The Jim Bakker Show

California university system sues Trump over roll back of ‘dreamers’ program

U.S. President Donald Trump stops to answer reporters' questions as he and first lady Melania Trump depart for a weekend retreat with his cabinet at Camp David, from the White House in Washington, U.S., September 8, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

By Mica Rosenberg

(Reuters) – A former top security official who helped put in place a program protecting people brought to the United States illegally as children, is suing the Trump White House as head of the University of California system over plans to roll back the policy.

Janet Napolitano, the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama, said in a lawsuit filed on Friday that ended the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, or DACA, violates the due process of about 800,000 beneficiaries, known as “dreamers,” who were granted permits that protected them from deportation.

“The University has constitutionally-protected interests in the multiple educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body,” the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Northern California said. “If these students leave the University before completing their education, UC will lose the benefits it derives from their contributions, as well as the value of the time and money it invested in these students.”

The lawsuit also argues Trump did not follow the proper procedures needed to cancel a program of this magnitude.

California has more DACA recipients than any other state, many are in their 20s and are current students.

“They’ve grown up here, they’ve gotten their educations here, many of them don’t even speak the language of the country to which they would be deported if this decision were allowed to stand,” Napolitano said on a call with reporters.

The legal challenge comes on top of a separate lawsuit filed earlier in the week by 16 Democratic Attorneys General saying the president’s decision to end the program was based in part on racial animus towards Mexicans, who are the largest beneficiaries.

Department of Justice spokesman Devin O’Malley gave the same comment about Napolitano’s lawsuit as he did in response to the lawsuit by the states. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in announcing his decision to end the program said it was “inconsistent with the Constitution’s separation of powers.”

Obama enacted DACA through an executive action implemented by the Department of Homeland Security after Congress failed to pass legislation.

“While the plaintiffs in today’s lawsuit may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this Administration’s position,” O’Malley said in a statement.

Trump, who delayed the end of the program until March 5, shifted responsibility to a Congress controlled by his fellow Republicans, saying it was now up to lawmakers to pass immigration legislation that could address the fate of those protected by DACA. Trump’s move was criticized by business and religious leaders, mayors, governors, Democratic lawmakers, unions and civil liberties advocates.

Legal experts have said that court challenges to Trump’s actions could face an uphill battle, since the president typically has wide authority when it comes to implementing immigration policy.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Additonal reporting by Yehaneh Torbati; editing by Grant McCool)

States file lawsuit challenging Trump decision on Dreamers

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announces the filing of a multistate lawsuit to protect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients at a news conference at John Jay College in New York City, U.S., September 6, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney

By Mica Rosenberg

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Fifteen states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging President Donald Trump’s decision to end protections and benefits for young people who were brought into the United States illegally as children.

The multistate lawsuit filed by a group of Democratic attorneys general on Wednesday to protect beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program argues their state economies will be hurt if residents lose their status.

The lawsuit seeks to block Trump’s decision and maintain DACA.

The lawsuit claims Trump’s decision was “motivated, at least in part, by a discriminatory motive” against Mexicans, who are the largest beneficiary of the program. It points to his statements from the 2016 presidential campaign.

The attorneys general also argue the government has not guaranteed DACA recipients that their application information will not be used “for purposes of immigration enforcement, including identifying, apprehending, detaining, or deporting non-citizens.”

New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman took the lead filing the case in the Eastern District of New York. He said that 42,000 New Yorkers participate in DACA, and the end of the program will be “devastating” for them and would cause “huge economic harm” to the state.

In commenting on the suit, the U.S. Department of Justice noted that DACA was implemented under an executive order by former President Barack Obama, not through congressional action.

“While the plaintiffs in today’s lawsuits may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this Administration’s position,” spokesman Devin M. O’Malley said.

Trump’s decision on Tuesday to end the five-year-old program instituted by former President Barack Obama plunged almost 800,000 young people, known as “Dreamers,” into uncertainty. The move drew criticism from business and religious leaders, mayors, governors, Democratic lawmakers, unions and civil liberties advocates.

But the governor of Washington, whose state joined the lawsuit, criticized Trump for distancing himself from a final decision on the program.

Trump said Tuesday he still has “great heart” for the dreamers.

“The president has tried to shirk responsibility for this, but let’s be clear, it is his hand on the knife in these people’s backs,” said Washington Governor Jay Inslee at a press conference announcing the suit. “He can’t just put it on Congress. It is his responsibility to fix this.”

Other claims in the lawsuit are based on the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing the White House did not follow the correct process in changing the policy.

Legal experts have said that court challenges to Trump’s actions could face an uphill battle, since the president typically has wide authority when it comes to implementing immigration policy.

(Reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York; Additional reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Doina Chiacu in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Japan’s Tepco gets slapped with new U.S. lawsuit over Fukushima

TOKYO (Reuters) – Tokyo Electric Power Co Holdings said on Thursday it has been hit with another lawsuit filed in a U.S. court seeking $5 billion for compensation over the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the second filed against the utility in a U.S. court.

The suit filed by 157 individuals is seeking that amount to set up a compensation fund for the costs of medical tests and treatment they say they need after efforts to support the recovery from the world’s worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl in 1986.

The utility, known as Tepco, is being sued regarding improper design, construction and maintenance, claiming compensation for physical, mental and economic damages, the company said in a statement.

A multi-plaintiff lawsuit was filed on Aug. 18, 2017, against Tokyo Electric Power Co and other parties in the Southern District Court in California, the legal information group Justia said on its website.

Tepco has been hit with more lawsuits than in any previous Japanese contamination suit over the meltdowns of three reactors at its Fukushima Daiichi plant north of Tokyo after a massive earthquake and tsunami in March 2011.

Radiation forced 160,000 people from their homes, many never to return, and destroyed businesses, fisheries and agriculture.

In June, a federal appeals court cleared the way for a group of U.S. military personnel to file a suit against Tepco over radiation exposure that they say occurred during recovery efforts on board the USS Ronald Reagan.

Tepco did not make clear whether the two suits involved the same plaintiffs but Justia has two cases listed.

Shareholders of Tepco are suing the utility’s executives for a record 5.5 trillion yen ($67.4 billion) in compensation, in a long standing case.

The company’s former chairman and other executives of the company appeared in court in June to answer charges of professional negligence, in the first criminal case after the meltdowns at the plant. They all pleaded not guilty.

The criminal and civil legal cases do not threaten financial ruin for Tepco, which is backstopped by Japanese taxpayers. The company faces nearly $150 million of costs to decommission the Fukushima plant and clean up the surrounding area, according to the latest government estimate.

Tepco shares fell nearly 1 percent on Thursday, in line with many of Japan’s other utilities, before the company announced the lawsuit.

(Reporting by Aaron Sheldrick)

Mylan, U.S. finalize $465 million EpiPen settlement

EpiPen auto-injection epinephrine pens manufactured by Mylan NV pharmaceutical company for use by severe allergy sufferers are seen in Washington, U.S. August 24, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Bourg/File Photo

By Nate Raymond

BOSTON (Reuters) – Mylan NV <MYL.O> has finalized a $465 million settlement resolving U.S. Justice Department claims it overcharged the government for its EpiPen emergency allergy treatment, which became the center of a firestorm over price increases.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts on Thursday announced the accord, which was soon after criticized by some congressional members as being too easy on the drugmaker. It came 10 months after Mylan said it had reached a deal.

The settlement resolved claims that Mylan avoided higher rebates to state Medicaid programs by misclassifying EpiPen as a generic product, even though it was marketed and priced as a brand-name product.

“Taxpayers rightly expect companies like Mylan that receive payments from taxpayer-funded programs to scrupulously follow the rules,” Acting U.S. Attorney William Weinreb said in a statement.

Under the deal, Mylan did not admit wrongdoing. It will reclassify EpiPen and pay the rebate applicable to its new classification as of April 1, 2017.

“Bringing closure to this matter is the right course of action for Mylan and our stakeholders to allow us to move forward,” Mylan Chief Executive Heather Bresch said in a statement.

The deal followed a False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit filed by French rival Sanofi SA <SASY.PA> in 2016, two years after it first raised the matter with authorities, Weinreb’s office said.

Sanofi, which formerly marketed a rival product called Auvi-Q, will receive nearly $38.8 million as a reward from the government.

Sanofi in a statement called pursuing the matter “the right thing to do.” It has a separate antitrust lawsuit pending alleging Mylan engaged in illegal conduct to squelch competition to EpiPen.

Mylan shares rose 2.10 percent to $31.11 on the Nasdaq.

The EpiPen, which Mylan acquired in 2007, is a handheld device that treats life-threatening allergic reactions by automatically injecting a dose of epinephrine.

Mylan came under fire last year after raising the price of a pair of EpiPens to $600, from $100 in 2008, enraging consumers and putting it in the center of the ongoing U.S. debate over the high cost of prescription medicines.

Mylan has since offered its own generic version for about $300. The company announced it had reached a Justice Department settlement in October.

Some congressional members previously criticized the $465-million settlement as too small. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, renewed that position on Thursday, calling it “completely insufficient.”

A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General analysis released in May found the U.S. government may have overpaid for EpiPens by up to $1.27 billion between 2006 and 2016.

“Absolving Mylan from a finding of wrongdoing has cleared the way for the company to pocket the money it embezzled from an American public in desperate need of lifesaving and affordable medications,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa in a statement called the accord a “disappointment,” saying it “looks like the settlement amount short-changes the taxpayers.”

Mylan shares were up 0.1 at $30.50 in late trading.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

Chicago sues Trump administration over sanctuary city plan

FILE PHOTO - Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel listens to remarks at a news conference in Chicago, Illinois, U.S. on December 7, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young/File Photo

By Julia Jacobs

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Chicago on Monday sued to prevent the Trump administration from enforcing new policies that would withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities that deny U.S. immigration officials access to local jails.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, said the federal policies force the nation’s third largest city to choose between its constitutional rights and funding for law enforcement.

“These new conditions also fly in the face of longstanding City policy that promotes cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities,” the lawsuit said.

The policies also include a requirement that local law enforcement agencies give federal authorities 48 hours notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel said on Sunday that the city would sue, escalating a pushback against an immigration crackdown launched by Republican President Donald Trump’s administration.

“We are bringing this legal challenge because the rhetoric, the threats from this administration embodied in these new conditions imposed on unrelated public safety grants funds are breeding a culture and climate of fear,” Emanuel’s senior legal adviser, Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel, said on Monday.The conditions from the Justice Department apply to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, which provide money to hundreds of cities. Chicago is expected to receive $3.2 million this year for purchasing equipment.

Siskel said the city will follow the initial complaint with a motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the government’s imposition of the new conditions.

The city will request a decision from the judge before the Sept. 5 deadline to apply for the Byrne grant, Siskel said.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Monday that Chicago officials have shown an “open hostility” to enforcing laws designed to reduce crime and protect law enforcement.

He added that more Chicagoans were murdered last year than residents of Los Angeles and New York combined, and that Chicago needed to reverse a “culture of lawlessness.”

“This administration will not simply give away grant dollars to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety,” Sessions said in a statement.

The lawsuit is the first to challenge the Justice Department over the Byrne program but is not the first legal attack on the administration’s sanctuary city policies.

Emanuel said on Sunday that the lawsuit would prevent the administration from setting a precedent that could be used to target other funding.

Sanctuary cities in general offer illegal immigrants safe harbor by declining to use municipal resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York and San Francisco, are part of the sanctuary movement. “Sanctuary city” is not an official designation.

The lawsuit came nearly two weeks after Sessions said the Justice Department would bar cities from the Byrne program unless they allowed immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and give the 48 hours pre-release notice.

Chicago and its high murder rate have been frequently criticized by Trump, and cracking down on illegal immigration was a theme of his 2016 presidential campaign.

(Reporting by Mark Weinraub and Julia Jacobs; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Abortion rights groups sue Texas to block procedure ban

FILE PHOTO: Texas governor Greg Abbott speaks during an interview on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange in New York, U.S. on July 14, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo

By Chris Kenning

(Reuters) – Abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday seeking to block a Texas law that bans the most common method of second-trimester abortion which critics argue erodes women’s rights.

The challenge, which came six weeks after the state’s governor signed the law, was the latest salvo in a battle over state laws enacted by Republican-controlled state legislatures that advocates say limit access to abortion.

“The law we challenged today in Texas is part of a nationwide scheme to undermine these constitutional rights and ban abortion one restriction at a time,” Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Austin by Texas abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health, Planned Parenthood groups and others.

The suit, which names Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and others as defendants, seeks an injunction and a ruling that the law is unconstitutional.

Paxton declined to comment on the challenge.

Anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life last month praised the legislation, calling it the “most significant pro-life victory” of the state’s legislative session.

The lawsuit targets a portion of the law – known as Senate Bill 8, which is set to go into effect on Sept. 1 – that bans dilation and evacuation abortion procedures.

The Texas law refers to the procedure as “dismemberment abortion,” in which a combination of suction and forceps are used to bring tissue through the cervix.

Opponents of the law say that after about 15 weeks of pregnancy it is the safest method of abortion.

Seven other U.S. states have approved similar bans, prompting legal challenges that prevented the bans from taking effect in Louisiana, Kansas and Oklahoma, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Last year, Whole Woman’s Health led a legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a Texas abortion law that had shuttered nearly half the state’s clinics by imposing strict regulations on doctors and facilities.

The latest Texas law, signed in June by the state’s Republican Governor Greg Abbott, also requires abortion providers to dispose of aborted fetal tissue through burial or cremation. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit intend to challenge that provision as well.

The state law was enacted despite the fact that U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin put a temporary halt on a similar state regulation on fetal tissue disposal in January.

(Reporting by Chris Kenning; editing by Daniel Wallis, G Crosse)

Black Lives Matter leaders sued over Baton Rouge police shooting

An East Baton Rouge Sheriff vehicle is seen with bullet holes in its windows near the scene where police officers were shot, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S. July 17, 2016. REUTERS/Jonathan Bachman

(Reuters) – A police officer wounded in a shooting rampage in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, last year that left three officers dead sued Black Lives Matter movement leaders on Friday, accusing them of inciting violence that spurred the attack.

The lawsuit filed in a U.S. district court in Louisiana named DeRay McKesson and four other Black Lives Matter leaders as defendants and sought at least $75,000 in damages.

It came on the one-year anniversary of one of the deadliest days in modern U.S. history for law enforcement. On July 7, 2016, a black man angered by what he saw as deadly racial bias in U.S. policing launched a downtown Dallas sniper attack, killing five officers deployed at a protest decrying police shootings of black men.

McKesson was not immediately available for comment and Black Lives Matter leaders have denied accusations that their movement promotes violence against police.

About 10 days after the Dallas shooting, a decorated ex-U.S. Marine sergeant opened fire on police in Baton Rouge, killing three officers.

Baton Rouge had been hit by waves of protests after two police officers earlier that month killed a black man, Alton Sterling, under questionable circumstances. The incident was caught on video and sparked national debate.

The officer wounded in Baton Rouge, who was not named in the lawsuit, was shot by “a person violently protesting against police, and which violence was caused or contributed to by the leaders of and by ‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’,” the filing said.

Gavin Long, the black gunman who killed the Baton Rouge officers and was later shot dead, identified himself as a member of an African-American offshoot of the anti-government, mostly white Sovereign Citizen Movement, documents showed.

Last year, McKesson and two other activists sued the Baton Rouge police department and other officials over the arrests of nearly 200 demonstrators during mostly peaceful protests over police killings.

(Reporting by Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas and Bryn Stole in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Editing by Andrew Hay)

Facebook beats privacy lawsuit in U.S. over user tracking

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge has dismissed nationwide litigation accusing Facebook Inc of tracking users’ internet activity even after they logged out of the social media website.

In a decision late on Friday, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in San Jose, California said the plaintiffs failed to show they had a reasonable expectation of privacy, or that they suffered any “realistic” economic harm or loss.

The plaintiffs claimed that Facebook violated federal and California privacy and wiretapping laws by storing cookies on their browsers that tracked when they visited outside websites containing Facebook “like” buttons.

But the judge said the plaintiffs could have taken steps to keep their browsing histories private, and failed to show that Menlo Park, California-based Facebook illegally “intercepted” or eavesdropped on their communications.

“The fact that a user’s web browser automatically sends the same information to both parties,” meaning Facebook and an outside website, “does not establish that one party intercepted the user’s communication with the other,” Davila wrote.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond on Monday to requests for comment. Facebook did not immediately respond to a similar request.

Davila said the plaintiffs cannot bring their privacy and wiretapping claims again, but can try to pursue a breach of contract claim again. He had dismissed an earlier version of the 5-1/2-year-old case in October 2015.

The case is In re: Facebook Internet Tracking Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 12-md-02314.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Bill Rigby)

Michigan sues Flint over failing to approve long-term water deal

FILE PHOTO - The Flint Water Plant tower is seen in Flint, Michigan, U.S. on February 7, 2016. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook/File Photo

By Suzannah Gonzales and Chris Kenning

(Reuters) – Michigan sued the city of Flint on Wednesday in federal court over its failure to approve a long-term drinking water source for residents.

Flint switched its water supply in 2014, sparking a crisis that was linked to an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease and at least 12 deaths, as well as exposure of residents to dangerously high lead levels. Since October 2015, the city has obtained its water from the Great Lakes Water Authority.

But the Flint city council’s refusal this week to approve a long-term agreement with the supplier, negotiated by the city’s mayor, without proposing a reasonable alternative, will “cause an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health in Flint,” according to the lawsuit filed by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality in U.S. District Court in Detroit.

The state is asking the court to bar Flint from changing water sources and adopt the long-term agreement.

“While disappointing that the state and federal government are now involved in making a decision we as city leaders should be making for Flint, I cannot say that I am surprised,” Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said in a statement. She added that her plan was best option.

Instead of approving the long-term agreement, the city council voted on Monday to extend until September its contract with the Great Lakes Water Authority, local media reports said.

City Council President Kerry Nelson told the Detroit News the state’s June 26 deadline was too rushed for council members, who needed more time to examine the deal.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder and state officials on Wednesday called on the council to approve the mayor’s deal.

“The city is well on its way to a full recovery, and to hinder that progress now would be a major and costly setback for residents,” Snyder’s spokeswoman, Anna Heaton, said.

The crisis erupted in 2015 after tests found high amounts of lead in blood samples taken from children in the industrial city of about 100,000, whose population is predominantly black.

The city had started using the Flint River for water in 2014. Water to Flint from the Great Lakes Water Authority comes from Lake Huron.

The more corrosive river water caused lead to leach from pipes and into the drinking water. Lead levels in Flint’s drinking water have now fallen below levels considered dangerous by federal regulators.

Earlier this month, six current and former Michigan and Flint officials were criminally charged for their roles in the crisis.

(Reporting by Suzannah Gonzales and Chris Kenning in Chicago; Editing by G Crosse, Matthew Lewis and David Gregorio)

Sarah Palin sues New York Times for defamation

FILE PHOTO - Sarah Palin speaks at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, Colorado, U.S., July 1, 2016. REUTERS/Rick Wilking

By Riham Alkousaa

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has sued the New York Times for defamation because of an editorial that linked her rhetoric to a 2011 shooting that killed six people and seriously wounded a U.S. congresswoman.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Tuesday said the Times deliberately “acted with actual malice” toward Palin and that the editorial was “false and defamatory.” It claims the Times violated its policies and procedures.

Palin, the former Alaska governor was Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s running mate in an unsuccessful 2008 campaign, is seeking in excess of $75,000 for compensatory, special and punitive damages.

On June 14 the Times published an editorial commenting on the mass shooting at a Virginia baseball field that injured four people, including Republican Representative Steve Scalise, saying the attack was probably evidence of how vicious American politics has become.

The editorial board then recalled a shooting in Arizona in 2011 that targeted U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and killed six people.

“Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs,” the editorial said.

The newspaper issued a correction saying the editorial “incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric” and the Giffords shooting. It also corrected its description of the map, saying it depicted electoral districts, not Giffords and individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath cross hairs.

The lawsuit called the corrections insufficient and said Palin wanted the Times to remove the article from the newspaper’s website, where it still appears with the amended correction.

“We will defend against any claim vigorously,” the Times said in a statement on Wednesday.

Theodore Boutrous, a Los Angeles lawyer and constitutional law expert, said Palin was unlikely to succeed because she is a public figure.

“The First Amendment protects newspapers and others in terms of speaking out and writing and expressing opinions on important and public issues and that’s what The New York Times was doing,” Boutrous said.

(Reporting By Riham Alkousaa; Editing by Daniel Trotta and Bill Trott)

Sign up for Jim Bakker Show