Aside from venue- and jurisdiction-related concerns, the BBC said that, by the time the documentary was released in October 2024, Trump had received so much negative publicity with respect to his actions on January 6 that a brief sequence in a documentary was unlikely to cause the president any more reputational harm than he has already suffered.
“This is an undeniably targeted policy that singles out one nationality, designed to rob them of the due process they are legally guaranteed and to strip their legal teams of the ability to adequately and ethically prepare their cases for hearing,” an attorney for the plaintiffs said.
“Here in Vermont, we believe in science and we follow science,” state Attorney General Charity Clark said. “So it’s a shame that the federal administration doesn’t share that view and has gone through many efforts to try to unwind efforts to protect the public’s safety from things like climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.”
One of the immigrants involved in the lawsuit, Requel Molina, is 65 years old and held a customs seal for 27 years before it was suddenly revoked. Her legal team says that there is no reason to think that people like Molina pose any kind of threat to national security.
“I’m struggling to see this is an ‘alteration,’” a district court judge said of Trump’s proposed White House ballroom.
Although the tariffs have been declared unlawful, refunds are not automatic.
The Wisconsin Elections Commission, in contrast, claims that it has already provided publicly-available data for more than 3.6 million registered voters. It has also challenged the Justice Department’s legal argument, saying that nothing in the Civil Rights Act of 1960 provides the Trump administration with the power to forcibly requisition confidential information from individual states.
“The Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech. No federal statute authorizes the actions taken here. Anthropic turns to the judiciary as a last resort to vindicate its rights and halt the Executive’s unlawful campaign of retaliation,” Anthropic said in the 48-page lawsuit.
“That law authorizes tariffs in limited circumstances, including when there are “large and serious balance-of-payments deficits,’” Tong’s office said in a statement. “Notably, a trade deficit is not a balance-of-payment deficit, meaning that once again the President is acting unlawfully.”
In the lawsuit, Kaul and his fellow attorneys general argue that the “president has no authority to impose tariffs” under the statute President Donald Trump cited in the Trade Act of 1974. This statute authorizes tariffs, but only under limited circumstances, stipulating that it “cannot be invoked merely to address trade deficits on their own.”