DOJ

The DOJ argued that the federal judge did not have the authority to make the decision.

A United States judge in Texas has approved the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss a criminal case against Boeing despite his objections to the decision.

On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court in Fort Worth dismissed the case, which will allow the plane maker to avoid prosecution over charges related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes: the 2018 Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash.

O’Connor said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s argument that ending the case served the public interest, noting that he lacked the authority to overrule it.

The government argued Boeing has improved, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argued O’Connor had no choice but to dismiss the case.

He said the deal with the aerospace giant “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public”.

In September, O’Connor held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to the deal, questioning the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant.

O’Connor said the government’s position is “Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution, failed to remedy its fraudulent behaviour on its own during the [deferred prosecution agreement], which justified a guilty plea and the imposition of an independent monitor, but now Boeing will remedy that dangerous culture by retaining a consultant of its own choosing”.

The DOJ first criminally charged Boeing for the crashes in January 2021, but also agreed to deferred prosecution in the case.

The plane maker was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US. Courts found that Boeing deceived the FAA about what is called the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which affects flight control systems on the aircraft.

“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candor by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception,” acting Assistant Attorney General David P Burns of the DOJ’s criminal division said in a statement at the time.

O’Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history”.

Under the non-prosecution deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6m fine and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes.

On Wall Street, Boeing’s stock was up by 0.2 percent as of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT).

Oct. 28 (UPI) — The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday asked the Justice Department to investigate former President Joe Biden‘s use of the autopen to sign executive orders and pardons.

The request came after the committee released a report on its investigation into Biden’s use of the autopen and whether it indicated an administration coverup of an alleged cognitive decline.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the committee, accused Biden’s aides of coordinating “a cover-up of the president’s diminishing faculties.”

Over the summer, the oversight committee interviewed more than a dozen former aides and advisers to Biden. Among those who appeared before the committee were former chiefs of staff Ron Klein and Jeff Zients, and Biden’s former physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who invoked the Fifth Amendment.

In addition to the letter to Bondi, Comer sent a letter to Andrea Anderson, chairwoman of the board of medicine at the District of Columbia Health calling on the board to investigate whether O’Connor was “derelict in his duty as a physician by, including but not limited to, issuing misleading medical reports, misrepresenting treatments, failing to conform to standards of practice, or other acts in violation of District of Columbia law regulating licensed physicians.”

The committee recommended that O’Connor’s medical license be revoked.

President Donald Trump has taken particular issue with Biden’s use of the autopen during his presidency, though he, himself, has used it. In a Presidential Walk of Fame exhibit installed at the White House in September, photos of each president were displayed outside the West Wing, except Biden’s. Instead, a photo of an autopen was put in Biden’s place.

There’s been a long history of presidents using an autopen to sign the many documents that come across their desks each day, beginning with the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. According to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation, which collects historical documents, Presidents Gerald Ford, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama used the device, some to sign the many requests for autographs and letters, others to sign important documents and orders.

In 2005, then-President George W. Bush asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel whether it was constitutional for him to sign official documents using the autopen. The office concluded that “the president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law.”

Trump said he has used the autopen but not for important documents. In June, he ordered an investigation into Biden’s cognitive state.

Biden has denied Trump’s claims about his mental faculties and autopen use.

“I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said in a statement.

“I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations.

“Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false,” he added.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The Department of Justice filed a motion Friday to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, a country to which he has no ties.

The Department of Homeland Security has received “diplomatic assurances regarding the treatment of third-country individuals removed to Liberia from the United States and are making the final necessary arrangements for [Abrego Garcia’s] removal,” the filing said.

DHS expects “to be able to effectuate removal as soon as Oct. 31.”

Abrego Garcia, a Baltimore resident, is a native of El Salvador. He was accidentally deported to a Salvadoran prison in March against a court order. In recent months, DHS has been looking for a new place to send him. It’s tried Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana, but those countries refused.

But an immigration judge ordered that Abrego Garcia not be removed from the United States.

Abrego Garcia’s attorney said the government “has chosen yet another path that feels designed to inflict maximum hardship.”

“Having struck out with Uganda, Eswatini and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia — a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland,” Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told ABC News. “Costa Rica has agreed to accept him as a refugee, and remains a viable and lawful option.”

The DOJ said Liberia is “a thriving democracy” and is “committed to the humane treatment of refugees.”

Abrego Garcia has been accused of being a gang member and of human trafficking, stemming from a 2002 traffic stop in Tennessee. Police stopped the vehicle in Tennessee and found several Latino men with no identification. Charges for that case were filed this year. He still awaits trial.

On Oct. 4, a federal judge in Tennessee granted a motion by Abrego Garcia’s defense team that seeks a hearing for vindictive prosecution.

“The timing of Abrego’s indictment suggests a realistic likelihood that senior DOJ and [Homeland Security] officials may have induced Acting U.S. Attorney [Robert] McGuire (albeit unknowingly) to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit,” U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. wrote.

The Maryland lawsuit was Garcia’s successful legal challenge in a federal court in which he showed DHS made a mistake when it deported him to El Salvador.

Federal officials also contend Abrego Garcia was a member of the Salvadoran MS-13 gang, though he and his family deny it. They argue that Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador because of gang violence.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday that it will monitor some polling sites in California and New Jersey “to ensure transparency.”

Both states are having elections on Nov. 4.

“Transparency at the polls translates into faith in the electoral process, and this Department of Justice is committed to upholding the highest standards of election integrity,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a press release. “We will commit the resources necessary to ensure the American people get the fair, free, and transparent elections they deserve.”

The California counties where the department plans to monitor the polls are: Kern, Riverside, Fresno, Orange and Los Angeles. It will also monitor polls in Passaic County, N.J.

While election monitoring is not unusual, the two states listed are Democratic strongholds.

The effort will be overseen by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and will be led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon.

“The Department of Justice will do everything necessary to protect the votes of eligible American citizens, ensuring our elections are safe and secure,” Dhillon said in a statement. “Transparent election processes and election monitoring are critical tools for safeguarding our elections and ensuring public trust in the integrity of our elections.”

Civil Rights Division personnel will be available to take questions and complaints from the public on possible violations of federal voting rights laws, the release said.

Oct. 23 (UPI) — The University of Virginia has entered into an agreement with the Justice Department to resolve federal investigations, amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on left-leaning ideology at institutions of higher learning.

Both the University of Virginia and the Justice Department confirmed on Wednesday that an agreement had been reached. Federal prosecutors said their probes of the school’s admissions policies and civil rights concerns will be paused.

Under the terms of the deal, the University of Virginia agrees to implement Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination, which the Trump administration released in late July, tying federal funding with its interpretation of civil rights laws that restrict diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs.

The school also agrees to provide federal prosecutors with relevant information and data on a quarterly basis through 2028, though it will pay no monetary penalty.

“Importantly, it preserves the academic freedom of our faculty, students and staff,” University of Virginia interim President Paul Mahoney said in a letter Wednesday addressed to the school’s community.

“We will be treated no less favorably than any other university in terms of federal research grants and funding. The agreement does not involve external monitoring. Instead, the University will update the Department of Justice quarterly on its efforts to ensure compliance with federal law.”

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has used his executive powers to target dozens of universities, in particular so-called elite institutions, with executive orders, lawsuits, reallocations of resources and threats over a range of allegations, from anti-Semitism to the adoption of DEI policies.

Critics have accused Trump of coercing the schools under threat to adopt his far-right policies.

The University of Virginia is one of the seven schools since Oct. 1 that rejected signing Trump’s 10-part Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. The Trump administration invited nine schools to sign the compact and receive priority access to federal funds in exchange for adopting government-mandated reforms, including a pledge to prohibit transgender women from using women’s changing rooms.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., accused the University of Virginia of relenting to “Trump’s bullying.”

“It’s not just wrong — it’s counterproductive, feeds the beast and just encourages more mafia-like blackmail from this lawless administration,” he said on X.

Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Va., said it was a “surrender” by the University of Virginia.

“And represents a huge expansion of federal power that Republicans have would have never tolerated in the past — we have the right to run our universities,” he said on X.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — House Democrats are launching a probe of allegations that President Donald Trump is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from the Justice Department in compensation for investigations conducted against him before he won a second term .

House Judiciary Committee Democrats announced in a statement Tuesday that ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., was launching an investigation into the president’s “shakedown of taxpayers.”

The announcement of the investigation was announced in response to a New York Times report that said Trump is demanding the Justice Department pay him some $230 million in compensation.

Trump submitted at least two administrative complaints, the first in 2023 and the second in 2024, seeking compensation, ABC News also reported.

The first administrative claim seeks damages for purported violations of his rights in connection with the investigation into alleged ties between his 2016 election campaign and Russia.

The second seeks claims over allegations is in connection with the August 2022 FBI raid of his Mar-a-Lago residence and subsequent investigation and prosecution on charges that he mishandled classified documents after he left office following the completion of his first term.

Asked about the reports during a press conference at the White House on Tuesday, Trump said he wasn’t aware of the amount being sought but stated he should be compensated.

“I was damaged very greatly and any money I would get, I would give to charity,” he said.

Trump also acknowledged the unprecedented nature and potential ethical issues, stating “I’m the one who makes the decision.”

“And that decision would have to go cross my desk and it’s awfully strange to make a decision where I’m paying myself,” he said.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats chastised Trump, accusing him of “robbing America blind.”

“This is exactly why the Constitution forbids the president from taking any more from the government outside of his official salary,” they said in a statement. “This is Donald Trump First, America Last — the Gangster State at work, billionaires shaking down the people.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., described it as Trump “extorting his own Justice Department” and as “unprecedented, unfathomable corruption.”

“Eye watering conflicts of interests,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a statement. “More corrupt self enrichment.”

ORLANDO, Fla. — U.S. government lawyers say that detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” probably include people who have never been in removal proceedings, which is a direct contradiction of what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been saying since it opened in July.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice made that admission Thursday in a court filing arguing that the detainees at the facility in the Everglades wilderness don’t have enough in common to be certified as a class in a lawsuit over whether they’re getting proper access to attorneys.

A removal proceeding is a legal process initiated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to determine if someone should be deported from the United States.

The Justice Department attorneys wrote that the detainees at the Everglades facility have too many immigration statuses to be considered a class.

“The proposed class includes all detainees at Alligator Alcatraz, a facility that houses detainees in all stages of immigration processing — presumably including those who have never been in removal proceedings, those who will be placed into removal proceedings, those who are already subject to final orders of removal, those subject to expedited removal, and those detained for the purpose of facilitation removal from the United States pursuant to a final order of removal,” they wrote.

Since the facility opened, DeSantis has been saying publicly that each detainee has gone through the process of determining that they can’t legally be in the United States.

During a July 25 news conference outside the detention center, DeSantis said, “Everybody here is already on a final removal order.”

“They have been ordered to be removed from the country,” he added.

At a July 29 speech before a conference of the Florida Sheriffs Assn., the Republican governor said, “The people that are going to the Alligator Alcatraz are illegally in the country. They’ve all already been given a final order of removal.”

He added, “So, if you have an order to be removed, what is the possible objection to the federal government enforcing that removal order?”

DeSantis’ press office didn’t respond Monday morning to an email seeking comment.

The court filing by the Justice Department attorneys was made in a lawsuit in which civil rights groups allege the facility’s detainees have been denied proper access to attorneys in violation of their constitutional rights. The civil rights groups on Thursday asked a federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., for a preliminary injunction that would establish stronger protections for detainees to meet with attorneys privately and share documents confidentially.

The court case is one of three lawsuits filed by environmental and civil rights groups over the detention center, which was hastily built this summer by the state of Florida and operated by private contractors and state agencies.

A federal judge in Miami ordered in August that the facility must wind down operations within two months, agreeing with environmental groups that the remote airstrip site wasn’t given a proper environmental review before it was converted into an immigration detention center. But operations continued after the judge’s preliminary injunction was put on hold in early September by an appellate court panel. At one point, the facility held more than 900 detainees, but most of them were transferred after the initial injunction. It wasn’t clear on Monday how many detainees were at the center, which was built to hold 3,000 people.

President Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration pushes to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations. Federal officials on Friday confirmed that Florida has been approved for a $608-million reimbursement for the costs of building and running the immigration detention center.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, claiming the department violated county gunowners’ 2nd Amendment rights by delaying thousands of concealed carry permit application decisions for “unreasonable” periods of time.

In a statement, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint, filed in the Central District of California, the federal court in Los Angeles, cites data provided by the Sheriff’s Department about the more than 8,000 concealed carry permit applications and renewal applications it received between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31.

During that period, the DOJ wrote, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the Sheriff’s Department to schedule interviews to approve the applications or “otherwise” advance them.

As a result, of the nearly 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses it received during those 15 months, “LASD issued only two licenses.” Two others were denied, the DOJ said, while the rest remained pending or were withdrawn.

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment Monday. In March, when the Trump administration announced its 2nd Amendment investigation, the department said it was “committed to processing all Concealed Carry Weapons [CCW] applications in compliance with state and local laws.”

The department’s statement said it had approved 15,000 applications for concealed carry licenses but that because of “a significant staffing crisis in our CCW Unit” it was “diligenty working through approximately 4,000 active cases.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Monday that the DOJ was working to safeguard the 2nd Amendment, which “protects the fundamental constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.”

“Los Angeles County may not like that right, but the Constitution does not allow them to infringe upon it,” Bondi said. “This Department of Justice will continue to fight for the Second Amendment.”

The federal agency’s complaint alleged that the practice of delaying the applications effectively forced gun permit applicants “to abandon their constitutional rights through administrative exhaustion.”

In December 2023, the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. sued the Sheriff’s Department over what it alleged were improper delays and rejections of applications for concealed carry licenses. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn P. Garnett ordered the department to reduce delays.

In the new complaint, the DOJ called on the court to issue a permanent injunction.

Gun rights groups heralded the move by the Trump administration.

“This is a landmark lawsuit in that it’s the first time the Department of Justice has ever filed a case in support of gun owners,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement. “We are thrilled to see the federal government step up and defend the Second Amendment rights of citizens and hope this pattern continues around the country.”

Sept. 30 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Monday filed a lawsuit against so-called sanctuary policies in Minnesota as the Trump administration tries to have the court compel Democratic-led regions to abide by its immigration policies.

The lawsuit targets the laws of Minnesota, Hennepin County and the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, arguing that not only are they illegal, they effectively shield “criminal offenders” by obstructing federal law enforcement.

“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“This Department of Justice will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement.”

President Donald Trump, who campaigned on cracking down on immigration, often with the use of incendiary rhetoric and misinformation, has been attempting to conduct mass deportations, and has targeted Democratic-led jurisdictions’ refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as part of that effort.

In April, he signed an executive order directing Bondi to compile a list of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions for punishment, with a list of 35 regions being made public early last month.

The Justice Department has already filed lawsuits against five states including Minnesota and several cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Boston and Chicago. However, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit against Illinois, Chicago and other districts in the state in late July, finding the Trump administration “lacked standing” to challenge the laws.

Minnesota is also led by Gov. Tim Walz, a critic of Trump and a rival of the president, having run against him as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket.

The state has been a target of numerous federal actions by the Trump administration, including investigations over its hiring practices. The president declined to call Walz after a man assassinated a state lawmaker and wounded another in mid-June, calling him “whacked out” and “a mess.”

Late last week, Minnesota was one of six states Trump sued to force handover of its voter registration list.

While Walz has yet to make a public statement about the latest lawsuit, Mayor Melvin Carter of Saint Paul said city employees work for those who live there and not Trump.

“We will stand with our immigrant and refugee neighbors no matter how many unconstitutional claims the White House makes,” he said in a statement.

“We’ve proven our resolve in two successful court actions already this year, and we look forward to winning our third legal victory in a row against this embarrassing federal regime.”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey similarly said they would fight the Trump administration.

“We will not back down. We will fight with every bit of our strength for our immigrant communities. We will stand by our neighbors and we’re going to win in court,” he said in a recorded statement published on X.

“So, let’s just be really clear to everybody: this is not an issue where we will back down. We’re going to win this thing.”

Sept. 26 (UPI) — The Trump administration is suing six Democratic-led states to force them to hand over their voter registration lists, further raising concerns about alleged efforts by the Trump administration to undermine elections.

The Justice Department announced the lawsuits against California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania on Thursday, about 10 days after it sued Oregon and Maine, seeking the same information. Of the eight states, all but one have a Democratic governor.

“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, citing public information, at least 27 states have been asked for copies of their voter registration lists.

While questioning states about election administration is not uncommon, requesting voter registration databases from a mass of states is unprecedented, the nonpartisan law and policy institute at NYU Law said.

“Another step of the Trump administration’s concerted strategy to undermine elections: The Justice Department is suing eight states to acquire their voter files,” the center said on X.

Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson for Michigan said among the information the federal government would receive in the voter lists is private data, including driver’s license and Social Security numbers as well as personally identifiable information.

“I told them they can’t have it,” she said in a statement, calling the Trump administration lawsuit “illegal” and an “unconstitutional power grab.”

“This kind of request is not normal. Why is this happening now? Why does the federal government want access to everyone’s personal information? I have asked them these questions. Other secretaries of state — both Democrats and Republicans — have also asked them these questions. They refuse to give us a straight answer.”

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber chastised the Justice Department for trying to use the courts to “erode” the rights of her citizens by trying to “intimidate” state officials with a lawsuit to hand over their information.

“The lawsuit and intentions behind it are a blatant overreach by the federal government,” she said in a statement.

She said she is mandated by state law to protect the information of Californians, while accusing the Justice Department of failing to explain the legal authority it’s using to justify its demands.

“The sensitive data of California citizens should not be used as a political tool to undermine the public trust and integrity of elections,” she said.

Sept. 21 (UPI) — “Border czar” Tom Homan reportedly accepted a $50,000 cash bribe from undercover FBI agents posing as business contractors prior to Donald Trump‘s election as president in 2024.

According to a report from MSNBC, FBI agents recorded a conversation with Homan in which he allegedly promised to assist in securing government contracts for work in the border security industry if Trump were elected to a second term.

The report says the FBI and justice department intended to wait and see if Homan would follow through on his alleged promises if Trump were elected to a second term. However, an investigation into the matter was scuttled after Trump was elected, MSNBC reported. The administration recently closed it.

Homan called the report “bullshit” when asked about it by NewsNation.

Current FBI director Kash Patel and Todd Blanhce, the deputy attorney general, told MSNBC the allegations are baseless.

“This matter originated under the previous administration and was subjected to a full review by FBI agents and justice department prosecutors,” Patel said. “They found no credible evidence of any criminal wrongdoing.”

The cash payment was delivered inside a bag from the Cava fast food chain, The New York Times reported.

Justice Department officials closed the case, citing doubts of whether prosecutors would be able to prove that there had been any specific promises made in exchange for the money, and because he was not in any official position at the time of the money exchange.

The request comes after a federal court earlier this week blocked Lisa Cook’s firing while her lawsuit challenging her dismissal moves forward.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked an appeals court to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors by Monday, before the central bank’s next vote on interest rates.

The request on Thursday represents an extraordinary effort by the White House to shape the board before the Fed’s interest rate-setting committee meets next week on Tuesday and Wednesday.

At the same time, Senate Republicans are pushing to confirm Stephen Miran, Trump’s nominee to an open spot on the Fed’s board, which could happen as soon as Monday.

In a court filing on Thursday, the Department of Justice asked the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to pause US District Judge Jia Cobb’s Tuesday ruling temporarily blocking Cook’s removal, pending the administration’s appeal.

Trump moved to fire Cook in late August. Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, filed a lawsuit saying Trump’s claim that she engaged in mortgage fraud before she joined the central bank did not give him legal authority to remove her, and was a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

Cobb’s ruling prevents the Fed from following through on Cook’s firing while her lawsuit moves forward.

In their emergency appeal, Trump’s lawyers argued that even if the conduct occurred before her time as governor, her alleged action “indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy”.

The administration asked an appeals court to issue an emergency decision reversing the lower court by Monday. If their appeal is successful, Cook would be removed from the Fed’s board until her case is ultimately resolved in the courts, and she would miss next week’s meeting.

If the appeals court rules in Cook’s favour, the administration could seek an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court.

The case, which will likely end up before the US Supreme Court, has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to politicians’ wishes, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to keep inflation under control.

The Supreme Court and lower appeals courts, including the DC Circuit, have temporarily lifted several other rulings that briefly blocked Trump from firing officials at agencies that have historically been independent from the White House.

On Wednesday, however, the DC Circuit blocked Trump from firing US Copyright Office director Shira Perlmutter while she appeals a lower court’s refusal to reinstate her to the post.

Trump has demanded that the Fed cut rates immediately and aggressively, repeatedly berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy. Cook has voted with the Fed’s majority on every rate decision since she started in 2022, including on both rate hikes and rate cuts.

Fed’s independence

The law that created the Fed says governors may be removed only “for cause”, but does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed governor, and the law has never been tested in court.

Cobb on Tuesday said the public’s interest in the Fed’s independence from political coercion weighed in favour of keeping Cook at the Fed while the case continues.

She said that the best reading of the law is that a Fed governor may only be removed for misconduct while in office. The mortgage fraud claims against Cook all relate to actions she took prior to her US Senate confirmation in 2022.

Trump and William Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director appointed by the president, say Cook inaccurately described three separate properties on mortgage applications, which could have allowed her to obtain lower interest rates and tax credits.

The Justice Department has also launched a criminal mortgage fraud probe into Cook and has issued grand jury subpoenas out of both Georgia and Michigan, according to documents seen by Reuters and a source familiar with the matter.

Sept. 5 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against the city of Boston, its Mayor Michelle Wu, the Boston Police Department and police commissioner over its so-called sanctuary city laws.

The Justice Department said in a press release Thursday that the practices in the Boston Trust Act, enacted in 2014, “interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.”

The law allows Boston police to collaborate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement only “on issues of significant public safety, such as human trafficking, child exploitation, drug and weapons trafficking, and cybercrimes, while refraining from involvement in civil immigration enforcement,” the city said.

“The City of Boston and its mayor have been among the worst sanctuary offenders in America — they explicitly enforce policies designed to undermine law enforcement and protect illegal aliens from justice,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. “If Boston won’t protect its citizens from illegal alien crime, this Department of Justice will.”

The Department of Justice said Boston’s law allows the “release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets.”

In a statement, Wu vowed to not back down and said the “unconstitutional attack on our city is not a surprise.”

“Boston is a thriving community, the economic and cultural hub of New England, and the safest major city in the country — but this administration is intent on attacking our community to advance their own authoritarian agenda,” she said. “This is our city, and we will vigorously defend our laws and the constitutional rights of cities, which have been repeatedly upheld in courts across the country. We will not yield.”

The Justice Department has filed similar suits against Los Angeles and New York City.

In July, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Illinois, Cook County and Chicago over sanctuary laws.

On Aug. 13, Bondi sent a letter to Wu warning her that officials who obstruct federal immigration could face criminal charges or civil liability.

Wu responded on Aug. 19, citing the Chicago dismissal.

“Courts have consistently held, as recently as last month, that local public safety laws like the Boston Trust Act are valid exercises of local authority and fully consistent with federal law,” she wrote.

In August, a federal judge extended his preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding funds for 34 sanctuary jurisdictions.

Those cities include Boston, Chicago, Denver and Los Angeles.

Bondi in August published a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions,” which she said “impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.”

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing Illinois over state laws that grant in-state tuition benefits and financial assistance to migrants, accusing the Prairie State of discriminating against Americans.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, is the latest from the Trump administration targeting laws aiding migrants in receiving tuition benefits, and comes as President Donald Trump‘s feud with Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker continues to deepen.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

“This Department of Justice has already filed multiple lawsuits to prevent U.S. students from being treated like second-class citizens — Illinois now joins the list of states where we are relentlessly fighting to vindicate federal law.”

According to the lawsuit, Illinois laws discriminate against out-of-state Americans who are not eligible for the tuition benefits being offered to some undocumented students in the state.

The lawsuit targets two Illinois laws: the Illinois Public Act of 2003, which permits certain undocumented students with residency for purposes of receiving in-state tuition benefits; the Illinois DREAM Act of 2011, which provides scholarships, college saving plans and prepaid tuition programs to undocumented students, paid through private donations.

Federal prosecutors allege that they violate a federal law, enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, that states an undocumented person in the United States “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state … for any postsecondary education benefit” unless a U.S. citizen is also eligible for the benefit.

“This court should put an end to this discrimination against Americans that is a blatant and ongoing violation of federal law,” the prosecutors said in the lawsuit.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has led a renewed crackdown on immigration, seeking to conduct mass deportations and limiting the protections of migrants already in the country.

This is the fifth lawsuit since June challenging state laws offering in-state tuition or tuition benefits to migrants that are unavailable to out-of-state Americans.

The lawsuits follow President Donald Trump signing several immigration-related executive orders including “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” which directed the attorney general to identify laws “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including “State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens.”

Early last month, the Justice Department sued Oklahoma for providing eligible undocumented migrants with in-state tuition benefits, with similar suits filed against Kentucky and Minnesota.

In June, prosecutors filed a suit in Texas, with the Republican-led state siding with the federal government, and the two reached an agreement to halt the Lone Star State’s law on giving undocumented migrants in-state tuition benefits.

The lawsuit was also announced on the same day that the Republican president vowed to send National Guard troops to Chicago in a crime crackdown, as he had done to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

Pritzker, a Democrat and a staunch Trump critic, responded by saying there is no emergency warranting the deployment of troops in the city.

“These efforts are not about fighting crime or making communities safer,” Pritzker said in a statement.

“This is about Donald Trump testing his power and producing political drama to cover up his own corruption.”

Aug. 25 (UPI) — President Donald Trump is threatening to investigate former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, as he continues to use the Justice Department to punish political adversaries.

Trump made the threat Sunday on his Truth Social account after Christie criticized him during an appearance on a Sunday talk show for rejecting “the idea that there should be separation between criminal investigations” and the president.

In a statement published on his Truth Social media platform Sunday, Trump suggested the Justice Department should investigate Christie over the so-called Bridgegate scandal of 2013, in which former staffers to Christie closed two lanes of the George Washington Bridge, creating traffic jams over several days.

Christie came under intense criticism over Bridgegate, but said he was never aware of what his associates did.

Trump accused Christie of lying about “the dangerous and deadly closure” of the bridge “in order to stay out of prison.”

“Chris refused to take responsibility for these criminal acts,” Trump said. “For the sake of JUSTICE, perhaps we should start looking at that very serious situation again? NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW!”

Trump campaigned on using the office of the presidency to retaliate against his political rivals, and he has done just that since returning to the White House in January.

He has used his executive powers to punish those he accuses of targeting him, including lawyers who prosecuted his criminal cases, as well as law firms.

His attorney general, Pam Bondi, earlier this month ordered a grand jury into former President Barack Obama over his administration’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

And most recently, the FBI raided the home of Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton. Bolton has become a critic of Trump and published a book about his time in his administration in 2020, which the U.S. president tried to prevent from happening.

Trump has claimed that Bolton revealed classified information.

Trump’s post on Sunday was made after Christie’s appearance on ABC News’ This Week, in which the former New Jersey governor discussed Trump’s prosecution of Bolton.

“Let me say candidly to the American people who are watching: you were told this,” Christie said.

“You were told that this was what he was going to do. And not by me, by Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign. He told you he was going to do this, that he was going to have a Justice Department that acted as his personal legal representation, and that is what they’re doing.”

Cook, who has been accused of mortgage fraud, has said she will not be bullied by Trump into resigning.

The United States Department of Justice plans to investigate Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, with a top official informing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell of the probe and encouraging him to remove her, Bloomberg News has reported.

A letter to Powell from Ed Martin, a Department of Justice (DOJ) official who has led similar investigations into Senator Adam Schiff of California and New York Attorney General Letitia James, said Cook’s case “requires further examination”, Bloomberg reported on Thursday.

“At this time, I encourage you to remove Ms Cook from your Board,” Martin wrote, according to Bloomberg. “Do it today before it is too late! After all, no American thinks it is appropriate that she serve during this time with a cloud hanging over her.”

The DOJ did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Asked about the report, a Fed spokesperson referred to Cook’s statement on Wednesday, when she said she had no intention of being “bullied” into resigning after President Donald Trump called for her to step down on the basis of allegations made by a member of his administration about mortgages she holds in Michigan and Georgia.

The Federal Reserve Act provides no authority for a Fed chair to remove another member of the Board of Governors.

Cook, the first Black woman to be a Fed governor, is serving a 14-year term that began after her second Senate confirmation in 2023.

The effort to remove Cook comes as the administration has unleashed a campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and intensifies Trump’s ongoing effort to gain influence over the US central bank and push it to lower interest rates.

Fed under pressure

Central bankers from around the world gathered on Thursday in Grand Teton National Park for the opening of the Kansas City Fed’s annual Jackson Hole symposium, where Powell will give a keynote speech on Friday, sketching out his view of the economy and, investors hope, where rates are headed.

“I would just say that I know her to be an outstanding economist and a person of high integrity,” Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack told Yahoo Finance at the event.

US Federal Housing Finance Agency director William Pulte, who referred the allegations of Cook’s wrongdoing to the Department of Justice this week, said they arose as part of regular investigations into mortgage fraud by his agency and were not a “witch-hunt”.

“Defrauding people is nothing new,” Pulte told Bloomberg Television. “I believe that she committed mortgage fraud.”  He said that public records clearly show fraud and that a special exemption should not be made for the powerful. He said the fraud is “self-evident”.

Cook has yet to expressly address Pulte’s accusation, saying only in Wednesday’s statement: “I do intend to take any questions about my financial history seriously as a member of the Federal Reserve, and so I am gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.”

The Fed has held borrowing costs steady all year in the 4.25 percent to 4.5 percent range out of concern that Trump’s tariffs could reignite inflation that is still running above the Fed’s 2 percent goal. Recent weaker labour market data – including a report showing job gains averaged a paltry 35,000 from May to July – has increased Fed policymaker concern that borrowing costs may be a bit too high, and financial markets are priced for the likelihood of a quarter-point interest-rate cut at the Fed’s September meeting.

That would be far short of the several percentage points that Trump has called for.

Trump can name a new chair when Powell’s term ends in May. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is leading the search, has nearly a dozen candidates, and all have voiced their support for big rate cuts and big changes to the central bank. Traditionally, Fed chairs resign when their leadership term ends, but there is some speculation that Powell would stay on until his term as governor ends in 2028, denying Trump the chance to install more loyalists to consolidate his control over the central bank.

Trump has nominated Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Miran, a Fed critic and enthusiastic supporter of Trump’s tariffs and other policies, to serve at the Fed in the seat vacated by the surprise resignation this month of Adriana Kugler.

Aug. 12 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Tuesday that George Washington University was in violation of federal civil rights laws and described it as “deliberately indifferent” to anti-Semitism on campus.

The DOJ published a letter to GWU President Ellen M. Granberg saying that the department had finished its probe of the allegations against the university and found that GWU’s response to incidents of anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment of Jewish and Israeli students that “despite actual notice of the abuses occurring on its campus, GWU was deliberately indifferent to the complaints it received, the misconduct that occurred, and the harms that were suffered by its students and faculty, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

The letter from Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Harmeet K. Dhillon offered “the opportunity to resolve this matter through a voluntary resolution agreement.”

The allegations stem from campus protests in April and May 2024. The protests were about the Israeli attacks on Gaza, but some Jewish students experienced alleged anti-Semitism on several university campuses.

The letter alleged that students and faculty at GWU experienced a hostile educational environment “that was objectively offensive, severe, and pervasive. The anti-Semitic, hate-based misconduct by GWU students directed at Jewish GWU students, faculty, and employees was, in a word, shocking. The behavior was demonstrably abhorrent, immoral, and, most importantly, illegal.”

GWU hasn’t yet responded publicly.

The allegations stem from an encampment that students created in GWU’s University Yard, in the middle of campus.

“The purpose of the agitators’ efforts was to frighten, intimidate, and deny Jewish, Israeli, and American-Israeli students free and unfettered access to GWU’s educational environment. This is the definition of hostility and a ‘hostile environment.’ [DOJ’s] investigation found numerous incidents of Jewish students being harassed, abused, intimidated and assaulted by protesters. To be clear, Jewish students were afraid to attend class, to be observed, or, worse, to be ‘caught’ and perhaps physically beaten on GWU’s campus.”

The letter cites a few examples of students being harassed and having their movements restricted. It says the students were told by faculty and security personnel to leave for their own safety, and no other measures were taken.

“Jewish students, parents and alumni contacted GWU numerous times to express their alarm and concern about the actions of protesters and to express their legitimate and reasonable fears for their safety,” the letter said.

GWU is one of dozens of American universities that have been targeted by the Trump administration with civil rights and constitutional investigations in connection to protests over Israel’s war in Gaza.

Since returning to the White House in January, President Donald Trump has been cracking down on institutions of higher learning, especially elite schools, over a slew of allegations, from not protecting Jewish students to illegally enforcing diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

On Aug. 1, the University of California, Los Angeles, announced it had lost research funding from the federal government over the accusations of anti-Semitism on campus. UCLA paid $6.13 million to three Jewish students and one professor who said their civil rights were violated.

On July 30, Brown University agreed to pay $50 million over 10 years to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island, its home state. It also agreed to:

• Separate men’s and women’s sports facilities on the basis of sex.
• Stope the health system from prescribing puberty blockers or conducting gender reassignment surgeries on minors.
• Ban programs that contain “unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes” and instead utilizing “merit-based” admission policies.
• Provide data and information to the federal government showing compliance with the deal.

Aug. 9 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department is asking for $1 billion from the University of California, Los Angeles in exchange for re-starting federal funding to the public land-grant research institution, school officials confirmed.

“The University of California just received a document from the Department of Justice and is reviewing it,” University of California President James Milliken said in a statement this week.

“As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.”

Earlier this week, UCLA announced it had lost millions in federal research funding after the Justice Department accused it of failing to protect Jewish students during on-campus pro-Palestinian protests. The school at the time did not specify a dollar amount, but that figure is now believed to be around $500 million.

“The UC Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President are providing counsel as we actively evaluate our best course of action. I will continue to be in constant communication with you on key decisions and update you on any developments,” UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk said following Milliken’s statement.

The deal offered by President Donald Trump‘s administration to the 106-year-old academic institution would involve the school making a $1 billion payment. It would also pay an additional $172 million which would go to a larger fund to compensate victims of civil rights violations, the New York Times reported, citing a draft of the proposal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., said the state would push back against the proposed settlement.

“We’ll sue,” Newsom told reporters at a news conference Friday when asked about the news. Newsom had been discussing California’s involvement with Texas lawmakers who are trying to block a Republican redistricting plan in the Lone Star state.

“[Trump] is trying to silence academic freedom,” Newsom said, “attacking one of the most important public institutions in the United States of America.”

Columbia University last month agreed to pay $221 million in fines to settle similar accusations against the private New York City university.

At the time, Trump said he also expected to reach a settlement with Harvard University.

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The Department of Justice asked New York judges to unseal more evidence in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases, but it still wants to shield “personal identifying information.”

This is an expansion of Attorney General Pam Bondi‘s earlier request to courts to unseal five days of grand jury testimony in relation to the cases.

In July, a Florida judge refused to unseal transcripts related to a criminal case brought against Epstein for sex charges in the early 2000s. That case was resolved in a controversial plea deal that saw the billionaire financier serve about a year in prison.

The latest request is about Epstein’s 2019 criminal case in New York, which was dropped after he died by suicide in his jail cell. It also asks to unseal grand jury evidence in Maxwell’s case, which ended in her conviction and sentence of 20 years in prison.

The request to shield personal identifying information could protect others from being tied to the case.

“Any effort to redact third party names smacks of a cover up,” victim Annie Farmer said through her lawyer in an Aug. 5 letter to the court. Farmer testified for the prosecution in Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial.

“To the extent any of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s enablers and co-conspirators who have thus far evaded accountability are implicated by the grand jury transcripts, their identities should not be shielded from the public,” Farmer’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, added. She added that victims’ identifications should be redacted.

The new request comes after the judges handling the requests — Richard Berman for the Epstein case and Paul Engelmayer for the Maxwell case — told the department to specify their positions.

The department requested to have until Aug. 14 to notify everyone who’s name appears on the evidence and update the judges.

Usually, grand jury proceedings and evidence are kept secret.

Meanwhile, advocacy group Democracy Forward filed suit Fridy against the Justice Department and the FBI for records on their handling of the Epstein investigation. It wants records about senior administration officials’ communication about Epstein documents and any correspondence between Epstein and President Donald Trump.

The group says it submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the records related to communications about the case in late July that have not yet been fulfilled.

“The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the group, said in a statement. The federal government often shields records on criminal investigations from public view.

Maxwell earlier this week opposed the Justice Department effort to unseal the grand jury testimony. She said it would compromise her privacy and her potential to appeal.

Also earlier this week, the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed the Department of Justice, former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and several others for documents and testimony about Epstein.

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The Justice Department filed a lawsuit this week challenging an Oklahoma law that provides eligible undocumented migrants with in-state tuition benefits, the latest litigation targeting migrants’ access to higher education amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Though announced Thursday, the lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The law, approved by the state’s legislature in 2007, offers in-state tuition at the 25 state-run colleges and universities to anyone — including undocumented migrants — who graduated from an Oklahoma high school and resided in the state with a parent or legal guardian while attending the state high school for at least two years before graduation.

The lawsuit argues the rule violates two of President Donald Trump‘s executive orders on immigration — one signed Feb. 19 directing federal departments and agencies to ensure no taxpayer-funded benefits go to “unqualified aliens,” and one April 28 ordering “appropriate” actions to end enforcement of laws and practices “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including those in-state tuition to undocumented migrants.

The Justice Department sayd that the law favors undocumented migrants over out-of-state Americans, calling it “unequal treatment,” and argues it violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which holds federal law takes precedence precedence over state laws.

Prosecutors are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

The state’s Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, has filed a motion in support of the Trump administration lawsuit, saying Tuesday marked “the end of a longstanding exploitation of Oklahoma taxpayers.”

“Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong — it is discriminatory and unlawful,” Drummond said in a statement.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has led a renewed crackdown on immigration, seeking to conduct mass deportations and limiting the protections of migrants already in the country.

This is the fourth lawsuit since since June challenging state laws offering in-state tuition or tuition benefits to migrants that are unavailable to out-of-state-Americans.

In early June, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against a similar Texas law. As in Oklahoma, the Republican-led state sided with the Trump administration, and the two reached an agreement to halt its enforcement.

Similar lawsuits have also been filed in Kentucky and Minnesota.

Florida ended in-state tuition for undocumented migrants in February.

According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, 23 states and Washington, D.C., provide in-state tuition to undocumented students. Of those, 18 and D.C. provide access to state financial aid.