WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge in Washington formally postponed Donald Trump’s March trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election as a key legal appeal from the former president remains unresolved in the courts.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on Friday vacated the March 4 trial date in the case brought by Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith but did not immediately set a new date.

The move opens the door for a separate prosecution in New York, charging Trump in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor, to proceed first. That case has long been seen as arguably the least legally perilous of the four indictments Trump faces, with the alleged misconduct less grave than accusations of mishandling classified documents or plotting to subvert a presidential election.

The postponement in Washington comes as a federal appeals court has yet to resolve a pending appeal from Trump arguing that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took in the White House. It is not clear when the three-judge panel might rule, but a ruling in favor of prosecutors that permits the case to move forward is expected to be appealed by the Trump team, likely resulting in additional delays.

For both sides, timing is of the essence. Trump, who faces four indictments and 91 felony counts, is looking to push his criminal cases back as he enjoys front-runner status in the race for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Smith’s team, meanwhile, is hoping to be able to prosecute Trump this year before the November election. If Trump is elected while the case is pending, he could presumably order the Justice Department to drop it and could potentially try to seek a pardon for himself.

The Washington case had been expected to take place first, but it has been delayed for weeks by Trump’s appeal on grounds that he is shielded from prosecution — a claim that has been vigorously disputed by Smith’s team. The appeals court heard arguments on Jan. 9 and appeared skeptical of a Trump lawyer’s position. Though the court has said it intended to work quickly, it has not yet issued a ruling.

The judge in the New York case, the first of four indictments filed against Trump last year, has long resisted defense demands that he postpone the March 25 start date in light of the conflicting trial date in Washington, figuring — correctly — that the former president’s legal calendar might change as the trial neared.

Trump is due back in court in Manhattan on Feb. 15 for a pretrial hearing where final details are expected to be ironed out. All signs point to the New York case starting on time. Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors have been discussing jury selection procedures with the judge and some witnesses have said they’ve been told to be ready to testify.

The New York case involves steps Trump allegedly took to hide payments that were made on the Republican’s behalf to suppress damaging stories before his 2016 win over Democrat Hillary Clinton, namely logging them as legal expenses. While a guilty verdict would give Trump another historic moniker as the first former president convicted of a crime, potentially complicating his campaign to return to the White House, there’s no guarantee of prison time.

Trump critics and rival campaign aides have long bemoaned that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s indictment was the first, believing that it helped blunt the political impact of more serious charges that followed because voters tuned out or grew confused by the myriad cases.

Bragg has eschewed his case’s “hush money” label, opting in recent weeks to describe it as another Trump “election interference” case — albeit, this one involving behind-the-scenes maneuvering during Trump’s first campaign for the White House in 2016.

Trump, meanwhile, faces dozens of felony charges in Florida accusing him of illegally retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. That case is set for trial on May 20 but could still be postponed. Another case in Georgia, brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, accuses him of plotting to overturn that state’s 2020 election. No trial date has been set.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Federal judge in DC postpones Trump’s March trial on charges of plotting to overturn 2020 election appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

HOUSTON (AP) — While a federal judge on Wednesday declared illegal a revised version of a federal policy that prevents the deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, he declined to order an immediate end to the program and the protections it offers to recipients.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen agreed with Texas and eight other states suing to stop the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. The judge’s ruling was ultimately expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, sending the program’s fate before the high court for a third time.

“While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time,” Hanen wrote in his 40-page ruling. “The solution for these deficiencies lies with the legislature, not the executive or judicial branches. Congress, for any number of reasons, has decided not to pass DACA-like legislation … The Executive Branch cannot usurp the power bestowed on Congress by the Constitution – even to fill a void.”

Hanen’s order extended the current injunction that had been in place against DACA, which barred the government from approving any new applications, but left the program intact for existing recipients during the ongoing legal review.

Hanen also declined a request by the states to order the program’s end within two years. Hanen said his order does not require the federal government to take any actions against DACA recipients, who are known as “Dreamers.”

Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, which is representing DACA recipients in the lawsuit, said it will ultimately be up to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, to rule on DACA’s legality and whether Texas proved it had been harmed by the program.

“Judge Hanen has consistently erred in resolving both of these issues, and today’s ruling is more of the same flawed analysis. We look forward to continuing to defend the lawful and much-needed DACA program on review in higher courts,” Saenz said.

The Texas Attorney General’s Office, which represented the states in the lawsuit, and the U.S. Department of Justice, which represented the federal government, didn’t immediately return emails or calls seeking comment.

The states have argued the Obama administration didn’t have the authority to first create the program in 2012 because it circumvented Congress.

In 2021, Hanen had declared the program illegal, ruling it had not been subject to public notice and comment periods required under the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

The Biden administration tried to satisfy Hanen’s concerns with a new version of DACA that took effect in October 2022 and was subject to public comments as part of a formal rule-making process.

But Hanen, who was appointed by then-President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled the updated version of DACA was still illegal as the Biden administration’s new version was essentially the same as the old version, started under the Obama administration. Hanen had previously said DACA was unconstitutional.

Hanen also had previously ruled the states had standing to file their lawsuit because they had been harmed by the program.

The states have claimed they incur hundreds of millions of dollars in health care, education and other costs when immigrants are allowed to remain in the country illegally. The states that sued are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas and Mississippi.

Those defending the program — the federal government, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and the state of New Jersey — had argued the states failed to present evidence that any of the costs they allege they have incurred have been tied to DACA recipients. They also argued Congress has given the Department of Homeland Security the legal authority to set immigration enforcement policies.

There were 578,680 people enrolled in DACA at the end of March, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The program has faced a roller coaster of court challenges over the years.

In 2016, the Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 over an expanded DACA and a version of the program for parents of DACA recipients. In 2020, the high court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration improperly ended DACA, allowing it to stay in place.

In 2022, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Hanen’s earlier ruling declaring DACA illegal, but sent the case back to him to review changes made to the program by the Biden administration.

President Joe Biden and advocacy groups have called on Congress to pass permanent protections for “ dreamers.” Congress has failed multiple times to pass proposals called the DREAM Act to protect DACA recipients.

“We continue to urge Congress and President Biden to create permanent solutions for all immigrants to ensure none are left in the perilous road DACA has been on for the past decade,” Veronica Garcia, an attorney with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, an advocacy organization, said in a statement.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Federal judge again declares that DACA is illegal with issue likely to be decided by Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Senate voted 83-12 to confirm President Donald Trump’s appointment of Holcomb to fill the vacancy created when District Judge Dean D. Pregerson assumed senior status in January 2016.

Holcomb has tried major, complex litigation matters involving patents, copyrights and trade secrets in the Central and Southern Districts of California, San Diego County Superior Court and the Delaware Chancery Court.

Holcomb has also argued in federal court and the Delaware Supreme Court.

Holcomb has also dedicated time to pro bono matters involving family law, immigration, and civil rights issues.

Holcomb worked as a partner at the Costa Mesa office of Greenberg Gross since 2019, litigating intellectual property cases, for both plaintiffs and defendants, conducted mediations and served as a special master.

Before joining Greenberg Gross, Holcomb briefly worked as a solo practitioner, conducting mediations and providing advice and consulting services concerning intellectual property and bankruptcy issues.

Holcomb worked at the intellectual property and technology law firm Knobbe Martens from 1997-2018, becoming a partner in 2002.

Holcomb worked as an associate at Irell & Manella from 1994-97, focusing on general civil litigation and bankruptcy matters.

Holcomb received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a master’s degree in business administration from the Harvard Business School and a law degree from Harvard Law School.

Holcomb was an officer in the U.S. Navy from 1984-89.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, voted to confirm Holcomb.

California’s other senator, Kamala Harris, was absent, meeting with emergency service personnel for an assessment of the wildfires in Fresno and attending what aides for her campaign for the vice presidency described as “a community conversation focused on the impact of COVID-19 on working families in the Latino community” in Las Vegas.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post SENATE APPROVES NEW FEDERAL JUDGE FOR RIVERSIDE appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.