Category: law

governmentlaw

Judge disqualifies Trump-appointed US attorney in California

admin

A federal judge disqualified President Trump’s pick for chief federal prosecutor in Los Angeles from several cases after finding he is serving in the temporary post unlawfully. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright. ruled Tuesday that Bill Essayli, acting U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, should have left the position by the end of July, when…

lawpolitics

MAGA governor hit with stinging ruling over bid to hold seat empty for 8 months

admin

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R-AR) got a smackdown from an Arkansas state judge over her plan to hold open a vacant state legislative seat for eight months before holding a special election. According to Law & Crime, Sanders set the special election date to replace Republican state Sen. Gary Stubblefield to June of next year well past the state law requirement to call it within 150 days of the vacancy.”There are 256 days between June 9, 2026, and Sept. 26, 2025, the day Sanders set that June date for the special election. An Arkansas governor can set a special election outside of the 150 days if scheduling one within that time frame would be ‘impracticable or unduly burdensome,’ state law says,” the report continued. Sanders argued to the court that the governor alone has power to decide when the time limit is “impracticable or unduly burdensome” and courts do not have authority to intervene. Sixth Judicial Circuit Judge Patricia James strongly disagreed, noting in her ruling that Sanders is effectively depriving the citizens of that district of their rights.”They would not be able to fully and effectively participate, nor would they be able to have an effective voice in the election of members of their state legislature,” wrote James. “To allow the special election to take place after the conclusion of a legislative session would indeed result in an infringement of a constitutional right based on the fundamental democratic principle of ‘no taxation without representation.’ There would be far-reaching ramifications if the Governor were allowed to deny duly elected representation for the citizens of the State of Arkansas and any action resulting in the denial of adequate representation for any Arkansas citizen conscience of this court.”As for Sanders’ claim that the governor has sole power over setting special election dates, James, wrote, “The court has the ability and authority to determine whether the application of such statute is applied constitutionally. The Supreme Court of Arkansas has specifically held that ‘a state official who acts unlawfully does so without the authority of. the state in its sovereign capacity.’ Especially when such authority by the Governor runs the risk of circumventing a constitutionally protected right.”This comes after Sanders has taken heat from her own party over the election delay, with some calling it “unacceptable” to hold the district vacant for so long.

entertainmentgovernmentjusticelawmedia

Kerala HC rules actor Mohanlal’s ivory licences void and unenforceable

admin

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the State-issued certificates declaring renowned Malayalam actor Mohanlal as the owner of two pairs of elephant ivory tusks and 13 ivory artifacts are void and legally unenforceable. The verdict marks a setback for the superstar in the ongoing controversy surrounding his possession of ivory items. The Division Bench comprising Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian struck down the Kerala government orders issued in February 2015 and February 2016, along with the ownership certificates granted to Mohanlal in January and April 2016. The court held that the State had failed to comply with mandatory statutory requirements under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, before issuing these certificates. However, the court refrained from delving into the specifics of how the government’s power to issue these certificates was exercised, noting that such findings could prejudice Mohanlal in ongoing criminal proceedings related to the case. The judgment highlighted that the government was at liberty to issue fresh notifications under Section 40(4) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. This provision allows the State to request any person to declare possession of wild animal articles before granting ownership certificates or legal immunity against prosecution for illegal possession. The ruling came on two public interest litigation petitions challenging the State notifications under Section 40(4), which allowed Mohanlal to declare his possession of ivory artifacts before the Chief Wildlife Warden. Following these declarations, the State had issued ownership certificates under Section 42 of the Act. Petitioners argued that the notifications were unlawful as they were never published in the official gazette-a mandatory statutory requirement-and pointed out that no proper inquiry had been conducted into the legality of the actor’s possession of the ivory items. Mohanlal has consistently maintained that the ivory tusks were procured legally and that the certificates were issued directionally by the Central government through the Kerala government. Additionally, the State had issued a no-objection certificate for case withdrawal. Nonetheless, the magistrate court had earlier rejected the State’s plea to withdraw the case in June 2022, a decision contested before the Kerala High Court. The High Court partially allowed the State’s plea in February 2023, asking the magistrate to reconsider the withdrawal application. While the High Court’s recent judgment invalidates the ownership certificates, it grants the State the liberty to issue fresh notifications in accordance with the law. The final verdict in the criminal case against Mohanlal remains pending. Also Read: Mohanlal starrer Vrusshabha locks worldwide release date; set to hit theatres in November.