This ARCHIVED page celebrates significant actions of courageous Resisters who refused to be intimidated by authoritarians and their henchmen by “obeying in advance.”
ARCHIVE
Qtr 3 - July 1 - Sept 30, 2025
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sapien platea morbi dolor lacus nunc, nunc ullamcorper. Felis aliquet egestas vitae, nibh ante quis quis dolor sed mauris. Erat lectus sem ut lobortis, adipiscing ligula eleifend, sodales fringilla mattis dui nullam. Ac massa aliquet.
(Most Recent Action at the Top)
Erik S. Siebert
U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia
Resister
Sept 20 - The U.S. attorney investigating New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James B. Comey announced his resignation on Friday, hours after President Trump called for his removal.
Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, had recently informed senior Justice Department officials that investigators had found insufficient evidence to bring charges against Ms. James. He had also raised concerns about a potential case against Mr. Comey, according to officials familiar with the situation. Mr. Trump has long viewed Ms. James and Mr. Comey as adversaries and has repeatedly vowed retribution against law enforcement officials who pursued him.
Mr. Siebert informed prosecutors in his office of his resignation via email hours after President Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, expressed his desire for his removal. The president cited two Democratic senators from Virginia approving of Mr. Siebert’s nomination as the reason for his decision.
Mr. Trump stated, “When I saw that he got two senators, two gentlemen that are bad news as far as I’m concerned — when I saw that he got approved by those two men, I said, pull it, because he can’t be any good.” He did not mention that he had nominated Mr. Siebert only after the two senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, had already written him praising letters.
When asked if he would fire Mr. Siebert, Mr. Trump responded, “Yeah, I want him out.”
Mr. Trump also told reporters that Ms. James was “very guilty of something.”
Mr. Trump later disputed Mr. Siebert’s resignation, asserting in a late-night social media post that Siebert had been fired, not quit.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general responsible for the Justice Department’s daily operations, had privately defended Mr. Siebert against officials, including William J. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who had advocated for his dismissal and replacement with a prosecutor who could expedite the cases, as reported by a senior law enforcement official.
Similar to Mr. Siebert, Mr. Blanche questioned the legal feasibility of prosecuting Ms. James, as corroborated by current and former department officials.
Mr. Siebert’s office recently encountered a roadblock in its investigation of Mr. Comey on allegations of perjury under oath.
Last week, prosecutors from Mr. Siebert’s office subpoenaed Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia law professor and close friend and advisor to Mr. Comey, in connection with an investigation into whether the former director had misled the court about his authorization of Mr. Richman to leak information to the news media, as informed by individuals familiar with the situation.
Mr. Richman’s statements to prosecutors were not beneficial in their efforts to build a case against Mr. Comey, as confirmed by two individuals familiar with the matter.
The threat against Mr. Siebert served as a striking illustration of the Trump administration’s attempts to exert direct control over personnel and policy decisions at U.S. attorney’s offices across the nation. These actions have significantly diminished the traditional distance between the White House and the Justice Department.
Erik S. Siebert, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, had recently informed senior Justice Department officials that investigators had found insufficient evidence to bring charges against Ms. James. He had also raised concerns about a potential case against Mr. Comey, according to officials familiar with the situation. Mr. Trump has long viewed Ms. James and Mr. Comey as adversaries and has repeatedly vowed retribution against law enforcement officials who pursued him.
Mr. Siebert informed prosecutors in his office of his resignation via email hours after President Trump, speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, expressed his desire for his removal. The president cited two Democratic senators from Virginia approving of Mr. Siebert’s nomination as the reason for his decision.
Mr. Trump stated, “When I saw that he got two senators, two gentlemen that are bad news as far as I’m concerned — when I saw that he got approved by those two men, I said, pull it, because he can’t be any good.” He did not mention that he had nominated Mr. Siebert only after the two senators, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, had already written him praising letters.
When asked if he would fire Mr. Siebert, Mr. Trump responded, “Yeah, I want him out.”
Mr. Trump also told reporters that Ms. James was “very guilty of something.”
Mr. Trump later disputed Mr. Siebert’s resignation, asserting in a late-night social media post that Siebert had been fired, not quit.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general responsible for the Justice Department’s daily operations, had privately defended Mr. Siebert against officials, including William J. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who had advocated for his dismissal and replacement with a prosecutor who could expedite the cases, as reported by a senior law enforcement official.
Similar to Mr. Siebert, Mr. Blanche questioned the legal feasibility of prosecuting Ms. James, as corroborated by current and former department officials.
Mr. Siebert’s office recently encountered a roadblock in its investigation of Mr. Comey on allegations of perjury under oath.
Last week, prosecutors from Mr. Siebert’s office subpoenaed Daniel C. Richman, a Columbia law professor and close friend and advisor to Mr. Comey, in connection with an investigation into whether the former director had misled the court about his authorization of Mr. Richman to leak information to the news media, as informed by individuals familiar with the situation.
Mr. Richman’s statements to prosecutors were not beneficial in their efforts to build a case against Mr. Comey, as confirmed by two individuals familiar with the matter.
The threat against Mr. Siebert served as a striking illustration of the Trump administration’s attempts to exert direct control over personnel and policy decisions at U.S. attorney’s offices across the nation. These actions have significantly diminished the traditional distance between the White House and the Justice Department.
Jerry Greenfield
Co-Founder of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream
Resister
Sept 17 - One of Ben & Jerry’s founders, Jerry Greenfield, has resigned from the ice cream company. He cited the loss of independence and the silencing of its social activism under the control of its parent company, Unilever, as the reasons for his decision.
Mr. Greenfield’s business partner, Ben Cohen, announced the move on social media early Wednesday. This decision comes after years of increasing tension between Unilever, which acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, and the founders, who have long been vocal on social issues.
In his statement, Mr. Greenfield explained that he could no longer remain at the company he co-founded with Mr. Cohen in 1978 in good conscience. He emphasized that the independence to pursue their values, which had been guaranteed for Ben & Jerry’s when it merged with Unilever in 2000, had been lost.
Mr. Greenfield highlighted the importance of standing up for values like justice, equity, and shared humanity, but he also expressed concern that Ben & Jerry’s had been silenced and sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power.
When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s, it agreed to allow the ice cream maker to maintain an independent board to oversee the brand. This arrangement was intended to provide the founders with continued control despite the sale of their company.
Mr. Greenfield expressed profound disappointment in realizing that the independence, the very basis of their sale to Unilever, had been compromised.
Last year, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit against Unilever, accusing it of attempting to dismantle the independent board and prevent it from calling for a cease-fire in the war in Gaza. However, Unilever rejected these claims.
Unilever stated that they disagreed with his perspective and had engaged in a constructive conversation with both co-founders to strengthen Ben & Jerry’s strong values-based position in the world.
Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield have been vocal about political issues for a long time, supporting movements like Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform.
In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s decided to end sales in the Israeli-occupied territories because it was inconsistent with the company’s values. In May, Mr. Cohen was arrested after interrupting a Senate committee hearing to protest Congress’s funding for Israel’s military during its war against Hamas in Gaza.
This year, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of firing its CEO because he had allowed the ice cream maker to speak out on political issues. Unilever stated that they had made repeated attempts to engage the Ben & Jerry’s independent board, as per the terms of the merger agreement.
In a statement on Wednesday, Mr. Greenfield expressed his belief that Ben and he had always prioritized their values and the pursuit of justice over the company itself. He emphasized that if the company couldn’t uphold their beliefs, it wasn’t worth being a company at all.
Mr. Greenfield’s business partner, Ben Cohen, announced the move on social media early Wednesday. This decision comes after years of increasing tension between Unilever, which acquired Ben & Jerry’s in 2000, and the founders, who have long been vocal on social issues.
In his statement, Mr. Greenfield explained that he could no longer remain at the company he co-founded with Mr. Cohen in 1978 in good conscience. He emphasized that the independence to pursue their values, which had been guaranteed for Ben & Jerry’s when it merged with Unilever in 2000, had been lost.
Mr. Greenfield highlighted the importance of standing up for values like justice, equity, and shared humanity, but he also expressed concern that Ben & Jerry’s had been silenced and sidelined for fear of upsetting those in power.
When Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry’s, it agreed to allow the ice cream maker to maintain an independent board to oversee the brand. This arrangement was intended to provide the founders with continued control despite the sale of their company.
Mr. Greenfield expressed profound disappointment in realizing that the independence, the very basis of their sale to Unilever, had been compromised.
Last year, Ben & Jerry’s filed a lawsuit against Unilever, accusing it of attempting to dismantle the independent board and prevent it from calling for a cease-fire in the war in Gaza. However, Unilever rejected these claims.
Unilever stated that they disagreed with his perspective and had engaged in a constructive conversation with both co-founders to strengthen Ben & Jerry’s strong values-based position in the world.
Mr. Cohen and Mr. Greenfield have been vocal about political issues for a long time, supporting movements like Black Lives Matter and criminal justice reform.
In 2021, Ben & Jerry’s decided to end sales in the Israeli-occupied territories because it was inconsistent with the company’s values. In May, Mr. Cohen was arrested after interrupting a Senate committee hearing to protest Congress’s funding for Israel’s military during its war against Hamas in Gaza.
This year, Ben & Jerry’s accused Unilever of firing its CEO because he had allowed the ice cream maker to speak out on political issues. Unilever stated that they had made repeated attempts to engage the Ben & Jerry’s independent board, as per the terms of the merger agreement.
In a statement on Wednesday, Mr. Greenfield expressed his belief that Ben and he had always prioritized their values and the pursuit of justice over the company itself. He emphasized that if the company couldn’t uphold their beliefs, it wasn’t worth being a company at all.
Ford Foundation
A nonprofit organization supporting social justices causes around the world
Resister
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sapien platea morbi dolor lacus nunc, n
Open Society Foundations
A nonprofit organization working to build vibrant and inclusive democracies whose governments are accountable to their people
Resister
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sapien platea morbi dolor lacus nunc, n
Sept 17 - Over 100 predominantly liberal philanthropies, including those that are being targeted by the Trump administration as part of an anticipated crackdown following the killing of Charlie Kirk, are collaborating to counter attacks on the nonprofit sector.
These institutions, including the Ford Foundation and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, issued an open letter on Wednesday that vehemently defended the philanthropy sector. Notably, the list of signers doubled as a compilation of left-leaning charities that President Trump may target. The statement unequivocally condemned political violence and any potential retribution.
The letter emphasized that organizations should not be subjected to attacks for carrying out their missions or expressing their values in support of the communities they serve. It vehemently rejected attempts to exploit political violence to misrepresent their noble work or infringe upon their fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech and the freedom to donate. The letter further warned that attempts to silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and restrict charitable giving undermine democracy and harm all Americans.
Following the tragic murder of Mr. Kirk last week, the Trump administration has announced its intention to crack down on nonprofits that it accuses of fostering a culture of violence. The Ford Foundation and Mr. Soros’s group have been specifically named as targets. An executive order could be issued as early as this week, as reported by The Times.
The nonprofit sector is deeply concerned that Mr. Trump could pose an existential and financial threat to them by attempting to revoke organizations’ tax-exempt status.
In the opening year of Mr. Trump’s second term, many progressive philanthropies have been grappling with how to engage publicly. While some are eager to speak up and defend their values, others are apprehensive about drawing unwanted attention from a president who frequently targets his adversaries.
In response to these concerns, these philanthropies have been closely collaborating behind the scenes in recent days to prepare for the anticipated crackdown.
The letter reveals the nonprofits that are expected to be at the forefront of opposing any attacks. Other signers include the MacArthur Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the Omidyar Network, funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and the Schmidt Family Foundation, funded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
These institutions, including the Ford Foundation and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, issued an open letter on Wednesday that vehemently defended the philanthropy sector. Notably, the list of signers doubled as a compilation of left-leaning charities that President Trump may target. The statement unequivocally condemned political violence and any potential retribution.
The letter emphasized that organizations should not be subjected to attacks for carrying out their missions or expressing their values in support of the communities they serve. It vehemently rejected attempts to exploit political violence to misrepresent their noble work or infringe upon their fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech and the freedom to donate. The letter further warned that attempts to silence speech, criminalize opposing viewpoints, and misrepresent and restrict charitable giving undermine democracy and harm all Americans.
Following the tragic murder of Mr. Kirk last week, the Trump administration has announced its intention to crack down on nonprofits that it accuses of fostering a culture of violence. The Ford Foundation and Mr. Soros’s group have been specifically named as targets. An executive order could be issued as early as this week, as reported by The Times.
The nonprofit sector is deeply concerned that Mr. Trump could pose an existential and financial threat to them by attempting to revoke organizations’ tax-exempt status.
In the opening year of Mr. Trump’s second term, many progressive philanthropies have been grappling with how to engage publicly. While some are eager to speak up and defend their values, others are apprehensive about drawing unwanted attention from a president who frequently targets his adversaries.
In response to these concerns, these philanthropies have been closely collaborating behind the scenes in recent days to prepare for the anticipated crackdown.
The letter reveals the nonprofits that are expected to be at the forefront of opposing any attacks. Other signers include the MacArthur Foundation, the Knight Foundation, the Omidyar Network, funded by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, and the Schmidt Family Foundation, funded by former Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and one of the most conservative in the nation
Resister
Sept 3 - A federal appeals court late Tuesday blocked President Trump from swiftly deporting a group of Venezuelans using an 18th-century wartime law. The court rejected the administration’s argument that the migrants were part of an “invasion” of the United States.
The Trump administration contends that the migrants are members of Tren de Aragua, a violent gang with roots in Venezuela. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the Alien Enemies Act, the law in question, did not apply to the migrants’ case. The court found no evidence of “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign power.
This case is poised to return to the Supreme Court, potentially leading to a decisive battle over President Trump’s authority to utilize the Alien Enemies Act.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union in the case, expressed his approval of the ruling. He emphasized that the decision upholds the rule of law, clarifying that the President cannot simply declare a military emergency and then invoke any powers they desire.
In April, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the Trump administration’s deportation of the Venezuelan migrants while legal challenges to Mr. Trump’s use of wartime powers were pending in lower courts, including the case decided by the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday. After the Supreme Court’s order, the Venezuelans, who had received notices of imminent removal and were loaded onto buses, were returned to a detention facility in Texas.
In May, the Supreme Court upheld the deportation freeze and sent the matter back to the Fifth Circuit. The court instructed the appellate judges to examine whether Mr. Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was legal and determine the appropriate warning before someone is expelled under the law.
On Tuesday, the judges of the Fifth Circuit, one of the country’s most conservative appeals courts, clarified that their injunction applied only to the use of the Alien Enemies Act. They emphasized that this ruling would not prevent the government from utilizing other legal avenues to remove foreign terrorists from the United States.
Until the Supreme Court issues a final decision on the case, the appellate court’s decision holds binding authority over lower courts within the same circuit. The Fifth Circuit encompasses Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, where deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have been carried out.
The Trump administration contends that the migrants are members of Tren de Aragua, a violent gang with roots in Venezuela. However, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the Alien Enemies Act, the law in question, did not apply to the migrants’ case. The court found no evidence of “invasion or predatory incursion” by a foreign power.
This case is poised to return to the Supreme Court, potentially leading to a decisive battle over President Trump’s authority to utilize the Alien Enemies Act.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer representing the American Civil Liberties Union in the case, expressed his approval of the ruling. He emphasized that the decision upholds the rule of law, clarifying that the President cannot simply declare a military emergency and then invoke any powers they desire.
In April, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the Trump administration’s deportation of the Venezuelan migrants while legal challenges to Mr. Trump’s use of wartime powers were pending in lower courts, including the case decided by the Fifth Circuit on Tuesday. After the Supreme Court’s order, the Venezuelans, who had received notices of imminent removal and were loaded onto buses, were returned to a detention facility in Texas.
In May, the Supreme Court upheld the deportation freeze and sent the matter back to the Fifth Circuit. The court instructed the appellate judges to examine whether Mr. Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was legal and determine the appropriate warning before someone is expelled under the law.
On Tuesday, the judges of the Fifth Circuit, one of the country’s most conservative appeals courts, clarified that their injunction applied only to the use of the Alien Enemies Act. They emphasized that this ruling would not prevent the government from utilizing other legal avenues to remove foreign terrorists from the United States.
Until the Supreme Court issues a final decision on the case, the appellate court’s decision holds binding authority over lower courts within the same circuit. The Fifth Circuit encompasses Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, where deportations under the Alien Enemies Act have been carried out.
Judge Charles R. Breyer
Judge in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Resister
Sept 2 - The Trump administration, aware of its illegal actions, violated the law and is likely to repeat such actions in the future.
In essence, this is the conclusion reached by Charles Breyer, the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom against the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guardsmen and Marines in and around Los Angeles in June. In a scathing opinion delivered today, Breyer declared that the administration had acted illegally.
Breyer stated that deploying these service members solely for the purpose of establishing a military presence and enforcing federal law constitutes a serious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. This law, enacted in 1878, prohibits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, except as authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Breyer’s ruling illuminates the administration’s efforts to circumvent the law and the underlying reasons behind them. While the White House maintains in its public statements that it is acting under established authorities and engaging in limited, straightforward efforts to reduce street crime, the arguments presented by the administration’s lawyers in court suggest a different conclusion: the Trump administration is seeking martial law, albeit in practice if not in name.
Today’s ruling might seem outdated, considering that the Marines and most of the Guardsmen have been deployed back home. However, both Donald Trump and his critics have highlighted the deployment as a model. It serves as a starting point for the current use of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and also as a potential precedent for future deployments in cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and Baltimore.
The United States has been wary of using the military to enforce laws within its borders since even before the nation’s founding. The presence of British troops was a significant factor in the American Revolution. The Constitution grants only Congress the authority to summon “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,” although some delegates would have preferred to eliminate this power altogether. Nevertheless, it has been presidents who have been more inclined to use the military for law enforcement, and Congress has gradually restricted their ability to do so over time.
In certain circumstances, the president can mobilize troops under the Insurrection Act. While Trump has contemplated invoking this law in the past, he did not do so in California, and Congress did not authorize the deployment. (Trump also used his authority to federalize the California National Guard, despite objections from Newsom and local authorities who argued that the Guard was not required to enforce laws.) The leadership at the military’s Northern Command, which controlled the troops, was fully aware of the implications of these choices.
Everyone in U.S. Northern Command was aware that the Posse Comitatus Act applied, and no one disputed this fact. However, the leaders of the Guard task force were instructed on the law enforcement duties they were prohibited from performing. In contrast, officials elsewhere in the federal government held a different view. Testimony during the trial revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was closely involved in the operation and issued a memo purporting to outline a “constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act.
The administration exploited this exception to justify sending the Guard to support missions that were clearly law enforcement actions—in locations with no genuine risk of riots, some 50 and 140 miles from downtown Los Angeles. They were also involved in a sweep of MacArthur Park near downtown, referred to as “Operation Excalibur.” As Breyer noted in a footnote, “Excalibur, of course, is a reference to the legendary sword of King Arthur, symbolizing his divine sovereignty as king.” When Major General Scott Sherman, a West Point graduate, National Guard commander, and Iraq War veteran, raised objections to Guard involvement in an initial version of the operation, a Department of Homeland Security official responded by questioning Sherman’s loyalty to the country.
Breyer concluded that the memo was merely an attempt to disregard the plain language of the law. The administration argued in court that a “constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act grants the president the authority to undertake any action they perceive as safeguarding federal property, personnel, or functions. However, Breyer argued that this assertion lacks historical basis in the Act’s history, Supreme Court jurisprudence on executive authority, or common sense.
In essence, this is the conclusion reached by Charles Breyer, the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit filed by California Governor Gavin Newsom against the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guardsmen and Marines in and around Los Angeles in June. In a scathing opinion delivered today, Breyer declared that the administration had acted illegally.
Breyer stated that deploying these service members solely for the purpose of establishing a military presence and enforcing federal law constitutes a serious violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. This law, enacted in 1878, prohibits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, except as authorized by the Constitution or Congress.
Breyer’s ruling illuminates the administration’s efforts to circumvent the law and the underlying reasons behind them. While the White House maintains in its public statements that it is acting under established authorities and engaging in limited, straightforward efforts to reduce street crime, the arguments presented by the administration’s lawyers in court suggest a different conclusion: the Trump administration is seeking martial law, albeit in practice if not in name.
Today’s ruling might seem outdated, considering that the Marines and most of the Guardsmen have been deployed back home. However, both Donald Trump and his critics have highlighted the deployment as a model. It serves as a starting point for the current use of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., and also as a potential precedent for future deployments in cities like Chicago, San Francisco, and Baltimore.
The United States has been wary of using the military to enforce laws within its borders since even before the nation’s founding. The presence of British troops was a significant factor in the American Revolution. The Constitution grants only Congress the authority to summon “the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,” although some delegates would have preferred to eliminate this power altogether. Nevertheless, it has been presidents who have been more inclined to use the military for law enforcement, and Congress has gradually restricted their ability to do so over time.
In certain circumstances, the president can mobilize troops under the Insurrection Act. While Trump has contemplated invoking this law in the past, he did not do so in California, and Congress did not authorize the deployment. (Trump also used his authority to federalize the California National Guard, despite objections from Newsom and local authorities who argued that the Guard was not required to enforce laws.) The leadership at the military’s Northern Command, which controlled the troops, was fully aware of the implications of these choices.
Everyone in U.S. Northern Command was aware that the Posse Comitatus Act applied, and no one disputed this fact. However, the leaders of the Guard task force were instructed on the law enforcement duties they were prohibited from performing. In contrast, officials elsewhere in the federal government held a different view. Testimony during the trial revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was closely involved in the operation and issued a memo purporting to outline a “constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act.
The administration exploited this exception to justify sending the Guard to support missions that were clearly law enforcement actions—in locations with no genuine risk of riots, some 50 and 140 miles from downtown Los Angeles. They were also involved in a sweep of MacArthur Park near downtown, referred to as “Operation Excalibur.” As Breyer noted in a footnote, “Excalibur, of course, is a reference to the legendary sword of King Arthur, symbolizing his divine sovereignty as king.” When Major General Scott Sherman, a West Point graduate, National Guard commander, and Iraq War veteran, raised objections to Guard involvement in an initial version of the operation, a Department of Homeland Security official responded by questioning Sherman’s loyalty to the country.
Breyer concluded that the memo was merely an attempt to disregard the plain language of the law. The administration argued in court that a “constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act grants the president the authority to undertake any action they perceive as safeguarding federal property, personnel, or functions. However, Breyer argued that this assertion lacks historical basis in the Act’s history, Supreme Court jurisprudence on executive authority, or common sense.
District Court Judge Jia M. Cobb
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
Sept 2 - A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from carrying out rapid deportations of individuals detained far from the southern border. This decision effectively removes one of the key components of President Trump’s campaign to implement mass deportations.
The case centered around a policy shift announced during the initial week of Mr. Trump’s second term. This shift authorized the Department of Homeland Security to initiate swift deportations across the country, without court proceedings, of undocumented immigrants who cannot demonstrate they have resided in the country for more than two years.
Such expedited removals, commonly known as expedited removal, have been practiced for decades, primarily targeting individuals apprehended at or near the southern border. The Trump administration sought to expand this practice nationwide, aiming to expedite the removal of individuals arrested deep within the country.
In a comprehensive 48-page opinion, Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia condemned the Trump administration’s reckless approach. She argued that the administration’s haste to remove as many individuals as possible likely violated due process rights and posed a risk of wrongful detentions.
Judge Cobb explained that the administration had taken over a process that was once straightforward, involving the swift return of migrants with minimal ties to the United States after a brief conversation with an immigration officer near the southern border. This practice had become a default procedure in locations as far away as New York.
She emphasized that prioritizing speed over all else in the interior of the country would inevitably lead the government to erroneously remove individuals through this truncated process.
In response to the ruling, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman issued an email on Friday. The spokesman asserted that the decision disregarded the president’s explicit authority and that the department was exercising its full authority under federal law by placing illegal aliens who have been residing in the country for less than two years into expedited removal.
The Trump administration has swiftly appealed rulings that hinder its deportation campaign, suggesting that Judge Cobb’s decision may not be final.
The case commenced the day following the announcement of the policy, when Make the Road New York, an immigrant rights organization, filed a lawsuit to block it. The American Civil Liberties Union represented the group in court.
The lawsuit emphasized the potential for disruption and the erosion of due process rights. It highlighted a “widespread failure of immigration enforcement officers to refer noncitizens who express a fear of persecution for interviews with asylum officers.” The lawsuit also referenced a 2005 study commissioned by Congress, which revealed that in a small sample of expedited removal cases, 15 percent involved individuals who had expressed being at risk of persecution in their home country but were never referred to an officer who could evaluate their asylum claims.
In arriving at her decision, Judge Cobb took particular note of the rapid evolution of the administration’s immigration policy in recent months.
She wrote that in an attempt to meet quotas, which could reach up to 3,000 immigration arrests per day, the administration had resorted to staking out courthouses, targeting individuals pursuing asylum claims, and other avenues for legal residency in the country.
The case centered around a policy shift announced during the initial week of Mr. Trump’s second term. This shift authorized the Department of Homeland Security to initiate swift deportations across the country, without court proceedings, of undocumented immigrants who cannot demonstrate they have resided in the country for more than two years.
Such expedited removals, commonly known as expedited removal, have been practiced for decades, primarily targeting individuals apprehended at or near the southern border. The Trump administration sought to expand this practice nationwide, aiming to expedite the removal of individuals arrested deep within the country.
In a comprehensive 48-page opinion, Judge Jia M. Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia condemned the Trump administration’s reckless approach. She argued that the administration’s haste to remove as many individuals as possible likely violated due process rights and posed a risk of wrongful detentions.
Judge Cobb explained that the administration had taken over a process that was once straightforward, involving the swift return of migrants with minimal ties to the United States after a brief conversation with an immigration officer near the southern border. This practice had become a default procedure in locations as far away as New York.
She emphasized that prioritizing speed over all else in the interior of the country would inevitably lead the government to erroneously remove individuals through this truncated process.
In response to the ruling, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman issued an email on Friday. The spokesman asserted that the decision disregarded the president’s explicit authority and that the department was exercising its full authority under federal law by placing illegal aliens who have been residing in the country for less than two years into expedited removal.
The Trump administration has swiftly appealed rulings that hinder its deportation campaign, suggesting that Judge Cobb’s decision may not be final.
The case commenced the day following the announcement of the policy, when Make the Road New York, an immigrant rights organization, filed a lawsuit to block it. The American Civil Liberties Union represented the group in court.
The lawsuit emphasized the potential for disruption and the erosion of due process rights. It highlighted a “widespread failure of immigration enforcement officers to refer noncitizens who express a fear of persecution for interviews with asylum officers.” The lawsuit also referenced a 2005 study commissioned by Congress, which revealed that in a small sample of expedited removal cases, 15 percent involved individuals who had expressed being at risk of persecution in their home country but were never referred to an officer who could evaluate their asylum claims.
In arriving at her decision, Judge Cobb took particular note of the rapid evolution of the administration’s immigration policy in recent months.
She wrote that in an attempt to meet quotas, which could reach up to 3,000 immigration arrests per day, the administration had resorted to staking out courthouses, targeting individuals pursuing asylum claims, and other avenues for legal residency in the country.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Resister
Aug 30 - A federal appeals court ruled 7-4 on Friday that many of President Trump’s most punitive tariffs were illegal, delivering a significant setback to his agenda and potentially severely undermining his primary source of leverage in the escalating global trade war.
The ruling, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirmed a lower court’s initial finding in May that President Trump lacked the authority to impose taxes on nearly all imports to the United States. However, the appellate judges delayed the enforcement of their order until mid-October, allowing the tariffs to remain in place so that the administration can appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
Despite the adverse ruling, the core of Mr. Trump’s trade strategy, which relies on a 1970s law to impose sweeping duties on dozens of his trading partners, remains uncertain. Mr. Trump has leveraged this law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to raise revenue and pressure other countries into negotiating favorable trade deals. However, the law has historically been reserved for sanctions and embargoes against other nations.
The loss was particularly disheartening after the Trump administration earlier on Friday expressed concerns that any weakening of its tariff powers could lead to economic chaos. Hours before the ruling, the president’s top economic advisers raised special concerns about the future of the trade agreements the United States had struck with other governments. Among the deals they cited was an agreement with the European Union, which offered favorable concessions to avoid even higher U.S. taxes on its goods.
President Trump, who has consistently maintained that his tariffs would revitalize America’s economy, has invoked the specter of the Great Depression if his ability to impose levies is curtailed and if the country is compelled to repay billions of dollars in tariff revenue.
Following the ruling on Friday, Mr. Trump took to social media to criticize the court and its conclusions, suggesting that he intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
“Today, a highly partisan appeals court made an incorrect decision to remove our tariffs. However, they are aware that the United States of America will ultimately prevail in this matter,” Mr. Trump wrote. “If these tariffs were to be eliminated, it would have severe repercussions for the entire country.”
The ruling, from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirmed a lower court’s initial finding in May that President Trump lacked the authority to impose taxes on nearly all imports to the United States. However, the appellate judges delayed the enforcement of their order until mid-October, allowing the tariffs to remain in place so that the administration can appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
Despite the adverse ruling, the core of Mr. Trump’s trade strategy, which relies on a 1970s law to impose sweeping duties on dozens of his trading partners, remains uncertain. Mr. Trump has leveraged this law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to raise revenue and pressure other countries into negotiating favorable trade deals. However, the law has historically been reserved for sanctions and embargoes against other nations.
The loss was particularly disheartening after the Trump administration earlier on Friday expressed concerns that any weakening of its tariff powers could lead to economic chaos. Hours before the ruling, the president’s top economic advisers raised special concerns about the future of the trade agreements the United States had struck with other governments. Among the deals they cited was an agreement with the European Union, which offered favorable concessions to avoid even higher U.S. taxes on its goods.
President Trump, who has consistently maintained that his tariffs would revitalize America’s economy, has invoked the specter of the Great Depression if his ability to impose levies is curtailed and if the country is compelled to repay billions of dollars in tariff revenue.
Following the ruling on Friday, Mr. Trump took to social media to criticize the court and its conclusions, suggesting that he intends to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.
“Today, a highly partisan appeals court made an incorrect decision to remove our tariffs. However, they are aware that the United States of America will ultimately prevail in this matter,” Mr. Trump wrote. “If these tariffs were to be eliminated, it would have severe repercussions for the entire country.”
Judge Thomas Cullen
District Judge of the US District Court for the Western District of Virginia
Resister
Aug 26 - A federal judge on Tuesday rejected a lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against the entire federal court bench in Maryland. The judge ruled that the lawsuit violated precedent and the rule of law.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen of Roanoke, Virginia, was specially appointed to oversee the case. The Department of Justice had named all 15 federal district court judges in Maryland as defendants in the civil lawsuit.
The Trump administration argued that the Maryland court exceeded its authority and violated the law when it imposed a temporary, 48-hour freeze on deportations for any migrant who filed a petition challenging their detention.
The Department of Justice acknowledged that judges sometimes violate the law, but they emphasized that this case involved an extraordinary form of judicial interference in Executive prerogatives.
However, Judge Cullen dismissed this argument, stating that the Department of Justice could normally have appealed specific decisions in specific cases or petitioned the judicial council to change local rules in Maryland if they disagreed with them.
Judge Cullen explained that the current situation was not normal, especially regarding the interplay between the Executive and the judicial branch of government. He believed that the Executive chose a confrontational path by deciding to sue instead of engaging in more conventional means of resolving the dispute.
The judge dismissed the case because it was a dispute between the judiciary and the executive that could not be effectively litigated in a district court by suing all the judges.
Judge Cullen emphasized that holding otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen of Roanoke, Virginia, was specially appointed to oversee the case. The Department of Justice had named all 15 federal district court judges in Maryland as defendants in the civil lawsuit.
The Trump administration argued that the Maryland court exceeded its authority and violated the law when it imposed a temporary, 48-hour freeze on deportations for any migrant who filed a petition challenging their detention.
The Department of Justice acknowledged that judges sometimes violate the law, but they emphasized that this case involved an extraordinary form of judicial interference in Executive prerogatives.
However, Judge Cullen dismissed this argument, stating that the Department of Justice could normally have appealed specific decisions in specific cases or petitioned the judicial council to change local rules in Maryland if they disagreed with them.
Judge Cullen explained that the current situation was not normal, especially regarding the interplay between the Executive and the judicial branch of government. He believed that the Executive chose a confrontational path by deciding to sue instead of engaging in more conventional means of resolving the dispute.
The judge dismissed the case because it was a dispute between the judiciary and the executive that could not be effectively litigated in a district court by suing all the judges.
Judge Cullen emphasized that holding otherwise would run counter to overwhelming precedent, depart from longstanding constitutional tradition, and offend the rule of law.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
Aug 20 - A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funding to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a nonprofit established by Congress to promote democracy globally. Earlier this year, the NED had been paralyzed by the loss of funding.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 15-page ruling stating that the Trump administration had withheld funds from the nonprofit for impermissible policy reasons. The endowment had suffered irreparable harm, including layoffs of critical staff members and the suspension of several democracy-supporting initiatives.
Judge Friedrich emphasized the irreparable harm to the endowment’s global reputation and the very existence of its programs. She ordered the release of $95 million in federal funds to the nonprofit, which is approximately 30% of its annual budget.
The NED has faced criticism from major authoritarian powers like China and Russia. It was one of several U.S.-backed human rights groups that fell victim to aggressive cuts mandated by the Department of Government Efficiency, a group led by Elon Musk that sought to significantly reduce government spending shortly after President Trump returned to office.
The grants funded projects such as developing software that enables citizens to access banned websites and supporting independent journalism. However, many of these projects came to a halt after funding was suspended this year.
In March, the nonprofit filed a lawsuit seeking the release of the funds. At that time, the Trump administration was withholding $239 million in congressionally appropriated funding from the NED. After the lawsuit was filed, the administration released some of the funds.
Judge Dabney L. Friedrich of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia issued a 15-page ruling stating that the Trump administration had withheld funds from the nonprofit for impermissible policy reasons. The endowment had suffered irreparable harm, including layoffs of critical staff members and the suspension of several democracy-supporting initiatives.
Judge Friedrich emphasized the irreparable harm to the endowment’s global reputation and the very existence of its programs. She ordered the release of $95 million in federal funds to the nonprofit, which is approximately 30% of its annual budget.
The NED has faced criticism from major authoritarian powers like China and Russia. It was one of several U.S.-backed human rights groups that fell victim to aggressive cuts mandated by the Department of Government Efficiency, a group led by Elon Musk that sought to significantly reduce government spending shortly after President Trump returned to office.
The grants funded projects such as developing software that enables citizens to access banned websites and supporting independent journalism. However, many of these projects came to a halt after funding was suspended this year.
In March, the nonprofit filed a lawsuit seeking the release of the funds. At that time, the Trump administration was withholding $239 million in congressionally appropriated funding from the NED. After the lawsuit was filed, the administration released some of the funds.
Stanford Daily
Student newspaper at Stanford University
Resister
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sapien platea morbi dolor lacus nunc, n
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
Free speech legal advocacy group
Resister
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, sapien platea morbi dolor lacus nunc, n
Aug 6 - A new lawsuit, filed on Wednesday by a free speech watchdog, targets the key legal foundations that the Trump administration has relied on to arrest and attempt to deport foreign students for criticizing the Israeli government.
This California-based lawsuit goes beyond other lawsuits that have focused on student arrests. It specifically challenges a section of immigration law that allows the secretary of state to determine that a noncitizen poses a threat to the country’s foreign policy and can be removed from the country for that reason. The lawsuit argues that invoking these provisions for speech and other activities protected by the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
Lawyers from the free speech group, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, brought the lawsuit on behalf of The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University. They allege that several of its staff members have been forced to self-censor or quit the paper due to fear of government retaliation for their publications.
The lawsuit cites a climate of fear at Stanford that follows a spate of arrests earlier this year. In March, the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, for their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza.
Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation, expressed concern about the situation. “They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for fundamental speech rights, such as authoring an op-ed and attending protests,” Fitzpatrick said. “And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they believe they can deport you for it.”
The lawsuit further states that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are attempting to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat. This, the lawsuit argues, triggers deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in the country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy.
This California-based lawsuit goes beyond other lawsuits that have focused on student arrests. It specifically challenges a section of immigration law that allows the secretary of state to determine that a noncitizen poses a threat to the country’s foreign policy and can be removed from the country for that reason. The lawsuit argues that invoking these provisions for speech and other activities protected by the First Amendment is unconstitutional.
Lawyers from the free speech group, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, brought the lawsuit on behalf of The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University. They allege that several of its staff members have been forced to self-censor or quit the paper due to fear of government retaliation for their publications.
The lawsuit cites a climate of fear at Stanford that follows a spate of arrests earlier this year. In March, the Trump administration began targeting prominent student activists, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, for their activism in speaking out against the Israeli government and the mounting death toll in Gaza.
Conor Fitzpatrick, the supervising senior attorney at the foundation, expressed concern about the situation. “They are going after lawfully present noncitizens for fundamental speech rights, such as authoring an op-ed and attending protests,” Fitzpatrick said. “And unless you have a blue passport with an eagle on it that says United States of America, they believe they can deport you for it.”
The lawsuit further states that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are attempting to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat. This, the lawsuit argues, triggers deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in the country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy.
Texas Democratic Party
Party Organization Representing the Democratic State House Members Who Have Left Texas to Prevent a Quorum in the State House
Resister
Aug 5 - Over 50 Texas Democratic lawmakers left the state on Sunday to prevent the passage of a controversial new redistricting map. This map would fulfill President Trump’s desire to add up to five more Republican congressional seats in the U.S. House.
The move, known as “breaking quorum,” is a tactic used by the minority party to prevent legislation from being enacted. The Texas House requires 100 members present to conduct business, but only has 88 Republicans. Therefore, Democrats are needed in the room, even if their votes are not required, to pass the new map.
Mark P. Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, explains that this is a nuclear option for the minority party. If they cannot block any legislation, they can walk out, effectively preventing the legislature from engaging in any activity, particularly passing legislation.
By leaving the state for liberal strongholds like Illinois and New York, dozens of Democrats have brought the body to a standstill—at least for now. It remains unclear how long they can stay away from their personal and financial obligations, especially since Texas’ part-time legislative calendar means many lawmakers hold second jobs.
In response to the Democratic lawmakers’ departure, Texas Republicans voted to arrest them.
Republican Governor Greg Abbott ordered state troopers to locate, arrest, and return any member who had abandoned their duty to Texans.
Abbott has also threatened to charge the absent Democrats with bribery if they raised public money to cover the daily fine they incur for boycotting the chamber.
Most of the Democrats fled to Illinois. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, responded by stating, “We’re fighting for democracy. There are no rules anymore.”
The Democratic Party, led by Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), firmly stated that they won’t surrender in this ongoing conflict. Despite acknowledging that the Democratic Party didn’t initiate the fight, they emphasized their determination to resist and explore all available options.
The Democrats have decided to remain out of state for two weeks until the conclusion of a special legislative session.
In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced his intention to seek a court ruling to declare the seats of Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state and failed to meet the quorum requirement in the legislature as vacant.
Paxton emphasized the accountability of these lawmakers, stating that starting Friday, any rogue lawmakers who refuse to return to the House will face consequences for vacating their offices. He underscored that the people of Texas elected lawmakers, not individuals seeking attention through their absence. Paxton concluded by stating that lawmakers who fail to show up for work will be held accountable for their actions.
The move, known as “breaking quorum,” is a tactic used by the minority party to prevent legislation from being enacted. The Texas House requires 100 members present to conduct business, but only has 88 Republicans. Therefore, Democrats are needed in the room, even if their votes are not required, to pass the new map.
Mark P. Jones, a political science professor at Rice University, explains that this is a nuclear option for the minority party. If they cannot block any legislation, they can walk out, effectively preventing the legislature from engaging in any activity, particularly passing legislation.
By leaving the state for liberal strongholds like Illinois and New York, dozens of Democrats have brought the body to a standstill—at least for now. It remains unclear how long they can stay away from their personal and financial obligations, especially since Texas’ part-time legislative calendar means many lawmakers hold second jobs.
In response to the Democratic lawmakers’ departure, Texas Republicans voted to arrest them.
Republican Governor Greg Abbott ordered state troopers to locate, arrest, and return any member who had abandoned their duty to Texans.
Abbott has also threatened to charge the absent Democrats with bribery if they raised public money to cover the daily fine they incur for boycotting the chamber.
Most of the Democrats fled to Illinois. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, a Democrat, responded by stating, “We’re fighting for democracy. There are no rules anymore.”
The Democratic Party, led by Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), firmly stated that they won’t surrender in this ongoing conflict. Despite acknowledging that the Democratic Party didn’t initiate the fight, they emphasized their determination to resist and explore all available options.
The Democrats have decided to remain out of state for two weeks until the conclusion of a special legislative session.
In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced his intention to seek a court ruling to declare the seats of Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state and failed to meet the quorum requirement in the legislature as vacant.
Paxton emphasized the accountability of these lawmakers, stating that starting Friday, any rogue lawmakers who refuse to return to the House will face consequences for vacating their offices. He underscored that the people of Texas elected lawmakers, not individuals seeking attention through their absence. Paxton concluded by stating that lawmakers who fail to show up for work will be held accountable for their actions.
Washington Litigation Group
Four-lawyer pro bono firm focusing on cases with the potential to set precedents strengthening civil service protections and reining in executive power
Resister
Aug 4 - Cathy A. Harris, a former chairwoman of a critical federal employee discipline panel, received a devastating blow during her daughter’s high school graduation. She was fired for the third time, a gut punch that overshadowed the intended joyous occasion.
Among an early group of federal employees unjustly fired by President Trump, Ms. Harris sued the administration and endured four months of employment limbo before the Supreme Court ordered her continued dismissal while her legal case progressed.
In a recent interview, Ms. Harris expressed her unwavering focus on securing a win in her case, regardless of the time required.
As she navigates the legal landscape, Ms. Harris has expanded her legal team by adding a new law firm, the Washington Litigation Group. Notably, two of its lawyers, James I. Pearce and Mary Dohrmann, share her experience of being fired by Mr. Trump. They were both dismissed from the Justice Department in January due to their involvement in Jack Smith’s special counsel team investigating Mr. Trump.
The new firm’s strategic approach aims to bring appellate expertise to the early stages of a client’s case, a tactic that its founders believe enhances the chances of successfully arguing before the Supreme Court.
This approach aligns with the traditional playbook of large law firms, but it emerged in response to a void created when many prominent firms shied away from handling cases involving Mr. Trump to avoid drawing unwanted attention.
Peter Keisler, one of the eight members on the firm’s steering committee, emphasized their mission to fill this gap.
Mr. Keisler, a former assistant attorney general and acting attorney general for President George W. Bush, and a founding member of the conservative Federalist Society, underscored the unprecedented nature of the systematic government effort to utilize all available levers of power against perceived opponents.
The shift in pro bono representation is subtle yet potentially significant in the legal challenges against Mr. Trump’s assertions of executive power. These challenges include his claim to carry out mass and targeted firings of civil servants and the elimination of federal programs authorized by Congress.
Mr. Pearce, one of the firm’s four lawyers, was previously a longtime Justice Department prosecutor. He found the appeals-focused model intriguing. Last year, Mr. Pearce presented the government’s argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against Mr. Trump’s claim of immunity from charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. He was among over a dozen Justice Department lawyers who were fired in January after working on the two criminal investigations into Mr. Trump.
Mr. Pearce is disputing his firing at the Merit Systems Protection Board, the federal employee discipline panel that Ms. Harris served on before her own termination.
Mr. Pearce believes that much of the legal battle will revolve around the scope and extent of a president’s Article II powers, as outlined in the Constitution. He cites independent board cases and his own firing, along with the firings of other civil servants, as examples of this.
Among an early group of federal employees unjustly fired by President Trump, Ms. Harris sued the administration and endured four months of employment limbo before the Supreme Court ordered her continued dismissal while her legal case progressed.
In a recent interview, Ms. Harris expressed her unwavering focus on securing a win in her case, regardless of the time required.
As she navigates the legal landscape, Ms. Harris has expanded her legal team by adding a new law firm, the Washington Litigation Group. Notably, two of its lawyers, James I. Pearce and Mary Dohrmann, share her experience of being fired by Mr. Trump. They were both dismissed from the Justice Department in January due to their involvement in Jack Smith’s special counsel team investigating Mr. Trump.
The new firm’s strategic approach aims to bring appellate expertise to the early stages of a client’s case, a tactic that its founders believe enhances the chances of successfully arguing before the Supreme Court.
This approach aligns with the traditional playbook of large law firms, but it emerged in response to a void created when many prominent firms shied away from handling cases involving Mr. Trump to avoid drawing unwanted attention.
Peter Keisler, one of the eight members on the firm’s steering committee, emphasized their mission to fill this gap.
Mr. Keisler, a former assistant attorney general and acting attorney general for President George W. Bush, and a founding member of the conservative Federalist Society, underscored the unprecedented nature of the systematic government effort to utilize all available levers of power against perceived opponents.
The shift in pro bono representation is subtle yet potentially significant in the legal challenges against Mr. Trump’s assertions of executive power. These challenges include his claim to carry out mass and targeted firings of civil servants and the elimination of federal programs authorized by Congress.
Mr. Pearce, one of the firm’s four lawyers, was previously a longtime Justice Department prosecutor. He found the appeals-focused model intriguing. Last year, Mr. Pearce presented the government’s argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against Mr. Trump’s claim of immunity from charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. He was among over a dozen Justice Department lawyers who were fired in January after working on the two criminal investigations into Mr. Trump.
Mr. Pearce is disputing his firing at the Merit Systems Protection Board, the federal employee discipline panel that Ms. Harris served on before her own termination.
Mr. Pearce believes that much of the legal battle will revolve around the scope and extent of a president’s Article II powers, as outlined in the Constitution. He cites independent board cases and his own firing, along with the firings of other civil servants, as examples of this.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
3-Member Appeals Court headquartered in San Francisco, with jurisdiction over 9 states and 2 territories
Resister
Aug 2 - The Trump administration’s immigration agenda faced another setback late Friday when an appeals court upheld a decision temporarily halting federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in the Los Angeles area without probable cause.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s finding that the raids appeared to solely rely on a person’s race and other factors, such as speaking Spanish.
The administration’s immigration raids have sparked protests and fear among many Latinos across the city, its suburbs, and agricultural regions. The panel’s decision merely permits the temporary restraining order imposed by the lower court to remain in effect. It temporarily curtails the extensive operations that commenced in June as the case progresses through the courts.
Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she deliberates over a more enduring order known as a preliminary injunction.
In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges expressed their belief that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in demonstrating that federal agents made arrests based on individuals’ appearance, speech, and residence or employment.
Civil-rights groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel, filed suit on July 2, accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 individuals have been arrested as a result.
The dragnet has caught American citizens and immigrants who are legally residing in the United States, leading to protests in Los Angeles and across the country. President Trump had indicated that other Democratic-led cities would also be targeted, suggesting that the aggressive enforcement tactics employed in Los Angeles might be replicated elsewhere.
In their 61-page ruling, the appellate judges, all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, concluded that it was highly probable that the arrests were made without “reasonable suspicion.”
The judges explained that since the arrests were part of a pattern of officially sanctioned behavior, they were likely to continue without court intervention.
Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney representing the plaintiffs with the A.C.L.U., stated that this decision further confirmed that the administration’s paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable harm across the region.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s finding that the raids appeared to solely rely on a person’s race and other factors, such as speaking Spanish.
The administration’s immigration raids have sparked protests and fear among many Latinos across the city, its suburbs, and agricultural regions. The panel’s decision merely permits the temporary restraining order imposed by the lower court to remain in effect. It temporarily curtails the extensive operations that commenced in June as the case progresses through the courts.
Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she deliberates over a more enduring order known as a preliminary injunction.
In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges expressed their belief that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in demonstrating that federal agents made arrests based on individuals’ appearance, speech, and residence or employment.
Civil-rights groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel, filed suit on July 2, accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 individuals have been arrested as a result.
The dragnet has caught American citizens and immigrants who are legally residing in the United States, leading to protests in Los Angeles and across the country. President Trump had indicated that other Democratic-led cities would also be targeted, suggesting that the aggressive enforcement tactics employed in Los Angeles might be replicated elsewhere.
In their 61-page ruling, the appellate judges, all of whom were appointed by Democratic presidents, concluded that it was highly probable that the arrests were made without “reasonable suspicion.”
The judges explained that since the arrests were part of a pattern of officially sanctioned behavior, they were likely to continue without court intervention.
Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney representing the plaintiffs with the A.C.L.U., stated that this decision further confirmed that the administration’s paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable harm across the region.
South Park Satire about President Donald Trump
Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone
Resister
July 26 - Satirists are left to hold people accountable, and they are more than ready to do so. Colbert’s fellow humorists rallied behind him, most notably the “South Park” creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who recently signed a lucrative Paramount deal worth over $1.25 billion. (“South Park,” which has a conservative following, doesn’t defend liberals; instead, it enjoys poking fun at both sides and woke overreach.)
The 27th season premiere of “South Park,” titled “Sermon on the ‘Mount,’” featured Trump with a rather explicit reference. The episode depicted the president cuddling with Satan and romancing a sheep. It also critiqued the Paramount deal, the CBS settlement, Colbert’s firing, Trump’s alleged “power to sue and take bribes,” and the president’s desperate attempt to divert attention from his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, whom the pedophile’s accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is reportedly seeking a pardon for by spilling some information.
Furthermore, the episode showcased a deepfake of Trump, portrayed as a rotund and naked figure walking in the desert, resembling Christ-like, with the intention of “for America.” As Puck’s Matthew Belloni remarked, “The A.I. deepfake Trump was particularly brilliant, considering that the same day the episode aired, the president announced White House A.I. policy positions that favor inadequate protections against precisely this kind of hazardous technology.”
The White House responded by dismissing the episode as insignificant, claiming that no low-budget show could disrupt President Trump’s current momentum.
At Comic-Con on Thursday, the “South Park” creators delivered a deadpan response to Trump’s attempt to silence critics and seek revenge.
While expressing regret, Parker made it clear that their actions were anything but sincere.
The 27th season premiere of “South Park,” titled “Sermon on the ‘Mount,’” featured Trump with a rather explicit reference. The episode depicted the president cuddling with Satan and romancing a sheep. It also critiqued the Paramount deal, the CBS settlement, Colbert’s firing, Trump’s alleged “power to sue and take bribes,” and the president’s desperate attempt to divert attention from his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, whom the pedophile’s accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is reportedly seeking a pardon for by spilling some information.
Furthermore, the episode showcased a deepfake of Trump, portrayed as a rotund and naked figure walking in the desert, resembling Christ-like, with the intention of “for America.” As Puck’s Matthew Belloni remarked, “The A.I. deepfake Trump was particularly brilliant, considering that the same day the episode aired, the president announced White House A.I. policy positions that favor inadequate protections against precisely this kind of hazardous technology.”
The White House responded by dismissing the episode as insignificant, claiming that no low-budget show could disrupt President Trump’s current momentum.
At Comic-Con on Thursday, the “South Park” creators delivered a deadpan response to Trump’s attempt to silence critics and seek revenge.
While expressing regret, Parker made it clear that their actions were anything but sincere.
The Board of Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
A group of nine U.S. District Court judges for the Northern District of New York
Resister
July 15 - A panel of federal judges made a decision on Monday regarding the extension of the term of Interim U.S. Attorney John A. Sarcone III. Sarcone’s appointment was due to expire this week, and a group of nine U.S. District Court judges for the Northern District of New York had the option of making his appointment permanent. However, they chose not to retain him in the position.
Sarcone, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump’s administration in March, had previously claimed that the judges had agreed to extend his appointment. However, the judges took an unusual step by immediately refuting Sarcone’s claim in a public statement on Friday.
The Board of Judges made a terse announcement about their decision on the court’s website on Monday morning. The statement read, “The Board of Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York declines to exercise the authority granted pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 546(d) to appoint a United States attorney for the Northern District of New York.”
Federal judges have the authority to extend the appointment of an interim U.S. attorney if the president has not nominated a replacement within 120 days.
David Driesen, a constitutional law professor at Syracuse University, stated that the judges’ decision to withhold the extension of Sarcone’s appointment effectively removes him from his position.
The judges possess the authority to appoint someone else as U.S. attorney, Attorney General Pam Bondi could appoint a new interim prosecutor, or Trump could formally nominate an individual for the permanent position.
It’s important to note that any person nominated by Trump would require Senate confirmation. So far, none of Trump’s nominees have been confirmed in other districts.
According to Tobias, federal courts have historically acted in only a limited number of cases to remove U.S. attorneys, as interim appointments were relatively uncommon.
Sarcone, a 62-year-old man, lacks prior experience as a prosecutor. Instead, he has served as a lawyer on Trump’s presidential campaigns and worked in a private practice in Westchester County.
Sarcone, a Republican appointed by President Donald Trump’s administration in March, had previously claimed that the judges had agreed to extend his appointment. However, the judges took an unusual step by immediately refuting Sarcone’s claim in a public statement on Friday.
The Board of Judges made a terse announcement about their decision on the court’s website on Monday morning. The statement read, “The Board of Judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York declines to exercise the authority granted pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 546(d) to appoint a United States attorney for the Northern District of New York.”
Federal judges have the authority to extend the appointment of an interim U.S. attorney if the president has not nominated a replacement within 120 days.
David Driesen, a constitutional law professor at Syracuse University, stated that the judges’ decision to withhold the extension of Sarcone’s appointment effectively removes him from his position.
The judges possess the authority to appoint someone else as U.S. attorney, Attorney General Pam Bondi could appoint a new interim prosecutor, or Trump could formally nominate an individual for the permanent position.
It’s important to note that any person nominated by Trump would require Senate confirmation. So far, none of Trump’s nominees have been confirmed in other districts.
According to Tobias, federal courts have historically acted in only a limited number of cases to remove U.S. attorneys, as interim appointments were relatively uncommon.
Sarcone, a 62-year-old man, lacks prior experience as a prosecutor. Instead, he has served as a lawyer on Trump’s presidential campaigns and worked in a private practice in Westchester County.
Judge Maame Frimpong
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Resister
July 12 - Federal Judge Maame E. Frimpong in California issued two temporary restraining orders on Friday, blocking the Trump administration from making indiscriminate immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area and denying detainees the right to consult with a lawyer. These orders represent a strong rebuke of tactics employed by federal agents in and around Los Angeles during recent immigration raids.
The judge, Maame E. Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, directed agents to cease racial profiling in the pursuit of immigrants and mandated that the federal government, which has deployed hundreds of agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies in Los Angeles County, ensure detainees have access to legal counsel.
The judge expressed skepticism about the government’s claims that these tactics were not occurring, citing the substantial evidence presented in the case. She stated that “roving patrols” without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment, and denying access to lawyers violated the Fifth Amendment.
The ruling, which remains in effect for up to 10 days, was a response to a lawsuit filed last week by immigrant advocacy groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the nonprofit Public Counsel. The groups are seeking a more durable order, known as a preliminary injunction, in the coming weeks.
During a hearing on Thursday, the judge questioned the government’s assertions that agents were stopping immigrants based solely on “the totality of circumstances” rather than relying on race.
Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer with Public Counsel, expressed concern about the federal government’s actions against an American city, stating that the order reflects a serious breach of the Constitution. He emphasized the need for this action to end the government’s actions of rounding up carwash workers and other hardworking individuals, portraying them as domestic terrorists.
The mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, expressed her approval of the judge’s ruling, viewing it as a reflection of American values and decency.
In her 52-page ruling, Judge Frimpong clarified that the government cannot solely rely on race, ethnicity, a person’s language proficiency (e.g., speaking Spanish or English with an accent), or their presence at a specific location (e.g., a day-laborer or agricultural site) to establish reasonable suspicion and stop and detain individuals.
The judge, Maame E. Frimpong of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, directed agents to cease racial profiling in the pursuit of immigrants and mandated that the federal government, which has deployed hundreds of agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other agencies in Los Angeles County, ensure detainees have access to legal counsel.
The judge expressed skepticism about the government’s claims that these tactics were not occurring, citing the substantial evidence presented in the case. She stated that “roving patrols” without reasonable suspicion violated the Fourth Amendment, and denying access to lawyers violated the Fifth Amendment.
The ruling, which remains in effect for up to 10 days, was a response to a lawsuit filed last week by immigrant advocacy groups, led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and the nonprofit Public Counsel. The groups are seeking a more durable order, known as a preliminary injunction, in the coming weeks.
During a hearing on Thursday, the judge questioned the government’s assertions that agents were stopping immigrants based solely on “the totality of circumstances” rather than relying on race.
Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer with Public Counsel, expressed concern about the federal government’s actions against an American city, stating that the order reflects a serious breach of the Constitution. He emphasized the need for this action to end the government’s actions of rounding up carwash workers and other hardworking individuals, portraying them as domestic terrorists.
The mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, expressed her approval of the judge’s ruling, viewing it as a reflection of American values and decency.
In her 52-page ruling, Judge Frimpong clarified that the government cannot solely rely on race, ethnicity, a person’s language proficiency (e.g., speaking Spanish or English with an accent), or their presence at a specific location (e.g., a day-laborer or agricultural site) to establish reasonable suspicion and stop and detain individuals.
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website