Washington
Another federal judge expresses skepticism over Trump law firm executive orders
WASHINGTON (AP) — Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted the Trump administration’s executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.
Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department’s claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The executive orders have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.
“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”
Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.
Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department’s “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order and said
“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That’s a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note of the fact that it previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term.
“All we need to do is read this thing,” Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”
Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.
Florida
Federal lawsuit against ban on ‘lab-grown’ meat still alive after judge’s ruling
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A lawsuit against Florida’s ban on “lab-grown” meat is still alive after a federal judge tossed four parts of the suit on Friday but kept a fifth.
Northern District of Florida Chief Judge Mark Walker declined to dismiss a part of the lawsuit that argued Florida’s restrictions give an unconstitutional advantage to Florida farmers over out-of-state competitors. Meanwhile, the judge sided with state attorneys seeking to dismiss the lawsuit and their argument that federal approval of cultivated chicken doesn’t mean individual states can’t ban it.
U.S. regulators first signed off on the sale of what’s known as “cell-cultured” or “cell-cultivated” meat in June 2023. The lawsuit had argued that Florida’s law is preempted under federal laws that regulate the interstate market for meat and poultry products. Sellers say the product is a more ethical and sustainable alternative to conventionally raised chicken, beef and pork.
But lawmakers in Florida, Alabama and Mississippi have called cultivated meat a threat to their states’ agriculture industries and banned the sale of the product, which is made of animal cells that are fed a mix of proteins, vitamins and water and then formed into nuggets, sausages and steaks.
The lawsuit was filed last year by Upside Foods, represented by the nonprofit law firm the Institute for Justice.
“Upside is not looking to replace conventional meat, which will always have a place at the table,” Upside CEO Uma Valeti said in a statement. “All we are asking for is the right to compete, so that Floridians can try our product and see that it is possible to have delicious meat without the need for slaughtering animals. Today’s ruling is an important step toward securing that right.”
The governor’s office and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment about the lawsuit.
Gov. Ron DeSantis was flanked by cattle farmers last May when he signed the state’s cultivated meat ban into law.
“We stand with agriculture, we stand with the cattle ranchers, we stand with our farmers because we understand it’s important for the backbone of the state,” DeSantis said. “Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere.”
Iowa
Governor sues Des Moines Register to stop request of emails she claims are protected
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa’s governor on Friday sued the Des Moines Register over the newspaper’s open records request, asking the court to validate her office’s withholding of certain emails she claims are protected.
A Register reporter submitted a records request in February to Gov. Kim Reynolds’ office, according to the complaint. In response, the Republican governor’s office provided 825 pages of relevant documents and withheld four emails, asserting they were protected because they were “intended to be confidential, and disclosure would inhibit the governor’s ability to receive candid, fulsome, and robust information in the future,” according to the office’s response included in filings.
An attorney followed up on the Register’s behalf last week, according to court filings, arguing that so-called executive privilege is not an exemption in Iowa’s open records law and, even if it was, there was no indication the governor sent or received the emails. The attorney, Susan P. Elgin, called the withholding “legally indefensible” and asked the records be produced in a week’s time.
Instead, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird sued Friday to ask the court to intervene, as Iowa law allows, and force the Register to halt its pursuit of the records. The Associated Press emailed Elgin Friday requesting comment. The Register’s parent company, Gannett Co., said in an email it does not comment on pending litigation.
In a statement, the governor’s office said it was unfortunate that public resources would be used to defend the governor’s withholding of the records.
“It is in the public’s interest that governors can receive candid advice from their closest advisors,” said spokesperson Mason Mauro.
In 2023, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected Reynolds’ request that the court throw out a records-related lawsuit filed against her by the liberal-leaning Bleeding Heartland blog, Iowa Capital Dispatch and Iowa Freedom of Information Council, a nonprofit that focuses on open government issues. The organizations and some of their reporters sued accusing Reynolds of violating the state’s open records law by ignoring records requests and not producing records in a timely manner.
The Register, along with the newspaper’s parent company and their former pollster, also is named in a suit filed by President Donald Trump, Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former Iowa state Sen. Brad Zaun. Accused of misleading voters with an inaccurate poll in the final days of the 2024 campaign, the Des Moines Register has called that lawsuit an affront to constitutional free speech principles.
Washington
Lawsuit says migrants endure isolation and intimidation at US’ Guantanamo detention center
Immigration and civil rights advocates have renewed concerns that immigrants detained at Guantanamo Bay are being held in extreme isolation, cut off from meaningful access to legal counsel or candid communication with relatives, according to a new court filing Saturday.
In a lawsuit brought on behalf or two Nicaraguan immigrants held at the U.S. Navy base on Cuba, attorneys say there is a climate of “extreme fear and intimidation” that interferes with constitutional rights to due process and legal counsel.
The revised lawsuit asks a federal judge in Washington to intervene on behalf of all future immigrants at Guantanamo, which authorities have used as a way station for immigrants whom President Donald Trump calls “the worst,” with final removal orders, as his administration seeks to ramp up mass deportations.
“Officers at Guantánamo have created a climate of extreme fear and intimidation where immigrant detainees are afraid to communicate freely with their counsel,” the lawsuit says, adding that conditions are more restrictive than at mainland detention facilities, prisons and in some instances law-of-war military custody at Guantanamo Bay.
U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the base, declined to comment on the lawsuit and referred requests to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to an email Saturday.
In March a federal judge ruled against advocates’ attempts to help migrants at Guantanamo and prevent further transfers there, days after the administration moved all migrants out of the facility.
Two Nicaraguans who arrived since then have submitted court declarations charting their journey through detention centers in Louisiana to Cuba and describing their anguished concerns that phone conversations are being monitored and might lead to punishment or reprisals.
Attorneys have no in-person contact with clients at the base and say they are chained and placed in restraints during legal calls that are broadcast on speakerphone with officers seated outside an open doorway. That undermines the right to confidential communication and attorney-client privilege, the lawsuit says.
The complaint also says some detainees have been interrogated by the FBI about possible gang affiliation while surrounded by military officers. One person was stripped in search of a missing toothbrush, and another was locked in a concrete cell with no windows or lights for four days, it adds.
“I have been allowed to speak to my family about 20 times. Each call is about 5 minutes,” Johon Suazo-Muller said in a written declaration to the court that was translated into English.
He said he immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua in October 2023 in search of asylum from political conflict and a better life.
“I am not allowed to give any information about my time at Guantanamo,” Suazo-Muller said. “I can’t say where I’m at or details about how I’m doing.”
Another federal judge expresses skepticism over Trump law firm executive orders
WASHINGTON (AP) — Another federal judge in Washington has expressed skepticism on the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting a prominent law firm, saying he was concerned that the clear purpose of the edict was punishment.
U.S. District Judge John Bates had already temporarily halted the Trump administration’s executive order against the firm of Jenner & Block but heard arguments Monday on a request by the firm to block it permanently. Lawyers for two other firms — Perkins Coie and WilmerHale — made similar arguments last week to judges who appeared receptive to their positions.
Like the other judges, Bates did not immediately rule but repeatedly pushed back against a Justice Department’s claims that the orders against Jenner and other law firms were not meant to punish them. The executive orders have generally imposed the same sanctions against the law firms, including ordering that security clearances of attorneys be suspended, that federal contracts be terminated and that lawyers be barred from accessing federal buildings.
“It’s trying to punish Jenner by stopping the flow of money to Jenner,” Bates said. He later asked: “Isn’t it logical that clients are going to be reluctant to engage Jenner & Block if they know there’s a real chance that Jenner and Block isn’t going to be able to go into a federal building or talk to federal agencies?”
Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson said it was premature to make that assessment because guidelines governing how the executive order is to be implemented had not yet come out.
Michael Attanasio, a lawyer who presented arguments on behalf of Jenner & Block, said it was “surreal” to listen to the Justice Department’s “verbal gymnastics” in rationalizing the order and said
“This order is designed to do one thing: it’s designed to punish a law firm because of the cases it take and because of its affiliation with a critic of the president,” Attanasio said. That’s a reference to the fact that the executive order against the firm takes note of the fact that it previously employed Andrew Weissmann, a prosecutor on special counsel Robert Mueller’s team that investigated Trump during his first term.
“All we need to do is read this thing,” Attanasio said. “It reeks of unconstitutionality. It should be set aside in its entirety.”
Each of the law firms subject to an executive order that has challenged it in court has succeeded in getting it temporarily blocked. Other firms, by contrast, have opted to preemptively reach agreements with the White House to avoid getting targeted.
Florida
Federal lawsuit against ban on ‘lab-grown’ meat still alive after judge’s ruling
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A lawsuit against Florida’s ban on “lab-grown” meat is still alive after a federal judge tossed four parts of the suit on Friday but kept a fifth.
Northern District of Florida Chief Judge Mark Walker declined to dismiss a part of the lawsuit that argued Florida’s restrictions give an unconstitutional advantage to Florida farmers over out-of-state competitors. Meanwhile, the judge sided with state attorneys seeking to dismiss the lawsuit and their argument that federal approval of cultivated chicken doesn’t mean individual states can’t ban it.
U.S. regulators first signed off on the sale of what’s known as “cell-cultured” or “cell-cultivated” meat in June 2023. The lawsuit had argued that Florida’s law is preempted under federal laws that regulate the interstate market for meat and poultry products. Sellers say the product is a more ethical and sustainable alternative to conventionally raised chicken, beef and pork.
But lawmakers in Florida, Alabama and Mississippi have called cultivated meat a threat to their states’ agriculture industries and banned the sale of the product, which is made of animal cells that are fed a mix of proteins, vitamins and water and then formed into nuggets, sausages and steaks.
The lawsuit was filed last year by Upside Foods, represented by the nonprofit law firm the Institute for Justice.
“Upside is not looking to replace conventional meat, which will always have a place at the table,” Upside CEO Uma Valeti said in a statement. “All we are asking for is the right to compete, so that Floridians can try our product and see that it is possible to have delicious meat without the need for slaughtering animals. Today’s ruling is an important step toward securing that right.”
The governor’s office and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services didn’t immediately respond to emails seeking comment about the lawsuit.
Gov. Ron DeSantis was flanked by cattle farmers last May when he signed the state’s cultivated meat ban into law.
“We stand with agriculture, we stand with the cattle ranchers, we stand with our farmers because we understand it’s important for the backbone of the state,” DeSantis said. “Take your fake lab-grown meat elsewhere.”
Iowa
Governor sues Des Moines Register to stop request of emails she claims are protected
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa’s governor on Friday sued the Des Moines Register over the newspaper’s open records request, asking the court to validate her office’s withholding of certain emails she claims are protected.
A Register reporter submitted a records request in February to Gov. Kim Reynolds’ office, according to the complaint. In response, the Republican governor’s office provided 825 pages of relevant documents and withheld four emails, asserting they were protected because they were “intended to be confidential, and disclosure would inhibit the governor’s ability to receive candid, fulsome, and robust information in the future,” according to the office’s response included in filings.
An attorney followed up on the Register’s behalf last week, according to court filings, arguing that so-called executive privilege is not an exemption in Iowa’s open records law and, even if it was, there was no indication the governor sent or received the emails. The attorney, Susan P. Elgin, called the withholding “legally indefensible” and asked the records be produced in a week’s time.
Instead, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird sued Friday to ask the court to intervene, as Iowa law allows, and force the Register to halt its pursuit of the records. The Associated Press emailed Elgin Friday requesting comment. The Register’s parent company, Gannett Co., said in an email it does not comment on pending litigation.
In a statement, the governor’s office said it was unfortunate that public resources would be used to defend the governor’s withholding of the records.
“It is in the public’s interest that governors can receive candid advice from their closest advisors,” said spokesperson Mason Mauro.
In 2023, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected Reynolds’ request that the court throw out a records-related lawsuit filed against her by the liberal-leaning Bleeding Heartland blog, Iowa Capital Dispatch and Iowa Freedom of Information Council, a nonprofit that focuses on open government issues. The organizations and some of their reporters sued accusing Reynolds of violating the state’s open records law by ignoring records requests and not producing records in a timely manner.
The Register, along with the newspaper’s parent company and their former pollster, also is named in a suit filed by President Donald Trump, Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and former Iowa state Sen. Brad Zaun. Accused of misleading voters with an inaccurate poll in the final days of the 2024 campaign, the Des Moines Register has called that lawsuit an affront to constitutional free speech principles.
Washington
Lawsuit says migrants endure isolation and intimidation at US’ Guantanamo detention center
Immigration and civil rights advocates have renewed concerns that immigrants detained at Guantanamo Bay are being held in extreme isolation, cut off from meaningful access to legal counsel or candid communication with relatives, according to a new court filing Saturday.
In a lawsuit brought on behalf or two Nicaraguan immigrants held at the U.S. Navy base on Cuba, attorneys say there is a climate of “extreme fear and intimidation” that interferes with constitutional rights to due process and legal counsel.
The revised lawsuit asks a federal judge in Washington to intervene on behalf of all future immigrants at Guantanamo, which authorities have used as a way station for immigrants whom President Donald Trump calls “the worst,” with final removal orders, as his administration seeks to ramp up mass deportations.
“Officers at Guantánamo have created a climate of extreme fear and intimidation where immigrant detainees are afraid to communicate freely with their counsel,” the lawsuit says, adding that conditions are more restrictive than at mainland detention facilities, prisons and in some instances law-of-war military custody at Guantanamo Bay.
U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the base, declined to comment on the lawsuit and referred requests to the Department of Homeland Security, which did not immediately respond to an email Saturday.
In March a federal judge ruled against advocates’ attempts to help migrants at Guantanamo and prevent further transfers there, days after the administration moved all migrants out of the facility.
Two Nicaraguans who arrived since then have submitted court declarations charting their journey through detention centers in Louisiana to Cuba and describing their anguished concerns that phone conversations are being monitored and might lead to punishment or reprisals.
Attorneys have no in-person contact with clients at the base and say they are chained and placed in restraints during legal calls that are broadcast on speakerphone with officers seated outside an open doorway. That undermines the right to confidential communication and attorney-client privilege, the lawsuit says.
The complaint also says some detainees have been interrogated by the FBI about possible gang affiliation while surrounded by military officers. One person was stripped in search of a missing toothbrush, and another was locked in a concrete cell with no windows or lights for four days, it adds.
“I have been allowed to speak to my family about 20 times. Each call is about 5 minutes,” Johon Suazo-Muller said in a written declaration to the court that was translated into English.
He said he immigrated to the U.S. from Nicaragua in October 2023 in search of asylum from political conflict and a better life.
“I am not allowed to give any information about my time at Guantanamo,” Suazo-Muller said. “I can’t say where I’m at or details about how I’m doing.”
