Tag: legal

  • Red state AG promises legal fight with ICE-resisting local governments

    Red state AG promises legal fight with ICE-resisting local governments

    Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is threatening to sue two local jurisdictions in his state that are refusing to comply with President Donald Trump’s mass deportation program of illegal immigrants. 

    “Now that’s a problem in Indiana, particularly because there’s an Indiana state statute that I enforce that says what you have got to give, whatever level of cooperation is allowed by federal law, you shall give it as a state or local law enforcement official,” Rokita told Fox News Digital in an interview Friday. 

    “And, so, that’s what’s happening here. That defiance I need to look into now.”

    The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) and Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) have indicated they would not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

    ‘DEI ACTIVISM’: REPUBLICAN AGS PRAISE TRUMP SEC MOVE TO REVERSE BIDEN CLIMATE RULE THEY FOUGHT IN COURT

    ICE agents arrested seven illegal immigrants during a workforce operation raid. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

    IMPD Chief Chris Bailey said local police have no authority to enforce federal immigration law and have no plans to participate in immigration sweeps. Similarly, IPS officials announced the district would not allow ICE agents onto school grounds without a criminal warrant.

    “We still have pockets of either elected officials or those that work for elected officials, or some just on their own, that have their own ideas of what the law should be — that is to say not following the law,” Rokita said.

    Rokita urged IPS and IMPD this week to cooperate with ICE or face legal consequences from his office. And it wouldn’t be the first time he’s sued a jurisdiction in his state for not cooperating with federal officials.

    REPUBLICAN STATE AGS BACK TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER IN COURT FILING: ‘TAXPAYERS ARE ON THE HOOK’

    Todd Rokita at lectern

    State AG Todd Rokita says Indiana law requires state and local officials to fully cooperate with federal authorities and that he will require compliance from local jurisdictions looking to evade cooperation. (AG Todd Rokita/X)

    Rokita filed a lawsuit against the St. Joseph County Sheriff’s Department and its sheriff, William Redman, last month, alleging a persistent refusal to comply with federal immigration detainer requests. The lawsuit claims that, between March and September 2024, nine detainer requests from ICE were not honored, hindering ICE’s efforts to apprehend illegal immigrants in the county.

    Indiana University and the local sheriff’s office have refused to cooperate with federal immigration laws, Rokita said, “so we’re going to be in court, and I’m planning to get an injunction against their bad behavior.”

    TRUMP ADMIN HITS BACK AS ACLU LAUNCHES LAWSUIT ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: ‘READY TO FACE THEM’

    Donald Trump in Capitol, flanked by military honor guard

    President-elect Donald Trump arrives before his inauguration at the United States Capitol Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C.  (Melina Mara/Pool/Getty Images)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    President Donald Trump’s ICE raids continue across the country, and the agency detained 700 illegal immigrants last weekend, 500 of whom had prior convictions or charges, according to a senior official from the Trump administration who previously shared the details with Fox News Digital.

    Fox News Digital has reached out to IPS and IMPD for comment.

  • America First Legal files briefs in support of Trump executive order ending birthright citizenship

    America First Legal files briefs in support of Trump executive order ending birthright citizenship

    America First Legal filed two amicus briefs this week in support of President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

    The firm filed the briefs on behalf of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and 17 other committee members.

    Despite there being nearly two dozen Democrat-run states and civil rights groups suing to stop the order and two federal judges ruling to temporarily block it, America First is arguing that there is a clear constitutional basis for denying citizenship to illegal migrants who have broken the country’s immigration laws.

    ‘BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL’: US JUDGE TEMPORARILY BLOCKS TRUMP’S BAN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

    President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    Trump’s order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship” states that “the privilege of United States citizenship does not automatically extend to persons born in the United States” when that person’s parents are either unlawfully present in the U.S. or when the parents’ presence is lawful but temporary.

    The briefs — which were filed in the federal courts for the Western District of Washington and the District of Massachusetts — argue that based on the “text and history” of the 14th Amendment, the Constitution does not confer citizenship on the children of unlawfully present aliens. The briefs claim that citizenship in the U.S. is a political right, not an automatic entitlement.

    The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 and was designed to extend citizenship to African-American former slaves. The amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, told Fox News Digital that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means that citizens must owe their political allegiance to the U.S., not some foreign power or culture. He said that Trump’s order would restore the constitutional principle that only those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. — that is loyal, law-abiding Americans — are citizens.

    NUMEROUS US STATES SUE TRUMP OVER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP EXECUTIVE ORDER AS SUPREME COURT COULD MAKE FINAL DECISION

    Trump border split

    President Donald Trump’s executive order is an effort to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci | Christian Torres/Anadolu via Getty Images)

    “This executive order is constitutional and legally valid,” said Epstein. “The Constitution makes clear that it is not the ‘natural born citizen clause.’ It is a ‘natural born and subject to the jurisdiction thereof clause.’ And we can’t just scratch out ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ ‘Jurisdiction thereof’ means something; it means you are a loyal subject to American jurisdiction and if you’re a disloyal subject — which is clearly someone whose parents entered here illegally — it means you don’t believe in the law.”

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

    Congress has not specifically authorized that any individual born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil is by definition a citizen. That’s nowhere in the statute,” he explained. If Congress decided to pass a law and the courts said it was constitutional, and it said that, in fact, if you’re born on American soil, you’re a citizen, well, then, we’re bound by that law and the Supreme Courts and the federal courts affirming that. But that’s just not the law.”

    Epstein said that the U.S. policy of extending citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including those born to illegal immigrants, breaks with American tradition and disrupts the rule of law.

    REPUBLICAN STATE AGS BACK TRUMP BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER IN COURT FILING: ‘TAXPAYERS ARE ON THE HOOK’

    Border Arizona migrants

    Dan Epstein, vice president of America First Legal, said that the U.S. policy of extending citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, including those born to illegal immigrants, breaks with American tradition and disrupts the rule of law. (U.S. Border Patrol)

    “There’s a lot that hangs in the balance here,” he explained. If we have an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that says that anyone born here is like African-Americans who have a history of slavery or of terrible things, then we actually dilute that American tradition of enfranchising the rights of the descendants of former slaves and that is not what the 14th Amendment was designed to do.”

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Despite Trump’s executive order being currently blocked, Epstein said that he is optimistic that the Supreme Court will eventually rule in Trump’s favor.

    “My expectation is that this is a no-brainer. The law is clear, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ has to mean something,” he said. “And whether you’re looking at the legislative history of that phrase or you’re looking at how it’s been applied — even in [U.S. vs.] Wong Kim Ark, the kind of preeminent case on this — makes clear that jurisdiction means allegiance. So, it’s not a very hard question. It’s a very clear question. And the law has a very clear answer.”

  • Migrants at Guantanamo could result in legal challenges, experts say

    Migrants at Guantanamo could result in legal challenges, experts say

    The Trump administration’s plan to detain some of the most dangerous illegal immigrants arrested in the United States in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, could raise legal concerns and challenges, which could slow efforts to deport them to their home countries, experts say. 

    President Donald Trump has instructed the Pentagon to prepare the facility to house up to 30,000 “criminal illegal aliens” at the U.S. military base. Flights to the facility began this week. 

    Around 150 Marines are at the Naval Station and have set up tents for around 1,000 migrants in the other part of the installation. But those facilities with latrines and showers are not yet ready for an onslaught of 30,000 migrants as promised by Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

    TRUMP-ERA SOUTHERN BORDER SEES MIGRANT ENCOUNTERS PLUMMET BY OVER 60% AS NEW POLICIES KICK IN

    A migrant prepares to board a flight to Guantanamo Bay. The detention of illegal immigrants at Guantanamo could raise legal challenges, experts say.  (Department of Homeland Security)

    Among the uncertainties of the plan, what’s inevitable is that those detained will most likely file petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, which asks a judge to review the legality of the prisoner’s detention, said Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School who teaches a course on military law and Guantanamo Bay. 

    “Nothing has changed in terms of that basic guideline, which means that the writ of habeas corpus, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution in so many words, applies there,” Fidell told Fox News. “And what that means is that the people who are being taken to Guantanamo as part of the administration’s current effort are going to have access to the United States District Court.”

    The first 10 criminal migrants who arrived this week will be held under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) control in a separate wing of the detention facility where the 15 remaining 9/11 military combatants, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 terror attack, are housed.

    TRUMP ADMIN DEPORTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CONVICTED OF A CRIME IS WILDLY POPULAR AMONG NEW YORK VOTERS: POLL

    Guantanamo Prisoner

    In this photo reviewed by U.S. military officials, the control tower of Camp VI detention facility is seen on April 17, 2019, in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

    The arrival of illegal immigrants to Guantanano will almost certainly result in legal challenges, wrote John B. Bellinger III, adjunct senior fellow for international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    “Unauthorized immigrants transferred (or threatened with potential transfer) from the United States to Guantánamo will file a vast array of legal challenges, providing a lot of business for the courts,” he wrote in an article published Tuesday. “Haitian and Cuban refugees previously held on Guantánamo—as well as many of the terrorism suspects—filed numerous suits challenging the detention and conditions, several of which were ultimately heard by the Supreme Court.”

    Hegseth said the administration knows there will be legal challenges but that securing the border requires bold measures. 

    “You’ve got the hardened facility for Tren de Aragua, violent gang member types who need that kind of lock down. And then you have on the other side of the island of Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, a place built for migrants, for those who peacefully are going to be extricated out of the United States,” he said. “We know there will be legal challenges.”

    Hegseth outside the Pentagon with joint chief of staff

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, right, pats Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., on his shoulder as he answers questions from reporters after arriving at the Pentagon on Monday. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

    “Here’s what we know. What President Trump knows is that border security and internal enforcement is national security. Because we were invaded for the last four years under Joe Biden,” Hegseth added. “Tens of millions of people entered our country. We have no idea who they are. We’re going to find those here illegally, prioritizing those with violent or sketchy past and use Guantanamo Bay as a transit way to remove them and send them back to their home country.”

    Bellinger noted that all the prior cases by those detained at Guantanamo involved people detained outside the U.S. Those arrested in the U.S. will be able to file additional claims, he said. 

    “Unauthorized immigrants detained in the United States also have a right to counsel and to be visited by a consular official from their country of nationality,” he said. “Such immigrants may claim that their transfer to Guantanamo will interfere with their ability to exercise these rights.”

    DOZENS OF ILLEGALS ARRESTED IN TRUMP’S HOME COUNTY IN FLORIDA

    In 2008, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision gave anyone sent to Gitmo the right to habeas corpus, meaning anyone at Guantanamo can challenge the legality of their detention. The ruling has played a factor that has slowed the government’s ability to complete the prosecution of Mohammed and the other 9/11 planners.

    “This is not a convenient venue,” said Fidell. “It’s not a venue that insulates the government’s activities from the oversight of the federal courts.”

    Fidell noted that previous administrations have resisted efforts to get the federal court to exercise oversight of Guantanamo, resulting in a series of court cases, notably the U.S. Supreme Court case of Zadvydas v. Davis, noting that those cases dealing with the indefinite detention of illegal immigrants could apply.  

    “What you’re going to see is an intersection of habeas corpus law generally with the very robust body of law that has grown up over the years in the immigration field,” he said. “And the notion that people can be held for prolonged periods of time is one that I think is going to meet with a lot of resistance in the courts.”

    TOM HOMAN CALLS DESIGNATING CARTELS AS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS A ‘GAME CHANGER’

    Migrants Gitmo

    This image shows migrants boarding a flight to Guantanamo Bay. (Department of Homeland Security)

    In the Zadvydas case, the high court ruled that the plenary power doctrine doesn’t allow the indefinite detention of immigrants under order of deportation whom no other country will accept. The case stems from Kestutis Zadvydas, who was a resident alien in the U.S. and was ordered deported in 1994 because of his criminal record. Zadvydas was born to Lithuanian parents in Germany, but was not a citizen of either country, neither of which would accept him. 

    In 1995, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, which was eventually granted and he was released under supervision. The government appealed and the ruling was overturned.  

    From 1991 to 1993 and from 1994 to 1996, part of the base at Guantanamo was used to house large numbers of Haitians and Cubans who fled their countries on boats and rafts to claim asylum in the U.S.

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    In addition to legal challenges that could slow the deportation process, housing these migrants could cost taxpayers millions of dollars. 

    “There’s a theatrical dimension to this. But this is it. This is an operetta for which the seats are extremely expensive,” Fidell said. “We know that it is costing the taxpayers a fortune to keep Guantanamo open for the handful of people being tried by the military commission, as well as the even smaller handful of people who are simply being held pending repatriation or being sent somewhere that will accept them who are long-term detainees.”

    “Congress is going to have to appropriate some money because it’s not going to be free for the taxpayers,” he added. “I think this is a battle that’s going to be fought out not at Guantanamo. It’s going to be fought out at John Marshall Place in Washington, D.C., where the federal court sits.”

  • Trans lawsuit lobbed against Trump admin based on ‘faulty interpretations’: Legal expert

    Trans lawsuit lobbed against Trump admin based on ‘faulty interpretations’: Legal expert

    As LGBT advocates and medical organizations challenge the Trump administration’s ban on transgender treatments for minors, legal expert Sarah Marshall Perry of the Heritage Foundation warns that this lawsuit is just the “tip of the iceberg,” driven by “faulty interpretations,” with more legal battles expected in the coming months.

    “This is a $5 billion a year industry,” Perry said. “I would not expect what I like to call the gender ghouls to go quietly into that good night, they are going to suddenly be faced with a devastating reckoning on exactly where their bottom line lies.”

    “If they want to fight for private insurance coverage through Cigna or Blue Cross Blue Shield, that’s entirely their prerogative,” Perry said, adding that these companies have “very big lobbying presences” to pursue coverage through private insurers.

    LGBTQ+ ADVOCATES, FAMILIES SUE TRUMP ADMIN FOR ENDING FUNDING OF TRANSGENDER HEALTHCARE UNDER 19

    LGBT advocates and medical organizations sued the Trump administration over his executive order barring federal funds from going toward trans surgeries for those under the age of 19. (Getty Images)

    “There is a reason that this type of so-called medical care proliferated, and that’s because they had governmental cover,” she said.

    The lawsuit was filed in Baltimore federal court and seeks an immediate injunction to delay the implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order from last week.

    “Over the past week, hospitals across the country have abruptly halted medical care for transgender people under nineteen, canceling appointments and turning away some patients who have waited years to receive medically necessary care for gender dysphoria,” the lawsuit reads. 

    “This sudden shutdown in care was the direct and immediate result of an Executive Order that President Trump issued on January 28, 2025 — Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation — directing all federal agencies to ‘immediately take appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving Federal research or education grants end gender-affirming medical care for people under nineteen (the ‘Denial of Care Order’).”

    The group of plaintiffs claims executive orders are unlawful and unconstitutional, saying the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.

    TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS BANNING ‘RADICAL GENDER IDEOLOGY,’ DEI INITIATIVES IN THE MILITARY

    Trans flag beside the Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling by the end of June on a challenge to a Tennessee state law banning gender transitions for minors. (Alexander Pohl/NurPhoto via Getty Images | AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib)

    However, Perry argued that existing federal coverage for gender-related procedures for minors stems from a misinterpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, a decision that several federal courts have since ruled does not support such policies. 

    “Remember that we’re dealing with the vestiges of an administration that was all in on gender identitarianism and was manipulating federal case law to be able to push through policies that have already been struck down,” Perry said. “I think the President is acting wisely in an anticipatory stance to make sure that the federal funding cap is turned off, while we can get some of these challenges through court and determine whether or not, first, if there is a parental right to these particularly controversial procedures.”

    She said that a federal judge already ruled against former President Joe Biden’s re-interpretation of Title IX, referring to U.S. District Court Chief Judge Danny Reeves vacating the regulation in January, in which the previous administration had expanded sex discrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. 

    Reeves ruled that Biden’s expansion contradicted the original intent of Title IX, stating that incorporating gender identity into the statute “eviscerates the statute and renders it largely meaningless.”

    CRACKING DOWN ON TRANS TROOPS: TRUMP ORDER NIXES PREFERRED PRONOUNS, RESTRICTS FACILITY USE

    pro-trans advocate outside SCOTUS

    A transgender rights supporter takes part in a rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in a case on transgender health rights on Dec. 4, 2024 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

    Perry noted that various federal statutes, including the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination provisions, were “manipulated” by the previous administration to advance gender identity policies and noted that courts have increasingly pushed back against these interpretations.

    “I think he is rightly acting in an anticipatory fashion,” Perry said of Trump. “He is the chief enforcer of the law, and he has drawn a line in the sand, saying we’re going to cut the tap off until we find a way to get clarity on this, but in the meantime, we are not going to continue to fund the things that we know have catastrophic, devastating effects on minor kids.”

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    The lawsuit is the latest addition to those suing Trump over his gender-related executive orders. 

    The executive orders, signed in late January, include a reinstatement of the ban on transgender troops in the military, a ban on federal funding for sex changes for minors and a directive requiring federal agencies to recognize only “two sexes,” male and female, in official standard of conduct.

    A White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital they do not comment on pending litigation. On the campaign trail, Trump promised to weed out “radical gender ideology” as one of his key administrative focuses.

    The Supreme Court will also rule on a major case this term about a Tennessee law that will determine whether gender transition procedures can be banned for minors. 

    Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report. 

  • Federal prosecutor puts potential DOGE sabotage on notice with threat of ‘any and all legal action’

    Federal prosecutor puts potential DOGE sabotage on notice with threat of ‘any and all legal action’

    Newly-appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin published a letter vowing to hold to account those who try to sabotage efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to clean the federal government of overspending and corruption.

    “I recognize that some of the staff at DOGE have been targeted publicly,” Martin wrote to Elon Musk in a letter, which Martin posted to his X account Monday. “At this time, I ask that you utilize me and my staff to assist in protecting the DOGE work and the DOGE workers. Any threats, confrontations or other actions in any way that impact their work may break numerous laws.”

    “Let me assure you of this: We will pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people,” he continued. “We will not act like the previous administration who looked the other way as the Antifa and BLM rioters as well as thugs with guns trashed our capital city. We will protect DOGE and other workers no matter what.” 

    Martin previously worked as a defense attorney, including representing three men charged in the Jan. 6 protests, when President Donald Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol in 2021. 

    Trump granted clemency to more than 1,500 Jan. 6, 2021 criminal defendants upon taking office in January. 

    ELON MUSK DUNKS ON SEN CHUCK SCHUMER, DECLARING ‘HYSTERICAL REACTIONS’ DEMONSTRATE DOGE’S IMPORTANCE

    Newly-appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin, inset, published a letter vowing to hold to account those who try to sabotage efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk. (Chesnot/Getty Images )

    Trump appointed Martin the interim United States attorney for Washington, D.C., shortly following his Jan. 20 inauguration.  

    Martin’s letter comes as Musk takes a hatchet to government agencies such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to rid the departments of what the administration has described as corruption and overspending. 

    RUBIO SAYS ‘NO CHOICE’ BUT TO BRING USAID ‘UNDER CONTROL’ AFTER AGENCY TAKEOVER: ‘RANK INSUBORDINATION’

    News reports spread this week that Musk’s DOGE team includes a group of college-age engineers to help dismantle government overspending and reported corruption, which has sparked some on social media to attack the team, including threatening to dox them, according to a review of some reactions online. 

    Elon Musk

    News reports spread this week that the DOGE team, led by Elon Musk, includes a group of college-age engineers to help dismantle government overspending and reported corruption. ( Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

    Martin noted in his Monday public letter that he worked with the DOGE team “this weekend,” while warning that “we must keep all our American government employees safe and we must protect the American people’s property.”

    “One last warning to you,” Martin wrote in the conclusion of his letter to Musk. “Late last week, we indicted an economist who worked for the Fed for economic espionage for the Communist Chinese. Please be very aware that there are those who are acting against our American people in every way. Refer to us any questionable conduct or details that you find or notice.” 

    USAID CLOSES HQ TO STAFFERS MONDAY AS MUSK SAYS TRUMP SUPPORTS SHUTTING AGENCY DOWN

    USAID’s fate is hanging in the balance as Musk went on a warpath against the independent government agency as a “viper’s nest of radical-left marxists who hate America.” On Monday morning, hundreds of USAID employees reported they were locked out of the agency’s computer system and that its headquarters in Washington, D.C., was closed. 

    Elon Musk and Trump

    Elon Musk, left, announced in an audio-only message on X overnight on Sunday that “we’re in the process” of “shutting down USAID” and that President Donald Trump reportedly agreed to shutter the agency. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

    MUSK RIPS ‘FRAUDULENT’ TREASURY HANDOUTS AS REPORTS MOUNT DOGE HAS ACCESS TO FEDERAL PAYMENT SYSTEM

    Musk announced in an audio-only message on X overnight on Sunday that “we’re in the process” of “shutting down USAID” and that Trump reportedly agreed to shutter the agency. 

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Monday that he is now serving as acting director of the agency and outlined that its policies need to shift to fall in line with Trump’s “America First” mission. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “USAID is not functioning. It has to be aligned with U.S. policy,” he told reporters while in El Salvador. “It needs to be aligned with the national interest of the U.S. They’re not a global charity. These are taxpayer dollars. People are asking simple questions. What are they doing with the money? We are spending taxpayers’ money. We owe the taxpayers assurances that it furthers our national interest.”

  • Legal experts respond to RFK Jr’s conflict-of-interest dilemma with drugmakers

    Legal experts respond to RFK Jr’s conflict-of-interest dilemma with drugmakers

    Amid scrutiny over Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s pledge to transfer his financial interest in vaccine lawsuits to his family, legal experts have criticized the move but note that Kennedy’s approach is not significantly different from actions taken by other public officials in the past.

    During Kennedy’s confirmation hearings last week, the potential next secretary of Health and Human Services was probed over his financial stake in personal-injury lawsuits tied to vaccines, in particular his ties to a suit against pharmaceutical company Merck and its Gardasil cervical cancer vaccine. While Kennedy would not initially commit to letting go of his stake against Merck, he reversed course in a written response to lawmakers’ questions following a hearing, noting he would amend his pledge and “will divest my interest in any such litigation via an assignment to my non-dependent, adult son.”

    While some legal experts have argued the move does not go far enough to quash potential conflicts for Kennedy, others say this approach is akin to that taken by several other public officials who have found themselves in a similar situation. Meanwhile, one legal expert suggested to Fox News Digital that the pass from Kennedy to his son “is more than sufficient to meet any ethical concerns.”

    LA TIMES OWNER SLAPPED WITH COMMUNITY NOTE AFTER AUTHOR OF RFK JR OP-ED CLAIMS ARTICLE EDITED OUT CRITICISM

    An image of HHS Secretary nominee RFK Jr. juxtaposed next to a bottle of pills made by drug manufacturers. (iStock/Getty )

    “That may comply with ordinary conflict of interest issues,” Jim Copland, director of legal policy at the Manhattan Institute, said. “I just don’t think the head of the Department of Health and Human Services has any business being involved in any way with litigation against Merck.” 

    Fellow Manhattan Institute legal expert Ilya Shapiro said he is unsure whether Kennedy’s move will suffice in avoiding any real conflict, but added that he did recognize “it’s not unusual in light of past examples.” 

    Both Democrats and Republicans have used family to shield themselves from ethics complaints related to their personal business dealings, with former President Joe Biden being a recent and notable example after a multi-year probe into his family business dealings that found both his son and brother were engaged in risky business relationships with foreign entities, such as China. Biden has repeatedly denied his involvement in those business dealings.

    Joe Biden Hunter Biden James Biden Frank Biden

    Questions still swirl around former President Joe Biden and whether his office was used to financially benefit his son Hunter and brothers James and Frank. (Getty Images)

    Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi similarly sought to defend her family’s business dealings after it was revealed her husband was making money investing in companies that had business in front of his wife. In response to questions from reporters about whether she agreed with efforts to ban federal lawmakers’ spouses from trading in stocks, Pelosi replied that “they should be able to participate in that.”

    Other notable figures who have used their families to shield their personal business dealings include President Donald Trump, who handed over control of his Trump Organization business empire to his sons, and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose investor husband, Richard Blum, managed investments through his firm Blum Capital Partners that often intersected with his wife’s work while she was in Congress.

    The Pelosis

    Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her husband, Paul Pelosi. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

    TRUMP-ALIGNED GROUP PUTTING PRESSURE ON REPUBLICAN SENATORS IN PUSH TO CONFIRM RFK JR.

    “It is my opinion that RFK, Jr.’s plan to pass on any financial stake in possible vaccine injuries to his son is more than sufficient to meet any ethical concerns,” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital. “This is particularly true because of the limitations imposed by federal law on any claims made against vaccine manufacturers that severely limit possible compensation for anyone claiming a vaccine was somehow defective.”

    Spakovsky posited that the federal government’s National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which prohibits civil litigation against drugmakers and instead directs the federal government to administer any vaccine-injury payments, serves to buffer the impact Kennedy could potentially have on vaccine-related injury payments. 

    “RFK would have no authority whatsoever [over this program],” he said. “The point is that all of this is so disconnected from RFK, Jr.’s potential Cabinet position if he is confirmed, that anyone who says this is a ‘serious’ ethics problem is wrong.”

    Activists attend a press conference on Supreme Court ethics reform outside the Capitol on May 2, 2023.

    Activists attend a press conference on Supreme Court ethics reform outside the Capitol on May 2, 2023.

    Copland, who agreed with Spakovsky that the vaccine compensation program diminishes much of Kennedy’s advantage, said RFK Jr. could still benefit in an indirect manner. 

    “I think it’s a more concerning conflict of interest than just saying, ‘Oh, you own a lot of equity interest in some company that may incidentally benefit you know,’” Copland said. “I mean, if you had a Defense Department secretary who was a CEO of a major military contractor, and then he passes that off to his son, I think you’d still have a concern about that due to the obvious conflict of interest there, which is different than a sort of ordinary, ‘Oh, I own a company, and it’s going to, incidentally, benefit from the government.’”

    RFK JR SPENT WEEKEND TALKING TO KEY SENATOR WHO COULD MAKE OR BREAK HIS CONFIRMATION

    Fox News legal analyst Andy McCarthy was more critical of Kennedy’s decision to pass off his financial interests to his son, noting that the fact he is “struggling to come up with a scheme to retain his stake, rather than doing the obvious right thing by abandoning it, underscores that this is a real conflict of interest.”

    “The comparison to family asset transfers in other contexts is inapposite and, in any event, misses the point,” McCarthy said. “Whatever one thinks of President Trump’s arrangements regarding his family business, voters knew about that business and elected him anyway – and the president is not in a position to recuse himself from executive decision-making based on conflicts of interest. By contrast, Kennedy wasn’t elected by anyone.”

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    McCarthy added that after years “of justifiably complaining that President Biden was corruptly enriched by payments… made to his son and brother,” he finds it hard to believe “that Republicans can turn a blind eye to a financial stake, which would create a significant conflict of interest for RFK Jr. as HHS secretary, on the pretext that he plans to transfer the stake to his son.”

  • Legal experts say Kash Patel’s opposition to warrant requirement is not a major split

    Legal experts say Kash Patel’s opposition to warrant requirement is not a major split

    Kash Patel, President Donald Trump’s pick for FBI director, claimed Thursday that he won’t stand for federal law enforcement needing a warrant for surveillance in some scenarios because it’s plainly impractical in real-time practices. Despite lawmakers’ surprise at his opposition, legal experts say his take is far from unusual within the law enforcement arena.

    Patel was peppered with questions Thursday on a provision called Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. When asked if he believed that a warrant requirement is “practical and workable or even a necessary element of 702,” Patel said he had issues with “those that have been in government service and abused it in the past.” Patel said that because of the viability of abuse, “we must work with Congress to provide the protections necessary for American citizens dealing with these matters.”

    “Having a warrant requirement to go through that information in real time is just not comported with the requirement to protect American citizenry,” Patel said during his Senate hearing. “I’m all open to working with Congress on finding a better way forward. But right now, these improvements that you’ve made go a long way.”

    4 OF THE BIGGEST CLASHES BETWEEN PATEL, SENATE DEMS AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING

    “The fact that the soon-to-be head of the nation’s, sort of, top law enforcement agency takes the position that is favored by law enforcement shouldn’t surprise anybody,” former assistant district attorney and criminal defense attorney Phil Holloway told Fox News Digital. 

    “When Mr. Patel answered the question the way that he did, that answer is adverse to the public positions taken by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.” 

    Patel, throughout his testimony, emphasized his interest in working with Congress if he were to head the FBI.

    President Donald Trump’s pick to head the FBI, Kash Patel, indicated during his Senate hearing on Thursday that while FISA’s Section 702 can be used appropriately, a warrant requirement can be impractical in real-time.  (AP)

    “Some lawmakers have absolutely called for the necessity of a warrant in these situations. And so it makes sense that the senators would ask the nominee to run the FBI whether or not he has an opinion on it,” Holloway continued. “But, ultimately, it’s not his call.”

    KASH PATEL HAMMERS ‘GROTESQUE MISCHARACTERIZATIONS’ FROM DEMS AMID FIERY FBI CONFIRMATION HEARING

    “I’ve always thought that there’s a middle ground here where you don’t have to. And I think there are some situations that warrant a warrant and deserve a warrantless search,” Palm Beach County, Fla., state attorney Dave Aronberg told Fox News Digital. “And I think Patel’s remarks show that he thinks the same way.”

    Aronberg noted that under U.S. law, there is a warrant exception under exigent circumstances, i.e. emergency situations, where it is impractical to obtain a warrant. 

    Kash Patel

    Kash Patel was peppered with questions Thursday on a provision called Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (Getty Images)

    “What Kash Patel is saying is that there may be some situations that may be in that gray area where you shouldn’t have to get a warrant,” Aronberg said. “And I am encouraged by his comments because I do think that law enforcement needs flexibility when it comes to national security matters, especially with the very real threat of terrorism here on our shores.”

    KASH PATEL FLIPS SCRIPT ON DEM SENATOR AFTER BEING GRILLED ON J6 PARDONS: ‘BRUTAL REALITY CHECK’

    Congress voted to pass a renewal of FISA’s Section 702 last April. The legislation serves as a governmental tool in gathering intelligence on foreign subjects using the compelled assistance of electronic communication service providers. 

    If the renewal had not been passed, the expiration would have meant companies would not be forced to comply with the government’s requests for surveillance aid under the bill. 

    Kash Patel Donald Trump split

    Kash Patel and President Donald Trump. (Getty Images)

    Without the FISA section’s reauthorization, the government would be required to seek a warrant to compel any such assistance, which is a process that can span extended periods of time. 

    Earlier this month, a federal district court ruled that the federal government had violated the Fourth Amendment when it searched the communications of an Albanian citizen residing in the U.S. at the time of his arrest without a warrant. The information had been collected under FISA’s Section 702. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    “The individual rights of people in the United States under our Constitution come first,” Holloway said. “So having constitutional requirements that sort of frustrate or perhaps slow down law enforcement, this is a tension that is not new at all. And so what we’re seeing is this playing out.”

    Fox News Digital’s Liz Elkind and Julia Johnson contributed to this report. 

  • Since taking office, what are the legal challenges launched against the Trump admin?

    Since taking office, what are the legal challenges launched against the Trump admin?

    Since taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have become the target of multiple lawsuits over the president’s agenda and policies. 

    The Trump White House has faced numerous legal challenges, including deportation policies, an executive order to end birthright citizenship and a directive to freeze federal funding.

    Birthright citizenship 

    On the day of his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, with many legal experts arguing that the right is enshrined in the Constitution under the 14th Amendment.

    BLACK CAUCUS CHAIR ACCUSES TRUMP OF ‘PURGE’ OF ‘MINORITY’ FEDERAL WORKERS

    “The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” Trump says in the order, titled, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.”

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration that same day “on behalf of organizations with members whose babies born on U.S. soil will be denied citizenship under the order.” The ACLU also claimed the order is unconstitutional and against congressional intent and Supreme Court precedent.

    Since taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have become the target of multiple lawsuits over the president’s agenda and policies. (Reuters/Carlos Barria)

    Eighteen Democrat-led states then launched their own lawsuit, also claiming the order is unconstitutional and “unprecedented.” 

    “The President has no authority to rewrite or nullify a constitutional amendment or duly enacted statute. Nor is he empowered by any other source of law to limit who receives United States citizenship at birth,” the lawsuit reads.

    TRUMP COULD BE ON VERGE OF LEGAL VICTORY AGAINST CBS AS SETTLEMENT SPECULATION HEATS UP

    Attorneys general from New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine and others signed on to the suit, along with the city and county of San Francisco, Calif., and Washington, D.C.

    A U.S. district judge also temporarily blocked Trump’s order in a separate lawsuit filed by the states of Arizona, Illinois, Oregon and Washington, describing the action as “blatantly unconstitutional.”

    Mass deportations

    Several Chicago sanctuary city groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its mass deportation policy, saying it violates their First Amendment rights. 

    The suit, filed by Brighton Park Neighborhood Council, Organized Communities Against Deportations, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights Inc., and Raise the Floor Alliance, states that “the threat of ICE agents flooding into communities has already impacted Chicagoans and chilled their rights to freely exercise their religion and assemble.”

    ICE and DEA migrant raids NYC

    ICE and DEA migrant raids in New York City.  (Drug Enforcement Administration New York)

    Ending DEI policies

    Trump also signed an executive order ending all federal diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. On Monday, the president signed an order stating that the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

    TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDERS STRIPPING FEDERAL FUNDING FROM SCHOOLS THAT TEACH CRT, SUPPORTING SCHOOL CHOICE

    Six transgender military members filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the order is unconstitutional and violates the Equal Protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

    “Rather than being based on any legitimate governmental purpose, the ban reflects animosity toward transgender people because of their transgender status,” the suit claims. 

    Freezing federal aid funding 

    The Office of Management and Budget issued a memo on Monday with a directive to pause all federal grants and loans aiming to eradicate “wokeness” and the “weaponization of government” in an effort to improve government efficiency. The memo claims that nearly $3 trillion was spent in 2024 on such assistance programs. 

    Attorney General lawsuit

    New York Attorney General Letitia James on Tuesday led a coalition of 22 other attorneys general suing to stop the implementation of the memo. (Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Congressional Black Caucus Foundation)

    The White House shortly thereafter insisted that the freeze did not affect programs such as Social Security, Medicare or other entitlement payments.

    Alongside Senate Democrats announcing a coordinated response with Democratic governors, blue state attorneys general, along with advocacy and non-profit groups, filed their own suits over the directive. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    On Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James led a coalition of 22 other attorneys general suing to stop the implementation of the memo.

    Likewise, a handful of non-profit organizations and health associations, including a LGBTQ+ advocacy group, filed a lawsuit Tuesday over the directive.

    A federal judge on Tuesday imposed a stay on Trump’s action, delaying it until Monday.

    Fox News Digital’s Adam Shaw, Breanne Deppisch and Chris Pandolfo contributed to this report. 

  • Trump’s new legal team begins appeals process for Manhattan conviction

    Trump’s new legal team begins appeals process for Manhattan conviction

    President Donald Trump’s legal team filed a notice of appeal for his conviction in his Manhattan trial, Fox News Digital confirmed on Wednesday, which found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.  

    “President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,” newly minted Trump attorney Robert J. Giuffra Jr. said in a statement provided by a Trump spokesperson to the Associated Press on Wednesday. “The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan DA to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent, and we look forward to the case being dismissed on appeal.” 

    ​​Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Manhattan case in May. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office worked to prove that Trump had falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to former porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election, to quiet her claims of an alleged affair with Trump in 2006.

    ‘ANYTHING BUT ORDINARY’: LEGAL EXPERTS SHRED NY V. TRUMP AS ‘ONE OF THE WORST’ CASES IN HISTORY

    Trump has maintained his innocence in the case and repeatedly railed against it as an example of lawfare promoted by Democrats in an effort to hurt his efforts ahead of the November 2024 election. 

    “The appeal of Trump’s criminal conviction has finally begun with the filing of the notice of appeal today,” Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley posted on X Wednesday. 

    “While expectations are not particularly high for relief in the NY court system, this process moves the case closer to an appeal to the Supreme Court,” he continued. 

    Presiding New York Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump on Jan. 10, just days before his inauguration as the 47th president, to unconditional discharge — meaning he faces no punishment such as fines or jail time. Legal experts railed against the sentencing earlier in January, with Fox News’ Mark Levin remarking that it will be remembered as “one of the worst” legal cases in world history. 

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom during his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024, in New York City.  (Michael M. Santiago/Pool via REUTERS)

    “I’ll tell you how it strikes me, when you look at cases throughout history, not just in the United States, but really all over the world, this will be remembered as one of the worst. This will be remembered as an absolute injustice from the beginning,” Levin said on Fox News after the sentencing. 

    DONALD TRUMP SENTENCED WITH NO PENALTY IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL, AS JUDGE WISHES HIM ‘GODSPEED’ IN 2ND TERM

    Fox News Digital exclusively reported on Wednesday that Trump retained a new legal team after some of his top attorneys joined his administration. He is now represented by Sullivan & Cromwell, including co-chair and partner of the firm, Robert J. Giuffra Jr and Matthew Schwartz, a partner of the firm. 

    Trump plays to the crowd

    President Donald Trump retained a new legal team after some of his top attorneys joined his administration.  (Matt Rourke/The Associated Press)

    Giuffra previewed the importance of an appeal to the conviction in comment to Fox Digital earlier Wednesday. 

    REPUBLICANS BLAST ‘JOKE’ SENTENCING OF TRUMP 10 DAYS BEFORE SWEARING IN

    “President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,” Giuffra told Fox News Digital. “The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan DA to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent, and we look forward to the case being dismissed on appeal.” 

    Judge Juan Merchan imposed over a courtroom

    Judge Juan Merchan imposed over a courtroom (AP)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

    Trump had also previously said he will appeal the conviction, including earlier this month when he said on Truth Social that “JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL.” 

  • Top law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to represent Trump in ongoing legal matters

    Top law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to represent Trump in ongoing legal matters

    EXCLUSIVE: President Donald Trump has retained counsel from top law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to represent him in his ongoing appeal efforts in the cases brought against him by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and New York Attorney General Letitia James, Fox News Digital has learned. 

    The move comes after his original legal team on the cases joined his administration in top roles. 

    JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FIRES MORE THAN A DOZEN KEY OFFICIALS ON FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL JACK SMITH’S TEAM 

    President Donald Trump has retained counsel from top law firm Sullivan & Cromwell to represent him in his ongoing appeal efforts.  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    The president will be represented by Sullivan Cromwell co-chair and partner Robert J. Giuffra Jr. 

    Giuffra has been at the firm since 1989 after serving as a law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Giuffra currently focuses on securities, white collar criminal, product liability, commercial, insurance, banking and tax litigation. 

    Trump also will be represented by Matthew Schwartz, a partner of the firm who joined in 2007 after clerking for Justice Samuel Alito; Jeffrey Wall, another partner who served as an acting U.S. solicitor general and has argued more than 30 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court; James McDonald, a partner who served as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York; and Morgan Ratner, a partner who has argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and who served in the Office of Solicitor General at the Justice Department. 

    Fox News Digital has learned that Boris Epshteyn, Trump’s top legal advisor, is continuing his role as senior counsel, coordinating a wide array of legal fronts and matters for the president. 

    “President Donald J. Trump’s appeal is important for the rule of law, New York’s reputation as a global business, financial and legal center, as well as for the presidency and all public officials,” Giuffra told Fox News Digital. “The misuse of the criminal law by the Manhattan DA to target President Trump sets a dangerous precedent, and we look forward to the case being dismissed on appeal.” 

    The shift comes after the president tapped his former lawyers on the cases to top roles in his administration. 

    Trump appointed his attorney Todd Blanche to serve as deputy attorney general and John Sauer as solicitor general of the United States. 

    Emil Bove, also a Trump attorney tapped for a top role at the Justice Department, is serving as the acting deputy attorney general, but if Blanche is confirmed, Bove will serve as principal associate deputy attorney general. 

    Robert Kennedy Jr Testifies At House Hearing On Weaponization Of Government

    D. John Sauer, Trump’s former attorney, has been tapped as U.S. solicitor general in the Trump administration.  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

    DONALD TRUMP SENTENCED WITH NO PENALTY IN NEW YORK CRIMINAL TRIAL, AS JUDGE WISHES HIM ‘GODSPEED’ IN 2ND TERM

    Will Scharf, who also represented the president in these cases, was appointed to serve as staff secretary at the White House. 

    Blanche, Sauer, Bove and Scharf successfully defended the president in former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Jan. 6, 2021, and alleged interference in the 2020 election as well as in his classified records case. 

    Sauer argued the case on presidential immunity before the U.S. Supreme Court, leading the high court to rule that presidents have immunity for nonofficial presidential acts. 

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears with his legal team Todd Blanche, and Emil Bove ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court

    Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears with his legal team Todd Blanche and Emil Bove ahead of the start of jury selection at Manhattan Criminal Court on April 15, 2024, in New York City.  (Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images)

    Smith’s classified records case was dismissed in July 2024 by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith was unlawfully appointed as special counsel. 

    Smith charged Trump in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., in his 2020 election case, but after Trump was elected president, Smith sought to dismiss the case. Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request.

    William Scharf

    From left: Will Scharf, President Donald Trump and Emil Bove, during a 2024 news conference at Trump Tower in New York.  (Cheney Orr/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Both cases were dismissed. 

    The new legal team will take over Trump’s appeals in both Bragg’s case and James’ case. 

    Trump was sentenced earlier in January by Judge Juan Merchan to an unconditional discharge after being found guilty on charges of falsifying business records. Merchan did not sentence the president to prison, but rather did not impose any punishment at all — no jail time, fines or probation. 

    TRUMP TO TAKE MORE THAN 200 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON DAY ONE

    That sentence preserves Trump’s ability to appeal the conviction — which Sullivan & Cromwell will take over. 

    Juan Merchan, Donald Trump, Alvin Bragg

    From left to right: Judge Juan Merchan, former President Donald Trump, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. (Getty Images, AP Images)

    As for James’ case against Trump, New York Judge Arthur Engoron, after a weekslong nonjury civil fraud trial, ruled in 2024 that Trump and defendants were liable for “persistent and repeated fraud,” “falsifying business records,” “issuing false financial statements,” “conspiracy to falsify false financial statements,” “insurance fraud,” and “conspiracy to commit insurance fraud.” 

    But before the trial began, Engoron issued a summary judgment against Trump, making the subsequent trial a case over the penalty to be paid. 

    James announces Trump verdict

    Attorney General Letitia James speaks during a press conference.  (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Trump appealed the $454 million judgment. The appeal is pending before the New York Appeals Court. 

    Judges on the New York appeals court appeared receptive in 2024 to the possibility of reversing or reducing the $454 million civil fraud judgment.