• 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

Case No. 1:24-cr-00556
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC ADAMS, Defendant.

NOLLE PROSEQUI
The United States respectfully submits this motion seeking dismissal without
prejudice of the charges in this case, with leave of the Court, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.1 See United States v. Blaszczak, 56 F.4th 230, 238 (2d Cir. 2022)
(reasoning that “[t]he government may elect to eschew or discontinue prosecutions for any of a
number of reasons,” including based on announcements relating to “general policy.”); United
States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“[D]ecisions to dismiss pending
criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to
bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.”); United States v. Amos, 2025 WL
275639, at *2 (D.D.C. 2025) (“[T]he government’s view of the public interest does not clearly fall
within the types of reasons found to provide legitimate grounds to deny the government Rule 48(a)
motion to dismiss charges.”).
Click to expand...

Screenshot 2025-02-15 003736.webp
 
Last edited:
Docket STATE OF NEW MEXICO v. MUSK (1:25-cv-00429)
MINUTE ORDER: As stated in the motions hearing today, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to file a revised proposed order for the 6 Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order by 5:00 PM on February 15, 2025. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 2/14/2025. (lccc)
Click to expand...
@NWRatCon I'm reading that this is for an Injunction Hearing?
 
Last edited:
It is one thing when someone throws feces at a wall to determine if anything sticks.

It is a whole different dynamic when it becomes the wall….
 
NWRatCon said:
This is the kind of nonsense I'd hoped to avoid. Facts, and law, that's what the thread is for, not partisan blathering and lies. So far, no judge agrees with your claim. Be well.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for these judges to explain how any of the complainants have standing in their court.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00429-TSC
State of Mexico vs Musk

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE
In response to the Court’s Order during proceedings held on February 14, 2025, the
Plaintiff States have concurrently filed a proposed order identifying a narrower category
of activities and agencies related to the harm that the Plaintiff States are suffering and
will imminently suffer. The following information relates to the broader harms alleged in
the complaint and identified in the TRO Motion:
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:24-cr-00556-DEH
Re: United States v. Eric Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH)
United States v. Erden Arkan, 25 Cr. 13 (DEH)
United States v. Mohamed Bahi, 25 Cr. ___ (AT)

This seems like a bit of a complication. Eric Adams has two co-defendants that ren't included in the recent DOJ actions regarding Adams. Also, going through the docket, there are several sealed documents and some protective orders referencing classified information.

Letter Feb. 7
. . . on January 10, 2025, Arkan pled guilty before Judge Ho to the sole count of the Information. The
conduct for which Arkan pled guilty forms a part of the conduct charged in Counts One and Two
of the Adams Indictment, and Arkan is identified in the Adams Indictment as “Businessman-5.”
(See United States v. Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH), Dkt. 1 ¶ 30).
Click to expand...

On February 6, 2025, the Government filed a notice of intent to file an information charging
Mohamed Bahi in a single count with conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The charged object of that conspiracy, as in Arkan, is committing
wire fraud through the collection of campaign contributions made under the name of someone
other than the true contributor, and the subsequent request for public funds based on the
misrepresentation that those contributions originated from the named contributor. The conduct
charged in the Bahi information forms part of the conduct charged in Counts One and Two of the
Adams Indictment, and Bahi is identified in the Adams Indictment as “Adams Employee-1.” (See
United States v. Adams, 24 Cr. 556 (DEH), Dkt. 1 ¶ 28.a). In connection with that case, Bahi has
indicated that he intends to plead guilty to the sole count of the Information against him.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Case 1:25-cv-00381-ABJ
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

ORDER
It is ORDERED that Defendants, including their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys, (hereafter collectively, “Defendants”) shall not delete, destroy, remove, or impair any
data or other CFPB records covered by the Federal Records Act

It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall not terminate any CFPB employee, except
for cause related to the specific employee’s performance or conduct; nor shall Defendants issue
any notice of reduction-in-force to any CFPB employee.

And, it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall not: (i) transfer money from the CFPB’s
reserve funds, other than to satisfy the ordinary operating obligations of the CFPB; (ii) relinquish
control or ownership of the CFPB’s reserve funds, nor grant control or ownership of the CFPB’s
reserve funds to any other entity; (iii) return any money from the CFPB’s reserve funds to the
Federal Reserve or the Department of Treasury; or (iv) otherwise take steps to reduce the amount
of money available to the CFPB below the amount available as of 4:00 pm on February 14, 2025,
other than to satisfy the ordinary operating obligations of the CFPB.
Click to expand...
After this Order, everyone was put on administrative leave.:eek:
 
25-5028
Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent

Order Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
The TRO mandates that Hampton Dellinger “continue to serve as the Special Counsel of the
Office of Special Counsel,” even though the President, acting through the Presidential
Personnel Office, sought to remove Dellinger from that position on February 7, 2025.
Order Granting TRO, Dellinger v. Bessent, 25-cv-385 (ABJ), at 26 (D.D.C. Feb. 12,
2025), ECF No. 14. The TRO is in place for only fourteen days, until February 26,
2025, when the district court will hold a hearing on Dellinger’s motion for a preliminary
injunction. If granted, a preliminary injunction would extend relief through the pendency
of the case, i.e., until the case is resolved on the merits.
Click to expand...
The relief requested by the government is a sharp departure from established
procedures that balance and protect the interests of litigants, and ensure the orderly
consideration of cases before the district court and this court. Instead of entertaining an
emergency appeal of a TRO, the normal course would be for us to wait for the district
court to issue a ruling on the preliminary injunction, which would be immediately
appealable. Indeed, many of the issues raised in the stay motion will be addressed by
the district court at the preliminary-injunction hearing on February 26, 2025. The district
court has promised to issue its preliminary-injunction ruling with “extreme expedition.”
Order Denying Stay Mot., Dellinger v. Bessent, No. 25-385 (ABJ), at 2 (D.D.C. Feb. 13,
2025), ECF No. 19. Moreover, that ruling will rest upon a more complete record for our
review, and an appeal of the preliminary-injunction decision will not require us to act
within the fourteen-day lifespan of a TRO, in a case that raises weighty constitutional
issues.
Click to expand...
But even more fundamentally, the “extraordinary harm” argument adopted by the
government and the dissent is analytically flawed because it presumes that the
government is correct on the merits. The cited “extraordinary harm” is the incursion on
the President’s authority to remove executive-branch officials at will — but the legality of
such constraints in 5 U.S.C. § 1211(b) is the very merits issue that has not yet been
adjudicated by the district court. We cannot presume “extraordinary harm” without
presuming that section 1211(b) is unconstitutional, and presuming the invalidity of a
duly enacted statute is the opposite of what courts normally do.
Click to expand...
 
Case No. 1:24-cr-00556
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC ADAMS, Defendant.

ORDER
The motion to dismiss states that “Defendant Eric Adams has consented in writing to this
motion,” see ECF No. 122 at 1, but no such document has been provided to the Court.
Defendant is therefore ORDERED to file his “consent[] in writing” on the docket by 5:00 pm
ET today. The parties are further ORDERED to appear before the Court for a conference on
February 19, 2025, at 2:00 pm in Courtroom 318 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40
Foley Square, New York, NY. The parties shall be prepared to address, inter alia, the reasons
for the Government’s motion, the scope and effect of Mayor Adams’s “consent[] in writing,”
ECF No. 122 at 1, and the procedure for resolution of the motion.
Click to expand...
 
Case No. 1:24-cr-00556
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC ADAMS, Defendant.

Common Cause Letter Motion
This is submitted as a letter motion to be heard as an amicus curiae1 on behalf of Common Cause 2 in
opposition to the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) F. R. Crim. P., Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss without
prejudice the prosecution captioned, U.S. v. Adams. 24 Cr. 556.
Click to expand...
 
25-5028
Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent

SPECIAL COUNSEL HAMPTON DELLINGER’S OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND TO ENTER AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY

In any event, the government’s case for carving out a jurisdictional exception
here is uniquely weak. First, contrary to the government’s assertions, no injunctive
relief has been ordered against the President, so this case does not evoke the special
solicitude sometimes afforded to that office. Second, the government has conceded
here that it violated a directly applicable statute which no federal court has
enjoined—and we are unaware of any case where this Court has granted emergency
relief (let alone from an ordinarily unappealable TRO) so that the government can
continue to violate a federal statute. This is precisely the kind of circumstance in
which a TRO that preserves the status quo ante is properly entered while the parties
brief (and the courts evaluate) the merits of the constitutional questions. Third, the
government seeks such an extraordinary intervention despite genuine disputes over
open legal issues (some of which it failed to develop below)—and despite failing to
identify any concrete, irreversible harm from maintenance of the TRO over the next
eight days. Finally, the government has not identified any reason to doubt that the
district court is proceeding swiftly and ably. In fact, the district court has set a highly
expedited schedule to resolve the merits, and may well decide the case in ways that
avoid any need for this Court’s intervention (or at least create a proper record for it).
Click to expand...
 
25-5028
Hampton Dellinger v. Scott Bessent

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE LAW PROFESSORS REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT’S “APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REQUEST FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE STAY”

Amici are law professors with financial-regulation experience who have published
extensive research on that subject. Here they urge that, however the Court rules on
the Government’s emergency stay application, the Court should make it clear that its
order does not undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve System. Were the
Court’s order to send a message that the Fed’s independence is in doubt, it could
disrupt markets or invite the removal or demotion of Fed officials in ways that might
not be easily reversed.
Click to expand...
Recent scholarship has shown that the first Congress, many of whose
members helped draft the Constitution, saw no constitutional impediment to empowering a variety of boards and commissions whose members could not be terminated
at will by the President. For example, the first Congress created a Sinking Fund Commission to repay the national debt through open-market purchases of U.S. securities.
21 Its members included Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, and
Edmund Randolph; and the President had no power to replace or remove several of them.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00429-TSC
State of Mexico vs Musk

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

But “harm that might befall unnamed third parties does not satisfy the irreparable harm
requirement in the context of emergency injunctive relief, which must instead be connected
specifically to the parties before the Court.” Church, 573 F. Supp. 3d at 146 (citations omitted).
Plaintiffs have not adequately linked Defendants’ actions to imminent harm to Plaintiff States in
particular.
That said, Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications.
Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as
constitutionally required for officers who exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of
the United States.” United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1, 12 (2021) (citation omitted); Compl.
¶ 64; TRO Mot. Hr’g Tr. 29:07–22 (Feb. 17, 2025), ECF No. 27. Bypassing this “significant
structural safeguard[] of the constitutional scheme,” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 659
(1997), Musk has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the Executive Branch, see Compl.
¶¶ 66–76; Pls.’ Reply at 1–3, ECF No. 21. Even Defendants concede there is no apparent “source
of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power” to take some of the actions challenged here. See
Defs.’ Notice at 2. Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Defendants’ actions are thus precisely
the “Executive abuses” that the Appointments Clause seeks to prevent. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 659.
But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture.
4
Plaintiffs legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an
unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no
oversight. In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of
its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs
request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current
record does not meet that standard.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00412-RC
Illegal Termination - CATHY A. HARRIS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Congress created the Merit Systems Protection Board as a component of the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978, which “establishes a framework for evaluating personnel actions taken
against federal employees.” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44 (2012); see also Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978 (“CSRA”), Pub. L. No. 95-454, § 202, 92 Stat. 1111, 1121–25 (1978)
(codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 1201–05). Congress’s Findings and Statement of Purpose indicate that
“t is the policy of the United States that . . . to provide the people of the United States with a
competent, honest, and productive Federal work force[,] . . . Federal personnel management
should be implemented consistent with merit system principles.”
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00465
Catholic Bishops Funding for Refugees

COMPLAINT

The beneficiaries of this cooperative partnership are refugees who are fleeing
persecution, instability, and oppression and have come to the United States as a place of refuge
and hope. These refugees are vetted and approved by the federal government before entering
the country and now are in the United States legally. Once here, they are entitled by statute to
receive federal funds for their initial period of resettlement—transitional support for no more
than their first 90 days in the United States, which is essential to helping them establish a new
home. This transitional assistance promotes the successful settlement of refugees in their communities, including by promoting gainful employment or connections to educational opportunities, thereby diminishing the likelihood that newly arriving refugees will be dependent on ongoing public support.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00471
DEI

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Executive Orders disparage DEIA programs as “dangerous, demeaning, and
immoral race- and sex-based preferences.”5 In actuality, these programs address longstanding,
discriminatory barriers and disadvantages to help members of underrepresented groups fully
participate in our society and have equal access to employment, education, housing, healthcare,
and other resources. These types of programs embody principles and values of equality, fairness,
and justice that are enshrined in our Constitution and federal civil rights laws and reflect a shared
commitment to achieving the ideals of a multiracial democracy that fully includes all its people.
Plaintiffs firmly believe that the United States’ longstanding and entrenched race and sex
inequalities require proactive efforts, including DEIA, to break down barriers to opportunity and
resources to both remedy and prevent discrimination.
7. While the President may have his viewpoint, as flawed and discriminatory as it may
be, the First Amendment bars him from unduly imposing his viewpoint on federal contractors and
grantees so that Plaintiffs are forced to either violate their organizational missions or risk losing
the federal funding that is vitally necessary, and even sometimes lifesaving, for the communities
they serve.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-01413
NYC Congesrion Zone

COMPLAINT
In a matter of weeks, the Program has already achieved remarkable
results: traffic congestion and commute times have materially fallen; more people are visiting
Manhattan’s commercial districts and supporting the region’s businesses; and the MTA’s vital mass
transit system is seeing the benefit of increased funding. Despite its obvious success, however, the
Trump Administration has precipitously—and for blatantly political reasons—purported to
“terminate” the Program, as then-candidate Trump proclaimed he would do in his first week in
office. The Administration’s efforts to summarily and unilaterally overturn the considered
determinations of the political branches—federal, state, and city—are unlawful, and the Court
should declare that they are null and void.
2. The Manhattan CBD is one of the most congested urban areas in the country, where
travel times had been extraordinarily slow for decades. Indeed, the term “gridlock” was invented
right here in Manhattan. Congestion in the CBD has been a $20 billion annual drag on the regional
economy, and thus the national economy, as well. For over 50 years, New York state and localI can't see any reason why New York
officials, policy experts, and advocacy groups have studied various solutions to identify the most
effective way to reduce congestion, which results in lost productivity, poor air quality, slower and
less reliable bus service, delayed emergency response times, and reduced public safety, among other
harmful conditions. That extensive deliberation led to the consensus that congestion pricing—
charging vehicles to drive in highly congested areas and providing a dedicated source of funding
for public transit for the metropolitan area—is the most effective tool to achieve that goal. That
expert consensus also makes good common sense. Traffic congestion and public transit are
inextricably linked: to reduce traffic, the region needs to improve the reliability of its transit system,
which is chronically underfunded and in need of capital investment.
Click to expand...
London has had a congestion charge since 2003, so I'm surprised that New York didn't implement this sooner. The fee in London is currently 15 GBP. I haven't been to New York in a very long time, so can't compare the transport conditions.
 
Case: 25-807
Birthright Citizenship Appeal DENIED

Several interesting passages in this Order.

ORDER
Here, the Government has not shown that it is entitled to immediate relief. Its sole basis for seeking emergency action from this court is that “[t]he district cour has . . . stymied the implementation of an Executive Branch policy . . . nationwide for almost three weeks.” That alone is insufficient. It is routine for both executive and legislative policies to be challenged in court, particularly where a new policy is a significant shift from prior understanding and practice.
Click to expand...
And just because a district court grants preliminary relief halting a policy advanced by one of the political branches does not in and of itself an emergency make. A controversy, yes. Even an important controversy, yes. An emergency, not necessarily.
Click to expand...
Second, as a motions panel, we are not well-suited to give full and considered attention to merits issues. Take this case. The Government filed its emergency motion for a stay on February 12, requesting a decision by February 20—just over a week later. We ordered a responsive brief from the Plaintiff States by February 18, and an optional reply brief from the Government by February 19—one day before the Government asserts it needs relief. This is not the way reviewing courts normally work. We usually take more time and for good reason: our duty is to “act responsibly,” not dole out “justice on the fly.” We must make decisions based on reasoned judgment, not gut reaction. And this requires understanding the facts, the arguments, and the law, and how they fit together. Deciding important substantive issues on one week’s notice turns our usual decision-making process on its head. We should not undertake this task unless the circumstances dictate that we must. They do not here.
Click to expand...
Third, and relatedly, quick decision-making risks eroding public confidence. Judges are charged to reach their decisions apart from ideology or political preference. When we decide issues of significant public importance and political controversy hours after we finish reading the final brief, we should not be surprised if the public questions whether we are politicians in disguise. In recent times, nearly all judges and lawyers have attended seminar after seminar discussing ways to increase public trust in the legal system. Moving beyond wringing our hands and wishing things were different, one concrete thing we can do is decline to decide (or pre-decide) cases on an emergency basis when there is no emergency warranting a deviation from our normal deliberate practice.
Click to expand...
 
Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID

PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENFORCE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND TO HOLD RESTRAINED DEFENDANTS IN CIVIL CONTEMPT
Meanwhile, Plaintiffs, along with countless other recipients of federal foreign
assistance awards, continued without funding, as they waited for Defendants to
comply with the unambiguous language of the TRO. Each day, their irreparable harm
increased, as did the suffering of millions of people across the world who depend on
the work performed with these grants. Deaths have already been directly attributed
to Defendants’ actions.1
On February 18, nearly at midnight, Defendants filed the status report ordered
by this Court. The report makes the remarkable assertion that Defendants have
reviewed thousands of affected State Department and USAID grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreements, and concludes that—despite this Court’s unambiguous
order—terminating nearly all foreign assistance funding was legal.
This Court should not brook such brazen defiance of the express terms of its
order. The Court should order Defendants to immediately comply, today, with the
terms of the TRO by rescinding all suspensions, stop-work orders, and terminations
issued since January 19, 2025. It should also order Defendants to immediately
reimburse, today, foreign assistance recipients for work already performed and to
promptly pay such recipients for work going forward. And the Court should issue an
order finding Defendants in civil contempt and imposing specific penalties until Defendants comply with the Court’s order.
Click to expand...

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants are directed to respond to Plaintiffs' 26 emergency motion for contempt by 1:00 p.m. on February 20, 2025. Signed by Judge Amir H. Ali on 2/19/2025. (lcaha2)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom