|
|
|
Former Honduras President Hernández freed after Trump pardon
Legal World News |
2025/12/02 21:31
|
Former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced last year to 45 years in prison for his role in helping drug traffickers move hundreds of tons of cocaine to the United States, was released from prison following a pardon from President Donald Trump, his wife announced Tuesday.
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons inmate website showed that Hernández was released from U.S. Penitentiary, Hazelton in West Virginia on Monday and a spokesperson for the bureau on Tuesday confirmed his release.
His wife Ana García thanked Trump for pardoning Hernández via the social platform X early Tuesday.
“After almost four years of pain, of waiting and difficult challenges, my husband Juan Orlando Hernández RETURNED to being a free man, thanks to the presidential pardon granted by President Donald Trump,” García’s post said. She included a picture of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons listing for Hernández indicating his release.
On Sunday, Trump was asked about why he pardoned Hernandez by reporters traveling with him on Air Force One.
“I was asked by Honduras, many of the people of Honduras,” Trump said.
“The people of Honduras really thought he was set up, and it was a terrible thing,” he said.
“They basically said he was a drug dealer because he was the president of the country. And they said it was a Biden administration set-up. And I looked at the facts and I agreed with them.”
Hernández was arrested at the request of the United States in February 2022, weeks after handing over power to current President Xiomara Castro.
Two years later, he was sentenced to 45 years in prison in a New York federal courtroom for taking bribes from drug traffickers so they could safely move some 400 tons of cocaine north through Honduras to the United States.
Hernández maintained throughout that he was innocent and the victim of revenge by drug traffickers he had helped extradite to the United States.
During his sentencing in New York, federal Judge P. Kevin Castel said the punishment should serve as a warning to “well educated, well dressed” individuals who gain power and think their status insulates them from justice when they do wrong.
Hernández portrayed himself as a hero of the anti-drug trafficking movement who teamed up with American authorities under three U.S. presidential administrations to reduce drug imports.
But the judge said trial evidence proved the opposite and that Hernández employed “considerable acting skills” to make it seem that he was an anti-drug trafficking crusader while he deployed his nation’s police and military, when necessary, to protect the drug trade.
Hernández is not guaranteed a quick return to Honduras.
Immediately after Trump announced his intention to pardon Hernández, Honduras Attorney General Johel Zelaya said via X that his office was obligated to seek justice and put an end to impunity.
He did not specify what charges Hernández could face in Honduras. There were various corruption-related investigations of his administration across two terms in office that did not lead to charges against him. President Xiomara Castro, who had Hernández arrested and extradited him to the U.S., will remain in office until January.
The pardon promised by Trump days before Honduras’ presidential election injected a new element into the contest that some said helped the candidate from his National Party Nasry Asfura, one of the leaders as the vote count proceeded Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court official dismisses Justice Department’s misconduct complaint
Law Firm News |
2025/11/28 21:30
|
A court official has dismissed a Justice Department complaint that accused a federal judge of “hostile and egregious” misconduct during hearings for a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops serving in the military.
The complaint accused U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., of inappropriately questioning a government lawyer about his religious beliefs and of trying to embarrass the attorney with a rhetorical exercise during a February hearing.
In a Sept 29 order that wasn’t made public until Monday, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the complaint. Srinivasan said a motion for Reyes’ recusal would have been the proper means for the Justice Department to contest her impartiality and seek her removal from the case.
The department didn’t explicitly ask for Reyes’ removal from the transgender troops’ litigation. And it didn’t file a petition for a review of the chief judge’s order, which didn’t reach any conclusions about the merits of the complaint’s allegations.
“If a party that believes a judge’s conduct in a case raises serious questions about her impartiality were to press its concerns in the ordinary way — by seeking her recusal in the case itself — the standards for resolving the matter are well established,” Srinivasan wrote.
The Justice Department had no immediate comment on Tuesday. Reyes declined to comment on the chief judge’s order or the department’s complaint.
The complaint was filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi’s then-chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, who has since left the department. Mizelle claimed Reyes’ behavior “compromised the dignity of the proceedings and demonstrated potential bias.”
“When judges demonstrate apparent bias or treat counsel disrespectfully, public confidence in the judicial system is undermined,” he wrote.
Mizelle’s complaint cited an exchange in which Reyes asked a government attorney: “What do you think Jesus would say to telling a group of people that they are so worthless, so worthless that we’re not going to allow them into homeless shelters? Do you think Jesus would be, ‘Sounds right to me’?” The attorney responded by saying, “The United States is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything.”
The complaint also refers to a rhetorical exercise about discrimination. Reyes spoke of changing the rules in her courtroom to bar graduates of the University of Virginia law school from appearing before her because they are all “liars and lack integrity.” She instructed the government attorney, a graduate of the school, to sit down before calling him back up to the podium.
Reyes was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, a Democrat. Trump and Republican allies have mounted an escalating series of attacks against the federal judiciary since the start of his second term.
Trump’s Jan. 27 executive order claims without presenting evidence that the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness. It required Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to issue a revised policy.
Six transgender people who were active-duty service members and two other plaintiffs seeking to join the military sued to challenge Trump’s order. Reyes blocked the order’s enforcement in March, ruling that it likely violates the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. A federal judge in Washington state also blocked enforcement of the order.
Reyes agreed to suspend her order pending the government’s appeal, which hasn’t been resolved yet. But the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban transgender people from the military in the meantime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FBI seeks interviews with Democrats who urged US troops to defy illegal orders
Law Firm Press Release |
2025/11/22 21:30
|
Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” say the FBI has contacted them to begin scheduling interviews, signaling a possible inquiry into the matter.
It would mark the second investigation tied to the video, coming a day after the Pentagon said it was reviewing Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over potential violations of military law. The FBI and Pentagon actions come after President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition and said it is “punishable by DEATH” in a social media post.
Together, the inquiries mark an extraordinary escalation for federal law enforcement and military institutions that traditionally steer clear of partisan clashes. They also underscore the administration’s willingness to push legal limits against its critics, even when they are sitting members of Congress. Lawmakers in the video urge troops to reject any illegal orders from their superiors, something they are already duty-bound to do.
“President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress,” a group of four Democratic House members said in a statement Tuesday. “Yesterday, the FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requesting interviews.”
Democrats call inquiry a ‘scare tactic’
Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, one of the six Democratic lawmakers in the video, told reporters Tuesday that “last night the counterterrorism division at the FBI sent a note to the members of Congress, saying they are opening what appears to be an inquiry against the six of us.” Slotkin called it a “scare tactic by” Trump.
“Whether you agree with the video or don’t agree with the video, the question to me is: is this the appropriate response for a president of the United States to go after and seek to weaponize the federal government against those he disagrees with?” said Slotkin.
The group of four Democratic House members said in their statement that “no amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution.”
All six of the Democratic lawmakers in the video have served in the military or intelligence community.
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska criticized both inquiries on social media, saying that accusing the lawmakers “of treason and sedition for rightfully pointing out that servicemembers can refuse illegal orders is reckless and flat-out wrong.”
“The Department of Defense and FBI surely have more important priorities than this frivolous investigation,” wrote Murkowski.
FBI provides no insight into interview requests
The FBI went through the top security officials for the House and Senate to request interviews with each of the six lawmakers. The lawmakers said they had no further information and the FBI has not made clear on what basis they were seeking the interviews.
The FBI declined to comment Tuesday, but Director Kash Patel, in an interview with journalist Catherine Herridge, described it as an “ongoing matter” in explaining why he could not discuss details.
Asked for his reaction to the video, Patel said, “What goes through my head is the same thing that goes through my head in any case: is there a lawful predicate to open up an inquiry and investigation, or is there not? And that decision will be made by the career agents and analysts here at the FBI.”
The video at the heart of the inquiries
In the video, lawmakers said they needed troops to “stand up for our laws … our Constitution.” Kelly, who was a fighter pilot before becoming an astronaut and then retiring at the rank of captain, told troops that “you can refuse illegal orders.”
After the Pentagon announced the investigation into Kelly on Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referred it to the Navy on Tuesday and requested a briefing by Dec. 10.
The lawmakers didn’t mention specific circumstances in the video. But at an event Tuesday in Michigan, Slotkin pointed to the Trump administration ordering the military to blow up small boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean accused of ferrying drugs and continued attempts at deploying National Guard troops into U.S. cities despite some legal setbacks.
“It wasn’t that there was any one incident, it was the sheer number of people coming to us and saying, ‘I’m worried. I am being sent to Washington or I’m being sent to LA or Chicago, North Carolina now, and I’m concerned I’m going to be asked to do something that I don’t know if I should do,’” said Slotkin. “So that’s where it came from.”
Troops, especially uniformed commanders, do have specific obligations to reject orders that are unlawful, if they make that determination.
Broad legal precedence also holds that just following orders — colloquially known as the “Nuremberg defense,” as it was used unsuccessfully by senior Nazi officials to justify their actions under Adolf Hitler — doesn’t absolve troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Carolina lawmakers look at the most restrictive abortion bill in the US
Legal World News |
2025/11/18 06:38
|
A bill that would allow judges to sentence women who get abortions to decades in prison and could restrict the use of IUDs and in vitro fertilization goes before a small group of South Carolina senators Tuesday.
This would be the first of at least a half-dozen legislative steps for the proposal that includes the strictest abortion prohibitions and punishments in the nation.
The subcommittee of the state Senate’s Medical Affairs Committee can change it Tuesday afternoon and even if it’s approved, its prospects are doubtful at best.
But even at this stage, the bill has gone further than any other such proposal across the U.S. since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, opening the door for states to implement abortion bans.
The proposal would ban all abortions unless the woman’s life is threatened. Current state law bans abortions after cardiac activity is detected, which is typically six week into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. Current law also allows abortions for rape and incest victims up to 12 weeks.
The proposal would also do things that aren’t being done in any other state. Women who get an abortion and anyone who helps them could face up to 30 years in prison. It appears to ban any contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, which would ban intrauterine devices and could limit in vitro fertilization.
Providing information about abortions would be illegal, leaving doctors worried they couldn’t suggest places where the procedure is legal.
Republican Sen. Richard Cash, who sponsors the bill and is one of the Senate’s most strident voices against abortion, will run Tuesday’s subcommittee. He acknowledged problems last month with potentially banning contraception and restricting the advice doctors can give to patients. But he has given no indication what changes he or the rest of the subcommittee might support. Six of the nine members are Republicans.
Abortion remains an unsettled issue in conservative states and how much more to restrict it is fracturing anti-abortion groups.
South Carolina Citizens for Life, one of the state’s largest and oldest opponents of abortion, issued a statement last month saying it can’t support Cash’s bill because women who get abortions are victims too and shouldn’t be punished.
On the other side, at least for this bill, are groups like Equal Protection South Carolina. “Abortion is murder and should be treated as such,” founder Mark Corral said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Law Firm News RSS Feed
