• 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

More cases:
Impoundment:
A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction blocking the NIH order. Federal judges in D.C. and Rhode Island have issued preliminary injunctions against the OMB order freezing grants and loans.

(A glitch ate most of this post)
 
I'm listening to DC Circuit argument regarding Alien Enemies Act.
 
I'm listening to DC Circuit argument regarding Alien Enemies Act.
Some of the arguments the government attorney made were, frankly, insulting. He compared the Judge's order to redirecting a carrier group. Asinine.
 
Part 3

DOGE:
Legality of the U.S. DOGE Service: A federal judge in D.C. declined to temporarily block Musk’s appointment as head of DOGE. The suit by unions and public interest groups is pending.

DOGE accessing personal data of Americans and federal workers:
A federal judge in Maryland temporarily blocked DOGE from accessing SSA data.

A federal court in New York barred DOGE from accessing Treasury Department data.
On appeal, a judge allowed Treasury officials greater access to the database.

A federal judge in D.C. declined to issue a preliminary injunction barring DOGE from accessing Treasury data.

A judge initially allowed DOGE access to the Labor Department data. A judge in Maryland temporarily blocked DOGE access to OPM and Department of Education data. The CFPB case and others are still pending.


Discrimination:
Dismantling DEI: A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction blocking key parts of Trump’s executive orders. A federal judge in Virginia allowed the CIA and other intelligence agencies to fire diversity officers.
 
1:25-cv-00883
AMERICAN OVERSIGHT v. HEGSETH

COMPLAINT
1. This action arises from Defendants’ failure to meet their obligations under the
Federal Records Act regarding messages from a group-chat discussion of planned and active
military operations from March 11, 2025, through March 15, 2025, on the messaging application
Signal, which can be set up to automatically delete messages.
2. Plaintiff American Oversight brings this action under the Federal Records Act
(“FRA”), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3101 et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C.
§§ 701 et seq., to prevent the unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel Defendants to
fulfill their legal obligations to preserve and recover federal records created through unauthorized
use of Signal for sensitive national security decision-making.
 
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:




It will stop.
The supreme court or congress will have to step in to stop -- OBVIOUS --- leftist/activist judges throwing in - NOW 125 - lawsuits and injunctions.
This is as unAmerican and unDemocratic as you can get.

And of course - you all are liking it.
 
It will stop.
The supreme court or congress will have to step in to stop -- OBVIOUS --- leftist/activist judges throwing in - NOW 125 - lawsuits and injunctions.
This is as unAmerican and unDemocratic as you can get.

And of course - you all are liking it.
Trolling is not welcome in this thread. It's about substance.
 
A lot of judges are known to be biased idiots.
No, a lot of judges are claimed to be and accused of being biased by Trump and team when they rule against him.

That is not even in the same reality as them being KNOWN to be.
 
Case 1:25-cv-10685
"Catch and Revoke" Free Speech Arrests

COMPLAINT
While President Trump and other administration officials have described proPalestinian campus protests as “pro-Hamas,” they have stretched that label beyond the breaking
point to encompass any speech supportive of Palestinian human rights or critical of Israel’s
military actions in Gaza. They have left no doubt that their new policy entails the arrest, detention,
and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty for constitutionally protected speech and
association.
By design, the agencies’ policy has created a climate of repression and fear on
university campuses. Out of fear that they might be arrested and deported for lawful expression
and association, some noncitizen students and faculty have stopped attending public protests or
resigned from campus groups that engage in political advocacy. Others have declined opportunities
to publish commentary and scholarship, stopped contributing to classroom discussions, or deleted
past work from online databases and websites. Many now hesitate to address political issues on
social media, or even in private texts. The agencies’ policy, in other words, is accomplishing its
purpose: it is terrorizing students and faculty for their exercise of First Amendment rights in the
past, intimidating them from exercising those rights now, and silencing political viewpoints that
the government disfavors.
The First Amendment protects the rights of Plaintiffs and their U.S. citizen
members to hear from, and associate with, noncitizen students and faculty. Because the
ideological-deportation policy abridges these rights without adequate justification, the policy is
unconstitutional.
 
Alien Enemies Act deportations: DC Circuit lets injunction stand.


BEFORE: Henderson, Millett, and Walker*, Circuit Judges
O R D E R​
Upon consideration of the emergency motions for stay, the opposition thereto,
the reply, and the Rule 28(j) letters; the amicus brief filed by South Carolina, Virginia,
and other states; the motion to participate as amicus curiae filed by Rep. Brandon Gill and the lodged amicus brief; and the motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae filed by State Democracy Defenders Fund and former government officials and the lodged amicus brief, it is
ORDERED that the motions to participate as amicus curiae be granted. The
Clerk is directed to file the lodged amicus briefs. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the emergency motions for stay be denied. Separate
concurring statements of Judge Henderson and Judge Millett and a dissenting
statement of Judge Walker are attached.
Per Curiam​
 
Case 1:25-cv-00716-BAH
Revenge on Perkins Coie

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
When the U.S. Department of Justice engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge. This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented.
This reminder about the role of the federal courts seems necessary given the opening linein defendants’ pending motion, expressing “the need to curtail ongoing improper encroachmentsof President Trump’s Executive Power playing out around the country.” Defs.’ Mot. at 1. Thisline, which sounds like a talking point from a member of Congress rather than a legal brief fromthe United States Department of Justice, has no citation to any legal authority for the simple reasonthat the notion expressed reflects a grave misapprehension of our constitutional order.Adjudicating whether an Executive Branch exercise of power is legal, or not, is actually the job ofthe federal courts, and not of the President or the Department of Justice, though vigorous andrigorous defense of executive actions is both expected and helpful to the courts in resolving legal issues.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00916
JENNER & BLOCK LLP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

COMPLAINT

The March 25, 2025 Executive Order—entitled “Addressing Risks from Jenner &
Block” (the “Order”)—is an unconstitutional abuse of power against lawyers, their clients, and the
legal system. It is intended to hamper the ability of individuals and businesses to have the lawyers
of their choice zealously represent them. And it is intended to coerce law firms and lawyers into
renouncing the Administration’s critics and ceasing certain representations adverse to the
government.
2. The Order is one of the latest in a series of materially identical executive orders—
one of which has already been enjoined by a court in this District—targeting law firms without
process based on their representation of clients in matters adverse to the President or his
Administration and/or their associations with individuals who have criticized the President. The
Wall Street Journal Editorial Board recognized that the President is taking these actions “to
intimidate elite law firms from representing his opponents or plaintiffs who challenge his policies.”
 
Case: 1:25-cv-02005
Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT) is a non-profit organization based in Illinois
that operates in all fifty states. Compl. ¶ 38. CWIT is dedicated "to promoting diversity,
equity, and inclusion within the skilled trades industry" through "preparing women across
the country to enter and remain in high-wage skilled trades, including carpentry,
electrical work, welding, plumbing, and others."
On January 21, 2025, the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
issued a memorandum to the "Heads and Acting Heads of Departments and Agencies"
directing agency heads to, among other actions, "terminate any DEIA-related
contractors" by January 22, 2025. Off. of Personnel Mgmt., Initial Guidance Regarding
DEIA Executive Orders (Jan. 21, 2025); Parker Decl., Ex. B at 1–2.
The Supreme Court has made clear that the government may not use the "threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion" to suppress disfavored speech, as such coercive action would
violate the First Amendment.
Still, the totality of the circumstances reflect that the J20 Termination Provision may reasonably be understood as a coercive threat—and has been understood as such, as indicated by the actions
subcontractors have taken vis-à-vis CWIT—selectively targeting speech regarding DEI, DEIA, and equity based on a belief that such programs are "immoral," i.e., disfavored by the government.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00917
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT et al

COMPLAINT

“[T]he right to counsel is the foundation for our adversary system,” Martinez v.
Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 12 (2012), and the “courage” of attorneys who take on unpopular clients has
long “made lawyerdom proud,” Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 4 (1952). John Adams
famously embodied these principles by defending eight British soldiers in the “Boston Massacre”
trial, an effort he described as “one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”1
And
British monarchs’ practice of punishing attorneys “whose greatest crime was to dare to defend
unpopular causes”—which threatened to reduce lawyers to “parrots of the views of whatever group
wields governmental power at the moment”—helped inspire the Bill of Rights. Cohen v. Hurley,
366 U.S. 117, 138-40 (1961) (Black, J., dissenting). It is thus a core principle of our legal system
that “one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit.” F. D. Rich Co.
v. United States ex rel. Indus. Lumber Co., 417 U.S. 116, 129 (1974).
The Order’s declared purpose is to retaliate against WilmerHale—and certain of its
clients—for WilmerHale attorneys’ constitutionally protected advocacy in matters that President
Trump perceives to be adverse to his personal and/or political interests. Among other things, the
Order accuses WilmerHale of “abus[ing] its pro bono practice,” specifically referencing the Firm’s
election- and immigration-related litigation and its defense of race-based college admission
policies. Order §1. The Order also singles out retired WilmerHale partners Robert Mueller and
James Quarles and current partner Aaron Zebley because of their involvement in the Department
of Justice’s investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election,
in which Mr. Mueller served as Special Counsel. Id.
While most litigation requires discovery to unearth retaliatory motive, the Order
makes no secret of its intent to punish WilmerHale for its past and current representations of clients
before the Nation’s courts and for its perceived connection to the views that Mr. Mueller expressed
as Special Counsel.
:mad: :mad: :mad:
 
Last edited:
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL, Plaintiff, v. ELON MUSK and AMERICA PAC, Defendant

COMPLAINT
Wisconsin law forbids anyone from offering or promising to give anything of
value to an elector in order to induce the elector to go to the polls, vote or refrain from
voting, or vote for a particular person. Wis. Stat. § 12.11(1m). Musk’s announcement
of his intention to pay $1 million to two Wisconsin electors who attend his event on
Sunday night, specifically conditioned on their having voted in the upcoming April 3,
2025, Wisconsin Supreme Court election, is a blatant attempt to violate Wis. Stat.
§ 12.11. This must not happen.
The Attorney General brings this action pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 5.07 seeking
immediate, temporary and permanent injunctive relief to prevent Musk and America
PAC’s egregious attempt to buy votes in a Wisconsin election.
 
Case 1:25-cv-00381-ABJ
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In sum, the Court cannot look away or the CFPB will be dissolved and dismantled
completely in approximately thirty days, well before this lawsuit has come to its conclusion. For
all of the reasons set forth above, the Court will GRANT [Dkt. # 10] plaintiffs’ motion and issue
a preliminary injunction that maintains the agency’s existence until this case has been resolved on
the merits, reinstating and preserving the agency’s contracts, work force, data, and operational
capacity, and protecting and facilitating the employees’ ability to perform statutorily required
activities.
ORDER
1. Defendants, shall maintain and shall not delete, destroy, remove, or impair any data or
other CFPB records covered by the Federal Records Act (hereafter “agency data”)
except in accordance with the procedures described in 44 U.S.C. Chapter 33. This
means that Defendants shall maintain and shall not delete, destroy, remove, or impair
agency data from any database or information system controlled by, or stored on behalf
of, the CFPB. The term “agency data” includes any data or CFPB records stored on
the CFPB’s premises, on physical media, on a cloud server, or otherwise. The
defendants must take all necessary steps to ensure that its contractors do the same.
2. Defendants shall reinstate all probationary and term employees terminated between
February 10, 2025 and the date of this order, including but not limited to, Julia Barnard,
the Private Student Loan Ombudsman.
3. Defendants shall not terminate any CFPB employee, except for cause related to the
individual employee’s performance or conduct; and defendants shall not issue any
notice of reduction-in-force to any CFPB employee.
4. Defendants shall not enforce the February 10, 2025 stop-work order or require
employees to take administrative leave in furtherance of that order, and defendants shall
not reinstitute or seek to achieve the outcome of a work stoppage, whether through a
stop-work order, an order directing employees to take administrative leave, or any other
means.
5. To ensure that employees can perform their statutorily mandated functions, the
defendants must provide them with either fully-equipped office space, or permission to
work remotely and laptop computers that are enabled to connect securely to the agency
server through the Citrix Virtual Desktop or another similar program.
 
Busy day, today. 4 orders to locate.

Where Things Stand​

  • Law firm ruling: Federal judges dealt twin blows to President Trump’s retaliation campaign on Friday by issuing temporary restraining orders blocking much of his executive orders targeting two major law firms that participated in investigations of him, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. Earlier, the president announced that the major law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports. The issue has split the legal profession.
  • Aid agency: The Trump administration described its final plans for the U.S. Agency for International Development on Friday, emailing the remaining workers their termination notices and saying that the agency, which had 10,000 employees when Mr. Trump returned to office, will have some 15 workers, the positions required by law. Read more ›
  • The consumer bureau: A federal judge stepped in on Friday to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from being “dissolved or dismantled” by the Trump administration. In a 112-page ruling, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the Federal District Court in Washington called the injunction she imposed “an extraordinary step.” Read more ›
  • Deportations: President Trump’s efforts to deport migrants to places other than their country of origin hit a new roadblock on Friday, when a federal judge issued a temporary order requiring the administration to give migrants an opportunity to contest their removal on the grounds that they might be at risk of persecution or torture. Read more ›
 
Last edited:
Busy day, today. 4 orders to locate.

Where Things Stand​

  • Law firm ruling: Federal judges dealt twin blows to President Trump’s retaliation campaign on Friday by issuing temporary restraining orders blocking much of his executive orders targeting two major law firms that participated in investigations of him, Jenner & Block and WilmerHale. Earlier, the president announced that the major law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom had agreed to provide $100 million in pro bono work on issues that he supports. The issue has split the legal profession.
Here's the first one.

MEMORANDUM ORDER
WilmerHale
ORDER
Jenner & Block
 
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:



The current course is unsustainable. There are nearly 700 Federal districts judges. Does the executive need unanimous consent from these to act? The people chose Trump. He is delivering on his mandate. Can one ( of 677) unelected political hack leftist judge be allowed to subvert via "temporary" injunctions? To delay is to deny.
 
MSPB, NLRB Board Firings:


This is bizarre, frankly.

A divided panel GRANTS government STAY of the INJUNCTION barring firing of Board members. Per Curiam, no controlling opinion. Judge Walker (Trump appointee) addressed the merits in a strikingly partisan and ideological opinion. Judge Henderson (Bush I) ruled narrowly that the government (president) would be harmed (the logic is shaky) by having to work with the fired employee while the appeal moves ahead. Judge Millett (Obama) dissents, noting that the point of the District Court injunctions is to preserve the status quo. Allowing the removals eliminates quora at both agencies, neutering the agencies and putting hundreds of pending cases, affecting millions of employees, in limbo.

An appeal En Banc is expected. This is a preliminary stage ruling (although both District Courts, granted Summary Judgments to Board Members on the merits, this decision only applies to the injunction, not the merits), and may, itself, be stayed by the full Circuit.
 
Last edited:
The current course is unsustainable. There are nearly 700 Federal districts judges. Does the executive need unanimous consent from these to act? The people chose Trump. He is delivering on his mandate. Can one ( of 677) unelected political hack leftist judge be allowed to subvert via "temporary" injunctions? To delay is to deny.
Since this thread is about facts and law, I won't try to counter your beliefs, but would refer you to some videos that may offer some clarification.

How to Prevent Tyranny: Balance of Powers, Part 3

What does tyranny of the majority mean

The Separation of Powers in the U.S. Government
 
Back
Top Bottom