The three-member MSPB enforces civil rights law in the workplace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump asks supreme court to halt ruling ordering the rehiring of federal workers
Court Watch |
2025/03/25 05:57
|
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to halt a ruling ordering the rehiring of thousands of federal workers let go in mass firings aimed at dramatically downsizing the federal government.
The emergency appeal argues that the judge can’t force the executive branch to rehire more than 16,000 probationary employees. The California-based judge found the firings didn’t follow federal law, and he ordered reinstatement offers be sent as a lawsuit plays out.
The appeal also calls on the conservative-majority court to rein in the growing number of federal judges who have slowed President Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda.
“Only this Court can end the interbranch power grab,” the appeal stated.
The nation’s federal court system has become ground zero for pushback to Trump with the Republican-led Congress largely supportive or silent, and judges have ruled against Trump’s administration more than three dozen times after finding violations of federal law.
The rulings run the gamut from birthright citizenship changes to federal spending to transgender rights.
Trump’s unparalleled flurry of executive orders seems destined for several dates at a Supreme Court that he helped shape with three appointees during his first term, but so far the majority on the nine-member court has taken relatively small steps in two cases that have reached it.
The latest order appealed to the high court was one of two handed down the same day. While acknowledging the president can lay off employees, two judges found separate legal problems with the way the Republican administration’s firings of probationary employees were carried out.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ruled that the terminations were improperly directed by the Office of Personnel Management and its acting director. He ordered rehiring at six agencies: the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior and the Treasury.
His order came in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions and nonprofit organizations that argued they’d be affected by the reduced manpower.
Alsup, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton, expressed frustration with what he called the government’s attempt to sidestep laws and regulations by firing probationary workers with fewer legal protections.
He said he was appalled that employees were told they were being fired for poor performance despite receiving glowing evaluations just months earlier.
Attorney Norm Eisen, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, vowed to defend the order. “Our coalition remains committed to ensuring that justice prevails for every affected probationary worker,” he said.
The federal government, on the other hand, said the sweeping order requiring the employees to be rehired goes beyond the judge’s legal authority. The plaintiffs never had legal standing to sue and did not prove that the Office of Personnel Management wrongly directed the firings, the Justice Department argued on appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer News RSS Feed
