Connect with us

The Dictatorship

DOJ paid more than $1 million settlement to anti-abortion protester — after a federal judge tossed his suit

Published

on

DOJ paid more than $1 million settlement to anti-abortion protester — after a federal judge tossed his suit

The Trump Justice Department paid a $1.1 million settlement to an anti-abortion protester, even after a George W. Bush-appointed judge dismissed the protester’s lawsuit against the government with prejudice, according to a former DOJ prosecutor and the protester’s lawyer.

Two former federal government officials who spoke to MS NOW characterized the settlement paid to Mark Houck, a longtime anti-abortion activist, as the latest example of the Trump DOJ making concessions to previously prosecuted abortion opponents under the guise of protecting their religious freedom.

Houck is a 52-year-old Pennsylvania resident and the founder of The King’s Men, described as a donation-based, anti-pornography and anti-abortion Catholic meeting group for men. He unsuccessfully ran as a Republican in 2024 to represent Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional district.

Mark Houck stands in front of a group of people.
Mark Houck speaks to a meeting of Republicans on April 17, 2024, in New Hope, Pa. Mike Catalini / AP Photo

Following Houck’s September 2022 arrest for allegedly shoving a 72-year-old clinic escort at a Philadelphia Planned Parenthood — he was later acquitted of those charges at trial — his case became a rallying cry for the GOP and abortion rights opponents, who alleged he was targeted by overzealous prosecutors in Biden’s DOJ for his religious beliefs.

Houck’s case is discussed in a more-than-800-page report the DOJ released on Tuesday that purports to expose “the Biden administration’s weaponization” of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a 1994 law that prohibits obstructing access to reproductive health clinics. The report frames Houck’s case as an example of the Biden DOJ using “aggressive tactics” against an abortion opponent, and says some supervisors did not think the FACE Act was a proper charge for the circumstances. MS NOW first reported on the existence of the DOJ report last week, after reviewing a draft copy.

The report says the government “recently reached a settlement agreement with Houck,” but does not provide further details or specify the amount. The report also does not mention that a federal judge dismissed Houck’s lawsuit against the government and that it was pending appeal at the time of the settlement.

Houck’s lawyer, Edward Greim, told CBS News the DOJ agreed to the $1.1 million settlement in February, prior to the Houcks’ move to withdraw their appeal. Houck declined an interview request from MS NOW and Greim, his lawyer, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Abortion opponents celebrated news of the settlement, while two former federal officials characterized it to MS NOW as yet another example of the Trump administration kowtowing to abortion opponents who the Biden administration prosecuted under the FACE Act. The Trump administration has alleged the FACE Act has historically been weaponized against abortion opponents and has pledged to roll back those prosecutions — even as prosecutors employ a lesser-used provision of the law to try to prosecute former BLN journalist Don Lemon and protesters for entering a church in Minneapolis.

A former DOJ prosecutor with knowledge of Houck’s case told MS NOW they see the settlement as “rewarding a MAGA supporter,” and a former federal law enforcement official called it “concerning” given that Houck’s prior lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a national legal organization that supports abortion rights, said in a statement provided to MS NOW that Houck’s settlement “should embarrass every person who touched it,” adding that it “represents an abuse of the rule of law.”

In response to questions, a Justice Department spokesperson referred MS NOW to a statement from Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stating Trump’s DOJ “will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice.”

“No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs,” Blanche added. “The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”

Houck was indicted in September 2022 on charges of violating the FACE Act for allegedly assaulting a volunteer escort at a Planned Parenthood in October 2021. According to the government’s indictment, Houck twice shoved the escort to the ground, including while the escort was accompanying two patients leaving the clinic.

Houck’s attorneys denied the government’s account, alleging the incident occurred outside an anti-abortion pregnancy resource center across the street from a Planned Parenthood, and arguing that the DOJ was engaging in “viewpoint discrimination” by seeking to prosecute Houck for his anti-abortion beliefs. They also argued that the escort — not Houck — was the aggressor, and that Houck only shoved the escort after the escort “approached and verbally confronted” Houck and his 12-year-old son.

Houck was acquitted of the charges at a five-day jury trial in January 2023. Less than a year later, Houck filed a civil lawsuit alleging “a faulty and malicious investigation” and excessive force against the federal government and Pennsylvania state and local police officers, involved in his September 2022 arrest, when armed federal and state police arrested him at his home while his wife and 7 children were present.

Houck and his wife alleged in the lawsuit that the stress of the arrest led to three miscarriages for the couple and, ultimately, an infertility diagnosis, along with emotional distress for their children.

A former federal law enforcement official told MS NOW that Houck’s arrest “was appropriate and done in accordance with FBI procedures.”

Last March, Judge Paul Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ordered Houck’s suit dismissed with prejudice — meaning it cannot be refiled — alleging he had failed to state a plausible claim.

Diamond wrote in his 20-page order that Houck’s complaint “generates considerably more heat than light,” adding that his “indignation is not a substitute for plausibility, however.”

Houck subsequently filed a notice of appeal, before moving to withdraw it in February, records show.

The ex-DOJ prosecutor, who handled multiple FACE Act cases, told MS NOW they believe the account of Houck’s case included in the newly-released “weaponization” report “was not representative of the government, it was representative of the defense.” The source added that the prosecutors involved in Houck’s case were not consulted as the report was prepared, and that at least 1 of the 3 prosecutors received an order from Blanche earlier this year to hand over records related to the case. The former DOJ prosecutor said that request seemed “out of the ordinary, because the civil case had been dismissed.”

“I couldn’t believe this was still being batted around,” they added.

The source also said Sanjay Patel — who prosecuted many FACE Act cases against people later pardoned by President Donald Trump — was told as he was being escorted from the building last month to be placed on administrative leave that he was the reason Houck received the settlement.

Patel was one of four prosecutors fired on Monday in preparation of the release of the “weaponization report,” MS NOW reported. He has not responded to repeated requests for comment from MS NOW.

The ex-DOJ prosecutor told MS NOW they disagree with the allegations included in the “weaponization” report that Houck, and other abortion opponents, were targeted due to their beliefs. The prosecutor added that they are Catholic, and that their own beliefs “never factored into my prosecutorial activities.”

“In any case that I’ve handled,” the source said, “I evaluate the facts of the case based on the law.”

Carol Leonnig contributed to this reporting

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Justice Jackson chides ‘oblivious’ Supreme Court conservatives…

Published

on

Justice Jackson chides ‘oblivious’ Supreme Court conservatives…

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme CourtJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson has delivered a sustained attack on her conservative colleagues’ use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration, calling the orders “scratch-paper musings” that can “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.”

The court’s newest justice, Jackson delivered a lengthy assessment of roughly two dozen court orders issued last year that allowed President Donald Trump to put in place controversial policies on immigration, steep federal funding cuts and other topics, after lower courts found they were likely illegal.

While designed to be short-term, those orders have largely allowed Trump to move ahead — for now — with key parts of his sweeping agenda.

Jackson spoke for nearly an hour on Monday at Yale Law School, which posted a video of the event on Wednesday.

Last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly talked about emergency orders in an event Tuesday at the University of Alabama that also took issue with the conservatives’ approach.

Jackson has previously criticized the emergency orders both in dissenting opinions and in an unusual appearance with Justice Brett Kavanaugh last month. But her talk at Yale, addressing the public rather than the other eight justices, was notable.

She referred to orders, which often are issued with little or no explanation as “back-of-the-envelope, first-blush impressions of the merits of the legal issue.”

Worse still, she said, was that the court then insists that “those scratch-paper musings” be applied by lower courts in other cases.

The orders suffer from an additional problem, she said, a failure to acknowledge that real people are involved, making them “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.”

She also pushed back on the court’s assessment that preventing the president from putting his policy in place also is a harm that often outweighs what the challengers to a policy might face.

“The president of the United States, though he may be harmed in an abstract way, he certainly isn’t harmed if what he wants to do is illegal,” Jackson said during a question-and-answer session with law school dean Cristina Rodriguez.

The court used to be reluctant to step into cases early in the legal process, she said. “There is value in avoiding having the court continually touching the third rail of every divisive policy issue in American life,” Jackson said.

While she said she couldn’t explain the change, “in recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a decidedly different approach to addressing emergency stay applications. It has been noticeably less restrained, especially with respect to pending cases that involve controversial matters.”

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Jackson, often joined by Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, has frequently dissented.

There have been conversations about emergency orders among the justices, Jackson said, but she decided to speak publicly with the goal of being “a catalyst for change.”

Also on Wednesday, Sotomayor issued a rare public apology to another justice, Kavanaugh, for what she termed “hurtful comments” she made last week during an appearance at the University of Kansas law school.

Referencing an opinion Kavanaugh wrote in an immigration case where the court granted an emergency order sought by the administration, Sotomayor said her colleague “probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” Her remarks were reported by Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump threatens to fire Powell if the Fed Chair remains with central bank after his term ends

Published

on

Trump threatens to fire Powell if the Fed Chair remains with central bank after his term ends

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit this week to a construction site at Federal Reserve headquarters that is the focus of an investigation into a $2.5 billion renovation projectaccording to two people familiar with the visit.

Two prosecutors and an investigator from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office were turned away on Tuesday by a building contractor and referred to Fed attorneys, one of the people said. The two people familiar with the visit spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation.

The visit underscores that the Trump administration is not backing down from its investigation of the Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, even though the probe has delayed the confirmation of a new chair nominated by President Donald Trump. The investigation is focused on cost overruns and brief testimony about the project last summer by Powell. Trump confirmed in an interview that aired Wednesday on Fox Business that he wants to continue the probe.

Last month, during a closed-door hearing before a federal judge, a top deputy from Pirro’s office conceded that they hadn’t found any evidence of a crime in their investigation of the headquarters project.

Robert Hur, an attorney for the Federal Reserve board of governors, sent an email to Pirro’s prosecutors about their visit and their request for a “tour” to “check on progress” at the construction site. Hur’s email, which The Associated Press has viewed, noted that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that their interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was “pretextual.”

AP AUDIO: Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on more drama surrounding a federal probe of a massive construction project at the Federal Reserve’s headquarters.

“Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur wrote.

Republican Tillis is key vote

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has vowed to vote against Kevin WarshTrump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chair, until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided on partisan lines, Tillis’ opposition is enough to block Warsh from receiving the committee’s approval.

Tillis on Wednesday criticized the investigation as “bogus, ill-timed, ill-informed” and repeated that seven Republican members of the banking panel have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime when he testified last June.

Tillis also said there aren’t enough votes on the committee or in the broader Senate to do an end-run around the committee and get Warsh confirmed some other way.

“There really is no path,” he told reporters, adding that Pirro and her aides were “asleep at the switch” because the investigation has essentially delayed Powell’s departure from the Fed, despite Trump’s obsessive criticism of the Fed chair. Powell has now said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Tillis suggested Pirro blindsided the White House with her investigation. “They should have consulted with the White House, because I’m sure if they would have, (the White House) would have said, ‘no, we can wait,’” until Powell steps down.

But Kevin Hassett, the Trump administration’s top economist, said Wednesday that the Justice Department got involved because “the president wanted to investigate the cost overrun,” Axios reported.

The Banking panel said Tuesday that it will hold a hearing on Warsh’s nomination April 21. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends May 15, but Powell said last month he would remain as chair until a replacement is named.

Powell is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Chairs typically leave the board when their terms as chair end, but they can remain on the board if they choose. Powell has said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. If he remains it would deny Trump the opportunity to appoint someone else to the seven-member board.

Late Tuesday Tillis posted a link on social media to The Wall Street Journal’s article on the visit below an image of the Three Stooges and wrote, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. at the crime scene.”

Investigation centers on building renovations

The investigation centers on an appearance by Powell before the Banking Committee last June, when he was asked about cost overruns on the renovations. The most recent estimates from the Fed suggest the current estimated cost of $2.5 billion is about $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion.

“It is probably corrupt, but what it really is, is incompetent,” Trump said. “Don’t you think we have to find out what happened there?”

The president’s support for the investigation threatens a timeframe set out by Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Banking Committee. Scott said Tuesday on Fox Business that he believed the investigation would be “wrapped up in the next few weeks,” allowing Warsh to be confirmed soon after.

Threat to fire Powell

News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve Chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month.

“Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said.

Trump has for months wanted to remove Powell, saying he has been too slow in orchestrating interest rate cuts that would give the U.S. economy a quick boost. Powell has said the investigation is a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence to set rates.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said Trump can only fire Powell “for cause,” meaning some kind of misconduct, “so that’s a pretty tall order.”

Supreme Court weighing another Trump removal

Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time.

The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy.

The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiouslycalling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”

___

AP Writers Seung Min Kim, Mark Sherman, Paul Wiseman, Alanna Durkin Richer, and video journalist Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The Latest: US blockade of Iranian ports ‘fully implemented’ as Trump says war is near end

Published

on

The Latest: US blockade of Iranian ports ‘fully implemented’ as Trump says war is near end

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending