Ghislaine Maxwell, jailed Epstein accomplice, appeals case to US Supreme Court
Sylvain Gaboury/Paul Bruinooge/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — Ghislaine Maxwell asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to overturn her sex-trafficking conviction, arguing she was covered by a non-prosecution agreement the government made with her former paramour, Jeffrey Epstein.
Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. She was convicted on five counts of aiding Epstein in his abuse of underage girls in December 2021.
A federal appeals court rejected her argument that Epstein’s non-prosecution agreement, arranged in 2007, barred her prosecution in New York. She urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider her case.
“Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein,” her attorneys wrote in their petition.
Maxwell said the US Supreme Court should resolve differences of opinion among federal appeals court as to whether a non-prosecution arranged in one district can be enforced in another.
“A defendant should be able to rely on a promise that the United States will not prosecute again, without being subject to a gotcha in some other jurisdiction that chooses to interpret that plain language promise in some other way,” defense attorney David Markus wrote.
Four women testified at trial they had been abused as minors at Epstein’s homes in Florida, New York, New Mexico and the Virgin Islands and said Maxwell, the daughter of British newspaper magnate Robert Maxwell, had talked them into giving Epstein massages that turned sexual. They testified they were lured with gifts and promises about how Epstein could use his money and connections to help them.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs are an “unprecedented and unlawful expansion” of executive power, a lawyer for a group of small businesses told a federal court Tuesday morning.
The hearing at the Court of International Trade in Manhattan marks the first time a federal court has taken up the question of whether Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs are legal.
According to Jeffrey Schwab – a lawyer from the conservative Liberty Justice Center representing the plaintiffs – the question isn’t even close. Schwab argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act – a 1977 law that gives the president the right to regulate commerce during national emergencies – does not give Trump the right to unilaterally to impose tariffs.
He added that Trump’s purported emergency of trade deficits has been a problem for years and fail to meet the legal standard for an emergency of being brief, rare and not ongoing.
“This case is so far outside of what an emergency is and what an unusual and extraordinary threat is that this Court could easily say that it is not an emergency,” Schwab argued.
When the three judge panel hearing the case – including judges appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan – pushed for a legal standard on which to issue their future ruling, Schwab said the unlawfulness of the tariffs is so obvious that the judges shouldn’t overthink it.
“I’m asking this court to be an umpire and call a strike, you’re asking me, well, where’s the strike zone? Is it at the knees or slightly below the knees?” Schwab said. “I’m saying it’s a wild pitch and it’s on the other side of the batter and hit the backstop, so we don’t need to debate that.”
The lawsuit was filed last month by a group of small businesses, including a New York liquor distributor, Utah pipe company, Virginia electronics store, Pennsylvania-based tackle shop, and Vermont cycling company. Each company argued they rely on imports from countries like China and Mexico and would be irreparably harmed by what they called Trump’s “unprecedented power grab illegal.”
The small business argue that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not give the president the power to unilaterally impose tariffs like Trump did last month with a blanket tariff rate and higher rates for certain countries.
They described the national emergency Trump used to justify the tariffs as a “figment of his own imagination” because the United States has operated with massive trade deficits for years without causing economic harm.
“If actually granted by statute, this power would be an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive without any intelligible principle to limit his discretion,” they argued.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have pushed back on the lawsuit, saying that Congress permits the president to impose some tariffs, and Trump’s invoking of a national emergency makes his power “broader,” justifying the sweeping tariffs. They have also argued that a court order blocking the tariffs would unlawfully encroach on the president’s authority.
“Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction would be an enormous intrusion on the President’s conduct of foreign affairs and efforts to protect national security under IEEPA and the Constitution,” they argued.
At least six separate lawsuits have targeted Trump’s use of tariffs, including a case filed by the state of California and a coalition of twelve state attorneys general. While some of the cases were filed in district courts, the cases have gradually been transferred to the Court of International Trade, making Tuesday’s argument the first time a panel of judges hears a challenge to Trump’s tariffs.
Last month, the court rejected an emergency request for a temporary order to block the tariffs, finding that the businesses failed to prove that an “immediate and irreparable harm” would stem from the tariffs.
Tuesday’s argument will be heard by a panel of three judges – Gary S. Katzmann, Timothy M. Reif, and Jane A. Restani – who were appointed by Presidents Obama, Trump and Reagan respectively.
Tucked away in a corner of New York’s Foley Square, the Court of International Trade has nationwide jurisdiction on trade disputes and has recently focused its energy on more niche issues, like honey customs disputes and mattress imports. Tuesday’s oral argument is set to provide the most high-profile hearing for the court in recent memory.
(CHICAGO) — A Chicago man was charged in connection to a series of sex crimes targeting women at least five times over the past three years, according to the Chicago Police Department.
Chakib Mansour Khodja, a 36-year-old Jefferson Park resident, was charged with 16 felonies and two misdemeanors on Monday, including aggravated criminal sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated kidnapping while armed, home invasion with a dangerous weapon and public indecency with lewd exposure, police said in a press release.
The earliest incident allegedly occurred on May 7, 2022, and the latest on Feb. 2, police said.
“This man was a violent, serial predator who literally went out hunting for his victims,” Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke said during a press conference on Monday.
In February, Khodja allegedly “approached the female victims from behind (twice on the sidewalk and once in an apartment building hallway)” and sexually assaulted them, police said. In one of these instances, he was armed with a sharp object, police said.
“These women survived something that was horrible and terrible and it’s something that they will continue to live with throughout the rest of their days,” CPD Superintendent Larry Snelling said.
Investigators used video surveillance and DNA evidence to connect Khodja to the crimes, police said.
The suspect was arrested on April 4 at O’Hare Airport, when he was coming back from out of town, police said.
Khodja made his first court appearance on Monday, officials said. He was held pending trial.
He was appointed a public defender, but the lawyer was not named in court records.
“Today, the city is safer. Today, every single woman in the city, every single man who has a wife, a mother, a daughter, a sister should all be breathing a sigh of relief,” O’Neill said.
Snelling said officials are still determining if there are any additional victims of Khodja’s attacks.
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration is acknowledging it deported four noncitizens to El Salvador despite a court order barring the removal of people to countries other than their place of origin without an opportunity to raise concerns about their safety.
In a series of court filings overnight, Justice Department lawyers argued that the court order was not violated because the removal of four alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua was carried out by the Department of Defense — not the Department of Homeland Security, which is a defendant in the lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a court order on March 28 requiring that anyone with a final order of removal must have an opportunity to raise concerns about their safety before they are deported to a so-called “third country” that is not on their order of removal or their country of origin.
Three days after Judge Murphy’s order, the four men — who are originally from Venezuela — were flown from U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador, according to a sworn declaration from Tracey Huettl, a unit chief for field operations with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Huettl said that each of the four men were identified as members of Tren de Aragua by federal law enforcement, and had extensive criminal records.
According to her declaration, one man admitted he was a member of the gang and that he recruited prostitutes for the organization, and another was charged with multiple crimes including discharge of a firearm and theft.
Another man is allegedly a sex offender who was charged with human smuggling and convicted for domestic assault, and the last was arrested for possession and use of drug-related objects.
None of the men had orders of removal to El Salvador before they were deported to that country on March 31, according to the filings.
Judge Murphy set an April 28 conference earlier this month to learn more about what he described as the “potential violations of the temporary restraining order.”
Last Friday, the judge issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Trump administration to give noncitizens the chance to raise concerns about their safety before they are removed to third countries.
