- Michael Imperioli Forbids “Bigots And Homophobes” From Watching ‘The Sopranos,’ ‘The White Lotus’ & Any Of His Work After Anti-LGBTQ+ SCOTUS Ruling Deadline
- ‘Sopranos’ Star Michael Imperioli ‘Forbids Bigots and Homophobes’ From Watching His Work: Supreme Court Decision ‘Allows Me to Discriminate’ Yahoo Entertainment
- Michael Imperioli Has A Message For ‘Bigots And Homophobes’ Who Watch His Work HuffPost
- Michael Imperioli says bigots are no longer allowed to watch his work The A.V. Club
- Michael Imperioli Rules That His Work Is Off-Limits To Bigots Vanity Fair
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Tag Archives: SCOTUS
SCOTUS Rejects Radical GOP Vote-Rigging “Theory,” Could Still End Affirmative Action & Debt Relief – Democracy Now!
- SCOTUS Rejects Radical GOP Vote-Rigging “Theory,” Could Still End Affirmative Action & Debt Relief Democracy Now!
- U.S. Supreme Court decision likely affects Montana elections lawsuit NBC Montana
- Supreme Court ruling: Justices rule that race can no longer be considered in college admissions KHOU 11
- Editorial: Safeguarding the vote: Chief Justice John Roberts defends democracy by rejecting a crazy state legislature concept Yahoo News
- Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Rejection of a Disputed Legal Theory on Elections The New York Times
- View Full Coverage on Google News
SCOTUS Christian postal worker case will change standard on accommodating religious Americans: Legal counsel – Fox News
- SCOTUS Christian postal worker case will change standard on accommodating religious Americans: Legal counsel Fox News
- USPS worker takes religious rights case to Supreme Court after forced to work Sundays KOMO News
- Latter-day Saints join brief asking Supreme Court to protect religious employees at work Deseret News
- Conservative Christians aren’t the only ones asking for accommodation in mailman case The Washington Post
- Supreme Court appears poised to expand, but not radically reshape, religious workplace accommodations, advocates say Jewish Insider
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Supreme Court leans toward limiting judicial scrutiny of U.S. elections
WASHINGTON, Dec 7 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday appeared to ready to limit judicial power to overrule voting policies crafted by state politicians but might not go as far as Republican North Carolina lawmakers want in a case the liberal justices painted as a threat to American democratic norms.
The court heard arguments in a case the state lawmakers have used to try to persuade the justices to endorse a contentious legal theory gaining traction in conservative legal circles that would prevent state courts from reviewing the legality of actions by state legislatures regulating federal elections.
The Republican lawmakers are appealing the top North Carolina court’s decision to throw out the map they devised for the state’s 14 U.S. House of Representatives districts as unlawfully biased against Democratic voters. Another state court then replaced that map with one drawn by a bipartisan group of experts.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority, and its most conservative justices including Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch appeared willing to embrace the “independent state legislature” doctrine presented by the Republican legislators.
While the conservative justices in general asked questions that indicated skepticism toward the state court actions, some signaled that the Republican argument that state constitutions cannot constrain the power of legislatures in setting rules for congressional and presidential elections might go too far.
Under the once-marginal legal theory they are now promoting, the lawmakers argue that the U.S. Constitution gives state legislatures – and not other entities such as state courts – authority over election rules and electoral district maps.
The court’s liberal justices suggested the doctrine could free legislatures to adopt all manner of voting restrictions. Lawyers arguing against it also said it could sow confusion by allowing voting rules that vary between state and federal contests.
“This is a proposal that gets rid of the normal checks and balances on the way big governmental decisions are made in this country,” liberal Justice Elena Kagan said, referring to the interaction between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. “And you might think that it gets rid of all those checks and balances at exactly the time when they are needed most.”
America is sharped divided over voting rights. Republican-led state legislatures have pursued new voting restrictions in the aftermath of Republican former President Donald Trump’s false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud.
The court’s eventual decision, due by the end of June, could apply to 2024 elections including the U.S. presidential race.
During the three-hour argument, the justices touched on the issue of enabling federal courts to review state court actions to ensure that judges do not behave like legislators or unfairly apply vague state constitutional provisions such as those requiring free and fair elections to disempower lawmakers.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts wondered whether such broadly worded provisions provide proper “standards and guidelines” for state courts to apply.
[1/2] A general view of the U.S. Supreme Court building in the rain the day before the start of the court’s new term in Washington, U.S. October 2, 2022. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
ALITO WEIGHS IN
Alito dismissed arguments that legislatures would be unchecked if the Republican position carried the day.
“Under any circumstances, no matter what we say the ‘Elections Clause’ means, Congress can always come in and establish the manner of conducting congressional elections,” Alito said, referring to the Constitution’s elections language.
The doctrine is based in part on the Constitution’s statement that the “times, places and manner” of federal elections “shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” The Republican lawmakers argued that the state court usurped the North Carolina General Assembly’s authority under that provision to regulate federal elections.
Kagan said the theory would free state legislators to engage in the “most extreme forms of gerrymandering” – drawing electoral districts to unfairly improve a party’s election chances – while enacting “all manner of restrictions on voting,” noting that lawmakers by virtue of coveting re-election may have incentives to suppress, dilute and negate votes.
Kagan said the theory also could let legislatures insert themselves into the process of determining winners in federal elections – a sensitive issue following the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol attack by Trump supporters who sought to block congressional certification of Biden’s 2020 election victory.
‘HISTORICAL PRACTICE’
Some conservative justices appeared to balk at aspects of the Republican arguments.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the “historical practice” that “nearly all state constitutions regulate federal elections in some way.” Roberts said another check on a legislature’s power – a state governor’s veto – “significantly undermines the argument that it can do whatever it wants.”
David Thompson, arguing for the North Carolina lawmakers, said the Constitution “requires state legislatures specifically to perform the federal function of prescribing regulations for federal elections. States lack the authority to restrict the legislature’s substantive discretion when performing this federal function.”
Kavanaugh told Thompson that his position on the theory’s breadth “seems to go further” than that conceived by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a concurrence to a 2000 ruling deciding a presidential election’s outcome – an opinion seeing state courts as exceeding their authority on federal elections.
North Carolina’s Department of Justice is defending the state high court’s February ruling alongside the voters and voting rights groups that challenged the map approved by the legislature in November 2021. They are backed by Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration.
Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for Biden’s administration, said empowering state legislatures the way the Republicans want would “wreak havoc in the administration of elections across the nation” and cause federal courts to become flooded with lawsuits concerning state-administered elections.
Reporting by Andrew Chung in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
U.S. appeals court rejects Biden’s bid to revive student debt plan
Nov 30 (Reuters) – A federal appeals court on Wednesday declined to put on hold a Texas judge’s ruling that said President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt was unlawful.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Biden administration’s request to pause a judge’s Nov. 10 order vacating the $400 billion student debt relief program in a lawsuit pursued by a conservative advocacy group.
The decision by Fort Worth, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman was one of two nationally that has prevented the U.S. Department of Education under the Democratic president from moving forward with granting debt relief to millions of borrowers.
The administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to similarly lift an order by the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that, at the request of six Republican-led states, had barred it from cancelling student loans.
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit in Wednesday’s brief order declined to put Pittman’s ruling on hold while the administration appealed his decision, but the court directed that the appeal be heard on an expedited basis.
The panel included two Republican appointees and one judge nominated by then Democratic President Barack Obama. Pittman was appointed by then Republican President Donald Trump.
The White House had no immediate comment but the administration has said that if the 5th Circuit declined to halt Pittman’s order it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
Biden announced in August that the U.S. government would forgive up to $10,000 in student loan debt for borrowers making less than $125,000 a year, or $250,000 for married couples. Students who received Pell Grants to benefit lower-income college students will have up to $20,000 of their debt canceled.
During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden promised to help debt-saddled former college students. Biden’s program has drawn opposition from Republicans, who have portrayed it as shifting the burden of debt from wealthy elites to lower-income Americans.
The Congressional Budget Office in September calculated that the debt forgiveness program run would cost taxpayers about $400 billion.
About 26 million Americans have applied for student loan forgiveness, and the U.S. Department of Education had already approved requests from 16 million by the time Pittman issued his ruling.
Biden last week announced his administration would extend a pause on student loan payments to alleviate uncertainty for borrowers while litigation over the debt relief plan plays out.
Pittman had ruled in a lawsuit by two borrowers who were partially or fully ineligible for the loan forgiveness who were backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy group founded by Bernie Marcus, a co-founder of Home Depot.
The judge said it was irrelevant if Biden’s plan was good public policy because the program was “one of the largest exercises of legislative power without congressional authority in the history of the United States.”
Pittman wrote that the HEROES Act – a law that provides loan assistance to military personnel and that was relied upon by the Biden administration to enact the relief plan – did not authorize the program.
Elaine Parker, president of Job Creators Network Foundation, said in a statement the 5th Circuit’s order on Wednesday prevented the administration during the appeal from trying to “get money out the door to debtors and claim victory.”
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Tom Hogue, Robert Birsel
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
U.S. Senate passes same-sex marriage protection bill
WASHINGTON, Nov 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate passed a bill on Tuesday that would protect federal recognition of same-sex marriage, a measure taken up in response to worries the Supreme Court could overturn a 2015 decision that legalized it nationwide.
The narrowly tailored bill, which would require the federal government to recognize a marriage if it was legal in the state in which it was performed, is meant to be a backstop if the Supreme Court acted against same-sex marriage.
It would not bar states from blocking same-sex or interracial marriages if the Supreme Court allowed them to do so.
“Today the long but inexorable march towards greater equality advances forward,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.
“By passing this bill, the Senate is sending a message that every American needs to hear: no matter who you are or who you love, you too deserve dignity and equal treatment under the law.”
[1/4] The U.S. Capitol is seen at sunset on the eve of the first anniversary of the January 6, 2021 attack on the building, on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 5, 2022. REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo
The bill was passed 61 to 36, with 60 votes needed for passage. Twelve Republicans joined 49 Democrats in supporting the bill. One Democrat, Georgia’s Raphael Warnock, was absent, as were two Republican senators.
A similar, but not identical, bill passed the House of Representatives earlier this year with support from 47 Republicans and all Democrats. The House would need to approve the Senate version before it is sent to President Joe Biden to sign into law.
No. 2 House Democrat Steny Hoyer told reporters on Tuesday the House would likely take up the Senate’s version of the bill next week.
In June, the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion, undoing 50 years of precedent.
In a concurring opinion, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the court should consider reversing other decisions protecting individual freedoms, including the 2015 ruling on gay marriage.
About 568,000 married same-sex couples live in the United States, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Reporting by Moira Warburton
Editing by Chris Reese and Richard Chang
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Standing ovations for conservative U.S. justices at Federalist Society event
WASHINGTON, Nov 10 (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett received standing ovations from members of the conservative Federalist Society on Thursday at its first annual convention since the court overturned a nationwide right to abortion.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch also received applause at the event of the legal group, which is one of the most influential in the country and whose members have long criticized the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that the court overturned in June.
Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have helped create a new conservative supermajority on the court.
The loudest applause at the event in Washington, D.C. may have been not for the justices but for Alito’s opinion in the June ruling. Other conservative members of the court backed the ruling.
Alito did not mention the ruling or other aspects of the court’s work during his brief remarks. But Stephen Markman, a former justice on the Michigan Supreme Court, said that if the ruling were forever associated with Alito, “I do not know of any decision on any court by any judge of which that judge could be more proud.”
The comments were met by a standing ovation, with attendees turning to face toward Alito.
Barrett also briefly spoke at the event, largely honoring the late Judge Laurence Silberman, who served on D.C.’s federal appeals court and died last month. As she took the stage, Barrett said: “It’s really nice to have a lot of noise made not by protesters outside of my house.”
The conservative justices have been the subject of protests over their rulings, particularly after the abortion decision earlier this year.
Thursday’s dinner celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Federalist Society, which particularly has influence in Republican circles. Leonard Leo, a long-time conservative legal activist, while serving as a Federalist Society executive helped compile a list of potential U.S. Supreme Court nominees that former President Donald Trump drew from during his tenure.
Leo also spoke at the event, recalling that the first time he attended the convention’s dinner, the group struggled to fill a hotel ballroom. “Our movement has grown by leaps and bounds, and so has our impact,” he said.
Reporting by Jacqueline Thomsen in Washington; Editing by Bradley Perrett
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Conservative activist steers U.S. Supreme Court college race cases
Oct 27 (Reuters) – When the U.S. Supreme Court next week considers ending policies used by many colleges and universities to increase their numbers of Black and Hispanic students, a conservative activist will be on hand to watch this fateful moment in his long quest to erase racial preferences intended to boost diversity in American life.
The challenges to race-conscious admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina were brought by a group called Students for Fair Admissions founded and headed by Edward Blum, a 70-year-old former stockbroker and unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the two cases on Monday, with rulings due by the end of June. The litigation gives its 6-3 conservative majority another chance to issue blockbuster decisions after rulings four months ago overturning abortion rights and expanding gun rights.
The conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – are expected to be receptive to arguments Blum has honed against affirmative action policies, crafted as a remedy to discrimination. As such, Blum may be on the verge of a huge legal victory as he fights race-based policies not only in higher education but in areas such as elections and diversity in corporate America.
“I’m a one-trick pony,” Blum said in an interview. “I hope and care about ending these racial classifications and preferences in our public policy.”
Blum, who is white, has cast his mission as one aimed at creating a colorblind society.
“An individual’s race or ethnicity should not be used to help them or harm them in their life’s endeavors,” Blum said.
His critics paint his work as a war on racial equity aimed at undercutting policies designed to help non-white Americans overcome racial obstacles persisting in U.S. life.
“He’s made it harder for corporations, boards and governments to make racial diversity an explicit goal,” said Kristin Penner, a co-founder of a group called the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard that supports affirmative action. “And thus people of color continue to be blocked out of positions of power.”
Blum’s goal is for the Supreme Court to overturn its own precedents allowing race as a factor in admissions.
Blum lost in a previous case challenging race-conscious student admissions when the court ruled 4-3 in 2016 against a white woman he recruited as a plaintiff suing the University of Texas after being denied admission. Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy provided the crucial vote. The court has moved rightward since then. Kennedy himself retired in 2018.
With Monday’s arguments, the court will have taken up eight race-related cases engineered by Blum. For instance, a Blum-backed challenge led to a 2013 Supreme Court ruling gutting a central part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that had forced nine states, mainly in the South, to obtain federal approval for voting rules changes affecting Black and other minority voters.
In addition, Blum last year launched a group called the Alliance For Fair Board Recruitment and filed lawsuits challenging Nasdaq rules and California laws mandating gender and racial diversity on corporate boards.
A 1978 LANDMARK
From his home in South Thomaston, Maine, Blum has orchestrated a 14-year legal campaign to challenge affirmative action in college and university admissions.
The Supreme Court first upheld such affirmative action in a landmark 1978 ruling in a case called Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, holding that race could be considered as one of several factors, along with academic and extracurricular criteria, but racial quotas were prohibited. The court reaffirmed that stance in 2003.
Blum in 2008 recruited Abigail Fisher, the daughter of an old friend, and through his first group, the Project for Fair Representation, helped fund her University of Texas suit that yielded the 2016 ruling he called a “grave disappointment.”
By then, Blum had shifted gears to the next generation of cases, forming Students for Fair Admissions in 2014 and turning his attention to Harvard and UNC. Those lawsuits accused UNC of discriminating against white and Asian American applicants and Harvard of discriminating against Asian Americans.
Boston University School of Law professor Jonathan Feingold said Blum was “transparent” in saying he needed Asian American plaintiffs this time around to sue the universities, allowing him to “spin a narrative that affirmative action is pitting students of color against one another.”
Blum raised more than $8 million from 2015 to 2020 for Students for Fair Admissions, most going to covering legal fees. Big checks came from conservative supporters including DonorsTrust and Searle Freedom Trust. Blum said 5,000 smaller donors also contributed.
Students for Fair Admissions has said it boasts 20,000 members. Its critics said it is not a true membership association at all. No Students for Fair Admissions members served as plaintiffs or testified in court in the Harvard and UNC cases as the group lost in lower courts. The Supreme Court in January agreed to hear appeals backed by Blum in both cases.
The Harvard lawsuit accused the university of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
The UNC lawsuit accused that university of violating the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law. Blum and his supporters argue that the 14th Amendment bars government entities including public universities like UNC from treating people differently due to race.
“His efforts and broader project are paying off because now because you have a court that is very receptive to the specific arguments that are being made here,” Feingold said.
For Blum, potential victories over Harvard and UNC may not be the final word in the fight against racial preferences in student admissions.
“It might be the beginning of the end,” Blum said. “More likely, it’s probably the end of the beginning.”
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
U.S. Supreme Court’s Thomas temporarily blocks Graham election case testimony
Oct 24 (Reuters) – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday temporarily blocked a judge’s order requiring Senator Lindsey Graham to testify to a grand jury in Georgia in a criminal investigation into whether then-President Donald Trump and his allies unlawfully tried to overturn 2020 election results in the state.
Thomas put the case on hold pending further action either from the justice or the full Supreme Court on a request by Graham, a Republican from South Carolina and Trump ally, to halt the order for testimony. Graham filed the emergency application to the Supreme Court on Friday after a federal appeals court denied his request to block the questioning.
Thomas acted in the case because he is designated by the court to handle emergency requests from a region that includes Georgia.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Graham has argued that his position as a senator provides him immunity under the U.S. Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause from having to answer questions related to his actions as part of the legislative process.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has subpoenaed Graham to answer questions about phone calls he made to a senior Georgia election official in the weeks after the November 2020 election.
Atlanta-based U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May last month narrowed the scope of questions that Graham must answer from the grand jury, ruling that he is protected from having to discuss “investigatory fact-finding” that he was engaged in during his calls to state election officials.
However, May said he may be questioned about alleged efforts to encourage officials to throw out ballots or alleged communication with the Trump campaign. May rejected Graham’s bid to avoid testifying altogether.
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday declined to block Graham’s testimony pending an appeal.
Graham is not a target in the investigation but his testimony could shed further light on coordination among Trump allies to reverse the election results.
The senator’s lawyers said in his application that the testimony would “undisputedly center on Senator Graham’s official acts – phone calls he made in the course of his official work, in the leadup to the critical vote under the Electoral Count Act.”
Trump continues to appear at rallies repeating his false claims that the 2020 election won by Democrat Joe Biden was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud.
The investigation was launched after Trump was recorded in a Jan. 2, 2021, phone call pressuring Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to overturn the state’s election results based on unfounded claims of voter fraud. During the phone call, Trump urged Raffensperger, a fellow Republican, to “find” enough votes to overturn his Georgia loss to Biden.
The transcript of the call quotes Trump telling Raffensperger: “I just want to find 11,780 votes,” which is the number Trump needed to win Georgia. Trump has denied wrongdoing in the phone call.
Legal experts have said Trump’s phone calls may have violated at least three state election laws: conspiracy to commit election fraud, criminal solicitation to commit election fraud and intentional interference with performance of election duties.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump request over seized documents
Oct 13 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected former President Donald Trump’s bid to have an independent arbiter vet classified documents that were seized by the FBI from his Florida home as part of his legal battle against investigators probing his handling of sensitive government records.
The justices in a brief order denied Trump’s Oct. 4 emergency request to lift a lower court’s decision that prevented the arbiter from reviewing more than 100 documents marked as classified that were among the roughly 11,000 records seized at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach on Aug. 8.
There were no publicly noted dissents by any of the nine justices to the decision, which came two days after the U.S. Justice Department urged them to deny Trump’s request and keep the classified documents out of the hands of the arbiter, known as a special master.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
The court’s 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump, who left office in January 2021.
Federal officials obtained a court-approved warrant to search Trump’s residence in a Justice Department criminal investigation after suspecting that not all classified documents in his possession had been returned after his presidency ended.
Investigators searched for evidence of potential crimes related to unlawfully retaining national defense information and obstructing a federal investigation. Trump has denied wrongdoing and has called the investigation politically motivated.
Trump went to court on Aug. 22 in a bid to restrict Justice Department access to the documents as it pursues its criminal investigation.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon last month agreed to Trump’s request to temporarily block the government from using the seized materials in its investigation until the special master determined if any could be deemed personal or subject to attorney-client confidentiality or executive privilege – a legal doctrine that shields some White House communications from disclosure – and thus off limits to investigators.
Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, named retired U.S. Judge Raymond Dearie as the special master. Cannon later refused a Justice Department request to partially lift her order relating only to the documents bearing classified markings of confidential, secret or top secret, which the government argued was impeding an effort to mitigate national security risks from their possible unauthorized disclosure.
Cannon said she could not accept that the documents were indeed classified without review by Dearie.
The Justice Department appealed to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which then put on hold Cannon’s decisions related to the classified documents, an action that prevented Dearie from vetting them while letting the government resume its probe. The 11th Circuit noted the importance of limiting access to classified information and ensuring the department’s probe would not be harmed.
The 11th Circuit also rejected any suggestion that Trump had declassified the documents – as the former president has claimed – saying there was “no evidence” of such action and that the argument was a “red herring because declassifying an official document would not change its content or render it personal.”
The three statutes underpinning the search warrant used by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago make it a crime to mishandle government records, regardless of their classification status.
The department’s investigation also seeks to determine who accessed classified materials, whether they were compromised and if any remain unaccounted for.
Trump’s lawyers previously told the Supreme Court that Dearie should be able to vet the records and that the Justice Department has “attempted to criminalize a document management dispute and now vehemently objects to a transparent process that provides much-needed oversight.”
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.