Shock and Law (1 Viewer)

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00628-SAG
Dept. of Education

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Put simply, the Letter, if implemented, would have two devastating impacts on
schools. First, it would undermine schools as a training ground for informed, prepared citizens
by denying students opportunities to hone critical thinking skills and expand their world views
by confronting new or opposing viewpoints. And second, it would hamper efforts to further
equal access to education, and the promise of opportunity, that have been a central tenet of the
United States since our founding.
15. This Letter is an unlawful attempt by the Department to impose this
administration’s particular views of how schools should operate as if it were the law. But it is
not. Title VI’s requirements have not changed, nor has the meaning of the Supreme Court’s 2023
decision, despite the Department’s views on the matter.
16. The Letter states that the Department will “assess compliance . . . beginning no
later than [February 28]”–including the explicit threat of loss of federal funding. If this Letter is
implemented, it will immediately and irreparably harm schools, educators, students, and
communities around the country at all levels by requiring them to comply with guidance that
violates the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment due to its vagueness, and the Administrative
Procedures Act in multiple ways.

 

[Captain Mars]

Judge orders rescission of OPM memos directing agencies to fire probationary employees

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to rescind memos that directed agencies across the federal government to fire probationary employees, finding they were likely unlawful.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said OPM must notify agencies it did not have the authority to call for the firing of those employees but stopped short of directing agencies themselves not to continue with terminations.

The order only applies to agencies with ties to the plaintiffs in the case, but the judge urged the government to go a step further and notify other agencies as well.

“(The) Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever, under any statute in the history of the universe, to hire and fire employees within another agency,” Alsup said.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID
Supreme Court

OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO VACATE ORDER

ARGUMENT
The government’s application to vacate the district court’s minute order requiring
compliance with a TRO of which it has never sought review is extraordinary. For one, the
district court made clear that the February 25 order did not enlarge the scope of the
government’s obligations under the TRO or its previous enforcement orders. A decision
vacating the February 25 minute order therefore would not alter the government’s
obligation to comply with the TRO. Review of a district court’s order directing compliance
in this “very unusual procedural posture” is unheard of, and this Court “should not get into
th[at] business.” United States v. Texas, 144 S. Ct. 797, 798 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring).
Moreover, the February 25 order was within the district court’s sound discretion to enforce
compliance with the TRO that the district court determined the government had all but
ignored for nearly two weeks. The government’s contrary arguments largely go to the
merits of respondents’ underlying legal claims, not to the propriety of the February 25
order as a mechanism for enforcing a TRO that the government has not put before this
Court.
The government’s application, in this posture, amounts to a request for license to
continue defying a TRO of which it has not sought review—and only days before the district
court holds a hearing on fully briefed preliminary injunction motions request. That request
should be denied.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID
Supreme Court

Brief of Amicus Curiae Jeremy Bates In Opposition to Application “To Vacate”

Summary of Argument
Equity declines to aid iniquity. Equity will not aid parties who come to court
with unclean hands. This maxim counsels courts to ration equitable remedies and
to grant them only to good-faith applicants. Otherwise, courts risk abetting wrongs.
Here, President Donald J. Trump seeks a stay—a remedy in equity. On such
requests, equity asks whether one who seeks relief has acted unjustly, fraudulently,
or deceitfully as to the matter in suit: on this Application, the separation of powers.
Applicants argue that a stay would protect prerogatives of the presidency.
But in that high Office of Trust, Trump failed to observe the separation of powers.
Rather than preserve the Article III courts, Trump has interfered in proceedings.
Rather than protect the Article I branch, Trump incited an insurrection against it.
President Trump asks the Court to defend what he breached. His breaches
cost the United States unity, reputation, treasure, and blood. Rarely has equity
ever seen a party whose hands are so unclean. The Court should deny the stay.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00587
Federal Elections Commission

COMPLAINT

1. In 1972, checks payable to President Nixon’s reelection campaign were used to
finance the burglary and wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters. The
ensuing scandal resulted in a bipartisan recognition that federal campaign finance rules must be
clear and fair, enforced neutrally without fear or favor. Those goals, Congress recognized, could
best be achieved by conditioning the interpretation and enforcement of those rules on the
consensus reached by members of an impartial oversight board.
2. That board—the Federal Election Commission (“FEC” or “Commission”)—was
created by 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA” or the “Act”). Upon
signing the amendments into law, President Ford emphasized that “oth the Republican National
Committee and the Democratic National Committee have expressed their pleasure with this bill,
noting that it allows them to compete fairly.”1
3. The fairness was by design. The FEC is led by six Commissioners, appointed by
the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, who are tasked with administering federal
campaign finance laws.

For over fifty years, that certainty held. But on February 18, 2025, President Trump
issued Executive Order 14215, Section 7 of which provides that “the President and the Attorney
General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their
official duties” and prohibits any executive branch employee from “advanc[ing] an interpretation
of law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s
opinion on a matter of law.” Exec. Order No. 14215 (“E.O. 14215”) § 7, 90 Fed. Reg. 10447,
10448 (Feb. 18, 2025).
5. As applied to the Commission, Executive Order 14215 would eliminate FECA’s
requirement that the executive branch’s legal interpretations of FECA’s provisions reflect the
bipartisan consensus of an expert multimember board and replace that bipartisan consensus with
the judgment of a single partisan political figure—the President of the United States.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00385-ABJ
DELLINGER v. BESSENT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

There is no dispute that the statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel provides that
the Special Counsel may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or
malfeasance in office, and that the curt email from the White House informing the Special Counsel
that he was terminated contained no reasons whatsoever. This is the basis for Count 1, which
alleges that the termination was an unlawful, ultra vires action, and the basis for plaintiff’s
assertion that he is entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. Compl. ¶¶ 37–41. The Court will
grant plaintiff’s motion and enter judgment in his favor.2

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00385-ABJ
DELLINGER v. BESSENT

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY THE COURT’S ORDER PENDING APPEAL


MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY

The government’s motion should be denied
because it satisfies none of the requirements for a stay. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434
(2009). As the Court has explained, most recently in its opinion granting summary judgment, the
government is not likely to succeed on the merits. ECF 32 at 32-59. And for reasons the Court has
provided in denying the government’s prior stay motions, the government is similarly unable to
satisfy any of the remaining stay factors.

 

[NWRatCon]

Case 1:25-cv-00385-ABJ
DELLINGER v. BESSENT

MEMORANDUM OPINION

What is particularly relevant here is that the Supreme Court itself distinguished the OSC from the single-head agencies at issue in Seila Law, making the DoJ's argument particularly weak. It's also relevant that the statue was specifically modified to avoid this argument.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00412-RC
Illegal Termination - CATHY A. HARRIS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendants do not dispute that Harris has been efficient and effective in her role at the
MSPB. See id. ¶ 8. When the MSPB’s quorum was restored in March 2022, the agency had a
backlog of approximately 3,800 cases that had accrued since 2017, and officials estimated that it
would take five or six years for the agency to catch up. Id. ¶¶ 12–14. By January 2025,
however, the MSPB had cleared nearly 99 percent of its backlog. Id. ¶ 20. From June 1, 2022,
to February 10, 2025, Harris participated in nearly 4,500 decisions. Id. ¶ 10.

In Humphrey’s Executor, President Hoover had appointed William Humphrey as a member of the Federal Trade Commission, which carried a
term of seven years. 295 U.S. at 612. Less than two years later, President Roosevelt terminated
Humphrey over differences of political opinion, stating, “[e]ffective as of this date you are
hereby removed from the office of Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.” Id. at 619.
Humphrey died several months later, but his estate sued to recover backpay on the basis that his
removal was unlawful. Id. at 612.

Humphrey’s Executor thus remains alive and well, and it dictates the outcome here. The
MSPB is “a traditional independent agency headed by a multimember board or commission,”
Seila Law, 591 U.S. at 207, and as such Congress may grant the Board’s members for-cause
removal protections. The MSPB is “a multimember body of experts” that is “balanced along
partisan lines.” Seila Law, 591 U.S. at 216; see also Humphrey’s Executor, 295 U.S. at 624
(noting that the FTC is a “nonpartisan” “body of experts” that was intended to “act with entire
impartiality”). The CSRA envisions that the Board “is to be nonpartisan; and it must, from the
very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality.” Humphrey’s Executor, 295 U.S. at 624.
The CSRA also “fixes a term of office.” Id. at 623.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00532
Freedom of the Press

AMENDED COMPLAINT
Epigraph:

“The AP and the White House Correspondents Association wanted to f--k around. Now it’s
finding out time.” - unnamed White House advisor, speaking to Axios, Feb. 25, 2025

1. The White House has ordered The Associated Press to use certain words in its
coverage or else face retaliation with an indefinite denial of access. The press and all people in
the United States have the right to choose their own words and not suffer retaliation at the hands
of their government. The Constitution does not allow the government to control
speech. Allowing government control to stand is a threat to every American’s freedom.
2. Rather than heed this Court’s warning that precedent “is uniformly unhelpful” to
the government “when the White House has banned reporters in the past,” its observation that
the decision to deny the AP access “seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination,” and its
advice that “t might be a good idea for the White House” to reconsider whether “what they’re
doing is really appropriate in light of the case law,” the White House has instead retaliated
against the AP further by abandoning the time-tested press pool system for ensuring that the
public stays informed about the President of the United States and again barring the AP from the
very same spaces – both small and large – that are at issue in this lawsuit.

PLAINTIFF THE ASSOCIATED PRESS’S AMENDED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00381-ABJ
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Document 56-1 Filed 03/04/25 Page 1 of 116

NOTICE of Filing by RUSSELL VOUGHT, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU re Order, (Attachments: # 1 Internal CFPB E-mails, # 2 CFPB Enforcement Action Filings, # 3 CFPB-Dept of Ed MOU)(Holland, Liam) (Entered: 03/04/2025)

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA
USAID
Supreme Court

APPLICATION DENIED

On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order. On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26. Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. The Chief Justice entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh dissent.

DISSENTING

JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE
GORSUCH, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting from
the denial of the application to vacate order.

 

[NWRatCon]

The absurdity of the dissent demonstrates a very disturbing confluence of anti- constitutionalism laid bare. I'll try to provide a more detailed dissection, if I get the chance.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00400-AHA & Case 1:25-cv-00402-AHA
USAID
Supreme Court

Mar 5, 2025

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall meet and confer and file a joint status report by 11:00 a.m. tomorrow proposing a schedule for Defendants to come into compliance with the Court's temporary restraining order ("TRO") and the Court's February 25, 2025, order enforcing the TRO. The joint status report need not address compliance with the February 25, 2025, order for the period that the order was subject to administrative stay; however, it should address steps taken during all other periods up until the filing of the joint status report and include specificity with respect to milestones and timelines for Defendants coming into compliance thereafter. The parties' proposed schedule should account for the length of time that has passed since the TRO was entered and the feasibility of any compliance timelines. At the preliminary injunction hearing tomorrow, the parties should be prepared to address the substantive arguments at issue in the preliminary injunction motions. The Court will hear argument from all parties; however, Plaintiffs in the two cases are encouraged to coordinate to avoid duplicative arguments and will be given the opportunity to propose a division of the issues between counsel. The parties should also be prepared to discuss the steps Defendants have taken to come into compliance with the Court's orders, including any further steps that were executed following the parties' joint status report, as well as the parties' proposed schedule for Defendants coming into compliance. Signed by Judge Amir H. Ali on 3/5/2025. (lcaha2)

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00605
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Fort Worth v Kennedy HHS

COMPLAINT
NOTICE

To the best of the Administration for Children and Families
leadership’s knowledge, the Secretary did not post the Directive on the agency’s website and did
not provide a copy of the Directive to contractors, vendors, or grantees.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00164-JMC
DOGE

COMPLAINT
NOTICE OF NEW EVIDENCE

. . . hereby submit new evidence which conclusively demonstrates that expedited discovery is urgently needed to ascertain the nature of
the Department of Government Efficiency and its relationship to the United States DOGE Service, of which Amy Gleason is the Acting Administrator. At approximately 9:46 PM, President Trump stated the following in his Joint Address to Congress:

To further combat inflation, we will not only be reducing the cost of energy, but​

will be ending the flagrant waste of taxpayer dollars. And to that end, I have created ​

the brand new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE. Perhaps you’ve​

heard of it. Perhaps. Which is headed by Elon Musk, who is in the gallery tonight.​

 

[Captain Mars]

MILITARY COMMISSIONS TRIAL JUDICIARY GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA

Relief Requested: The Defense respectfully requests an abatement of all proceedings until 4
July 2026, or until the Department of Government Efficiency finishes dismantling the federal
government, the Defense Department, and the Military Commissions Defense Organization,
whicheverwere to happen sooner.

Musk himself has specific personal intereststhat are adverse to DOD, which presently
deems him a national security risk. DOD denied him a security clearance and his leadership of the
aerospace company SpaceX, which maintains over ten billion dollars in defense contracts, has
triggered at least three internal security reviews, including by the former DOD Inspector General.

The chaos and unpredictability of the administrative environment, combined with the coercive, unlawful interference by senior officers, have deprived
the accused of the benefit of counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. As a result, the trial
has become fundamentally unfair, as the very mechanisms designed to safeguard the accused's
constitutional rights have been undermined by a relentless campaign of administrative vandalism.
A fair trial requires not only the opportunity for effective counsel but also the preservation
of an environment in which that counsel can operate independently and without undue influence.
The present conditions— marked by unpredictable policy changes, ad hoc administrative measures,
and overt coercive behavior-render it impossible for defense counsel to fulfill their duty. The
"wild, wild West" is not a place for justice. It is a place where established rules of justice are
ignored in favor of capricious executive action

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 8:25-cv-00462-TDC
Defendants: Elon Musk and DOGE
Plaintiffs: J. DOE 1-26

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Court finds Defendants unilateral actions to shut down USAID likely violated the United States Constituiion, the Motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED INN PART.

 

[NWRatCon]

There are so many orders coming out, it's hard to keep up.

 

[NWRatCon]

Trans service members:

Talbot v US

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845/gov.uscourts.dcd.276845.89.0.pdf

"The President has the power—indeed the obligation—to ensure military readiness. At times, however, leaders have used concern for military readiness to deny marginalized personsthe privilege of serving. “[Fill in the blank] is not fully capable and will hinder combat effectiveness; [fill in the blank] will disrupt unit cohesion and so diminish military effectiveness; allowing [fill in the blank] to serve will undermine training, make it impossible to recruit successfully, and disrupt military order.”3 First minorities, then women in combat, then gays filled in that blank. Today, however, our military is stronger and our Nation is safer for the millions of such blanks (and all other persons) who serve.4

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Renewed Application for Preliminary Injunction. Dkt. 72 (App.). Plaintiffs, who are transgender, claim that EO14183 and the Hegseth Policy (together, the Military Ban) treats them as today’s “fill in the blank” group. Seeking nothing more than to serve their country, they ask the Court to enjoin the Military Ban. App. at 26. They claim that the Hegseth Policy was rushed and reached a preordained result, contains no analysis, and has an exemption in name only. Id. at 56. The Ban at bottom invokes derogatory language to target a vulnerable group in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 29, 35–37; see U.S. Const. amend. V."

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00596-ELH
DOGE Access to Social Security Admin Records

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ironically, the identity of these DOGE affiliates has been concealed because defendants are
concerned that the disclosure of even their names would expose them to harassment and thus
invade their privacy. The defense does not appear to share a privacy concern for the millions of
Americans whose SSA records were made available to the DOGE affiliates, without their consent,
and which contain sensitive, confidential, and personally identifiable information (“PII”).

The American public may well applaud and support the Trump Administration’s mission to root out fraud, waste, and bloat from federal agencies, including SSA, to the extent it exists.
But, by what means and methods?
The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion. It has launched a search for the proverbial needle in the haystack, without any concrete knowledge that the needle is actually in the haystack.
To facilitate the expedition, SSA provided members of the SSA DOGE Team with unbridled access to the personal and private data of millions of Americans, including but not limited to Social Security numbers, medical records, mental health records, hospitalization records, drivers’ license numbers, bank and credit card information, tax information, income history, work history, birth and marriage certificates, and home and work addresses.
Yet, defendants, with so called experts on the DOGE Team, never identified or articulated even a single reason for which the DOGE Team needs unlimited access to SSA’s entire record systems, thereby exposing personal, confidential, sensitive, and private information that millions
of Americans entrusted to their government. Indeed, the government has not even attempted to explain why a more tailored, measured, titrated approach is not suitable to the task. Instead, thegovernment simply repeats its incantation of a need to modernize the system and uncover fraud. Its method of doing so is tantamount to hitting a fly with a sledgehammer.

 

[Captain Mars]

Case 1:25-cv-00596-ELH
DOGE Access to Social Security Admin Records

In response to Dudek's threat saying, “Unless I get clarification, I’ll just start to shut it down. I don’t have much of a choice here,” the judge has issued Letter to Counsel.

Letter to Counsel

Such assertions about the scope of the Order are inaccurate. Employees of SSA who are
not involved with the DOGE Team or in the work of the DOGE Team are not subject to the Order.
A DOGE Affiliate is defined in the Order, inter alia, as a person working on or implementing the
DOGE agenda. See ¶ 10(b). Moreover, any suggestion that the Order may require the delay or
suspension of benefit payments is incorrect.

However, if the government has any concern about the text of the Order, or otherwise seeks
clarification of it, I instruct government counsel to contact Chambers immediately to arrange a
telephone conference with counsel.

Despite the informal nature of this letter, it is an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directedto docket it as such.

 

[NWRatCon]

According to Rep. Raskin this morning, there are 125 filed cases and 50 court orders (TROs, Injunctions and appeal denials) already. That level of litigation is unprecedented, and the consistency of the losses is staggering. It's very difficult to keep up with.

 

[Captain Mars]

According to Rep. Raskin this morning, there are 125 filed cases and 50 court orders (TROs, Injunctions and appeal denials) already. That level of litigation is unprecedented, and the consistency of the losses is staggering. It's very difficult to keep up with.

Absolutely! I've found that I can't possibly post all the documents on these cases, so I'm only adding them when something in particular catches my eye.

 

[NWRatCon]

The Just Security tracker: Total number of cases tracked: 135 (including 2 closed cases)

A quick synopsis of cases tracked by WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/07/trump-lawsuits-executive-orders-actions-legal-challenges/

Transgender issues:
Ban on transgender troops: A federal judge in D.C. issued a preliminary injunction, finding the ban was unconstitutional.

Transfer of transgender prisoners: A federal judge in D.C. issued a preliminary injunction restricting the Federal Bureau of Prisons from carrying out the order.

Ban on gender-transition care for minors: Federal judges in Baltimore and Seattle have halted the orders, with one saying an abrupt disruption in care could be “horribly dangerous.”

Ban on transgender athletes in women and girls’ sports: A District Court judge (NH) has yet to act on the case.

Immigration:
Invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members: A federal judge in DC preliminary injunction the administration from using the act while the lawsuit proceeds, saying anyone deported could suffer “irreparable harm.” The government says it will appeal.

Deporting Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil: A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation.

*Ban on birthright citizenship: Multiple District Courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to clear the way for Trump’s order. *The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Issue on appeal - nation-wide application of order.

Ban on refugee admissions: A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against Trump’s executive order.

Ban on asylum: pending in federal court in D.C.

Expanding fast-track deportations: The case is pending in federal court in D.C.

Federal Workforce:
Firing of probationary workers: Federal judges in Maryland and San Francisco have ordered the administration to rehire thousands of probationary employees fired by OPM, and the government is appealing. A judge in D.C. took a different path, saying the firings must first be challenged before a federal labor board.

Firing commissioners, inspectors general without cause: Hampton Dellinger, director of the Office of Special Counsel, withdrew his bid for reinstatement. A federal judge in D.C. declined to immediately reinstate eight inspectors general while their lawsuit continues. Judges ordered Cathy Harris to remain in place as chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the independent agency that has the power to review government firings, and Gwynne Wilcox was reinstated to her job on the National Labor Relations Board.

Dismantling Voice of America, the Education Department, USAID and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked the Trump administration from taking any further action to dismantle USAID. A federal judge in D.C. ordered the Trump officials to pay for foreign-aid work done by mid-February, but said the government can cancel future contracts so long as it spends the money allocated by Congress. A third judge in D.C. allowed the administration to put 2,100 USAID workers on leave. In a separate case, a judge temporarily blocked the administration from firing more employees from the CFPB.

Removing employment protections for civil servants (formerly known as Schedule F): A federal court in D.C. has yet to take action.

Resignation offer for federal workers: A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled unions did not have standing to sue and said the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

More to follow.