• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shock and Law

Captain Mars said:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF ARIZONA,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
COLORADO, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, STATE
OF DELAWARE, STATE OF HAWAII, STATE OF
ILLINOIS, STATE OF MAINE, STATE OF
MARYLAND, COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS, STATE OF MINNESOTA,
STATE OF NEVADA, STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, STATE OF
OREGON, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, STATE
OF VERMONT, and STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; and SCOTT BESSENT, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 65(B)


ORDER
Click to expand...
Case 1:25-cv-01144-JAV
Rulings of Special Interest
 
Here Are All The Major Lawsuits Against Trump And Musk—As Judge Cuts Off DOGE’s Treasury Access
Trump has already issued a number of major executive actions, and many have not yet been challenged in court, such as him pulling out of the World Health Organization, withholding federal funding from schools that allow transgender women in women’s sports, imposing tariffs on China, removing safeguards around artificial intelligence, and rescinding Biden-era climate change initiatives, including ordering federal agencies not to disburse some funding that was approved by Congress. Musk and DOGE have also undertaken a number of controversial moves that haven’t yet resulted in court action, including DOGE staffers accessing information for Medicare and Medicaid and reportedly using artificial intelligence to search through sensitive internal data for the Department of Education.
Click to expand...
 
Case No. 1:25-cv-381

COMPLAINT

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) represents employees
across thirty-seven federal agencies and departments, including all bargaining unit
employees in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
NTEU brings this action to challenge the Executive Branch’s ongoing effort to
dismantle the CFPB. Congress created the CFPB in response to a financial crisis
and assigned the CFPB its critical mission of protecting the American consumer.
The efforts of Defendant Russell Vought, the CFPB’s Acting Director, to bring the
CFPB’s statutorily prescribed work to a halt violate separation of powers principles.
Click to expand...
 
Case No. 1:25-cv-380

COMPLAINT

NTEU brings this action on behalf of its members, current and formeremployees of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, seeking to stop the Bureau’s ongoing disclosure of employees’ personal information to Elon Musk andthe other members of the “Department of Government Efficiency.” The Bureau’saction divests NTEU members of their privacy rights, in violation of federal law and
regulation.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS

ORDER
The Plaintiff States’ Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining
Order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED.
[It is a] basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must
be complied with promptly. * * * Persons who make private
determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk
criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect. The
orderly and expeditious administration of justice by the courts requires
that an order issued by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter
and person must be obeyed by the parties until it is reversed by orderly
and proper proceedings.
Click to expand...

The Defendants now plea that they are just tryingto root out fraud. See ECF No. 70. But the freezes in effect now were a result of thebroad categorical order, not a specific finding of possible fraud. The broad categoricaland sweeping freeze of federal funds is, as the Court found, likely unconstitutionaland has caused and continues to cause irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country. These pauses in funding violate the plain text of the TRO.2
Click to expand...
1 The Defendants acknowledged that they understood what the TRO required:“Federal agencies cannot pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate anyawards or obligations on the basis of the OMB Memo, or on the basis of the President’srecently issued Executive Orders.” ECF No. 51-1 at 1 (emphasis added). 2 The Court disagrees with the Defendants’ Notice (ECF No. 51), particularly paragraph 2. The Court’s TRO is clear and unambiguous in its scope and effect, which is inconsistent with the Defendant’s interpretation contained in the Notice.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00038-JL-TSM
Birthright Citizenship

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), this court orders that all Defendants
are enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of
American Citizenship,” in any manner with respect to the plaintiffs, and with respect to any
individual or entity in any matter or instance within the jurisdiction of this court, during the
pendency of this litigation.
Click to expand...
 
Case 8:25-cv-00201-DLB
Birthright Citizenship

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Today, virtually every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is the law
and tradition of our country. That law and tradition will remain the status quo pending the
resolution of this case. The government will not be harmed if enforcement of the Executive Order
is enjoined. “[A] state is in no way harmed by issuance of a preliminary injunction which prevents
the state from enforcing restrictions likely to be found unconstitutional. If anything, the system is
improved by such an injunction.” Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, 722 F.3d 184, 191 (4th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Bason, 303 F.3d 507, 521 (4th Cir. 2002)). And
“upholding constitutional rights surely serves the public interest.” Id. (quoting Giovani, 303 F.3d
at 521); accord Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637 F.3d 291, 303 (4th Cir. 2011) (“pholding
constitutional rights is in the public interest.”). If the Executive Order is not enjoined, local
governments will face significant harm. Local governments are responsible for issuing birth
certificates, which, under the Order, will no longer automatically prove citizenship. See ECF 37,
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00352-CJN
Dismantle USAID

NOTICE OF CORRECTION
With the benefit of more time to review available data over the weekend, Defendants came
to understand that more than 500 employees were placed on administrative leave prior to February
7 and notified counsel for Defendants of this new information after the Court had entered the
Order. As explained in the recently filed declaration, approximately 2,140 employees had been
placed on administrative leave by the time of the TRO hearing. See Decl. of Peter Marocco, ECF
No. 20-1, ¶ 12. In compliance with the Court’s temporary restraining order, all of these employees
were removed from administrative leave. Id. ¶ 18.
Additionally, although Secretary Rubio’s January 24, 2025 directive only froze future
contract obligations, id. ¶ 3, payments on existing contracts were paused as well as part of efforts
by agency leadership to regain control of the organization’s spending and conduct a comprehensive review of its programs.
Click to expand...
 
Civil Action No. 22-1921 (BAH)

This one is a continuation of the previous classified documents cases. I'm filing it under either "be careful what you wish for" or "unintended consequences" or, maybe, "you really can't have it all." Seems that since the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and his election relieves him of criminal responsibility, he's no longer protected from public disclosure of his behavior behind the scenes.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The FOIA request at issue in this lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Jason Leopold with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), on February 22, 2022, following published reports that
President Donald Trump (“President Trump”) allegedly flushed some presidential records down
the toilet when he was still in the White House and brought presidential records, including
sensitive classified documents, to his personal residence in Florida.
Click to expand...
Of course, while the Supreme Court has provided a protective and presumptive immunity cloak for a president’s conduct, that cloak is not so large to extend to those who aid, abet and execute criminal acts on behalf of a criminally immune president. The excuse offered after World War II by enablers of the fascist Nazi regime of “just following orders” has long been rejected in this country’s jurisprudence.
Click to expand...
ETA: The 11th Circuit just dismissed the case against Trump codefendants Walt Naura and Carlos DeOliveira.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00403
Religious Freedom

Plaintiffs in this challenge are 12 national denominational bodies and
representatives, 4 regional denominational bodies, and 11 denominational and
interdenominational associations, all rooted in the Jewish and Christian faiths. Plaintiffs and
their members are Baptist, Brethren, Conservative Jewish, Episcopalian, Evangelical,
Mennonite, Quaker, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Reconstructionist Jewish, Reform Jewish,
Unitarian Universalist, United Methodist, Zion Methodist, and more. They bring this suit unified
on a fundamental belief: Every human being, regardless of birthplace, is a child of God worthy
of dignity, care, and love.1
Welcoming the stranger, or immigrant, is thus a central precept of
their faith practices.
Click to expand...


COMPLAINT
Over the first week of the current Trump Administration, ICE arrested over 4,500 people, including nearly 1,000 people in a Sunday
“immigration enforcement blitz.”
6. At least one of these enforcement actions occurred at a church in Georgia during worship service. According to news coverage, an usher standing in the church entrance saw a group of ICE agents outside and locked the door. The agents said that they were there to arrest Wilson Velásquez, who had traveled to the United States from Honduras with his wife and three children in 2022. Immediately after crossing the border, they turned themselves in to U.S. authorities and requested asylum. They were given a court date and then released after federal agents cinched a GPS-tracking monitor on Velásquez’s ankle. After settling in suburban Atlanta, the family joined a Pentecostal church where they worshipped several times a week and helped with music. They were listening to the pastor’s sermon when ICE agents arrived to arrest Velásquez. Although Velásquez had attended all his required check-ins at an Atlanta ICE offic and had a court date scheduled to present his asylum case to a judge, ICE agents arrested him anyway, explaining that they were simply “looking for people with ankle bracelets.” The pastor, Luis Ortiz, tried to reassure his congregation, but he “could see the fear and tears on their faces.”
Click to expand...
As described above, the burden imposed on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise by the
looming threat of immigration enforcement action at their places of worship and during their
religious ceremonies is profound, as is the interference such action causes to Plaintiffs’
expressive association. Whatever interest DHS has in enforcing immigration law, it cannot meet
its burden of demonstrating that its interference with Plaintiffs’ religious practices is the least
restrictive means of serving that interest.
Click to expand...
 
From the American Bar Association:

The ABA supports the rule of law
It has been three weeks since Inauguration Day. Most Americans recognize that newly elected leaders bring change. That is expected. But most Americans also expect that changes will take place in accordance with the rule of law and in an orderly manner that respects the lives of affected individuals and the work they have been asked to perform.

Instead, we see wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself, such as attacks on constitutionally protected birthright citizenship, the dismantling of USAID and the attempts to criminalize those who support lawful programs to eliminate bias and enhance diversity.
Click to expand...
We have seen attempts at wholesale dismantling of departments and entities created by Congress without seeking the required congressional approval to change the law. There are efforts to dismiss employees with little regard for the law and protections they merit, and social media announcements that disparage and appear to be motivated by a desire to inflame without any stated factual basis. This is chaotic. It may appeal to a few. But it is wrong. And most Americans recognize it is wrong. It is also contrary to the rule of law.
Click to expand...
There is much that Americans disagree on, but all of us expect our government to follow the rule of law, protect due process and treat individuals in a way that we would treat others in our homes and workplaces. The ABA does not oppose any administration. Instead, we remain steadfast in our support for the rule of law.

We call upon our elected representatives to stand with us and to insist upon adherence to the rule of law and the legal processes and procedures that ensure orderly change. The administration cannot choose which law it will follow or ignore. These are not partisan or political issues. These are rule of law and process issues. We cannot afford to remain silent. We must stand up for the values we hold dear. The ABA will do its part and act to protect the rule of law.

We urge every attorney to join us and insist that our government, a government of the people, follow the law. It is part of the oath we took when we became lawyers. Whatever your political party or your views, change must be made in the right way. Americans expect no less.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00322-JDB
Health-related websites
TRO Granted

COMPLAINT
. . . agencies within defendant Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), removed from publicly accessible websites a broad range of health-related data and other information used every day by health professionals to diagnose and treat patients and by researchers to advance public health, including through clinical trials meant to establish the safety and efficacy of medical products.
Click to expand...
The removal of this information deprives researchers of access to information that is necessary for treating patients, for developing clinical studies that produce results that accurately reflect the effects treatments will have in clinical practice, and for developing practices and policies that protect the health of vulnerable populations and the country as a whole.
Click to expand...
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Finally, it bears emphasizing who ultimately bears the harm of defendants’ actions:
everyday Americans, and most acutely, underprivileged Americans, seeking healthcare. These
individuals rely on the care of doctors like Liou and Ramachandran. If those doctors cannot
provide these individuals the care they need (and deserve) within the scheduled and often limited
time frame, there is a chance that some individuals will not receive treatment, including for severe,
life-threatening conditions. The public thus has a strong interest in avoiding these serious injuries
to the public health.
Defendants, meanwhile, face a minimal burden if required to restore the public’s access to
resources, many of which defendants made public for many years. There is nothing in either the
OPM memorandum or the record, and indeed defendants proffered no information at the hearing,
to suggest the restoration of the removed webpages would pose a burden on the agencies’ ability
to engage in their work. See, e.g., Lawyers’ Comm. for C.R. Under L. v. Presidential Advisory
Comm’n on Election Integrity, 265 F. Supp. 3d 54, 71 (D.D.C. 2017). Similarly, there is no
information to suggest that restoring public access would even interfere with the agencies’ ongoing
efforts to conform those resources with the President’s executive orders.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00322-JDB
Health-related websites

ORDER
Upon consideration of [6] Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, [8]
Plaintiff’s supplemental declarations, [9] Defendants’ opposition, [10] Plaintiff’s reply, the
hearing on February 10, 2025, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that
1. Defendants Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, and Food
and Drug Administration (hereinafter “defendants”) shall, by not later than 11:59 pm on
February 11, 2025, restore to their versions as of January 30, 2025, each webpage and dataset
identified by Plaintiff on pages 6–12 of its Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for
a Restraining Order [ECF No. 6-1];
2. Defendants shall, in consultation with Plaintiff, identify any other resources that DFA members
rely on to provide medical care and that defendants removed or substantially modified on or
after January 29, 2025, without adequate notice or reasoned explanation; and defendants shall,
by February 14, 2025, restore those resources to their versions as of January 30, 2025;
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00239-LLA
Federal Grants

COMPLAINT
Although the Trump Administration is at liberty to “advanc[e] [its] priorities,” it
must do so within the confines of the law. It has not. The Memo fails to explain the
source of OMB’s purported legal authority to gut every grant program in the federal
government; it fails to consider the reliance interest of the many grant recipients,
including those to whom money had already been promised; and it announces a policy of
targeting grant recipients based in part on those recipients’ First Amendment rights and
with no bearing on the recipients’ eligibility to receive federal funds.
Click to expand...
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Granted Feb. 3, 2025
 
Case 1:25-cv-00039-JJM-PAS
Appeal: Trump administration's emergency motion to block a court order that ordered agencies to lift their spending freeze DENIED.
State of New York v. Trump (25-1138)
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

No. 25-1138
. . . the defendants do not cite any authority in support of their administrative stay request or identify any harm related to a specific funding action or actions that they will face without their requested administrative stay.
Click to expand...
APPEAL
 
Case 1:25-cv-01237
Lawsuit Argues Defendants Violated the Privacy Act by Disclosing Sensitive Data

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
7. On information and belief, Musk and other DOGE actors were not government employees at the time they demanded and received access to the OPM computer networkscontaining Plaintiffs’ and their members’ personal information.

8. In violation of the Privacy Act, on or about January 20, 2025, OPM Defendants gave unrestricted, wholesale access to OPM systems and records to DOGE Defendants andDOGE’s agents, including Musk, Akash Bobba, Luke Farritor, Gautier Cole Killian, GavinKliger, Ethan Shaotran, and Edward Coristine. Coristine is a 19-year-old who is now widely known by his online identity “Big Balls” and who, according to the New York Times, was fired from cybersecurity firm Path Network in 2022 following (according to a recent firm statement)“an internal investigation into the leaking of proprietary information that coincided with his tenure.”3

9. OPM Defendants gave DOGE Defendants and DOGE’s agents—many of whom are under the age of 25 and are or were until recently employees of Musk’s private companies—“administrative” access to OPM computer systems, without undergoing any normal, rigorous national-security vetting. As the Washington Post reported, that level of access gives DOGE Defendants “sweeping authority to install and modify software on government-supplied equipment and, according to two OPM officials, to alter internal documentation of their own activities."
Click to expand...
 
Captain Mars said:
Civil Action No. 22-1921 (BAH)

This one is a continuation of the previous classified documents cases. I'm filing it under either "be careful what you wish for" or "unintended consequences" or, maybe, "you really can't have it all." Seems that since the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity and his election relieves him of criminal responsibility, he's no longer protected from public disclosure of his behavior behind the scenes.

MEMORANDUM OPINION


ETA: The 11th Circuit just dismissed the case against Trump codefendants Walt Naura and Carlos DeOliveira.
Click to expand...
I genuinely love this. In Hamlet, Shakespeare coined the phrase, "Hoist with his own petard".

For 'tis the sport to have the enginer​
Hoist with his own petard; and 't shall go hard​
But I will delve one yard below their mines​
And blow them at the moon. O, 'tis most sweet​
When in one line two crafts directly meet.​

It is particularly apt here, as Trump sought to blow up his prosecution, and the artifice is deftly turned against him by the judge, who is bound by the law, which is very specific in this case. Indeed, it makes me wonder if the DoJ attorneys were in on this, because they specifically relied on the very provision that blew up the scheme. Legally, they were absolutely correct, but they engineered their own defeat by relying upon it.

Juicy.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00402
The American Bar Association has joined as a Plaintiff in this one.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This lawsuit seeks to enjoin an unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of executive
power that has created chaos in the funding and administration of the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) and other federal foreign-assistance programs, causing
grievous irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and other grantees, contractors, and partners.
Click to expand...
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Since the filing of Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction (ECF No. 4) yesterday morning, Plaintiffs’ counsel have received information that
Defendants are accelerating their terminations of contracts and suspensions of grants of USAID
and State Department partners—exacerbating the irreparable harm Plaintiffs are currently
suffering (see ECF Nos. 4, 7)—and may be doing so specifically in response to this lawsuit and
the pending motion. Shortly after the filing of this lawsuit, multiple Plaintiffs (and members of
Plaintiffs’ organizations) received new purported termination notices, including yesterday and this
morning.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00352-CJN
Dismantle USAID

ORDER
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant in part plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, ECF No. 9. The Court will enter a TRO as to the administrative leave and
expedited evacuation issues until February 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM. All USAID employees currently
on administrative leave shall be reinstated until that date, and shall be given complete access to
email, payment, and security notification systems until that date, and no additional employees shall
be placed on administrative leave before that date. No USAID employees shall be evacuated from
their host countries before February 14, 2025 at 11:59 PM.
The Court will also hold an in-person preliminary injunction hearing on February 12, 2025
at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 17. The government shall submit a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion, ECF No. 9, on or before 5:00 PM on February 10, 2025, and plaintiffs shall submit a reply
brief on or before 5:00 PM on February 11, 2025.

SO ORDERED
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:21-mc-00046-BAH
Video evidence of January 6 Capitol attack missing from US government website

THE PRESS COALITION’S MOTION TO ENFORCE STANDING ORDER 21-28
Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.6, the Press Coalition1 respectfully moves this Court
to enforce Standing Order 21-28 and ensure continued access to video exhibits and other judicial
records submitted in criminal cases arising from the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Over the past four years, this Court and the other District Judges in this District have
repeatedly ordered the government to make such riot-related records publicly accessible through
an electronic drop box on the government’s “USAfx” portal. Within the past week, however,
certain video exhibits submitted in connection with the sentencing of at least one Capitol riot
defendant (United States v. Simon, No. 21-cr-346-BAH) have disappeared from that drop box.
The Press Coalition conferred with government counsel about that disappearance and, as of this
filing, government counsel have offered no explanation for why these judicial records are no
longer publicly accessible or whether any other Capitol riot records that were previously
available on USAfx have disappeared as well.
Click to expand...
They've been ordered not to remove any Jan. 6 videos and to identify videos that have already been removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom