Georgia
Appeals court upholds ruling saying election officials must certify results
ATLANTA (AP) — A Georgia appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that said county election officials in the state must vote to certify results according to deadlines set in law.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney had ruled in October that “no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.” The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Republican Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who abstained from certifying primary election results last year.
A three-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals last week upheld McBurney’s ruling, saying “Adams’ contention that the trial court erred by declaring she had a mandatory duty to certify election results is without merit.”
Certification, an administrative task that involves certifying the number of votes, became a political flashpoint when President Donald Trump tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 general election. Republicans in several swing states refused to certify results during primary elections last year, and some sued to try to keep from being forced to sign off on election results.
In the run-up to last year’s presidential election, Democrats and some voting rights groups worried that Trump-allied election officials could refuse to certify election results if he were to lose to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump ended up beating Harris.
Georgia law says county election superintendents, which are generally multimember boards, shall certify election results by 5 p.m. on the Monday after an election, or the Tuesday after if Monday is a holiday.
McBurney had written in his order that Georgia law allows county election officials to examine whether fraud has occurred and what should be done about it. They should share any concerns with the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution or use them to file an election challenge in court, but cannot use their concerns to justify not certifying results, the judge wrote.
The Court of Appeals opinion echoed McBurney’s ruling.
The appeals court also noted that state law limits county election officials’ review of documents to instances when the total number of votes exceeds the total number of voters or ballots and also limits the review to documents related to the relevant precinct. To the extent that McBurney’s ruling allows a more expansive review, the judges sent it back to him for reconsideration.
New York
Barnard settles lawsuit brought by Jewish students, agreeing not to meet with pro-Palestinian group
NEW YORK (AP) — Barnard College has settled a lawsuit that accused the college of not doing enough to combat antisemitism on campus, agreeing to a litany of demands that include banning masks at protests and refusing to meet or negotiate with a coalition of pro-Palestinian student groups, according to a statement released Monday.
The Manhattan college, an all-women’s affiliate of Columbia University, will also establish a new Title VI coordinator to enforce against claims of discrimination. Beginning next semester, all students and staff will receive a message conveying a “zero tolerance” policy for harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.
The settlement was announced in a joint statement by Barnard and lawyers for two Jewish advocacy groups, Students Against Antisemitism and StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, who brought the lawsuit last February on behalf of some Jewish and Israeli students.
In the statement, Barnard’s president, Laura Ann Rosenbury, said the agreement “reflects our ongoing commitment to maintaining a campus that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all members of our community.”
The terms of the deal also drew immediate pushback from some students and faculty, who accused the university of capitulating to a legal strategy aimed at stifling legitimate pro-Palestinian activism on campus.
“This settlement appears to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,” said Nara Milanich, a Barnard history professor who is Jewish. “That is a problem for critical thought and academic freedom.”
As part of the agreement, the college will adopt contentious federal guidance to “consider” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and its examples, which include certain critiques of Israel.
A newly-appointed Title VI coordinator will oversee compliance with the policy and produce an annual report on antisemitism for university leaders.
Additionally, the university’s leaders agreed not to recognize, meet or negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the coalition behind last spring’s student encampments. The group has called on both Columbia and Barnard to sever ties with companies that do business with Israel.
As part of the deal, the university will also affirm that its endowment will not be used for expressing political positions, including “taking actions for the purpose of penalizing the government of a country or the commercial/financial activity within that country.”
The agreement follows a federal lawsuit brought last February that accused Barnard and Columbia of allowing Jewish and Israeli students to be “bombarded” by antisemitism during protests that erupted against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
The litigation against Columbia remains ongoing — though the university has already agreed to revamp its policies around protests, among other concessions made under threat from the Trump administration.
New York University and Harvard University have entered into their own legal settlements following lawsuits focused on antisemitism.
In the lawsuit against Columbia and Barnard, Jewish and Israeli students said they were subject to unchecked harassment during protests by “mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty.” Those who participated in the protests, including many Jewish students, have strongly disputed that characterization.
The lawsuit also claimed that students who served in Israel’s military were singled out, with some left “overwhelmed and unable to concentrate in class” after encountering signs accusing Israel of committing genocide and social media posts from fellow students.
Starting next semester, students will be reminded that they can be subject to discipline for off-campus conduct, including social media posts.
Barnard will also restrict where, when and how students can protest. And the university will ban face masks at demonstration used to “intimidate or interfere with the enforcement” of school policies.
“Barnard’s commitment to take meaningful actions to combat antisemitism demonstrates its leadership in the fight against antisemitism and upholding the rights of Jewish and Israeli students,” said Marc Kasowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “I encourage other colleges and universities to do the right thing and follow Barnard’s lead.”
Wisconsin
Judge recommends that case against Judge Hannah Dugan proceed
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal magistrate judge recommended Monday that the case proceed against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted on allegations that she helped a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested in April and indicted on federal charges in May. She pleaded not guilty.
The case highlighted a clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown.
Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition.
Dugan filed a motion in May to dismiss the charges against her, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. She argued that the federal government violated Wisconsin’s sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on Monday recommended against dropping the charges. The ultimate decision is up to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who can accept the other judge’s recommendation or reject it.
“We are disappointed in the magistrate judge’s non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,” Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement. “This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.”
Joseph wrote in her recommendation that while judges have immunity from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts, that does not apply to criminal charges like those in this case.
“A judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, does not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law,” Joseph wrote.
Dugan also argued that the prosecution under federal law violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers because it overrides the state of Wisconsin’s ability to administer its courts.
Whether Dugan broke the law as alleged, or she was merely performing her judicial duties as Dugan contends, are questions for a jury to decide and can’t be determined in a motion to dismiss, Joseph said.
Joseph also noted that both sides disagree on facts related to the case, which also can’t be resolved in a motion to dismiss.
“It is important to note that nothing said here speaks to the merits of the allegations against Dugan,” the judge said in the recommendation. “Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.”
No trial date has been set.
Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country without permanent legal status.
Agents arrested Ruiz outside of the courthouse after a brief foot chase.
Dugan could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts.
Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
Appeals court upholds ruling saying election officials must certify results
ATLANTA (AP) — A Georgia appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that said county election officials in the state must vote to certify results according to deadlines set in law.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney had ruled in October that “no election superintendent (or member of a board of elections and registration) may refuse to certify or abstain from certifying election results under any circumstance.” The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Republican Fulton County election board member Julie Adams, who abstained from certifying primary election results last year.
A three-judge panel of the Georgia Court of Appeals last week upheld McBurney’s ruling, saying “Adams’ contention that the trial court erred by declaring she had a mandatory duty to certify election results is without merit.”
Certification, an administrative task that involves certifying the number of votes, became a political flashpoint when President Donald Trump tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 general election. Republicans in several swing states refused to certify results during primary elections last year, and some sued to try to keep from being forced to sign off on election results.
In the run-up to last year’s presidential election, Democrats and some voting rights groups worried that Trump-allied election officials could refuse to certify election results if he were to lose to then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump ended up beating Harris.
Georgia law says county election superintendents, which are generally multimember boards, shall certify election results by 5 p.m. on the Monday after an election, or the Tuesday after if Monday is a holiday.
McBurney had written in his order that Georgia law allows county election officials to examine whether fraud has occurred and what should be done about it. They should share any concerns with the appropriate authorities for criminal prosecution or use them to file an election challenge in court, but cannot use their concerns to justify not certifying results, the judge wrote.
The Court of Appeals opinion echoed McBurney’s ruling.
The appeals court also noted that state law limits county election officials’ review of documents to instances when the total number of votes exceeds the total number of voters or ballots and also limits the review to documents related to the relevant precinct. To the extent that McBurney’s ruling allows a more expansive review, the judges sent it back to him for reconsideration.
New York
Barnard settles lawsuit brought by Jewish students, agreeing not to meet with pro-Palestinian group
NEW YORK (AP) — Barnard College has settled a lawsuit that accused the college of not doing enough to combat antisemitism on campus, agreeing to a litany of demands that include banning masks at protests and refusing to meet or negotiate with a coalition of pro-Palestinian student groups, according to a statement released Monday.
The Manhattan college, an all-women’s affiliate of Columbia University, will also establish a new Title VI coordinator to enforce against claims of discrimination. Beginning next semester, all students and staff will receive a message conveying a “zero tolerance” policy for harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.
The settlement was announced in a joint statement by Barnard and lawyers for two Jewish advocacy groups, Students Against Antisemitism and StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, who brought the lawsuit last February on behalf of some Jewish and Israeli students.
In the statement, Barnard’s president, Laura Ann Rosenbury, said the agreement “reflects our ongoing commitment to maintaining a campus that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all members of our community.”
The terms of the deal also drew immediate pushback from some students and faculty, who accused the university of capitulating to a legal strategy aimed at stifling legitimate pro-Palestinian activism on campus.
“This settlement appears to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,” said Nara Milanich, a Barnard history professor who is Jewish. “That is a problem for critical thought and academic freedom.”
As part of the agreement, the college will adopt contentious federal guidance to “consider” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and its examples, which include certain critiques of Israel.
A newly-appointed Title VI coordinator will oversee compliance with the policy and produce an annual report on antisemitism for university leaders.
Additionally, the university’s leaders agreed not to recognize, meet or negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the coalition behind last spring’s student encampments. The group has called on both Columbia and Barnard to sever ties with companies that do business with Israel.
As part of the deal, the university will also affirm that its endowment will not be used for expressing political positions, including “taking actions for the purpose of penalizing the government of a country or the commercial/financial activity within that country.”
The agreement follows a federal lawsuit brought last February that accused Barnard and Columbia of allowing Jewish and Israeli students to be “bombarded” by antisemitism during protests that erupted against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
The litigation against Columbia remains ongoing — though the university has already agreed to revamp its policies around protests, among other concessions made under threat from the Trump administration.
New York University and Harvard University have entered into their own legal settlements following lawsuits focused on antisemitism.
In the lawsuit against Columbia and Barnard, Jewish and Israeli students said they were subject to unchecked harassment during protests by “mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty.” Those who participated in the protests, including many Jewish students, have strongly disputed that characterization.
The lawsuit also claimed that students who served in Israel’s military were singled out, with some left “overwhelmed and unable to concentrate in class” after encountering signs accusing Israel of committing genocide and social media posts from fellow students.
Starting next semester, students will be reminded that they can be subject to discipline for off-campus conduct, including social media posts.
Barnard will also restrict where, when and how students can protest. And the university will ban face masks at demonstration used to “intimidate or interfere with the enforcement” of school policies.
“Barnard’s commitment to take meaningful actions to combat antisemitism demonstrates its leadership in the fight against antisemitism and upholding the rights of Jewish and Israeli students,” said Marc Kasowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “I encourage other colleges and universities to do the right thing and follow Barnard’s lead.”
Wisconsin
Judge recommends that case against Judge Hannah Dugan proceed
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A federal magistrate judge recommended Monday that the case proceed against a Wisconsin judge who was indicted on allegations that she helped a man who is in the country illegally evade U.S. immigration agents seeking to arrest him in her courthouse.
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested in April and indicted on federal charges in May. She pleaded not guilty.
The case highlighted a clash between President Donald Trump’s administration and local authorities over the Republican’s sweeping immigration crackdown.
Democrats have accused the Trump administration of trying to make a national example of Dugan to chill judicial opposition.
Dugan filed a motion in May to dismiss the charges against her, saying she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore is immune to prosecution. She argued that the federal government violated Wisconsin’s sovereignty by disrupting a state courtroom and prosecuting a state judge.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph on Monday recommended against dropping the charges. The ultimate decision is up to U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, who can accept the other judge’s recommendation or reject it.
“We are disappointed in the magistrate judge’s non-binding recommendation, and we will appeal it,” Dugan attorney Steven Biskupic, a former federal prosecutor, said in a statement. “This is only one step in what we expect will be a long journey to preserve the independence and integrity of our courts.”
Joseph wrote in her recommendation that while judges have immunity from civil lawsuits seeking monetary damages when engaging in judicial acts, that does not apply to criminal charges like those in this case.
“A judge’s actions, even when done in her official capacity, does not bar criminal prosecution if the actions were done in violation of the criminal law,” Joseph wrote.
Dugan also argued that the prosecution under federal law violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers because it overrides the state of Wisconsin’s ability to administer its courts.
Whether Dugan broke the law as alleged, or she was merely performing her judicial duties as Dugan contends, are questions for a jury to decide and can’t be determined in a motion to dismiss, Joseph said.
Joseph also noted that both sides disagree on facts related to the case, which also can’t be resolved in a motion to dismiss.
“It is important to note that nothing said here speaks to the merits of the allegations against Dugan,” the judge said in the recommendation. “Dugan is presumed innocent, and innocent she remains, unless and until the government proves the allegations against her beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury at trial.”
No trial date has been set.
Dugan is charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Prosecutors say she escorted Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, and his lawyer out of her courtroom through a back door on April 18 after learning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were in the courthouse seeking to arrest him for being in the country without permanent legal status.
Agents arrested Ruiz outside of the courthouse after a brief foot chase.
Dugan could face up to six years in prison and a $350,000 fine if convicted on both counts.
Her case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a courthouse back door to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent. That case was eventually dismissed.
