|
|
|
Defense secretary defends Pentagon firings, says more dismals may come
Topics in Legal News |
2025/02/23 09:55
|
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists President Donald Trump ’s abrupt firing of the nation’s senior military officer amid a wave of dismissals at the Pentagon wasn’t unusual, brushing aside outcry that the new administration is openly seeking to inject politics into the military. He also suggested more firings could come.
“Nothing about this is unprecedented,” Hegseth told “Fox News Sunday” about Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr. being removed Friday night as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The president deserves to pick his key national security advisory team.”
Hegseth said “there are lots of presidents who made changes” citing former commanders in chief from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama, who the defense secretary said “fired or dismissed hundreds” of military officials.
Months into his first term, Obama relieved Army Gen. David McKiernan as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Trump, however, vowed while running for his second term to eradicate “woke” ideologies from the military and moving swiftly to dismiss so many top leaders means keeping a campaign promise.
Hegeseth and Trump have made no secret about focusing on pushing aside military officers who have supported diversity, equity and inclusion in the ranks. The administration says its is on better fortifying a lethal fighting force.
Brown was just the second Black general to serve as chairman. His 16 months in the post were consumed with the war in Ukraine and the expanded conflict in the Middle East. Trump in 2020 nominated Brown as Air Force’s chief of staff.
Trump wants to replace Brown Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, who retired in December. It is unclear what recalling Caine to active-duty service will require. The position requires Caine to be confirmed by the Senate.
Hegseth said Friday’s dismissals affected six three- and four-star generals and were “a reflection of the president wanting the right people around him to execute the national security approach we want to take.”
He called Brown “honorable” but said he is “not the right man for the moment,” without citing specific deficiencies. After the 2020 murder of George Floyd, Brown in a video spoke of his experience as a Black pilot, apparently making him fodder for the Trump administration’s wars against inclusion initiatives in the military.
Of Caine, the Defense secretary said that Trump “respects leaders who untie the hands of war fighters in a very dangerous world.”
Retired Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. and multinational forces in Iraq from 2004 to 2007 under Republican President George W. Bush, called the firings “extremely destabilizing.” He also noted that the Trump administration can change Pentagon policy without changing personnel, but added, that what happened is “”within the president’s prerogative.”
“That’s his prerogative,” Casey told ABC’s “This Week.” “He is the commander in chief of the armed forces.”
Still, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee told ABC that the firings were “completely unjustified” and that “apparently, what Trump and Hegseth are trying to do is to politicize the Department of Defense.”
Hegseth was also asked on Fox News about officials potentially compiling lists of more defense officials they plan to fire. He said there was no list but suggested that more dismissals could indeed be coming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
President Trump proposes 'getting rid of FEMA' - UPDATE
Topics in Legal News |
2025/01/25 09:15
|
by marathonlegalblog.com
President Trump, during recent visits to disaster-stricken areas in California and North Carolina, has proposed the possibility of dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He criticized FEMA as being overly bureaucratic and slow, suggesting that individual states should manage their own disaster responses, with the federal government providing financial assistance directly to them. This proposal has raised concerns among experts and lawmakers, particularly in disaster-prone states like Florida, where officials warn that without FEMA's support, handling the aftermath of powerful storms could be financially overwhelming. It's important to note that eliminating FEMA would require congressional approval, as the agency was established by an executive order under President Jimmy Carter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trump asks the Supreme Court to block sentencing in his hush money case
Topics in Legal News |
2025/01/09 07:54
|
President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to call off Friday’s sentencing in his hush money case in New York.
Trump’s lawyers turned to the nation’s highest court on Wednesday after New York courts refused to postpone the sentencing by Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial and conviction last May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump has denied wrongdoing.
The justices asked for a response from prosecutors by Thursday morning. Trump’s team sought an immediate stay of the scheduled sentencing, saying it would wrongly restrict him as he prepares to take office. While Merchan has indicated he will not impose jail time, fines or probation, Trump’s lawyers argued a felony conviction would still have intolerable side effects.
The sentencing should be delayed as he appeals the conviction to “prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government,” they argued.
The emergency motion is from lawyers John Sauer, Trump’s pick for solicitor general, who represents the government before the high court, and Todd Blanche, in line to be the second-ranking official at the Justice Department.
They also pointed to the Supreme Court ruling giving Trump and other presidents broad immunity from prosecutions over their actions in office, saying it supports their argument that his New York conviction should be overturned.
Their filing said the New York trial court “lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump — or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him— until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.”
The Republican president-elect’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, called for the case to be dismissed in a statement. Trump simultaneously filed an emergency appeal in front of New York’s highest court.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, meanwhile, said it will respond in court papers. Trump’s convictions arose from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.
Daniels claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. He denies it.
The Supreme Court’s immunity opinion came in a separate election interference case against him, but Trump’s lawyers say it means some of the evidence used against him in his hush money trial should have been shielded by presidential immunity. That includes testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.
Merchan has disagreed, finding they would qualify as personal business. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision was largely about official acts of presidents while in office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court seems reluctant to block state bans on medical treatments for minors
Topics in Legal News |
2024/12/04 11:50
|
Hearing a high-profile culture-war clash, a majority of the Supreme Court seemed reluctant Wednesday to block Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
The justices’ decision, not expected for several months, could affect similar laws enacted by another 25 states and a range of other efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use.
The case is coming before a conservative-dominated court after a presidential election in which Donald Trump and his allies promised to roll back protections for transgender people.
In arguments that passed the two-hour mark Wednesday, five conservative justices voiced varying degrees of skepticism of arguments made by the Biden administration and lawyers for Tennessee families challenging the ban.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted in the majority in a 2020 case in favor of transgender rights, questioned whether judges, rather than lawmakers, should be weighing in on a question of regulating medical procedures, an area usually left to the states.
”The Constitution leaves that question to the people’s representatives, rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor,” Roberts said in an exchange with ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio.
The court’s three liberal justices seem firmly on the side of the challengers. But it’s not clear that any of the court’s six conservatives will go along. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion in 2020, has yet to say anything.
Four years ago, the court ruled in favor of Aimee Stephens, who was fired by a Michigan funeral home after she informed its owner that she was a transgender woman. The court held that transgender people, as well as gay and lesbian people, are protected by a landmark federal civil rights law that prohibits sex discrimination in the workplace.
The Biden administration and the families and health care providers who challenged the Tennessee law are urging the justices to apply the same sort of analysis that the majority, made up of liberal and conservative justices, embraced in the case four years ago when it found that “sex plays an unmistakable role” in employers’ decisions to punish transgender people for traits and behavior they otherwise tolerate.
The issue in the Tennessee case is whether the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same.
Tennessee’s law bans puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, but not “across the board,” lawyers for the families wrote in their Supreme Court brief. The lead lawyer, Chase Strangio of the American Civil Liberties Union, is the first openly transgender person to argue in front of the justices. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
New Hampshire courts hear 2 cases on transgender girls playing girls sports
Topics in Legal News |
2024/11/22 06:19
|
Two New Hampshire fathers who were barred from school district events for wearing pink wristbands marked “XX” to represent female chromosomes insisted at a federal court hearing Thursday that they didn’t set out to harass or otherwise target a transgender soccer player at the game they attended.
But a judge hearing the case suggested the message the parents sent may matter more than their intentions.
Kyle Fellers and Anthony Foote sued the Bow school district after being banned from school grounds for wearing the wristbands at their daughters’ soccer game in September. The no-trespass orders have since expired, but a judge is deciding whether the plaintiffs should be allowed to wear the wristbands and carry signs at upcoming school events, including basketball games, swim meets and a music concert, while the case proceeds.
Testifying at Thursday’s hearing, both men said that they did not view the wristbands as a protest against Parker Tirrell, a transgender girl on the opposing team, but rather as a show of support for their daughters and their teammates. U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe questioned whether there is a meaningful distinction and whether their intentions matter.
“Sometimes the message you think you’re sending might not be the message that is being sent,” he said.
McAuliffe asked Foote whether it occurred to him that a transgender person might interpret the pink XX wristbands as an attempt to invalidate their existence.
“If he’s a trans female, pink might be a color he likes,” Foote said.
McAuliffe also noted that while both plaintiffs said they had no problem with transgender people outside the issue of sports, they repeatedly referred to the athlete in question as a boy.
“You seem to go out of your way to suggest there’s no such thing as a trans girl,” McAuliffe said. Foote disagreed, saying it was “like learning a new language” to refer to transgender people.
In a separate courtroom earlier Thursday, another judge held a hearing on a lawsuit brought by Parker Tirrell and another student challenging the state law that bans transgender athletes in grades 5 to 12 from teams that align with their gender identity. It requires schools to designate all teams as either girls, boys or coed, with eligibility determined based on students’ birth certificates “or other evidence.”
U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty ruled earlier this year that the teens can try out for and play on girls school sports teams. The order only applies to those two individuals for now as they seek to overturn the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act on behalf of all transgender girl students in New Hampshire.
Lawyers for the teens said in court Thursday they hoped the matter could go to trial and be resolved before the start of the next school year in September. They said the teens’ school districts and others in the state have asked for guidance regarding the statute. Lawyers for the state said they needed more time to prepare.
Judge Talesha Saint-Marc suggested the timing of the trial was ambitious and asked that both sides talk further about scheduling. Gov. Chris Sununu, who signed the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act into law in July, has said it “ensures fairness and safety in women’s sports by maintaining integrity and competitive balance in athletic competitions.” About half of states have adopted similar measures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Law Promo can construct your law firm a brand new responsive website, or help you redesign your existing site to secure your place in the internet world. Small Law Firm Web Design by Law Promo |
|
Recent Lawyer Blog Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
