Trump gains ability to fill four appellate judge seats under US Senate deal, this week's Legal Fee Tracker and more ??
Reuters Legal
From the courts to law firms, we bring you the latest legal news. Subscribe to our newsletters: https://bit.ly/3nhgllA
?? Good morning from The Legal File! Here is the rundown of today's top legal news:
?? Trump gains ability to fill four appellate judge seats under US Senate deal
U.S. Senate Democrats and Republicans clinched a late-night deal on Nov. 20 that clears the way for votes on a group of President Joe Biden's nominees for federal trial courts in exchange for not pushing forward with four nominees to serve on appellate courts, leaving vacancies that Republican President-elect Donald Trump can fill.
The deal, described by a spokesperson for Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Nov. 21, was reached after Senate Republicans launched a campaign to try to stall and prevent Democrats from fulfilling their plan to confirm as many life-tenured judges as possible before Trump takes office in January.
Senate Republicans had previously said they had votes to block at least two of the four appellate court nominees, including Adeel Mangi, who would have become the first Muslim federal appellate judge if confirmed to the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The deal was sure to disappoint progressive advocates who have been pushing Democrats to fill as many judicial vacancies as possible following the Nov. 5 election, which handed the White House to Trump and control of the Senate to Republicans.
"Willingly gifting Donald Trump the chance to appoint judges more committed to political agendas than the rule of law is doing a dangerous disservice to the American people," Maggie Jo Buchanan, the director of the progressive legal group Demand Justice, said in a statement.
?? How Trump's Musk-led efficiency panel could slash federal agency rules
Elon Musk?and?Vivek Ramaswamy, who were tapped by Republican President-elect Donald Trump to lead a new Department of Government Efficiency, have revealed plans to wipe out scores of U.S. regulations, but getting rid of agency rules can be a monumental task, according to experts. Any such effort in?Donald Trump’s?second term likely would face hurdles and legal challenges.
Agencies often repeal rules adopted by previous administrations, but the process is lengthy, complicated, and legally fraught, and many agencies likely lack the resources needed to repeal a large number of rules at once, Wiessner and Pierson write. Recent?U.S. Supreme Court?rulings that checked the power of agencies will take years to sort out in the lower courts.
Lawsuits seeking to block repeals or reinstate rules that have been rescinded have become common, and typically claim that agencies failed to adequately justify eliminating them or did not respond to concerns raised in public comments.
?? Legal Fee Tracker: China's Irico faces fee award plus damages in price-fixing case
Facing a potential multibillion-dollar default judgment in an antitrust case, Chinese state-owned manufacturing company Irico Group told a U.S. judge this year that being ordered to pay part of its opponents' legal fees could be an alternative sanction.
Instead, after nearly two decades of litigation, the company is on the hook for both.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in Oakland on Nov. 15 ruled, fully for the plaintiffs, who accused Irico and other tech manufacturers of fixing prices for cathode ray tubes used in TVs and other screens.
The plaintiffs, direct and indirect purchasers of the devices, said in a court filing last year that Irico "acted with breathtaking disregard for the law and this court’s authority” from the start of the case, delaying its progress and destroying documents such as pricing, production and sales information.
Adopting a court-appointed official's report, Tigar found Irico's actions "deprived plaintiffs and any factfinder of ever knowing the true facts."
?? Massachusetts student's punishment for AI use can stand, US judge rules
A federal judge has rejected a bid by the parents of a Massachusetts high school senior to force his school to expunge his disciplinary record and raise his history class grade after officials accused him of using an artificial intelligence program to cheat on a class assignment.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Levenson in Boston ruled that officials at Hingham High School reasonably concluded that the use of the AI tool by Jennifer and Dale Harris' son to complete a class project violated academic integrity rules.
The judge as a result declined to issue an order at a preliminary stage in the litigation that would force the school to expunge their son's disciplinary record and raise his AP U.S. History grade from a C-plus to a B.
Levenson said the emergence of generative AI "may present some nuanced challenges for educators." But he said the school's plagiarism policy was adequate to alert students they could not copy text from another source and pass it off as their own.
The parents sued after school officials concluded in December 2023 that during their son's junior year, he cheated on an AP U.S. History assignment by copying and pasting text generated by an online AI tool, including citations to nonexistent books, without attribution.
His parents argued the school violated his due process rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Constitution by not adequately informing him about how its academic honesty standards apply to the use of AI.
?? That's all for today, thank you for reading?The Legal File and have a great weekend!
For more legal industry news, read and subscribe to The Daily Docket.