Circuit Appellate district ct

---

ODD NOT MUCH HERE 4 24?

see district appeal ct// BAK?

see courts. scotus

see rule of law concept

SEE PRESS SUPPRESS DEFAM

5th texas alito conservative

~ TRUMP NAT GD MART LAW, GERRY UTAH

SEE MASS DEPORT MARTIAL LAW

bak 3 26

i think district fed ct a level bellow appellate circuit

-=-=

AN 8 26

-=-=

AN 8 26

President Donald Trump's lawyers filed an appeal on Wednesday alleging that they are the victims of a judge's abuse after they were sanctioned in court and the president was slapped with a gag order.

After losing a case last month, Trump's lawyers are now asking that sanctions against them and the Trump gag order be paused pending their appeal, Law&Crime reported.

At issue is Trump's "agreement" between the Justice Department and the IRS to create a nearly $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" for anyone who felt they were wronged by previous administrations. Already, there are dozens of Jan. 6 attackers demanding millions in financial compensation despite being found guilty or pleading guilty.

Trump sued the IRS in the Southern District of Florida after his taxes, along with those of over 400,000 others, were exposed in a data breach. In his January filing, Trump demanded a $10 billion payout for damages from the IRS. Trump then claimed he had reached a "settlement" with the U.S. government, which he runs.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams didn't buy it. In her July ruling over the matter, she not only said that there can be no "settlement," but she also issued sanctions for the lawyers involved in the case.

Finding that “sanctions are appropriate here,” Williams said Trump’s personal attorney Alejandro Brito will be referred to the Florida Bar for “its consideration, review, and determination as to whether any disciplinary action is appropriate in light of the findings and rulings made in this order.”

Williams also banned another Trump lawyer, Daniel Epstein, from seeking admission to practice law in the Southern District of Florida for one year.

Further, she attacked acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche’s “apparent capacity to speak for both plaintiffs and defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case.”

Additionally, Williams restricted Trump, the government, their lawyers and certain related individuals from discussing or using the settlement agreement.

On Wednesday, those lawyers filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that the judge lacked the authority to issue sanctions.

"This appeal arises from the district court’s extraordinary abuse of its sanctions power. In this action, Plaintiffs President Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and The Trump Organization, LLC sued the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury, pursuant to a congressionally-authorized remedy, over the undeniably unauthorized and illegal disclosure of their confidential tax-return information to the press," the filing said. "After reaching a settlement with the IRS and Treasury, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action, which the court so-ordered."

The lawyers alleged that the judge had no "proof of collusion and bad faith," while punishing them with a "sweeping, unconstitutional, and unlawful gag order" that targets the president himself.

"The injunction categorically forbids Movants from even 'referring to' the Settlement Agreement, and separately bars any use of its provisions in official proceedings," the brief continues. "That gag order wrongly silences the sitting President, the Government, private parties, and counsel on a matter of obvious public concern at a politically consequential moment — and denies the public the right to hear their views."

The filing says that any gag order against the president is "unconstitutional," meanwhile, any penalties against them could damage their careers.

The lawyers further claim that the judge wrongly believes that because Trump runs the government, he can't sue it. In this capacity, he was suing as a private person.

The brief said her sanctions "flowed from a single predicate legal error: that presidential supervision under Article II supposedly eliminated Article III adversity."

In fact, Williams' issue is not with the suit itself; it's that Trump controls whether or not to settle with himself.

IRS employees have sued over the Trump fund, saying that the agreement has a hidden legal trap.

-=-=-=

-=-=-=

AN 7 26

Judge drops hammer on Trump admin: ‘You’re violating my order!’

//

President Donald Trump has lost again at another appeals court over the mass detention policy he's pushed out over the past year.

MS NOW producer Kyle Cheney reported that the 9th Circuit rejected U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) detention policy. It's the fifth straight loss at an appellate court. Cheney remarked that the district is the crucial one that covers California, Arizona, Nevada and Washington.

Politico reported Thursday that the decision is "the most significant rejection yet." Lower courts will now be bound by the ruling in states where there are thousands of detainees.

The ruling came down 2-1, and the court decided that he misconstrued immigration laws from decades ago that set the rules for the modern deportation system.

“The government’s change in policy has resulted in detained aliens filing thousands of habeas petitions in federal courts across the country, seeking bond hearings and possible release from detention,” wrote Trump appointee Judge Daniel Bress in the majority decision. “The implication of the government’s position is that Congress in 1996 made a major change to the immigration laws by subjecting millions of unadmitted aliens present in the United States to mandatory detention, but that this change then went unnoticed and unheeded, with the Executive Branch for the next three decades … We accordingly do not think that Congress in 1996 made such a large-scale change to our established system of immigration detention in the way that the government now contends.”

Anyone who has been in the U.S. for years and has established families can now only be detained after a bond hearing, which requires convincing an immigration judge that they can live safely in their own communities while the process unfolds.

Of the five courts that have ruled this way so far, Politico cited, are the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit, the New York-based 2nd Circuit, the Colorado-based 10th Circuit and the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit, explained the report. Only two courts, the 5th and the 8th Circuit, have ruled in Trump's favor. There are court battles in four other circuits forthcoming.

Meanwhile, there have been a whopping 460 federal judges who have ruled against the administration on more than 10,000 cases involving the detention policies. This compares with 54 judges who have supported the ruling in about 1,100 cases, calculated Politico.

Trump's mandatory detention policy has faced unprecedented judicial resistance across the federal court system. Federal judges have overwhelmingly rejected the administration's interpretation of 1996 immigration law, with 460 judges ruling against the policy in more than 10,000 cases compared to only 54 judges supporting it in about 1,100 cases. The 9th Circuit ruling is particularly significant because it covers California, Arizona, Nevada, and Washington—regions with substantial immigrant populations.

The decision marks Trump's fifth consecutive loss at the appellate level. Only two circuits, the 5th and 8th, have sided with the administration. Legal experts argue Trump misread congressional intent, claiming Congress never intended to mandate detention for all undocumented immigrants regardless of ties to U.S. communities, creating a constitutional conflict between executive power and due process rights.

-=-=-=

---

5 26

[### Federal judge blocks US sanctions against UN rapporteur ...

Al Jazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com › ... › Israel-Palestine conflict](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/14/federal-judge-blocks-us-sanctions-against-un-rapporteur-francesca-albanese)

11 hours ago — UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese was sanctioned in July 2025 after she publicly criticised Washington's policy on ...Read more

AI Overview

+4

A U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked sanctions imposed by the Trump administration on UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who was penalized for accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza. Sanctioned in July 2025 by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the measures aimed to freeze her assets and ban her from the U.S. due to her reports on Gaza, which also implicated U.S. companies.

Al Jazeera +3

Key Details on the Sanctions and Legal Challenge

• The Sanctions (July 2025): The U.S. imposed sanctions on Albanese under Executive Order 14203, citing her advocacy for International Criminal Court (ICC) action against Israeli and U.S. officials.

Human Rights Watch +1

• Court Action (May 2026): A U.S. federal judge temporarily blocked these sanctions, finding that the administration likely violated her free speech rights, The Guardian reports.

The Guardian

• Controversy: The sanctions sparked outcry from Human Rights Watch, which accused the U.S. of attempting to silence a UN expert for doing her job. Other reports indicate this is a "defining moment" for whether the UN defends its own mandates against political pressure, Middle East Monitor notes.

Human Rights Watch +1

• Context: Albanese, an Italian lawyer, has served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 1 May 2022.

---

an 5 26

President Donald Trump lost his appealof a personal lawsuit he launched against former Secretary Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, the Democratic National Committee, the law firm Perkins Coie, LLC and others he blames for the Russia investigation.

Politico's Kyle Cheney reported on Tuesday that the 11th Circuit declined to rehear Trump's case, leaving his only option an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump and lawyer Alina Habba in 2023 were sanctioned $1 million for the "frivolous" lawsuit. Florida has rules that allow defendants to ask that a court decide whether a lawsuit is "bogus," the Associated Press reported.

At the time, U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in the ruling that Trump has a "pattern of abuse of the courts" for filing such lawsuits specifically for political purposes. He said that the move "undermines the rule of law" and "amounts to obstruction of justice."

"Here, we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed, which was completely frivolous, both factually and legally and which was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose," he wrote.

Chief Judge William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee, along with Trump appointee Judge Andrew L. Brasher and Joe Biden appointee Judge Embry Kidd, denied Trump's demand to rehear the case.

They added the detail, "... no judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc," which means none of the judges had any interest in weighing in on rehearing the matter. On the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, six of the 12 judges were appointed by Trump.

Lawyer Marc Elias commented on BlueSky, "I was a defendant in Trump’s frivolous lawsuit. I did not settle. I did not compromise. I did not stop speaking out. We fought and won."

---

---

5 26 an

A district judge on Monday "put the brakes" on President Donald Trump's effort to take over a Washington D.C., public golf course, giving the most stern warning yet of "serious consequences" if the administration refuses to comply.

Trump's broader obsession with remaking the nation's capital in his own image has crossed over with his golf obsession, as his administration has been attempting a federal takeover of the East Potomac Golf Course, a "popular public course," according to WUSA9 News, raising major alarms about a rumored "championship-style" makeover that local golfers fear would make the course too expensive for the working class.

On Monday, the National Links Trust, "a nonprofit that operates all three of D.C.'s public golf courses," expressed "shock" after word came that East Potomac would be shuttered ahead of the rumored changes." On Sunday, the D.C. Preservation League, a watchdog-style group, filed an emergency motion to halt the Trump administration from conducting any major work on the course aside from routine maintenance, which District Judge Ana Reyes granted in an emergency hearing the following morning.

According to WUSA9, Reyes "ordered the National Park Service to get court approval before cutting down more than 10 trees on the course," and further threatened "serious consequences" should her order be flouted in the administration's typical style.

“Given some issues around the District recently, I would have a particular concern that things not happen — that we not have a person ask forgiveness later. That’s not going to be acceptable,” Reyes said.

Speaking with the New York Times about the planned redesign of East Potomac, local golfers expressed sadness over the potential loss of a much-needed affordable option in an area that already has plenty of high-end options.

“It’ll be a real loss for a lot of people in the city,” Bryan King, a 68-year-old Virginia mural painter, told the outlet in a report published in February.

“There’s plenty of very expensive country clubs in this area already. This has always been kind of, like, the people’s course,” his son, Eamon King, added.

---

an 4 26

President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch and others has been thrown out of court.

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles in Florida, an appointee from President Barack Obama, ruled that “Because President Trump has not plausibly alleged that defendants published the article with actual malice, both Counts must be dismissed."

The judge also said that Trump could file a new amended lawsuit if he wishes, but he only has until April 27 to do so.

Last year, the WSJ reported that there was a book celebrating trafficking Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. In the book, Trump submitted a little skit of a conversation about "secrets" the two shared. It was within a drawing of a woman. Trump alleged it was false, but the page was revealed showing that the drawing did exist.

As an appellate lawyer, Gabriel Malor said, "Trump can replead."

Economist Teresa Fort commented, "There needs to be some penalty for bringing lawsuits that will be dismissed like this. There is a huge cost for defendants to deal with them."

A few people suggested that theWSJ sue Trump.

"Since most everything Trump does is illegal or a lie, fighting back pays off. He banks on the fact that his victims can’t afford to do so. Those who can, win," said Michael Curry.

"Stupid defamation lawsuits are a real threat to free speech. The story was true. It was well documented. And the President still managed to make a newspaper pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to report it," wrote lawyer Andrew Fleischman.

He explained that the WSJ was denied legal fees because Trump could still amend his complaint and suit.

"I am still surprised they did not raise the failure to give five days notice before suing, which has been successful in Florida federal district courts," said Fleischman.

He also recalled, "Republicans used to be all about tort reform. But many lack the stomach to support a federal anti-SLAPP to deter these stupid lawsuits until our litigant in chief shuffles off this mortal coil."

"In dismissing (without prejudice) Trump’s lawsuit vs WSJ over that Epstein birthday card, the judge shows why a reporter — asking someone for comment and quoting their response fully — is a smart legal, as well as ethical, thing to do," explained journalist Bill Grueskin.

"Yeah, tough to prove actual malice over a newspaper printing a real document you signed," quipped reporter David Weigel. "And lied about," added lawyer Scott Greenfield.

---

---

SAME DAY 4 1 26

Yesterday, U.S. district judge Richard Leon blocked Trump from proceeding with construction of his $400 million ballroom on the site of the White House’s demolished East Wing. This has halted, at least for now, one of Trump’s most visible efforts to reshape the symbolic center of the federal government’s executive branch.

In a 35-page opinion, Judge Leon — an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush — wrote that Trump likely did not have the authority to make changes to the White House that could endure for generations, without consulting Congress.

This marks, by my calculation, the 89th time since the start of Trump’s second term that a federal judge has ruled that he cannot simply do whatever he wants; his actions must be authorized by Congress.

Focus for a moment on the word authorized.It’s from the Latin auctoritas and auctor — to originate, the originator.

In our system of government, a president is notthe originator of power. Power comes from the people. And among the three branches of government, the people are most clearly represented by Congress. This was the founders’ design in the Constitution, which is why the very first article enumerates Congress’s powers.

The decision by Judge Leon puts the ballroom project on hold while the lawsuit continues. When a federal judge grants a preliminary injunction, it means that the judge views it likely that plaintiffs (in this case, the National Trust for Historic Preservation) will prevail on the merits of the case, and that allowing whatever is going on to continue (in this case, construction of Trump’s enormous 90,000-square-foot ballroom) will cause the plaintiffs irreparable harm.

In December, the National Trust sued Trump after he razed the East Wing (originally constructed in 1902 and expanded during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency) to make way for what Trump says will be the “finest” ballroom in the country.

As designed, that ballroom is larger than the Executive Residence and the West Wing combined. If constructed, it would be the dominant edifice of the White House — symbolically shifting its focus from where the president works and lives to where a president might lavishly entertain, as in a king’s throne room.

Trump has repeatedly emphasized that his ballroom is funded entirely by private donors, so its cost won’t be borne by taxpayers and it doesn’t need a congressional appropriation. He says he’s raised more than $350 million from personal backers and around two dozen tech, cryptocurrency, and defense corporations to fund the structure without government support.

Translated: He’s extorted $350 million from monied interests eager to suck up to him.

But Judge Leon insists this doesn’t give Trump authorityto destroy part of the White House and erect a giant ballroom in its place: “No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have.”

Judge Leon adds: “The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!” [exclamation included]

The idea that Trump is the steward of anythingfor future generations rather than an owner must seem odd to Trump. I doubt that the former real-estate developer has ever once thought of the presidency as a stewardship.

Which is why the notion that he’s not authorizedto do whatever he wants — raze the White House for a grand ballroom, deploy ICE and Border Patrol agents to terrorize immigrants and murder Americans trying to protect them, attack Iran — is inconceivable to him.

In his first public reaction to the court order, Trump called the National Trust “a Radical Left Group of Lunatics” that’s suing him for a “ballroom that is under budget, ahead of schedule, being built at no cost to the Taxpayer, and will be the finest Building of its kind anywhere in the World.”

To real-estate developer Trump, all that matters is being under budget, ahead of schedule, and at no cost to taxpayers. Even if he demolishes the entire White House and erects a Trump Tower in its place. Even if he extorts every CEO in America to pay for it. Even if he erects a giant arch across the Potomac with his name emblazoned on it.

But the peoplehave not authorized him to do any of this. Which means — as long as we have an independent federal judiciary, and any hope for a Congress that will stand up to him — he cannot.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.*

---

AN 4 26

With its controversial 6-3 ruling in Trump v. the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court's GOP-appointed hard-right supermajority ruled that U.S presidents enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for "official" acts in office but not for "unofficial" acts. Donald Trump applauded the ruling. But on Tuesday, March 31, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta — applying that standard — ruled that Trump's speech at a January 6, 2021 rally in Washington, D.C. was political in nature and therefore, is not protected from civil lawsuits related to the attack on the U.S. Capitol Building.

According to Politico journalists Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney, Mehta "delivered a serious setback" to Trump "in long-running civil lawsuits seeking to hold him liable for the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021."

Mehta, they note, "ruled that evidence produced so far in the litigation brought by police officers and Democratic lawmakers indicated that Trump's speech at the Ellipse that day was political in nature and not subject to the immunity the Supreme Court has found for a president's official acts."

Gerstein, in a March 31 post on X, former Twitter, noted that Mehta's "ruling could lead to a trial but appeal could lead to year-plus more delay."

Attorney Joseph Sellers, who is representing the Democratic lawmakers suing Trump in civil court, is applauding Mehta's ruling.

Sellers told Politico, "We're very pleased that the court recognized that President Trump cannot avoid accountability for his conduct on January 6, 2021. This decision, if it holds up, is going to pave the way to a trial in federal district court on these claims."}:

---

---

AN 3 26

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston, Jr. decided he’d had enough of one former Trump official’s libel suit against an ex-aide and stomped his suit into the ground for good.

It was former Kennedy Center chief Richard Grenell second go-around in trying to sue ex-Mike Pence aide Olivia Troye over her claim that Grenell, while a former Acting Director of National Intelligence and a former United States Ambassador, had tried to arrange for former vice president Pence “to attend a white supremacist event while he was on an overseas trip.”

Troye further claimed Grenell “hung out with Nazis during his time serving as the Ambassador to Germany.”

Grenell claimed personal and economic damages in his libel suit, but judge Alston pointed out that Troye’s accusation of Nazi connections did nothing to hinder his career after President Donald Trump entered office.

“Plaintiff acknowledges that, since these remarks were posted, he has: (received private equity opportunities overseas, been named the Presidential Envoy for Special Missions, been named the Interim Director of the Kennedy Center, and joined the Board of Directors at [Fox News’] Live Nation,” Alston pointed out.

Acknowledging this, the judge dismissed the suit “with prejudice,” which effectively cans any further attempt by Grenell to sue Troye over the same accusations.

Troye, for her part, has never retracted her claim of Grenell’s Nazi connections.

Left Hook host, Wjahat Ali called Grenell’s suit “frivolous ... lawfare” on Wednesday and said Grenell had obviously been inspired by his boss Donald Trump to intimidate all opposition with expensive court cases.

“Instead of bending the knee like corporate law firms and media outlets, Troye decided to fight her case — and she won!” said Ali.

“It's just really a way to make an example of an individual and say, if any of you other people speak out, this is coming your way,” Troye added on Ali’s show.

Troye said she caught similar intimidation from the administration when she criticized the appointment and subsequent confirmation of FBI director Kash Patel, who Troye openly complained was unfit for the job.

“Every time I went out and criticized Kash Patel and said he was unfit to become the FBI director, I got a letter, and … MS NOW got a letter threatening to sue them and me over the fact that I was merely saying what other people who have directly worked with Kash Patel were saying as well,” said Troye. “Yeah. It didn't stop me. I showed up at his confirmation hearing because I was, like, ‘all right, you're going to threaten me. I'm going to show up with a former judge and former FBI director.’ And we sat through that hearing together so that I could stare. Republican senators in the face and in the eyes and say, ‘you know exactly what this individual is.’

---

rare loss? an 3 26

U.S. District Court Judge J. P. Boulee, who is overseeing the Fulton County, Georgia, ballot case, has quashed the subpoena for FBI Agent Hugh Raymond Evans, who provided the one affidavit used to support the search warrant to seize the ballots from the 2020 election, reported Lawfare legal analyst Anna Bower.

It's a huge hit before the Friday evidentiary hearing over the raid on the elections office.

Fulton County officials believe that Evans deliberately misled the judge in the case by promoting 2020 election conspiracy theories from one of President Donald Trump's own allies to get the warrant for the ballots.

Boulee was appointed by the first Trump administration.

“In searching for evidence of a crime in Fulton County, President Trump has, in some sense, returned to the scene of his own…Now Trump is using the power of the federal government to seize the very ballots cast by voters whose will he once sought to subvert," Bower wrote in her piece, walking through the specifics of the case ahead of the hearing.

Marc Elias' Democracy Docket explained that the Justice Department has already made one mistake in revealing information about the probe when it unsealed the affidavit.

"Following the raid, the DOJ also initially told Fulton County officials that it wouldn’t oppose Evans testifying about the affidavit," the report explained. "Thomas Albus, a Missouri-based U.S. attorney overseeing the DOJ’s probe into the 2020 vote in Georgia, said in February that he couldn’t imagine Evan’s testimony 'will be an issue.'"

The DOJ then made a huge pivot three days later.

---

AN 3 26 ~ DHS DACA

In 1998, Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez was 15 when she arrived in the United States from Mexico — and 15 years later, in 2013, she was granted protection under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). But during U.S. President Donald Trump's second term, Estrada (who had been living in Sacramento, California) was deported back to Mexico.

Now, a federal judge appointed by former President Joe Biden is ordering the Trump Administration to bring her back to the U.S. and is highly critical of the way the deportation was handled by the Trump-era U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Politico's Kyle Cheney, in an article published on March 24, reports, "On February 18, Estrada — with her daughter in tow — attended a hearing as part of the process to attain lawful permanent residency. There, federal immigration officers denied her application, informed her that she was the subject of a decades-old removal order and detained her. She was deported to Mexico the next morning, despite protesting that her DACA status remained active."

But U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins, in an order issued on Monday, March 23, attacked the deportation as a "flagrant violation" of DACA and the due process Estrada enjoys under the U.S. Constitution.

According to Cheney, "Coggins, a [Joe] Biden appointee, directed the administration to facilitate Estrada's return by March 30. The Justice Department argued that the judge had no power to intervene in the dispute, saying Estrada was subject to a valid deportation order and that her DACA status merely deprioritized her deportation rather than eliminated the threat of it altogether. But Coggins said the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling preserving DACA underscored that DACA was not simply a matter of executive discretion, but rather, 'a program for conferring affirmative relief.'"

Cheney continues, "Coggins said her power also extended to demanding the return of someone illegally deported, which courts have blessed under 'extreme circumstances.'"

Estrada's daughter, now 22, is a U.S. citizen.

Coggins, in her ruling, wrote, "It is difficult to argue that Petitioner's removal constitutes anything less than an 'extreme circumstance.' Less than 24 hours after Petitioner's good faith appearance to pursue lawful permanent resident status in this country — she was removed to a nation where she had not lived in over 27 years pursuant to an order purportedly entered against her when she was fifteen years old."

---

an 3 26

Law and Crime reports a federal court of appeals upheld a series of lower court orders barring the Trump administration from enforcing a "sweeping and unprecedented categorical" spending "freeze.”

In one 58-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit took a group of "consolidated appeals" of several different orders and mostly rejected the White House’s argument in favor of continuing the freeze. Judges found the Trump administration’s arguments unconvincing in one case and utterly ignored the administration’s argument in another.

“In one order from March 2025, the lower court extended a pause on the spending freeze – enjoining myriad federal agencies from slashing funds and directing them to pay out ‘awarded grants, executed contracts, or other executed financial obligations,’” reports Law and Crime.

In an additional two orders from April 2025, the lower court enforced the preliminary injunction against the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and then denied a reconsideration and stay requested by the Trump administration.

With this slate of decisions, the appellate court has joined a legion of courts dismantling President’s Donald Trump’s executive orders and policies, and it further complicates Trump’s effort to starve certain nonprofits and research.

One of the lawsuits against Trump, led by New York Attorney General Letitia James, alleged the spending freeze violated several tenets of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), federal laws and the U.S. Constitution, which mandates the distribution of congressionally-appropriated funds.

James, who has won a landmark case against Trump for fraud, welcomed the 1st Circuit's opinion.

"This decision is a clear reminder that the president cannot treat congressionally-approved funding like a switch he can flip on and off," James said. “For more than a year, the Trump administration has repeatedly tried to freeze critical funding that states rely on to serve their communities, and once again the courts have rejected that unlawful power grab."

---

---

AN 3 26

When President Donald Trump and his allies targeted pro-Palestinian activists for deportation, civil libertarians were quick to sound the alarm. Trump, they stressed, had every right to criticize their views, but targeting them for deportation because of those views was anti-First Amendment.

Now, a federal judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Judge William G. Young, is taking the Trump administration to task.

In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, March 11, Young ruled that targeting pro-Palestinian activists for deportation because of their views "was unconstitutional, abhorrent to a society that cherishes free speech."

Young wrote, "As this Court recognizes, the entire theory of this administration is that of a unitary executive with no agency independence where every single employee within the Article II executive dances to the tune of the President…. This conduct must never happen again."

President Reagan first nominated Young, now 85, for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in September 1984 during his reelection campaign. Reagan enjoyed a landslide victory that year, winning 525 electoral votes and defeating Democratic nominee Walter Mondale by 18 percent in the national popular vote. And Young was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in April 1985 a few months into Reagan's second term.

---

duck ai 3 26

The case "Dinner Table Action v. Schneider" involves a challenge to a 2024 Maine law that imposed a $5,000 cap on contributions to super PACs, which was permanently enjoined by a U.S. District Court in 2025. The case is now on appeal to the First Circuit, with amicus briefs filed by organizations like the Brennan Center and Campaign Legal Center arguing for the constitutionality of the law to prevent corruption.

---

AN 2 26

In recent months, President Donald Trump's administration has tried to bypass parts of the law to nab those it believes are in the United States illegally. In some cases, they have used "administrative warrants," which are not the same as judicial warrants, which require a judge's sign-off. However, in one recent case, they didn't even try that.

That strategy is coming back to bite them as a Trump-appointed federal judge in Indiana demanded that Immigration and Customs Enforcement immediately release a Brazilian man he said was "unlawfully detained in violation of the laws or Constitution of the United States."

Law&Crime reported Wednesdaythat U.S. District Judge Damon R. Leichty ordered the release of Robert Mendes Barbosa, saying that the "detention is unlawful under the applicable statutory scheme." The statute he's referring to is federal law.

"It seems no warrant was issued here," the judge wrote. "Mr. Mendes Barbosa is unaware of an arrest warrant. The respondents usually will tell the court when there has been a warrant, but here they do not argue there was one and they do not produce one."

The judge explained that Mendes Barbosa was given a notice to appear in immigration court, but that was very different than an arrest warrant.

"Warrantless arrests are permitted by statute only when certain conditions are met, such as when an ICE official personally witnesses a noncitizen attempting to enter the United States, or when an official has reason to believe a noncitizen has no right to be in the United States and is 'likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained,'" the judge said, citing the law.

The report stated that Mendes Barbosa came into the U.S. in 2024 near San Diego, was detained and then "released on his own recognizance." In Jan. 2026, he was then snatched by ICE agents in Boston and taken to a detention facility in Miami.

"He argues that his detention violates applicable statutes, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedures Act," the order said. "He seeks immediate release from custody or alternatively an individualized bond hearing."

The report noted that in July 2025, ICE invented a new policy, in which all agents were to deny bond to anyone who entered the U.S. without an "inspection." As Law&Crime characterized, it "opened the floodgates of litigation."

Those individuals are not to be detained "for the duration of their removal proceedings" unless a judge steps in. "The Trump administration has made clear such detentions are intended to be indefinite," the report said.

"Mr. Mendes Barbosa has met his burden of showing a 'deprivation of rights leading to unlawful detention,'" the judge wrote.

---

---

AN 2 26

*This is a developing story and may be updated.

Ongoing legal fights over President Donald Trump’s attempt to send hundreds of Oregon, California and Texas National Guard troops to Portland last fall over the objections of residents and state and local leaders will come to an end.

Mary Helen Murguia, chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, agreed Tuesday to let the federal government drop its appeal of a November decision from a lower court judge that barred the attempted Guard deployment.

Judge Karin Immergut, of the U.S. District Court in Portland and a Trump appointee, sided with Oregon and the city of Portland in their case against Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Her November order barring guard deployment to the city stays in effect.

Immergut found Trump’s justification for the attempted deployment — that protests outside of a Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility since June constituted a “rebellion” against the federal government and significantly impeded its functions — was unfounded. She further found that the attempt to deploy guard troops violated the federal code and the U.S. Constitution.

Federal lawyers immediately appealed Immergut’s decision. But in late January, they reversed course, asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a single sentence to permit them to drop the case.

Lawyers for Oregon, the city of Portland and California — which joined Oregon’s lawsuit against Trump — agreed not to challenge the request for dismissal as long as the appeals court judges ensured Immergut’s decision would stand and the federal government would be required to comply with it.

“This is a win for Oregon, and it shows that no one is above the law. The federal government didn’t have a case — facts mattered. Our communities won’t be treated as a testing ground for unchecked federal power,” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said in a statement. “Judge Immergut’s injunction stands, and we’ll keep defending Oregon’s laws, our values, and the safety of our cities — and if the government tries to overstep, we won’t hesitate to go back to court.”

Willamette University professor Norman Williams, a constitutional law expert, echoed Rayfield, similarly calling it a “win for the state.” And not an unexpected win. The “handwriting was on the wall,” Williams said, when the U.S. Supreme Court in December ruled against Trump in his attempt to send National Guard troops to Illinois.

The Portland ICE facility at the heart of the case is now the subject of two court cases brought against federal officers by nearby residents and the Oregon chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, on behalf of protesters and journalists, who claim ICE and federal officers have used excessive force and tear gas against them.

A judge recently temporarily barred the officers from deploying less-lethal munitions and chemicals at protesters unless the agents are in “imminent threat of physical harm.” The ruling came after agents used excessive force and heavily gassed crowds of nonviolent protesters that included children and seniors.

{2:53 pm Updated with comment from Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield.}:

---

---

AN 2 26

Judge shuts down Trump's attempt to defund blue states

Adam Lynch

The New York Times reports a federal judge in Illinois blocked the Trump administration’s plot to snatch $600 million in public health funds from four states led by Democrats.

“Judge Manish S. Shah of the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois wrote in a two-page order that the plaintiff states — California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota — had provided enough evidence that the cuts were ‘based on arbitrary, capricious or unconstitutional rationales’ to halt what would have been deep cuts in federal public health funding that had already been allocated while legal arguments continue in the case,” reports the Times.

Some of the $600 million in grants was intended to help specific populations, often communities of color or gay and bisexual men, which scratches against the Trump administration’s campaign against federal funding for underprivileged racial and socioeconomic groups.

This order, said the Times, is the latest ruling squashing President Donald Trump’s broader effort to impose politically motivated federal cuts to Democratic-led states. Just last week, another federal judge extended an unrelated order blocking the Trump administration from withholding $10 billion in child care and social services funding in the same four states, as well as New York — despite New York paying, on average, $20 billion more in taxes to the federal government than it gets back in federal spending.

The Times reports a court also blocked Trump’s plan to suspend funding of food stamps and other hunger relief programs in Minnesota.

Judge Shah did not specify the $600 million in grants in his decision, but applied his ruling broadly to block the Trump administration from terminating all public health grants “based on undisclosed agency priorities.”

While judges are heartily attacking Trump’s attempts to defund blue targets others are dismantling Trump’s other endeavors. On Thursday, GOP-appointed Judge Richard Leon issued a scathing ruling in Sen. Mark Kelly's (D-Ariz.) lawsuit against the Pentagon, which sought to demote him for appearing in a video reminding soldiers that they do not have to carry out unconstitutional orders.

A Manhattan federal judge, meanwhile, put an end to Trump’s attempted extortion of New York and New Jersey residents by ordering the administration to “unfreeze funding for a sprawling project paving the way for work to resume on a new set of Hudson River tunnels.”

---

---

AN 2 26

President Donald Trump is still fighting his 34 felony convictions in New York, one legal analyst wrote on Wednesday, but they're not likely to succeed.

In his "All Rise News," long-time legal reporter Adam Klasfeld wrote that after nearly three hours of arguments, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein — an appointee of former President Bill Clinton — was over it.

“I think we are beating a dead horse,” he said.

A jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to hide his hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign.

The Trump team has argued that some of the "evidence" should have been suppressed due to executive privilege and that the case should be removed from New York state court and tried in the federal court. It was an argument that he made during the initial stages of the case to no avail, as he was not president in 2016 when the crimes took place.

Klasfeld explained that if the judge agreed it would hand Trump a victor in his ongoing "crusade to discredit his criminal prosecution."

The problem, however, Klasfeld pointed out, is that very little would change if the case was moved to federal court. The only meaningful difference would be that Trump's appeal could move faster, zooming its way to the Supreme Court. The guilty verdicts on the 34 counts would be entered into federal court. The one major difference, however, is that a president can't pardon state court convictions only federal ones.

While Trump was found guilty, he received no fine or jail time because he was elected to the presidency. New York state Judge Juan Merchan said at the time that the only lawful sentence available to him was one that didn't step on the office of the president was an "unconditional discharge" on all counts.

Trump has tried to appeal the case, but in the second denial by the appeals court, the judges sent it back to Hellerstein's court saying that the judge should explain why the Supreme Court's finding that Trump gets immunity as the president doesn't automatically send the case to federal court.

Klasfeld reported that Hellerstein told lawyers that Trump waived his rights to move the case to federal court by agreeing to "litigate the fallout of the Supreme Court's immunity’s decision in state court."

“That’s a strategic decision,” the judge said.

Trump's lawyer, Jeff Wall, said “any sensible litigant” would try the same, relayed New York Daily News reporter Molly Crane-Newman on BlueSky.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied. “Not so.”

"With an adverse state court ruling imminent, Trump filed his second removal request nearly 60 days later — after the statutory 30-day clock expired. Hellerstein said that Trump’s lawyers were seeking a 'second bite of the apple' after losing in New York, which the removal statute doesn’t allow," Klasfeld relayed.

Trump's lawyers tired to claim that they only did that out of respect to Judge Juan Merchan, but Hellerstein wasn't buying it.

“Whether Judge Merchan would have been pleased or displeased is totally irrelevant,” he said. The decision to litigate in state court was "fatal" to their immunity case in state court, the judge added.

As a convicted felony, Trump would have some challenges, the Law Dictionary outlines. In Virginia he wouldn't be able to vote, but as a non-violent offender Trump's voting rights remain in tact in Florida. Many countries don't allow felons to travel to their country. Canada, for example would require a background check and could still deny a felon entrance. Some states bar a felon from possession of a gun, and Florida is one of them,KBTX reported in 2025. In some jobs being a felon would preclude a person from that job, such as the U.S. Armed Forces. That hasn't been a problem for Trump, who was elected despite being convicted of 34 felonies.

---

an 1 26

President Donald Trump was recently dealt another unfavorable ruling by a federal judge, who struck down his attempt to obtain sensitive information about voters.

On Monday, Politico legal correspondent Josh Gerstein reported that U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai – an appointee of former President Joe Biden — dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration's Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain Oregon's database of registered voters. Kasubhai also reportedly asked the Trump administration about Attorney General Pam Bondi's letter to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) asking for Minnesota's voter database.

Gerstein reported that neither the Trump DOJ nor Oregon said that Bondi's letter to Walz impacted the Oregon case "at this stage," though Kasubhai's line of questioning suggests that the letter may potentially come up as an issue should the administration decide to appeal.

In order to overturn Judge Kasubhai's ruling, the Trump administration will have to petition the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose jurisdictions includes the District of Oregon). However, the Ninth Circuit is widely regarded as one of the most liberal judicial circuits since the late 1990s. Should the Ninth Circuit decline to overturn Judge Kasubhai's decision, the Trump DOJ will have to hope for relief from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

The administration's loss in the District of Oregon comes on the heels of another separate loss in the Central District of California in a similar suit. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter granted a motion filed by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to dismiss the administration's lawsuit for California's voter rolls.

"The foundation upon which American democracy has been built is the right to vote. Brave Americans have given their lives for more than two hundred years to protect this right," Carter wrote. "Now it seems the Executive Branch of the United States government wants to abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots."

---

an 1 26

A key Trump official is facing the possibility of being held in contempt, according to Politico's Kyle Cheney, after a leading judge in Minnesota lashed the administration for failure to comply with court orders in a new filing from Monday.

According to filing documents shared to social media by Cheney, Judge Patrick J. Schlitz, the chief federal judge for the District of Minnesota, ordered Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE under Donald Trump, to appear in court on Friday to answer for his agency's evident court order violations.

"Judge Schlitz, the chief federal judge in Minnesota, has ordered the head of ICE, Todd Lyons, to [appear] in court Friday and threatened him with contempt for the agency’s repeated violation of court orders," Cheney wrote in a post shared to X and BlueSky Tuesday morning.

In the documents, Schlitz explained that the court had previously ordered ICE to hold a bond hearing for a petitioner named "Juan T.R.," an individual detained by the agency, within one week of the order's issuance. If that hearing had not been provided in the time given by the court, T.R. was to be released from custody. As the filing explained, after the allotted time elapsed, T.R. had not been given a hearing and remained in detention.

This, Schlitz wrote, was part of a growing trend of ICE flouting court orders in Minnesota, resulting in detained individuals, many of whom have no criminal history, being taken to holding facilities in Texas.

"This is one of dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed toc omply in recent weeks," Schlitz's filing reads. "The practical consequence of respondents' failure to comply has almost always been significant hardship to aliens (many of whom have lawfully lived and worked in the United States for years and done absolutely nothing wrong). The detention of an alien is extended, or an alien who should remain in Minnesota is flown to Texas, or an alien who has been flown to Texas is released there and told to figure out a way to get home."

The filing continued: "This Court has been extremely patient with respondents, even though respondents decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result. Respondents have continually assured the Court that they recognize their obligation to comply with Court orders, and that they have taken steps to ensure that those orders will be honored going forward. Unfortunately, though, the violations continue. The Court's patience is at an end."

Schlitz therefore ordered Lyons to personally appear in court to explain why he should not face contempt charges for his agency's actions. The judge acknowledged that this was an "extraordinary step" to take, but argued that it was warranted in the face of ICE's "likewise extraordinary" defiance of court orders.

:{:{---}:

1 8 26

renee good shooting bovino at school proud ~ aclu

AN 1 26

U.S. District Court Judge Katherine M. Menendez probed the Justice Department on Monday over whether a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) should be issued against the federal government after the recent slaying of a second Minneapolis citizen.

Speaking to federal lawyer Brantley Mayers, Judge Menendez questioned the purpose of the surge of federal agents and whether it was to get the state and cities to change their policies, wrote legal reporter Chris Geidner of the "Law Dork" newsletter.

Geidner recounted that Mayers attempted to say that the federal goal was to enforce federal law, but Judge Menendez pointed to statements from top Trump officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi.

In a recent letter to Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), Bondi said she would ensure that all federal agents were withdrawn if he turned over all voting records in the state.

"How am I supposed to interpret [Bondi's letter]" other than that if the state/cities change these policies, 'then this will end?'" the judge asked, according to Geidner.

Meyers said that even if the policies change and the surge is relaxed, it still isn't a Tenth Amendment issue, because the "stated" reason for the surge is valid enforcement of federal law.

Menendez asked if Meyers said, "We are here until and unless you change your policies," would that be a 10th Amendment anti-commandeering problem?

Meyers answered: "No."

She then asked about Trump's comments, "Minnesota, your day of retribution is here."

"That doesn't negate the fact that legitimate law enforcement is going on," said Meyers.

Menendez asked if there was "no limit" to the number of agents Trump's administration could send. Meyers didn't answer the question, responding only that it isn't a Tenth Amendment issue.

"Is the executive trying to achieve a goal through force that it can't achieve through the courts?" the judge asked, referencing the Bondi letter again.

“It concerns me that Attorney General Bondi’s letter cites three things that are the subject of pending litigation before this court,” the judge said, according to Adam Klasfeld, who writes the "All Rise" Substack.

She then referred to a statement from Tom Homan, Trump's executive associate director for Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

Homan said, "If you want less officers on the street, then let us in the jails."

So, Menendez questioned if Meyers was using the idea of "law enforcement" as a catch-all.

"Your position is that it doesn’t matter how clear that the quid pro quo" is, Klasfeld quoted the judge saying.

"I have all of these quotes in the record. You're telling me that I'm reading them wrong," the judge said. "What do I have in the record to show that the surge is to make up for the harms caused by the policies?"

Meyers maintained that the surge has nothing to do with a coercion campaign to change the state's policies.

Geidner added, "Mayers is trying mightily to argue that any challenges to actions in Minnesota can be brought in separate litigation and are not proper under a Tenth Amendment claim."

Legal analyst Klasfeld agreed with the assessment.

"This was an uphill battle for the state of Minnesota — but Pam Bondi's letter may have turned it into a viable one, if not today, down the line," he wrote on BlueSky.

*See the full thread here.

---

---

AN 1 26

A Reagan-appointed federal judge declared that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had “conspired” to chill First Amendment rights in a case involving pro-Palestinian student protesters.

Senior Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, on Thursday said that Rubio and Noem had “failed in their duty to uphold the constitution,” as Politico’s Kyle Cheney reported.

Judge Young’s remarks were reported in real time by journalists covering the proceedings and shared on social media as the hearing unfolded.

“What happened here is an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people, to twist the laws,” Judge Young said, denouncing the lack of any actual policy. “Two cabinet secretaries conspired … they intentionally, knowing what they were doing, counseled by professionals who cautioned them, nevertheless went ahead to pick off these people with the intention that your clients would be chilled. And did so rather effectively, by the way.”

Judge Young, 85, also invoked President Donald Trump.

“The big problem in this case,” Young said, “is that the cabinet secretaries and ostensibly the president of the United States are not honoring the First Amendment.”

Young, who has served on the bench for over four decades, continued, saying, “let’s talk the truth here,” as he denounced decisions made at DHS that directed professionals to be “taken off anti-terrorist investigations.”

“They were taken off human trafficking investigations all to look up … what dirt they could find on this group … the very highest levels of the DHS decided – that’s the best use of those people.”

He called it “chapter and verse about how the government can be weaponized against a disfavored group.”

According to All Rise News editor-in-chief Adam Klasfeld, Judge Young also slammed President Trump.

“It’s fairly clear that this President believes, as an authoritarian, when he speaks, everyone, everyone, in Article II, is going to toe the line absolutely.”

According to Reuters, Judge Young indicated that he would issue an order presuming immigration actions against the plaintiffs’ members were retaliatory unless the government could prove otherwise in court.

---}:

---

AN 1 26

One federal judge recently struck down a move by President Donald Trump's administration to compel states to hand over sensitive data on registered voters, and criticized it as "unprecedented and illegal."

In a Thursday ruling, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter (an appointee of former President Bill Clinton) granted a motion by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber to dismiss a lawsuit from the Trump administration over California's voter list. The administration had sued in an effort to sift through a list of more than 20 million voters in the most populous state in the U.S., aiming to find reasons to remove people it deemed ineligible to cast ballots.

The New York Times reported that the administration had aimed to obtain highly sensitive personal information, like Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. According to the Times, officials in California and elsewhere have argued that handing over that information to the administration "would have a chilling effect on elections."

"The foundation upon which American democracy has been built is the right to vote. Brave Americans have given their lives for more than two hundred years to protect this right. Now it seems the Executive Branch of the United States government wants to abridge the right of many Americans to cast their ballots," Carter wrote in the decision.

"The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) seeks an unprecedented amount of personal information related to California voters from California’s unredacted voting rolls," he continued. "... The issue presented to this court is animated by a well-established principle, long recognized by the Supreme Court: the right to vote is 'a fundamental political right, because [it is] preservative of all rights.' ... The government's request is unprecedented and illegal."

Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney pointed out in a post to X that Carter is the same federal judge "who said in 2022 that Trump had likely committed crimes in his quest to subvert the 2020 election." In that 2022 ruling, Carter remarked that it was "more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021," preceding the first-ever federal indictment of a former U.S. president.

Click here to read Carter's full ruling in its entirety.

---

an 12 25

In a court ruling posted on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer ruled that the National Guard soldiers must leave Los Angeles. But his comments on the ruling include a sharp warning.

Ryan Goodman, a legal scholar and editor-in-chief of JustSecurity.org, highlighted a key excerpt on page 10:

"Indeed, at the motion hearing, Defendants confirmed their position that, after an initial federalization, all extensions of federalization orders are utterly unreviewable, forever. That is shocking. Adopting Defendants’ interpretation of Section 12406 would permit a president to create a perpetual police force comprised of state troops, so long as they were first federalized lawfully. Such a scenario would validate the Founders’ 'widespread fear [of] a national standing Army,' which they believed 'posed an intolerable threat to individual liberty and to the sovereignty of the separate States,'" the judge wrote.

Goodman said that the case has "national implications."

The Atlantic's ‪Quinta Jurecic called it a "drops mic" ruling.

Sorting through the ruling, legal analyst Joyce Vance also highlighted key points in the judge's decision.

---

---

FS4PPL

Posted on July 16, 2025

Challenging Super PACs

On July 15, 2025, a magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court of Maine granted a permanent injunction to block a Maine state law that would end independent expenditure political action committees that can receive unlimited contributions (super PACs) in Maine. The law—arising out of a 2024 ballot measure that passed with overwhelming support of Maine voters—places no restrictions on expenditures, but does establish a $5,000 annual limit on contributions to super PACs. Maine voters recognized that unlimited contributions to super PACs create significant risk that candidates and contributors can and will engage in behind-the-scenes quid pro quo corruption by funneling payments through super PACs.

Unlimited contributions also create the appearance of corruption, thereby undermining the legitimacy of our democracy. The law was immediately challenged by two super PACs. The magistrate judge, misapplying Supreme Court precedent, dismissing fifteen years of history, and without the benefit of a full trial, has granted a permanent injunction that blocks the law from going into effect. This ruling prevents Maine voters from protecting their elections from quid pro quo corruption.

Maine voters should be applauded for their thoughtful, constitutional efforts to protect our democracy. Free Speech For People (FSFP) will continue to support this law through the appeals that will come.

Background

In its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that limits on independent expenditures—expenditures made to support a candidate without coordination with that candidate—are unconstitutional. The ruling did not address contributions; indeed, in Citizens United and in cases since then, the Supreme Court has continued to distinguish between limits on political expenditures and limits on contributions, granting more protections to expenditures than contributions and subjecting contributions to a lesser standard of scrutiny.

A few months after Citizens United, a lower court ruling, SpeechNow v. FEC, created super PACs by striking down a federal law that limited contributions to independent expenditure committees, now known as super PACs. It improperly collapsed the Supreme Court’s two-tiered system of analysis and concluded that because independent expenditure limits are unconstitutional, so too are contributions to super PACs. The decision was wrongly decided, never reviewed by the Supreme Court, and not binding precedent in Maine. Now—just fifteen years later—super PACs dominate Maine and U.S. elections, pour billions of dollars into our elections, have created powerful incentives for candidates and super PAC funders to engage in corrupt quid pro quo agreements, and have created such an appearance of corruption that it undermines voters’ faith in our elections and our democracy.

In recognition of these risks, in November 2024, 75% of Maine voters passed Ballot Question 1, which prohibited annual contributions above $5,000 to independent expenditure PACs. Two Maine super PACs, Dinner Table Action and For Our Future, immediately sued to block the law. The parties—defendant officials of the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, nonpartisan intervenor EqualCitizens and other intervenor-defendants, and the plaintiff super PACs agreed to forgo an evidentiary hearing and to hold only oral argument on the merits of the case. The magistrate judge has now blocked the law from going into effect.

The Magistrate Judge Misapplied the Law and Misunderstands Super PACs._

1. _Candidates and contributors can enter into quid pro quo agreements without involving the super PAC_. The court claimed that contributions to independent expenditures “are one step further removed from the candidate” than the super PACs themselves, so “the logic of Citizens United dictates that the danger of corruption is smaller still.” The court’s rationale here wholly misunderstands the logic of Citizens United, which is concerned not with removal but with the purported independence of independent expenditures from candidates. The Supreme Court reasoned that because independent expenditures, by definition, cannot be coordinated with candidates, they therefore cannot give rise to corrupt quid pro quo agreements between a candidate and the entity that makes the expenditures. This logic does not apply to super PAC contributors. As Free Speech For People discussed in its amicus brief, super PACs create opportunities and incentives for candidates and contributors to engage in quid pro quo agreements.

1. _Contributions and expenditures are not subject to the same analysis._ The Supreme Court uses a bifurcated system of analysis that both differentiates between contributions and expenditures, and subjects contribution limits to lesser standards of review than expenditure limits. Though the magistrate judge recognizes this, she relies almost wholly on non-binding lower court rulings that wrongly collapse the two and insists that Citizens United“forecloses limits on contributions” to super PACs. It does not. Citizens United only analyzes a law that limits expenditures. It said nothing about contributions.

1. _The lived experience of Maine voters should be considered when assessing whether unlimited super PAC contributions create the appearance of corruption._ Maine voters understand how super PACs operate and why they create an appearance of corruption. Voters have spent fifteen years voting under a system increasingly dominated by megadonors funneling massive contributions through super PACs and receiving favor from our elected officials. Their experience and perspective should not be so casually dismissed in any analysis of the “appearance of corruption” inquiry.

1. _The disclosure portion of the law is constitutional._ By striking down this reasonable disclosure law, the court further and unnecessarily hamstrings Maine’s efforts to protect its elections from corruption.

_Maine Voters Deserve Better._

Maine voters got it right. FSFP will continue to defend this law and support all efforts to appeal this decision.

Read the decision here.

Read FSFP’s amicus brief in support of the law here.

---

harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig discusses the strategy for ongoing Maine campaign finance litigation

By Rin Pastor

Orient Staff

November 7, 2025

Abigail HebertMAINE V. DARK MONEY:Lawrence Lessig speaks in Kresge Auditorium on Wednesday night. Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and founder of the non-profit Equal Citizens, spoke about a novel legal strategy Equal Citizens is using to attempt to uphold Maine’s regulation of super PACs.

Last Wednesday in Kresge Auditorium, professor of law at Harvard Law School Lawrence Lessig discussed ongoing litigation at the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding campaign finance regulations. This litigation pertains to a 2024 Maine ballot initiative limiting campaign contributions that was passed by 75 percent of voters. This law was almost immediately challenged and ruled unconstitutional at the district court level. Lessig and the organization he founded, Equal Citizens, have appealed the decision.

Maia Cook, the executive director of Equal Citizens and one of Lessig’s former research assistants, began the talk by defining super political action committees (super PACs) and outlining their impact on the amount of money involved in political campaigns. Cook explained that the modern super PAC is a product of the Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which deemed limits on independent expenditures uncoordinated with specific campaigns as unconstitutional, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals case SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010), which expanded the doctrine from Citizens United and deemed contribution limits to independent expenditure super PACs unconstitutional.

“Together, these decisions created the modern super PAC, a legally distinct type of political action committee that can receive unlimited sums from corporations, individuals and unions and can spend unlimited amounts so long as they are uncoordinated [with campaigns],” Cook said.

Cook stated that while the intersection of democracy and capitalism requires some amount of campaign finance, the modern super PAC has created a vast increase of money—especially anonymous donations, also called dark money—in politics. She also noted that unrestricted super PAC activity has disadvantaged both Democrats and Republicans, leading to both parties being exorbitantly influenced by the richest top one percent of Americans.

“I don’t want the scale here to be lost on anyone, because just in 15 years, dark [money] contributions went from $6.6 million to $1.3 billion, and that is a 197 times increase from its original size,” Cook said.

:{Lessig outlined the legal theory that could reform elections to be less influenced by super PACs and billionaire spending. Citizens United built off of the Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which stated that if expenditures from independent organizations are not prearranged with those running for office, there is no real or apparent corruption and thus these donations cannot be limited. Under Buckley, if expenditures are coordinated between organizations and candidates, they can be regulated.

Citizens United expanded this principle to corporations and unions. The SpeechNow decision established that contributions to these expenditures also create no corruption or appearance of corruption, a decision that Lessig takes issue with. He explained that while independent expenditures cannot be prearranged or coordinated, contributions can.}:

“It’s totally legal for [a candidate] to coordinate contributions to his super PAC, even though he is regulated not to coordinate expenditures. So the fact that contributions can be coordinated means the whole premise behind equating contributions with expenditures is just false,” Lessig said.

Lessig and Equal Citizens will be using this theory to argue the case for Maine’s ballot initiative in the Court of Appeals. In district court, the judge ruled that even if there is real or apparent corruption, Maine has no right to regulate it.

“The reason that’s a great victory is that that is the most extreme any court has ever been,” Lessig said. “It’s the first court in the history of federal jurisdiction ever to hold that even though there’s a risk of corruption, there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Lessig argued that, because of this extremity, if the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court rules against Equal Citizens, it will be a betrayal of the existing law.

“You only see how bad it would be if they struck the Maine initiative down by seeing how clear it is that the Maine initiative is constitutional.… If the court goes against us now, it is an extraordinary betrayal.… They’re changing the law to protect super PACs, not upholding Citizens United but extending Citizens United for the first time,” Lessig said.

Lessig believes that an extension of Citizens United would present a real political crisis, necessitating a bravery amongst lawyers, universities and the press.

“As we look around at this moment, there’s a certain cowardice that has become contagious. People make a judgment about what they should do, and they do the reasonable thing. And the reasonable thing is an act of cowardice,” Lessig said. “It’s understandable why they do what they do. It’s also wrong.”

Ultimately, Lessig is hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with Equal Citizens. However, he also argues that should the Court disagree, it will be a sign for a necessary reform to the United States’ political structures.

“I’m optimistic the Court will agree with me. I think we should realize just what’s at stake if the Court goes the other way,” Lessig said in an interview with the Orient. “We need to start thinking seriously about how we bring constitutional reform through this process that involves citizens as opposed to lawyers and politicians.”

Attendee Gigi Ford ’27 admired Lessig’s ability to explain legal issues and theory in a concise and accessible manner.

“The most impactful part of the talk was Lessig explaining the logical fallacies found in the judicial system’s reasoning and practice. Being able to communicate this effectively to someone without a background in law is very important in the fight for ending super PACs,” Ford said.

---

medium

A district court in Maine has enjoined enforcement of an anti-SuperPAC initiative that had been enacted by Maine voters in November with 74.9% of the vote. 600,000 Mainers had said “enough” to SuperPACs — more Mainers voting for the initiative than had ever voted for any initiative or any person in the history of the state — and yet the court has now said, “not yet.”

I’ve written a long essay about the core mistake the district court made in interpreting Citizens United. You can read that here. In this much shorter essay, I want to show just why this district court opinion, in fact, should give us real hope.

Because the district court has conceded that the foundation to the case that gave us SuperPACs — SpeechNow v. FEC—is wrong.

The Error in SpeechNow

In 2010, three months after the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC, the DC Circuit decided the case that would give us SuperPACs — SpeechNow v. FEC.

Citizens Unitedhad held that independent expenditures could not be limited. SpeechNow held that contributionsto committees that make independent expenditures*could not be limited

The core reasoning in SpeechNowis this:

In light of the [Supreme Court’s] holding [in Citizens United that] as a matter of law [] independent expenditures do not corrupt or create the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, contributions to groups that make only independent expenditures also cannot corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. The Court has effectively held that there is no corrupting “quid” for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt “quo.”

Given this analysis from Citizens United, we must conclude that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting contributions to an independent expenditure group such as SpeechNow.

“No anti-corruption interest,” in other words, because — “as a matter of law” — “there is no corrupting ‘quid’ for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt ‘quo.’”

We had argued that premise was false. That indeed, there were plenty of examples where there was a “corrupting ‘quid’ for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt ‘quo’.” The most famous of these cases was the indictment in 2015 of Robert Menendez: Menendez had been indicted for offering government benefits (the “quo”) in exchange for a contribution to Menendez’s SuperPAC (the “quid”) — the very thing the DC Circuit said could not be.

The district court in our case accepted this claim. As it found, “contributions to independent expenditure PACs can serve as the quid in a quid pro quo arrangement.”

But apparently, the court didn’t hear the “bingo” that must have then rung out across the land. Because the opposite finding had been the foundation of SpeechNow.

SpeechNow acknowledged the question it was answering had not been decided in Citizens United.Instead, it reasoned from Citizens Unitedto a premise it believed must be true: that there was “no anti-corruption interest,” because — “as a matter of law” — “there is no corrupting ‘quid’ for which a candidate might in exchange offer a corrupt ‘quo.’” And because there was “no anti-corruption interest,” the DC Circuit found it unnecessary to weigh that non-interest against a free speech interest. “The First Amendment,” the court held, “cannot be encroached upon for naught.”

But the district court in our case has now found that the interest is not a “naught.” That indeed, the core justification for regulating contributions to a political action committee — that they create a risk of quid pro quo corruption — is real. Which is to say, the whole foundation for SpeechNow is gone — leaving SuperPACs in the Wile E. Coyote position described in the gif above.

This is real progress, even if wrapped in a mistake (see my other essay about that mistake). Because though we may live in looney times, as with every Looney Tunes cartoon, eventually, gravity catches up.

You can sign up to follow the case here.

---

an 11 25

Trump's policiescracking down on undocumented immigrants by ramping up ICE authorities are facing sustained and growing push back from judges, according to a new analysis from Politico, including several that were appointed by him.

Politico's reporting on Friday concerned a policy Trump instituted back in July, calling for all individuals facing deportation proceedings to be jailed without the possibility of seeking a release. Though the Trump administration has defended its crackdown by claiming that it is being applied to dangerous and violent criminals, Politico noted that many of the immigrants targeted by this new policy "have lived in the U.S. for years, and sometimes decades, without incident and have been pursuing asylum or other forms of legal status."

The response to this rule sparked a "tidal wave of emergency lawsuits" claiming it violated immigration laws and immigrants' due-process rights. As of Friday morning, when its piece was published, Politico found that in an overwhelming percentage of these lawsuits, judges ruled against Trump's policy, with a good number of them being judges he himself appointed.

At least 225 judges have ruled in more than 700 cases that the administration’s new policy, which also deprives people of an opportunity to seek release from an immigration court, is a likely violation of law and the right to due process," the report explained. "Those judges were appointed by all modern presidents — including 23 by Trump himself — and hail from at least 35 states, according to a Politico analysis of thousands of recent cases."

The rate at which legal opposition to Trump's immigrant detention policy has grown is also considerable, with the number of judges who have ruled against the administration doubling in just the last month.

The scale of the push back feels even greater when considering the inverse: Politico found that only eight judges in the entire country, six of whom were Trump appointees, ruled in favor of the administration's position.

Judges have also grown "exasperated" by the volume of litigation flowing into their courts as a result of Trump's policy, making it difficult for them to keep up.

“The Court is unable to remain current on all new case authority supporting the Court’s conclusion, given the continued onslaught of litigation being generated by [the administration’s] widespread illegal detention practices,” U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder, a federal judge in California originally appointed by Bill Clinton, said in a comment from last week.

“Dozens of district courts across the nation — with more each day — have rejected DHS’s expansion of … mandatory detention,” U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill, another Clinton appointee in Idaho. “This court joins the overwhelming majority.”

---

---

an 11 25

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was not legitimately appointed to her position and, as such, all of her cases, like those against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, are dismissed "without prejudice." The judge cited the legal precedent set by President Donald Trump's own case.

In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon ruled in U.S. v. Trump that the U.S. Senate did not appoint special counsel Jack Smith and, as such, was not a legitimately appointed prosecutor. She then dismissed the case involving the classified documents.

"So that is the nail in the coffin," CNN's Katelyn Polantz explained. Both cases have the same problem, with Halligan, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Halligan was "placed there on an interim basis" after the previous U.S. attorney said there was not enough evidence to charge James or Comey.

The last remark in the court decision is "invalidating the acts performed by Ms. Halligan and dismissing the indictments, returning Ms. James to the status she occupied before being indicted. Which was not being an employee of the Justice Department, she was an employee of the White House."

"The judge in this case is saying that James and Comey ... cannot face these charges because the prosecutor was invalid and is basing that largely upon the Trump case," she added. "So, a really interesting correlation there."

---

an 11 25

President Donald Trump was recently handed another loss in court, after failing to convince a Florida judge that he was owed money by the Guardian newspaper for reporting on a federal investigation involving his company.

Guardian reporter Hugo Lowell reported Monday on the ruling by Judge Hunter W. Carroll of Florida's Twelfth Judicial Circuit, who is an appointee of then-Gov. Rick Scott (R). Carroll granted an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion the Guardian filed, which defendants often file when alleging a lawsuit has been filed with the intent of intruding on First Amendment rights.

Additionally, Lowell reported that Judge Carroll found that reporting critical of Trump and his businesses could not be used by Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which is the parent company of his Truth Social platform, to demonstrate actual malice in litigation.

TMTG sued over a 2023 article in the Guardian, in which the paper reported on a federal investigation into the company by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). TMTG had accepted $8 million in emergency loans from shadowy entities it knew little about at the time it accepted the money. One loan for $2 million came from Paxum Bank, which is headquartered in the island nation of Dominica. The other $6 million loan came from an entity called E.S. Family Trust.

The Guardian reported at the time that one of the trustees of E.S. Family Trust was a director of Paxum Bank. And one of the bank's part-owners had ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. SDNY prosecutors were probing whether the loans violated federal money laundering laws.

According to that report, one of the executives of TMTG floated the idea of returning the money given the lack of details and transparency about who was providing the loans. TMTG co-founder Will Wilkerson — who eventually became a whistleblower in the federal investigation — told SDNY that Chief Financial Officer Phillip Juhan was uncomfortable about the murky nature of the two entities.

The $2 million from Paxum Bank was sourced in December of 2021 by Patrick Orlando, who was executive at Digital World Acquisition Corporation, which was the entity TMTG merged with when the company went public. Orlando charged a $240,000 finders' fee for the loan, which was sourced through an offshore bank. Donald Trump Jr. ultimately signed off on the loan, per the report.

---

AN 11 25

In a new 233-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis found that many top officials in President Donald Trump's administration "lied multiple times" under oath.

The Thursday ruling issued a preliminary injunction barring federal agents from using force in Chicago. It has already been appealed and put on hold by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Chicago Sun Times reporter Jon Seidel said.

Legal analysts Mark Joseph Stern of Slate and independent journalist Julie DiCaro sorted through the lengthy opinion, finding citations of "widespread misrepresentations that call into question everything" they "say they are doing in their characterization of what is happening."

Her ruling then claims that their testimony is objectively false, Stern said, broadly discrediting the Trump administration.

"After reviewing all the evidence submitted to the Court and listening to the testimony elicited at the preliminary injunction hearing, during depositions, and in other court proceedings, the Court finds Defendants’ evidence simply not credible," Ellis said, according to DiCaro.

At one point, in footnote six, DiCaro cited Ellis writing, "In another case considering some of the same evidence presented to this Court, another court in this district also found that the perceptions of certain of Defendants’ declarants, such as [Russell] Hott and [Deputy Chief Patrol Agent Daniel] Parra, were not reliable."

"But a review of [evidence submitted by Defendants] shows the opposite — supporting Plaintiffs’ claims and undermining all of Defendants’ claims that their actions toward protesters, the press, and religious practitioners have been, as Bovino has stated, 'more than exemplary,'"the judge also wrote.

In a section where she addressed the testimony of Gregory Bovino, commander-at-large of the U.S. Border Patrol, Judge Ellis found that he also lied under oath on several occasions.

"When shown a video of agents hitting Rev. Black with pepper balls, Bovino denied seeing a projectile hit Rev. Black in the head," Judge Ellis wrote.

"In another video ...he obviously tackles [Scott] Blackburn [one of Plaintiffs’ declarants]...But instead of admitting to using force against Blackburn, Bovino denied it and ...stated that force was used against him,"the ruling continued.

"Most tellingly, Bovino admitted in his deposition that he lied multiple times about the events that occurred in Little Village that prompted him to throw tear gas at protesters," the judge added.

"Defendants, however, cannot simply create their own narrative of what happened, misrepresenting the evidence to justify their actions," the judge wrote.

She ultimately explains, "These are not the only inconsistencies and incredible representations in the record. While Defendants may argue that the Court identifies only minor inconsistencies, every minor inconsistency adds up, and at some point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to believe."

Read the full ruling here.

---

---

AN 11 25

Texas’ plan to gerrymander its congressional map in favor of Republicans hit a massive snag on Tuesday as a federal panel of judges struck down the new district map on the grounds that they discriminated against minority groups.

The decision was handled down by a panel of three federal judges after a nine-day hearing last month in the case brought against the state of Texas voting rights advocates and minority voters. The judges — Obama, Reagan, and Trump appointees, respectively — found in favor of the plaintiffs arguments that the new map unlawfully gerrymanders based on minority communities.

As a result, the state will be required to continue using the congressional maps drawn back in 2021 and enjoined from using the new one passed into law over the summer. The fight is far from over, however, with Democracy Docket reporting that the ruling is highly likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has been known to rule in favor of conservatives more often than not in recent years.

Congressional district maps are typically redrawn once a decade, based on new census data, to create districts that better reflect shifting demographics. Both parties have long been accused of redrawing state maps to better ensure they hang on to power, a process known as “gerrymandering.”

In defiance of this once-a-decade norm, the Texas state legislature passed new maps over the summer designed to create five new majority Republican districts in the state, thereby helping the party retain a majority in the House of Representatives. This came at the urging of President Donald Trump, who has called for as many GOP-controlled states as possible to do so in order to stop a potential Democratic majority in the 2026 midterms that could stunt his administration’s goals.

“When Texas tried to steal 5 seats, I said to watch the litigation my law firm had filed because we had a good chance of winning in court,” Marc Elias, founder of the voting rights focused Elias Law Group, wrote in a post to BlueSky following the ruling. “Today a federal court BLOCKED THE MAP.”

California’s recent Proposition 50 was drafted in response to this move from Texas, allowing the Golden State to alter its redistricting rules and redraw its map to create enough Democratic majority districts to counteract Texas. The measure was overwhelmingly approved by voters in the state, though it does feature a provision that will nullify itself if Texas’s gerrymander is definitively blocked.

---

an 11 25

An appeals court upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss President Donald Trump's years-old $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN, deeming it "unpersuasive" and "meritless," reports *The New Republic*.

Trump sued the cable news network in 2022, for using the term “the Big Lie” in its coverage of "Trump’s debunked claims of sweeping election fraud that supposedly robbed him of a second term in the White House in 2020," The New Republic writes.

“Trump has not adequately alleged the falsity of CNN’s statements. Therefore, he has failed to state a defamation claim,” wrote 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Adalberto Jordan, Kevin Newsom, and Elizabeth L. Branch in an eight-page filing.

“Trump’s other arguments are likewise meritless," the judges wrote.

Trump nominated both Newsom and Branch, as well as District Judge Raag Singhal, who first dismissed the case in July.

Trump also accused CNN of using “the Big Lie” to create a “false and incendiary association” between him and "Adolf Hitler, who originally coined the term in Mein Kampf," The New Republicexplains, "But the lower court ruled that “bad rhetoric is not defamation when it does not include false statements of fact.”

The panel of appeals court judges ruled that Trump’s argument was “unpersuasive,” because the term “Big Lie” did not "constitute a statement of fact," they report.

“This assumption is untenable,” the judges wrote, adding that "Trump’s argument hinges on the fact that his own interpretation of his conduct — i.e., that he was exercising a constitutional right to identify his concerns with the integrity of elections — is true and that CNN’s interpretation — i.e., that Trump was peddling his ‘Big Lie’ — is false. However, his conduct is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNN’s."

This is the latest in a series of failed lawsuits Trump has issued against media companies reporting on his lies, including a $15 billion defamation suitagainst The New York Times that was dismissed in September.

“We have held that, by using ‘Big Lie’ to describe Trump, CNN was not publishing a false statement of fact. Therefore, whether CNN used ‘Big Lie’ one time or many is irrelevant to the question of falsity,” the judges said.

---

Ex-Trump ethics lawyer's Jan. 6 Committee lawsuit dismissed

law and crime jan 2025

A federal judge in Georgia has tossed out a lawsuit filed by a former Trump White House ethics lawyer accusing members of the House Committee to Investigate Jan. 6 of civil conspiracy and invasion of privacy in connection with their investigation into the attack on the Capitol.

U. S. District Judge Eleanor L. Ross on Wednesday granted the government's request to dismiss the case brought by Stefan Passantino, who claimed that members of the Committee leaked transcripts of confidential interviews to CNN to "ensure maximum damage" was done to his "reputation and his existing and future legal, political, and business clients."

Passantino was deputy White House counsel during the first Trump administration who went back to the private sector during the Biden administration and worked for the Trump-supporting political action committee, Save America Leadership. There, he represented several people who testified before the Jan. 6 Committee.

Passantino was the first lawyer to represent Cassidy Hutchinson, the former special assistant to President Trump and Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, in her meetings with the Committee.

According to Passantino, then-Congresswoman Liz Cheney and Senior Investigative Counsel Dan George in May 2022 contacted Hutchinson without his knowledge and advised his client that he "would not be advancing her interests" because he "was being paid by a Trump-affiliated third-party," which ultimately led to her seeking new counsel.

Hutchinson participated in several additional interviews and in December 2022, a CNN reporter contacted Passantino and said an unreleased transcript from one of Hutchinson's interviews suggested he had counseled her "not to answer the Committee's questions fully and honestly."

Hutchinson testified that before her initial sessions with the Committee, Passantino would dangle potential jobs "in Trumpworld" and tell her she would be "taken care of."

...

---

an 11 25

no lnx

Behind Trump's sinister plan for Americans who don’t support him

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a law enforcement event in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., May 19, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Sabrina Haake, Raw StoryNovember 16, 2025 |

On Monday, the Trump administration submitted arguments to the Supreme Court claiming that no court — including the Supreme Court — can question Trump’s decision to deploy military troops against US cities.

Trump lawyers wrote that “the President’s determination to call up the National Guard is a core exercise of his power as Commander in Chief over military affairs, based on an explicit delegation from Congress. That determination is not judicially reviewable at all; at minimum, it is entitled to extremely deferential review, under which (Trump’s deployment) should be upheld.”

Claiming Trump called up the National Guard in Chicago “in light of the violent, organized resistance” ICE agents face, Trump attorneys insist his decision is not subject to judicial review, citing a case from 1827 that they apparently have not read.

Martin v. Mott arose from the War of 1812, and held that military subordinates could not second guess a president’s judgment about military threats. Although it is often mis-cited, Martin did not even discuss judicial review, much less hold that no court can ever review a president’s decision.

Americans don’t want this

Most Americans have a strong moral resistance to military intrusion into civilian affairs. An easy majority of Americans today, across party lines, oppose sending military troops into US cities in the absence of a foreign threat.

Our resistance can be traced back to the Revolutionary War. After living under the tyranny of King George III, whose hated armed troops ate their food and slept in quarters they were forced to provide, colonists held a widespread fear of a national standing army, because it threatened individual liberty and the sovereignty of the separate states. Because of that distrust, the founders carefully apportioned responsibility over the “militia” — today’s National Guard — between the federal government and the States.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, the power to call forth the National Guard “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” That foundational authority in turn supports Title 10 USC 12406, which allows a president to call forth the militia but only under specific, statutorily defined circumstances. It also supports the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385, which forbids the use of any part of the federal armed forces to execute laws, except where “expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” reflecting “the deeply rooted and ancient opposition in this country to the extension of military control over civilians.”

Exaggerated threats

Trump officials, with daily assistance from Fox News, report extreme violence among ICE protestors, significantly more violence than eyewitnesses, or state and local law enforcement officers, have observed.

Trump lawyers claim ICE agents “are facing incessant violent resistance on the streets of Illinois — including ambushes where their vehicles are rammed by trucks and dangerous projectiles are thrown at them, potentially motivated by bounties placed on their heads by violent gangs and transnational cartels. Federal agents faced with such threats and violence — in Chicago and elsewhere— operate, on a daily basis, in a climate of fear for their lives and safety, forced constantly to focus on self-defense and protection instead of executing federal law.”

It is no surprise that eyewitness accounts largely dispute these claims, often with video evidence. Examples of disputed ICE claims include:

In instances where ICE agents alleged their vehicles were rammed by activists, video footage showed the federal agents' vehicles were the aggressors, ramming the other vehicles first.

Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino admitted he was not hit by a rock until after he deployed tear gas at a Chicago protest, contradicting earlier claims that it happened in reverse.

DHS claimed a middle-aged, heavy set woman, a WGN news producer, went out of her way to assault an ICE agent; eyewitness said she was simply standing there taking video. She was eventually released without charges.

After DHS claimed a “more than 1,000 percent rise” in assaults on ICE agents, reporting from NPR and a review of federal court filings found no public evidence to support that claim.

Videos circulating online show unprovoked, excessive violence from federal agents against protestors, with several showing agents pointing guns at peaceful observers.

To date, there is no known case addressing what happens when an unhinged president deliberately escalates violence and civil unrest in order to feel powerful/beat his chest/justify siccing the military on US citizens.

'Regular forces'

The Ninth and Seventh Circuit Appellate courts have addressed Trump’s National Guard deployments into US cities. Both appellate courts rejected Trump’s argument that military deployments are not reviewable, noting that the statute’s plain text lists specific predicate conditions before a president can deploy the National Guard, and “nothing in the text … makes the President the sole judge of whether these preconditions exist.”

The Ninth Circuit decision is awaiting full en banc review, while the Seventh Circuit concluded that facts on the ground weren’t what ICE said they were. The Seventh Circuit decision is now before the US Supreme Court, which recently directed the parties to file supplemental brief letters on the meaning of 10 USC 12406(3), which allows a president to call up the National Guard when he is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s belief that his deployment of military forces is immune from judicial review is ominous, given his demonstrated lust for violence against unarmed people. His sinister plans for Americans who don’t support him, now officially labeled “domestic terrorists,” will depend greatly on whether the Supreme Court checks him with this case.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

---

---

AN 11 25

Politico reports that federal defense attorneys are making another attempt to oust President Donald Trump appointee Bill Essayli as the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles.

In a motion filed Monday night, the federal defenders' office asked U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright (an appointee of former President George W. Bush) to reverse part of a ruling he issued last month that stripped Essayli of his title as acting U.S. attorney but allowed him to keep supervising that office in his capacity as first assistant U.S. attorney.

The attorneys argued that Seabright failed to confront the “resulting, and still-ongoing, constitutional violation” of Essayli serving the office even as an inferior officer without an official Senate confirmation.

“[T]he Constitution requires by default that inferior officers be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The only exception is where Congress has statutorily authorized another appointment method for the office in question,” lawyers argued. “There is no such statute here, and Mr. Essayli cannot constitutionally wield officer-level powers.”

Because Seabright’s order left the defense’s constitutional arguments unresolved, the attorneys argue that the court should not only reconsider its earlier order, but also bar Essayli from supervising prosecutions and dismiss any indictments coming out of his office as unlawful.

“Whatever title Mr. Essayli uses, if he is to wield inferior-officer powers, he must first either be confirmed or appointed to a statutorily authorized inferior office. Otherwise, he cannot exercise the significant governmental authority he claims, and the Court should bar him from doing so,” Federal Public Defender Cuauhtemoc Ortega wrote.

In their Monday night order, federal defenders' attorneys also highlighted a statement Essayli made on social media last month boasting that he was still wielding the same authority from his new perch.

“For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing. I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California,” Essayli wrote on X shortly after Seabright’s order.

The fight over Essayli’s appointment is one of four disputes over U.S. attorneys that the Trump administration has attempted to install on an interim or acting basis without Senate confirmation.

Politico reports judges have already ruled against the appointments of Alina Habba in New Jersey and Sigal Chattah in Nevada, although the Trump administration is appealing both decisions.

Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Essayli to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California. In July, she attempted to extend his tenure by naming him as the first assistant in the same office and then elevating him to acting U.S. attorney.

---

AN 11 25

President Donald Trump’s push for mid-decade redistricting to prevent Republicans from losing control of the US House of Representatives appears to be on the verge of backfiring.

The latest blow to Trump’s nationwide redistricting efforts came in Utah, where District Court Judge Dianna Gibson shot down a proposed map drawn by Utah Republicans because it failed to abide by a 2018 ballot measure that restricted partisan gerrymandering in the state.

As reported by NBC News, Gibson instead approved a map that created “a solidly Democratic seat ahead of next year’s midterm elections,” thus giving Democrats a likely net gain of one seat in the US House.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hailed Gibson’s ruling and vowed that Democrats weren’t finished fighting Trump’s efforts to rig next year’s elections in his favor.

“Utah Republicans gerrymandered the maps because they knew they were losing power in the state,” he said. “Republicans doubled down when they chose to submit another gerrymandered map, but today, they were once again thwarted by impartial Courts. Democrats will continue to fight for fair maps in Utah, regardless of what Donald Trump and Utah Republicans try next. Every seat counts, and Democrats everywhere are fired up and ready to take back the House in the midterms in 2026.”

Dave Wasserman, a senior elections analyst at Cook Political Report, wrote in a post on X that the Democrats’ Utah victory, along with California voters’ approval of newly gerrymandered maps and reported plans to redraw maps in Virginia, have “pushed the mid-decade redistricting war closer to a draw.”

In a lengthy analysis published in Bloomberg on Tuesday, columnist Mary Ellen Klas argued that Republicans should take a deep breath before going all-in on Trump’s unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.

The issue, Klas explained, is that Republicans in those states have carved out more GOP-friendly districts based on assumptions that Republican gains among Latino voters and young men would hold in 2026. As last week’s sweeping Democratic victories showed, however, the GOP now appears to be hemorrhaging support among these two demographics.

“In New Jersey, 68% of Latino voters broke for Democrat Mikie Sherrill,” wrote Klas. “So did 56% of men under the age of 30. In Virginia, 67% of Latino voters went for Democrat Abigail Spanberger. So did 57% of men under 30. Many of these voters had voted for Trump last year. The exit polls show that both Sherrill and Spanberger won 7% of Trump’s 2024 voters, with Sherrill getting a whopping 18% of Trump’s Hispanic support in the state.”

If those trends hold over the next year, it could wipe out advantages the GOP had hoped to gain with its Texas gerrymander, which assumed that Latino voters who swung to Trump in the state would remain loyal partisan soldiers.

“Republicans are hardly going to admit it, but they should evaluate whether Trump’s push to ignite a redistricting arms race may have made it easier for a blue wave to wipe out more Republicans than if they had left their maps alone,” argued Klass.

In fact, some Republican strategists are already fretting about Trump’s gerrymandering plan, as one anonymous GOP insider told NBC News that if the endgame of the plan was “to net one seat across the country, then it will not have been worth it.”

A second anonymous GOP insider told NBC that there was “some concern” about whether Texas Republicans may have made themselves more vulnerable to a blue wave next year.

“In Texas, I do think there is some sense those seats will be ours, but nothing is guaranteed, so some concern there,” they said.

---

---

omg an 10 25

CNN Capitol Hill reporter Sarah Ferris reported on Xthat U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins will not commit to releasing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds if ordered to do so by a Boston judge overseeing a case against them

Boston's U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani is currently overseeing a legal case involving the government shutdown and SNAP, with the Trump administration arguing that it lacks the authority to use an emergency fund to pay for November SNAP benefits, potentially affecting 42 million Americans.

Talwani expressed skepticism toward the administration's argument during a hearing on Thursday, emphasizing her interpretation of congressional intent to protect people during emergencies. According to the*Washington Post, Talwani indicated she is likely to intervene to ensure food aid continues by ordering the U.S. Department of Agriculture to utilize the available $5.5 billion contingency fund.

Talwani stated that if the government can't cover the full cost, it must find an "equitable way of reducing benefits" rather than suspending them entirely.

Ferris said that CNN senior Capitol Hill producer Ellis Kim asked Rollins "if she will agree to release funds if ordered to do so by Talwani, to which Rollins replied, “We're looking at all the options.”

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Aaron Blake, CNN's senior political reporter shared the news on X, saying, "I have a really hard time believing they would resist such an order. Feels like a great way to lose the political battle here."

Daily Kos reporter Emily Singer noted the move would mean the Trump administration is "[fighting] to make sure people aren't fed."

Bulwark MSNBC managing editor Sam Stein explained his understanding of the "administration's position" on the potential ruling.

The Trump administration is arguing "they legally can't release the funds[,] but if a judge tells them that they legally can release the funds they won't necessarily release the funds," Stein wrote on X.

---

---

10 21 25 2 TRUMP JUDGE DEM DOCK

Legal experts are sounding the alarm on a shocking federal appeals court ruling that all but permitted President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon. They warn that, if upheld, the order would give Trump unbridled power to use the military domestically.

Two Trump appointed judges on a three-judge Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted Monday to stay a lower court ruling blocking Trump’s deployment in the City of Roses.

The full 9th Circuit is set to vote on whether to rehear the case.

The two circuit court judges claimed that U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, who was also appointed by Trump, incorrectly questioned the president’s decision to federalize 200 Oregon National Guard members and deploy them to the city late last month.

Trump’s deployment is still blocked by a second order from Immergut that remains in effect. However, shortly after the Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked Immergut to dissolve her second order, which would officially allow Trump to move soldiers into Portland.

Elizabeth Goitein, a senior director at the Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on presidential emergency powers, wrote on social media Tuesday it was “one of the most dangerous and legally flawed court decisions I’ve seen this year.”

Goitein noted that Judges Bridget Bade and Ryan Nelson — the Trump appointees on the panel — significantly expanded the president’s ability to federalize and deploy Guard troops domestically by arguing that he should be allowed to cite prior unrest in Portland, or even unrest in other parts of the country, to justifying a military intervention in a city.

“By this logic, Trump should be able to deploy the military today—in Portland and many other cities—to address conduct that occurred during the 2020 protests over the police killing of George Floyd,” Goitein wrote.

The ruling, Goitein wrote, was “clearly” an incorrect reading of 10 U.S.C. 12406 (Title 10), the archaic statute Trump used to federalize Oregon’s troops. It allows the president to federalize state Guard troops when the country faces foreign invasion, when the U.S. government faces rebellion or when the president is unable to execute laws with regular resources.

Goitein added that through their ruling, Bade and Nelson undermined First Amendment rights by upholding the Trump administration’s conclusion that the president was unable to execute the law in Portland without the Guard’s assistance.

Trump claimed in late September Guard troops were needed to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from “domestic terrorists” who had an ICE facility in the “War ravaged” city “under siege.” The Trump administration further claimed that the recent anti-ICE demonstrations in the city amounted to a “rebellion” against the U.S. government.

State and local police officials pushed back on Trump’s interpretation of conditions in the city, saying in court filings that demonstrations near the facility were largely sedate gatherings of a few dozen people that could be managed by local and state resources.

“It is hard to overstate how misguided and dangerous this ruling is,” Goitein wrote. “Even where protests involve acts of violence, deploying the military is illegal unless that violence reaches a level where state and local law enforcement are completely overwhelmed.”

Writing in a minority opinion Monday, Susan Graber, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, also criticized Nelson and Bade’s ruling for threatening freedom of speech.

“It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions,” Graber wrote.

Athul Acharya, the executive director of the nonprofit civil-rights law firm Public Accountability, pointed out that Nelson, through a concurring opinion, took a more extreme position than Bade.

Nelson adopted the Trump administration’s argument that courts have no authority to question a president’s decision to federalize troops under Title 10. In taking that position, he was disagreeing with precedent set by a separate Ninth Circuit panel over Trump’s deployment in Los Angeles.

In that case, the other panel rejected the Trump administration’s arguments that courts can’t review Title 10 federalizations but also held that any judicial review must be “highly deferential” to the president.

That was the position Bade took as well, though she found that Immergut misapplied the “highly deferential” standard by disagreeing with Trump’s assessment of unrest in Portland.

“Love that ‘the president can use the National Guard to invade Portland’ is the moderate position here,” Acharya wrote on social media. “Ryan Nelson would’ve held that as long as Trump recites some magic words, he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard, whenever, wherever.”

Marty Lederman, a Georgetown Law professor and former DOJ attorney, highlighted that while Bade and Nelson at length argued why they were deferring Trump’s determination that he was unable to execute the law in Portland, they never recognized such a determination from the president.

Trump announced the Portland military deployment through a series of social media posts. In oral arguments, the DOJ argued that the posts were Trump’s formal determination that troops were needed. Bade and Nelson, however, ultimately rejected that argument, leaving no formal determination from the president.

In addition to being heavily criticized by legal experts, Bade and Nelson’s ruling may soon be scrutinized by their colleagues as well. Shortly after they issued their order, a Ninth Circuit judge requested that the court vote on whether a larger panel should rehear the Trump administration’s appeal of Immergut’s ruling.

This is known as an “en banc” — or “on the bench” — hearing and usually means that all judges in the appellate court, rather than a smaller panel, hear a case.

However, the Ninth Circuit’s en banc process is unique given its size. As the largest appellate circuit in the country, it has 29 active judgeships, which is far too many to participate in a rehearing.

Instead, the full court takes a vote on whether to rehear an appeal. If approved, a limited en banc court composed of 11 judges — the chief judge and 10 others drawn at random — convenes for a rehearing.

Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown Law professor, noted that due to this unique process, the full Ninth Circuit, which leans liberal, will likely vote to rehear the Trump administration’s appeal, but the limited en banc court could uphold Bade and Nelson’s ruling depending on which judges are drawn.

It’s unclear exactly which Ninth Circuit judge called for an en banc hearing, but in her dissent, Graber urged her colleagues to “swiftly” vacate Monday’s order “before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur.”

A separate Ninth Circuit panel is set to hear oral arguments Wednesday over Trump’s LA deployment. It will consider whether U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer was correct in finding that Trump’s use of troops in the city earlier this year violated a law that largely bars the use of the military in law enforcement.

---

---}:

AN 10 25

A recent unanimous ruling against one of President Donald Trump's key policies suggests that the Supreme Court may have overplayed its hand, making rebels out of conservative lower court judges.

That's according to Slate legal correspondents Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick, who argued on Monday that last week's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling preventing Trump from deploying the National Guard in Illinois may have been rooted in animus against how the nation's highest court has treated lower courts. That 7th Circuit ruling upheld a previous ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in which the Trump administration's assertion that calling the guard was necessary to quell a "rebellion" in Chicago failed to convince the court to let him move forward with the deployment. The 3-0 panel even included Trump appointee Amy St. Eve.

Lithwick and Stern observed that the district court stage of litigation is typically seen as the "fact-finding" part of a legal case. And appellate court judges in those respective circuits are usually bound to accept the facts of the district courts unless they were proven to be erroneous.

The experts then pivoted to the Supreme Court's habit during Trump's second term of overturning lower court rulings, often in emergency docket or "shadow docket" rulings that contain no rationale or explanation for their decisions.

"I’m wondering if it was an unforced error by the U.S. Supreme Court to treat lower courts — their findings of fact, their efforts to do hard doctrinal work under unbelievably challenging circumstances — with hostility or overt contempt," Lithwick said. "I find myself wondering if the court, particularly over the summer, made a lot of enemies by using dismissive rhetoric, and now in a lot of ways emboldening judges to say: Not today, Satan. Don’t lie to me."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Stern agreed, saying: "[W]e are starting to see some conservative judges on the lower courts bristle at the way that the Supreme Court is treating them and their colleagues."

"It seems to me that the Supreme Court has fomented an 'us vs. them' dynamic with the lower courts. It’s presenting itself as the final arbiter of all facts on the ground, ignoring its obligation to defer to what the district court believes is happening in the real world," Stern said. "The Supreme Court has decided: We know everything, we have a crystal ball, we are omnipresent and omnipotent. That arrogance doesn’t just offend the lower courts’ egos — it undercuts the work they see as their duty, especially the careful establishment of facts. So when the Supreme Court treats fact-finding as optional, maybe judges like St. Eve respond by making it decisive. They’re not just fact-checking, they’re reality-checking."

Click here to read Lithwick and Stern's full analysis in Slate (subscription required).

---

---}:

AN 10 25

A Boston federal judge's "blistering" 161-page ruling on what he called the president's attackson the Constitution contains a stunning warning for the president's enemies, Axios reports.

Judge William G. Young's ruling maintains international students' rights to free speech despite the administration's efforts to deport them after a professors union and student groups sued the Trump administration over its efforts to detain and deport immigrants who expressed pro-Palestinianviews.

Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk was detained for six weeks over a pro-Palestinian op-ed she co-wrote in the university newspaper.

Young blasted the Homeland Security and State departments for being used to crack down on free speech, saying if they can be manipulated to do that, so can the IRS, Social Security Administration and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.

They, he wrote, can be "unconstitutionally weaponized" against Trump's enemies, even though "political persecutionis anathema to our Constitution and everything for which America stands."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Young, who called this the biggest case the Boston federal court ever faced, called the State and Homeland Security departments' moves "unconstitutional attacks on political speech," saying Trump's support for this strategy violates his duties as president to defend the Constitution.

Trump's executive orders, Young wrote, singled out pro-Palestinian speech "for a campaign of speech-chilling retribution" under the guise of combating antisemitism and hate speech.

The judge also weighed in on federal immigration agents sporting face masks, likening them to "to KKK members and 'cowardly desperados,'" noting that even the military doesn't shield soldiers with masks, Axios reports.

He called the federal employees who raised concerns about insufficient evidence to deport these students "true patriots" who were "weaponized by their highest superiors to reach foregone conclusions for most ignoble ends."

Also included in the judge's ruling was a random postcard he received from an anonymous sender that said, "Trump has pardons and tanks. What do you have?"

"Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty," the judge replied. "Together, we ... you and me — have our magnificent Constitution."

//

an 10 25

Senior U.S. District Judge William Young — a Ronald Reagan appointee — included a photocopy of a postcard sent to him by an anonymous critic complaining of judicial power in U.S. government.

Young, a U.S. District Judge in Boston, ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s policy of targeting foreign students and faculty for pro-Palestinian activism violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections. He included with his decision a scornful scolding of the administration’s attempt to terrify dissent on college campuses — as well as a rebuke to what looks like a pro-Trump voter boasting that: “Trump has pardons and tanks ... What do you have?”

“Dear Mr. or Ms, Anonymous,” Young replied in writing. “Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States — you and me — have our magnificent Constitution.”

“Here’s how that works in a specific case,” added Young, who then submitted a court opinion concluding that “Secretaries Noem and Rubio and their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.”

“They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful Pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of speech that is their right,” Young said, adding that “the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day.”

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

“I gasped when I saw the front page of this decision,” posted American Immigration Council Senior Fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick on X.

Politico Senior Legal Affairs Reporter Kyle Chaney called it “the most scathing legal rebuke of the Trump era,” on X.

Read a PBS article on the news at this link.

//

Redirect Notice

William_G WIKI 10 25

William Glover Young (born September 23, 1940) is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a senior U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. He was appointed in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan, and he served as chief judge of the district from 1999 to 2005. Young was a judge of the Massachusetts Superior Court from 1978 to 1985.

9 25 mass deport guat kids, use of military ca, tariffs?

//

an 925

In another judicial rebuke to President Donald Trump’s effort to harm funding for the nation’s arts, a federal judge on Friday evening ruled against the president’s insider attack on the National Endowment for the Arts by blocking grant applications from artists or organizations that don’t strictly adhere to the president’s right-wing ideology on gender.

Ruling in favor of several arts organizations that sued the NEA earlier this year over the policy change, US District Court Judge William E. Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush and serving in Rhode Island, said the grant restrictions ran afoul of federal statute and the US Constitution.

As theNew York Times reports:

The lawsuit was filed in March by several arts organizations, including Rhode Island Latino Arts, which promotes art made by Latinos, and National Queer Theater, a New York company. It challenged new agency regulations, initially introduced in February, stating that federal funds “shall not be used to promote gender ideology,” which Mr. Trump’s order said includes “the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”In the lawsuit, the groups, which said they had all produced or supported work about transgender and nonbinary people, argued that they would effectively be barred from seeking grants “on artistic merit and excellence grounds,” which violated their rights under the First Amendment.

In his ruling, Williams called the policy that came out of Trump’s edict both “arbitrary and capricious,” one that violated not only free speech protections but also the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs the EPA grant-making process.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Smith held that the NEA’s grant application review process “violates the First Amendment because it is a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech.”

Specifically, the judge said the government’s policy “offered zero explanation” to applicants “of what it means for a project to ‘promote gender ideology,’ let alone how that concept relates to artistic merit, artistic excellence, general standards of decency, or respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.”

“The NEA intends to disfavor applications that promote gender ideology precisely because they promote gender ideology,” Smith stated in his judicial order. “The Final Notice therefore promises to penalize artists based on their speech.”

The lawsuit was brought four groups: Rhode Island Latino Arts (RILA), National Queer Theater (NQT), The Theater Offensive (TTO), and Theatre Communications Group (TCG).

Marta V. Martínez, RILA’s executive director, said the court’s ruling “affirms what we have always believed: the freedom to create, to express one’s truth, and to tell our stories is a right protected by the First Amendment.”

“As an organization deeply rooted in storytelling, theater, and the preservation of cultural history,” Martínez added, “we are relieved and grateful that the courts have recognized the importance of protecting artistic expression for all people, including those in LGBTQ+ communities.”

The ACLU, which had helped bring the suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, celebrated the ruling as “an important victory” for artists, free speech, and the rule of law.

“At a time when the government is using its full weight to try to impose ideological conformity, this order is an important reminder that the First Amendment protects us from exactly that,” Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. “Even when the government funds private speech, it does not get to support only those messages that parrot its views.”

---}:

4 25

4TH DISTR? TRUMP JUDGE ORDER RET OF 2ND CECOT

---

---

AN 6 25

In a high-stakes emergency hearing Thursday in the case of Newsom v. Trump, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer raised sharp constitutional questions about President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and potential activation of U.S. Marines in response to unrest in California.

The hearing, held under expedited circumstances, addressed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) challenge to Trump’s recent order deploying military forces without what the state argues was the legally required coordination with the governor.

Breyer opened the session with pointed observations about the constitutional stakes of the dispute, according to Politico reporter Kyle Cheney, who detailed the proceedings in a thread on the social platform X.

READ MORE: ‘Changes Are Coming!’: Trump Appears Stunned to Learn Farms Rely on Undocumented Workers

"How is that different than what a monarchist does?" he asked.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

"He says certain things, he finds certain things, he does certain things. That’s not where we live. We live in response to a monarchy … the Constitution is a document of limitations."

Breyer expressed appreciation for the expedited briefings from both parties, calling the matter “very serious” and “weighty,” and said he intends to act quickly given the urgency.

Central to the hearing was the Department of Justice’s argument that the president’s determination of a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” is not subject to judicial review. Breyer appeared skeptical of that claim."That’s the difference between a Constitutional government and King George,” the judge said.

READ MORE: ‘Mouthpiece for the Kremlin’: Rubio Scorched for ‘Russia Day’ Congratulations

“It’s not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it."He also focused on the statutory requirement that any order federalizing the National Guard “shall” be issued “through” the governor of the affected state.

Breyer questioned whether Trump met that requirement."I'm trying to figure out how something is ‘through’ somebody if in fact you didn’t give it to him," he said, signaling doubts that the administration followed proper legal channels in bypassing Newsom.

However, Breyer also raised questions for the state. While California attorneys warned that U.S. Marines are expected to arrive in Los Angeles within 24 hours, Breyer noted that, at present, no such deployment had occurred."I just sort of don’t think that’s my business," he said, referring to the Marines’ involvement, but added that it might become relevant if and when troops are deployed.

---

mma BEATS PAXTON MUSK

MMA

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rules in Media Matters’ favor on First Amendment grounds: Angelo Carusone statement

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published 05/30/25

Media Matters President and CEO Angelo Carusone issued the following statement after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia unanimously upheld the district court’s decision last year to block Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s civil investigative demand of Media Matters on First Amendment grounds.

“Elon Musk encouraged Republican state attorneys general to use their power to harass their critics and stifle reporting about X. Ken Paxton was one of those AGs who took up the call, and his attempt to use his office as an instrument for Musk’s censorship crusade has been defeated. Today's decision is a victory for free speech.

“We are also buoyed that yet another court has seen through the fog of Musk’s ‘thermonuclear’ legal onslaught and recognized it for the meritless attack to silence a critic that it is."

Key takeaways from the ruling:

• The judges ruled that “Media Matters is the target of a government campaign of retaliation” for exercising First Amendment rights, which “reflects concrete and present harm. And as the target of an arguablybad-faith investigation, Appellees are also experiencing special burdens on their newsgathering activities and operation of their media company.”

• “In addition, Paxton’s contention that Appellees’ conduct is not constitutionally protected because their articles were deliberately designed to mislead consumers about X is meritless. The record is utterly devoid of evidence to support such a claim.”

• “As to the first element, Appellees – a media organization and news reporter – are obviously engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment. Indeed, the underlying incident that precipitated their claim involved their news reporting on a public figure and alleged political extremism on a popular social media platform. Their reporting on public issues are quintessential First Amendment activities."

The same day that X Corp. filed a meritless lawsuit against Media Matters for America for an accurate report on the platform’s extremism, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a similarly specious investigation into Media Matters under Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Paxton subsequently issued an overbroad and invasive civil investigative demand – even though Media Matters has no relevant connection to Texas. The law firm Stone Hilton, led by former Paxton deputies Judd Stone and Chris Hilton, is representing X Corp. in its case against Media Matters. In April of 2024, Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Paxton.

In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California ruled that“it seems almost certain that the X entities’ decision to file multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions is designed more to bully Media Matters and inflict financial hardship upon it than to actually vindicate those entities’ rights.”

The nonpartisan U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, which catalogs press freedom violations in the United States, recently added an incident report related to the Texas attorney general's investigation to its database.

---

OOPS?

AN 5 25

MAGA is outraged today after a three-judge panel struck down the brunt of President Donald Trump’s "Liberation Day" tariffs. The panel ruled that the tariffs Trump imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) were "unlawful” and that the power to impose tariffs lies with Congress. The three-judge panel also ruled that the president cannot usurp the power of Congress in this matter by invoking an emergency.

The panel from the Court of International Trade consists of judges appointed by Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk called the people behind the ruling “activist judges.”

“What is even the point of having a president?!” Kirk posted. “FACT CHECK: While the Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, Congress delegated much of that power to the Executive Branch in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows for adjustments to tariff rates without needing Congressional action. Courts have given the executive branch broad authority to negotiate trade, that is until now.”

READ MORE: 'Everyone is afraid to tell him': Trump brutally mocked following 'meltdown' with reporter

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

“Judicial activism strikes again,” posted another X user, who was quick to point out that the three judge panel ruled from a “New York-based Court.” “Three unelected judges apparently wield more power than the President of the United States.”

Most of the negative reactions decried the corruption of “activist” or “unelected” judges.

“The federal court’s decision to block Trump’s tariffs exposes judicial overreach at its worst,” wrote X user Jesse Cohen. “Unelected judges overriding executive authority to protect globalist interests? Classic D.C. swamp behavior.”

“OMG, THE JUDICIAL TAKEOVER IS ALMOST COMPLETE!” wrote right-wing podcaster Mark Levin.

READ MORE: Donald Trump finally faces his reckoning

But while reaction from MAGA accounts burned with anger, other business-minded conservative accounts said either nothing or accepted the ruling with composure.

The X account of best-selling author Dave Ramsey, who built a prolific career on offering financial advice had nothing to say about the judicial panel decision.

Other pro-business accounts, including ruby-red Republican strategist Russ Latino, asked audiences to see the upside of the ruling.

“A few positives: 1. Your daughter can have more than 2 dolls. 2. Small businesses in your community that rely on imports, with tight margins, may not have to declare bankruptcy. 3. One day, when someone you don’t like is in the Oval Office, their power will be limited,” Latino posted.

---

---

an 5 25

A federal judge's ruling in Pennsylvania on Tuesday marked the first time a court has decided the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, and one policy expert said the ruling "further pressures the Supreme Court to act soon" to determine once and for all whether the mass deportation campaign is lawful.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, an appointee of President Donald Trump in the Western District of Pennsylvania, contrasted with those of federal judges in Colorado, New York, and Texas, who have found Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act exceeds its scope.

The law enables the government to swiftly deport migrants during an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" by a foreign nation. The Trump administration has claimed the Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua has ties to the South American country's government—an assertion that U.S. intelligence agencies have not endorsed—and has designated the group a foreign terrorist organization.

Having invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March, Trump has deported more than a hundred Venezuelans accused of being members of the gang to El Salvador.

Haines said in her ruling that she hadn't resolved whether the administration can use the law to remove gang members from the country, and rejected a request by the White House to find that an invasion or predatory incursion could include migration.

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

But she also disagreed with other courts' rulings that found the Alien Enemies Act relates specifically to military invasions, saying instead that it covers "acts by a foreign terrorist organization."

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said her reasoning was "exceptionally weak."

"Her decision, which applies only in the Western District of Pennsylvania, will be appealed to the 3rd Circuit, which will likely put a hold on [Alien Enemies Act] removals out of her district," said Reichlin-Melnick. "But this further pressures the Supreme Court to act soon—potentially before the end of the term."

Reichlin-Melnick and others emphasized that Haines ordered the administration to give migrants far more notice of their impending deportations under the law. The White House had proposed 12-24 hours; Haines ordered officials to provide 21 days' notice in both Spanish and English.

The ACLU last month called on the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The justices ruled last month that people targeted for removal under the law are entitled to challenge their removal, without providing a timeline.

---

an 4 25

A federal court judge on Sunday declared the Trump administration's refusal to return a man they sent to an El Salvadoran prison in "error" as "totally lawless" behavior and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to repatriate the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, within 24 hours.

In a 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis doubled down on an order issued Friday, which Department of Justice lawyers representing the administration said was an affront to his executive authority.

"This was an illegal act," Xinis said of DHS Secretary Krisi Noem's attack on Abrego Garcia's rights, including his deportation and imprisonment.

"Defendants seized Abrego Garcia without any lawful authority; held him in three separate domestic detention centers without legal basis; failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer; and forcibly transported him to El Salvador in direct contravention of [immigration law]," the decision states.

Once imprisoned in El Salvador, the order continues, "U.S. officials secured his detention in a facility that, by design, deprives its detainees of adequate food, water, and shelter, fosters routine violence; and places him with his persecutors."

Trump's DOJ appealed Friday's order to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, but that court has not yet ruled on the request to stay the order from Xinis, which says Abrego Garcia should be returned to the United States no later than Monday.

---

an 12 24

---

an 12 24

In March, about 100 gathered in Judge James Wynn Jr.’s hometown of Robersonville to throw him a surprise retirement party.

Nine months later, Wynn revealed his own surprise: he’s not giving up his seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after all.

In a letter Wynn, 70, wrote to President Joe Biden Friday that was released the following afternoon by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — who rebuked the judge’s decision — he rescinded his January announcement that he would assume senior status, a form of semi-retirement where federal judges hear a reduced caseload and vacate their permanent seat on the court.

“I write to advise that, after careful consideration, I have decided to continue in regular active service as a United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit,” Wynn wrote. “I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused.”

Wynn’s decision to remain in active service is the culmination of a monthslong drama over his seat on the bench. Biden named North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park as his choice to succeed Wynn, an Obama appointee, in July — and was immediately met with strident opposition from North Carolina Senators Tillis and Ted Budd.

“This nomination is a non-starter and the White House has already been informed they do not have the votes for confirmation,” the senators wrote in a joint statement at the time. “We still hope to work together to find a consensus nominee who can earn bipartisan support and be confirmed.”

The results in the Senate backed up that threat. In a deal to advance a slate of district court nominees, the Biden administration raised the white flag on his four remaining circuit court nominees, all of whom were said to lack the votes for confirmation. Park formally withdrew himself from consideration Thursday, and the following day, Wynn announced his reversal.

Tillis called Wynn’s decision “brazenly partisan” and a “slap in the face to the U.S. Senate” after the deal to hold the seat for Trump to fill. He urged the Senate Judiciary Committee — set to be controlled by Republicans beginning in January — to hold a hearing on the matter.

Carl Tobias, an expert on the federal judiciary who teaches at the University of Richmond, said he was not surprised by Wynn’s decision given the politicized process that prevented Park’s confirmation — Tobias had called Park an “extraordinary nominee” and a “consummate lawyer.”

“Judge Wynn certainly can retract his decision, and he’s done that, and I think partly due to what happened during the confirmation process for his successor,” Tobias said. “Article III judges are independent and they do whatever they need to do.”

The reversal denies Trump the opportunity to name what would have been his fourth appointee to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in a second term where he looks set to reshape the federal courts that cover North Carolina. The court has a roster of 15 active status judges, plus three who are on senior status. Wynn is the second federal judge from the state to “unretire” in the wake of the 2024 election, after Judge Max Cogburn Jr. for the Western District of North Carolina did the same in November.

Since that decision, Cogburn has been the subject of ethics complaints calling into question his integrity and impartiality. The conservative Article III Project submitted a letter to the Fourth Circuit alleging that Cogburn’s decision violated Canons 2 and 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges — which require upholding impartiality and avoiding political activity, respectively.

Such complaints are certain to follow for Wynn from judicial activists on the right. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said prior to his announcement that should any circuit judge go back on their decision to take senior status, that would warrant “significant ethics complaints.”

“Never before has a circuit judge unretired after a presidential election. It’s literally unprecedented,” McConnell said on the Senate floor. “As I have repeatedly warned the judiciary in other matters, if you play political games, expect political prizes.”

Xiao Wang, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has studied retirements in the federal judiciary, said the precedent Wynn has set could pose challenges to future deals like the one to advance several Biden district court nominees. He said it may also encourage conservative judges to take senior status decisions that appear political, particularly as Trump takes office and seeks to fill as many vacancies as possible.

Wynn is not the first circuit judge to go back on a planned retirement. Judge Robert King, a Clinton appointee who serves with Wynn on the Fourth Circuit, also rescinded his plans to take senior status after Biden opted not to name his preferred successor. Judge Michael Kanne, a Reagan appointee who served on the Seventh Circuit, did the same for similar reasons.

With Wynn choosing to remain on the bench, judicial observers are turning their attention to Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, 71, who serves on the Sixth Circuit and like Wynn, announced plans to take senior status only to see her planned successor, a former clerk of hers, fail to get a vote in the Senate.

Wang said the backlash to Wynn’s decision, including the ethics complaints he is expected to receive, could serve as a deterrent to other judges considering the same.

“The first one certainly makes it possible that there could be a second one,” Wang said. “Just depending on what the reaction is and if there are any consequences for this.”

---

===

08/26/24

Media Matters statement on winning injunction against Missouri AG Andrew Bailey in federal court

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published 08/26/24

Media Matters President and CEO Angelo Carusone issued the following statement after Judge Amit Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

“A federal judge has clearly seen this coordinated effort by state attorneys general for what it is – sucking up to Elon Musk and abusing the power of their offices to intimidate researchers and stifle accurate reporting by Musk's critics. Andrew Bailey was one of those AGs that took up the call and he was defeated.

“The judge’s decision is a victory for free speech and a warning to other AGs and like-minded bad actors that the constitution does not allow for this type of meritless, retaliatory, harassing effort to suppress free speech.”

Key takeaways from the order:

• As Judge Mehta noted, Media Matters was the target of politically motivated “retaliation” by law enforcement that “chilled” our “protected expression” and First Amendment rights.

* The U.S. District Court also affirmed that Media Matters’ reporting is “protected speech” and has been corroborated by other media outlets and even X Corp.

• According to Judge Mehta “‘the most heinous act in which a democratic government can engage is to use its law enforcement machinery for political ends.’ … That apparently is what has occurred here.”

* The U.S. District Court affirmed that AG Bailey’s own “public statements are direct evidence of retaliatory intent” against Media Matters, and “retaliation for protected expression was likely his true motive for investigating Media Matters.”

The same day that X Corp. filed a meritless lawsuit against Media Matters for America for an accurate report on the platform’s extremism, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton opened a similarly specious investigation into MMFA under Texas’ deceptive trade practices act. Paxton subsequently issued an overbroad and invasive civil investigative demand – despite the fact that Media Matters has no relevant connection to Texas. On April 12, 2024, U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta granted Media Matters a preliminary injunction against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

Weeks after Paxton issued his demand, Missouri AG Andrew Bailey claimed to open his own investigation into Media Matters. Bailey ultimately filed a Civil Investigative Demand against the organization on March 25, 2024 – despite the fact that Media Matters has no relevant connection to Missouri. According to Bailey himself, he is coordinating with Paxton in his “war” against Media Matters and his Missouri Demand is “virtually identical” to Paxton’s Texas Demand. On April 24, 2024, Judge Mehta permitted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to be a defendant in Media Matters’ suit against Paxton.

The nonpartisan U.S. Press Freedom Tracker which catalogs press freedom violations in the United States recently recorded incident reports related to the Texas attorney general's investigation and the Missouri attorney general’s investigation in their database.

===}:

---

{{{== note ccr 1st amend bs

desmog 4 24

fossil fuel interest groups have mobilized quickly to oppose a new rule issued by the Biden administration designed to speed up America’s transition to hybrid and electric vehicles.

The rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized on March 20, limits emissions from tailpipes on new cars, starting in 2027.

Well before the EPA finalized the new standard, powerful corporate lobbies like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) had already promised to spend at least a million dollars campaigning against the rule by falsely portraying it as a “ban” on new cars. The group’s warn viewers that their freedoms and choices “will soon be taking a back seat to big government.”

The EPA predicts that the change would result in around two-thirds of new vehicle sales being hybrid or electric by 2032 — up from around eight percent today.

Beyond stopping more than 7 billion tons of carbon pollution, the agency predicts that the rule could save drivers more than $60 billion in fuel and maintenance costs, according to an EPA fact sheet that accompanied the final rule. The pollution reduction benefits would particularly benefit Black and brown communities because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from air pollution.

“These strongest-ever pollution standards for cars solidify America’s leadership in building a clean transportation future and creating good-paying American jobs,” EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement.

Compared to the EPA’s initial proposal, the final rule was scaled back to give car manufacturers more time to comply, but the New York Times still described the new standard as “one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history.”

The heads of AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute (API) — the leading trade group for the oil and gas industry — declared in a joint statement that the rule “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”

In February, AFPM had already begun portraying the rule as a “car ban” and announced a “seven-figure issue campaign” featuring TV and digital ads, as well as billboards and text messages. Some of the efforts target electoral swing states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The group also launched a website that warns readers, in all caps, to “keep the government’s hands off our cars!”

Despite the industry’s attempt to misleadingly brand the new standard, “this is not a ban of internal combustion engines,” Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.

Last year, AFPM spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government — more than any year in its history — according to OpenSecrets.

The top two bills the group reported lobbying for are designed to prevent the EPA from finalizing or enforcing vehicle emissions standards. Both bills passed the House last year. (Chevron, API, Koch Industries, and Marathon Petroleum are among the other industry groups and companies that lobbied for these bills last year.)

In addition to lobbying Congress and running million-dollar public influence campaigns, corporate trade groups have increasingly used lawsuits and the threat of costly, time-consuming litigation to stop or delay climate-related regulations.

Earlier this month, for instance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a long-delayed rule that requires public companies to disclose some of their emissions and climate risks that could impact their businesses. While the published rule was substantially weaker than what the SEC originally proposed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was among a handful of conservative interest groups that immediately challenged the measure in court.

Another recent EPA rule targeting methane emissions also met with opposition from Republican officials and oil and gas interests, according to Politico.

And on March 6, barely a month after the EPA finalized a separate rule limiting soot pollution, API, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber were among eight trade groups that sued the agency in the D.C. Circuit court.

‘Prepared to challenge it in court’

In a blog post, AFPM claims that the EPA “does not have authority to overhaul the U.S. economy or transportation system or compel — directly or otherwise — the use of EVs to address vehicle emissions.”

Similar objections to the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations have found a receptive audience among the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

If the EPA doesn’t undo the tailpipe emissions rule, “our organizations are certainly prepared to challenge it in court,” the AFPM and API CEOs said in the joint statement that followed the announcement.

In attacking the rule, corporate interest groups like AFPM are following a well-trod path of fighting new climate regulations on every playing field they can find.

During the Trump administration, AFPM helped lead a successful effort to weaken previous EPA fuel efficiency standards. The group helped marshal Republican governors to advocate for the rollback, while also supporting Energy4US, a front group that encouraged Americans to flood the EPA with public comments, as DeSmog previously reported.

“One of the big advantages that oil industry lobbyists like AFPM have is money, and AFPM certainly isn’t afraid to use it,” Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at the investigative outlet Documented, told DeSmog in an email.

“Million dollar ad campaigns are an unfortunately common way for groups like AFPM to pressure legislators and regulators by raising the political temperature on an issue. Litigation slows things further, leading to years of delays in implementation.”

---

REF DESMOG

March 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. judicial panel on Thursday consolidated at least nine lawsuits challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's new rules requiring public companies to report climate-related risks in a venue favored by Republican-led states and a business group.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was chosen randomly via a lottery and will consider the legal challenges to the landmark rule, which aims to standardize public company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The court, which has 10 Republican-appointed active judges and one appointed by a Democratic president, was the venue where nine Republican-led states including Iowa, Montana and North Dakota and the business lobbying group American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed their challenge.

Representatives for the Republican-led states and industry challengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The SEC declined to comment.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats.

They were approved by the SEC on March 6, and the first lawsuit seeking to block them was filed later that day.

The consolidated lawsuits include challenges filed by at least 25 Republican-led states, energy industry companies and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, seeking to overturn the rules.

They have argued, among other things, that the disclosure requirements amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

Challengers on the other side of the issue like the environmental organization the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council have meanwhile said the rules do not go far enough to protect investors, and arbitrarily stripped the final version of stronger reporting requirement rules.

Representatives for the environmental groups said they look forward to arguing before the court.

The conservative-dominated 5th Circuit, the court where Texas and energy companies filed their challenges, temporarily paused the rules from going into effect on Friday.

The SEC is expected to ask the 8th Circuit to revisit that ruling. It had told the 5th Circuit a pause was unnecessary, since the rules have extended compliance deadlines that do not require disclosures before March 2026.}:

The agency has also said the rules "fit comfortably within" its authority to require disclosure of information important to investors, and that they would provide "consistent, comparable and reliable information" about climate risks.

The nine lawsuits were filed in six appeals courts. The 8th Circuit had previously set a deadline for the challengers who sued in that court to file their opening brief in May.

--

REF

March 6 (Reuters) - Ten Republican-led states have sued to challenge new federal rules that require U.S.-listed companies to report climate-related risks, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Attorney General's Office said on Wednesday, hours after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the rules.

The states, which also include Georgia, Alabama and Alaska, filed the petition at the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the spokesperson. The rules aim to standardize climate-related company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Sierra Club environmental group, meanwhile, said it was considering suing the SEC because it believed the new rules did not go far enough.

The SEC, Wall Street’s top regulator, said the information would give investors reliable information about financial risks companies face related to climate change.

An SEC spokesperson said in a statement that the agency crafts rules that are consistent with its legal authority, and that it will "vigorously defend" the climate disclosure rules in court.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats. Similar disclosure requirements have been adopted in Europe and in California.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey on Wednesday said during a press conference that the Biden administration is trying to act as a "puppeteer" using public companies to drive forward its climate agenda.

Republican-led states had been signaling their intent to challenge the rules for years, arguing in public comments in 2022 that they amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

They claimed then the rules would require companies to create, gather and disclose a “crushing” amount of material that goes well beyond the finance-based disclosures that investors need.

Anticipating legal challenges, the Biden administration had dropped more ambitious elements of the rules requiring companies to disclose “Scope 3” emissions, indirect emissions by suppliers or customers.

For many businesses, Scope 3 emissions account for 70% of their carbon footprint, according to the consulting firm Deloitte.

The final SEC rules also allow larger companies to determine whether emissions from their own operations and the power they purchase constitute information investors need to make decisions.

Morrisey said that despite changes to the proposed rule, the finalized rule was still defective and unconstitutional.

The Sierra Club, one of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the U.S., said in a statement it was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the SEC's decision to remove the more robust reporting requirements. The group said it would also defend the SEC's legal authority to issue and implement the rules.

In California state court, litigation has been already been filed by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging that state’s climate disclosure laws, which include Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. That lawsuit filed in January said the state’s laws will impose “massive” costs on businesses and violate free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution by compelling the disclosures.

===}}}:

===

gmail 2 24

Maryland communities move one step closer to putting Big Oil on trial following appeals court ruling.

Communities in Maryland are closer than ever to putting Big Oil on trial after a federal appeals court this week once again rejected industry attempts to escape facing accountability for their climate lies. The ruling continues the unbroken string of judicial wins for local governments seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their decades-long campaign of climate deception in state court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously rejected oil majors’ — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute — attempts to stop cases in Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, from moving forward in state court, where they were originally filed. The Fourth Circuit issued a similar ruling in favor of the City of Baltimore’s climate accountability lawsuit in 2022.

Oil and gas companies have attempted to remove many of the climate accountability lawsuits they’re facing from state court, only to be repeatedly shut down by courts time and again.

Federal district courts across the nation have now rejected these same oil industry arguments a total of 17 times, including in Vermont, Minnesota, D.C., California, Hawai’i, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Colorado. Those rulings have been affirmed 11 times by eight separate federal appeals courts.

“The companies have sought—over and over and over—to remove the cases to federal court,” wrote Judge Toby Heytens in the unanimous ruling for Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. “By our count, that gambit has failed in at least ten cases already. The eleventh time is not the charm.”

In 2021, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson wrote that Big Oil’s arguments for federal jurisdiction in accountability lawsuits brought by state and local governments have “a batting average of .000.” More than two years later, that’s still the case.

---

---==

===

DISTRaPEALcT424

4/17 important to trump resistance, Exxon knew RICO fights:

SEE MAIN CIRCUIT APPELLATE[NOPE NOT MUCH THERE, THO NO EVID OF OVERWRITE

see 9th ninth

see 5th vaxx, disinfo, offshore drill doughty landry

see stack capture

no merri

CAPT BAK 4 24

---

vulnerability

circuit Assignments

It is ordered that the following allotment be made of The Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of this Court among the circuits, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 42 and that such allotment be entered of record, effective September 28, 2022.

• For the District of Columbia Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice
• For the First Circuit - Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice

> (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island)

• For the Second Circuit - Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice> (Connecticut, New York, Vermont)
• For the Third Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice> (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands)
• For the Fourth Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice> (Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Virginia)
• For the Fifth Circuit - Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice> (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas)
• For the Sixth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice> (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee)
• For the Seventh Circuit - Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice> (Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin)
• For the Eighth Circuit - Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice> (Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota)
• For the Ninth Circuit - Elena Kagan, Associate Justice> (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Washington)
• For the Tenth Circuit - Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice> (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming)
• For the Eleventh Circuit - Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice> (Alabama,Florida, Georgia)
• For the Federal Circuit - John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice.

---===

===

{{{== note ccr 1st amend bs CONFLICTS BETWEEN CIRCUITS, SHOPPING?

desmog 4 24

fossil fuel interest groups have mobilized quickly to oppose a new rule issued by the Biden administration designed to speed up America’s transition to hybrid and electric vehicles.

The rule, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized on March 20, limits emissions from tailpipes on new cars, starting in 2027.

Well before the EPA finalized the new standard, powerful corporate lobbies like the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) had already promised to spend at least a million dollars campaigning against the rule by falsely portraying it as a “ban” on new cars. The group’s warn viewers that their freedoms and choices “will soon be taking a back seat to big government.”

The EPA predicts that the change would result in around two-thirds of new vehicle sales being hybrid or electric by 2032 — up from around eight percent today.

Beyond stopping more than 7 billion tons of carbon pollution, the agency predicts that the rule could save drivers more than $60 billion in fuel and maintenance costs, according to an EPA fact sheet that accompanied the final rule. The pollution reduction benefits would particularly benefit Black and brown communities because they are disproportionately likely to suffer from air pollution.

“These strongest-ever pollution standards for cars solidify America’s leadership in building a clean transportation future and creating good-paying American jobs,” EPA administrator Michael S. Regan said in a statement.

Compared to the EPA’s initial proposal, the final rule was scaled back to give car manufacturers more time to comply, but the New York Times still described the new standard as “one of the most significant climate regulations in the nation’s history.”

The heads of AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute (API) — the leading trade group for the oil and gas industry — declared in a joint statement that the rule “will unequivocally eliminate most new gas cars and traditional hybrids from the U.S. market in less than a decade.”

In February, AFPM had already begun portraying the rule as a “car ban” and announced a “seven-figure issue campaign” featuring TV and digital ads, as well as billboards and text messages. Some of the efforts target electoral swing states, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The group also launched a website that warns readers, in all caps, to “keep the government’s hands off our cars!”

Despite the industry’s attempt to misleadingly brand the new standard, “this is not a ban of internal combustion engines,” Margaret Wooldridge, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Michigan, said in a statement.

Last year, AFPM spent nearly $7 million lobbying the federal government — more than any year in its history — according to OpenSecrets.

The top two bills the group reported lobbying for are designed to prevent the EPA from finalizing or enforcing vehicle emissions standards. Both bills passed the House last year. (Chevron, API, Koch Industries, and Marathon Petroleum are among the other industry groups and companies that lobbied for these bills last year.)

In addition to lobbying Congress and running million-dollar public influence campaigns, corporate trade groups have increasingly used lawsuits and the threat of costly, time-consuming litigation to stop or delay climate-related regulations.

Earlier this month, for instance, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized a long-delayed rule that requires public companies to disclose some of their emissions and climate risks that could impact their businesses. While the published rule was substantially weaker than what the SEC originally proposed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was among a handful of conservative interest groups that immediately challenged the measure in court.

Another recent EPA rule targeting methane emissions also met with opposition from Republican officials and oil and gas interests, according to Politico.

And on March 6, barely a month after the EPA finalized a separate rule limiting soot pollution, API, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Chamber were among eight trade groups that sued the agency in the D.C. Circuit court.

‘Prepared to challenge it in court’

In a blog post, AFPM claims that the EPA “does not have authority to overhaul the U.S. economy or transportation system or compel — directly or otherwise — the use of EVs to address vehicle emissions.”

Similar objections to the authority of federal agencies to issue regulations have found a receptive audience among the Supreme Court’s conservative majority.

If the EPA doesn’t undo the tailpipe emissions rule, “our organizations are certainly prepared to challenge it in court,” the AFPM and API CEOs said in the joint statement that followed the announcement.

In attacking the rule, corporate interest groups like AFPM are following a well-trod path of fighting new climate regulations on every playing field they can find.

During the Trump administration, AFPM helped lead a successful effort to weaken previous EPA fuel efficiency standards. The group helped marshal Republican governors to advocate for the rollback, while also supporting Energy4US, a front group that encouraged Americans to flood the EPA with public comments, as DeSmog previously reported.

“One of the big advantages that oil industry lobbyists like AFPM have is money, and AFPM certainly isn’t afraid to use it,” Jesse Coleman, a senior researcher at the investigative outlet Documented, told DeSmog in an email.

“Million dollar ad campaigns are an unfortunately common way for groups like AFPM to pressure legislators and regulators by raising the political temperature on an issue. Litigation slows things further, leading to years of delays in implementation.”

---

REF DESMOG

March 21 (Reuters) - A U.S. judicial panel on Thursday consolidated at least nine lawsuits challenging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's new rules requiring public companies to report climate-related risks in a venue favored by Republican-led states and a business group.

The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was chosen randomly via a lottery and will consider the legal challenges to the landmark rule, which aims to standardize public company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The court, which has 10 Republican-appointed active judges and one appointed by a Democratic president, was the venue where nine Republican-led states including Iowa, Montana and North Dakota and the business lobbying group American Free Enterprise Chamber of Commerce filed their challenge.

Representatives for the Republican-led states and industry challengers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The SEC declined to comment.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats.

They were approved by the SEC on March 6, and the first lawsuit seeking to block them was filed later that day.

The consolidated lawsuits include challenges filed by at least 25 Republican-led states, energy industry companies and business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobby, seeking to overturn the rules.

They have argued, among other things, that the disclosure requirements amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

Challengers on the other side of the issue like the environmental organization the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council have meanwhile said the rules do not go far enough to protect investors, and arbitrarily stripped the final version of stronger reporting requirement rules.

Representatives for the environmental groups said they look forward to arguing before the court.

The conservative-dominated 5th Circuit, the court where Texas and energy companies filed their challenges, temporarily paused the rules from going into effect on Friday.

The SEC is expected to ask the 8th Circuit to revisit that ruling. It had told the 5th Circuit a pause was unnecessary, since the rules have extended compliance deadlines that do not require disclosures before March 2026.}:

The agency has also said the rules "fit comfortably within" its authority to require disclosure of information important to investors, and that they would provide "consistent, comparable and reliable information" about climate risks.

The nine lawsuits were filed in six appeals courts. The 8th Circuit had previously set a deadline for the challengers who sued in that court to file their opening brief in May.

--

REF

March 6 (Reuters) - Ten Republican-led states have sued to challenge new federal rules that require U.S.-listed companies to report climate-related risks, a spokesperson for the West Virginia Attorney General's Office said on Wednesday, hours after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission approved the rules.

The states, which also include Georgia, Alabama and Alaska, filed the petition at the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the spokesperson. The rules aim to standardize climate-related company disclosures about greenhouse gas emissions, weather-related risks and how they are preparing for the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Sierra Club environmental group, meanwhile, said it was considering suing the SEC because it believed the new rules did not go far enough.

The SEC, Wall Street’s top regulator, said the information would give investors reliable information about financial risks companies face related to climate change.

An SEC spokesperson said in a statement that the agency crafts rules that are consistent with its legal authority, and that it will "vigorously defend" the climate disclosure rules in court.

First proposed in 2022, the rules are part of Democratic President Joe Biden’s efforts to leverage federal agency rulemaking to address climate change threats. Similar disclosure requirements have been adopted in Europe and in California.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey on Wednesday said during a press conference that the Biden administration is trying to act as a "puppeteer" using public companies to drive forward its climate agenda.

Republican-led states had been signaling their intent to challenge the rules for years, arguing in public comments in 2022 that they amount to back-door environmental regulations that go beyond the SEC’s legal authority.

They claimed then the rules would require companies to create, gather and disclose a “crushing” amount of material that goes well beyond the finance-based disclosures that investors need.

Anticipating legal challenges, the Biden administration had dropped more ambitious elements of the rules requiring companies to disclose “Scope 3” emissions, indirect emissions by suppliers or customers.

For many businesses, Scope 3 emissions account for 70% of their carbon footprint, according to the consulting firm Deloitte.

The final SEC rules also allow larger companies to determine whether emissions from their own operations and the power they purchase constitute information investors need to make decisions.

Morrisey said that despite changes to the proposed rule, the finalized rule was still defective and unconstitutional.

The Sierra Club, one of the largest environmental advocacy groups in the U.S., said in a statement it was considering filing a lawsuit to challenge the SEC's decision to remove the more robust reporting requirements. The group said it would also defend the SEC's legal authority to issue and implement the rules.

In California state court, litigation has been already been filed by business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce challenging that state’s climate disclosure laws, which include Scope 3 emissions disclosure requirements. That lawsuit filed in January said the state’s laws will impose “massive” costs on businesses and violate free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution by compelling the disclosures.

===}}}:

===

gmail 2 24 cci

Maryland communities move one step closer to putting Big Oil on trial following appeals court ruling.

Communities in Maryland are closer than ever to putting Big Oil on trial after a federal appeals court this week once again rejected industry attempts to escape facing accountability for their climate lies. The ruling continues the unbroken string of judicial wins for local governments seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their decades-long campaign of climate deception in state court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously rejected oil majors’ — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and the American Petroleum Institute — attempts to stop cases in Annapolis and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, from moving forward in state court, where they were originally filed. The Fourth Circuit issued a similar ruling in favor of the City of Baltimore’s climate accountability lawsuit in 2022.

Oil and gas companies have attempted to remove many of the climate accountability lawsuits they’re facing from state court, only to be repeatedly shut down by courts time and again.

Federal district courts across the nation have now rejected these same oil industry arguments a total of 17 times, including in Vermont, Minnesota, D.C., California, Hawai’i, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Colorado. Those rulings have been affirmed 11 times by eight separate federal appeals courts.

“The companies have sought—over and over and over—to remove the cases to federal court,” wrote Judge Toby Heytens in the unanimous ruling for Annapolis and Anne Arundel County. “By our count, that gambit has failed in at least ten cases already. The eleventh time is not the charm.”

In 2021, U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson wrote that Big Oil’s arguments for federal jurisdiction in accountability lawsuits brought by state and local governments have “a batting average of .000.” More than two years later, that’s still the case.

---

===

gmail 2 24

Judges continue to reject oil industry efforts to escape accountability in state court.

Vermont is another step closer to putting Big Oil companies on trial for their climate lies after a federal district court ruled last week the lawsuit can move forward in state court, where it was originally filed. The decision continues oil companies’ unbroken losing streak in their attempts to escape facing accountability for their climate lies in dozens of local and state government cases.

Vermont’s lawsuit, filed by the state Attorney General’s office in 2021, charges ExxonMobil, Shell, and other major polluters with knowingly lying to the public about the climate harms of their products and ultimately denying Vermont consumers the opportunity to make informed choices on their fossil fuel products. The lawsuit asserts that Big Oil’s deceptive marketing not only misled consumers, but also delayed action and created costly and hazardous conditions for Vermont residents, like recent deadly floods exacerbated by climate change. The case, which will now be litigated in state court, seeks to force the oil companies to stop deceiving the public and relinquish the profits they made while promoting their false advertising.

“Vermonters deserve to know the truth about fossil fuel products as they make consumer choices,” Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark said after the ruling. “This case seeks to hold accountable fossil fuel companies that misrepresented their products and hid information from the public.”

To date, eight federal appeals courts — including the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the District of Vermont — and more than a dozen federal district courts have unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry’s arguments to prevent these lawsuits from moving forward in state courts. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined Big Oil’s requests to review one of those lower court rulings for the third time.

“The fossil fuel industry’s efforts to deceive the public about climate change have caused irreparable harm to communities,” CCI President Richard Wiles said. “The people of Vermont deserve their day in court to make these companies answer for their fraud.”

===

---

mma 2 24

Right-wing media responded to a federal appeals court ruling on Tuesday denying former President Donald Trump’s claims of absolute immunity by offering absurd legal arguments and demonstrating general confusion about the facts of the case.

The D.C. appeals court ruled that Trump can be prosecuted for his actions to overturn the result of the 2020 election, a major victory for special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. Trump is expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

As Politico reported:

The judges concluded that longstanding doctrines of “immunity” for presidents from civil lawsuits related to their official duties did not extend to alleged criminal acts — and certainly not for a former president. Similarly, they concluded that the gravity of the specific charges against Trump weighed heavily against declaring him immune, even when balanced against concerns about the chilling effect it could have on future presidents.

Right-wing pundits reacted by attacking the decision, with some claiming it was partisan and that future Republican administrations should target President Joe Biden.

• OutKick’s Clay Travis claimed that if the case moved forward it would “violate DOJ precedent and put Trump on trial in the late summer and fall of an election year.”

• January 6 conspiracy theorist Julie Kelly called it the “least shocking thing ever,” painting the ruling as partisan and downplaying the charges against Trump as “vague”

• Daily Caller editor Vince Coglianese posted on X (formerly Twitter) that a sentence the order meant Trump was “not entitled to the presumption of innocence.” The very next sentence in the decision proved him wrong.

• Trump’s son and right-wing influencer Donald Trump Jr. wrote that the ruling meant future presidents would “be incapable of action for fear of future partisan reprisal,” which “endangers the United States and sets a terrible precedent.”

• Conservative judicial activist Mike Davis argued the judges “ignored the Constitution's separation of powers” and that a future Trump “Justice Department can prosecute Biden for his illegal release of dangerous migrants into the United States and the natural and probable crimes they commit.” In fact, the judges found that it was Trump’s argument that “would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches.”

• “Pizzagate” conspiracy theorist and neo-Nazi collaborator Jack Posobiec echoed Davis, writing, “This presidential immunity ruling means Biden can be indicted right now for treason by aiding an invasion.”

---

---

1 24 tx?

Federal appeals court rules emergency rooms are not required to perform life-saving abortions - Alternet.org

---

A legal analyst recently explained why Americans should not expect much from judges currently on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

On Saturday, September 17, attorney and legal analyst Elie Mystal appeared on MSNBC News' "The Cross Connection" where she weighed in on the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation into Trump and the documents confiscated from his Mar-a-Lago estate by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).

Since Florida Judge Aileen Cannon's appointment of a special master to review the confiscated documents, Myskal insists the possible outcome still appears to be a mystery due to six of the judges being appointed by the former president.

READ MORE: Political analysts explain why Trump may believe a 2024 presidential run could quell his legal woes

During the interview, Myskal spoke with MSNBC's Tiffany Cross, Trump may have the advantage of achieving favorable outcomes in each case being overseen by judges he appointed.

"The DOJ is no longer appealing fighting a special master and they are only asking for a small stay for part of the order. What do you think the DOJ's play is here? What is the reasoning behind that?," host Cross asked.

"They're realizing that the 11th circuit is also infected with Trump judges, right?" Mystal exclaimed. "Aileen Cannon, this district judge was making these horrible, biased corrupt decisions, she was appointed by Trump and confirmed nine days after he lost the election."

He went on to explain why the sitting judges are problematic. "The six judges on the 11th Circuit are Trump judges," he continued. "That is a huge problem. A third of the Supreme Court was appointed by Donald Trump. Every one of the 234 or so judges that Trump appointed is suspect."

READ MORE: Unsealed Mar-a-Lago affidavit shows Donald Trump 'did play a role' in hiding documents: legal analyst

According to Myskal, the judicial makeup Trump left behind serves as a threat to the United States' democracy.

"We have to start understanding that these are 234 land mines that Trump left behind in order to potentially blow up our democracy down the road," he explained. "These people serve for life. I have said on this program and many programs that one of the key reasons that Trump is not already in jail is that he keeps finding people who are willing to lie, cheat, and debase themselves for him."

"Aileen Cannon is just the latest person who is willing to debase herself, her profession,and her office in service of Donald Trump," Mystal insisted. "So he found another one. And he might find some more on the 11th Circuit. he might find some more on the Supreme Court."

"The DOJis trying to navigate that reality and all I'm trying to say is to get people to understand that reality; that is not new. People who now say the 11th Circuit may be more reasonable, again, you can't count on that. You have to treat every single Trump appointee as suspect until proven otherwise."

Watch the full discussion below or at this link.

===

https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2022/04/19/ninth-circuit-deals-latest-blow-big-oil-ruling-california-climate-lawsuits

for Immediate Release

Tuesday April 19, 2022, 

Center for Climate Integrity

Contact

Mike Meno, Center for Climate Integrity, mike@climateintegrity.org

PRESS RELEASE

Ninth Circuit Deals Latest Blow to Big Oil, Ruling that California Climate Lawsuits Belong in State Court

Three Federal Appeals Courts Have Now Handed Major Losses to Fossil Fuel Companies After the U.S. Supreme Court Ordered Expanded Review of Big Oil’s Arguments for Federal Jurisdiction

WASHINGTON -

Lawsuits from six California cities and counties seeking to hold major oil and gas companies — including ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and Shell — accountable for the cost of climate damages they knowingly caused should proceed in state court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today.

The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel means that the counties of San Mateo, Marin, and Santa Cruz, and the cities of Imperial Beach, Richmond, and Santa Cruz are now one key step closer to putting oil majors on trial for deceiving the public about their role in climate change.

The Ninth Circuit decision marks the third time this year that a federal appeals court has rejected arguments from the oil industry to move climate liability lawsuits filed in state court to federal courtfollowing a 2021 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

At least ten federal district courts have similarly ruled that climate accountability lawsuits filed in state court belong in state court  — “a batting average of .000” for the fossil fuel industry, in the words of one judge.

In response, Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, released the following statement: 

“This is another big, but not surprising, loss for the oil and gas majors. Three federal appeals courts have now agreed that their arguments to escape accountability in state court do not pass muster. This ruling is a major victory for these California communities seeking their day in court against corporate polluters that spent decades lying about their products’ role in fueling the climate crisis.” 

Background:  

Earlier this year, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit issued similar rulings in climate accountability lawsuits from communities in Colorado and Maryland, respectively. 

Four other federal circuit courts across the country are considering similar arguments from Exxon and other oil and gas companies, which have repeatedly lost efforts to move climate accountability lawsuits out of state court.

Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, as well as 20 city and county governments in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Washington, have filed lawsuits to hold major oil and gas companies accountable for deceiving the public about their products’ role in climate change.

===

===

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_district_court_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

United States district court judges appointed by Donald Trump

The following 175 pages are in this category, out of 175 total. This list may not reflect recent changes

===

no lnx an 11 21

'Pro-death cult strikes back': Right-wing judges block Biden’s vaccine rule for big companies

Kenny Stancil and Common Dreams November 08, 2021

Progressives concerned about workplace safety and public health responded with dismay after a federal appeals court on Saturday temporarily blocked the Biden administration's attempt to require workers at companies with 100 or more employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19 or tested weekly.

Citing "grave statutory and constitutional" problems with the rule, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued the stay in response to a joint petition filed Friday by a coalition of businesses, conservative advocacy groups, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah.

That legal challenge, and separate lawsuits from Republican-led states, came just one day after President Joe Biden announced that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would begin enforcing its newly unveiled Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) in the coming weeks. Companies with at least 100 employees have until December 5 to require unvaccinated workers to wear masks indoors, and by January 4, they must require vaccinations or administer weekly tests.

Decrying the decision of the "right-wing Fifth Circuit," labor journalist Steven Greenhouse said on social media that "it's terrible for worker safety and public health that three conservative activist judges have suspended Biden's... new rule requiring workers at companies with more than 100 workers to get vaccinated or tested."

"OSHA's mission is to protect workers' health," Greenhouse continued, "but the appellate judges seem to forget that Covid has killed thousands of meatpacking, retail, and other workers."

More than 750,000 people in the U.S. have died from Covid-19 since the pandemic started last March, and the disease continues to kill nearly 1,100 people per day, most of them unvaccinated, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Recent studies confirm that vaccines save lives.Last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services analyzed the relationship between county-level inoculation rates and Covid-19 outcomes among U.S. seniors and found that vaccines helped ward off 265,000 infections, 107,000 hospitalizations, and 39,000 deaths during the first five months of 2021.

And in September, CDC researchers found that individuals in the U.S. who were not fully vaccinated last spring and summer were 11 times more likely to die after being infected with the coronavirus—and over 10 times more likely to be hospitalized—than those who were fully inoculated.

Greenhouse said that "the judges evidently sympathize with [Texas Republican Gov.] Greg Abbott's let-people-die stance—that it'soverreachfor OSHA to act strongly to protect workers from Covid."

David Michaels, a leader of OSHA during the Obama administration, also rebuked the federal appeals court, describing its decision as legally dubious and politically motivated.

"The same activist court that refused to stay Texas' law that permits bounty hunters to sue anyone who aids an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy has stayed an OSHA rule that is clearly within OSHA's authority, will save lives, and make workplaces safe," he told the New York Times.

According to the Times, "At the core of the legal challenge is the question of whether OSHA exceeded its authority in issuing the rule and whether such a mandate would need to be passed by Congress."

The newspaper reported:

The suit against the mandate stated that President Biden "set the legislative policy" of substantially increasing the number of Americans covered by vaccination requirements, and "then set binding rules enforced with the threat of large fines."

"That is a quintessential legislative act—and one wholly unrelated to the purpose of OSHA itself, which is protecting workplace safety," the suit said. "Nowhere in OSHA's enabling legislation does Congress confer upon it the power to end pandemics."

Corporate executives asked, and the Biden administration agreed, to delay implementation of OSHA's new ETS "until after the New Year, citing concerns about worker shortages during the important holiday season," Reuters noted.

Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda, meanwhile, said in a statement that the Labor Department, home to OSHA, is "confident in its legal authority" to issue vaccine requirements.

The vaccine rule for companies with 100 or more employees "applies to 84.2 million workers at 1.9 million private-sector employers," Reuters reported. "OSHA estimates that 31.7 million of [those] workers are unvaccinated and 60% of employers will require vaccinations, up from 25% today, resulting in another 22.7 million employees getting vaccinated."

Several million additional workers are covered by the Biden administration's vaccine mandate for employees of the executive branch, federal contractors, and staff at healthcare facilities that accept Medicare or Medicaid funding. OSHA officials say they are considering expanding the jab-or-test rule to include companies with fewer than 100 workers.

"The Occupational Safety and Health Act explicitly gives OSHA the authority to act quickly in an emergency where the agency finds that workers are subjected to a grave danger and a new standard is necessary to protect them," Nanda said. "We are fully prepared to defend this standard in court."

The Fifth Circuit panel's two-page order directs the Biden administration to respond to the request for a permanent injunction against the rule by 5 p.m. ET Monday.

As the Times noted, it remains unclear whether the court's stay "would be a procedural blip for the Biden administration or the first step in the unwinding of the mandate."

The newspaper explained that "after both sides have filed briefs, the court will decide whether to lift the temporary injunction, allowing the rule to proceed as planned, or whether to grant a permanent injunction. OSHA could then take the case to the Supreme Court."

While some legal experts argue that the Labor Department has the regulatory authority to compel private employers to protect the health of workers and the broader public through mandatory vaccination amid a deadly global pandemic,Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston, told Reuters that "there will be so much litigation it will never see the light of day."

Twenty-four attorneys general threatened to sue the Biden administration over the rule back in September, and several followed through immediately after it was published in the federal register on Friday.

In addition to the petition filed with the Fifth Circuit, attorneys general in 11 states—Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

And in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia sued, with Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis saying at a press conference that "the federal government can't just unilaterally impose medical policy under the guise of workplace regulation."

Roughly 70% of U.S. adults are fully inoculated against Covid-19, and about 80% have received at least one shot, according to the CDC. Recent polling shows that a majority of U.S. adults favor Covid-19 vaccination requirements, with only about one-fifth to one-quarter of respondents opposed.

OSHA, Reuters pointed out, is "fighting history. The agency has issued 10 ETS over its 50 years. Of the six that were challenged in court, only one survived entirely intact."

Donald Verrilli, U.S. solicitor general during former President Barack Obama's administration, however, told the news outlet that the Biden administration "wouldn't move forward unless they thought that they could defend it legally... I think the constitutional challenges are all going to fail."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Here's why Noam Chomsky is surprised by Joe Biden's presidency ... ›

New report shows Biden actually has lots of good news to brag ... ›

Biden is making a critical mistake about Democrats' loss in Virginia ... ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Sweeping new vaccine mandates for 100 million Americans ›

Biden proposes new rules to cut climate-warming methane ... ›

Jill Biden speaks candidly about being a first lady: 'Nothing can ... ›

===

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued an inflammatory and high-profile ruling on Fridaystriking down a decades-old assault weapons ban in California as unconstitutional. In a widely cited opening passage, Benitez — who was appointed by President George W. Bush — compared the AR-15 to a "Swiss Army knife," an analogy many critics found absurd and thought undermined his argument.

But that wasn't the only unnecessarily incendiary portion of the ruling. As several legal commentators pointed out on Twitter, Benitez included a dangerous, superfluous, and outright false claim about COVID-19 vaccinations:

The evidence described so far proves that the "harm" of an assault rifle being used in a mass shooting is an infinitesimally rare event. More people have died from the Covid-19 vaccine than mass shootings in California. Even if a mass shooting by assault rifle is a real harm, the evidence also shows that AWCA's prohibited features ban has not alleviated the harm in any material way. (emphasis added)

It's notable that, given how heavily cited and documented legal rulings often are, the judge offered no citation or source for his claim — not for the number of deaths from the vaccine nor from mass shootings. It was simply a lazy yet explosive aside.

And to be completely clear, the statement is entirely baseless. According to the CDC, no deaths have been conclusively linked to the COVID vaccines — certainly not in California specifically:

A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.

It is possible that there have been a few deaths linked to blood clots from the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the CDC said, but such a causal connection has not been established. Even if such a link were established to the small number of these cases, the judge's claim would still be spurious, because the vaccines save far, far more lives on the whole. And there have been multiple deadly mass shootings in California this year alone.

Some noted that the judge's offhand comment may be based on Fox News host Tucker Carlson's fear-mongering about the vaccines. Carlson used unverified data from a federal reporting system to suggest thousands of Americans might have died from the COVID vaccines, even though no such links have been established. Instead, it's simply the case that when more than 100 million people in the country get a vaccine, thousands will die afterward — just as they would've if they hadn't been vaccinated.

It's hardly reassuring if a federal judge is getting his information and misinformation from Fox News — and passing it along to the public in his rulings.

Many were critical of the ruling on traditional legal grounds. Legal analyst Luppe Luppen, for instance, pointed out that while Benitez relies on the landmark Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Hellerto justify his ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in that very decision that its reasoning wouldn't apply to guns like the M16 and AR-15.

But putting aside the merits of the decision, a judge making such a radical and significant ruling that can affect life and death in the United States should have the decency and restraint to make their arguments in ways that can be justified to all citizens and residents of the country. Including flippant remarks about AR-15s being like Swiss Army knives and wedging in erroneous and reckless claims about vaccine deaths shows contempt for the public.

From Your Site Articles

• Fox News was forced to make a damning admission in a Tucker ... ›

Related Articles Around the Web

• Tracking Viral Misinformation: Latest Updates - The New York Times ›
• Lawsuit Claims Feds Directed Facebook to Censor Vaccine ... ›
• Justice Department Files Its First Enforcement Action Against COVID ... ›

===

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/this-single-sentence-from-a-federal-courts-ruling-exposes-the-dark-conservative-plot-against-voting/

cody f

Three judges on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday stayed an injunction by a lower district court that sought to protect the voting rights of Texans voting by mail.

The majority decision, written by Judge Jerry E. Smith, blocked the lower court's orders to Texas Secretary of State Ruth Hughs that would have required officials to notify Texans whose mail ballots were rejected because of an apparent signature mismatch and give them an opportunity to address the issue. Under current law, election officials can reject a mail ballot if they determine that the signature does not match the voter's signature on file; officials must notify the voter of the rejection within 10 days. But even then, the voter may not be given an opportunity to fix the problem.

As the result of an ongoing lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ordered Hughs to adopt procedures that would allow voters to address a signature mismatch, or to stop rejecting ballots based on signature issues altogether. Judge Orlando Garcia said the existing policy "plainly violates certain voters' constitutional rights." But the Fifth Circuit rejected this injunction, saying Hughs should follow the law as written — rejecting ballots without necessarily giving voters any due process.

In a remarkable sentence encapsulating the emerging right-wing view of voting rights, the decision explained:

Because Texas's strong interest in safeguarding the integrity of its elections from voter fraud far outweighs any burden the state's voting procedures place on the right to vote, we stay the injunction pending appeal.

While this may sound like dry legalese, it's a dramatically bold and unambiguously dangerous idea. The court's claim is that "any burden" on the right to vote can be justified if it is meant to restrict the opportunity for voter fraud.

This notion sounds like a farcical caricature of Republicans' views on voting, but it's an actual statement from right-wing judges defending a right-wing administration. It falls apart under even the mildest scrutiny though. While preventing voter fraud is surely a legitimate interest of the state, there must be some reasonable limits on how far the government can go in trying to prevent it. Is it reasonable to, say, create so many obstacles to voting that 10,000 fewer ballots will be cast in an election if doing so will also stop a handful of fraudulent ballots?

The answer should obviously be "no." The problem with voter fraud is that it distorts the will of the electorate, undermining the very point of a democracy. But if efforts to combat voter fraud distort the democratic process even more than fraud would, it's difficult to see how they can be justified. And all the best evidence indicates that voter fraud is incredibly rare.

But when Republicans discuss voter fraud, all they ever seem to care about is stopping the extremely rare cases of illegally cast ballots. They almost never consider balancing the risk of fraud with the risk of preventing legitimate votes from being cast.In this decision, the court made that view explicit. And it's even more absurd than it sounds, because the decision actually allows election officials to literally throw away votesthat may have been legitimately cast without giving the voter any platform to challenge this decision. Isn't this at least as bad as voter fraud?

The Texas Tribune reports of this process:

The state election code does not establish any standards for signature review, which is conducted by local election officials who seldom have training in signature verification.

So at best, the disposal of ballots may be entirely capricious. At worst, it could disproportionately target groups of voters that the existing government would rather not have voting — minority groups, for instance, that may be likely to vote Democrat. It may be hard to say what the motivation is for the laws in this particular case, but the GOP's actions in the past decade have made clear that they see restricting the right to vote as a vital part of retaining electoral power. The court's reasoning lays bear this motivation: Based on the slimmest fears about "voter fraud," they can justify restricting voters' rights as much as possible. The path to illegitimately holding on to office is clear.

The Fifth Court's decision justified the stay in part by arguing against the idea that there's a due process protection for the right vote. But even if there is, the court argued, there isn't a right to vote by mail— that's simply an option that Texas provides without being obligated to.

This reasoning, though, is spurious. If Texas provides voters the option to vote by mail, it is not reasonable that it can then simply reject those ballots based on dubious and unreviewable claims of a signature mismatch that the voter may not even be alerted to until after Election Day has passed. Once it has provided the option of voting by mail, Texas is still obligated to ensure that the process provides reasonable protections for voters' rights.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Patrick Higginbotham rejected the majority's arguments for the stay. He agreed with issuing the stay, however, noting the difficulties of changing election rules while votes are already being cast. And he warned that the matter in question is grave:

In 2016 and 2018, "approximately 5,000 [Texas] ballots were rejected on the basis of perceived signature mismatches."8 Such "small" differences have the potential to decide both local and national elections. And with the large increase in votes cast by mail in our ongoing pandemic that error rate would toss out far greater numbers. There is much at stake here.

==

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/mcconnell-is-betting-democrats-dont-have-the-will-to-fight-fire-with-fire-biden-should-prove-them-wrong

...Back in 2013, then-CongressmanTom Cotton introduced a bill in the House called the "Stop Court-Packing Act" which would haveeliminated three seats on the D.C. Court of Appeals. That seems like a strange title, but it gives away the game. He was trying to stop President Obama from being able to fill those three empty seats. Senator John Cornyn, R-Texas, agreed, writing a piece in the National Review called "Don't let the Democrats pack the DC Circuit." Keep in mind that these were legitimate vacancies.

As it happens, McConnell kept those and many other seats open so that a Republicans could fill them, so they needn't have worried. And he's very proud of it:

...

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/10/texas-counties-can-offer-only-one-drop-off-ballot-location-federal-appeals-court-rules-upholding-gov-greg-abbotts-order/

Emma Platoff, The Texas Tribune Oct. 13, 2020

"Texas counties can offer only one drop-off ballot location, federal appeals court rules, upholding Gov. Greg Abbott's order"was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Texas counties may collect mail-in ballots at only one location, a federal appeals court ruled late Monday, once again upholding an order from Gov. Greg Abbott that restricts voting options.

Abbott in July acted to lengthen the early voting period and allow voters to deliver completed absentee ballots in person for longer than the normal period. But after large Democratic counties including Harris and Travis established several sites where voters could deliver their ballots, Abbott ordered Oct. 1 that they would be limited to one.

A number of civil rights groups sued in at least four lawsuits, calling the order an act of voter suppression that would disproportionately impact low-income voters, voters with disabilities, older voters and voters of color in Democratic counties. A federal judge on Friday sided with those groups, blocking Texas from enforcing the ruling.

But a three-judge panel on the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appealstemporarily halted that ruling on Saturday and on Monday gave a more formal word on the matter in a written opinion.

“Leaving the Governor's October 1 Proclamation in place still gives Texas absentee voters many ways to cast their ballots in the November 3 election. These methods for remote voting outstrip what Texas law previously permitted in a pre-COVID world," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan for the panel of three judges all appointed by President Donald Trump. “The October 1 Proclamation abridges no one's right to vote."

OMFG

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/mcconnell-quietly-rams-through-more-lifetime-trump-judges-while-blocking-19-relief-everyone-in-america-should-be-outraged/

no lnx twt ari berman jake j

as Covid-19 relief for jobless and hungry Americans, collapsing small businesses, and state and local governments languishes in the Senate GOP’s legislative graveyard, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday further advanced his years-long project of dragging U.S. federal courts to the right by ramming through three more of President Donald Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees and teed up votes on several others.

Vanita Gupta, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted on Twitter that the latest confirmations came four months to the day after the Democrat-controlled House passed the Heroes Act, a $3 trillion coronavirus relief package that McConnell dismissed as an “unserious liberal wish list” and blocked from receiving a vote in the Senate.

“Everyone in America should be outraged that this is how Mitch McConnell is spending the Senate’s time amid a pandemic,” tweeted Gupta.

In a separate tweet Wednesday morning, Gupta urged the U.S. public to “pay attention” as McConnell and Trump’s court takeover proceeds apace amid the ongoing coronavirus crisis and resulting economic collapse—to which Senate Republicans have responded by putting forth legislation decried as piecemeal and wholly inadequate.

"As McConnell blocks the Heroes Act, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, election funding, and dozens of civil rights bills, his priority today (amid the pandemic) will be confirming three more Trump judges after confirming three yesterday,” said Gupta. “It’s an outrage.”

While Senate Democrats don’t have the numbers to block Trump’s judicial nominees, few even bothered to object Wednesday to the confirmations of John Holcomb, Stanley Blumenfeld, and Mark Scarsi to lifetime positions on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Just 12 Democratic senators voted against Holcomb and Scarsi, and only four voted against Blumenfeld.

The confirmations came days after major court decisions laid bare the real-world consequences of Trump and McConnell’s takeover of the U.S. judiciary, which will impact key areas of American society—from climate policy to voting rights—for decades to come.

Last Friday, as Common Dreams reported, the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a Florida requirement that state residents with past felony convictions pay off all court fines and fees before they are allowed to register to vote—a ruling made possible by Trump’s appointees.

:{:{}:

}:

“The only reason it was upheld was because Donald Trump flipped the 11th Circuit with five Trump judges,” Mother Jones journalist Ari Berman told Democracy Now! on Tuesday. “And this is why Mitch McConnell in the Republican Senate is so intent on confirming judges and doing nothing else. This week, McConnell is going to confirmeight more judges to the federal bench, but they’re not doing anything else to help the American people.”

Late Sunday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—which Trump also flipped with right-wing judges—upheld the White House’s push to end “temporary protected status” (TPS)for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Sudan.

“Without Congressional action, this will lead to devastating moral and economic consequences not just for TPS holders but for their families, communities, and for the entire country,” Peniel Ibe, policy engagement coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee, warned in response to the ruling.

===

DN 9/15/20 McConn flip 11th districtso vote down felony re-enfranchise (fees = poll tax); 8 more judges this week

===

===

https://www.alternet.org/2020/05/chief-justice-roberts-in-the-hot-seat-over-mcconnells-court-packing-scheme/

chief judge of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Sri Srinivasan, has requested an inquiry into whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and retired Judge Thomas B. Griffith engineered the latter’s retirement so McConnell could install a protégé. Srinivasan has asked Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to assign the inquiry to another circuit.

This comes as advocacy group Demand Justice calls for a delay in the confirmation hearing of Judge Justin Walker, a former intern of McConnell’s and an extreme partisan who was a fixture on Fox News defending now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his show-hearings.“Justin Walker’s nomination was already controversial, but this emerging investigation means an even darker cloud is hanging over his appointment,” Demand Justice founder Brian Fallon said in a statement released following the announcement of the inquiry. Walker’s nomination is controversial because he is not just an extreme partisan but is so woefully inexperienced in conducting law that the American Bar Association deemed him unqualified for the job McConnell handed to him last fall, on the district court where he now serves.

“The hearing on Walker’s nomination should not go forward until we know the truth about what ethical lines Mitch McConnell crossed to get Walker this seat,” Fallon continued. “At the very least, McConnell should come clean about whether and when he contacted Judge Thomas Griffith prior to his sudden retirement.”

McConnell’s court packing efforts have made news before, including his campaign of leaning on Republican federal judges to get them to retire so he can install very young and extreme partisans in their seats. McConnell and Trump have already filled more than one-quarter of the appeals court seats, but McConnell won’t rest until he’s got the maximum possible, even if that means prying out Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II-appointed judges.

Griffith is a former Senate legal counsel nominated to the appeals court in 2004 by President George W. Bush. Neither he nor McConnell will say whether he is among the judges subject to the pressure campaign led by McConnell. The D.C. Court of Appeals is the second highest court in the nation. It’s the key court for deciding cases relating to the constitutionality of federal rules and regulations and thus the reach of government. It provides a stepping stone both to Supreme Court seats and for some of the most important cases to reach the Supreme Court. Stacking it is as critical to McConnell’s extremist government coup as is stacking the Supreme Court.

“The coordinated manner of Majority Leader McConnell’s involvement in the judges’ decision-making is quite unprecedented and raises significant ethical questions for the judges who heed his advice,” Demand Justice said in its letter requesting an investigation. A “thorough inquiry into the judge’s announcement and scheduled retirement, including when and how the decision to retire was made, and with whose input, is crucial.” Judge Srinivasan apparently is concerned enough to request the inquiry.

“The organization’s request for an inquiry concerns the decision of a judge of this court to retire from service and the resulting creation of a vacancy on this court, which would be filled by a future colleague on this court,” Srinivasan wrote. He added that he made this ruling ruling without “any inquiry by this court into the statements contained in the unverified correspondence or the questions posited by the organization in the correspondence about the possibility of judicial misconduct.” The judge said he was making the ruling public since he wanted to make sure it was clear the concerns about McConnell’s actions were not being ignored, because the questions brought up by Demand Progress “about the possibility of judicial misconduct have been reported in various major news outlets.”

Walker’s hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. It seems unlikely that Moscow Mitch or Leningrad Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, will decide to postpone the hearing out of concern about appearances of extreme partisanship. Because it’s McConnell and Graham we’re talking about. Once again, the ball in is Chief Justice John Roberts’ court.

==

===

520

THIS WEEK, Mitch McConnell is bringing the Senate back in session ... no, it's not to pass emergency coronavirus relief ... it's to ram through the confirmation of some of Trump's most unfit judicial nominees yet!

Justin Walker -- a Brett Kavanaugh protégé who not only is a right-wing extremist, but also severely lacks experience and has been rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association (ABA)-- will be considered by the Judiciary Committee in a matter of days for his nomination to the powerful DC Circuit Court of Appeals. ALL senators need to know that Americans are paying attention and we REJECT Trump and McConnell's efforts to rubber-stamp unfit judges, especially during the current crisis.

==

===

http://neatoday.org/2016/04/14/vergara-overturned-appeals-court/

On Thursday, the California Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision, overturned the deeply-flawed lower court ruling in *Vergara v. State of California* issued in 2014, which held that laws governing so-called teacher “tenure” were unconstitutional.

“Today was a win for our educators, our schools and most importantly, our students,” NEA President Lily Eskelsen García said responding to the ruling. “Now we must return to working on real solutions to ensure all of our students succeed. Only when teachers, school boards, and administrators work together can we ensure that there is a great public school for every student.”

While the decision was good news for educators, said California Teachers AssociationPresident Eric C. Heins, it was a huge win for students.

“Today’s ruling reversing Judge Rolf Treu’s decision overwhelmingly underscores that the laws under attack have been good for public education and for kids,” said Heins. “Stripping teachers of their ability to stand up for their students and robbing school districts of the tools they need to make sound employment decisions was a wrong-headed scheme developed by people with no education expertise and the appellate court justices saw that.”...

==

==

https://www.alternet.org/2019/04/federal-judge-says-flint-water-lawsuit-actually-can-target-the-former-governor-meaning-he-may-finally-be-held-accountable/

A federal judge on Monday—who agreed that allegations of “conscience shocking” conduct claimed by plaintiffs were “plausible”—reinstated Michigan’s former Governor Rick Snyder as a defendant in a class action lawsuit by the victims of the water crisis in the city of Flintthat first captured national headlines in 2014.

bo appt Eastern District

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Ellen_Levy

https://www.mlive.com/news/flint/2019/04/gov-snyder-back-in-as-defendant-in-class-action-flint-water-lawsuit-judge-decides.html]

After earlier removing Snyder from the suit, brought by city residents harmed by the poisoning of the municipal water supply, U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy reversed that decision as she noted the plaintiffs had shown the allegations against Snyder and his fellow co-defendants “plausibly describe ‘conscience shocking’ conduct” as thepeople of Flint were stripped of 14th Amendment protections from bodily harm or injury.

The plaintiffs in the suit, Levy wrote in her ruling,

"plausibly state that the Governor acted indifferently to the risk of harm they faced, demonstrating a callous disregard for their right to bodily integrity. This indifference manifested itself in two ways.Initially, the Governor was indifferent because instead of mitigating the risk of harm caused by the contaminated water, he covered it up. In private, he worried about the need to return Flint to DWSD water and the political implications of the crisis. But in public, he denied all knowledge, despite being aware of the developing crisis.”

As a result, plaintiffs were lured into a false sense of security. They could have taken protective measures, if only they had known what the Governor knew. Instead, the Governor misled them into assuming that nothing was wrong. Governor Snyder’s administration even encouraged them to continue to drink and bathe in the water."

The legal team representing the plaintiffs welcome the judge’s determination...

==

Columbia

===

https://www.ecowatch.com/sabal-trail-pipeline-2479133796.html

In Major Climate Decision, DC Circuit Rejects Federal Approval of Sabal Trail Pipeline

By Elly Benson

Last week, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) attempts to downplay the massive climate impacts of the Southeast Market Pipelines Project, a $3.5 billion project that includes the 515-mile Sabal Trail pipeline. FERC and the pipeline companies argued that even though the project's purpose is to transport fracked gas through Alabama and Georgia to Florida power plants, FERC nonetheless could ignore the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the gas at those plants.

It's Not Just the Journey, It's Also the Destination

In a 2-1 decision, the court agreed with the Sierra Club and its partners that FERC's refusal to analyze these "downstream" emissions—an entirely foreseeable result of constructing the pipeline—violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court vacated FERC's approval of the project and remanded to the agency with instructions to prepare an environmental impact statement consistent with the court's opinion.

Once the court officially returns the matter to FERC, the pipeline should cease operations while FERC undertakes the new analysis. (Despite the shoddy environmental review, the pipeline was allowed to start operating in June).

Noting that "[i]t's not just the journey, ... it's also the destination," the court rejected each of FERC's many excuses for ignoring the emissions from burning the gas. The court found:

• FERC is the "legally relevant cause" of the climate-altering emissions because it has the power to deny a pipeline based on harm to the environment.

• FERC has estimated that the pipeline will transport 1.1 billion cubic feet per day of gas, and can use this number to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

• FERC's vague assertions that "some" emissions may "potentially" be offset by coal plant retirements were so devoid of meaningful information that the environmental impact statement "fail[ed] to fulfill its primary purpose."

• Even if the power plants are subject to state or federal greenhouse-gas regulations in the future, such requirements cannot substitute for a proper NEPA analysis (citing a landmark NEPA case from 1971).

The court concluded that FERC "should have either given a quantitative estimate of the downstream greenhouse emissions that will result from burning the natural gas that the pipelines will transport or explained more specifically why it could not have done so." The court further noted that the environmental impact statement needed to include a discussion of the significance of the downstream greenhouse gas emissions, as well as their cumulative impact. Finally, the court directed FERC to explain, in its new environmental impact statement, whether it still maintains that the "social cost of carbon"—a valuable tool that places a dollar value on the harm caused by each ton of carbon emitted—is not useful for NEPA purposes, and why....

==

===

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22082017/court-rejects-ferc-pipeline-approval-orders-climate-environment-impact-review-sabal-gas

2nd ct win

===

===

http://www.ecowatch.com/neonicotinoids-epa-violation-2401492224.html

Judge: EPA's Approval of Bee-Killing Pesticides Violated Federal Law

A federal court has ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) systematically violated the Endangered Species Act—a key wildlife protection law—when it approved bee-killing insecticides known as neonicotinoids.

In a case ongoing for the last four years, brought by beekeepers, wildlife conservation groups and food safety and consumer advocates, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that EPA had unlawfully issued 59 pesticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for a wide variety of agricultural, landscaping and ornamental uses.

"This is a vital victory," George Kimbrell, Center for Food Safety legal director, said. "Science shows these toxic pesticidesharm bees, endangered species and the broader environment. More than fifty years ago, Rachel Carson warned us to avoid such toxic chemicals, and the court's ruling may bring us one step closer to preventing another Silent Spring."

==

==

http://www.ecowatch.com/epa-factory-farm-report-pollution-2355997089.html

Court Orders EPA to Close Loophole, Factory Farms Required to Report Toxic Pollution

The DC Circuit Court ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tuesday to close a loophole that has allowed hazardous substances released into the environment by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to go unreported.

"We applaud the DC Circuit Court's clear decision to enforce this vital environmental safeguard to protect public safety," said Earthjustice attorney Jonathan Smith, who helped argue the case before the court.

...

==

===