Judges face rise in threats as Musk blasts them over rulings, SCOTUS leans toward gun companies' bid to avoid Mexico's lawsuit and more ??
Meriam Telhig/REUTERS

Judges face rise in threats as Musk blasts them over rulings, SCOTUS leans toward gun companies' bid to avoid Mexico's lawsuit and more ??

?? Good morning from The Legal File! Here is the rundown of today's top legal news:

?? Judges face rise in threats as Musk blasts them over rulings

FILE PHOTO: Elon Musk attends the Viva Technology conference dedicated to innovation and startups at the Porte de Versailles exhibition centre in Paris, France, June 16, 2023. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes/File photo
FILE PHOTO: Elon Musk attends the Viva Technology conference dedicated to innovation and startups at the Porte de Versailles exhibition centre in Paris, France, June 16, 2023. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes/File photo

U.S. Marshals have warned federal judges of unusually high threat levels as tech billionaire Elon Musk and other Trump administration allies ramp up efforts to discredit judges who stand in the way of White House efforts to slash federal jobs and programs, said several judges with knowledge of the warnings.

In recent weeks, Musk, congressional Republicans and other top allies of U.S. President Trump have called for the impeachment of some federal judges or attacked their integrity in response to court rulings that have slowed the Trump administration's moves to dismantle entire government agencies and fire tens of thousands of workers.

Musk, the world's richest person, has lambasted judges in more than 30 posts since the end of January on his social media site X, calling them "corrupt," "radical," "evil" and deriding the "TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY" after judges blocked parts of the federal downsizing that he’s led. The Tesla CEO has also reposted nearly two dozen tweets by others attacking judges.

Reuters interviews with 11 federal judges in multiple districts revealed mounting alarm over their physical security and, in some cases, a rise in violent threats in recent weeks. Most spoke on condition of anonymity and said they did not want to further inflame the situation or make comments that could be interpreted as conflicting with their duties of impartiality.

Read more.


?? US Supreme Court leans toward gun companies' bid to avoid Mexico's lawsuit

FILE PHOTO: Attendees inspect Smith & Wesson firearms at the National Rifle Association's (NRA) annual meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S., April 28, 2019. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston/File Photo
Attendees inspect Smith & Wesson firearms at the National Rifle Association's (NRA) annual meeting in Indianapolis, Indiana, U.S., April 28, 2019. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston/File Photo

U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy on March 4 toward a bid by two American gun companies to throw out the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels and fueling gun violence in the southern neighbor of the United States.

The justices heard arguments in an appeal by firearms maker Smith & Wesson and distributor Interstate Arms of a lower court's ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed on the grounds that Mexico has plausibly alleged that the companies aided and abetted illegal gun sales, harming its government.

The case comes before the Supreme Court at a fraught time for U.S.-Mexican relations as President Donald Trump pursues tariffs on Mexican goods and accuses Mexico of doing too little to stop the flow of synthetic drugs such as fentanyl and migrant arrivals at the border.

The companies have argued that Mexico's suit, filed in Boston in 2021, should be dismissed under a U.S. law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The 2005 law broadly shields gun companies from liability for crimes committed with their products. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the alleged conduct by the companies fell outside these protections.

Read more.


?? Trump administration expected to drop case that sought to allow emergency abortions in Idaho

FILE PHOTO: Abortion rights supporters hold placards on the day the Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments over the legality of Idaho's Republican-backed, near-total abortion ban in medical-emergency situations, at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., April 24, 2024./File photo
Abortion rights supporters hold placards on the day the Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments over the legality of Idaho's Republican-backed, near-total abortion ban in medical-emergency situations, at the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., April 24, 2024.

President Donald Trump's administration is expected to drop a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration that had sought to stop Idaho from enforcing its near-total abortion ban in medical emergencies, according to a court filing in a separate lawsuit by a hospital system.

Idaho is currently blocked by a preliminary federal court order from enforcing its ban in cases where doctors believe abortion is needed to save a pregnant woman's life or prevent serious harm. If the government drops its case, the order would no longer be in effect.

In the filing in Idaho federal court, St. Luke's Health System asked for a temporary restraining order stopping the state from enforcing the ban in medical emergencies even if the government drops its case.

The Boise-based hospital system said it had been informed by the U.S. Justice Department that the government could file a motion to drop the case on March 5.

St. Luke's had sued the state's attorney general in January, saying it would be unable to provide necessary emergency care if the state ban were to go into effect.

Read more.

Related read:

Idaho cannot prosecute doctors for out-of-state abortion referrals, court rules


?? Trump cannot oust chair of federal employees' appeal board, US judge rules

FILE PHOTO: Cathy Harris of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board poses as she leaves the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in downtown Washington, D.C., U.S., March 3, 2025. REUTERS/Mike Scarcella/File photo
FILE PHOTO: Cathy Harris of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board poses as she leaves the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in downtown Washington, D.C., U.S., March 3, 2025. REUTERS/Mike Scarcella/File photo

A federal judge on March 4 blocked Republican U.S. President Trump from firing the Democratic chair of a U.S. agency that hears appeals by federal government employees when they are fired or disciplined.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras in Washington, D.C., ruled that Trump could not remove without cause Cathy Harris from her position at the Merit Systems Protection Board before her term expires in three years, saying the agency's "mission and purpose require independence."

Federal workers who lose their jobs can bring a challenge before the merit board, an independent three-member panel, seeking to be reinstated. That role could put it in a central spot as Trump moves swiftly to shrink the federal government's workforce.

The judge had issued a temporary restraining order on Feb. 18 that required Harris to be reinstated as the board's chair while he considered her claims that Trump had illegally fired her earlier that month.

The Trump administration had argued that a ruling for Harris would encroach on the president's broad authority to remove "principal officers" who are exercising executive power at federal agencies.

But Contreras, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, said the statutory protections the board's members enjoy from being removed without cause were constitutional under a 90-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling that has long limited a president's ability to fire certain agency heads.

Read more.


?? That's all for today, thank you for reading The Legal File, and have a wonderful day!

For more legal industry news, read and subscribe to The Daily Docket.

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Reuters Legal的更多文章