Helvede

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

Chuck DarwinJudge demands ‘some kind of evidence’ from Trump’s EPA to halt climate grantsFederal judge Tanya Chutkan issues restraining order pending new filings over billions in axed research grantsA federal judge considering the Trump administration’s abrupt cancellation of climate research grants worth billions of dollars told government lawyers they had to produce “some kind of evidence” of wrongdoing to back up such drastic actions.Climate United, which coordinates investment in clean energy projects, sued to seek access to $7bn that was frozen before it was cancelled on Tuesday night by <a href="https://c.im/tags/Lee" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Lee</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Zeldin" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Zeldin</a>, the New York Republican congressman turned administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.In US district court in Washington on Wednesday, Judge <a href="https://c.im/tags/Tanya" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Tanya</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Chutkan" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Chutkan</a> asked lawyers for the EPA: “Can you proffer any evidence that [the grant] was illegal, or evidence of abuse or fraud or bribery – that any of that was improperly or unlawfully done, other than the fact that Mr Zeldin doesn’t like it?”<a href="https://c.im/tags/Marc" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Marc</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Sacks" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Sacks</a>, a government lawyer, said: “The determination is based on the information contained in the termination letter.” Chutkan said: “That’s pretty circular,” then asked if Climate United had violated federal regulations.Sacks said: “I think the agency cited both of those regulations within their termination letter.” Chutkan said: “I can cite cases all day long, but you have to have some kind of evidence or proffer to back it up.” She also said: “You can’t even tell me what the evidence of malfeasance is.”There is plentiful evidence that Zeldin is implementing an assault on attempts to tackle the climate crisis. The EPA issued a slew of rollbacks of rules to combat pollution on Wednesday.Zeldin said he was “driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age”. Climate groups reacted with horror. <a href="https://c.im/tags/Jason" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Jason</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Rylander" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Rylander</a>, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, told the Guardian: “Come hell or high water, raging fires and deadly heatwaves, Trump and his cronies are bent on putting polluter profits ahead of people’s lives. This move won’t stand up in court. We’re going to fight it every step of the way.”Climate United is not the only group to have sued over access to grants. In New York, the Coalition for Green Capital has sued over the cancellation of a $5bn grant, an act it called “patently and plainly unlawful on its face” and “arbitrary and pretextual”. In Washington, lawyers for Climate United argued that the EPA had not followed the law, meaning Chutkan could rule on the matter. Lawyers for the government said it was a contract dispute, so she could not. Chutkan said: “The government didn’t decide who it wanted to contract with. A new administration came in, didn’t like the contract any more. That’s what new administrations do. But there are procedures that have to be followed. And it doesn’t appear, at least on the record before me, that those procedures have been followed.”The hearing ended without Chutkan issuing a ruling or temporary restraining order, but asking both sides to make 👉new filings by Monday evening: Climate United to amend its lawsuit and the government to provide information about alleged wrongdoing. “I don’t have the credible evidence that’s required,” Chutkan said. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/13/epa-grants-trump-judge-tanya-chutkan?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/13/epa-grants-trump-judge-tanya-chutkan?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other</a>

Chuck DarwinA major lawsuit to end Elon Musk’s takeover of the federal government has landed before one of Donald Trump’s least favorite judges. Judge <a href="https://c.im/tags/Tanya" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Tanya</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Chutkan" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Chutkan</a>, who presided over Trump’s federal election interference case, was assigned the federal lawsuit filed by 14 states against the president and Musk, attacking the so-called Department of Government Efficiency’s authority. Chutkan gained the national spotlight as she refused to accept arguments from Trump’s legal team at nearly every step in the January 6 case. She infuriated Trump when she placed a gag order on him in October 2023 and said that his presidential candidacy did not give him “carte blanche” to vilify public servants “who are simply doing their job.” Trump lashed out at the judge, calling her “the most evil person” as she seemed unwilling to bend to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. Now Chutkan will preside over a pivotal lawsuit that will determine the future of the U.S. government and the second Trump administration. The suit directly attacks Musk as a “21st century tech baron,” claiming that “the scope and reach of his executive authority appear unprecedented in U.S. history.” “His power includes, at least, the authority to cease the payment of congressionally approved funds, access sensitive and confidential data across government agencies, cut off systems access to federal employees and contractors at will, and take over and dismantle entire independent federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. <a href="https://newrepublic.com/post/191559/judge-tanya-chutkan-case-lawsuit-elon-musk" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank">https://newrepublic.com/post/191559/judge-tanya-chutkan-case-lawsuit-elon-musk</a>

Chuck DarwinThe <a href="https://c.im/tags/Supreme" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Supreme</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Court" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Court</a> was hit by a flurry of damaging new <a href="https://c.im/tags/leaks" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#leaks</a> Sunday as a series of confidential memos written by the chief justice were revealed by The New York Times.The court’s Chief Justice <a href="https://c.im/tags/John" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#John</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Roberts" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Roberts</a> was clear to his fellow justices in February: He wanted the court to take up a case weighing Donald Trump’s right to presidential immunity —and he seemed inclined to protect the former president.“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the Times. He was referencing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to allow the case to move forward.Roberts took an unusual level of involvement in this and other cases that ultimately benefited Trump, according to the Times —his handling of the cases surprised even some other justices on the high court, across ideological lines. (As president, Trump appointed three of the members of its current conservative supermajority.)Such was the case in March that debated whether Colorado, or any state, had the authority to 🔸remove an official from a federal ballot. ♦️Roberts persuaded the other justices to make their opinion —that states could not unilaterally drop a federal candidate from the ballot —unsigned to authoritatively signal their unanimity, according to the Times.The judges agreed, until the conservatives sought to include an additional proposition that mandated anyone seeking to enforce the Constitution’s ban on insurrectionist candidates get congressional approval. Four justices —Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett —thought that idea went too far, and wrote concurrences in disagreement. Roberts himself wrote the majority opinion.♦️Roberts also took charge of the court’s ruling that declared the 🔸government went too far in charging those who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. He had initially assigned the case to Samuel Alito but abruptly took it over himself days after the Times revealed Alito’s wife Martha-Ann hung an upside-down U.S. <a href="https://c.im/tags/flag" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#flag</a> —an emblem of the “Stop the Steal” movement, and propagated by some Jan. 6 rioters —outside his home, according to the Times. It was unclear whether the two episodes were linked; none of the justices answered the Times’ questions👉The switch, however, was unusual among court standards. Such instances usually only occur when a decision changes, experts told the Times. Thus came the Trump ruling. The conservatives had voted to grant Trump, and all presidents, expansive <a href="https://c.im/tags/immunity" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#immunity</a> for “official” acts during their tenure. 🔥But Roberts again took the case for himself, prompting some at the court to wonder whether he may have taken on too much. He got pushback from justices both liberal (Sotomayor) and conservative (Barrett), though the opinion made it through in July, providing Trump with a clear win. 🆘 The clear loser? Judge <a href="https://c.im/tags/Tanya" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Tanya</a> <a href="https://c.im/tags/Chutkan" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Chutkan</a>, who must decide how the ruling applies to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s still-pending case against Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.<a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-roberts-secret-trump-memo-revealed-in-huge-scotus-leak" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-roberts-secret-trump-memo-revealed-in-huge-scotus-leak</a>

Recent searches

Search options

Administered by:

Server stats:

#tanya