• 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

ORDER
As discussed below, Plaintiffs’ motion is granted in part, insofar as
Defendants have continued their blanket suspension of funds pending review of agreements, the
very action that the TRO enjoined pending the parties’ requested briefing schedule and the Court’s
prompt resolution of whether to issue a preliminary injunction. But the Court finds that contempt
is not warranted on the current record and given Defendants’ explicit recognition that “prompt
compliance with the order” is required.
But a new directive for the agencies to suspend or terminate contracts and grants is not
consistent with the terms of the TRO and is appropriately enjoined for all the same reasons stated
in the TRO.

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the TRO is therefore granted to the extent Defendants have
not complied with the terms of the TRO, as confirmed above. However, the Court finds contempt
is not warranted on the current record and given Defendants’ explicit recognition that “prompt
compliance with the order” is required.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00420-CRC
Mass Firing of Probationary Employees

ORDER
The first month of President Trump’s second administration has been defined by an
onslaught of executive actions that have caused, some say by design, disruption and even chaos
in widespread quarters of American society. Affected citizens and their advocates have
challenged many of these actions on an emergency basis in this Court and others across the
country. Certain of the President’s actions have been temporarily halted; others have been
permitted to proceed, at least for the time being. These mixed results should surprise no one.
Federal district judges are duty-bound to decide legal issues based on even-handed application of
law and precedent—no matter the identity of the litigants or, regrettably at times, the
consequences of their rulings for average people.
For the reasons explained below, the Court will deny the unions the preliminary relief
they seek because it likely lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear their claims. The claims must
instead be brought before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) under the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute.
 
Federal District Courts are beginning to rein in some of the worst, most obviously illegal actions of the Trump administration. They are fighting an uphill battle. It appears that Trump functionaries are also starting to ignore those orders and really pissing off the judges.

I thought I might start a new thread to consolidate some of those cases and opinions, as they appear to be coming fast and furiously. Like the "Just the Trump Legal Issues" thread, this is not intended to be a partisan playground, but a forum to post decisions, motions and comment on the substance.

"Over the past two weeks, Musk’s team has moved to dismantle some U.S. agencies, push out hundreds of thousands of civil servants and gain access to some of the federal government’s most sensitive payment systems. Musk has said these changes are necessary to overhaul what he’s characterized as a sclerotic federal bureaucracy and to stop payments that he says are bankrupting the country and driving inflation.

But many of these moves appear to violate federal law, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, one audio recording, and several internal messages obtained by The Washington Post. Internal legal objections have been raised at the Treasury Department, the Education Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the General Services Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the White House budget office, among others.

“So many of these things are so wildly illegal that I think they’re playing a quantity game and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once,” said David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School." WaPo gift article


I'm not at home, but will try to post documents as I can. There have already been, I think, 5 decisions. Still tracking them down. In the interim:




They are working way too slow. Trump is burning down houses and he knows that there will be no way to rebuild them. That is why he is moving so fast, staying out ahead of any possibility to stop him.
Plus a lot of the judges are pulling punches and siding with Trump even though they know that he is trashing the Constitution and the law because they are afraid for both themselves and especially for their families because they know that a simple tweet from Trump with their names attached will result in a plethora of death threats against them by the cult, to include stalking of their houses and their travel.
We are now in full-blown fascism.
 
They are working way too slow. Trump is burning down houses and he knows that there will be no way to rebuild them. That is why he is moving so fast, staying out ahead of any possibility to stop him.
Plus a lot of the judges are pulling punches and siding with Trump even though they know that he is trashing the Constitution and the law because they are afraid for both themselves and especially for their families because they know that a simple tweet from Trump with their names attached will result in a plethora of death threats against them by the cult, to include stalking of their houses and their travel.
We are now in full-blown fascism.
Moving slowly is a feature of our government in order to allow for reasoned, thoughtful decision making. It's an intentional process that encourages persuasion and negotiation rather than bullying. They just aren't acting in good faith (surprise, surprise.) It's also difficult in an instant culture.
 
Moving slowly is a feature of our government in order to allow for reasoned, thoughtful decision making. It's an intentional process that encourages persuasion and negotiation rather than bullying. They just aren't acting in good faith (surprise, surprise.) It's also difficult in an instant culture.

Exactly. And they are using various ruses to insure ZERO transparency as to what they are doing. Very fascist indeed.
And then they come out and lie like the Trump economic advisers did in a press briefing today, and the cult rallies 'round and parrots the lies.
Yeah, I forgot that part of the fascism--the cult that simply kisses the feet of the Dear Great Leader instead of doing any thinking whatsoever for themselves. That is a very vital part of a fascist state. And having an official propaganda outlet that parrots everything that the Dear Great Leader says. We're talking here about FOX et al.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00339-JDB
Privacy Violations

Plaintiffs Motion for Expediated Discovery
Exactly. And they are using various ruses to insure ZERO transparency as to what they are doing. Very fascist indeed.
And then they come out and lie like the Trump economic advisers did in a press briefing today, and the cult rallies 'round and parrots the lies.
Yeah, I forgot that part of the fascism--the cult that simply kisses the feet of the Dear Great Leader instead of doing any thinking whatsoever for themselves. That is a very vital part of a fascist state. And having an official propaganda outlet that parrots everything that the Dear Great Leader says. We're talking here about FOX et al.
I'm about to post another Motion that addresses that transparency situation. Back in a few.

Screenshot 2025-02-20 212347.webp
Screenshot 2025-02-20 212555.webp
 
Last edited:
Case No. 1:24-cr-00556
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ERIC ADAMS, Defendant.

ORDER
Here, the recent conference helped clarify the parties’ respective positions, but there has
been no adversarial testing of the Government’s position generally or the form of its requested
relief specifically. Where, as here, nominal adversaries are aligned in their positions, “precedent
and experience have recognized the authority of courts to appoint an amicus to assist their
decision-making . . . including in criminal cases and even when the movant is the government.”
Accordingly, to assist with its decision-making via an adversarial process, the Court
exercises its inherent authority to appoint Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy PLLC as amicus
curiae to present arguments on the Government’s Motion to Dismiss.
It is hereby ORDERED that the parties and amicus curiae shall address:
1) The legal standard for leave to dismiss an indictment under Rule 48(a);
2) Whether, and to what extent, a court may consider materials other than the Rule
48(a) motion itself;
3) Under what circumstances, if any, additional procedural steps and/or further
inquiry would be appropriate before resolving a Rule 48(a) motion;
4) Under what circumstances, if leave is granted, dismissal should be with or without
prejudice;
5) If leave were denied under Rule 48(a), what practical consequences would follow,
including whether dismissal would nevertheless be appropriate or necessary under
other rules or legal principles (e.g., for “unnecessary delay” under Rule 48(b) or
under speedy trial principles, see United States v. N.V. Nederlandsche Combinatie
Voor Chemische Industrie, 453 F. Supp. 462, 463 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)); and
6) Any other issues the parties or amicus consider relevant to the Court’s resolution
of the Government’s motion.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00532
Freedom of the Press

COMPLAINT
The White House has ordered The Associated Press to use certain words in its
coverage or else face an indefinite denial of access. The press and all people in the United States
have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government. The
Constitution does not allow the government to control speech. Allowing such government
control and retaliation to stand is a threat to every American’s freedom.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00527
DOGE Transparency

PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT ) OVERSIGHT, INC. v Trump DOGE

COMPLAINT
This is a civil action for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief brought
under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, et seq. (“APA”); the Presidential
Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§2201, et seq. (“PRA”); the Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C §§3101, et
seq. (“FRA”); the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and the All Writs Act,
28 U.S.C. § 1651, challenging as contrary to law Defendants’ recordkeeping policies and
practices that treat federal agency records of Defendants U.S. Department of Government
Efficiency (“DOGE”) and U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization (“USDS”) as
presidential records under the PRA and beyond the scope of the Freedom of Information Act
(“FOIA”).
 
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24A790
SCOTT BESSENT, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
ET AL. v. HAMPTON DELLINGER, SPECIAL COUNSEL
OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
[February 21, 2025]

Application to Vacate

Although it acknowledges that this Court typically does
not have appellate jurisdiction over TROs, the Government
urges us to construe the TRO as a preliminary injunction or
to exercise jurisdiction under the All Writs Act in light of
the core executive power assertedly restrained.
In light of the foregoing, the application to vacate the order of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is held in abeyance until February 26,
when the TRO is set to expire.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR and JUSTICE JACKSON would deny
the application.
JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, dissenting from the order holding the application in abeyance.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00333-ABA
DEI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The term “DEI,” of course, is shorthand for “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”And
ensuring equity, diversity, and inclusion has long been a goal, and at least in some
contexts arguably a requirement, of federal anti-discrimination law. But the
administration has declared “DEI” to be henceforth “illegal,” has announced it will be
terminating all “‘equity-related’ grants or contracts”—whatever the administration
might decide that means—and has made “practitioners” of what the government
considers “DEI” the targets of a “strategic enforcement plan.” J20 Order § 2; J21 Order §
4. But the Challenged Orders do not define any of the operative terms, such as “DEI,”
“equity-related,” “promoting DEI,” “illegal DEI,” “illegal DEI and DEIA2 policies,” or
“illegal discrimination or preferences,” J20 Order §§ 1-2; J21 Order §§ 1-4—let alone
identify the types of programs or policies the administration considers “illegal.”
According to a recent case, “approximately 20% of the nation’s labor force works
for a federal contractor.” Kentucky v. Biden, 57 F.4th 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2023). The
Termination Provision leaves those contractors and their employees, plus any other
recipients of federal grants, with no idea whether the administration will deem their
contracts or grants, or work they are doing, or speech they are engaged in, to be “equityrelated.” And the J21 Order leaves the private sector at a loss for whether the
administration will deem a particular policy, program, discussion, announcement, etc.
to be among the “preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” the
administration now deems “illegal.” J21 Order §§ 2, 4(b)(iii). Plaintiffs, who have easily
established their standing to bring this case and irreparable harm, have shown they are
likely to prove the Termination and Enforcement Threat Provisions are
unconstitutionally vague on their face.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00240-ACR
Transgender in Miltary

MINUTE ORDER. As stated on the record at the preliminary injunction hearing, the Court ORDERS the following briefing schedule for Defendants' surreply and the parties' supplemental briefing:1. Defendants shall file a surreply to Plaintiffs' 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction on or before February 25, 2025, at 6:00 PM. 2. The parties shall submit supplemental briefing, not to exceed five pages, addressing the questions of biology the Court raised in connection with the immutability analysis. Plaintiffs shall submit their supplemental brief on or before February 21, 2025, at 6:00 PM. Defendants shall submit their response on or before February 28, 2025, at 6:00 PM.3. The parties shall submit optional briefing, on or before March 2, 2025, at 2:00 PM, addressing the forthcoming guidance issued by the Secretary of Defense implementing Executive Order 14183.The Court further ORDERS that oral argument on Plaintiffs' 13 Motion for Preliminary Injunction will continue on March 3, 2025, at 10:30 AM. Interested parties may access the Court's dial-in line and must adhere to the rules outlined in the Court's February 14, 2025 Minute Order. The Public Access telephone number is 1-833-990-9400, and the access code is 787605272. Signed by Judge Ana C. Reyes on 02/19/2025. (lcacr2)
A portion of the transcript from this hearing is circulating on social media that explains this Order.
bafkreihn6i6jcjn7zzyskqjklx4g7mlbyjefbe644he6ivrdxptvepsh7e (1).jpg
animus-transcript.jpg

PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING ON IMMUTABILITY
 
Last edited:
Case 1:25-cv-00532
Freedom of the Press

NOTICE of Hearing: The parties shall take notice that a hearing on the 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order only is set for February 24, 2025, at 3:00 PM in Courtroom 2 - In Person before Judge Trevor N. McFadden. Given the expedited timeframe, Defendants are not expected to file an opposition brief before the hearing. (lctnm1)
 
Special Counsel Dellinger Statement on Request that MSPB Stay Terminations of Probationary Employees
Last Friday, Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger filed initial requests to “stay," or pause, the apparently impermissible terminations of six probationary employees across various executive branch agencies. The requests, filed with the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), seek a 45-day stay of the terminations because there are reasonable grounds to believe that agencies engaged in prohibited personnel practices (PPPs) under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(12) by terminating the employees in violation of federal laws and regulations governing probationary terminations and reductions in force.
A redacted example of one of the stay requests
 
Case No. 1:25-cv-00234
Class Action
(Musk using unknown email server)
. . . the Office of Personnel Management’s failure to conduct and publish Privacy Impact Assessments for the unknown email server and any linked systems is a violation of the E-Government Act of 2002 by way of the APA, and that this violation was intentional and/or willful
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SHORTEN SAFE HARBOR PERIOD
On 23 February, Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel served counsel for Defendant Office of
Personnel Management (“OPM”) with a motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”). In the spirit of that rule, Plaintiffs will not elaborate on the content of
that motion at this time, other than to say that the allegations are new and relate primarily to
OPM’s presentation to the Court of the Privacy Impact Assessment (“PIA”) for the GovernmentWide Email System (“GWES”), which, in light of rapidly unfolding events over the weekend, materially misrepresented the allegedly “voluntary” nature of responses to emails sent using that
system, coupled with the newly discovered evidence that, as Plaintiffs’ undersigned counsel
warned the Court in the 14 February hearing, OPM did not purge the GWES of information
about non-Executive Branch employees, but only installed “filters” to keep the emails about the
deferred resignation program from being sent to them.
 
Case 8:25-cv-00430-DLB
Privacy

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This lawsuit is one of several filed by plaintiffs who seek to enjoin federal government
agencies from disclosing records with their sensitive personal information to government
personnel affiliated with the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”).
Ramada and his DOGE colleagues “have been granted access to Department information
technology and data systems.” Id. ¶¶ 2, 7. These systems of records contain many of the plaintiffs’
PII, including marital status, income and asset information, Social Security numbers, taxpayer
identification numbers, dates of birth, demographic information (such as citizenship status), and
some similar information about family members. See, e.g., 87 Fed. Reg. 57,873, 57,878 (2022)
(listing categories of records in NSLDS). The government says DOGE affiliates at Education need
access to all this information “in order to audit student loan programs for waste, fraud, and abuse.”
ECF 27, at 26 (citing ECF 27-5, ¶ 9 (same)). Ramada states that DOGE affiliates will access taxrelated information in Education’s systems of record in the future “with appropriate authorization
and for purposes consistent with applicable law, such as conducting analyses to estimate costs
related to student loan repayment plans, awards, or debt discharges.” ECF 27-5, ¶ 11. But neither
Ramada nor the government explain why he and the DOGE affiliates at Education need such
comprehensive, sweeping access to the plaintiffs’ records to audit student loan programs for waste,
fraud, and abuse or to conduct cost-estimate analyses.10
There appears to be no precedent with similar facts. In other Privacy Act cases where the
need-to-know exception is invoked, the dispute typically involves the alleged unauthorized
disclosure of one record. This case involves the alleged unauthorized disclosure of millions of
records. Even under existing precedent, this appears to be unlawful.
 
Case 1:25-cv-01237-DLC
DOGE

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
As Plaintiffs explained in their letter to the Court dated February 23, 2025, tailored,
expedited discovery is necessary and appropriate in this case (i) to ascertain facts solely in
Defendants’ possession, (ii) to address troubling admissions in, and material questions of fact
raised by, Defendants’ papers submitted in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary
restraining, and (iii) to address widespread press reports and public statements by Defendant
Musk, President Trump, and others that contradict Defendants’ assertions in this case. See ECF
No. 45; ECF No. 28 at 2-12.
1 Targeted factual development prior to briefing on Plaintiffs’
Just yesterday, Speaker Mike Johnson publicly stated that Defendant Musk “has cracked the code, he is now insidethe agencies. He’s created these algorithms that are constantly crawling through the data, and he has told me in his office, the data doesn’t lie.” (last visited February 25,2025). But in Court filings in other cases, the government has represented that Musk is not an employee of DOGE,nor is he the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator. See, e.g., Declaration of Joshua Fisher, State of New Mexico v. ElonMusk, 1:25-cv-00429, ECF No. 24-1 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2025)
 
Case 1:25-cv-00239-LLA
Federal Grants
Related to Post # 43


ORDER
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 40, is GRANTED
to the extent that it is
ORDERED that Defendants are enjoined from implementing, giving effect to, or reinstating
under a different name the unilateral, non-individualized directives in OMB Memorandum M-25-13
with respect to the disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants must provide written notice of the court’s preliminary
injunction to all agencies to which OMB Memorandum M-25-13 was addressed.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The court previously rejected Defendants’ attempts to break the causal chain between the
funding freeze and the OMB Pause Memorandum. ECF No. 30, at 9-12. Plaintiffs convincingly
demonstrated that the memorandum—not some other cause—triggered the shutting down of federal
funding portals and the suspension of assistance payments. Id. While Defendants have tried to
attribute the pauses to individual agency discretion, those pauses did not occur until after the
memorandum was issued.
In opposing the TRO, Defendants cited two cases, ECF No. 21-1, at 10-11, but the court
was not persuaded then, and it remains unpersuaded.

Undeterred, Defendants vigorously challenge causation again at the preliminary-injunction
stage. They start by rehashing the independent-agency theory, claiming that the memorandum
“did not itself temporarily pause any federal financial assistance.” ECF No. 47, at 13. For that to
be true, Defendants would have the court believe that countless federal agencies, none of which
had acted to cut off financial assistance before January 28, suddenly began exercising their own
discretion to suspend funding across the board at the exact same time. That would be a
remarkable—and unfathomable—coincidence. That this uniform freeze occurred just hours after
the memorandum’s issuance would be quite the happenstance, too. Indeed, the record belies
Defendants’ assertions.
Seems to be some credibility issues going on. ;) 😁
 
Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID


February 25, 2025
Minute Entry and Order for Proceedings held before Judge Amir H. Ali: Status Conference held via Zoom on 2/25/2025. Oral motion by the Plaintiff for " Emergency MOTION to Enforce Temporary Restraining Order", HEARD and GRANTED for the reasons stated on the record after oral argument. The restrained defendants are ORDERED to comply as discussed by 11:59 p.m. on February 26, 2025. (Court Reporter Bryan Wayne) (znbn)
 
Case 8:25-cv-00411-MSS-AAS
Trump v. ALEXANDRE DE MORAES, Justice of the Supreme Federal Tribunal of the Federative Republic of Brazil

ORDER
Upon review of all relevant filings, case law, the arguments of Plaintiffs’ counsel,
and being otherwise fully advised, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO,
without prejudice.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID
Court of Appeals

AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition andJournalism Development Network, Inc., Appellees
v.
United States Department of State, et al., Appellants

ORDER
Upon consideration of the emergency motion for immediate administrative stay
and for stay pending appeal and the opposition thereto, which is combined with a
motion to dismiss the appeal, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted. Appellants have not shown
that the district court’s February 25, 2025, minute orders, which enforced previously
entered temporary restraining orders (“TROs”), had the effect of granting an injunction
that is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (holding that the party asserting jurisdiction bears
the burden of establishing it).
Appellants did not appeal the district court’s TROs. They now ask us to stay the
orders enforcing the TROs.
 
Last edited:
Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID
Supreme Court

APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND REQUEST FOR AN IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE STAY
The court of appeals has not yet ruled on the government’s
request for an administrative stay by 1:00 p.m. today or a stay pending appeal by 4:00
p.m. In light of that extraordinary circumstance, and to allow this Court time to
consider the issues this application raises before the order’s 11:59 p.m. deadline, the
government is filing this application now and respectfully requests, at a minimum,
an immediate administrative stay.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID
Supreme Court

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the February 25, 2025 orders of the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, case Nos. 1:25-cv-00400
and 1:25-cv-00402, are hereby stayed pending further order of the
undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that any response to the
application be filed on or before Friday, February 28, 2025, by 12 p.m. (EST).
 
Back
Top Bottom