Some uncertainty remained about who at Fox authorized specific broadcasts and what those people knew or believed at the time, Davis continued.
“The Court does not weigh the evidence to determine who may have been responsible for publication and if such people acted with actual malice – these are genuine issues of material fact and therefore must be determined by a jury,” the judge wrote in his 81-page ruling.
Fox reacted to the ruling by insisting that the company is standing up for free-speech principles.
“This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news. Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings,” the company said.
A spokesperson for Dominion welcomed Davis’ ruling. “We are gratified by the Court’s thorough ruling soundly rejecting all of Fox’s arguments and defenses, and finding as a matter of law that their statements about Dominion are false. We look forward to going to trial,” the firm said.
Davis has set jury selection for April 13 and the trial to begin in April 17 in Delaware Superior Court in Wilmington, assuming that the sides don’t reach a financial settlement in the meantime.
The trial is expected to feature testimony from top Fox personalities including Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and others. The pre-trial litigation has already uncovered documents showing that the hosts and anchors did not believe many of the charges being leveled on their programs and that, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 race, the company was desperately looking for ways to keep its Trump-supporting viewers from defecting to rivals like Newsmax and One America News.
Dominion filed the suit in 2021, contending that Fox gravely damaged the voting company’s reputation by repeatedly airing false charges about it even after being given details about the misstatements.
In recent court filings, Fox’s attorneys argued that the network wasn’t endorsing the claims leveled by Trump and allies like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, but was simply conveying newsworthy statements being issued by important public figures. The judge rejected those arguments.
“Fox dedicates little to its argument on falsity. It claims that ‘[t]he question is whether the press reported the “true” fact that the President made those allegations,’” Davis wrote. “However, falsity refers to the content of the statement, not the act of republishing it. Therefore, the question of falsity is whether the content of the allegations was true, not whether Fox truthfully republished the allegations.”
Davis also said Fox’s reports and interviews often aired the claims without rebuttal or context, further undercutting the network’s arguments.
“The evidence does not support that FNN conducted good-faith, disinterested reporting….FNN’s failure to reveal extensive contradicting evidence from the public sphere and Dominion itself indicates its reporting was not disinterested,” the judge wrote.
[ad_2]
#Judge #sends #Dominion #lawsuit #Fox #News #trial
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Gangster Atiq Ahmed’s convoy halts briefly in MP’s Shivpuri district on way to Prayagraj.
Prayagraj: The Uttar Pradesh government has increased the security of special judge Dinesh Chandra Shukla, former minister Sidharth Nath Singh and Umesh Pal’s lawyers in Prayagraj.
This comes two days after an MP /MLA court sentenced gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed and two aides to life imprisonment in the Umesh Pal abduction case.
Police teams have been deployed outside the homes of Umesh Pal’s lawyers, senior police officials confirmed.
Former UP Minister Siddharth Nath Singh, a second-term MLA from Atiq’s former stronghold of Allahabad West seat, has also been given additional security.
Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and Siddharth Nath Singh had performed ‘bhoomi pujan’ on December 26, 2021 for construction of flats for the poor on prime land freed from Atiq Ahmed’s illegal possession at Lukerganj in Prayagraj.
The Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) is constructing the flats.
The employers and individuals had standing to sue, O’Connor wrote, because “compulsory coverage for those services violates their religious beliefs by making them complicit in facilitating homosexual behavior, drug use, and sexual activity outside of marriage between one man and one woman.”
The employers argued that recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force can’t be enforced because its members are private medical experts who advise the government, not government employees.
“The Appointments Clause says major policy decisions have to be made by an ‘officer of the United States,’ and can’t be made by just somebody off the street,” explained Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan whose research focuses on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
Judge O’Connor agreed, in part, but did not grant two other requests — one based on religious rights and another based on secular cost concerns — to block the ACA’s contraception mandate. The challengers have said they plan to appeal that decision.
The decision also does not affect access to free vaccines, which are covered under a different piece of the law.
The ruling comes four years after the same judge found all of Obamacare unconstitutional, a decision that was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also the latest salvo in a years-long fight by conservatives to undo the former president’s signature health law by chipping away at its requirements.
The Biden administration, which is expected to appeal to the conservative leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, made several arguments in defense of the landmark health reform law that the judge dismissed, including that the accessibility of PrEP and other sexual health preventive services is key to the fight against the spread of HIV, particularly after the country lost ground on testing and treating patients during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Though he acknowledged that there is a “compelling government interest in inhibiting the spread of a potentially fatal infectious disease like HIV,” O’Connor said the government does not have to compel private insurance companies to cover drugs like PrEP in order to achieve its public health aims.
O’Connor also rejected the DOJ’s argument that the challengers can’t prove they were harmed by the preventive care mandate and thus don’t have standing to sue.
The decision notes that when Biden administration attorneys asked the challengers how much more the coverage of preventive services increased their insurance premiums, “Plaintiffs responded that they could not quantify the increased costs, but that they knew their premiums had become too expensive to afford.”
O’Connor had already sided with the challengers on preventive care and PrEP in September, but had not said whether his ruling would apply only to the people suing, to everyone in Texas, or nationwide, and requested a further briefing. O’Connor ultimately granted the pleas for a “universal” ruling, potentially upending the national insurance market.
While 15 states require insurance companies to cover these types of preventive services regardless of federal law, those rules don’t apply to self-insured employer plans, which cover most people who have private insurance.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Thursday that the Justice and Health Departments are reviewing the decision and said the administration sees it “yet another attack on the Affordable Care Act” and “yet another attack on the ability of Americans to make their own health care choices.”
Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill pleaded with the administration to swiftly appeal what they called a “reckless decision,” warning that it “will put lives at risk if people are forced to forgo routine screenings and treatment.”
“I am also calling on all health care insurers to commit to continuing to cover all preventive services without cost-sharing while this case is litigated and until final disposition of the lawsuit,” said Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) ranking member of the Energy and Commerce committee.
Health insurance experts say that while the ruling is unlikely to have an immediate effect, patients could be deterred from seeking out services for fear of being hit with a medical bill.
“Most insurance plans are locked in through the end of the year and thus the impacts would not be felt immediately, but that doesn’t apply universally,” cautioned Bagley. “There’s a ton of uncertainty.”
Congress, he added, could easily rectify the situation with a one-line bill saying: “Whatever the USPTF recommends has to be covered, subject to approval by the HHS Secretary.” But prospects for passage are grim with the House currently under GOP control.
The case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court, which has upheld the Affordable Care Act multiple times but chipped away at significant portions of the law, including its contraception coverage requirements and Medicaid expansion.
[ad_2]
#Texas #judge #strikes #free #HIV #drugs #cancer #screenings #Obamacare
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
New York: In an immigration-friendly move, a judge has ruled that spouses of highly-skilled H-1B visa holders in tech sector can now work in the US, thus upholding an Obama-era rule under which partners were issued H-4 visas.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Tuesday dismissed arguments by Save Jobs USA, who claimed that the Congress never granted the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) authority to allow foreign nationals, like H-4 visa-holders, to work during their stay in the US.
“That contention runs headlong into the text of the (Immigration and Nationality Act), decades of executive-branch practice, and both explicit and implicit congressional ratification of that practice,” Chutkan wrote in her ruling.
She further said that the DHS has authorised employment not just for students, but also for their spouses and dependents.
The lawsuit was also opposed by big tech firms like Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
H4 visas are issued to dependent spouses and children who accompany H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, and H-3 visa holders to the US.
The spouses of H-1B visa holders tend to be highly educated, many of them in STEM fields, and previously had careers of their own or worked to support their families.
In 2021, Google filed a legal brief with over 40 companies to protect the work authorisation programme that allows the spouses of H-1B visa holders to work in the US.
As part of his anti-immigration policy, former President Donald Trump had proposed to end the issuing of work authorisation (H-4 EAD) for certain spouses of high-skilled talent who came to the US on H-1B visas.
According to a National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) analysis, 90 per cent of the spouses of H-1B visa holders are female, two-thirds are from India and 6 per cent from China.
“The US can reap significant economic benefits, ease labor shortages, and attract more workers in the global competition for talent if it expanded current rules on work eligibility for the spouses of H-1B visa holders,” the 2022 study by NFAP said.
Mehsana: A sessions court in Gujarat’s Mehsana district on Wednesday set aside a lower court order sentencing Congress MLA Jignesh Mevani and nine others to three months in jail in a 2017 case of taking out a public rally without police permission, noting debates and bona fide criticism of government actions are essential for the existence of democracy.
In its judgment, the sessions court also quoted former US President Abraham Lincoln, “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and under a just God, cannot long retain it.”
Observing that the entire case of prosecution was baseless and without any substance or evidence, Additional Sessions Judge CM Pawar allowed the appeal of Mevani, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Reshma Patel, and others against the May 2022 order of a judicial magistrate court which had found them guilty under sections 143 (unlawful assembly) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Following the conviction, the magistrate’s court had sentenced them to three months in jail.
The case dates back to July 2017 when an FIR (first information report) was lodged against Dalit rights activist Mevani and others at the Mehsana ‘A’ division police station for taking out an “Azadi march” from Mehsana town to Dhanera in Banaskantha district without police permission.
The rally was organised in support of rights of landless farmers of the region.
While setting aside the lower court’s order, the sessions judge observed that “deliberations, discussions, debates and bona fide dissent against policies of government and even bona fide criticism of action of government are essential for the existence of democracy in the nation.”
It also flagged the issue of misuse of power and process of law by authorities for suppressing the voice of people, and noted showing “dominance of power” is not unknown even in a democratic set up.
In a democracy, elected leaders are not meant to rule over people but to serve them, observed the sessions court.
“It is the pious duty of the ruler of every democratic nation to protect the rights of citizens without any fear of criticism for survival of the ethos of democracy in the nation,” it said.
Judge Pawar said if dissent or peaceful protest is branded as an offence in a democracy, then the right of freedom will have no place.
The accused persons had sought permission from authorities to organise a rally under the banner of Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch to air grievances of members of the Dalit community.
Permission for the event was first granted by the executive magistrate via an order dated June 27, 2017, and later cancelled on July 7 on grounds of public disorder.
Despite this, the organisers decided to go ahead with their planned rally and were subsequently booked by the police under IPC section 143 (unlawful assembly).
At that time, Mevani was the independent MLA from Vadgam in Banaskantha district. The prominent Dalit leader was elected from the same Assembly seat in the December 2022 polls on a Congress ticket. He is also a working president of the Gujarat Congress.
An Ahmedabad court in September last year sentenced Mevani and 18 others to six months’ simple imprisonment in a 2016 case of rioting.
Several Democrats are privately balking at the nomination. And it would be a second significant loss for the New Hampshire senators, after their unsuccessful effort to dissuade President Joe Biden and the Democratic Party from ending New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary in 2024. While colleagues speak reverently of the two Democrats, Delaney will test just how much influence they really wield.
Some in the caucus have started to quietly question why Shaheen and Hassan, who are known for their collaborative natures and prevailing in tough Senate races, are going to the mat for a nominee with such a controversial record. And even the duo’s best efforts may not be enough.
“There’s a lot of concerns that are being aired from groups that I really respect. I’m going to listen to them, I’m going to read their statements and things to me. I’m going to learn more,” said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a member of the Judiciary Committee. He also described Hassan and Shaheen as “two dear friends whose judgment I trust.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), another member of the panel who has spoken to both senators, was also noncommittal: “I haven’t decided how I’m going to vote for him yet. That’s all I’m going to say at the moment.”
It’s a rare step into the spotlight for the Democratic pair of Granite Staters, who are known more for cutting bipartisan deals than stirring up trouble. But when it comes to Delaney, they’re not holding back.
In making her case to confirm Delaney, Shaheen said in a brief interview that she’d told the caucus about “what a great job he did as attorney general and in private practice” and wants “to correct the misinformation that’s been put out there about him.”
Concerns about Delaney extend beyond the legislative branch. Outside groups that typically align with the administration have expressed deep concerns or even outright opposition to Delaney. In addition, officials at the White House were uneasy about Delaney but felt they couldn’t pick a fight with the New Hampshire senators after the state lost its first-in-nation primary status, according to a person who was told by the White House.
Biden pressed to reorganize the primary calendar on Dec. 1; Delaney was nominated on Jan. 18. Shaheen pushed back on any suggestion that the two events could be linked: “no connection at all.”
“The President nominated Michael Delaney based on his three decades of legal experience, including his time as a front-line prosecutor combating violent crime, and his leadership fighting human trafficking,” said White House spokesperson Andrew Bates. “As is typical for judicial nominations, the President consulted with Senators Shaheen and Hassan; it would be very unusual if he hadn’t. Then the President made his call, and is standing shoulder to shoulder with New Hampshire’s Senators in support of this qualified nominee.”
It’s also not unusual for home-state senators to have substantial sway over judicial nominees. In this case, Delaney would be New Hampshire’s pick on the New England-based First Circuit.
While Shaheen and Hassan tout Delaney’s credentials, some Senate Democrats privately wonder why the two don’t cut their losses and go with another option. And there’s increased anxiety over nominees lately, given Democrats’ focus on confirming judges in divided government and the withdrawal of two high-profile nominees earlier this month.
“Nobody seems to have a clear idea as to what explains their intensity,” said one Democratic senator, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation. “Except maybe they’re out on a limb. Maybe there’s a certain amount of competitive pride. They are such really great senators, you know, maybe there’s somebody else who could go right through.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), however, gets where Shaheen and Hassan are coming from. In his words, it’s a “small-state thing.”
“If it were Rhode Island, I’d feel the same way,” he said. “You don’t get very many. If you do and you know the people [who are nominated] it’s much more tangible and real than if it’s just someone picked by your appointments advisory committee out of a stack of resumes.”
Delaney’s representation of St. Paul’s School in a sexual assault case is perhaps his greatest obstacle. Delaney filed a motion that would have allowed the plaintiff, who was a minor at the time, to remain anonymous only if she and her representatives did not speak about the case publicly, spurring accusations that he was trying to silence an alleged victim of assault. Senate Republicans made the case a top focus during his confirmation hearing and Delaney is not expected to get any GOP votes in committee, where Democrats enjoy a one-seat majority when every senator is in attendance.
But it’s more than just the school sexual assault case. Delaney has also drawn scrutiny from Democrats for signing on to a 2005 legal brief defending parental notification in abortion cases.
A committee vote on Delaney’s nomination has been delayed for weeks, partly because of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) prolonged absence as she recovers from shingles. That gives the New Hampshire senators more time to convince their colleagues, although it’s left the nomination hanging in limbo for a while.
“His entire career has demonstrated a commitment to justice,” Hassan said in an interview Tuesday. “He started sexual assault response teams as attorney general. And he has just extraordinary support statewide, from plaintiffs’ attorneys, from defense attorneys, from former New Hampshire Supreme Court Justices appointed by both parties.”
Yet Judiciary Committee Democrats aren’t the only senators who are on the fence. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said she’ll “review the full record if he’s voted out of committee.” And Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said he hasn’t begun considering the nomination.
Still, Democratic senators respect the hustle from Shaheen and Hassan. Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Judiciary panel, said Delaney “couldn’t have two better advocates.” Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also supports the nominee.
And some Democrats say they’re surprised at the quandary that Delaney — and his backers — are now in. Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called Shaheen and Hassan’s advocacy “extraordinary. But it’s extraordinary the attacks that are coming at this nominee. So, you got to look at the wealth of support that this nominee has.”
Asked if he will still put Delaney up for a vote, Durbin replied: “It’s on the calendar.”
[ad_2]
#Controversial #judge #tests #Hampshire #senators #clout
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Pence has indicated he’s open to answering certain categories of questions related to Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election despite losing the race to Joe Biden. But he has argued that the vice president’s unusual role — both a top member of the executive branch and president of the Senate — entitles him to immunity typically afforded to members of Congress. He has indicated he’s willing to take the fight to the Supreme Court if he doesn’t like the outcome.
CNN and ABC first reported on Boasberg’s decision to require Pence to testify on some aspects of the Jan. 6 probe.
It’s a complex argument with extraordinary ramifications, both for the investigation into potential crimes by Trump in his bid to seize a second term, and for the separation of powers that define the federal government. Pence’s argument has been largely untested in courts, but the Justice Department has, on at least three occasions, argued that vice presidents should enjoy so-called “speech or debate” immunity that largely protects members of Congress from answering in court for their legislative acts.
Pence did not adopt Trump’s separate argument — that his assertion of executive privilege bars Pence’s potential testimony. Multiple courts have rejected claims of executive privilege and attorney-client privilege amid his efforts to prevent witnesses from testifying before Smith’s grand juries. One of those grand juries is probing Trump’s handling of classified records he retained at his Mar-a-Lago estate after leaving office.
Legal scholars generally agree that Pence has a legitimate case that his role as president of the Senate may warrant immunity from testimony sought by the executive branch. The federal appeals court in Washington is expected to rule imminently on a separate effort by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to cite the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause to prevent Smith from accessing his cell phone data. U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell — who handed the chief’s gavel to Boasberg earlier this month — rejected most of Perry’s claims in a December ruling she recently unsealed.
[ad_2]
#Judge #Pence #testify #Jan #grand #jury
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
New York: A judge in the US has been found moonlighting as an adult star online where he charged fans $12 a month and has produced more than 100 adult posts, media reports said.
Gregory A. Locke, 33, a New York City (NYC) administrative law judge, moonlighted as an adult star on OnlyFans, according to the New York Post.
He has now been fired by the City officials for “unprofessional behaviour”.
Locke maintains another X-rated account on JustFor.Fans, where he charges $9.99.
“White collar professional by day very unprofessional by night. always amateur, always raw, always slutty,” read his description on OnlyFans.
Locke’s account had dozens of images and videos featuring hardcore pornography and orgies.
“I just want to celebrate Labor Day by having a man impregnate me,” he said in one of the posts on OnlyFans.
“I’m a judge,” he wrote in January from a Twitter account where he frequently posted X-rated images and videos, the report said.
His behaviour was taken very seriously by the NYC authorities.
“This city must have absolute faith in its courts at every level, and employing individuals like Locke in positions of legal authority only corrodes the people’s trust in the professionalism and impartiality of our institutions,” City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino told The Post.
Former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman, in a foreword to a report on the violence during last year’s Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti festivities, praised the Telangana police force as well as Telangana High Court for ensuring peace and harmony existed between Hindu and Muslim communities during the 2022 Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti festivities.
In a forward to a report called Routes of Wrath, written by the Citizens and Lawyers Initiative, which speaks about the violence that took place in April 2022 in several Indian states, Justice Nariman pointed out that there is an urgent need to sensitise ‘Indian Muslims’ to various state police forces.
“Given the preamble and the Fundamental Duties chapter of the Constitution of India, it is of primary importance to sensitise the police force in all the states of India to these constitutional values and fundamental duties of the citizens. This can be done by first informing them that Muslims situated in India are Indians,” Nariman wrote.
The report documents nine Indian states that reported widespread acts of hooliganism and violence. “In just three states, Gujarat, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh, it has found that during these processions at least 100 persons from the minority community were injured and two killed,” the former SC judge wrote.
He stressed that Indian Muslims are not a homogenous group of people but are as Indian as the rest of the country.
“Once this basic fact is drilled into the police force in all the states, things could become much better. Also, some way must be found to stop political interference with the functioning of the police in all the states. All this should ensure a new beginning on the long and hard road to achieving fraternity, which alone ensures the dignity of every individual citizen,” Nariman wrote in the foreward.
Justice Nariman stated that India chose to be democratic and secular and rejected the British’s divide-and-rule policy.
“States have to maintain law and order in a neutral fashion without favouring any religious community. It also means that freedom of speech and expression alone leads to an orderly change of government by democratic means. Above all, the cardinal value of fraternity, assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation is also highlighted in the preamble to the Constitution of India,” Justice Nariman said.
