Washington
Republican effort to discourage Trump lawsuits hits a big obstacle
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have hit a roadblock in an effort that could deter nonprofits, individuals and other potential litigants from filing lawsuits to block President Donald Trump over his executive actions.
As Trump faces lawsuits nationwide, GOP lawmakers had sought to bar federal courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the federal government unless the plaintiffs post what in many cases would be a massive financial bond at the beginning of the case.
The proposal was included in the Senate version of Trump’s massive tax and immigration bill, but ran into trouble with the Senate parliamentarian, who said it violates the chamber’s rules. It is now unlikely to be in the final package.
Federal judges can already require plaintiffs to post security bonds, but such funds are commonly waived in public interest cases. The GOP proposal would make the payment of the financial bond a requirement before a judge could make a ruling, which critics said would have a chilling effect on potential litigants who wouldn’t have the resources to comply.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hailed the parliamentarian’s ruling in a press statement and called the GOP effort “nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored the nation since it’s founding.”
“But Senate Democrats stopped them cold,” Schumer said.
Lawmakers are running scores of provisions by the Senate parliamentarian’s office to ensure they fit with the chamber’s rules for inclusion in a reconciliation bill. The recommendations from Elizabeth MacDonough will have a major impact on the final version of the legislation.
On Friday, she determined that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states would violate the chamber’s rules. But some of the most difficult questions are still to come as Republicans hope to get a bill passed and on Trump’s desk to be signed into law before July 4th.
Republicans could still seek to include the judiciary provision in the bill, but it would likely be challenged and subject to a separate vote in which the provision would need 60 votes to remain. The parliamentarian’s advice, while not binding, is generally followed by the Senate.
Republicans and the White House have been highly critical of some of the court rulings blocking various Trump orders on immigration, education and voting. The courts have agreed to block the president in a number of cases, and the administration is seeking appeals as well.
In April, the House voted to limit the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court, rather than applying the relief nationally. But that bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate since it would need 60 votes to advance. That’s left Republicans looking for other avenues to blunt the court orders.
“We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d’etat,” Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., said during the House debate.
Washington
Judge halts Trump effort to block foreign students from attending Harvard University
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked another effort by the Trump administration to keep international students from attending Harvard University, saying officials’ “misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution” threatened freedom of speech.
The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves the ability of foreign students to travel to the U.S. for study at Harvard while the case is decided.
President Donald Trump has sought to cut off Harvard’s enrollment of foreign students as part of a pressure campaign seeking changes to governance and policies at the Ivy League school.
Administration officials also have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status for the school Trump has derided as a hotbed of liberalism.
Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency withdrew the school’s certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas. The action would have forced Harvard’s roughly 7,000 foreign students to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally.
The university called it illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House’s demands to overhaul Harvard policies around campus protests, admissions, hiring and other issues. Burroughs temporarily had halted the action hours after Harvard sued and then granted an initial injunction Friday.
The latest injunction came Monday in response to another move from Trump, who cited a different legal justification when he issued a June 4 proclamation blocking foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard.
In her order, Burroughs said the case is about freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
“Here, the government’s misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration’s own views, threaten these rights,” she wrote.
Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment.
On Friday, he said in a post on Truth Social that the administration has been working with Harvard to address “their largescale improprieties” and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. “They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,” Trump’s post said.
Foreign students, who account for a quarter of Harvard’s enrollment, were brought into the battle in April when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.
The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world’s top students, the school said in its lawsuit. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the suit said.
Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its “core, legally-protected principles,” even after receiving federal ultimatums.
Washington
Jury orders man to pay $500K for assaulting officer who killed himself after Capitol riot
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal jury on Monday awarded $500,000 to the widow and estate of a police officer who killed himself nine days after he helped defend the U.S. Capitol from a mob of rioters, including a man who scuffled with the officer during the attack.
The eight-member jury ordered that man, 69-year-old chiropractor David Walls-Kaufman, to pay $380,000 in punitive damages and $60,000 in compensatory damages to Erin Smith for assaulting her husband, Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. They awarded an additional $60,000 to compensate Jeffrey Smith’s estate for his pain and suffering.
The judge presiding over the civil trial dismissed Erin Smith’s wrongful-death claim against Walls-Kaufman before jurors began deliberating last week. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said no reasonable juror could conclude that Walls-Kaufman’s actions were capable of causing a traumatic brain injury leading to Smith’s death.
Walls-Kaufman, who lived a few blocks from the Capitol, denied assaulting Smith. He says any injuries that the officer suffered on Jan. 6 occurred later in the day, when another rioter threw a pole that struck Smith around his head.
On Friday, the jury sided with Erin Smith and held Walls-Kaufman liable for assaulting her 35-year-old husband — an encounter captured on the officer’s body camera.
Walls-Kaufman said the outcome of the trial is “absolutely ridiculous.”
“No crime happened. I never struck the officer. I never intended to strike the officer,” he said. “I’m just stunned.”
After the jury left the courtroom, Reyes encouraged the parties to confer and discuss a possible settlement to avoid the time and expense of an appeal and for the sake of “finality.”
Jeffrey Smith was driving to work for the first time after the Capitol riot when he shot and killed himself with his service weapon. His family said he had no history of mental health problems before the Jan. 6 riot. Erin Smith claims Walls-Kaufman struck her husband in the head with his own police baton, giving him a concussion and causing psychological and physical trauma that led to his suicide.
The police department medically evaluated Smith and cleared him to return to full duty before he killed himself. In 2022, the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board determined that Smith was injured in the line of duty and the injury was the “sole and direct cause of his death,” according to the lawsuit.
Walls-Kaufman served a 60-day prison sentence after pleading guilty to a Capitol riot-related misdemeanor in January 2023, but he was pardoned in January. On his first day back in the White House, President Donald Trump pardoned, commuted prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of cases for all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in the attack.
More than 100 law-enforcement officers were injured during the riot. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick collapsed and died a day after engaging with the rioters. A medical examiner later determined he suffered a stroke and died of natural causes. Howard Liebengood, a Capitol police officer who responded to the riot, also died by suicide after the attack.
Erin Smith’s quest isn’t over. She applied for the National Law Enforcement Memorial to add her husband’s name as a line-of-duty death. Weber said they’re hoping for a decision soon.
California
OpenAI scrubs mention of Jony Ive partnership after judge’s ruling over trademark dispute
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A budding partnership between OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and legendary iPhone designer Jony Ive to develop a new artificial intelligence hardware product has hit a legal snag after a federal judge ruled they must temporarily stop marketing the new venture.
OpenAI last month announced it was buying io Products, a product and engineering company co-founded by Ive, in a deal valued at nearly $6.5 billion.
But it quickly faced a trademark complaint from a startup with a similarly sounding name, IYO, which is also developing AI hardware that it had pitched to Altman’s personal investment firm and Ive’s design firm in 2022.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson ruled late Friday that IYO has a strong enough trademark infringement case to proceed to a hearing in October. Until then, she ordered Altman, Ive and OpenAI to refrain from “using the IYO mark, and any mark confusingly similar thereto, including the IO mark in connection with the marketing or sale of related products.”
OpenAI responded by scrubbing its website of mentions of the new venture, including a web page of the May 21 announcement.
In its place, the company had a message Monday that said the page “is temporarily down due to a court order” and added: “We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options.”
IYO CEO Jason Rugolo applauded the ruling Monday in a written statement that said the startup will aggressively protect its brand and tech investments.
“IYO will not roll over and let Sam and Jony trample on our rights, no matter how rich and famous they are,” Rugolo said.
Republican effort to discourage Trump lawsuits hits a big obstacle
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans have hit a roadblock in an effort that could deter nonprofits, individuals and other potential litigants from filing lawsuits to block President Donald Trump over his executive actions.
As Trump faces lawsuits nationwide, GOP lawmakers had sought to bar federal courts from issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the federal government unless the plaintiffs post what in many cases would be a massive financial bond at the beginning of the case.
The proposal was included in the Senate version of Trump’s massive tax and immigration bill, but ran into trouble with the Senate parliamentarian, who said it violates the chamber’s rules. It is now unlikely to be in the final package.
Federal judges can already require plaintiffs to post security bonds, but such funds are commonly waived in public interest cases. The GOP proposal would make the payment of the financial bond a requirement before a judge could make a ruling, which critics said would have a chilling effect on potential litigants who wouldn’t have the resources to comply.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer hailed the parliamentarian’s ruling in a press statement and called the GOP effort “nothing short of an assault on the system of checks and balances that has anchored the nation since it’s founding.”
“But Senate Democrats stopped them cold,” Schumer said.
Lawmakers are running scores of provisions by the Senate parliamentarian’s office to ensure they fit with the chamber’s rules for inclusion in a reconciliation bill. The recommendations from Elizabeth MacDonough will have a major impact on the final version of the legislation.
On Friday, she determined that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states would violate the chamber’s rules. But some of the most difficult questions are still to come as Republicans hope to get a bill passed and on Trump’s desk to be signed into law before July 4th.
Republicans could still seek to include the judiciary provision in the bill, but it would likely be challenged and subject to a separate vote in which the provision would need 60 votes to remain. The parliamentarian’s advice, while not binding, is generally followed by the Senate.
Republicans and the White House have been highly critical of some of the court rulings blocking various Trump orders on immigration, education and voting. The courts have agreed to block the president in a number of cases, and the administration is seeking appeals as well.
In April, the House voted to limit the scope of injunctive relief ordered by a district judge to those parties before the court, rather than applying the relief nationally. But that bill is unlikely to advance in the Senate since it would need 60 votes to advance. That’s left Republicans looking for other avenues to blunt the court orders.
“We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d’etat,” Rep. Bob Onder, R-Mo., said during the House debate.
Washington
Judge halts Trump effort to block foreign students from attending Harvard University
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday blocked another effort by the Trump administration to keep international students from attending Harvard University, saying officials’ “misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution” threatened freedom of speech.
The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves the ability of foreign students to travel to the U.S. for study at Harvard while the case is decided.
President Donald Trump has sought to cut off Harvard’s enrollment of foreign students as part of a pressure campaign seeking changes to governance and policies at the Ivy League school.
Administration officials also have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status for the school Trump has derided as a hotbed of liberalism.
Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency withdrew the school’s certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas. The action would have forced Harvard’s roughly 7,000 foreign students to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally.
The university called it illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House’s demands to overhaul Harvard policies around campus protests, admissions, hiring and other issues. Burroughs temporarily had halted the action hours after Harvard sued and then granted an initial injunction Friday.
The latest injunction came Monday in response to another move from Trump, who cited a different legal justification when he issued a June 4 proclamation blocking foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard.
In her order, Burroughs said the case is about freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
“Here, the government’s misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration’s own views, threaten these rights,” she wrote.
Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment.
On Friday, he said in a post on Truth Social that the administration has been working with Harvard to address “their largescale improprieties” and that a deal with Harvard could be announced within the next week. “They have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations, and appear to be committed to doing what is right,” Trump’s post said.
Foreign students, who account for a quarter of Harvard’s enrollment, were brought into the battle in April when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program.
The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world’s top students, the school said in its lawsuit. “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,” the suit said.
Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its “core, legally-protected principles,” even after receiving federal ultimatums.
Washington
Jury orders man to pay $500K for assaulting officer who killed himself after Capitol riot
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal jury on Monday awarded $500,000 to the widow and estate of a police officer who killed himself nine days after he helped defend the U.S. Capitol from a mob of rioters, including a man who scuffled with the officer during the attack.
The eight-member jury ordered that man, 69-year-old chiropractor David Walls-Kaufman, to pay $380,000 in punitive damages and $60,000 in compensatory damages to Erin Smith for assaulting her husband, Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. They awarded an additional $60,000 to compensate Jeffrey Smith’s estate for his pain and suffering.
The judge presiding over the civil trial dismissed Erin Smith’s wrongful-death claim against Walls-Kaufman before jurors began deliberating last week. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said no reasonable juror could conclude that Walls-Kaufman’s actions were capable of causing a traumatic brain injury leading to Smith’s death.
Walls-Kaufman, who lived a few blocks from the Capitol, denied assaulting Smith. He says any injuries that the officer suffered on Jan. 6 occurred later in the day, when another rioter threw a pole that struck Smith around his head.
On Friday, the jury sided with Erin Smith and held Walls-Kaufman liable for assaulting her 35-year-old husband — an encounter captured on the officer’s body camera.
Walls-Kaufman said the outcome of the trial is “absolutely ridiculous.”
“No crime happened. I never struck the officer. I never intended to strike the officer,” he said. “I’m just stunned.”
After the jury left the courtroom, Reyes encouraged the parties to confer and discuss a possible settlement to avoid the time and expense of an appeal and for the sake of “finality.”
Jeffrey Smith was driving to work for the first time after the Capitol riot when he shot and killed himself with his service weapon. His family said he had no history of mental health problems before the Jan. 6 riot. Erin Smith claims Walls-Kaufman struck her husband in the head with his own police baton, giving him a concussion and causing psychological and physical trauma that led to his suicide.
The police department medically evaluated Smith and cleared him to return to full duty before he killed himself. In 2022, the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters’ Retirement and Relief Board determined that Smith was injured in the line of duty and the injury was the “sole and direct cause of his death,” according to the lawsuit.
Walls-Kaufman served a 60-day prison sentence after pleading guilty to a Capitol riot-related misdemeanor in January 2023, but he was pardoned in January. On his first day back in the White House, President Donald Trump pardoned, commuted prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of cases for all of the nearly 1,600 people charged in the attack.
More than 100 law-enforcement officers were injured during the riot. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick collapsed and died a day after engaging with the rioters. A medical examiner later determined he suffered a stroke and died of natural causes. Howard Liebengood, a Capitol police officer who responded to the riot, also died by suicide after the attack.
Erin Smith’s quest isn’t over. She applied for the National Law Enforcement Memorial to add her husband’s name as a line-of-duty death. Weber said they’re hoping for a decision soon.
California
OpenAI scrubs mention of Jony Ive partnership after judge’s ruling over trademark dispute
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A budding partnership between OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and legendary iPhone designer Jony Ive to develop a new artificial intelligence hardware product has hit a legal snag after a federal judge ruled they must temporarily stop marketing the new venture.
OpenAI last month announced it was buying io Products, a product and engineering company co-founded by Ive, in a deal valued at nearly $6.5 billion.
But it quickly faced a trademark complaint from a startup with a similarly sounding name, IYO, which is also developing AI hardware that it had pitched to Altman’s personal investment firm and Ive’s design firm in 2022.
U.S. District Judge Trina Thompson ruled late Friday that IYO has a strong enough trademark infringement case to proceed to a hearing in October. Until then, she ordered Altman, Ive and OpenAI to refrain from “using the IYO mark, and any mark confusingly similar thereto, including the IO mark in connection with the marketing or sale of related products.”
OpenAI responded by scrubbing its website of mentions of the new venture, including a web page of the May 21 announcement.
In its place, the company had a message Monday that said the page “is temporarily down due to a court order” and added: “We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options.”
IYO CEO Jason Rugolo applauded the ruling Monday in a written statement that said the startup will aggressively protect its brand and tech investments.
“IYO will not roll over and let Sam and Jony trample on our rights, no matter how rich and famous they are,” Rugolo said.
