US Trump, children cannot arbitrate marketing scam case -U.S. appeals court
Rep. Tlaib, Detroit officials demand action after 'fake landlord' scam exposed
An investigation found that a "fake landlord" home rental scam in Detroit affects as many as 1 in 10 tenants facing eviction. Public officials are calling for changes.A four-month investigation by NBC News and Outlier Media found that the scam — in which con artists rent or sell homes they don’t own — affects as many as 1 in 10 Detroit tenants facing eviction. But culprits rarely face consequences, in part because they often use fake names and IDs and because many victims don’t alert police, authorities say.
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A federal appeals court said former U.S. President Donald Trump and his adult children cannot move into arbitration a fraud lawsuit accusing them of exploiting their family name to promote a marketing scam targeting the poor and working class.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the plaintiffs' agreements to arbitrate claims against the multi-level marketing company American Communications Network did not extend to the Trumps, who had not signed those agreements.
Lawyers for the Trump family did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday's 3-0 decision.
Justices' views on abortion in their own words and votes
WASHINGTON (AP) — When the Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday over whether Mississippi can ban abortions after 15 weeks, the justices will be focused on an issue that has dominated the term. Not only is there Mississippi’s call to overrule Roe v. Wade, but justices are already considering a Texas law banning abortion at roughly six weeks and written to make it difficult to mount legal challenges against it. The justices won't be writing onThe justices won't be writing on a blank slate as they consider the future of abortion rights in the U.S. They have had a lot to say about abortion over the years — in opinions, votes, Senate confirmation testimony and elsewhere.
Four plaintiffs in the proposed class action accused Trump, his children Donald Jr., Eric and Ivanka, and an affiliate of the Trump Organization of promoting ACN in exchange for millions of dollars in secret payments from 2005 to 2015.
The plaintiffs said Donald's Trump's endorsement, including on episodes of his TV show "The Celebrity Apprentice," conned them into thinking their investments would pay off.
ACN would charge $499 to clients to sell videophones and other goods, the plaintiffs alleged.
In Wednesday's decision, Circuit Judge Robert Sack said the lack of a "close relationship" between ACN and the Trumps meant the plaintiffs had no reason to believe they agreed to arbitrate with the Trumps.
He also said "there is no unfairness" in requiring the Trumps to litigate over alleged wrongful business practices, given the plaintiffs' claim they were defrauded into thinking Donald Trump told the truth by endorsing ACN.
January 6 Trump documents case: Takeaways from the appeals court hearing
An appeals court hearing Tuesday on former President Donald Trump's claim to keep January 6 documents from his presidency private showed that Trump faces an uphill battle to keep the documents out of the hands of House investigators. © TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP/AFP via Getty Images TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump salutes the crowd after the swearing-in ceremony as 45th President of the USA in front of the Capitol in Washington on January 20, 2017. / AFP / Timothy A. CLARY (Photo credit should read TIMOTHY A.
The Trumps claimed they had no control over ACN, that Trump's endorsement was simply his opinion and that the civil lawsuit - one of many they face - was politically motivated.
Some defendants prefer arbitration to litigation because arbitration can cost less and remain confidential, and obtaining evidence can be more difficult.
Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said her clients were pleased, and looked forward to gathering more evidence and beginning depositions.
The decision upheld an April 2020 ruling by U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in Manhattan.
The case is Doe et al v Trump Corp et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nos. 20-1228, 20-1278.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; editing by Diane Craft)
Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. Will that matter? .
As much as some of the justices might wish they were writing on a blank slate, they cannot pretend they haven't dealt with Roe in numerous cases over the years. Equally important, several of the justices have at various times laid out the factors they weigh when voting to overturn precedent. How the court grapples with that question could illuminate the way forward for the court and its aggressive right flank as it grapples with other divisive topics in the future. Stare decisis In legalese, the doctrine the justices will consider on Wednesday is called stare decisis.