US asks court to reject TikTok's bid against ban, Trump turns to conservative Dhillon Law Group to fill key posts, and more ➡️

US asks court to reject TikTok's bid against ban, Trump turns to conservative Dhillon Law Group to fill key posts, and more ➡️

☀️ Good morning from The Legal File! Here is the rundown of today's top legal stories:

🤳 US asks court to reject TikTok's bid to stave off law that could ban the app

A view shows the office of TikTok after the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would give TikTok's Chinese owner ByteDance about six months to divest the U.S. assets of the short-video app or face a ban, in Culver City, California, March 13, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File photo
A view shows the office of TikTok after the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would give TikTok's Chinese owner ByteDance about six months to divest the U.S. assets of the short-video app or face a ban, in Culver City, California, March 13, 2024. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File photo

The Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to reject an emergency bid by TikTok to temporarily block a law that would require its Chinese parent company ByteDance to divest the short-video app by Jan. 19 or face a ban.

TikTok and ByteDance on Dec. 9 filed the emergency motion with the D.C. Circuit pending a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. They warned that without court action the law will "shut down TikTok — one of the nation’s most popular speech platforms — for its more than 170 million domestic monthly users."

The Justice Department said the court should not delay the law's effective date arguing "continued Chinese control of the TikTok application poses a continuing threat to national security."

TikTok did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

DOJ said if the ban takes effect on Jan. 19, it would "not directly prohibit the continued use of TikTok" by users who had downloaded TikTok, but it conceded that the effect of the prohibitions on providing support "will eventually be to render the application unworkable."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld the law requiring ByteDance to soon divest TikTok in the United States or face a ban in just six weeks.

The companies noted President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to prevent a ban, arguing the delay "will give the incoming administration time to determine its position."

The decision — unless the Supreme Court reverses it — puts TikTok's fate first in the hands of President Joe Biden on whether to grant a 90-day extension of the Jan. 19 deadline to force a sale and then of Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20.

Read more.

Related story:

TikTok hires ex-Trump administration lawyer ahead of Supreme Court appeal


🏢 Trump turns to conservative Dhillon Law Group to fill key posts

Attorney Harmeet Dhillon, a candidate for chairperson of the Republican National Committee, speaks during a right-wing gathering known as America Fest, an event organised by Turning Point USA, in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S., December 20, 2022. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart/File photo
Attorney Harmeet Dhillon, a candidate for chairperson of the Republican National Committee, speaks during a right-wing gathering known as America Fest, an event organised by Turning Point USA, in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S., December 20, 2022. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart/File photo

Lawyers from a small conservative law firm could have an outsized impact during Donald Trump's next term, after the Republican president-elect appointed Dhillon Law Group partner David Warrington as his White House counsel and nominated Harmeet Dhillon, the firm's founder and managing partner, to lead the DOJ's civil rights division this week.

The law firm, founded by Dhillon in California in 2006, has a dozen partners working on a mix of constitutional law and business cases.

Dhillon and Warrington, who did not respond to requests for comment, represented Trump before the congressional committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.

The firm has also represented Elon Musk’s X, the Republican National Committee and the National Association for Gun Rights.

Read more.


🖊 US appeals court tosses Nasdaq board diversity rules

The Nasdaq logo is displayed at the Nasdaq Market site in Times Square in New York City, U.S., December 3, 2021. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File photo
The Nasdaq logo is displayed at the Nasdaq Market site in Times Square in New York City, U.S., December 3, 2021. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File photo

A U.S. appeals court on Dec. 11 ruled that Nasdaq could not impose rules designed to increase diversity in corporate America by requiring companies listed on the exchange to have women and minority directors on their boards or explain why they do not.

The 9-8 ruling by the conservative-majority New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the rules approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ran afoul of federal securities law.

The decision is a significant legal victory for opponents of policies meant to boost racial and gender diversity in corporations.

The diversity rules were challenged by conservative think tank the National Center for Public Policy Research and Alliance for Fair Board Recruitment, a group founded by Edward Blum, who led the successful U.S. Supreme Court challenge against race-conscious college admissions policies.

"SEC has intruded into territory far outside its ordinary domain," U.S. Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham, who was appointed by Republican President-elect Donald Trump in his first term, wrote for the majority.

The SEC said it was reviewing the ruling, which it would have to appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn. Nasdaq said that while it believed its rule would benefit companies and investors, it respected the ruling and would not appeal.

Read more.


⚖️ Removal protections for NLRB judges are illegal, US judge rules

The seal of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is seen at their headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 14, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File photo
The seal of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is seen at their headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 14, 2021. REUTERS/Andrew Kelly/File photo

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that federal law improperly shields National Labor Relations Board administrative judges from being fired at will, the first decision of its kind in a series of lawsuits against the agency challenging its structure.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden agreed with a Massachusetts-based hospital, which had sued the agency in September after it was hit with an NLRB complaint, that removal protections for the judges must be severed from the National Labor Relations Act.

Saint Vincent Hospital's case is one of about two dozen filed since last year by employers facing NLRB complaints to claims that various aspects of the agency's in-house proceedings violate the U.S. Constitution.

Three federal judges in Texas have said that the removal protections for administrative law judges, or ALJs, are likely illegal and have temporarily paused board cases, but McFadden is the first judge to permanently strike down removal protections in the NLRA. At least eight other judges have refused to block NLRB cases.

The NLRB's ALJs can only be fired by the five-member board after a separate civil service board finds good cause to remove them. Besides, the five members of the board can be removed from office only for cause.

McFadden said that ALJs, who hear cases before they go to the board, wield significant executive power, and that the Constitution requires them to be accountable to the White House.

"Needless to say, this byzantine process eviscerates the President’s ability to control NLRB ALJs," wrote McFadden, who was appointed by Republican President-elect Donald Trump in his first term.

Read more.


 👋 That's all for today, thank you for reading The Legal File, and have a great day!

For more legal industry news, read and subscribe to The Daily Docket.

Raghu Babu

Transport Services. — Independent Contractor -- PAY FIRST TALK LATER -- FOR GOSSIP listen to Political Speeches --YOUR CHOICE federal id 22-341-8504 NJ corporations is my identity

3w

BabuRaghu456@gmail.com Online Account Transfer Initiated; December 25 2024 exit USA/ India tax jurisdiction

To view or add a comment, sign in

More articles by Reuters Legal

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics