appeals

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court ruled Friday that President Trump had no legal right to impose sweeping tariffs but left in place for now his effort to build a protectionist wall around the American economy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Trump wasn’t legally allowed to declare national emergencies and impose import taxes on almost every country on earth, a ruling that largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York.

But the 7-4 court did not strike down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The president vowed to do just that. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” Trump wrote on his social medial platform.

The ruling complicates Trump’s ambitions to upend decades of American trade policy completely on his own. Trump has alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. His tariffs — and the erratic way he’s rolled them out — have shaken global markets, alienated U.S. trading partners and allies and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

But he’s also used the levies to pressure the European Union, Japan and other countries into accepting one-sided trade deals and to bring tens of billions of dollars into the federal Treasury to help pay for the massive tax cuts he signed into law July 4.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The government has argued that if the tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury.

“It would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” Trump said in a previous post on Truth Social.

Revenue from tariffs totaled $142 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.

Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Josh Boak contributed to this story.

NEW YORK — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state’s lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth.

The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York’s mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was “excessive.”

After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million.

The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest.

“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court’s ruling.

Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump’s appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond.

The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court’s fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state’s trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump’s appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months.

New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state’s behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in “lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.” Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday’s decision.

Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was “an innocent man” and the case was a “fraud on me.” He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats.

Trump’s Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president’s civil rights. James’ personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is “the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign.”

Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren’t deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren’t audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid.

Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune.

During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump’s lawyers argued that many of the case’s allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved.

State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers.

The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump’s gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers.

The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president.

On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction.

And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury’s finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal.

He’s also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.

Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.

The court’s ruling delivers a major victory to the US president, who has rejected accusations he inflated his assets.

An appeals court in New York has thrown out a civil fraud penalty that would have cost United States President Donald Trump and his business associates nearly half a billion dollars, calling the fine “excessive”.

On Thursday, a five-judge panel in New York’s Appellate Division rendered its decision after weighing Trump’s appeal for nearly 11 months.

In its ruling, the panel cited the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from levying unduly harsh penalties on its citizens.

The case stems from a civil suit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who argued that Trump had inflated his financial records in order to secure advantages with insurance companies, banks and other financial institutions.

In February 2024, a lower court had ordered Trump to pay $355m in penalties, an amount the appeals court called into question. That amount has since grown to about $515m due to accumulating interest.

“While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” two of the panel’s judges, Dianne T Renwick and Peter H Moulton, wrote in one opinion.

While the court did dismiss the penalty in its entirety, its judges were divided over the merits of the lower court’s ruling, finding that Trump and his co-defendants had misrepresented their wealth in “fraudulent ways”.

The judge who issued that initial decision, Arthur Engoron, a Democrat, explained in his initial decision that “the frauds found here leap off the page and shock the conscience”.

In his 92-page decision, Engoron expressed particular frustration over Trump’s refusal to answer questions before the court and his refusal to acknowledge the misrepresentations in his financial documents.

“Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again. This is a venial sin, not a mortal sin,” Engoron wrote.

“Donald Trump is not Bernard Madoff. Yet, defendants are incapable of admitting the error of their ways.”

Trump and his co-defendants — who include his sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr, as well as other Trump Organization leaders — were dealt a combined financial penalty that currently totals to about $527m, with interest.

While Engoron’s ruling left the Trump Organization intact, it did bar Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr from serving in executive roles for two years.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — A federal appeals court barred West Texas A&M University from enforcing a ban on drag shows on campus, overruling a lower court’s decision that said drag shows did not necessarily enjoy First Amendment protections.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the LGBTQ+ Spectrum WT student group and two of its student leaders who sued the school in March 2023, after university president Walter Wendler unilaterally canceled their then-upcoming charity drag show by arguing such performances were comparable to blackface and against his religious beliefs.

The appeals court ruling puts a hold on Wendler’s ban, allowing the student group to host drag shows on campus amid litigation.

“FIRE is pleased that the Fifth Circuit has halted President Wendler’s unconstitutional censorship and restored the First Amendment at West Texas A&M,” JT Morris, supervising senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which filed the lawsuit, said in a statement.

“This is a victory not just for Spectrum WT, but for any public university students at risk of being silenced by campus censors.”

In March 2023, Spectrum WT was planning a drag show for adults on West Texas A&M University to raise money for the Trevor Project, an LGBTQ+ suicide prevention and crisis intervention nonprofit — but was barred from hosting the event by Wendler, who issued a ban on drag shows.

In a March 21, 2023, letter to students, Wendler stated he believes humans are created in God’s image and that drag shows do not preserve human dignity.

“As a performance exaggerating aspects of womanhood (sexuality, femininity, gender), drag shows stereotype women in cartoon-like extremes for the amusement of others and discriminate against womanhood,” he said.

“Drag shows are derisive, divisive and demoralizing misogyny, no matter the stated intent,” he continued. “Such conduct runs counter to the purpose of WT.”

Spectrum WT then sued the school and held its performance off campus.

Before the court, Wendler argued that drag shows are not express conduct protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, and that drag shows should be restricted due to lewd conduct.

In September, the lower court agreed with Wendler that not all drag shows are inherently expressive and entitled to First Amendment protections, finding Wendler was right to cancel the performance because of “potential lewdness.”

Writing on behalf of the majority, Circuit Judge Leslie Southwick, a President George W. Bush appointee, said the district court erred by concluding the student group was not likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment argument.

“Because theatrical performances plainly involve expressive conduct within the protection of the First Amendment, and because we find that plaintiffs’ drag show is protected expression, discrimination among such shows must pass strict scrutiny,” Southwick said in the ruling.

“President Wendler did not argue, either before the district court or on appeal, that restricting the intended drag show would survive strict scrutiny.”

Southwick also found that the group suffered ongoing irreparable injury to their free speech First Amendment rights as Wendler had canceled their planned show and would permit no future shows going forward.

Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, in dissent agreed that drag shows are not inherently expressive and that if universities allow men to act as women in campus events, such as drag shows, “they may feel compelled to allow men to act as women in other campus events as well — like women’s sports.”

“What a university allows in an auditorium, it might have to allow on an athletic field, too.”

UPI has contacted West Texas A&M University for comment.

WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid.

Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money.

In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid.

After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year.

The appeal court’s majority partially vacated Ali’s order.

Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress’ spending powers.

“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote.

Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held “in no uncertain terms” that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons.

“Yet that is what the majority enables today,” Pan wrote. “The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”

The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.

Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Critics argue President Trump has overstepped his constitutional authority by slashing congressionally approved aid.

A United States appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can proceed with efforts to slash foreign aid payments, despite such funds being designated by Congress.

The two-to-one ruling on Wednesday overturned a previous injunction that required the Department of State to resume the payments, including about $4bn for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and $6bn for HIV and AIDS programmes.

But the majority opinion from the appeals court did not weigh the merits of whether Trump could nix congressionally approved funds.

Instead, it decided the case based on the idea that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal basis to qualify for a court injunction.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Karen Henderson said the groups in question “lack a cause of action to press their claims”. They include the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, both recipients of federal aid.

“The grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” wrote Henderson, who was appointed by former President George HW Bush.

She was joined in her decision by Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee.

However, the panel’s third judge — Florence Pan, nominated under former President Joe Biden — issued a dissenting opinion that argued Trump should not be allowed to violate the separation of powers by cutting the aid.

“The court’s acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive’s unlawful behaviour derails the carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power that serves as the greatest security against tyranny — the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch,” Pan wrote in her opinion.

The ruling hands a victory to the Trump administration, which has faced a series of legal challenges to Trump’s efforts to radically reshape the federal government.

That includes dramatic cuts to spending and government agencies like USAID, which was established by an act of Congress.

Almost immediately upon taking office, Trump announced a 90-day pause on all foreign aid.

He has since moved to gut USAID, prompting outcry from two of his predecessors, Presidents Barack Obama and George W Bush.

By March, the Trump administration had announced it planned to fold USAID into the State Department, fundamentally dismantling the agency. That same month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said he had cancelled 83 percent of USAID’s contracts.

Part of Trump’s reasoning for these changes was to reduce “waste” and “bloat” in the government. He also sought to better align government programming with his “America First” agenda.

But critics say the executive branch does not have the power to tear down congressionally mandated agencies. They also argue that Congress has the power to designate funds for aid, framing Trump’s efforts as a push for extreme presidential power.

Republicans, however, control both houses of Congress, and in July, Congress passed the Rescission Act of 2025, allowing the government to claw back nearly $9bn in foreign aid and funding for public broadcasting.

US District Judge Amir Ali previously ruled that the Trump administration must pay its agreed-upon funds to humanitarian groups and other contractors that partnered with the government to distribute aid.

Administration officials in February estimated there was $2bn in outstanding aid payments due by the deadline Judge Ali set.

But the appeals court’s ruling has set back cases to restore the foreign aid to the contractors.

Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision on Wednesday, stating that the Department of Justice would “continue to successfully protect core Presidential authorities from judicial overreach”.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — A federal appeals court has ruled that Arkansas may enforce its ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care, overturning a lower court’s decision that found the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling Tuesday, stating the lower court erred in June 2023 when it struck down Arkansas’ Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act for violating the First Amendment and both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause.

It said the lower court’s ruling was incongruent with a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban for minors.

“Because the district court rested its permanent injunction on incorrect conclusions of law, it abused its discretion,” the appeals court ruled.

Arkansas’ Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, celebrated the ruling.

“I applaud the court’s decision recognizing that Arkansas has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological health of children and am pleased that children in Arkansas will be protected from risky, experimental procedures with lifelong consequences,” he said in a statement.

Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, from psychological, behavioral and medical interventions with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. The medical practice has been endorsed by every medical association.

Despite the evidence and the support of the medical community, Republicans and conservatives, often with the use of misinformation, have been targeting gender-affirming care amid a larger push threatening the rights of the LGBTQ community.

Arkansas passed the SAVE Act in 2021, but then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed it that same year, calling the ban a “product of the cultural war in America” that would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The GOP-majority legislature then overrode his veto, making Arkansas the first state to pass a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors in the United States.

Four transgender minors and their parents then challenged the law, saying it violated their rights, resulting in the 2023 ruling overturning the ban, which marked a victory in the fight for LGBTQ healthcare until Tuesday.

“This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families,” Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said in a statement.

“As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity and equal access to the healthcare they need.”

The ruling comes as Republicans seeking to restrict transgender healthcare have gained a support in the White House with President Donald Trump who has implemented several federal policies that align with their efforts.

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it federal policy that there are only two genders, male and female, both of which were determined at “conception.” He has also banned transgender Americans from the military and has sought to bar transgender athletes from competing on teams and in competitions that align with their gender identity.

Twenty-six states and the territory of Puerto Rico have banned gender-affirming care for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

A United States appeals court has thrown out a lower judge’s determination that the administration of President Donald Trump could face charges for acting in contempt of court during the early days of his mass deportation drive.

The ruling on Friday undid one of the most substantial rebukes to the Trump administration since the start of the president’s second term.

The appeals court, however, was split two to one. The majority included two Trump-appointed judges, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao. The sole dissent was Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee from former President Barack Obama.

In a decision for the majority, Rao ruled that the lower court had overstepped its authority in opening the door for Trump officials to be held in contempt.

“The district court’s order attempts to control the Executive Branch’s conduct of foreign affairs, an area in which a court’s power is at its lowest ebb,” Rao wrote.

But Pillard defended the lower court’s decision and questioned whether the appeals court was, in fact, eroding judicial authority in favour of increased executive power.

“The majority does an exemplary judge a grave disservice by overstepping its bounds to upend his effort to vindicate the judicial authority that is our shared trust,” she wrote.

Trump administration celebrates decision

The appeals court’s decision was hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, which has long railed against the judicial roadblocks to its agenda.

“@TheJusticeDept attorneys just secured a MAJOR victory defending President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal alien terrorists,” Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on social media.

“We will continue fighting and WINNING in court for President Trump’s agenda to keep America Safe!”

The court battle began in March, when US District Court Judge James Boasberg, based in the District of Columbia, heard arguments about Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan men accused of being gang members.

That law allows for swift deportations of foreign nationals — and has, prior to Trump, only been used in wartime.

Boasberg ruled to pause Trump’s use of the law and ordered the administration to halt any deportation flights, including those that may already be in the air.

But two deportation flights carrying about 250 people nevertheless landed in El Salvador after the ruling.

The Trump administration maintained it was unable to safely reroute the flights and expressed confusion about whether Boasberg’s verbal order was binding.

It also questioned whether Boasberg had the authority to intervene. Trump went so far as to call for Boasberg’s removal, writing on Truth Social in March: “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Weighing penalties for contempt

In April, Boasberg determined that the Trump administration’s actions showed a “willful disregard” for his ruling. He concluded that “probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt”.

A contempt finding can result in various sanctions, including fines and prison time, although it remains unclear what penalties the Trump administration could have faced.

“The court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily,” Boasberg continued. “Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.”

Trump’s Department of Justice, for its part, maintained that Boasberg had tread on the president’s executive power in issuing the order.

Also in April, the US Supreme Court lifted Boasberg’s temporary restraining orders against using the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.

But it nevertheless ruled that the targeted immigrants “are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal” before their deportations.

The Trump administration has faced persistent scrutiny over whether it was complying with that order, as well as other decisions from lower courts that interfered with its deportation campaign.

Critics have accused the president and his allies of simply ignoring rulings they disagreed with, raising questions of contempt in other cases, as well.

Inside Friday’s appeals court ruling

But the two Trump-appointed judges on the appeals court, Katsas and Rao, upheld the Trump administration’s position that Boasberg’s rulings had gone too far.

“The district court’s order raises troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution of criminal offenses,” Katsas wrote.

He compared Boasberg’s order to recall the deportation flights to a district court’s order in July 1973 that sought to halt the US bombing of Cambodia. Within hours, however, the Supreme Court upheld a stay on that opinion, allowing the bombing to proceed.

“Any freestanding order to turn planes around mid-air would have been indefensible,” Katsas wrote, citing that 1973 case.

But Pillard — the Obama-appointed judge — offered a counterargument in her dissent, pointing out that the US is not currently at war.

She also noted that the Venezuelan men who were deported on the March flights had, by and large, not faced criminal charges. Yet, the US had chosen to deport them to El Salvador for imprisonment in a maximum-security facility with a history of human rights abuses.

“Whatever one might think about a Supreme Court Justice’s emergency order superintending an ongoing military operation, the authority of a federal district court to temporarily restrain government officials from transferring presumptively noncriminal detainees to a foreign prison without any pre-removal process is well recognized,” Pillard wrote.

The appeals court’s decision comes just days after the Department of Justice announced it had filed a formal complaint against Boasberg, accusing him of misconduct for public comments he made criticising the Trump administration’s approach to the judiciary.

Critics have called the complaint a blatant retaliation and evidence of an increasing politicalisation of the Justice Department.

Lancashire are sixth in Division Two of the Championship with three games to go and promotion back to the top division looks unlikely following relegation last year.

With the expansion of the hotel at the ground and large music concerts staged most summers, it has been suggested that county cricket has taken a back seat in importance in recent years.

That is a perception that Lloyd, affectionately known as ‘Bumble’, believes he could change.

“You’ve got to be hands-on as cricket chair,” he added. “You’ve got to be there almost every day and know the people on reception, the cleaners, to build that culture within the club that you are very dynamic.

“We’ve got a great opportunity at Emirates Old Trafford right now to reignite the club if you like, to bring it back into line as a cricket club and not an arena or a stadium.”

As someone steeped in Lancashire’s history since making his debut for the first-team in 1965, Lloyd says that he would love to give something back.

“Lancashire Cricket Club has given me every opportunity in life and I feel that I can help in some way,” he said.

“It’s complicated because there’s a business side of the board and that’s not my forte. But cricket is.”

Milorad Dodik rejects appeals court’s decision, saying he will seek help of Russia and the Trump administration.

An appeals court in Bosnia has upheld an earlier ruling sentencing Bosnian Serb leader Milorad Dodik to one year in prison and banning him from politics for six years over his separatist actions, which set off tensions in the Balkan country.

Dodik rejected the court ruling on Friday, telling reporters that he will continue to act as the Bosnian Serb president as long as he has the support of the Bosnian Serb parliament.

“I do not accept the verdict,” he said. “I will seek help from Russia and I will write a letter to the US administration.”

A Sarajevo court in February sentenced the president of Republika Srpska – the ethnic Serb part of Bosnia – to a year in prison for failing to comply with rulings by the international envoy overseeing Bosnia’s 1995 peace accords.

It also banned him from holding office for six years.

The conviction led to uproar in Bosnia’s autonomous Serb Republic, triggering Bosnia’s worst political crisis since the conflict in the early 1990s, which killed about 100,000 people between 1992 and 1995.

Dodik has rejected the trial and his conviction as “political”.

In response, the parliament in Republika Srpska passed a law prohibiting the central police and judicial authorities from operating in the Serb entity. Bosnia’s constitutional court annulled those laws in May.

On Friday, the European Union said in a brief statement that the appeals court’s “verdict is binding and must be respected”.

“The EU calls on all parties to acknowledge the independence and impartiality of the court, and to respect and uphold its verdict,” the bloc said.

Dodik’s lawyer Goran Bubic said his team would appeal Friday’s ruling to the constitutional court and seek a temporary delay of the implementation of the verdict pending its decision.

Dodik has repeatedly called for the separation of the Serb-run half of Bosnia to join Serbia, which prompted the administration of former United States President Joe Biden to impose sanctions against him and his allies in 2022.

The Bosnian Serb leader was also accused of corruption and pro-Russia policies.

Oral arguments over United States President Donald Trump’s power to impose tariffs have kicked off before a US appeals court after a lower court ruled he had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping new levies on imported goods.

The appeals court judges on Thursday sharply questioned whether what Trump calls his “reciprocal” tariffs, announced in April, were justified by the president’s claim of emergency powers.

A panel of all the court’s active judges – eight appointed by Democratic presidents and three appointed by Republican presidents – is hearing arguments in two cases brought by five small US businesses and 12 Democratic-led US states.

The judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, pressed government lawyer Brett Shumate to explain how the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law historically used for sanctioning enemies or freezing their assets, gave Trump the power to impose tariffs.

Trump is the first president to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.

The judges frequently interrupted Shumate, peppering him with a flurry of challenges to his arguments.

“IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs, doesn’t even mention them,” one of the judges said.

Shumate said the law allows for “extraordinary” authority in an emergency, including the ability to stop imports completely. He said IEEPA authorises tariffs because it allows a president to “regulate” imports in a crisis.

The states and businesses challenging the tariffs argued they are not permissible under IEEPA and the US Constitution grants Congress, and not the president, authority over tariffs and other taxes.

Neal Katyal, a lawyer for the businesses, said the government’s argument that the word “regulate” includes the power to tax would be a vast expansion of presidential power.

Tariffs are starting to build into a significant revenue source for the federal government as customs duties in June quadrupled to about $27bn, a record, and through June have topped $100bn for the current fiscal year, which ends on September 30. That income could be crucial to offset lost revenue from extended tax cuts in a Trump-supported bill that passed and became law this month.

“Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,” Trump wrote in a social media post on Thursday. “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today.”

But economists said the duties threaten to raise prices for US consumers and reduce corporate profits. Trump’s on-again, off-again tariff threats have roiled financial markets and disrupted US companies’ ability to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices.

Dan Rayfield, the attorney general of Oregon, one of the states challenging the levies, said the tariffs are a “regressive tax” that is making household items more expensive.

Since Trump began imposing his wave of tariffs, companies ranging from carmaker Stellantis to American Airlines, temporarily suspended financial guidance for investors, which has since started again but has been revised down. Companies across multiple industries, including Procter and Gamble, the world’s largest consumer goods brand, announced this week that it would need to raise prices on a quarter of its goods.

The president has made tariffs a central instrument of his foreign policy, wielding them aggressively in his second term as leverage in trade negotiations and to push back against what he has called unfair practices.

Pressure outside trade

Trump has said the April tariffs, which he placed on most countries, are a response to persistent US trade imbalances and declining US manufacturing power. However, in recent weeks, he’s used them to increase pressure on nontrade issues.

He hit Brazil with 50 percent tariffs over the prosecution of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a key Trump ally who is on trial for an alleged coup attempt after he lost the 2022 presidential election.

Trump also threatened Canada over its move to recognise a Palestinian state, saying a trade deal will now be “very hard”.

He said tariffs against China, Canada and Mexico were appropriate because those countries were not doing enough to stop fentanyl from crossing US  borders. The countries have denied that claim.

On May 28, a three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade sided with the Democratic states and small businesses that are challenging Trump.

It said IEEPA, a law intended to address “unusual and extraordinary” threats during national emergencies, did not authorise tariffs related to longstanding trade deficits. The appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in place while it considers the administration’s appeal. The timing of the court’s decision is uncertain, and the losing side will likely appeal quickly to the US Supreme Court.

The case will have no impact on tariffs levied under more traditional legal authorities, such as duties on steel and aluminium. The president recently announced trade deals that set tariff rates on goods from the European Union and Japan after smaller trade agreements with Britain, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Trump’s Department of Justice has argued that limiting the president’s tariff authority could undermine ongoing trade negotiations while other Trump officials have said negotiations have continued with little change after the initial setback in court. Trump has set a deadline of Friday for higher tariffs on countries that don’t negotiate new trade deals.

There are at least seven other lawsuits challenging Trump’s invocation of IEEPA, including cases brought by other small businesses and California.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on a party-line vote on Tuesday confirmed Emil J. Bove, President Trump’s defense lawyer and loyal ally atop the Justice Department, to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. The vote was 49 to 50.

Bove, 44, was a highly controversial judicial nominee, not because of his legal views, but because he led a purge of prosecutors and FBI agents who had worked on cases growing out of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Before this year, the Justice Department held to a tradition of keeping politics out of law enforcement. But Bove and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi saw their missions as carrying out the wishes of President Trump, including his plans for retribution against the prosecutors and investigators who brought charges against him or the 1,500 Trump allies who stormed the Capitol and fought with police.

In the first weeks of Trump’s second term, Bove served as the acting head of the Justice Department before Bondi was confirmed by the Senate.

Bove also ordered federal prosecutors in New York to drop bribery and corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams. The move prompted several of them to resign over what they saw as an unethical deal to win the mayor’s cooperation in the administration’s plan to round up immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Bove also played a key role in the new administration’s clash with a federal judge over deporting Venezuelans to a brutal prison in El Salvador. A former Justice Department attorney-turned-whistleblower said Bove told government lawyers they should ignore orders from the judge who sought to halt the deportations.

When Bove appeared before a Senate committee as a judicial nominee, he said he had been misunderstood and unfairly criticized.

“I am not an enforcer” or “anybody’s henchman,” he said.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, who partnered with Bove in defending Trump last year, said he had been smeared by unfair criticism.

“Emil is the most capable and principled lawyer I have ever known,” he wrote in a Fox News opinion column.

Democrats said Bove did not deserve a promotion to the federal courts.

Sen. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) described Bove as a partisan loyalist who served Trump as “the instrument of his vengeance.”

“When Trump wanted to purge the department of prosecutors who had proved to juries beyond a reasonable doubt that the violent offenders who attacked police officers that day did so to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, Emil Bove was there to punish not the criminals, but the prosecutors,” Schiff said in opposing the nomination.

On Tuesday, Bove was called a “diligent, capable and fair jurist” by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), according to the Associated Press.

Bove is not likely to have much influence on the 3rd Circuit Court. Its 14 judges hear appeals from Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware. Bove has no experience as a judge and has not written on legal or constitutional issues.

However, if Justices Clarence Thomas or Samuel A. Alito were to retire in the next three years, Trump could nominate him to the Supreme Court.

His nomination drew unusually broad opposition from the legal community.

In a July 15 letter to the Senate, 80 former and retired judges said confirming Bove to a life-term judgeship undercuts the rule of law and respect for the federal courts. They said his “egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”

More than 900 former Justice Department attorneys signed a letter to the Senate saying “it is intolerable to us that anyone who disgraces the Justice Department would be promoted to one of the highest courts in the land.”

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, became the first Republican to declare her opposition to his nomination.

“We have to have judges who will adhere to the rule of law and the Constitution and do so regardless of what their personal views may be,” she said in a statement. “Mr. Bove’s political profile and some of the actions he has taken in his leadership roles at the Department of Justice cause me to conclude he would not serve as as impartial jurist.”

Collins and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were the only Republicans to vote against Bove.

The U.S. Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied an appeal by the Associated Press for a hearing on its efforts to restore full access to cover presidential events, not ending its case but allowing the White House to continue its control over access to President Trump.

The news outlet wanted the court to overturn a three-judge panel’s June 6 ruling not to let AP back into the events until merits of the news organization’s lawsuit against Trump was decided. But the court on Tuesday declined to hear that appeal.

It all stems from Trump’s decision in February to keep AP journalists out of the Oval Office, Air Force One and other events too small for a full press corps, in retaliation for the news outlet’s decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico’s name.

The AP sued in response. In April, a district court ruled that the administration could not exclude journalists based on their opinions. The Trump administration immediately turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals to successfully delay implementation of the ruling before the court could consider the full merits of the case.

Next up: This fall, the appeals court considers those full merits.

“We are disappointed by today’s procedural decision but remain focused on the strong district court opinion in support of free speech as we have our case heard,” said Patrick Maks, an AP spokesman. “As we’ve said throughout, the press and the public have a fundamental right to speak freely without government retaliation.”

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment.

Since the start of the case, the White House has instituted new rules for access to the limited-space events. AP photographers have been regularly permitted back, but its reporters only occasionally.

On Monday, the White House said it would not allow a reporter from the Wall Street Journal onto Air Force One to cover Trump’s weekend trip to Scotland because of the outlet’s “fake and defamatory conduct” in a story about the president and late financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Bauder writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court on Friday threw out an agreement that would have allowed accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to plead guilty in a deal sparing him the risk of execution for al Qaeda’s 2001 attacks.

The decision by a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., undoes an attempt to wrap up more than two decades of military prosecution beset by legal and logistical troubles. It signals there will be no quick end to the long struggle by the U.S. military and successive administrations to bring to justice the man charged with planning one of the deadliest attacks ever on the United States.

The deal, negotiated over two years and approved by military prosecutors and the Pentagon’s senior official for Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a year ago, stipulated life sentences without parole for Mohammed and two co-defendants.

Mohammed is accused of developing and directing the plot to crash hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Another of the hijacked planes flew into a field in Pennsylvania.

The men also would have been obligated to answer any lingering questions that families of the victims have about the attacks.

But then-Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin repudiated the deal, saying a decision on the death penalty in an attack as grave as Sept. 11 should only be made by the defense secretary.

Attorneys for the defendants had argued that the agreement was already legally in effect and that Austin, who served under President Joe Biden, acted too late to try to throw it out. A military judge at Guantanamo and a military appeals panel agreed with the defense lawyers.

But, by a 2-1 vote, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found Austin acted within his authority and faulted the military judge’s ruling.

The panel had previously put the agreement on hold while it considered the appeal, first filed by the Biden administration and then continued under President Donald Trump.

“Having properly assumed the convening authority, the Secretary determined that the ‘families and the American public deserve the opportunity to see military commission trials carried out.’ The Secretary acted within the bounds of his legal authority, and we decline to second-guess his judgment,” Judges Patricia Millett and Neomi Rao wrote.

Millett was an appointee of President Barack Obama while Rao was appointed by Trump.

In a dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, wrote, “The government has not come within a country mile of proving clearly and indisputably that the Military Judge erred.”

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

July 9 (UPI) — Just days before federal government was to enforce the so-called click-to-cancel rule, an appeals court struck it down, finding the Federal Trade Commission had failed to follow procedural requirements under the law.

Known colloquially as the click-to cancel rule, the Negative Option Rule was to go into effect July 14, forcing companies to make it as easy for consumers to cancel enrollment in subscriptions and programs as it was for them to enroll.

The rule has received pushback from various industry associations and individual businesses who filed a legal challenge against it in October, arguing it is “arbitrary” and “capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act due to its scope and the FTC failed to follow procedural requirements under the FTC Act.

In its ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit generally agreed.

“While we certainly do not endorse the use of unfair and deceptive practices in negative option marketing, the procedural deficiencies of the Commission’s rulemaking process are fatal here,” the court wrote in its 23-page ruling, adding that “vacatur of the entire Rule is appropriate in this case because of the prejudice suffered by petitioners as a result of the commission’s procedural error.”

According to the ruling, the FTC specifically failed to issue a preliminary regulatory analysis of the rule as required due to its annual effect on the U.S. economy being found to be more than $100 million.

The FTC had argued that it was not required to prepare such analysis as its initial estimate of annual economic impact did not surpass that threshold.

Lina Khan, former FTC commissioner during the Biden administration, which was behind the click-to-cancel rule, blamed the Trump administration for dragging its feet on implementing it, as it was first set to go into effect in May, and urged supporters of the rule to contact their local politicians.

“The rule was set to go into effect in May but this @FTC slow-walked it — and now a court has tossed it out, claiming industry didn’t get enough of a say,” she said on X.

“Anyone frustrated by how difficult firms make it to cancel subscriptions can tell the @FTC commissioners to re-issue the rule and urge members of Congress to make it law.”

Mark Meador, the current FTC commissioner, blamed the Biden administration, saying it “cut corners and didn’t follow the law.”

“Process matters,” he said on X.

Meanwhile, America’s Communications Association Connects lauded the ruling, saying the FTC overstepped its authorities, which could have had wider implications for how businesses handle all areas of transactions.

“It sought to impose compliance requirements that made it more difficult for our members to provide the best value and customer experience possible,” ACA Connects, which represents some 500 smaller and medium-sized broadband, video and phone services providers, said in a statement.

“We’re glad the Eighth Circuit recognized this reality today.”

July 1 (UPI) — The Justice Department is appealing a federal judge’s order striking down a President Donald Trump executive order targeting the law firm of former political opponent Hillary Clinton.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has used his executive orders to attack more than a half-dozen premier law firms, suspending their security clearances, revoking federal contracts and even restricting their access to federal buildings for being associated or linked to people and supporting interests that do not align with the president or his policies.

Several law firms made deals, including preemptive agreements, worth a combined nearly $1 billion in pro bono commitments, while others, including Perkins Coie, have fought back. Critics have accused Trump of using his presidential authority to attack his perceived political opponents and as part of a larger attack on the U.S. justice system.

In March, Trump terminated government contracts and revoked security clearances for Perkins Coie via an executive order that cited the firm’s work for Clinton during the 2016 presidential election — when she ran against him and lost — as the reason for the punitive measure.

In early May, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell struck down the executive order, which she said was unlike any that an American president had issued before.

“Using the powers of the federal government to target lawyers for their representation of clients and avowed progressive employment policies in an overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints, however, is contrary to the Constitution,” she said.

Other, similar rulings have followed, giving victories to Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey, for a total of four executive orders naming specific law firms being turned aside.

The appeal filed Monday by the Justice Department suggests it will continue to fight for Trump’s executive orders.

“We look forward to presenting our case to the D.C. Circuit and remain committed to ensuring that the unconstitutional Executive Order targeting our firm is never enforced,” Perkins Coie said in a statement.

“In the meantime, we will continue to practice law, as we have for over a century, and remain guided by the same commitments that first compelled us to bring this challenge: to protect our firm, safeguard the interests of our clients and uphold the rule of law.”

World number 33 Yulia Putintseva raised security concerns about a spectator during her first-round match at Wimbledon, asking for them to be ejected.

Early on in her match against Amanda Anisimova on court 15, the 30-year-old complained directly to the umpire about a spectator, whom she described as “crazy” and “dangerous”.

A club spokesperson said the matter was “dealt with”.

During a change of ends when trailing 3-0 in the opening set, Putintseva, from Kazakhstan, first voiced her concerns.

“Can you take him out, I am not going to continue playing until he leaves. These people are dangerous, they are crazy,” she said.

She was then seen pointing towards an area of the crowd and described the person as wearing green.

The chair umpire came down onto the court and spoke to three members of security staff.

When Putintseva was told play would resume, she was heard saying she did not want to do so until security had handled it.

“Take him out, because maybe he has a knife,” she said.

Putintseva was emotional later in the match and went on to lose 6-0 6-0 in 45 minutes.

She did not speak to the media afterwards.

A spokesperson for the All England Lawn Tennis Club (AELTC) told BBC Sport: “Following a complaint about the behaviour of a spectator at the match on court 15, the chair umpire informed security and the matter was dealt with.”

Anisimova, meanwhile, told the BBC she believed the spectator had been saying something “when [Putintseva] was about to serve” and added: “I am sure that we were protected”.

Earlier, AELTC chief executive Sally Bolton said on the subject of security: “We’re well-versed in the measures that need to be put in place so players can go about playing here in the confidence they’re being well looked after.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Monday again made it harder for Death Row inmates and other criminals to challenge their convictions in a federal court by claiming their constitutional rights were violated by state courts.

The pair of 6-3 rulings, including one in a California case, could speed the pace of executions around the nation. Many inmates have kept their legal cases–and themselves–alive by contesting their convictions in prolonged battles in federal courts.

In one decision, the justices reinstated a death sentence against a Sonoma County man who in 1975 shot and killed his wife. The second ruling involved a Virginia case.

Together, the rulings send a now-familiar message: Convicted criminals should not routinely get a second chance to contest their cases in a federal court.

About 95% of criminal cases nationwide are handled in the state courts. During the 1960s and ‘70s, however, the Supreme Court encouraged federal judges to closely review state cases to make sure that a defendant’s rights under the U.S. Constitution were protected. Inmates took advantage of this protection by filing a petition of habeas corpus to transfer their cases from a state to a federal court.

But under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court has stressed the opposite. Federal judges should not casually meddle in state court matters, the conservative majority has said.

The California case concerned whether an inmate should get a second chance to contend that he was unfairly induced to incriminate himself.

The defendant in the case, Owen Duane Nunnemaker, was sentenced to death for the 1975 slaying of his estranged wife, Alice. Nunnemaker went to her home in Sebastopol, Calif., shot her at close range and cut a phone cord to prevent her children from calling for help. She died of her wounds.

He later claimed he loved her, but was temporarily deranged. Prosecutors, however, sent a police psychiatrist to interview Nunnemaker, who found him calm and rational. During the trial, the psychiatrist gave damaging testimony against the defendant, who was convicted and sentenced to death.

In his appeal in state courts, Nunnemaker said his Miranda rights were violated because the psychiatrist never warned him his statements could be used against him. The California appellate courts ruled that it was too late for Nunnemaker to raise this Miranda issue. His lawyer should have objected during the trial, the judges said.

Without giving a reason, the California Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

But he fared better in the federal courts. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Court Appeals ruled that Nunnemaker was entitled to a hearing before a federal judge to see whether his constitutional rights had been violated.

The Supreme Court said the 9th Circuit erred in the case, Ylst vs. Nunnemaker, 90-68. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the federal appeals court should have presumed that the California courts declined to hear Nunnemaker’s appeal for procedural reasons, and the federal courts have no power to second-guess those procedural rules.

In their dissent from the ruling, Justices Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens said, “The Court today continues its crusade to erect petty procedural barriers” to raising constitutional claims in the federal courts.

Monday’s other death penalty case ruling was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, herself a former state judge. She rejected the claim of a Virginia Death Row inmate that his initial appeal of his conviction still should be considered by that state’s court system, even though his lawyer was three days late in filing it.

The case “concerns the respect the federal courts owe the states,” O’Connor said. Because the state rules forbid the consideration of a late appeal, the federal courts must do the same, she said in Coleman vs. Thompson, 89-7662.

Law enforcement spokesmen praised the rulings for upholding valid criminal convictions. The decisions mean that an old legal challenge “cannot be resuscitated by some sympathetic federal judge,” said Charles Hobson of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento. But Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), whose House subcommittee is considering the federal habeas corpus laws, lambasted the court. The decisions “force innocent prisoners to pay the ultimate price for the errors of their lawyers in a state court,” Edwards said.

WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official nominated to become a federal appeals court judge said Wednesday that he never told department attorneys to ignore court orders, denying the account of a whistleblower who detailed a campaign to defy judges to carry out President Trump’s deportation plans.

Emil Bove, a former criminal defense attorney for the Republican president, forcefully pushed back against suggestions from Democrats that the whistleblower’s claims make him unfit to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bove’s nomination has come under intense scrutiny after the whistleblower, a fired department lawyer, claimed in a complaint made public Tuesday that Bove used an expletive when he said during a meeting that the Trump administration might need to ignore judicial commands.

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He added: “I don’t think there’s any validity to the suggestion that that whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge.”

Bove was nominated last month by Trump to serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Bove was on the defense team during Trump’s New York hush money trial and defended Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.

The White House said Bove “is unquestionably qualified for the role and has a career filled with accolades, both academically and throughout his legal career, that should make him a shoo-in for the Third Circuit.”

“The President is committed to nominating constitutionalists to the bench who will restore law and order and end the weaponization of the justice system, and Emil Bove fits that mold perfectly,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in an email.

The whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, was fired in April after conceding in court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison. Reuveni sent a letter on Tuesday to members of Congress and the Justice Department’s inspector general seeking an investigation into allegations of wrongdoing by Bove and other officials in the weeks leading up to his firing.

Reuveni described a Justice Department meeting in March concerning Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni says Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used profanity in saying the department would need to consider telling the courts what to do and “ignore any such order,” Reuveni’s lawyers said in the letter.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche called the allegations “utterly false,” saying that he was at the March meeting and “at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed.”

“Planting a false hit piece the day before a confirmation hearing is something we have come to expect from the media, but it does not mean it should be tolerated,” Blanche wrote in a post on X on Tuesday.

Bove has been at the center of other moves that have roiled the Justice Department in recent months, including the order to dismiss New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ federal corruption case. Bove’s order prompted the resignation of several Justice Department officials, including Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor, who accused the department of acceding to a quid pro quo — dropping the case to ensure Adams’ help with Trump’s immigration agenda.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.