FILE – New York Attorney General, Letitia James, speaks after pleading not guilty outside the United States District Court on Friday, Oct. 24, 2025, in Norfolk, Va. (AP Photo/John Clark,File) ALBANY, N.Y. — A judge has dismissed a Trump administration legal challenge to New York policies that block immigration officials from arresting people at state courthouses, saying the federal government can’t force states to cooperate with those enforcement efforts. U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino late Monday granted New York’s motion to dismiss the government’s lawsuit, one of several legal actions from the Republican administration targeting state and local policies over immigration enforcement. The lawsuit challenged a 2020 state law banning federal immigration officials from arresting people who are coming and going from New York courthouses or in court for proceedings unless they have a warrant signed by a judge. The law, called the Protect Our Courts Act, was approved in response to enforcement actions at courthouses during President Donald Trump’s first term. The law doesn’t cover federal immigration courts. In its lawsuit, the Department of Justice claimed that the New York law and two related state executive orders were unconstitutional because they obstructed the execution of federal immigration authorities. D’Agostino, though, found that New York’s decision not to participate in enforcing civil immigration law is protected by the 10th Amendment, which sets boundaries on the federal government’s powers. “Fundamentally, the United States fails to identify any federal law mandating that state and local officials generally assist or cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. Nor could it,” the judge wrote. “No such federal laws exist because the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from conscripting state and local officials and resources to assist with federal regulatory schemes, like immigration enforcement.” A Justice Department spokesperson said in response to an email seeking comment that, “President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda is a top national security and public safety priority that this Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend whenever challenged in court.” New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat whose office argued for the lawsuit to be dismissed, said she was fighting for the “dignity and rights of immigrant communities.” “Everyone deserves to seek justice without fear,” James said in a statement. “This ruling ensures that anyone can use New York’s state courts without being targeted by federal authorities.” Stay informed and connected — subscribe to The Philadelphia Tribune NOW! Click Here Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don’t Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don’t knowingly lie about anyone or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We’d love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.
https://www.phillytrib.com/news/state_and_region/judge-tosses-doj-lawsuit-challenging-a-new-york-law-barring-immigration-agents-from-state-courts/article_baf5abe3-70bb-42b4-baf8-8a77189f50d2.html
Category Archives: judiciary
Bengaluru Police Register Zero FIR Against Lawyer Rakesh Kishore For Attempted Shoe Attack On Chief Justice Of India
Bengaluru: The Bengaluru Police on Wednesday registered a zero FIR against a lawyer who allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe towards Chief Justice of India B R Gavai in his courtroom at the Supreme Court, officials said.
A zero FIR can be registered anywhere, irrespective of where the alleged offence occurred. The FIR was filed against Rakesh Kishore under sections 132 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) and 133 (assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation) of the BNS. This followed a complaint by Bhaktavachala, President of the All India Advocates Association in Bengaluru.
“The act of Mr. Rakesh Kishore is not pardonable and acceptable by any section of society. In fact, his act is punishable. This is a grave incident to be taken seriously and the culprit must be punished in accordance with the law,” the advocates association stated in the complaint submitted to the SHO of Vidhana Soudha police station.
Kishore, 71, allegedly attempted to throw a shoe at CJI Gavai in his Supreme Court courtroom on Monday but was stopped by alert security personnel.
According to police sources, the lawyer was reportedly unhappy over the CJI’s remarks during a hearing last month concerning the restoration of a Vishnu idol in Khajuraho.
(Note: Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/india/bengaluru-police-register-zero-fir-against-lawyer-rakesh-kishore-for-attempted-shoe-attack-on-chief-justice-of-india
Supreme Court denies Google’s appeal, upholds Play Store reform order
**Supreme Court Denies Google’s Appeal, Upholds Play Store Reform Order**
*By Mudit Dube | Oct 07, 2025, 10:30 AM*
—
**Overview**
The US Supreme Court has declined Google’s request to stay a lower court’s order that mandates significant changes to its Play Store. This decision comes as Google prepares to appeal a lawsuit ruling filed by Epic Games, the developer of the popular game Fortnite.
—
**Injunction Details**
The injunction was issued last year by US District Judge James Donato. It requires Google to allow users to download rival app stores within the Play Store and make Play Store’s app catalog available to competitors. However, these changes will not take effect until July 2026.
Additionally, the judge ruled that Google must permit developers to include external links in their apps. This would enable users to bypass Google’s billing system.
—
**Background of the Legal Battle**
Epic Games filed the lawsuit against Google in 2020, accusing the tech giant of violating antitrust laws through its restrictive app store policies. Epic won a jury trial in San Francisco in 2023, and the July ruling was subsequently upheld by a federal appeals court.
Google has consistently denied any wrongdoing. The company called Judge Donato’s order unprecedented, warning that implementing the changes could cause reputational harm, introduce safety and security risks, and potentially place Google at a competitive disadvantage.
—
**Google’s Appeal Strategy**
In its Supreme Court filing, Google highlighted that the mandated changes could impact over 100 million US Android users and 500,000 developers. The company intends to file a full appeal with the Supreme Court by October 27, which could lead the justices to take up the case during their current nine-month term.
—
**Epic Games’ Position**
Epic has accused Google of using “flawed security claims” as a pretext to maintain control over Android devices. The developer urges the Supreme Court to let Judge Donato’s injunction take effect, arguing that consumers and developers would benefit from increased competition, more choices, and lower prices.
—
**Appeals Court Ruling**
In July, a three-judge panel from the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The panel noted that Epic’s lawsuit was “replete with evidence that Google’s anticompetitive conduct entrenched its dominance” in the app store market.
—
**What’s Next?**
As the legal battle continues, industry observers are closely watching to see how the Supreme Court will handle Google’s full appeal later this month, which could dramatically reshape the Android app ecosystem.
—
*Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.*
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/supreme-court-rules-against-google-forcing-play-store-policy-overhauls/story
Supreme Court denies Google’s appeal, upholds Play Store reform order
**Supreme Court Denies Google’s Appeal, Upholds Play Store Reform Order**
*By Mudit Dube | Oct 07, 2025, 10:30 AM*
—
**Overview**
The US Supreme Court has declined Google’s request to stay a lower court’s order mandating major changes to its Play Store. This decision comes as the tech giant prepares to further appeal a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Epic Games, the developer of the popular game Fortnite. The original July ruling was upheld by a federal appeals court.
—
**Details of the Injunction**
The injunction, issued by US District Judge James Donato last year, requires Google to allow users to download rival app stores within its own Play Store ecosystem. Additionally, Google must make the Play Store’s app catalog available to competitors. However, these provisions are not set to take effect until July 2026.
Judge Donato also ruled that Google must permit developers to include external links in their apps. This change will allow users to bypass Google’s billing system, marking a significant shift in Google’s app store policies.
—
**Background of the Legal Battle**
Epic Games filed the lawsuit against Google in 2020, alleging that Google’s restrictive app store rules violated antitrust laws. The company won a jury trial in San Francisco in 2023, a verdict that has since been upheld.
Google denies any wrongdoing. The company has described Judge Donato’s order as unprecedented, warning that it would cause reputational harm, pose safety and security risks, and place Google at a competitive disadvantage if implemented.
—
**Google’s Appeal Strategy**
In its Supreme Court filing, Google emphasized that the mandated changes would have profound implications for over 100 million US Android users and 500,000 developers. The company plans to submit a full appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27, potentially prompting the justices to take up the case during their current nine-month term.
—
**Epic Games’ Position**
Epic Games has accused Google of leveraging “flawed security claims” to justify its control over Android devices. The developer urges the Supreme Court to allow Judge Donato’s injunction to take effect so that consumers and developers can benefit from increased competition, more choices, and lower prices.
—
**Previous Court Rulings**
In July, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The panel noted that Epic’s lawsuit contained substantial evidence demonstrating how Google’s anticompetitive conduct entrenched its market dominance.
—
**Conclusion**
The Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the injunction marks a critical moment in the ongoing legal battle over the future of Google’s Play Store. With significant changes set to roll out by mid-2026, the case remains a key point of contention around competition and control in the mobile app market.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/supreme-court-rules-against-google-forcing-play-store-policy-overhauls/story
Supreme Court denies Google’s appeal, upholds Play Store reform order
**Supreme Court Denies Google’s Appeal, Upholds Play Store Reform Order**
*By Mudit Dube | Oct 07, 2025, 10:30 AM*
—
**Overview**
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined Google’s request to stay a lower court’s order that mandates significant changes to its Play Store. This decision comes as Google prepares to appeal a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Epic Games, the developer behind the popular game Fortnite. The injunction, originally issued in July and upheld by a federal appeals court, aims to address alleged antitrust violations by Google.
—
**Details of the Injunction**
The injunction was issued last year by U.S. District Judge James Donato. Under the order, Google is required to allow users to download rival app stores within its own Play Store. Additionally, Google must make its Play Store app catalog available to competitors.
However, these provisions are not set to take effect until July 2026. Judge Donato also ruled that Google must permit developers to include external links within apps, enabling users to bypass Google’s billing system.
—
**Background of the Legal Battle**
Epic Games filed the lawsuit against Google in 2020, accusing the tech giant of violating antitrust laws through its restrictive app store policies. Epic succeeded in a jury trial held in San Francisco in 2023.
Google, meanwhile, has denied any wrongdoing. The company described Judge Donato’s order as unprecedented and warned that it could cause reputational harm, pose safety and security risks, and place Google at a competitive disadvantage if enforced.
—
**Google’s Appeal Strategy**
In its Supreme Court filing, Google emphasized that the mandated changes would impact over 100 million U.S. Android users and 500,000 developers. The company plans to submit a full appeal to the Supreme Court by October 27. This could prompt the justices to consider taking up the case during their nine-month term, which began recently.
—
**Epic Games’ Response and Industry Impact**
Epic Games has accused Google of using “flawed security claims” as a pretext for maintaining strict control over Android devices. The company urges the Supreme Court to allow Judge Donato’s injunction to take effect, arguing that it would foster competition, increase consumer choice, and lower prices.
In July, a three-judge panel from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The panel highlighted that Epic’s lawsuit presented substantial evidence that Google’s anticompetitive conduct has entrenched its dominance in the market.
—
**Conclusion**
The Supreme Court’s refusal to block Judge Donato’s order marks a significant development in the ongoing antitrust battle against Google. As the legal proceedings continue, the case could reshape the landscape of app distribution and billing on Android devices, potentially benefiting both developers and consumers through increased competition and choice.
https://www.newsbytesapp.com/news/business/supreme-court-rules-against-google-forcing-play-store-policy-overhauls/story
Bar Council of India suspends advocate who tried to hurl shoe at CJI Gavai
The Bar Council of India (BCI) on Monday suspended the practice of Advocate Rakesh Kishore, a 71-year-old lawyer who allegedly attempted to hurl a shoe at Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai during court proceedings. The council has also initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, news agency PTI reported.
In a shocking breach of decorum, Kishore reportedly approached the dais during a hearing and tried to throw a shoe at the CJI, but was promptly stopped by security personnel.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has strongly condemned the incident in a unanimous resolution, according to PTI. Headed by Vipin Nair, the association described Kishore’s act as a “disrespectful and intemperate gesture” by an advocate.
In a statement, SCAORA secretary Nikhil Jain urged the Supreme Court to “take suo motu cognizance of the said conduct and initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt of court, as the act/gesture is a calculated move to scandalise the authority of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and lower its dignity in the eyes of the public.”
The association emphasised that freedom of speech carries a duty of restraint, particularly for members of the legal profession, who are officers of the court.
It expressed “deep anguish and disapproval at the recent act of an advocate who, by his unwarranted and intemperate gesture, sought to disrespect the office and authority of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and his companion Judges.”
According to SCAORA, such conduct is unbecoming of a member of the Bar and undermines the mutual respect between the “Bench and the Bar.” The body added that this behaviour is antithetical to the dignity of the legal profession and contrary to constitutional values of decorum, discipline, and institutional integrity.
“Any attempt to malign or a personalised act/gesture aimed against a sitting judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court constitutes a direct assault on the independence of the judiciary and undermines public faith in the justice delivery system,” SCAORA stated.
The association condemned the incident as a “cowardly and disrespectful act” and affirmed its complete solidarity with the CJI and the entire judiciary in upholding the majesty, independence, and impartiality of the Supreme Court.
(With PTI inputs)
https://www.mid-day.com/news/india-news/article/attempted-attack-on-cji-br-gavai-bar-council-of-india-suspends-advocate-rakesh-kishore-23597477
Relief For Robin Uthappa As Sessions Court Sends 2019 Cheque Bounce Case Back For Fresh Hearing
In a relief to former cricketer Robin Uthappa, the sessions court has sent the cheque bouncing case against him back to the magistrate court for a fresh hearing due to non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions.
Earlier, the magistrate court had initiated proceedings against the firm where Uthappa served as a director in connection with the cheque bouncing case. However, the sessions court has now set aside the summons issued by the magistrate against Uthappa. The court noted that the magistrate court should have carried out a preliminary investigation under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code to determine if there were sufficient grounds to summon the accused, especially since Uthappa resides outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the sessions court has directed the magistrate court to hear the case afresh.
### Background of the Case
The complaint was filed against Centaurus Lifestyle Brands Pvt Ltd, where Robin Uthappa was a director. It is claimed that Centaurus Lifestyle had engaged Senior Marketing as their sole distributor for their products in Mumbai, Thane, and Navi Mumbai.
### Cheques Bounced in 2019
The dispute arose when Centaurus Lifestyle engaged two additional distributors in October 2017 without the consent of the complainant firm. Following a meeting, the complainant returned all stocks, and Centaurus agreed to make the payment.
In July 2018, goods were dispatched, and in February 2019, Centaurus issued post-dated cheques amounting to Rs. 22.22 lakh. However, these cheques bounced in March 2019 due to insufficient funds, leading to the current proceedings.
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/relief-for-robin-uthappa-as-sessions-court-sends-2019-cheque-bounce-case-back-for-fresh-hearing
‘Bail Is Rule, Jail An Exception’: Thane Sessions Court Grants Bail To Man Booked In 10 Cases
**Thane Sessions Court Grants Bail to Man Accused in Multiple Criminal Cases**
The Thane Sessions Court has granted bail to a man allegedly accused in 10 criminal cases registered across Thane, Mumbai, and Pune. The court held that the mere registration of multiple offences does not automatically disqualify an accused from seeking bail.
### Court’s Observation
The court observed that the investigating officer’s claim that the accused was a threat to society because he was found holding a sickle was not sufficient grounds to deny bail.
> “Considering the material placed on record and citations supra, it is noted that the investigating officer has recovered a sickle from the hands of the accused by showing him as the leader of an organised crime syndicate. In the investigation, it also transpired that the accused has given threats to the public by brandishing the said sickle. However, he has neither assaulted the complainant nor robbed the alleged amount of Rs 4,500 from the shop’s cash box. He has not played an aggravated role in the alleged crime… Mere registration of said crimes would not disentitle him to get the relief of bail in the absence of incriminating evidence against him,” the court said in its order.
### Principle of Bail Reiterated
The court emphasised the legal principle that **“bail is the rule and jail an exception,”** underscoring that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
### Background of the Case
The bail order pertains to a case filed by complainant Neelkumar Divakar, who alleged that on October 21, 2024, after 9 p.m., the accused, Akshay Jadekar, approached his pan stall demanding a cigarette. When Divakar asked him to clear earlier dues, Jadekar allegedly assaulted him with the help of his associates using fists and kicks, and forcibly took Rs 4,500 from the cash box while brandishing a sickle.
One of Jadekar’s associates is also accused of threatening the complainant with a pair of scissors.
### Arrest and Charges
Following the incident, Jadekar and his associates were arrested. The police invoked provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) against them after obtaining the necessary approvals.
### Defence by the Accused
Akshay Jadekar, who has been in custody since his arrest on October 24, 2024, maintained his innocence. He claimed to be falsely implicated and denied assaulting the complainant with any weapon.
Jadekar argued that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and there was no risk of him absconding or tampering with evidence if released on bail.
### Prosecution’s Argument
The prosecution opposed the bail plea, contending that Jadekar was the leader of an organised crime syndicate. They argued that releasing him could lead to a repetition of similar offences.
### Court’s Final Decision
Rejecting the prosecution’s apprehensions, the court found no reasonable grounds to believe that Jadekar would commit similar crimes if released.
The court noted that the complainant’s injuries were simple in nature and highlighted that the accused had a fixed place of residence.
—
For details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai and surrounding regions, visit: [https://budgetproperties.in/](https://budgetproperties.in/)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/bail-is-rule-jail-an-exception-thane-sessions-court-grants-bail-to-man-booked-in-10-cases
Delhi HC Quashes NHAI Notification On Recruiting Lawyers Based On CLAT-PG Scores
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside a notification issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) that made scores of the Common Law Admission Test for Post-Graduate courses (CLAT-PG) the basis for the recruitment of lawyers.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela allowed a petition challenging the NHAI’s August 11 notification. “The writ petition is allowed. Resultantly, the recruitment criteria given in the notification is quashed,” the bench stated while pronouncing its judgment. The detailed judgment is awaited.
The court’s verdict followed a plea contesting the NHAI notification which mandated the use of CLAT-PG scores for legal recruitment. On September 18, the court had stayed the notification, observing that there appeared to be “no rationale” behind the recruitment process based on CLAT-PG scores.
The petition was filed by Shannu Bahgel, a lawyer, who argued that CLAT-PG scores cannot legally form the basis for public employment. Bahgel contended that the CLAT-PG exam is designed solely to assess the merit of LLB degree holders seeking admission to master’s degree programs in law, not for selection in government jobs.
He further submitted that the purpose of recruitment under the August 11 notification was to engage legal professionals to provide services, not for candidates to pursue higher studies. “There does not appear to be any reasonable or rational nexus between the objects sought to be achieved and the basis of preparation of merit for such selection,” the petition stated.
The bench had earlier observed that the rationale behind the CLAT-PG exam was to measure merit for higher education and not for public employment purposes.
In response, the NHAI’s counsel defended the notification, stating that the authority sought to test a candidate’s legal acumen through CLAT-PG scores. The counsel argued that CLAT scores provided a reasonable benchmark for assessing candidates. He also emphasized that while the selection was primarily based on CLAT results, candidates’ experience was also taken into consideration.
The petitioner challenged the NHAI’s directive to engage 44 young professionals solely on the basis of scores obtained in CLAT 2022 and subsequent editions of the postgraduate law admissions test. He argued that restricting recruitment to candidates who appeared for CLAT-PG from 2022 onwards was arbitrary and unreasonable.
“The recruitment is restricted only to candidates who appeared in CLAT 2022 and onward PG, ignoring all other law graduates and practising advocates who are otherwise fully qualified. The criteria of restricting selection exclusively on the basis of CLAT 2022 onward (post-graduate) score is arbitrary, irrational,” the plea stated.
(Note: Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ’s editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
https://www.freepressjournal.in/education/delhi-hc-quashes-nhai-notification-on-recruiting-lawyers-based-on-clat-pg-scores