Here's the recent good news from the front lines of the battle being waged in the courts and other legal arenas to protect our democracy and save our country’s soul. TRUMP ORDERED TO STAND DOWN IN WASHINGTON D.C. "After hearing arguments on an emergency request from D.C. officials to block the Trump administration’s takeover of the 3,100-member Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes forged a compromise of sorts between the two sides - without issuing a ruling - on the key question of who runs the police department." Speaking about the order that Bondi gave earlier this week to put DEA chief Terry Cole in charge of the D.C. police force, the administration offered to chance that to "We’re just going to say Mr. Cole is the designee of the attorney general for the purposes of requesting services (from the D.C. police).” “He’s going to have to go through the mayor. Alright?” said the Judge. If Bondi's order is not changed by 6:30pm (that's 15 minutes from now) to say that he must *request* services, not commandeer them, then the Court will issue a TRO against Cole. A MAGNIFICENT RESULT! PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS AGREE IN ICE DETENTION FACILITY CASE! The New York federal court ripped the administration a new one over its ICE detention facility in New York City. Basically the court said that the facility had to immediately provide the detainees with things that are necessary to "basic human dignity" (such as toothbrushes and their medication) and basic due process, such as better access to their attorneys. Well, the DOJ responded not with an appeal, but with a letter containing a polite request for clarification and to amend some of the language in the court order, for example they said that toothbrushes can be fashioned into shivs, so could they please use dental wipes instead? And of Plaintiff's request that Defendants took to mean that Plaintiff wanted the detention facility to provide interpreters, Defendants said that was not feasible because they didn't have the budget for that. And finally they said that with respect to asking that detainees be allowed to retain their prescription medicines, that represented a health and safety hazard (detainees could OD, insulin needles could be fashioned as weapons, etc.). And then in response to the DOJ's letter the Plaintiffs responded with a letter of their own clarifying that they were not expecting the facility to provide the interpreters, but rather they wanted to be sure the interpreters had access to calls between detainees and their attorneys. And the Plaintiffs pointed out that ICE policy itself provides for toothbrushes, and detainees at lots of other ICE facilities have toothbrushes. And then Plaintiff amended their request about meds to letting detainees keep inhaled medications with them, and just making sure they had access to their other medications, and that ICE had medical staff on hand. And then based on both of those letters the court issued a revised order. JUDGE "INDEFINITELY" BARS FURTHER CONSTRUCTION AT ALLIGATOR ALCATRAZ, AND BARS ANY FURTHER DETAINEES FROM GOING THERE The Court ordered an indefinite stop to new construction at "Alligator Alcatraz," and barred any new detainees from being brought to the site, agreeing with the environmental groups who filed the lawsuit and who said the facility is endangering the Everglades and its wildlife. COURT BLOCKS TRUMP'S ATTACK ON THE PEOPLE USING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND ACA MARKETPLACE!! The Federal court blocked the enactment of most of the Marketplace Integrity and Affordability rule, a rule recently enacted by Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, saying that it was to get rid of “waste, fraud, and abuse.” It was supposed to take effect on August 25th. Judge Brendan Hurson of the Federal District Court in Maryland put a stop to the administration's shenanigans, with an order that halted the $5 premium penalty, the revocation of guaranteed insurance coverage for individuals with past-due premiums, the imposition of eligibility verification for the special enrollment period, and the imposition of a requirement that Exchanges verify household income inconsistencies when a tax filer's attested projected annual household income differs from "trusted data sources." INJUNCTION AGAINST TRUMP CUTTING FUNDING FOR SANCTUARY CITIES *EXTENDED* TO INCLUDE NEW CITIES! First, as a reminder, there is no legal definition for 'sanctuary city'. But nonetheless here comes Trump again trying to withhold federal funding to "sanctuary cities" because they are...wait for it..."sanctuary cities" (which, again...there isn't even a legal definition for). And Judge Orrick is ticked, because guess what? Did you catch that "here comes Trump again"?? Because he pulled the same stuff in 2017. And came before the same court! In fact, Judge Orrick starts the second paragraph with "Here we go again" The current cities and counties to whom this injunction applies are: Santa Clara, Portland, Martin Luther King, Jr. County, New Haven, Oakland, Emeryville, San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Santa Fe. Here's the fun part of the order: "Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them ARE HEREBY RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds from the Cities and Counties based on (1) the first sentence of Section 17 of Executive Order 14,159, (2) Section 2(a)(ii) of Executive Order 14,218, or (3) the Preamble and Section I of the February 5, 2025 Memorandum from the Attorney General entitled “Sanctuary Jurisdictions Directives” on the basis that the Cities and Counties have policies that limit (i) the honoring of civil immigration detainer requests; (ii) cooperation with administrative warrants for purposes of immigration enforcement; (iii) sharing of information with federal immigration authorities other than immigration or citizenship status; (iv) the use of local law enforcement to arrest or detain individuals solely for civil immigration violations; or (v) the use of local resources to assist with civil immigration enforcement activities" COURT DISMISSES TRUMP'S IDIOTIC LAWSUIT AGAINST MARYLAND JUDGES! Judge Thomas Cullen threw out Trump's challenge to the order issued by a district court in Maryland barring immigration officials from immediately removing migrants who are challenging the legality of their detentions. Said Judge Cullen "Much as the Executive fights the characterization, a lawsuit by the executive branch of government against the judicial branch for the exercise of judicial power is not ordinary. The Executive's lawsuit will be dismissed, and its motion for preliminary injunction denied as moot. Whatever the merits of its grievance with the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Executive must find a proper way to raise those concerns." TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IMPOTENT TO INDICT 'SANDWICH GUY' WHO "ASSAULTED" A FEDERAL AGENT WITH A TASTY WEAPON Trump is having a bad court week. First his ridiculous lawsuit against all of the Maryland judges is thrown out, and now they can’t even get an indictment for a guy who not only was caught on video doing the crime, but who actually admitted " did it. I threw a sandwich." The administration actually filed felony charges against Sandwich Guy (his real name is Sean Charles Dunn), for “Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and employees of the United States.” And either while or before the matter was with the grand jury, the judge, Judge Michael Harvey, issued what is known as a “minute order”. A minute order is an order that is entered right into the record rather than being written up and officially issued. In his minute order Judge Harvey ordered the administration to “produce all exculpatory evidence”, meaning whatever evidence the administration has that would go towards Mr. Dunn being able to defend himself. No way to know whether the administration actually produced any exculpatory evidence, and if they did whether it made it to the grand jury. But either way, the grand jury declined to charge someone who tossed a submarine sandwich at a Federal agent. So the Trump administration looks legally ridiculous again, and Sandwich Guy is a national hero. A GLORIOUS CATCH-22: ADMINISTRATION CAN'T FIRE VOICE OF AMERICA DIRECTOR ABRAMOWITZ UNLESS THE BOARD AGREES ON IT - BUT TRUMP ALREADY FIRED THE BOARD I imagine that this court challenge went something like this: Trump (through minion Kari Lake): You're fired! Abramowitz: You can't fire me (files lawsuit) Judge: You can't fire him without the agreement of the board Trump: I already fired the board Judge: Sucks to be you Ok, what Judge Lamberth actually said was "To the extent the Board’s current lack of quorum institutes a practical barrier to removing Abramowitz, the Broadcast Act gives the President a straightforward remedy: replacing the removed members." BIG SPANKING! FEDERAL COURT OF APPEALS RULES MOST OF TRUMP'S TARIFFS ILLEGAL! The U.S. Court of Appeals has handed Trump a huge blow to his signature move, you know... making the American people pay a lot more for imported goods by slapping tariffs on all of the countries exporting those goods to us. First the finding of the 7-4 decision, which is short and sweet. Then a bit more about the decision. The court held: “The Government appeals a decision of the Court of International Trade setting aside five Executive Orders that imposed tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world, holding that the tariffs were not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. Because we agree that IEEPAs grant of presidential authority to regulate imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm.” Now, that is sweet enough, but here is some more sweet language from the main opinion: “In response to the declared national emergency of the trafficking of opioids into the country and the ostensible failure of Mexico, Canada, and China to meaningfully address this threat, the President imposed what this opinion refers to as the Trafficking Tariffs” “The Constitution grants Congress the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises and to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. U.S. Const. art. I, 8, cl. 1, 3. Tariffs are a tax, and the Framers of the Constitution expressly contemplated the exclusive grant of taxing power to the legislative branch; when Patrick Henry expressed concern that the President may easily become king (3 Debates in the Several State Conventions 58 (Jonathan Elliot ed., 1836)), James Madison replied that this would not occur because the purse is in the hands of the representatives of the people.” FEDERAL COURT PUTS A HALT TO ICE'S EXPANDED USE OF EXPEDITED REMOVALS INCLUDING AT COURT HOUSES Judge Jia Cobb's opinion in this case having to do with the Trump administration’s overuse of ‘expedited removal’ is exquisite. It is this overuse that saw ICE agents nabbing people as they showed up for their regular court appointments, etc.. The “January 21 Designation Notice” and the “January 23 Huffman Memorandum” together are what expanded the use of expedited removal. This is from the first part of the opinion: “For nearly three decades, the federal government has subjected noncitizens apprehended at the border to fast-paced summary removal. Using that procedure, these people are quickly turned back across the border, typically after a single conversation with an immigration officer. This process, known as expedited removal, has long been applied to noncitizens who are apprehended immediately proximate to the land border and [who] have negligible ties or equities in the [United States]. Recently, the Government departed from this longstanding practice. In January 2025, the Government expanded the scope of expedited removal to noncitizens apprehended anywhere in the United States. And in the last few months, the Government has made aggressive use of its newly expanded expedited removal power. When people have appeared in immigration courts for their normally paced immigration proceedings, for instance, the Government has moved to dismiss those proceedings, promptly arrested individuals inside of those courts, and then shuttled them into much faster movingand much less procedurally robust expedited removal proceedings. Days later, these people find themselves removed. The problem, though, is that unlike the group of people who have traditionally been subject to expedited removal those detained at or near the border shortly after crossing the group of people the Government is now subjecting to expedited removal have long since entered our country. That means that they have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment. When it exponentially expanded the population subject to expedited removal, the Government did not, however, in any way adapt its procedures to this new group of people. But when it comes to people living in the interior of the country, prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process. That is because most noncitizens living in the interior have been here longer than two years, rendering them ineligible for expedited removal, and many are seeking asylum or another form of immigration relief, entitling them to further process before they can be removed. The procedures the Government currently uses in expedited removal, however, create a significant risk that it will not identify these disqualifying criteria before quickly ordering someone removed. And the lack of available review means that once the removal happens, it is largely too late to correct the error. In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them. Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.” She then issued the following order: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for a Stay of Agency Action under 5 U.S.C. 705, ECF 22, is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that, to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings, the effective dates of implementation and enforcement of the January 21 Designation Notice and the January 23 Huffman Memorandum, insofar as it implements the January 21 Designation Notice, are immediately postponed and stayed” CHICAGO MAYOR ISSUES EXECUTIVE ORDER PROTECTING CHICAGO AGAINST THREATENED FEDERAL ACTION Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson just announced an Executive Order hardening the City of Chicago against an anticipated federal incursion and military presence. Mayor Johnson says that it “Ensures every Chicagoan knows their rights, every family is prepared, and every part of city government is directed to protect the people of Chicago from federal action.” He goes on to explain: “This sweeping executive order directs our department of law to pursue any and every legal mechanism to hold this administration accountable for violating the rights of Chicagoans. This order affirms that the Chicago Police Department will not collaborate with military personnel on police patrols or civil immigration enforcement. We will not have our police officers who are working hard every single day to drive down crime deputized to do traffic stops and checkpoints for the president. This order affirms the CPD officers will be directed to wear CPD uniforms and refrain from wearing masks so that residents can clearly distinguish them from federal agents.We will protect our constitution. We will protect our city. And we will protect our people. We do not want to see tanks in our streets. We do not want to see families ripped apart. We do not want grandmothers thrown into the back of unmarked vans. We don't want to see homeless Chicagoans harassed or disappeared by federal agents. We don't want to see Chicagoans arrested for sitting on their porch. That's not who we are as a city and that's not who we are as a nation.” A few excerpts from the EO: “Whereas, the deployment of federal military forces in Chicago without the consent of local authorities undermines democratic norms, violates the Citys sovereignty, threatens civil liberties, and risks escalating violence rather than securing the peace…” “I, BRANDON JOHNSON, Mayor of the City of Chicago, do hereby order, as follows: Section 1. Chicago Rejects the Federal Militarization of Law Enforcement and Civil Immigration Enforcement The City of Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson demands that President Donald J. Trump and any agents acting under his authority stand down from any attempts to deploy the U.S. Armed Forces including the National Guard in Chicago. The City will pursue all available legal and legislative avenues to counter coordinated efforts from the federal government that violate the rights of the City and its residents, including the Constitutional rights to peacefully assemble and protest and the right to due process. Consistent with local, state, and federal law, all City departments are prohibited from participating in any enforcement actions aimed at violating Chicagoans rights to peacefully assemble and protest.” --- |
