circuit DC

rao wacko trump mcconnell fedsoc

no merri

===

---

AN 5 15 26

Law enforcement celebrates departure of embattled Trump official: 'It’s like Christmas' - Alternet.org

DOJ should look 'very carefully' at Blanche's role in Trump cases: Comey - Alternet.org

Trump's DOJ just opened the door to Dem retaliation - Alternet.org

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department (DOJ) is asking the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to allow it to take security clearances away from law firms that accept cases with which they disagree — even though that same precedent could empower future Democratic presidents to persecute Republican law firms.

“The DOJ returned to court Thursday and told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that President Donald Trump's executive orders to strip elite law firms of security clearances and tear up their government contracts must be revived, even if that means a Democrat eventually comes into power and deems MAGA lawyers enemies of the state,” reported Law and Crime on Thursday. “Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan, U.S. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard and U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao — two appointees of Barack Obama and a lone Donald Trump appointee, respectively — formed the three-judge panel in a case the DOJ was prepared to drop in March.”

Despite the judges previously seeming poised to throw out the case, prompting the government to withdraw it, Trump’s officials are arguing that they have a right to penalize law firms who criticize the president.

“In a bit of a preamble, the DOJ attorney claimed losses across the board boiled down to district court judges rushing to block ‘orders that they clearly didn't like the content of’ — effectively nullifying the president's unreviewable ‘security clearance determinations’ and restoring them without authority,” Law and Crime reported. It added that Judge Pillard then asked about whether their argument, if implemented, could boomerang against Republicans one day.

"So if an incoming president — let's say a Democrat — says, I think that any lawyer who represents a Republican, by virtue of that representation, even if the lawyer is him or herself a Democrat, I think that the representation of my enemies is a threat to national security. So any lawyer who represents a Republican immediately today has their security clearance revoked?" Pillard asked.

Attorney Abhishek Kambli, representing the government, answered Pillard’s question in the affirmative, saying that he believed impeachment, elections and congressional laws alone could strip the president of his right to penalize political opponents through their law firms.

"And your view is — the pardon power example is where you go — that this power over security clearances is so intrinsic that even … you could be race-based, and it could be race-based," and there would be no judicial review, Srivinasan asked. Kambli once again agreed.

"If a president said, I don't trust law firms that represent Catholics, law firms that represent African Americans, law firms that represent Asian Americans, and so just law firms that represent people in those three groups, they have to give me lists of their clients who are under control by people in those three groups, and we will deny security clearances to any lawyer in those firms. Political question? Nonjusticiable?" she asked.

"So Your Honor, yes, because of the threshold question before you even examine any of those facts," Kambli replied. Other attorneys speaking at the trial echoed Kambli’s views.

Earlier this month, Trump lost his appeal of 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 investigations into his connections to Russia.

U.S. District Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks wrote in his ruling that Trump has a "pattern of abuse of the courts" by filing such lawsuits specifically for political purposes, saying this "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 added.

---

---

E AND E

Judges signal support for ‘forever chemicals’ Superfund rule

By Ellie Borst | 01/20/2026

A federal appellate court panel did not seem swayed by industry groups’ plea to toss EPA’s hazardous substance designations for two types of PFAS.

Judges appeared ready to back EPA’s decision to designate two “forever chemicals” as hazardous under the federal Superfund law, keeping polluters on the hook for cleanups.

During oral arguments in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday, the three-judge panel weighed arguments that EPA didn’t do enough to consider the costs the rule would impose on businesses.

That rule, one of the few Biden-era rules the Trump administration has said it will defend, adds PFOA and PFOS — two of the most-studied chemicals in the PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, family — to its list of “hazardous substances” under the Superfund law.

“The only question before us is could they [EPA] permissibly designate these chemicals as hazardous. And, they look at the science, and you haven’t contested any of this,” said Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee.

EPA concluded exposure to PFOA and PFOS was linked to increased risk of various cancers, liver damage, birth defects, immunosuppression and many other serious adverse health impacts.

“It just seems like that’s a categorically rational decision on the threshold question whether to designate or not,” Katsas said.

Elbert Lin, partner at the firm Hunton Andrews Kurth representing a coalition of industry groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, presented the case regarding “an internal inconsistency in how you treat costs and benefits” pertaining to the rule.

EPA during the rulemaking process estimated polluters may pay upwards of $18 million “in additional cleanup expenditures” per year.

“The problem here is with the way EPA did its analysis,” Lin said. “The point is that the EPA has decided that $18 million of new costs will be treated solely as benefits. That is a big conceptual swing, no matter what that number is.”

Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, contested that the number does matter.

“You have to show that it was going to make a difference, don’t you?” Millett asked. “It just seems to me you’re wanting a lot more in picking out those numbers.”

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, also questioned Lin’s logic.

“I’m not exactly sure what you, even ideally, what you would like from this court,” Rao said.

“Our argument is that their interpretation of the statute is incorrect,” Lin said.

“What would we say the correct interpretation is?” Rao said. “Usually when you say that the agency has gotten it wrong, courts have some account of what the right interpretation is. I don’t see what that would be.”

That cost analysis was a factor EPA considered and “was not the central justification for the rule,” said Riley Walters, Justice Department counsel appearing on EPA’s behalf.

“We don’t think the court needs to decide whether EPA is required to consider cost,” Walters said, adding that the estimation analyses “were merely illustrative.”

It’s difficult to get an exact number because EPA calculates the price to clean up hazardous contamination on a site-by-site basis.

“The sort of precision they are looking for can’t be provided at this stage,” said Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, an Earthjustice attorney representing environmental advocacy groups in support of EPA’s rule. “When EPA lists a Superfund site, it has no idea how much the remediation of that site is going to cost. Here, we are stages before that. … This is a decision to add two substances to a list of some 800 hazardous substances.”

Millett said she thinks EPA has “dealt with the uncertainties and the complexities” in explaining its cost-benefit analysis approach.

“I don’t know what more we asked of them in this context,” Millett said.

---

---

AN 5 26

According to new reporting from Politico, a federal appeals court is poised to quash Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s effort to punish Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), who drew the ire of the White House by telling troops to reject illegal orders. This represents a major blow to the administration’s war of narratives as it has attempted to smear Navy veteran and former astronaut Kelly as a traitor while asserting its broad military powers.

The matter dates back to last November, when Kelly, along with five other Democratic lawmakers, filmed a video warning that President Donald Trump intended to use the military against American citizens, and reminding troops that they have the right to “refuse illegal orders.” Hegseth then formally censured Kelly, launching a review into whether his rank and retirement pay should be diminished as a consequence. A district judge ruled that Hegseth’s actions amounted to an attack on free speech, which he appealed.

But on Thursday, the three judges presiding over the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had some harsh questions for White House lawyers, pushing back against the administration’s rationale and suggesting that they would uphold the lower court’s decision to back Kelly’s free speech.

“The text of the video, which I take to be really the fulcrum of this entire case, advises that service members have no obligation to obey unlawful orders,” said Judge Cornelia Pillard. “Nobody in the video says service members have a duty to disobey lawful orders.”

With her fellow judges expressing similar sentiments, it appears likely that Hegseth’s appeal has failed. While the Justice Department is also pushing for a criminal indictment for Kelly and the other five lawmakers involved with the video — all of whom have served in military or national security — such efforts have been stymied.

This has resulted in more than a mere legal loss for the Trump administration, but the ascension of an electoral rival. While Kelly previously had garnered some recognition as an astronaut and senator, “The saga has turned the Arizona Democrat into a high-profile opponent of the administration — and elevated his national standing as he ‘seriously’ considers a White House bid.”

According to Politico, “Kelly has turned his fight with Trump into a fundraising windfall, raking in a staggering $25 million-plus over the last six months even though he’s not on the ballot this year. And he’s leveraged the media attention into a megaphone while growing his online following. Regardless of how the appeals court rules, the case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court either just before the congressional midterms or in the months after, as candidates sharpen their 2028 message over Trump’s improper and potentially illegal use of the military.”

Kelly, who was on the shortlist to be Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in 2024, isn’t the only Democrat from the video with presidential aspirations. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) is known to be considering a bid for the primary. A former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, she serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee alongside Kelly.

While in 2024, Kelly was registering at just .4 percent in polls for possible 2028 Democratic candidates, Trump’s November declaration that the Senator’s “seditious behavior” was “punishable by death” thrust him into the spotlight. This high-profile battle with an unpopular president, plus Kelly’s experience as an astronaut and marriage to Gabby Giffords — who famously survived an assassination attempt — has shaped him into a rising political star.

“He’s got the backstory. He’s a hot commodity right now,” said Democratic presidential campaign strategist Pete Giangreco. “He’s done it in a way that has excited the base of the party but is also a talking point that can win a general election because this is about courage and standing up for the Constitution and making sure we have a military that is not politicized.”

As Steven Smith, political scientist and expert in elections and public opinion at Arizona State University, declared, “Some candidates may pop up and be flashier speakers, but none of them will be as articulate. Kelly just commands your attention.”

---

---

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.”

---

Based in George Mason’s Antonin Scalia Law School,the Law & Economics Center espouses a free-market approach to policy. A 2013 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity found that the libertarian think tank hosted more judicial conferences than any other university program in the nation, fueled by conservative and big-business donors. Over the past two years, roughly $4.5 million of $18.6 million in contributions to the Law & Economics Center came from oil and gas interests, including Koch Industries, ConocoPhillips,ExxonMobil and API, which represents more than 650 corporations.

The center claims to have trained more than 5,000 state and federal judges, including three sitting Supreme Court justices. Almost 1,000 state attorneys general and their staff attorneys have attended its programs. Its advisory board includes three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, widely considered the nation’s second-most powerful court and, often, the final arbiter for federal administrative law cases.  

In a White House riven by discord and staff departures, judicial appointments have been a bright spot.  Senate Republicans have embraced the chance to fill a glut of vacancies, helping Trump install more conservative judges and potentially transform the legal landscape for decades to come. Once confirmed, a federal judge can serve for life, presiding over an average of 500 to 600 cases a year.

A Washington trade group with 300-plus employees, APIhas spent more than $40 million to lobby Congress since 2013. But the courts have also been a focal point for API, which has spent the better part of a century helping the oil and gas industry pivot from being a prime antitrust target to being a proactive litigation force. The institute, along with other free-market trade groups, has routinely injected itself into cases in an attempt to shape policy or stall government initiatives. API officials did not grant interview requests from the Center for Public Integrity.

“Time is on industry’s side.”

2 22

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf

Judges

All phone numbers are in the 202 area code.

Privately Funded Seminars

Judges' Attendance

Judges Reporting Attendance at Seminars ending after 02/18/19