In a significant development, a US federal judge has blocked efforts of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, to shut down USAID, calling it a possible violation of the US constitution in multiple ways.

US federal judge blocks decision to dismantle USAID

US federal judge halts USAID shutdown

A federal judge has ruled that the White House failed to comply with his directive to release billions in federal grants, marking the first time a judge has explicitly said that the Trump administration has disregarded a court order.
Judge John J. McConnell Jr, presiding in a Rhode Island federal court, asked officials to follow what he described as "the plain text" of his ruling from Jan 29. He added that the order was "clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to the Defendants&rsquo; compliance."
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/respecting-truce-only-way-to-bring-hostages-back-hamas-warns-trump-after-us-presidents-ultimatum-8711876" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">'Respecting truce only way to bring hostages back', Hamas warns Trump after US president's ultimatum</a>
Following Monday&rsquo;s decision, Trump administration lawyers quickly appealed the judge&rsquo;s ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, seeking a temporary hold on Judge McConnell&rsquo;s order while the case proceeded. 
&ldquo;Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful. Any legal challenge against it is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the will of the American people,&rdquo; said White House spokesman Harrison Fields.
<h2>Vance, Musk call for defying court orders</h2>
These legal developments signal a potential escalation in tensions between the executive and judicial branches, coming just a day after Vice President JD Vance said on social media that "judges aren&rsquo;t allowed to control the executive&rsquo;s legitimate power."
Elon Musk, owner of X called for the impeachment of a judge who had temporarily prevented his DOGE from accessing sensitive financial data held by the Treasury Department. Musk also reposted a comment from another user urging Trump to disregard judicial rulings.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ukraine-war-us-russian-officials-meet-hours-after-trumps-ukraine-may-be-russian-someday-comments-8711289" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">Top US, Russian officials meet hours after Trump says Ukraine 'may be Russian&nbsp;someday'</a>
<h2>Over 40 lawsuits against Trump&rsquo;s executive orders</h2>
More than 40 lawsuits have already been filed challenging Trump&rsquo;s actions, which include revoking birthright citizenship and granting Musk&rsquo;s teams access to classified Treasury Department payment systems. Preliminary rulings from judges suggest that these actions, along with the funding freeze and other executive orders, may violate existing laws. 
On Monday, courts continued to challenge the administration&rsquo;s authority, issuing temporary blocks on attempts to cut health research grants and initiatives aimed at pressuring federal employees to resign.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-offers-joint-production-of-su-57e-to-india-8706111">Russia offers joint production of SU 57E fighter jet to India</a>
Previously, Judge McConnell had ordered the White House to release federal funds that had been withheld by the budget office. A memo from the office stipulated that the grants should be suspended until they were assessed for alignment with President Trump&rsquo;s policy agenda.
The judge refrained from holding the Trump administration in contempt or imposing any specific penalties for noncompliance. However, he made it clear that his previous temporary restraining order from January 29 had not been followed.
Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/paris-ai-summit-concludes-india-announced-as-next-host-us-warns-against-extensive-regulation-8711473" rel="dofollow noopener" target="_blank">Action AI Summit in Paris concludes: India announced as next host, US warns against 'extensive&nbsp;regulation'</a>
&ldquo;These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO,&rdquo; Judge McConnell said. His earlier ruling had explicitly barred the administration from halting, freezing, blocking, or terminating funds that had already been allocated by Congress to support Medicaid, school meals, low-income housing subsidies, and other critical services.
The judge further added that White House officials were required to comply with the directive, regardless of their expectations about the case&rsquo;s outcome.
(With inputs from agencies)

World: Judge John J. McConnell Jr, presiding in a Rhode Island federal court, asked officials to follow what he described as "the plain text" of his ruling from Jan 29.

A federal judge has ruled that the White House failed to comply with his directive to release billions in federal grants, marking the first time a judge has explicitly said that the Trump administration has disregarded a court order. Judge John J. McConnell Jr, presiding in a Rhode Island federal court, asked officials to follow what he described as "the plain text" of his ruling from Jan 29. He added that the order was "clear and unambiguous, and there are no impediments to the Defendants’ compliance." Also read: 'Respecting truce only way to bring hostages back', Hamas warns Trump after US president's ultimatum Following Monday’s decision, Trump administration lawyers quickly appealed the judge’s ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, seeking a temporary hold on Judge McConnell’s order while the case proceeded. “Each executive order will hold up in court because every action of the Trump-Vance administration is completely lawful. Any legal challenge against it is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the will of the American people,” said White House spokesman Harrison Fields. Vance, Musk call for defying court orders These legal developments signal a potential escalation in tensions between the executive and judicial branches, coming just a day after Vice President JD Vance said on social media that "judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power." Elon Musk, owner of X called for the impeachment of a judge who had temporarily prevented his DOGE from accessing sensitive financial data held by the Treasury Department. Musk also reposted a comment from another user urging Trump to disregard judicial rulings. Also read: Top US, Russian officials meet hours after Trump says Ukraine 'may be Russian someday' Over 40 lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders More than 40 lawsuits have already been filed challenging Trump’s actions, which include revoking birthright citizenship and granting Musk’s teams access to classified Treasury Department payment systems. Preliminary rulings from judges suggest that these actions, along with the funding freeze and other executive orders, may violate existing laws. On Monday, courts continued to challenge the administration’s authority, issuing temporary blocks on attempts to cut health research grants and initiatives aimed at pressuring federal employees to resign. Also read: Russia offers joint production of SU 57E fighter jet to India Previously, Judge McConnell had ordered the White House to release federal funds that had been withheld by the budget office. A memo from the office stipulated that the grants should be suspended until they were assessed for alignment with President Trump’s policy agenda. The judge refrained from holding the Trump administration in contempt or imposing any specific penalties for noncompliance. However, he made it clear that his previous temporary restraining order from January 29 had not been followed. Also read: Action AI Summit in Paris concludes: India announced as next host, US warns against 'extensive regulation' “These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO,” Judge McConnell said. His earlier ruling had explicitly barred the administration from halting, freezing, blocking, or terminating funds that had already been allocated by Congress to support Medicaid, school meals, low-income housing subsidies, and other critical services. The judge further added that White House officials were required to comply with the directive, regardless of their expectations about the case’s outcome. (With inputs from agencies)

Federal judge rules White House defied court order as Trump’s legal battle with judiciary escalates

A federal court in Delaware has ordered US President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden to appear in the court on October 3 to face firearms charges, a day after his lawyers sought permission he be allowed to attend the first hearing virtually.

A federal court in Delaware has ordered US President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden to appear in the court on October 3 to face firearms charges, a day after his lawyers sought permission he be allowed to attend the first hearing virtually. US Magistrate Judge from the District of Delaware, Christopher Burke, rejected Hunter's request, saying he should not receive special treatment. "In the end, the Court agrees with both the Defendant and the Government, that Defendant should not receive special treatment in this matter — absent some unusual circumstance, he should be treated just as would any other defendant in our Court," Burke stated in the filing. The federal judge, however, gave Hunter an extra week to comply, from the date originally set for the hearing, September 26. The president's 53-year-old son was charged last week by a federal court in Delaware on two counts related to filing a form wherein he falsely claimed that he was not using drugs illegally at the time of purchase of the gun. Meanwhile, a third count alleges that based on the false statements, he possessed a firearm while using narcotics, during an 11-day period in October of that year. However, after the indictment, Hunter's lawyer Abbe David Lowell wrote a letter to the judge on Tuesday (September 19) and requested his client's first appearance take place via video conference whilst adding that Biden Jr. will plead not guilty. "Mr Biden understands both the charges against him and his rights...and we believe the Court can be assured of that fact by conducting this initial appearance by video," read the letter. "Mr Biden also will enter a plea of not guilty, and there is no reason why he cannot utter those two words by video conference," it added. Watch | Gravitas: Did the White House influence the Hunter Biden case? × Hunter's near miss Notably, the case would not have reached this stage if it wasn't for US District Judge Maryellen Noreika interfering at the eleventh hour and saying she could not "rubber stamp the agreement", after raising certain concerns regarding the terms of the deal. Also read | Hunter Biden to plead not guilty to federal firearms charges With the trial set to proceed, Hunter could face 25 years in prison if he is convicted on all three felony charges. However, such offences are seldom punished by jail time and given Hunter's political pull, owing to his father, it looks highly unlikely he will land in prison. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Hunter Biden set to appear in court on THIS date after judge rejects his request

A federal judge in the United States on Friday (April 7) halted the approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. The 67-page ruling by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas&nbsp;allows the Joe Biden administration one week to appeal the decision, according to court documents.

Kacsmaryk's ruling is a preliminary injunction that would essentially ban the sale of mifepristone while the case before him continues, according to a report by the news agency Reuters. The judge, appointed to the bench by former president Donald Trump, did not rule on the merits of the challenge. The injunction will remain in place until the judge makes a final judgment or it is reversed on appeal.

Some abortion providers said that if mifepristone is unavailable, they would switch to a regimen using only misoprostol for a medication abortion, Reuters reported.&nbsp;

Four anti-abortion groups, headed by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four anti-abortion doctors, sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November last year, contending the agency used improper process when it approved mifepristone back in 2000 and did not adequately consider the drug's safety when used by girls under the age of 18 to terminate&nbsp;pregnancy.

Mifepristone is part of the regimen in the US for medication abortions, which accounts for over half of all abortions in the country.

Responding to the lawsuit, the Biden administration said the drug's approval was well supported by science, and that the challenge comes much too late. Vice President Kamala Harris said the ruling&nbsp;&nbsp;undermines the FDA's "ability to approve safe and effective medications... based on science, not politics."

<h2>Justice department vows to appeal the ruling</h2>

The US Justice department said on Friday that it would appeal the ruling by&nbsp;Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, adding it strongly disagrees with the decision, the news agency AFP reported.&nbsp;

"The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the decision...and will be appealing the court’s decision and seeking a stay pending appeal," said Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, which is one of the largest pro-abortion groups in the US, also slammed Friday's court ruling.&nbsp;

"The judge's decision in Texas today blocking the (Food and Drug Administration’s) approval of mifepristone is an outrage and exposes the weaponisation of our judicial system to further restrict abortion nationwide," the federation's President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement.&nbsp;

Johnson said that people should be enraged that one judge can unilaterally reject medical evidence and overrule the FDA's approval of a medication that has been safely and effectively used for over 20 years.&nbsp;

"This decision could threaten the FDA’s role in this country’s public health system, and — if allowed to stand — will have broad and unprecedented consequences that reach far beyond abortion," Johnson added.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

A federal judge in the United States on Friday (April 7) halted the approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. The 67-page ruling by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas allows the Joe Biden administration one week to appeal the decision, according to court documents.

A federal judge in the United States on Friday (April 7) halted the approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. The 67-page ruling by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas allows the Joe Biden administration one week to appeal the decision, according to court documents. Kacsmaryk's ruling is a preliminary injunction that would essentially ban the sale of mifepristone while the case before him continues, according to a report by the news agency Reuters. The judge, appointed to the bench by former president Donald Trump, did not rule on the merits of the challenge. The injunction will remain in place until the judge makes a final judgment or it is reversed on appeal. Some abortion providers said that if mifepristone is unavailable, they would switch to a regimen using only misoprostol for a medication abortion, Reuters reported. Four anti-abortion groups, headed by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four anti-abortion doctors, sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in November last year, contending the agency used improper process when it approved mifepristone back in 2000 and did not adequately consider the drug's safety when used by girls under the age of 18 to terminate pregnancy. Mifepristone is part of the regimen in the US for medication abortions, which accounts for over half of all abortions in the country. Responding to the lawsuit, the Biden administration said the drug's approval was well supported by science, and that the challenge comes much too late. Vice President Kamala Harris said the ruling undermines the FDA's "ability to approve safe and effective medications... based on science, not politics." Justice department vows to appeal the ruling The US Justice department said on Friday that it would appeal the ruling by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, adding it strongly disagrees with the decision, the news agency AFP reported. "The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the decision...and will be appealing the court’s decision and seeking a stay pending appeal," said Attorney General Merrick Garland. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, which is one of the largest pro-abortion groups in the US, also slammed Friday's court ruling. "The judge's decision in Texas today blocking the (Food and Drug Administration’s) approval of mifepristone is an outrage and exposes the weaponisation of our judicial system to further restrict abortion nationwide," the federation's President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement. Johnson said that people should be enraged that one judge can unilaterally reject medical evidence and overrule the FDA's approval of a medication that has been safely and effectively used for over 20 years. "This decision could threaten the FDA’s role in this country’s public health system, and — if allowed to stand — will have broad and unprecedented consequences that reach far beyond abortion," Johnson added. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

Texas federal judge halts US approval of abortion pill mifepristone

&nbsp;A US federal judge on Sunday denied a motion by George Papadopoulos, a former aide for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, seeking to postpone his sentence pending a separate case he hoped would lead to his conviction being overturned.

Papadopoulos will report to jail on Monday to start his 14- day sentence after judge Randolph Moss dismissed his 11th-hour bid to remain on bail.

Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents probing ties between the campaign and Russia, had sought to delay his sentence while a separate case challenging the legality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment is ongoing. Moss said Papadopoulos' motion lacked merit.

"The court, accordingly, concludes that Papadopoulos' motion for a stay pending his appeal of this decision lacks merit," Moss wrote in his ruling. "Plaintiff's motion to continue bail and motion to stay his surrender date is hereby denied."

A US federal judge on Sunday denied a motion by George Papadopoulos, a former aide for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, seeking to postpone his sentence pending a separate case he hoped would lead to his conviction being overturned.

A US federal judge on Sunday denied a motion by George Papadopoulos, a former aide for Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, seeking to postpone his sentence pending a separate case he hoped would lead to his conviction being overturned. Papadopoulos will report to jail on Monday to start his 14- day sentence after judge Randolph Moss dismissed his 11th-hour bid to remain on bail. Papadopoulos, who pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents probing ties between the campaign and Russia, had sought to delay his sentence while a separate case challenging the legality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment is ongoing. Moss said Papadopoulos' motion lacked merit. "The court, accordingly, concludes that Papadopoulos' motion for a stay pending his appeal of this decision lacks merit," Moss wrote in his ruling. "Plaintiff's motion to continue bail and motion to stay his surrender date is hereby denied."

US federal judge orders former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos to jail

A California federal judge on Friday strongly questioned the US Justice Department over whether to suspend an order by President Donald Trump to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities for immigrants.

US District Court Judge William Orrick III questioned the purpose of the president&#39;s order as he heard arguments from two large California counties and the Justice Department in San Francisco federal court. Both counties have asked for a nationwide preliminary injunction to the order.

As part of a larger plan to transform how the United States deals with immigration and national security, Trump in January signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary cities in general offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Sanctuary city is not an official designation.

Santa Clara County, which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities, sued in February, saying Trump&#39;s plan to withhold federal funds is unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

On Friday, the counties described the order as a &quot;weapon to cancel all funding to jurisdictions,&quot; said John Keker, an attorney representing Santa Clara County. 
 
&quot;All around the country, including here, people are having to deal with this right now,&quot; the attorney said.

Santa Clara County receives roughly $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds annually, about 35 per cent of its total revenues. The county argued that every day it owed millions of dollars of federal funding, and its budgetary planning process had been thrown into disarray by the order.

The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president&#39;s order, which would impact only Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties.

The government also argued that there had been no enforcement action to date, and it was unclear what actions against the counties would entail.

Judge Orrick asked the government what was the purpose of an executive order, if it only impacted a small amount of county funding.

Attorneys for the government said the order had highlighted issues that the Trump Administration deeply cared about and a national policy priority.

To win a nationwide injunction, local governments must demonstrate a high level of harm, the Justice Department noted in court filings last month. 
 
(Reuters)

In January, Trump signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities

A California federal judge on Friday strongly questioned the US Justice Department over whether to suspend an order by President Donald Trump to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities for immigrants. US District Court Judge William Orrick III questioned the purpose of the president's order as he heard arguments from two large California counties and the Justice Department in San Francisco federal court. Both counties have asked for a nationwide preliminary injunction to the order. As part of a larger plan to transform how the United States deals with immigration and national security, Trump in January signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Sanctuary cities in general offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Sanctuary city is not an official designation. Santa Clara County, which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities, sued in February, saying Trump's plan to withhold federal funds is unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit. On Friday, the counties described the order as a "weapon to cancel all funding to jurisdictions," said John Keker, an attorney representing Santa Clara County. "All around the country, including here, people are having to deal with this right now," the attorney said. Santa Clara County receives roughly $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds annually, about 35 per cent of its total revenues. The county argued that every day it owed millions of dollars of federal funding, and its budgetary planning process had been thrown into disarray by the order. The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president's order, which would impact only Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties. The government also argued that there had been no enforcement action to date, and it was unclear what actions against the counties would entail. Judge Orrick asked the government what was the purpose of an executive order, if it only impacted a small amount of county funding. Attorneys for the government said the order had highlighted issues that the Trump Administration deeply cared about and a national policy priority. To win a nationwide injunction, local governments must demonstrate a high level of harm, the Justice Department noted in court filings last month. (Reuters)

California judge questions Trump's order to withhold funds for immigrant 'sanctuary cities '

us-federal-judge

Us Federal Judge, News on Us Federal Judge, stories on Us Federal Judge, articles on Us Federal Judge, Us Federal Judge stories at Wion, Us Federal Judge news, Us Federal Judge latest news

us federal-judge