District Appeal Court 2

4/17 important to trump resistance, Exxon knew RICO fights:

SEE MAIN CIRCUIT APPELLATE[NOPE NOT MUCH THERE, THO NO EVID OF OVERWRITE

see 9th ninth

see 5th vaxx, disinfo, offshore drill doughty landry

see stack capture

no merri

CAPT BAK 4 24

---

vulnerability

circuit Assignments

It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective September 28, 2022.

For the District of Columbia Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
For the First Circuit - Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice

> (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)

For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice> (Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice> (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands)
For the Fourth Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice> (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)
For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice> (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice> (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice> (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
For the Eighth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice> (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
For the Ninth Circuit - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice> (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
For the Tenth Circuit - Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice> (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice> (Alabama,Florida, Georgia)
For the Federal Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

AN 10 26

Politico reports a federal judge on Thursday ruled that President Donald Trump doesn’t have the power to fire court-appointed U.S. attorneys, rejecting a core tenet of the Trump administration’s approach to top prosecutorial jobs.

“The president cannot unilaterally fire a United States attorney appointed by the district court,” U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian said in a ruling from the bench. Bastian added that doing so “would upend the framework created by the Constitution and the statutes, which together balance the president’s right to appoint and the Senate’s right to confirm.”

Politico reports that the ruling came in a lawsuit brought by Roger Rogoff, whom Trump allegedly fired from the job of U.S. attorney for the Seattle-area Western District of Washington immediately after the district’s federal judges appointed him to the role a few months ago.

The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to circumvent the Senate confirmation process to appoint loyalists in top positions, said Politico, particularly in instances when district judges have exercised their authority to select someone else as the U.S. attorney whom Trump has fired.

Bastian, an Obama appointee, argued that Rogoff is a U.S. attorney and has legally occupied that role since he took the oath of office July 15. In his ruling, Bastian also stripped Trump appointee Charles Neil Floyd of his power after Trump temporarily installed him in Rogoff’s place, determining that the administration had “improperly granted” authority to Floyd.

What may prove more vexing to Trump is that the judge additionally took steps to thwart any attempts by Trump to undermine the judge’s authority or transfer it to someone else.

Politico reports Bastian ordered that the executive office of the president, Attorney General Todd Blanche and the Justice Department are all barred from “any purported firing” or removal of Rogoff from his post, interference with his service in the role and from treating anyone other than Rogoff as the U.S. attorney.

The Seattle Times reports the district’s 17 sitting federal judges appointed Rogoff after Trump failed to formally nominate his own pick for U.S. attorney. Trump instead appointed Floyd as interim last year and later used a workaround to keep him in the spot as “first assistant” U.S. attorney.

Other judges have taken a similar path, with one judge ruling that Lindsey Halligan, Trump's handpicked interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was also unlawfully serving. That decision complicated cases Halligan’s office had been pursuing.

AN 6 26

A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration’s overhaul of an immigration verification system to check voter eligibility across the nation, striking down a central pillar of the government’s efforts to exercise more federal control over elections.

This article was originally published by Votebeat, a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access.

The judge cited Texas’ use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database, which flagged several voters who were actually citizens as noncitizens, as evidence that it threatened both privacy and voting rights less than five months before the November midterm election.

“The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said in her 75-page ruling. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

Sooknanan’s decision does not eliminate SAVE, a decades-old immigration-status verification program. But it blocks the Trump administration’s 2025 overhaul of the system, which made it easier for states to check their voter rolls against the federal database, which includes individuals’ citizenship status and Social Security numbers.

Election officials have found that the modified database, however, is prone to error, something Sooknanan referenced in her decision. Federal officials, she wrote, “haphazardly combined and repurposed the private information of millions of Americans, including citizenship data that they knew to be unreliable.”

The ruling could strengthen challenges by voters who were removed, flagged, or placed under review by the system.

“States have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing United States citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information,” the judge wrote.

Voting rights groups, Trump administration react to ruling

The case was filed by the League of Women Voters and other groups who argued that the SAVE system was inaccurate and that using it to check voter rolls violated citizen privacy rights.

“Today’s decision is a resounding victory for voters,” said Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice for the League of Women Voters. “Efforts to create a federal voter database to facilitate voter purges threaten the fundamental right at the heart of our democracy.”

Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who worked in the White House on democracy and voting rights issues under President Joe Biden, agreed that voters would benefit from the ruling.

“This provides incremental reassurance that they won’t be inaccurately singled out and have to jump through even more hoops to vote,” he said. “It stops the use of a deeply flawed process to cause trouble for real eligible citizens.”

However, James Percival, the general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security, which maintains the SAVE database, criticized the ruling as a misguided effort to block the Trump administration from trying to address voter fraud.

“It’s amazing how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist,” Percival said in a statement.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Michael Morley, a professor at the Florida State University College of Law and faculty director of the FSU Election Law Center, said the ruling prevents the federal government from using all the information at its disposal to ensure that only eligible voters take part in elections.

“It seems to leave the government in a somewhat tenuous position of being able to provide citizenship data to states for voting purposes that is less accurate than it otherwise would be,” he said. “It restricts the government’s ability to take advantage of all of the most accurate sources of information it has in order, in most cases, to confirm people’s citizenship status.”

Judge cites Texas’ use of SAVE database in ruling

Texas intervened as a defendant in the case since it had been actively using SAVE to verify the citizenship status of its more than 18 million registered voters. The state gained access to the database in March 2025 after signing a memorandum of agreement with the Department of Homeland Security.

In October, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office announced SAVE had flagged 2,724 people as “potential noncitizens” and sent the list to county election officials to investigate. That process involved mailing letters to each person flagged, requesting additional information to verify their citizenship. If county officials received no response after 30 days, the person’s registration was canceled.

Some voters who responded to the notices turned out to be U.S. citizens after all; others had their registrations canceled, although a specific number hasn’t been released. Hundreds of other registrants who were flagged had registered at the Texas Department of Public Safety, the agency that issues driver’s licenses and state IDs. In Texas, proof of citizenship is required to obtain those documents.

In the ruling, Sooknanan said the state’s use of the database burdened and risked disenfranchising voters by incorrectly flagging naturalized citizens as noncitizens. The judge pointed to examples of voters in Texas who were U.S. citizens and had to provide proof of citizenship to keep their registration active and at least one U.S. citizen whose registration was revoked without their knowledge.

Sooknanan also pointed to an amicus brief filed by Travis County voter registration officials as evidence that the use of the overhauled SAVE database was inaccurate. The state flagged 97 potential noncitizens in Travis County. Voter registration officials found that about a quarter of those voters had registered at DPS and therefore had likely provided proof of citizenship.

Travis County officials were later able to confirm that at least 11 people who were flagged as potential noncitizens were in fact citizens.

“Texas threatened to revoke their voter registrations because of information obtained through the modified SAVE system; and they were required to confirm their citizenship to maintain their voter registrations,” Sooknanan said.

The secretary of state’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Celia Israel, the Travis County tax assessor-collector and voter registrar, said the ruling is “validating.”

“We have asked a lot of questions in the past several months about the SAVE database and about its accuracy,” Israel said. “The lawsuit confirms that there are inaccuracies and that it is worthwhile for us officials at the county level to ask the state questions.”

Other civil rights groups and voters have also challenged Texas’ use of the database in a federal court in Austin. The lawsuit is still pending.

Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion atdnissenbaum@votebeat.org.

Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia atncontreras@votebeat.org.

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

---

AN 4 26

The attorney general might be out, but the Department of Justice problems persist.

*The Los Angeles Times* reported Friday that every case federal prosecutors in L.A. have pursued against protesters they allege "assaulted federal officers" have been dropped.

Even a federal judge is calling the U.S. attorney's office "amateur hour" after losing one assault trial. They have charged more than 100 protesters since June 2025, claiming assault or "interference with immigration enforcement."

U.S. District Judge André Birotte presided over a case in which federal prosecutors failed to disclose additional discovery to the defense.

“A mistake was made,” claimed Asst. U.S. Atty. William Kanellis, placing the blame on the previous U.S. attorney.

“I’ve got 12 people here, are you going to tell them to come back in a month?” Birotte said.

“I don’t think it’s going to take a month,” Kanellis responded, according to the Times.

“How do you know how much time they need to prepare?” Birotte snapped, asking if Kanellis had ever worked as a defense attorney.

The court-appointed attorney said that the new evidence did impact the case for defendants Erin Petra Escobar and Nick Gutierrez.

“You’ve got to be ready for prime time and you’re not,” said Birotte, a former assistant U.S. attorney.

“This trial is probably not going to happen,” he added at one point.

The following day, Judge Birotte admonished, “The government has tried numerous cases like this, I’m just surprised that there wouldn’t be a check to see ‘Has everything been turned over?' The notion that they inadvertently failed to add reports to this case is just not compelling to this court. This is something that should have been looked at and it wasn’t.”

“The court’s left with this dilemma that I have not faced in my entire time on the bench, and I don’t take it lightly,” Birotte said.

The case was officially dismissed "with prejudice," which means it can't be brought again, said the Times.

In another case, Luis Hipolito was accused of punching an officer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the face. He didn't deny it, but he was still acquitted despite videos showing the incident. According to Hipolito, the officers never identified themselves, and he was scared they were trying to kidnap a woman who was screaming, “I’m a U.S. citizen."

At first, he thought she was a teenager because she was so small. So he intervened. When they pepper-sprayed and elbowed him in the face, he said he fought back as a simple reaction to the violence.

“I didn’t see where I landed the punch, I just took a swing,” he said. “I just wanted to defend myself.”

The videos show that the men jumped on Hipolito, one putting his arm around Hipolito's neck. "Soon after, Hipolito’s legs shuddered and buckled and his body began to shake violently," the report described.

Asst. U.S. Atty. Jason Pang told the jury that Hipolito was lying and that the vest the men were wearing said "POLICE" on them. But Hipolito said anyone could buy a vest like that. The jury acquitted him.

Attorney Ricardo A. Nicol told the L.A. Times, “You would think that, at some point, they might start to realize that history and the public are not on their side, that the will of the people is not on their side. But they’re so determined to get convictions on these cases, they don’t stop.”

“The government and the people they’re supposed to be representing are not in sync right now, obviously,” he said.

---

UNSUAL FAIL? BRET KAVA

AN 1 26

A federal appeals court has now lifted restrictions on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in how they're meant to deal with local protesters in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney reported Wednesday that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals — whose jurisdiction encompasses Minnesota along with six other states — has now granted a motion by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to impose a stay on a temporary restraining order (TRO) put in place by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez (an appointee of former President Joe Biden). This means that the restrictions will no longer be in place while the DHS appeals them to the circuit court.

After Judge Menendez's TRO was stayed, this means that ICE agents will now once again be allowed to use less-than-lethal munitions on protesters, like flash-bang grenades and tear gas, and make arrests. Politico reported that the TRO was initially put in place following a lawsuit filed over DHS' heavy-handed response to protests that unfolded in the wake of the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Renee Good.

DHS and ICE had previously been prohibited from "using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity." Judge Menendez's order also forbade federal agents from pulling over citizens for following them, as long as they were keeping an "appropriate" distance.

The overturning of Menendez's TRO comes on the heels of the Trump administration telling military personnel to prepare for a "possible mobilization to Minneapolis." The Department of Justice (DOJ) has also announced federal investigations into Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz – who have encouraged citizens to film and document ICE actions — for allegedly impeding law enforcement operations.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance recently compared the Trump administration's handling of Minneapolis protesters to former Birmingham, Alabama Sheriff Bull Connor's treatment of protesters during the Civil Rights Movement. She also condemned the DOJ for objecting to Judge Menendez's order, writing on her Substack: "DOJ has stopped being the independent gem in the crown of the American rule of law."

"Now, it’s just Trump’s law firm," she wrote. "He’s finally found his Roy Cohn, a number of them."

---

an 8 25

President Donald Trump's administration is having a difficult time defending the legality of its policies — even to judges Trump himself put on the bench.

Politico reported Monday that U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, who Trump appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia during the first year of his first term, wasn't buying the administration's argument in favor of withholding congressionally appropriated funds for the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Politico correspondents Katherine Tully-McManus and Kyle Cheney called Friedrich's Monday ruling "one of the most significant benchmarks in the legal response to the Trump administration’s effort to test the president’s power to withhold congressionally approved funds."

White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought claimed that the administration's refusal to disburse the $315 million appropriation for NED was legally justified by not only saying the administration had the right to hold onto money that wasn't lined up with the president's priorities, but that it was also in the best interest of NED.

"The defendants’ official justification for that withholding — preserving the Endowment’s funding stability for the coming year — is not plausible," Friedrich wrote in her ruling, while also slamming "repeated maneuvers to impede the Endowment’s flow of funds."

IFrame Content

NED — which focuses on promoting democratic ideals overseas – has typically had access to its full amount of funding since it was established in 1982 under then-President Ronald Reagan's administration. However, after Trump took office in January, NED became a casualty of Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which rampaged through multiple federal agencies, fired thousands of workers and axed billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.

Previously, NED had pursued litigation to gain access to its full congressional appropriation, though its efforts were somewhat curtailed after the Trump administration relented and released most of its money. However, NED's legal efforts continued after the administration continued to justify freezing the disbursement of millions of dollars designated as "no-year" funds, meaning there was no deadline attached to when they had to be spent.

Congress banned presidents from singlehandedly refusing to disburse money passed in appropriations bills with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, and Politico reported that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the administration had violated the act on five different occasions since his second term began. Vought complained in a May social media post that Trump critics were "going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt."

Click here to read Politico's full report in its entirety.

---

an 8 25

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, presiding over a case in San Fransisco regarding President Donald Trump’s deployment of military forces to Los Angeles in June, pressed the Department of Justice (DOJ) for answers during the hearing Tuesday.

“Where are the limits? Where are the limits?” the judge repeatedly asked the DOJ, according to reporting by journalist Adam Klasfeld.

Breyer is hearing arguments to determine whether the Trump administration broke federal law by deploying National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to Los Angelesin response to June protests over immigration raids. The operation, which aimed to disperse demonstrators in Los Angeles against immigration raids, was criticized by legal experts.

During Tuesday's hearing, the judge emphasized the inherent danger of law enforcement, asking if that justified a carte blanche use of military force inside American cities. The DOJ lawyer, in seeking to defend the deployment, offered no clear boundaries, prompting concern about unchecked executive authority.

IFrame Content

On the opposing side, California's legal team offered vehement objections. “There has been a standing army in Los Angeles for two months,” the state’s lawyer declared.

The attorney further argued forcefully for judicial intervention.

“Plaintiffs ask that the court issue a permanent injunction and bring a halt to the defendants’ military crusade across this state," she said.

California’s counsel also unpacked the layered symbolism behind the operation’s code name: Excalibur — “inspired by the sword of King Arthur,” she explained — symbolizing “kingship and divine right of rule.”

It was, she argued, a troubling emblem of the Trump administration’s mindset.

Roughly 250 National Guard personnel continue to be stationed in the Los Angeles region. The San Francisco trial has the potential to define boundaries on Trump’s power to activate the National Guard in the future — both within California and beyond.

---

an 4 25

A federal court judge on Sunday declared the Trump administration's refusal to return a man they sent to an El Salvadoran prison in "error" as "totally lawless" behavior and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to repatriate the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, within 24 hours.

In a 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis doubled down on an order issued Friday, which Department of Justice lawyers representing the administration said was an affront to his executive authority.

"This was an illegal act," Xinis said of DHS Secretary Krisi Noem's attack on Abrego Garcia's rights, including his deportation and imprisonment.

"Defendants seized Abrego Garcia without any lawful authority; held him in three separate domestic detention centers without legal basis; failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer; and forcibly transported him to El Salvador in direct contravention of [immigration law]," the decision states.

Once imprisoned in El Salvador, the order continues, "U.S. officials secured his detention in a facility that, by design, deprives its detainees of adequate food, water, and shelter, fosters routine violence; and places him with his persecutors."

Trump's DOJ appealed Friday's order to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, but that court has not yet ruled on the request to stay the order from Xinis, which says Abrego Garcia should be returned to the United States no later than Monday.

---

===}:

===

an 67 24

matt g says scotus

Andrew Weissmann, an attorney who served as a lead prosecutor in former special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, on Monday detailed the impact of Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against Donald Trump, telling MSNBC she “stands alone” in her ruling.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, delivered the shocking ruling on Monday, dismissing the classified documents case against the former president. Cannon decided the appointment of Smith violated the Constitution under both the Appointments Clause and the Appropriations Clause.

Weissmann, speaking to MSNBC, noted “under both those constitutional provisions, [Cannon] said that the executive branch does not have that power. “

“She’s restricting the power of the executive branch of government — that is the president, the attorney general — from appointing a special counsel, saying that's something that would have to be done by congressional statute, or the president himself would have had to appoint this person, not [Attorney General] Merrick Garland.”

“It is in distinct contrast to all of the other cases that have dealt with this,” Weissmann said.

Weissmann noted various special counsel appointments, including Robert Hur, who investigated President Joe Biden, and the special counsel who prosecuted Hunter Biden.

“All of those other judges, where there's been this challenge, have rejected the view of Judge Cannon,” Weissmann said. “She stands alone.”

“What she's doing in many ways is putting in writing what she has done de facto in this case: she’s delayed this case at every step,” Weissmann continued. “The one difference now is that by making this ruling in writing — not just sort of slowing the case to a complete standstill, which has been her want — this will go to the 11th Circuit [Court of Appeals]. The government can appeal this because every other case they have won.”

Weissmann explained he “actually litigated this issue when [he] was part of special counsel Mueller's investigation.”

“And the courts, I think quite correctly, rejected what Judge Cannon did, and said that the attorney general has ample authority to appoint a special counsel as an inferior officer,” he said. “This, though, is the kind of issue I think will go to the 11th Circuit and I think it might go to the Supreme Court.”

Weissmann added a “final point” for “cynical viewers,” telling MSNBC “they can put this decision by Judge Cannon alongside the Supreme Court's immunity decision from two weeks ago to really think about the problem with rule of law in this country.”

“This is the kind of decision that would affect the D.C. case,” the attorney later added. Remember, D.C. is where Jack Smith has the January 6th insurrection case. The D.C. Court of Appeals has rejected Judge Cannon's decision. They do not believe there's a problem with the way in which the special counsel was appointed. That's what they held in the Mueller investigation. they said there was ample authority.”

Weismann said in that case, a Trump-appointed judge “held there was no problem at all with the attorney general appointing [special counsel Mueller].”

“Her reasoning was that the attorney general can follow any sort of internal guidance he wants in running the Department of Justice,” Weismann said. “He can appoint all sorts of people to help him. He can hire people. He has all sorts of underlings that are at his beck and call.”

“There’s no problem in the attorney general hiring all sorts of people beneath him to carry out the work of the Department of Justice,” the attorney explained. “She said that's true of special counsel Mueller, it would be true of special counsel Jack Smith. That's the reasoning in D.C. It was rejected by Judge Cannon. So there's now conflict between the D.C. cases and Judge Cannon.”

---

===

{{{== note ccr 1st amend bs CONFLICTS BETWEEN CIRCUITS, SHOPPING?

desmog 4 24

fossil fuel interest groups have mobilized quickly to oppose a new rule issued by the Biden administration designed to speed up America’s transition to hybrid and electric vehicles.

The rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized on March 20, limits emissions from tailpipes on new cars, starting in 2027.

Well before the EPA finalized the new standard, powerful corporate lobbies like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) had already promised to spend at least a million dollars campaigning against the rule by falsely portraying it as a “ban” on new cars. The group’s warn viewers that their freedoms and choices “will soon be taking a back seat to big government.”

The EPA predicts that the change would result in around two-thirds of new vehicle sales being hybrid or electric by 2032 — up from around eight percent today.

Beyond stopping more than 7 billion tons of carbon pollution, the agency predicts that the rule could save drivers more than $60 billion in fuel and maintenance costs, according to an EPA fact sheet that accompanied the final rule. The pollution reduction benefits would particularly benefit Black and brown communities because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from air pollution.

“These strongest-ever pollution standards for cars solidify America’s leadership in building a clean transportation future and creating good-paying American jobs,” EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement.

Compared to the EPA’s initial proposal, the final rule was scaled back to give car manufacturers more time to comply, but the New York Times still described the new standard as “one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history.”

The heads of AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute (API) — the leading trade group for the oil and gas industry — declared in a joint statement that the rule “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”

In February, AFPM had already begun portraying the rule as a “car ban” and announced a “seven-figure issue campaign” featuring TV and digital ads, as well as billboards and text messages. Some of the efforts target electoral swing states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The group also launched a website that warns readers, in all caps, to “keep the government’s hands off our cars!”

Despite the industry’s attempt to misleadingly brand the new standard, “this is not a ban of internal combustion engines,” Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.

Last year, AFPM spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government — more than any year in its history — according to OpenSecrets.

The top two bills the group reported lobbying for are designed to prevent the EPA from finalizing or enforcing vehicle emissions standards. Both bills passed the House last year. (Chevron, API, Koch Industries, and Marathon Petroleum are among the other industry groups and companies that lobbied for these bills last year.)

In addition to lobbying Congress and running million-dollar public influence campaigns, corporate trade groups have increasingly used lawsuits and the threat of costly, time-consuming litigation to stop or delay climate-related regulations.

Earlier this month, for instance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a long-delayed rule that requires public companies to disclose some of their emissions and climate risks that could impact their businesses. While the published rule was substantially weaker than what the SEC originally proposed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was among a handful of conservative interest groups that immediately challenged the measure in court.

Another recent EPA rule targeting methane emissions also met with opposition from Republican officials and oil and gas interests, according to Politico.

And on March 6, barely a month after the EPA finalized a separate rule limiting soot pollution, API, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber were among eight trade groups that sued the agency in the D.C. Circuit court.

‘Prepared to challenge it in court’

In a blog post, AFPM claims that the EPA “does not have authority to overhaul the U.S. economy or transportation system or compel — directly or otherwise — the use of EVs to address vehicle emissions.”

Similar objections to the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations have found a receptive audience among the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

If the EPA doesn’t undo the tailpipe emissions rule, “our organizations are certainly prepared to challenge it in court,” the AFPM and API CEOs said in the joint statement that followed the announcement.

In attacking the rule, corporate interest groups like AFPM are following a well-trod path of fighting new climate regulations on every playing field they can find.

During the Trump administration, AFPM helped lead a successful effort to weaken previous EPA fuel efficiency standards. The group helped marshal Republican governors to advocate for the rollback, while also supporting Energy4US, a front group that encouraged Americans to flood the EPA with public comments, as DeSmog previously reported.

“One of the big advantages that oil industry lobbyists like AFPM have is money, and AFPM certainly isn’t afraid to use it,” Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at the investigative outlet Documented, told DeSmog in an email.

“Million dollar ad campaigns are an unfortunately common way for groups like AFPM to pressure legislators and regulators by raising the political temperature on an issue. Litigation slows things further, leading to years of delays in implementation.”

---

REF DESMOG

March 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. judicial panel on Thursday consolidated at least nine lawsuits challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's new rules requiring public companies to report climate-related risks in a venue favored by Republican-led states and a business group.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was chosen randomly via a lottery and will consider the legal challenges to the landmark rule, which aims to standardize public company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The court, which has 10 Republican-appointed active judges and one appointed by a Democratic president, was the venue where nine Republican-led states including Iowa, Montana and North Dakota and the business lobbying group American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed their challenge.

Representatives for the Republican-led states and industry challengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The SEC declined to comment.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats.

They were approved by the SEC on March 6, and the first lawsuit seeking to block them was filed later that day.

The consolidated lawsuits include challenges filed by at least 25 Republican-led states, energy industry companies and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, seeking to overturn the rules.

They have argued, among other things, that the disclosure requirements amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

Challengers on the other side of the issue like the environmental organization the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council have meanwhile said the rules do not go far enough to protect investors, and arbitrarily stripped the final version of stronger reporting requirement rules.

Representatives for the environmental groups said they look forward to arguing before the court.

The conservative-dominated 5th Circuit, the court where Texas and energy companies filed their challenges, temporarily paused the rules from going into effect on Friday.

The SEC is expected to ask the 8th Circuit to revisit that ruling. It had told the 5th Circuit a pause was unnecessary, since the rules have extended compliance deadlines that do not require disclosures before March 2026.}:

The agency has also said the rules "fit comfortably within" its authority to require disclosure of information important to investors, and that they would provide "consistent, comparable and reliable information" about climate risks.

The nine lawsuits were filed in six appeals courts. The 8th Circuit had previously set a deadline for the challengers who sued in that court to file their opening brief in May.

REF

March 6 (Reuters) - Ten Republican-led states have sued to challenge new federal rules that require U.S.-listed companies to report climate-related risks, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Attorney General's Office said on Wednesday, hours after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the rules.

The states, which also include Georgia, Alabama and Alaska, filed the petition at the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the spokesperson. The rules aim to standardize climate-related company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Sierra Club environmental group, meanwhile, said it was considering suing the SEC because it believed the new rules did not go far enough.

The SEC, Wall Street’s top regulator, said the information would give investors reliable information about financial risks companies face related to climate change.

An SEC spokesperson said in a statement that the agency crafts rules that are consistent with its legal authority, and that it will "vigorously defend" the climate disclosure rules in court.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats. Similar disclosure requirements have been adopted in Europe and in California.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey on Wednesday said during a press conference that the Biden administration is trying to act as a "puppeteer" using public companies to drive forward its climate agenda.

Republican-led states had been signaling their intent to challenge the rules for years, arguing in public comments in 2022 that they amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

They claimed then the rules would require companies to create, gather and disclose a “crushing” amount of material that goes well beyond the finance-based disclosures that investors need.

Anticipating legal challenges, the Biden administration had dropped more ambitious elements of the rules requiring companies to disclose “Scope 3” emissions, indirect emissions by suppliers or customers.

For many businesses, Scope 3 emissions account for 70% of their carbon footprint, according to the consulting firm Deloitte.

The final SEC rules also allow larger companies to determine whether emissions from their own operations and the power they purchase constitute information investors need to make decisions.

Morrisey said that despite changes to the proposed rule, the finalized rule was still defective and unconstitutional.

The Sierra Club, one of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the U.S., said in a statement it was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the SEC's decision to remove the more robust reporting requirements. The group said it would also defend the SEC's legal authority to issue and implement the rules.

In California state court, litigation has been already been filed by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging that state’s climate disclosure laws, which include Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. That lawsuit filed in January said the state’s laws will impose “massive” costs on businesses and violate free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution by compelling the disclosures.

===}}}:

===

gmail 2 24 cci

Maryland communities move one step closer to putting Big Oil on trial following appeals court ruling.

Communities in Maryland are closer than ever to putting Big Oil on trial after a federal appeals court this week once again rejected industry attempts to escape facing accountability for their climate lies. The ruling continues the unbroken string of judicial wins for local governments seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their decades-long campaign of climate deception in state court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously rejected oil majors’ — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute — attempts to stop cases in Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, from moving forward in state court, where they were originally filed. The Fourth Circuit issued a similar ruling in favor of the City of Baltimore’s climate accountability lawsuit in 2022.

Oil and gas companies have attempted to remove many of the climate accountability lawsuits they’re facing from state court, only to be repeatedly shut down by courts time and again.

Federal district courts across the nation have now rejected these same oil industry arguments a total of 17 times, including in Vermont, Minnesota, D.C., California, Hawai’i, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Colorado. Those rulings have been affirmed 11 times by eight separate federal appeals courts.

“The companies have sought—over and over and over—to remove the cases to federal court,” wrote Judge Toby Heytens in the unanimous ruling for Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. “By our count, that gambit has failed in at least ten cases already. The eleventh time is not the charm.”

In 2021, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson wrote that Big Oil’s arguments for federal jurisdiction in accountability lawsuits brought by state and local governments have “a batting average of .000.” More than two years later, that’s still the case.

---

===

gmail 2 24

Judges continue to reject oil industry efforts to escape accountability in state court.

Vermont is another step closer to putting Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies after a federal district court ruled last week the lawsuit can move forward in state court, where it was originally filed. The decision continues oil companies’ unbroken losing streak in their attempts to escape facing accountability for their climate lies in dozens of local and state government cases.

Vermont’s lawsuit, filed by the state Attorney General’s office in 2021, charges ExxonMobil, Shell, and other major polluters with knowingly lying to the public about the climate harms of their products and ultimately denying Vermont consumers the opportunity to make informed choices on their fossil fuel products. The lawsuit asserts that Big Oil’s deceptive marketing not only misled consumers, but also delayed action and created costly and hazardous conditions for Vermont residents, like recent deadly floods exacerbated by climate change. The case, which will now be litigated in state court, seeks to force the oil companies to stop deceiving the public and relinquish the profits they made while promoting their false advertising.

“Vermonters deserve to know the truth about fossil fuel products as they make consumer choices,” Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark said after the ruling. “This case seeks to hold accountable fossil fuel companies that misrepresented their products and hid information from the public.”

To date, eight federal appeals courts — including the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the District of Vermont — and more than a dozen federal district courts have unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry’s arguments to prevent these lawsuits from moving forward in state courts. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined Big Oil’s requests to review one of those lower court rulings for the third time.

“The fossil fuel industry’s efforts to deceive the public about climate change have caused irreparable harm to communities,” CCI President Richard Wiles said. “The people of Vermont deserve their day in court to make these companies answer for their fraud.”

===

---

mma 2 24

Right-wing media responded to a federal appeals court ruling on Tuesday denying former President Donald Trump’s claims of absolute immunity by offering absurd legal arguments and demonstrating general confusion about the facts of the case.

The D.C. appeals court ruled that Trump can be prosecuted for his actions to overturn the result of the 2020 election, a major victory for special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. Trump is expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

As Politico reported:

The judges concluded that longstanding doctrines of “immunity” for presidents from civil lawsuits related to their official duties did not extend to alleged criminal acts — and certainly not for a former president. Similarly, they concluded that the gravity of the specific charges against Trump weighed heavily against declaring him immune, even when balanced against concerns about the chilling effect it could have on future presidents.

Right-wing pundits reacted by attacking the decision, with some claiming it was partisan and that future Republican administrations should target President Joe Biden.

OutKick’s Clay Travis claimed that if the case moved forward it would “violate DOJ precedent and put Trump on trial in the late summer and fall of an election year.”

January 6 conspiracy theorist Julie Kelly called it the “least shocking thing ever,” painting the ruling as partisan and downplaying the charges against Trump as “vague”

Daily Caller editor Vince Coglianese posted on X (formerly Twitter) that a sentence the order meant Trump was “not entitled to the presumption of innocence.” The very next sentence in the decision proved him wrong.

Trump’s son and right-wing influencer Donald Trump Jr. wrote that the ruling meant future presidents would “be incapable of action for fear of future partisan reprisal,” which “endangers the United States and sets a terrible precedent.”

Conservative judicial activist Mike Davis argued the judges “ignored the Constitution's separation of powers” and that a future Trump “Justice Department can prosecute Biden for his illegal release of dangerous migrants into the United States and the natural and probable crimes they commit.” In fact, the judges found that it was Trump’s argument that “would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches.”

“Pizzagate” conspiracy theorist and neo-Nazi collaborator Jack Posobiec echoed Davis, writing, “This presidential immunity ruling means Biden can be indicted right now for treason by aiding an invasion.”

---

1 24 tx?

Federal appeals court rules emergency rooms are not required to perform life-saving abortions - Alternet.org

---

A legal analyst recently explained why Americans should not expect much from judges currently on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

On Saturday, September 17, attorney and legal analyst Elie Mystal appeared on MSNBC News' "The Cross Connection" where she weighed in on the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into Trump and the documents confiscated from his Mar-a-Lago estate by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

Since Florida Judge Aileen Cannon's appointment of a special master to review the confiscated documents, Myskal insists the possible outcome still appears to be a mystery due to six of the judges being appointed by the former president.

During the interview, Myskal spoke with MSNBC's Tiffany Cross, Trump may have the advantage of achieving favorable outcomes in each case being overseen by judges he appointed.

"The DOJ is no longer appealing fighting a special master and they are only asking for a small stay for part of the order. What do you think the DOJ's play is here? What is the reasoning behind that?," host Cross asked.

"They're realizing that the 11th circuit is also infected with Trump judges, right?" Mystal exclaimed. "Aileen Cannon, this district judge was making these horrible, biased corrupt decisions, she was appointed by Trump and confirmed nine days after he lost the election."

He went on to explain why the sitting judges are problematic. "The six judges on the 11th Circuit are Trump judges," he continued. "That is a huge problem. A third of the Supreme Court was appointed by Donald Trump. Every one of the 234 or so judges that Trump appointed is suspect."

According to Myskal, the judicial makeup Trump left behind serves as a threat to the United States' democracy.

"We have to start understanding that these are 234 land mines that Trump left behind in order to potentially blow up our democracy down the road," he explained. "These people serve for life. I have said on this program and many programs that one of the key reasons that Trump is not already in jail is that he keeps finding people who are willing to lie, cheat, and debase themselves for him."

"Aileen Cannon is just the latest person who is willing to debase herself, her profession,and her office in service of Donald Trump," Mystal insisted. "So he found another one. And he might find some more on the 11th Circuit. he might find some more on the Supreme Court."

"The DOJis trying to navigate that reality and all I'm trying to say is to get people to understand that reality; that is not new. People who now say the 11th Circuit may be more reasonable, again, you can't count on that. You have to treat every single Trump appointee as suspect until proven otherwise."

Watch the full discussion below or at this link.

===

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2022/04/19/ninth-circuit-deals-latest-blow-big-oil-ruling-california-climate-lawsuits

for Immediate Release

Tuesday April 19, 2022,

Center for Climate Integrity

Contact

Mike Meno, Center for Climate Integrity, mike@climateintegrity.org

PRESS RELEASE

Ninth Circuit Deals Latest Blow to Big Oil, Ruling that California Climate Lawsuits Belong in State Court

Three Federal Appeals Courts Have Now Handed Major Losses to Fossil Fuel Companies After the U.S. Supreme Court Ordered Expanded Review of Big Oil’s Arguments for Federal Jurisdiction

WASHINGTON -

Lawsuits from six California cities and counties seeking to hold major oil and gas companies — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell — accountable for the cost of climate damages they knowingly caused should proceed in state court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz, and the cities of Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz are now one key step closer to putting oil majors on trial for deceiving the public about their role in climate change.

The Ninth Circuit decision marks the third time this year that a federal appeals court has rejected arguments from the oil industry to move climate liability lawsuits filed in state court to federal courtfollowing a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

At least ten federal district courts have similarly ruled that climate accountability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court — “a batting average of .000” for the fossil fuel industry, in the words of one judge.

In response, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement:

“This is another big, but not surprising, loss for the oil and gas majors. Three federal appeals courts have now agreed that their arguments to escape accountability in state court do not pass muster. This ruling is a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products’ role in fueling the climate crisis.”

Background:

Earlier this year, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit issued similar rulings in climate accountability lawsuits from communities in Colorado and Maryland, respectively.

Four other federal circuit courts across the country are considering similar arguments from Exxon and other oil and gas companies, which have repeatedly lost efforts to move climate accountability lawsuits out of state court.

Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change.

===

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_district_court_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

United States district court judges appointed by Donald Trump

The following 175 pages are in this category, out of 175 total. This list may not reflect recent changes

===

no lnx an 11 21

'Pro-death cult strikes back': Right-wing judges block Biden’s vaccine rule for big companies

Kenny Stancil and Common Dreams November 08, 2021

Progressives concerned about workplace safety and public health responded with dismay after a federal appeals court on Saturday temporarily blocked the Biden administration's attempt to require workers at companies with 100 or more employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19 or tested weekly.

Citing "grave statutory and constitutional" problems with the rule, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued the stay in response to a joint petition filed Friday by a coalition of businesses, conservative advocacy groups, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah.

That legal challenge, and separate lawsuits from Republican-led states, came just one day after President Joe Biden announced that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would begin enforcing its newly unveiled Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) in the coming weeks. Companies with at least 100 employees have until December 5 to require unvaccinated workers to wear masks indoors, and by January 4, they must require vaccinations or administer weekly tests.

Decrying the decision of the "right-wing Fifth Circuit," labor journalist Steven Greenhouse said on social media that "it's terrible for worker safety and public health that three conservative activist judges have suspended Biden's... new rule requiring workers at companies with more than 100 workers to get vaccinated or tested."

"OSHA's mission is to protect workers' health," Greenhouse continued, "but the appellate judges seem to forget that Covid has killed thousands of meatpacking, retail, and other workers."

More than 750,000 people in the U.S. have died from Covid-19 since the pandemic started last March, and the disease continues to kill nearly 1,100 people per day, most of them unvaccinated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Recent studies confirm that vaccines save lives.Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services analyzed the relationship between county-level inoculation rates and Covid-19 outcomes among U.S. seniors and found that vaccines helped ward off 265,000 infections, 107,000 hospitalizations, and 39,000 deaths during the first five months of 2021.

And in September, CDC researchers found that individuals in the U.S. who were not fully vaccinated last spring and summer were 11 times more likely to die after being infected with the coronavirus—and over 10 times more likely to be hospitalized—than those who were fully inoculated.

Greenhouse said that "the judges evidently sympathize with [Texas Republican Gov.] Greg Abbott's let-people-die stance—that it'soverreachfor OSHA to act strongly to protect workers from Covid."

David Michaels, a leader of OSHA during the Obama administration, also rebuked the federal appeals court, describing its decision as legally dubious and politically motivated.

"The same activist court that refused to stay Texas' law that permits bounty hunters to sue anyone who aids an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy has stayed an OSHA rule that is clearly within OSHA's authority, will save lives, and make workplaces safe," he told the New York Times.

According to the Times, "At the core of the legal challenge is the question of whether OSHA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule and whether such a mandate would need to be passed by Congress."

The newspaper reported:

The suit against the mandate stated that President Biden "set the legislative policy" of substantially increasing the number of Americans covered by vaccination requirements, and "then set binding rules enforced with the threat of large fines."

"That is a quintessential legislative act—and one wholly unrelated to the purpose of OSHA itself, which is protecting workplace safety," the suit said. "Nowhere in OSHA's enabling legislation does Congress confer upon it the power to end pandemics."

Corporate executives asked, and the Biden administration agreed, to delay implementation of OSHA's new ETS "until after the New Year, citing concerns about worker shortages during the important holiday season," Reuters noted.

Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda, meanwhile, said in a statement that the Labor Department, home to OSHA, is "confident in its legal authority" to issue vaccine requirements.

The vaccine rule for companies with 100 or more employees "applies to 84.2 million workers at 1.9 million private-sector employers," Reuters reported. "OSHA estimates that 31.7 million of [those] workers are unvaccinated and 60% of employers will require vaccinations, up from 25% today, resulting in another 22.7 million employees getting vaccinated."

Several million additional workers are covered by the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for employees of the executive branch, federal contractors, and staff at healthcare facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid funding. OSHA officials say they are considering expanding the jab-or-test rule to include companies with fewer than 100 workers.

"The Occupational Safety and Health Act explicitly gives OSHA the authority to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them," Nanda said. "We are fully prepared to defend this standard in court."

The Fifth Circuit panel's two-page order directs the Biden administration to respond to the request for a permanent injunction against the rule by 5 p.m. ET Monday.

As the Times noted, it remains unclear whether the court's stay "would be a procedural blip for the Biden administration or the first step in the unwinding of the mandate."

The newspaper explained that "after both sides have filed briefs, the court will decide whether to lift the temporary injunction, allowing the rule to proceed as planned, or whether to grant a permanent injunction. OSHA could then take the case to the Supreme Court."

While some legal experts argue that the Labor Department has the regulatory authority to compel private employers to protect the health of workers and the broader public through mandatory vaccination amid a deadly global pandemic,Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told Reuters that "there will be so much litigation it will never see the light of day."

Twenty-four attorneys general threatened to sue the Biden administration over the rule back in September, and several followed through immediately after it was published in the federal register on Friday.

In addition to the petition filed with the Fifth Circuit, attorneys general in 11 states—Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

And in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia sued, with Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis saying at a press conference that "the federal government can't just unilaterally impose medical policy under the guise of workplace regulation."

Roughly 70% of U.S. adults are fully inoculated against Covid-19, and about 80% have received at least one shot, according to the CDC. Recent polling shows that a majority of U.S. adults favor Covid-19 vaccination requirements, with only about one-fifth to one-quarter of respondents opposed.

OSHA, Reuters pointed out, is "fighting history. The agency has issued 10 ETS over its 50 years. Of the six that were challenged in court, only one survived entirely intact."

Donald Verrilli, U.S. solicitor general during former President Barack Obama's administration, however, told the news outlet that the Biden administration "wouldn't move forward unless they thought that they could defend it legally... I think the constitutional challenges are all going to fail."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Here's why Noam Chomsky is surprised by Joe Biden's presidency ... ›

New report shows Biden actually has lots of good news to brag ... ›

Biden is making a critical mistake about Democrats' loss in Virginia ... ›

Related Articles Around the Web

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/this-single-sentence-from-a-federal-courts-ruling-exposes-the-dark-conservative-plot-against-voting/

cody f

Three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday stayed an injunction by a lower district court that sought to protect the voting rights of Texans voting by mail.

The majority decision, written by Judge Jerry E. Smith, blocked the lower court's orders to Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs that would have required officials to notify Texans whose mail ballots were rejected because of an apparent signature mismatch and give them an opportunity to address the issue. Under current law, election officials can reject a mail ballot if they determine that the signature does not match the voter's signature on file; officials must notify the voter of the rejection within 10 days. But even then, the voter may not be given an opportunity to fix the problem.

As the result of an ongoing lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered Hughs to adopt procedures that would allow voters to address a signature mismatch, or to stop rejecting ballots based on signature issues altogether. Judge Orlando Garcia said the existing policy "plainly violates certain voters' constitutional rights." But the Fifth Circuit rejected this injunction, saying Hughs should follow the law as written — rejecting ballots without necessarily giving voters any due process.

In a remarkable sentence encapsulating the emerging right-wing view of voting rights, the decision explained:

Because Texas's strong interest in safeguarding the integrity of its elections from voter fraud far outweighs any burden the state's voting procedures place on the right to vote, we stay the injunction pending appeal.

While this may sound like dry legalese, it's a dramatically bold and unambiguously dangerous idea. The court's claim is that "any burden" on the right to vote can be justified if it is meant to restrict the opportunity for voter fraud.

This notion sounds like a farcical caricature of Republicans' views on voting, but it's an actual statement from right-wing judges defending a right-wing administration. It falls apart under even the mildest scrutiny though. While preventing voter fraud is surely a legitimate interest of the state, there must be some reasonable limits on how far the government can go in trying to prevent it. Is it reasonable to, say, create so many obstacles to voting that 10,000 fewer ballots will be cast in an election if doing so will also stop a handful of fraudulent ballots?

The answer should obviously be "no." The problem with voter fraud is that it distorts the will of the electorate, undermining the very point of a democracy. But if efforts to combat voter fraud distort the democratic process even more than fraud would, it's difficult to see how they can be justified. And all the best evidence indicates that voter fraud is incredibly rare.

But when Republicans discuss voter fraud, all they ever seem to care about is stopping the extremely rare cases of illegally cast ballots. They almost never consider balancing the risk of fraud with the risk of preventing legitimate votes from being cast.In this decision, the court made that view explicit. And it's even more absurd than it sounds, because the decision actually allows election officials to literally throw away votesthat may have been legitimately cast without giving the voter any platform to challenge this decision. Isn't this at least as bad as voter fraud?

The Texas Tribune reports of this process:

The state election code does not establish any standards for signature review, which is conducted by local election officials who seldom have training in signature verification.

So at best, the disposal of ballots may be entirely capricious. At worst, it could disproportionately target groups of voters that the existing government would rather not have voting — minority groups, for instance, that may be likely to vote Democrat. It may be hard to say what the motivation is for the laws in this particular case, but the GOP's actions in the past decade have made clear that they see restricting the right to vote as a vital part of retaining electoral power. The court's reasoning lays bear this motivation: Based on the slimmest fears about "voter fraud," they can justify restricting voters' rights as much as possible. The path to illegitimately holding on to office is clear.

The Fifth Court's decision justified the stay in part by arguing against the idea that there's a due process protection for the right vote. But even if there is, the court argued, there isn't a right to vote by mail— that's simply an option that Texas provides without being obligated to.

This reasoning, though, is spurious. If Texas provides voters the option to vote by mail, it is not reasonable that it can then simply reject those ballots based on dubious and unreviewable claims of a signature mismatch that the voter may not even be alerted to until after Election Day has passed. Once it has provided the option of voting by mail, Texas is still obligated to ensure that the process provides reasonable protections for voters' rights.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Patrick Higginbotham rejected the majority's arguments for the stay. He agreed with issuing the stay, however, noting the difficulties of changing election rules while votes are already being cast. And he warned that the matter in question is grave:

In 2016 and 2018, "approximately 5,000 [Texas] ballots were rejected on the basis of perceived signature mismatches."8 Such "small" differences have the potential to decide both local and national elections. And with the large increase in votes cast by mail in our ongoing pandemic that error rate would toss out far greater numbers. There is much at stake here.

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/mcconnell-is-betting-democrats-dont-have-the-will-to-fight-fire-with-fire-biden-should-prove-them-wrong

...Back in 2013, then-CongressmanTom Cotton introduced a bill in the House called the "Stop Court-Packing Act" which would haveeliminated three seats on the D.C. Court of Appeals. That seems like a strange title, but it gives away the game. He was trying to stop President Obama from being able to fill those three empty seats. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, agreed, writing a piece in the National Review called "Don't let the Democrats pack the DC Circuit." Keep in mind that these were legitimate vacancies.

As it happens, McConnell kept those and many other seats open so that a Republicans could fill them, so they needn't have worried. And he's very proud of it:

...

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/texas-counties-can-offer-only-one-drop-off-ballot-location-federal-appeals-court-rules-upholding-gov-greg-abbotts-order/

Emma Platoff, The Texas Tribune Oct. 13, 2020

"Texas counties can offer only one drop-off ballot location, federal appeals court rules, upholding Gov. Greg Abbott's order"was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Texas counties may collect mail-in ballots at only one location, a federal appeals court ruled late Monday, once again upholding an order from Gov. Greg Abbott that restricts voting options.

Abbott in July acted to lengthen the early voting period and allow voters to deliver completed absentee ballots in person for longer than the normal period. But after large Democratic counties including Harris and Travis established several sites where voters could deliver their ballots, Abbott ordered Oct. 1 that they would be limited to one.

A number of civil rights groups sued in at least four lawsuits, calling the order an act of voter suppression that would disproportionately impact low-income voters, voters with disabilities, older voters and voters of color in Democratic counties. A federal judge on Friday sided with those groups, blocking Texas from enforcing the ruling.

But a three-judge panel on the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appealstemporarily halted that ruling on Saturday and on Monday gave a more formal word on the matter in a written opinion.

“Leaving the Governor's October 1 Proclamation in place still gives Texas absentee voters many ways to cast their ballots in the November 3 election. These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-COVID world," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan for the panel of three judges all appointed by President Donald Trump. “The October 1 Proclamation abridges no one's right to vote."

OMFG

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/mcconnell-quietly-rams-through-more-lifetime-trump-judges-while-blocking-19-relief-everyone-in-america-should-be-outraged/

no lnx twt ari berman jake j

as Covid-19 relief for jobless and hungry Americans, collapsing small businesses, and state and local governments languishes in the Senate GOP’s legislative graveyard, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday further advanced his years-long project of dragging U.S. federal courts to the right by ramming through three more of President Donald Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees and teed up votes on several others.

Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted on Twitter that the latest confirmations came four months to the day after the Democrat-controlled House passed the Heroes Act, a $3 trillion coronavirus relief package that McConnell dismissed as an “unserious liberal wish list” and blocked from receiving a vote in the Senate.

“Everyone in America should be outraged that this is how Mitch McConnell is spending the Senate’s time amid a pandemic,” tweeted Gupta.

In a separate tweet Wednesday morning, Gupta urged the U.S. public to “pay attention” as McConnell and Trump’s court takeover proceeds apace amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis and resulting economic collapse—to which Senate Republicans have responded by putting forth legislation decried as piecemeal and wholly inadequate.

"As McConnell blocks the Heroes Act, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, election funding, and dozens of civil rights bills, his priority today (amid the pandemic) will be confirming three more Trump judges after confirming three yesterday,” said Gupta. “It’s an outrage.”

While Senate Democrats don’t have the numbers to block Trump’s judicial nominees, few even bothered to object Wednesday to the confirmations of John Holcomb, Stanley Blumenfeld, and Mark Scarsi to lifetime positions on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Just 12 Democratic senators voted against Holcomb and Scarsi, and only four voted against Blumenfeld.

The confirmations came days after major court decisions laid bare the real-world consequences of Trump and McConnell’s takeover of the U.S. judiciary, which will impact key areas of American society—from climate policy to voting rights—for decades to come.

Last Friday, as Common Dreams reported, the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a Florida requirement that state residents with past felony convictions pay off all court fines and fees before they are allowed to register to vote—a ruling made possible by Trump’s appointees.

:{:{}:

“The only reason it was upheld was because Donald Trump flipped the 11th Circuit with five Trump judges,” Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman told Democracy Now! on Tuesday. “And this is why Mitch McConnell in the Republican Senate is so intent on confirming judges and doing nothing else. This week, McConnell is going to confirmeight more judges to the federal bench, but they’re not doing anything else to help the American people.”

Late Sunday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—which Trump also flipped with right-wing judges—upheld the White House’s push to end “temporary protected status” (TPS)for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan.

“Without Congressional action, this will lead to devastating moral and economic consequences not just for TPS holders but for their families, communities, and for the entire country,” Peniel Ibe, policy engagement coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, warned in response to the ruling.

===

DN 9/15/20 McConn flip 11th districtso vote down felony re-enfranchise (fees = poll tax); 8 more judges this week

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/chief-justice-roberts-in-the-hot-seat-over-mcconnells-court-packing-scheme/

chief judge of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Sri Srinivasan, has requested an inquiry into whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and retired Judge Thomas B. Griffith engineered the latter’s retirement so McConnell could install a protégé. Srinivasan has asked Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to assign the inquiry to another circuit.

This comes as advocacy group Demand Justice calls for a delay in the confirmation hearing of Judge Justin Walker, a former intern of McConnell’s and an extreme partisan who was a fixture on Fox News defending now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his show-hearings.“Justin Walker’s nomination was already controversial, but this emerging investigation means an even darker cloud is hanging over his appointment,” Demand Justice founder Brian Fallon said in a statement released following the announcement of the inquiry. Walker’s nomination is controversial because he is not just an extreme partisan but is so woefully inexperienced in conducting law that the American Bar Association deemed him unqualified for the job McConnell handed to him last fall, on the district court where he now serves.

“The hearing on Walker’s nomination should not go forward until we know the truth about what ethical lines Mitch McConnell crossed to get Walker this seat,” Fallon continued. “At the very least, McConnell should come clean about whether and when he contacted Judge Thomas Griffith prior to his sudden retirement.”

McConnell’s court packing efforts have made news before, including his campaign of leaning on Republican federal judges to get them to retire so he can install very young and extreme partisans in their seats. McConnell and Trump have already filled more than one-quarter of the appeals court seats, but McConnell won’t rest until he’s got the maximum possible, even if that means prying out Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II-appointed judges.

Griffith is a former Senate legal counsel nominated to the appeals court in 2004 by President George W. Bush. Neither he nor McConnell will say whether he is among the judges subject to the pressure campaign led by McConnell. The D.C. Court of Appeals is the second highest court in the nation. It’s the key court for deciding cases relating to the constitutionality of federal rules and regulations and thus the reach of government. It provides a stepping stone both to Supreme Court seats and for some of the most important cases to reach the Supreme Court. Stacking it is as critical to McConnell’s extremist government coup as is stacking the Supreme Court.

“The coordinated manner of Majority Leader McConnell’s involvement in the judges’ decision-making is quite unprecedented and raises significant ethical questions for the judges who heed his advice,” Demand Justice said in its letter requesting an investigation. A “thorough inquiry into the judge’s announcement and scheduled retirement, including when and how the decision to retire was made, and with whose input, is crucial.” Judge Srinivasan apparently is concerned enough to request the inquiry.

“The organization’s request for an inquiry concerns the decision of a judge of this court to retire from service and the resulting creation of a vacancy on this court, which would be filled by a future colleague on this court,” Srinivasan wrote. He added that he made this ruling ruling without “any inquiry by this court into the statements contained in the unverified correspondence or the questions posited by the organization in the correspondence about the possibility of judicial misconduct.” The judge said he was making the ruling public since he wanted to make sure it was clear the concerns about McConnell’s actions were not being ignored, because the questions brought up by Demand Progress “about the possibility of judicial misconduct have been reported in various major news outlets.”

Walker’s hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. It seems unlikely that Moscow Mitch or Leningrad Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, will decide to postpone the hearing out of concern about appearances of extreme partisanship. Because it’s McConnell and Graham we’re talking about. Once again, the ball in is Chief Justice John Roberts’ court.

===

520

THIS WEEK, Mitch McConnell is bringing the Senate back in session ... no, it's not to pass emergency coronavirus relief ... it's to ram through the confirmation of some of Trump's most unfit judicial nominees yet!

Justin Walker -- a Brett Kavanaugh protégé who not only is a right-wing extremist, but also severely lacks experience and has been rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association (ABA)-- will be considered by the Judiciary Committee in a matter of days for his nomination to the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals. ALL senators need to know that Americans are paying attention and we REJECT Trump and McConnell's efforts to rubber-stamp unfit judges, especially during the current crisis.

===

http://neatoday.org/2016/04/14/vergara-overturned-appeals-court/

On Thursday, the California Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, overturned the deeply-flawed lower court ruling in *Vergara v. State of California* issued in 2014, which held that laws governing so-called teacher “tenure” were unconstitutional.

“Today was a win for our educators, our schools and most importantly, our students,” NEA President Lily Eskelsen García said responding to the ruling. “Now we must return to working on real solutions to ensure all of our students succeed. Only when teachers, school boards, and administrators work together can we ensure that there is a great public school for every student.”

While the decision was good news for educators, said California Teachers AssociationPresident Eric C. Heins, it was a huge win for students.

“Today’s ruling reversing Judge Rolf Treu’s decision overwhelmingly underscores that the laws under attack have been good for public education and for kids,” said Heins. “Stripping teachers of their ability to stand up for their students and robbing school districts of the tools they need to make sound employment decisions was a wrong-headed scheme developed by people with no education expertise and the appellate court justices saw that.”...

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/federal-judge-says-flint-water-lawsuit-actually-can-target-the-former-governor-meaning-he-may-finally-be-held-accountable/

A federal judge on Monday—who agreed that allegations of “conscience shocking” conduct claimed by plaintiffs were “plausible”—reinstated Michigan’s former Governor Rick Snyder as a defendant in a class action lawsuit by the victims of the water crisis in the city of Flintthat first captured national headlines in 2014.

bo appt Eastern District

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Ellen_Levy

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2019/04/gov-snyder-back-in-as-defendant-in-class-action-flint-water-lawsuit-judge-decides.html]

After earlier removing Snyder from the suit, brought by city residents harmed by the poisoning of the municipal water supply, U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy reversed that decision as she noted the plaintiffs had shown the allegations against Snyder and his fellow co-defendants “plausibly describe ‘conscience shocking’ conduct” as thepeople of Flint were stripped of 14th Amendment protections from bodily harm or injury.

The plaintiffs in the suit, Levy wrote in her ruling,

"plausibly state that the Governor acted indifferently to the risk of harm they faced, demonstrating a callous disregard for their right to bodily integrity. This indifference manifested itself in two ways.Initially, the Governor was indifferent because instead of mitigating the risk of harm caused by the contaminated water, he covered it up. In private, he worried about the need to return Flint to DWSD water and the political implications of the crisis. But in public, he denied all knowledge, despite being aware of the developing crisis.”

As a result, plaintiffs were lured into a false sense of security. They could have taken protective measures, if only they had known what the Governor knew. Instead, the Governor misled them into assuming that nothing was wrong. Governor Snyder’s administration even encouraged them to continue to drink and bathe in the water."

The legal team representing the plaintiffs welcome the judge’s determination...

Columbia

Merrick B. Garland, Chief Judge	216-7460
Karen LeCraft Henderson
Judith W. Rogers	216-7260
David S. Tatel	216-7160
Thomas B. Griffith	216-7170
Brett M. Kavanaugh	216-7180
Sri Srinivasan	216-7080
Patricia A. Millett	216-7110
Cornelia T.L. :{Pillard:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:	216-7120
Robert L. Wilkins	216-7240
Gregory G. Katsas	216-7220
Harry T.:{ Edwards:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:	216-7380
Laurence H. Silberman	216-7353
Stephen F. Williams	216-7210
Douglas H. Ginsburg	216-7190
David B. Sentelle	216-7330
A. Raymond Randolph	216-7425

https://www.ecowatch.com/sabal-trail-pipeline-2479133796.html

In Major Climate Decision, DC Circuit Rejects Federal Approval of Sabal Trail Pipeline

By Elly Benson

Last week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) attempts to downplay the massive climate impacts of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, a $3.5 billion project that includes the 515-mile Sabal Trail pipeline. FERC and the pipeline companies argued that even though the project's purpose is to transport fracked gas through Alabama and Georgia to Florida power plants, FERC nonetheless could ignore the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the gas at those plants.

It's Not Just the Journey, It's Also the Destination

In a 2-1 decision, the court agreed with the Sierra Club and its partners that FERC's refusal to analyze these "downstream" emissions—an entirely foreseeable result of constructing the pipeline—violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court vacated FERC's approval of the project and remanded to the agency with instructions to prepare an environmental impact statement consistent with the court's opinion.

Once the court officially returns the matter to FERC, the pipeline should cease operations while FERC undertakes the new analysis. (Despite the shoddy environmental review, the pipeline was allowed to start operating in June).

Noting that "[i]t's not just the journey, ... it's also the destination," the court rejected each of FERC's many excuses for ignoring the emissions from burning the gas. The court found:

FERC is the "legally relevant cause" of the climate-altering emissions because it has the power to deny a pipeline based on harm to the environment.

FERC has estimated that the pipeline will transport 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of gas, and can use this number to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

FERC's vague assertions that "some" emissions may "potentially" be offset by coal plant retirements were so devoid of meaningful information that the environmental impact statement "fail[ed] to fulfill its primary purpose."

Even if the power plants are subject to state or federal greenhouse-gas regulations in the future, such requirements cannot substitute for a proper NEPA analysis (citing a landmark NEPA case from 1971).

The court concluded that FERC "should have either given a quantitative estimate of the downstream greenhouse emissions that will result from burning the natural gas that the pipelines will transport or explained more specifically why it could not have done so." The court further noted that the environmental impact statement needed to include a discussion of the significance of the downstream greenhouse gas emissions, as well as their cumulative impact. Finally, the court directed FERC to explain, in its new environmental impact statement, whether it still maintains that the "social cost of carbon"—a valuable tool that places a dollar value on the harm caused by each ton of carbon emitted—is not useful for NEPA purposes, and why....

===

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22082017/court-rejects-ferc-pipeline-approval-orders-climate-environment-impact-review-sabal-gas

2nd ct win

===

http://www.ecowatch.com/neonicotinoids-epa-violation-2401492224.html

Judge: EPA's Approval of Bee-Killing Pesticides Violated Federal Law

A federal court has ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) systematically violated the Endangered Species Act—a key wildlife protection law—when it approved bee-killing insecticides known as neonicotinoids.

In a case ongoing for the last four years, brought by beekeepers, wildlife conservation groups and food safety and consumer advocates, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that EPA had unlawfully issued 59 pesticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for a wide variety of agricultural, landscaping and ornamental uses.

"This is a vital victory," George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety legal director, said. "Science shows these toxic pesticidesharm bees, endangered species and the broader environment. More than fifty years ago, Rachel Carson warned us to avoid such toxic chemicals, and the court's ruling may bring us one step closer to preventing another Silent Spring."

http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-factory-farm-report-pollution-2355997089.html

Court Orders EPA to Close Loophole, Factory Farms Required to Report Toxic Pollution

The DC Circuit Court ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tuesday to close a loophole that has allowed hazardous substances released into the environment by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to go unreported.

"We applaud the DC Circuit Court's clear decision to enforce this vital environmental safeguard to protect public safety," said Earthjustice attorney Jonathan Smith, who helped argue the case before the court.

...