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 4 - Oct 1 - Dec 31, 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)
U.S. Supreme Court
Highest court of jurisdiction in the United States; created in Article III of the U.S. Constitution as a co-equal branch of the federal government
Resister
Dec 31 - The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to permit President Trump to deploy hundreds of National Guard troops in the Chicago area, despite objections from Illinois officials. This decision raises doubts about the feasibility of similar deployments in other American cities.
The court’s order is preliminary and temporarily prevents the Trump administration from ordering the state-based military force to the Chicago area. This area has been the site of an immigration crackdown that resulted in thousands of arrests and confrontations between residents and federal agents.
In its unsigned three-page ruling against the administration, the court denied the president broad discretion to deploy the military in U.S. cities. The court cited an 1878 law that prohibits the use of the military for domestic policing. This decision marked a rare departure from recent cases where the conservative majority has overwhelmingly sided with Mr. Trump in preliminary tests of presidential power.
At this stage of the litigation, the court stated that the Trump administration had not demonstrated that the statute in question permits the president to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.
Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Neil M. Gorsuch—expressed their objections in lengthy dissents. Justice Alito emphasized the importance of protecting federal officers from potentially lethal attacks and stated that this protection should not be hindered.
Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois hailed the ruling as a victory for democracy. Mr. Pritzker, a Democrat, emphasized the significance of this step in curbing the Trump administration’s consistent abuse of power and decelerating Trump’s trajectory toward authoritarianism. He expressed his belief that the brave men and women of our National Guard should never be subjected to political theatrics and should instead be reunited with their families and communities, particularly during the holiday season.
Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago expressed his hope that the Supreme Court’s ruling would safeguard other cities from unwanted deployments of the National Guard.
In recent months, Mr. Trump had also ordered the National Guard to Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C., despite the objections of state and local leaders. The president’s attempts to deploy troops for domestic policing have sparked legal challenges, accusing the Trump administration of exceeding its authority and encroaching upon traditional state powers over policing. Typically, state-based troops are deployed at the request of governors to respond to emergencies within their respective states, such as natural disasters.
Federal law permits the president to federalize members of the National Guard without the consent of state officials in specific circumstances, notably when there is a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or when law enforcement is overwhelmed and unable to enforce U.S. law.
Federal courts across the country have generally ruled that the conditions do not exist to allow Mr. Trump to federalize Guard troops. Judges overseeing cases from Los Angeles and Portland have halted troop mobilizations. Given the legal uncertainties surrounding the deployments, the Pentagon made a decision in November to withdraw hundreds of out-of-state soldiers from Illinois and Oregon, while maintaining the activation of hundreds of other local troops. An appeals court in Washington has separately permitted troops to remain in the nation’s capital while litigation continues, citing the city’s unique status as a federal district.
The court’s order is preliminary and temporarily prevents the Trump administration from ordering the state-based military force to the Chicago area. This area has been the site of an immigration crackdown that resulted in thousands of arrests and confrontations between residents and federal agents.
In its unsigned three-page ruling against the administration, the court denied the president broad discretion to deploy the military in U.S. cities. The court cited an 1878 law that prohibits the use of the military for domestic policing. This decision marked a rare departure from recent cases where the conservative majority has overwhelmingly sided with Mr. Trump in preliminary tests of presidential power.
At this stage of the litigation, the court stated that the Trump administration had not demonstrated that the statute in question permits the president to federalize the Guard in the exercise of inherent authority to protect federal personnel and property in Illinois.
Three conservative justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., and Neil M. Gorsuch—expressed their objections in lengthy dissents. Justice Alito emphasized the importance of protecting federal officers from potentially lethal attacks and stated that this protection should not be hindered.
Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois hailed the ruling as a victory for democracy. Mr. Pritzker, a Democrat, emphasized the significance of this step in curbing the Trump administration’s consistent abuse of power and decelerating Trump’s trajectory toward authoritarianism. He expressed his belief that the brave men and women of our National Guard should never be subjected to political theatrics and should instead be reunited with their families and communities, particularly during the holiday season.
Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago expressed his hope that the Supreme Court’s ruling would safeguard other cities from unwanted deployments of the National Guard.
In recent months, Mr. Trump had also ordered the National Guard to Portland, Oregon; Los Angeles; and Washington, D.C., despite the objections of state and local leaders. The president’s attempts to deploy troops for domestic policing have sparked legal challenges, accusing the Trump administration of exceeding its authority and encroaching upon traditional state powers over policing. Typically, state-based troops are deployed at the request of governors to respond to emergencies within their respective states, such as natural disasters.
Federal law permits the president to federalize members of the National Guard without the consent of state officials in specific circumstances, notably when there is a “rebellion or danger of a rebellion” against the government or when law enforcement is overwhelmed and unable to enforce U.S. law.
Federal courts across the country have generally ruled that the conditions do not exist to allow Mr. Trump to federalize Guard troops. Judges overseeing cases from Los Angeles and Portland have halted troop mobilizations. Given the legal uncertainties surrounding the deployments, the Pentagon made a decision in November to withdraw hundreds of out-of-state soldiers from Illinois and Oregon, while maintaining the activation of hundreds of other local troops. An appeals court in Washington has separately permitted troops to remain in the nation’s capital while litigation continues, citing the city’s unique status as a federal district.
Katherine Maher
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and president of National Public Radio
Resister
Dec 30 - Katherine Maher understood that running NPR would be challenging. However, since assuming the role of chief executive last year, she has faced numerous crises.
Right-wing activists unearthed her past social media posts and attempted to remove her from her position. Additionally, Congress reduced public media funding by over $500 million annually.
Maher has become a target not only of NPR’s traditional political opponents on the right but also of some within the close-knit world of public broadcasting who advocated for a more pragmatic approach. At one point, the chief executive of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a significant supporter of NPR, advised Ms. Maher to resign.
Unlike her predecessors, who were criticized for handling political attacks on the organization with a defensive posture, Ms. Maher has taken a more assertive stance. She has refused to compromise with Congress and has even taken the Trump administration to court, along with a key ally.
Despite these challenges, Ms. Maher remains steadfast in her strategy.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, she stated, “The government targeted public funding to punish specific editorial decisions it disagreed with. That’s not a funding dispute disguised as a constitutional case; it’s textbook First Amendment retaliation.”
Maher’s resolute stance has garnered support for her organization. NPR emerged from the most significant political battle in its history with a strong foundation and achieved record donations.
However, the loss of approximately $500 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a devastating impact on other segments of the public media landscape. Many local stations that contribute to NPR and PBS are facing employee layoffs.
In essence, Ms. Maher and NPR have managed to maintain their influence over public broadcasting this year, even as the system has suffered a severe blow and is now significantly weaker overall. Nevertheless, there are emerging challenges to NPR’s dominance over public radio. In response to the funding conflict, a coalition of public media organizations has formed Public Media Infrastructure, which could potentially offer an alternative to a radio distribution system managed by NPR.
Right-wing activists unearthed her past social media posts and attempted to remove her from her position. Additionally, Congress reduced public media funding by over $500 million annually.
Maher has become a target not only of NPR’s traditional political opponents on the right but also of some within the close-knit world of public broadcasting who advocated for a more pragmatic approach. At one point, the chief executive of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a significant supporter of NPR, advised Ms. Maher to resign.
Unlike her predecessors, who were criticized for handling political attacks on the organization with a defensive posture, Ms. Maher has taken a more assertive stance. She has refused to compromise with Congress and has even taken the Trump administration to court, along with a key ally.
Despite these challenges, Ms. Maher remains steadfast in her strategy.
In a recent interview with The New York Times, she stated, “The government targeted public funding to punish specific editorial decisions it disagreed with. That’s not a funding dispute disguised as a constitutional case; it’s textbook First Amendment retaliation.”
Maher’s resolute stance has garnered support for her organization. NPR emerged from the most significant political battle in its history with a strong foundation and achieved record donations.
However, the loss of approximately $500 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a devastating impact on other segments of the public media landscape. Many local stations that contribute to NPR and PBS are facing employee layoffs.
In essence, Ms. Maher and NPR have managed to maintain their influence over public broadcasting this year, even as the system has suffered a severe blow and is now significantly weaker overall. Nevertheless, there are emerging challenges to NPR’s dominance over public radio. In response to the funding conflict, a coalition of public media organizations has formed Public Media Infrastructure, which could potentially offer an alternative to a radio distribution system managed by NPR.
Judge Mary McElroy
US District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island
Resister
Dec 26 - A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to divert federal funds from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to states that don’t comply with President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.
The DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cut a total of $233 million in funds, including money for disaster aid and relief, from eight states and Washington, D.C. These affected states were all Democratic Party strongholds, including New York, Vermont, and Minnesota.
This was the second time the Trump administration tried to revoke funding from states that didn’t cooperate with its immigration policies. In September, a federal judge ruled that withholding FEMA funds was unconstitutional for the same reason.
The ruling from US District Court Judge Mary McElroy described the administration’s actions as “wanton abuse” of their power.
Judge McElroy questioned the arbitrary and capricious nature of the administration’s decisions to cut funding to specific counterterrorism programming by conspicuous round-numbered amounts, including by slashing off the millions-place digits of awarded sums.
Judge McElroy criticized the administration’s plan to slash funds for counterterrorism and law enforcement programs, citing recent shootings at Brown University and MIT.
She argued that holding hostage funding for programs like these based solely on the administration’s political whims is unconscionable and, at least in this case, unlawful.
The DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) cut a total of $233 million in funds, including money for disaster aid and relief, from eight states and Washington, D.C. These affected states were all Democratic Party strongholds, including New York, Vermont, and Minnesota.
This was the second time the Trump administration tried to revoke funding from states that didn’t cooperate with its immigration policies. In September, a federal judge ruled that withholding FEMA funds was unconstitutional for the same reason.
The ruling from US District Court Judge Mary McElroy described the administration’s actions as “wanton abuse” of their power.
Judge McElroy questioned the arbitrary and capricious nature of the administration’s decisions to cut funding to specific counterterrorism programming by conspicuous round-numbered amounts, including by slashing off the millions-place digits of awarded sums.
Judge McElroy criticized the administration’s plan to slash funds for counterterrorism and law enforcement programs, citing recent shootings at Brown University and MIT.
She argued that holding hostage funding for programs like these based solely on the administration’s political whims is unconscionable and, at least in this case, unlawful.
Judge James Boasberg
US District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
Dec 23 - A federal judge on Monday said the U.S. government denied due process to the Venezuelan men it deported to a prison in El Salvador in March after President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act.
The case over the Alien Enemies Act first brought into focus critiques about the Trump administration’s lack of due process in its immigration policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward challenged the deportation of the Venezuelans, saying the Alien Enemies Act was invoked illegally and that the men should have been given the opportunity to argue against their removal.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his order agreed that they deserved the right to a hearing — whether by bringing them back to the U.S. or allowing them to pursue legal remedies from abroad.
“On the merits, the Court concludes that this class was denied their due-process rights and will thus require the Government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing. Our law requires no less,” Boasberg wrote in his opinion.
The Trump administration said it plans to appeal the decision.”
President Trump around March 15 invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to target members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang he said was invading the United States. The government sent several planeloads of alleged gang members to El Salvador immediately after invoking the act, including 137 people under the statute, the White House said at the time. (The men have since been returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange.)
Boasberg imposed a temporary restraining order barring deportations that same evening — but the planes still arrived in El Salvador. The Justice Department argued that the judge had overstepped his authority by inserting himself into questions of foreign policy.”
Boasberg in Monday’s order said the U.S. maintained custody over the men while they were imprisoned at a notorious prison in El Salvador, so the court continued to have jurisdiction over their fate. He gave the administration until January 5 to either “facilitate” their return to the U.S., or “to otherwise provide them with hearings that satisfy the requirements of due process.”
He said regardless of whether Trump was lawful in invoking the Alien Enemies Act, the men deserved to have a "meaningful opportunity" to prove they weren't gang members before being deported.
"Otherwise, a finding of unlawful removal would be meaningless for Plaintiffs, who have already been sent back to Venezuela against their wishes and without due process," he said. "Expedited removal cannot be allowed to render this relief toothless," Boasberg said, otherwise there would be nothing to stop the government from "secretly spiriting" people to a foreign country.
The case over the Alien Enemies Act first brought into focus critiques about the Trump administration’s lack of due process in its immigration policy.
The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward challenged the deportation of the Venezuelans, saying the Alien Enemies Act was invoked illegally and that the men should have been given the opportunity to argue against their removal.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in his order agreed that they deserved the right to a hearing — whether by bringing them back to the U.S. or allowing them to pursue legal remedies from abroad.
“On the merits, the Court concludes that this class was denied their due-process rights and will thus require the Government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing. Our law requires no less,” Boasberg wrote in his opinion.
The Trump administration said it plans to appeal the decision.”
President Trump around March 15 invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to target members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang he said was invading the United States. The government sent several planeloads of alleged gang members to El Salvador immediately after invoking the act, including 137 people under the statute, the White House said at the time. (The men have since been returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange.)
Boasberg imposed a temporary restraining order barring deportations that same evening — but the planes still arrived in El Salvador. The Justice Department argued that the judge had overstepped his authority by inserting himself into questions of foreign policy.”
Boasberg in Monday’s order said the U.S. maintained custody over the men while they were imprisoned at a notorious prison in El Salvador, so the court continued to have jurisdiction over their fate. He gave the administration until January 5 to either “facilitate” their return to the U.S., or “to otherwise provide them with hearings that satisfy the requirements of due process.”
He said regardless of whether Trump was lawful in invoking the Alien Enemies Act, the men deserved to have a "meaningful opportunity" to prove they weren't gang members before being deported.
"Otherwise, a finding of unlawful removal would be meaningless for Plaintiffs, who have already been sent back to Venezuela against their wishes and without due process," he said. "Expedited removal cannot be allowed to render this relief toothless," Boasberg said, otherwise there would be nothing to stop the government from "secretly spiriting" people to a foreign country.
Judge Charles R. Breyer
US District Judge of the US District Court for San Francisco
Resister
Dec 17 - A federal judge issued an order on Wednesday, mandating the immediate cessation of the Trump administration’s current deployment of California National Guard troops in Los Angeles. The judge ruled that the federal government had unlawfully maintained the troops in the city long after the intense street protests that had erupted in the summer had subsided.
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Federal District Court in San Francisco’s ruling pertains to approximately 100 National Guard soldiers who remain in Los Angeles, six months after the protests that originated from immigration raids.
Judge Breyer directed the federal government to relinquish control of the troops to Governor Gavin Newsom of California. However, he postponed the implementation of this order until Monday. The Trump administration is anticipated to appeal the decision.
In his decision, Judge Breyer emphasized the importance of the Founders’ design of our government as a system of checks and balances. He expressed concern that the defendants were seeking only a passive role in this system.
The White House expressed confidence in the administration’s ability to ultimately prevail in court. In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson asserted that President Trump had exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets. (The 9th District Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the district judge's ruling against Trump.)
President Trump initially called up approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops in June, despite the objections of state and local officials. At that time, he justified the deployment by stating that it was a response to an emergency and was necessary to protect federal property and personnel amidst the intense demonstrations.
The president gradually reduced the number of federalized troops in July. As of last month, approximately 300 California National Guard members remained under the president’s command. The administration was in the process of reducing the deployment to 100 troops, who were expected to remain federalized until February.
In November, the state filed a request for an injunction. The state argued that civil unrest in Los Angeles had significantly decreased since the summer and that military forces were no longer justified. Meghan Strong, a California deputy attorney general, emphasized that the president’s authority to command National Guard troops is contingent upon the existence of a present exigency during a hearing on Friday.
Strong stated that once the exigency has passed, the federalization of troops must end.
Lawyers for the Trump administration countered that threats to federal immigration agents persisted in Los Angeles, even as the large street demonstrations of the summer subsided. They cited a man who was arrested last week after authorities alleged that he attempted to firebomb a federal office building in Los Angeles.
The lawyers also argued that the law mandates an emergency only at the time the president decides to federalize National Guard troops. After that decision, the president can extend the deployment as long as he deems necessary.
Eric J. Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general at the federal Department of Justice, stated that it falls to the president’s judgment to determine when the mission can conclude.
During the hearing on Friday, Judge Breyer indicated that he agreed with California’s interpretation of the law.
Judge Breyer remarked, “No crisis lasts forever.”
In his ruling, the judge concluded that the Trump administration had failed to provide evidence of any circumstances in Los Angeles that impeded the enforcement of federal laws, which is a legal requirement for using the troops in the manner Mr. Trump has done.
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Federal District Court in San Francisco’s ruling pertains to approximately 100 National Guard soldiers who remain in Los Angeles, six months after the protests that originated from immigration raids.
Judge Breyer directed the federal government to relinquish control of the troops to Governor Gavin Newsom of California. However, he postponed the implementation of this order until Monday. The Trump administration is anticipated to appeal the decision.
In his decision, Judge Breyer emphasized the importance of the Founders’ design of our government as a system of checks and balances. He expressed concern that the defendants were seeking only a passive role in this system.
The White House expressed confidence in the administration’s ability to ultimately prevail in court. In a statement, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson asserted that President Trump had exercised his lawful authority to deploy National Guard troops to support federal officers and assets. (The 9th District Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the district judge's ruling against Trump.)
President Trump initially called up approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops in June, despite the objections of state and local officials. At that time, he justified the deployment by stating that it was a response to an emergency and was necessary to protect federal property and personnel amidst the intense demonstrations.
The president gradually reduced the number of federalized troops in July. As of last month, approximately 300 California National Guard members remained under the president’s command. The administration was in the process of reducing the deployment to 100 troops, who were expected to remain federalized until February.
In November, the state filed a request for an injunction. The state argued that civil unrest in Los Angeles had significantly decreased since the summer and that military forces were no longer justified. Meghan Strong, a California deputy attorney general, emphasized that the president’s authority to command National Guard troops is contingent upon the existence of a present exigency during a hearing on Friday.
Strong stated that once the exigency has passed, the federalization of troops must end.
Lawyers for the Trump administration countered that threats to federal immigration agents persisted in Los Angeles, even as the large street demonstrations of the summer subsided. They cited a man who was arrested last week after authorities alleged that he attempted to firebomb a federal office building in Los Angeles.
The lawyers also argued that the law mandates an emergency only at the time the president decides to federalize National Guard troops. After that decision, the president can extend the deployment as long as he deems necessary.
Eric J. Hamilton, a deputy assistant attorney general at the federal Department of Justice, stated that it falls to the president’s judgment to determine when the mission can conclude.
During the hearing on Friday, Judge Breyer indicated that he agreed with California’s interpretation of the law.
Judge Breyer remarked, “No crisis lasts forever.”
In his ruling, the judge concluded that the Trump administration had failed to provide evidence of any circumstances in Los Angeles that impeded the enforcement of federal laws, which is a legal requirement for using the troops in the manner Mr. Trump has done.
Judge Coleen Kollar-Kotelly
US District Judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia
Resister
Dec 13 - A federal judge issued an order on Friday, instructing the Justice Department to eliminate a crucial collection of evidence it utilized in September to initiate charges against James B. Comey, the former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The judge’s decision stems from the assertion that prosecutors had obtained the materials unlawfully.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding over the Federal District Court in Washington, has significantly complicated the department’s plans to seek a new indictment of Mr. Comey in the upcoming weeks.
This ruling arrives at a critical juncture for the Justice Department. Officials have been deliberating on whether to pursue a fresh set of charges against Mr. Comey following the dismissal of the initial case he was facing by a different federal judge. The judge’s decision was based on the finding that the loyalist prosecutor appointed by Mr. Trump to handle the case was illegally appointed to her position.
In essence, the ruling sheds light on a series of procedural errors committed by the Justice Department during its investigation of Mr. Comey, both during Mr. Trump’s initial presidency and his current term in office. It implies that the department’s lack of diligence may have inadvertently hindered the president’s public demand to utilize the criminal justice system to target individuals like Mr. Comey, whom he has identified as one of his primary adversaries.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s 46-page ruling centered around a collection of emails and text messages exchanged between Mr. Comey and one of his close confidants, Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor now teaching at Columbia University’s law school. Investigators initially obtained these materials in 2019 and 2020 from various electronic devices belonging to Mr. Richman while conducting a separate inquiry into whether Mr. Comey had leaked information to the news media through Mr. Richman regarding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
Prosecutors subsequently utilized the same files in their subsequent efforts to charge Mr. Comey with lying to and obstructing Congress during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that testimony, Mr. Comey denied leaking information concerning sensitive investigations conducted during his tenure as the head of the F.B.I.
However, late last week, as prosecutors were on the verge of seeking a new and similar indictment against Mr. Comey, Mr. Richman filed an emergency motion with Judge Kollar-Kotelly. He claimed that the Justice Department had obtained his files in violation of his constitutional rights. As part of this motion, Mr. Richman argued that the government should not be permitted to use the materials in any future attempt to re-charge Mr. Comey.
Last weekend, Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary order prohibiting the prosecutors from accessing Mr. Richman’s files as she examined the relevant issues. Mr. Richman had made three claims regarding how the government had infringed upon his rights in the handling of his private data. All of these claims were acknowledged by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in her order issued on Friday.
While the judge’s ruling made it more challenging for prosecutors to utilize Mr. Richman’s files in any subsequent attempt to indict Mr. Comey, it did not render that endeavor entirely impossible. In fact, Judge Kollar-Kotelly aimed to strike a balance between safeguarding Mr. Richman’s rights and the Justice Department’s interests in pursuing criminal charges if they deemed them justified.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, presiding over the Federal District Court in Washington, has significantly complicated the department’s plans to seek a new indictment of Mr. Comey in the upcoming weeks.
This ruling arrives at a critical juncture for the Justice Department. Officials have been deliberating on whether to pursue a fresh set of charges against Mr. Comey following the dismissal of the initial case he was facing by a different federal judge. The judge’s decision was based on the finding that the loyalist prosecutor appointed by Mr. Trump to handle the case was illegally appointed to her position.
In essence, the ruling sheds light on a series of procedural errors committed by the Justice Department during its investigation of Mr. Comey, both during Mr. Trump’s initial presidency and his current term in office. It implies that the department’s lack of diligence may have inadvertently hindered the president’s public demand to utilize the criminal justice system to target individuals like Mr. Comey, whom he has identified as one of his primary adversaries.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s 46-page ruling centered around a collection of emails and text messages exchanged between Mr. Comey and one of his close confidants, Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor now teaching at Columbia University’s law school. Investigators initially obtained these materials in 2019 and 2020 from various electronic devices belonging to Mr. Richman while conducting a separate inquiry into whether Mr. Comey had leaked information to the news media through Mr. Richman regarding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
Prosecutors subsequently utilized the same files in their subsequent efforts to charge Mr. Comey with lying to and obstructing Congress during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that testimony, Mr. Comey denied leaking information concerning sensitive investigations conducted during his tenure as the head of the F.B.I.
However, late last week, as prosecutors were on the verge of seeking a new and similar indictment against Mr. Comey, Mr. Richman filed an emergency motion with Judge Kollar-Kotelly. He claimed that the Justice Department had obtained his files in violation of his constitutional rights. As part of this motion, Mr. Richman argued that the government should not be permitted to use the materials in any future attempt to re-charge Mr. Comey.
Last weekend, Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary order prohibiting the prosecutors from accessing Mr. Richman’s files as she examined the relevant issues. Mr. Richman had made three claims regarding how the government had infringed upon his rights in the handling of his private data. All of these claims were acknowledged by Judge Kollar-Kotelly in her order issued on Friday.
While the judge’s ruling made it more challenging for prosecutors to utilize Mr. Richman’s files in any subsequent attempt to indict Mr. Comey, it did not render that endeavor entirely impossible. In fact, Judge Kollar-Kotelly aimed to strike a balance between safeguarding Mr. Richman’s rights and the Justice Department’s interests in pursuing criminal charges if they deemed them justified.
Joshua Aaron
Creator of the viral app ICEBlock
Resister
Dec 9 - Joshua Aaron, the creator of the viral app ICEBlock, is accusing the Trump administration of infringing on his free speech rights after Apple removed the app from its store. Aaron, a liberal activist who launched ICEBlock earlier this year, filed a lawsuit against several top administration officials in federal court on Monday. He claims the White House unconstitutionally suppressed his free speech by pressuring Apple to remove the app. The lawsuit argues that Attorney General Pam Bondi’s coercion of Apple censored Aaron and ALL U Chart, Inc., the owner of ICEBlock’s intellectual property, by making the app unavailable to the public. It also notes that this is reportedly the first time Apple has removed a U.S.-based app in response to government demands.
The lawsuit targets Attorney General Pam Bondi, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Border Czar Tom Homan, and other federal officials. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ICEBlock is a crowdsourced app that alerts users when ICE agents or other federal immigration authorities are detected within a five-mile radius, allowing users to share identifying details about the officers. The app gained significant popularity after a CNN profile, growing from 20,000 users in June to over one million by October.
The Trump administration opposed the app, citing increased threats and attacks against ICE agents and arguing that ICEBlock put agents at risk. ICE acting director Todd Lyons criticized CNN for airing a segment about the app, stating it invited violence against law enforcement. By October, the Department of Justice confirmed that Apple had removed the app. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the app was designed to endanger ICE agents and that violence against law enforcement is unacceptable.
The lawsuit targets Attorney General Pam Bondi, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Border Czar Tom Homan, and other federal officials. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ICEBlock is a crowdsourced app that alerts users when ICE agents or other federal immigration authorities are detected within a five-mile radius, allowing users to share identifying details about the officers. The app gained significant popularity after a CNN profile, growing from 20,000 users in June to over one million by October.
The Trump administration opposed the app, citing increased threats and attacks against ICE agents and arguing that ICEBlock put agents at risk. ICE acting director Todd Lyons criticized CNN for airing a segment about the app, stating it invited violence against law enforcement. By October, the Department of Justice confirmed that Apple had removed the app. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the app was designed to endanger ICE agents and that violence against law enforcement is unacceptable.
Grand Jury for US District Court of Eastern Virginia
Grand Jury impaneled by DOJ to indict Letitia James
Resister
Dec 5 - A federal grand jury rejected the Trump administration’s latest attempt to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James, according to two anonymous sources familiar with the proceedings.
On Thursday, a grand jury in Virginia also declined to indict James, marking another setback for the administration’s efforts to pursue criminal cases against President Donald Trump’s political opponents. This is the second time in recent weeks that the case against James, which alleged she falsified mortgage paperwork for property in Norfolk, Virginia, has been dismissed.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the case against James, along with separate charges against former FBI Director James Comey, after ruling that the lead prosecutor, chosen by Trump, had been illegally appointed.
The Justice Department may attempt to indict James a third time. James’ lead defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, stated, “The grand jury’s refusal to re-indict Attorney General James is a decisive rejection of a case that should never have existed in the first place. A federal court threw this case out after President Trump illegally installed a U.S. Attorney to file baseless charges against Attorney General James that career prosecutors refused to bring. This should be the end of this case. If they continue, undeterred by a court ruling and a grand jury’s rejection of the charges, it will be a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.”
On Thursday, a grand jury in Virginia also declined to indict James, marking another setback for the administration’s efforts to pursue criminal cases against President Donald Trump’s political opponents. This is the second time in recent weeks that the case against James, which alleged she falsified mortgage paperwork for property in Norfolk, Virginia, has been dismissed.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the case against James, along with separate charges against former FBI Director James Comey, after ruling that the lead prosecutor, chosen by Trump, had been illegally appointed.
The Justice Department may attempt to indict James a third time. James’ lead defense attorney, Abbe Lowell, stated, “The grand jury’s refusal to re-indict Attorney General James is a decisive rejection of a case that should never have existed in the first place. A federal court threw this case out after President Trump illegally installed a U.S. Attorney to file baseless charges against Attorney General James that career prosecutors refused to bring. This should be the end of this case. If they continue, undeterred by a court ruling and a grand jury’s rejection of the charges, it will be a shocking assault on the rule of law and a devastating blow to the integrity of our justice system.”
District Court Judge Cameron Currie
U.S. District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
Resister
Nov 24 - A federal judge on Monday dismissed the criminal indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The judge found that the prosecutor who brought the cases, former Trump attorney Lindsey Halligan, was not lawfully appointed.
Judge Cameron Currie agreed with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. Since Ms. Halligan lacked lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge granted Mr. Comey’s motion and dismissed the indictment. The judge emphasized that Halligan’s appointment was invalid and she lacked the authority to present a case to a grand jury.
The judge also stated that all actions taken by Ms. Halligan, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power. She described Ms. Halligan as a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience.
The judge issued a separate ruling dismissing the James case.
The ruling highlighted the unique and potentially unprecedented situation presented by the case. It described the unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor, who exercised power she did not lawfully possess, as acting alone in conducting a grand jury proceeding and securing an indictment.
Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed by President Donald Trump, was the sole prosecutor who presented the cases and signed the indictments. Consequently, the judge ruled that the indictments should be voided.
The Justice Department has yet to respond to a request for comment on this ruling.
Both indictments were dismissed “without prejudice,” which means they can be brought again at a later time.
Comey and James have other motions pending before the judges in their cases. These motions contend that the charges should be dismissed because they stem from a “selective and vindictive” prosecution. They seek to have the cases tossed “with prejudice,” which would prevent prosecutors from reviving them.
During a rare joint hearing on the issue on November 13, Currie appeared largely skeptical of the Justice Department’s position. At the hearing, a prosecutor dismissed questions about Halligan’s appointment as a “paperwork error.”
Judge Cameron Currie agreed with Mr. Comey that the Attorney General’s attempt to appoint Ms. Halligan as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid. Since Ms. Halligan lacked lawful authority to present the indictment, the judge granted Mr. Comey’s motion and dismissed the indictment. The judge emphasized that Halligan’s appointment was invalid and she lacked the authority to present a case to a grand jury.
The judge also stated that all actions taken by Ms. Halligan, including securing and signing Mr. Comey’s indictment, were unlawful exercises of executive power. She described Ms. Halligan as a former White House aide with no prior prosecutorial experience.
The judge issued a separate ruling dismissing the James case.
The ruling highlighted the unique and potentially unprecedented situation presented by the case. It described the unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor, who exercised power she did not lawfully possess, as acting alone in conducting a grand jury proceeding and securing an indictment.
Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed by President Donald Trump, was the sole prosecutor who presented the cases and signed the indictments. Consequently, the judge ruled that the indictments should be voided.
The Justice Department has yet to respond to a request for comment on this ruling.
Both indictments were dismissed “without prejudice,” which means they can be brought again at a later time.
Comey and James have other motions pending before the judges in their cases. These motions contend that the charges should be dismissed because they stem from a “selective and vindictive” prosecution. They seek to have the cases tossed “with prejudice,” which would prevent prosecutors from reviving them.
During a rare joint hearing on the issue on November 13, Currie appeared largely skeptical of the Justice Department’s position. At the hearing, a prosecutor dismissed questions about Halligan’s appointment as a “paperwork error.”
District Court Judge Jia M. Cobb
U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia
Resister
Nov 22 - A federal judge on Thursday ordered the end of the months-long National Guard deployment in Washington, D.C., to address crime. The judge declared the use of troops “unlawful.”
This legal challenge follows President Trump’s troop deployments in American cities to suppress protests, combat crime, or protect federal buildings and personnel, including ICE agents.
Just days earlier, a Tennessee state judge issued a temporary block on the mobilization of Guard forces in Memphis, which was activated by the Tennessee governor at Trump’s request. Over the weekend, the Defense Department ordered hundreds of troops to leave Chicago and Portland, Oregon, as federal courts maintained a stalemate on these deployments.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb. Schwalb argued that the president undermined the city’s autonomy, threatened public safety by escalating tensions between local residents and law enforcement, and harmed the city’s economy.
Judge Cobb wrote that the court found the District’s exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction irreparably harmed by the defendants’ actions in deploying the Guards.
Judge Cobb paused her order until December 11 to allow the Trump administration time to appeal.
In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson asserted that President Trump was within his authority to send the Guard to D.C.
Jackson criticized the lawsuit as another attempt to undermine the President’s successful efforts to combat violent crime in Washington, D.C., at the expense of the city’s residents.
In early August, following the declaration of a “crime emergency” in D.C., President Trump deployed hundreds of troops to the city without the mayor’s consent. However, this claim has been repeatedly refuted by local Democratic leaders. Since then, the Guard personnel have primarily been responsible for patrols and beautification tasks, such as clearing trash, spreading mulch, and pruning trees.
As of Wednesday, the deployment of over 2,100 Guard forces from D.C. and several other states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama, is underway in the nation’s capital, according to the U.S. Army.
This legal challenge follows President Trump’s troop deployments in American cities to suppress protests, combat crime, or protect federal buildings and personnel, including ICE agents.
Just days earlier, a Tennessee state judge issued a temporary block on the mobilization of Guard forces in Memphis, which was activated by the Tennessee governor at Trump’s request. Over the weekend, the Defense Department ordered hundreds of troops to leave Chicago and Portland, Oregon, as federal courts maintained a stalemate on these deployments.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, appointed by former President Joe Biden, sided with District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb. Schwalb argued that the president undermined the city’s autonomy, threatened public safety by escalating tensions between local residents and law enforcement, and harmed the city’s economy.
Judge Cobb wrote that the court found the District’s exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction irreparably harmed by the defendants’ actions in deploying the Guards.
Judge Cobb paused her order until December 11 to allow the Trump administration time to appeal.
In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson asserted that President Trump was within his authority to send the Guard to D.C.
Jackson criticized the lawsuit as another attempt to undermine the President’s successful efforts to combat violent crime in Washington, D.C., at the expense of the city’s residents.
In early August, following the declaration of a “crime emergency” in D.C., President Trump deployed hundreds of troops to the city without the mayor’s consent. However, this claim has been repeatedly refuted by local Democratic leaders. Since then, the Guard personnel have primarily been responsible for patrols and beautification tasks, such as clearing trash, spreading mulch, and pruning trees.
As of Wednesday, the deployment of over 2,100 Guard forces from D.C. and several other states, including Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama, is underway in the nation’s capital, according to the U.S. Army.
Rodrick Bray (R)
Indiana State Senate President Pro Tem
Resister
Greg Goode (R)
Indiana State Senator
Resister
Nov 19 - The Indiana State Senate rejected President Donald Trump’s request for a special session to redraw the state’s congressional map before the 2026 midterms. This decision preserves Indiana’s current map and marks another setback for Trump’s national gerrymander efforts.
The proposed December session, which Trump and Governor Mike Braun (R) had strongly advocated for, was defeated with a vote of 29-18. Nineteen Republican senators sided with the Democrats, ensuring that the special session would not proceed.
Earlier, Trump portrayed the Indiana resistance as a personal affront. He expressed disappointment in Indiana State Senate Republicans, particularly RINO Senators Rod Bray and Greg Goode, for not wanting to redistrict their state. Trump threatened to primary any Republican who voted against this crucial redistricting effort.
These threats highlighted the intensity of Trump’s attempts to force Indiana into a mid-decade gerrymander. Indiana already possesses one of the most Republican-leaning congressional maps in the country.
Trump and Braun had hoped that a redraw could expand Indiana’s delegation from 7-2 to 9-0. However, Senate Republicans chose to defy the pressure and oppose the redistricting. Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray (R) had already announced his opposition last week, stating that there were insufficient votes to move forward with the redistricting process.
The proposed December session, which Trump and Governor Mike Braun (R) had strongly advocated for, was defeated with a vote of 29-18. Nineteen Republican senators sided with the Democrats, ensuring that the special session would not proceed.
Earlier, Trump portrayed the Indiana resistance as a personal affront. He expressed disappointment in Indiana State Senate Republicans, particularly RINO Senators Rod Bray and Greg Goode, for not wanting to redistrict their state. Trump threatened to primary any Republican who voted against this crucial redistricting effort.
These threats highlighted the intensity of Trump’s attempts to force Indiana into a mid-decade gerrymander. Indiana already possesses one of the most Republican-leaning congressional maps in the country.
Trump and Braun had hoped that a redraw could expand Indiana’s delegation from 7-2 to 9-0. However, Senate Republicans chose to defy the pressure and oppose the redistricting. Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray (R) had already announced his opposition last week, stating that there were insufficient votes to move forward with the redistricting process.
United States District Court for the Western District Of Texas
Judge Jeffrey V. Brown (Trump appointee) and Judge David C. Guaderrama (Obama appointee). (The dissenting judge is a Reagan appointee)
Resister
Nov 18 - A federal court in Texas on Tuesday blocked the state’s newly redrawn and Republican-friendly congressional map from taking effect in the 2026 midterm elections. This decision significantly impacts Texas Republicans and President Trump’s efforts to secure Democratic seats in the state.
The panel of three federal judges in El Paso, in a 2-to-1 decision, sided with civil rights groups who had filed a lawsuit to invalidate the map. This map was part of Texas’s aggressive mid-decade push to redraw congressional boundaries at the behest of Mr. Trump.
The court issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the use of the map drawn this summer, and ordered that the 2026 congressional election in Texas proceed under the map enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2021.
Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, appointed by Mr. Trump in 2019, authored a 160-page opinion in which he found substantial evidence suggesting that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map. The court cited a July letter from the Justice Department to Texas lawmakers, which focused on the racial composition of districts. The letter argued that the state’s 2021 map was unconstitutional because it included districts where no ethnic group had an outright majority. However, the court dismissed this assertion as “legally incorrect.”
Judge Brown was joined by Judge David C. Guaderrama, appointed by former President Barack Obama. Judge Jerry Smith, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, dissented from the decision.
Civil rights leaders who initiated the lawsuit celebrated the court’s decision on Tuesday.
Robert Weiner, the director of the voting rights project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling. He emphasized that it represents a victory for Black voters and other communities of color in Texas. Weiner further stated that it is a clear violation of the Constitution to intentionally dismantle districts where Black and Brown voters collectively constitute a majority. He condemned this as “discrimination by design” and declared it illegal.
The panel of three federal judges in El Paso, in a 2-to-1 decision, sided with civil rights groups who had filed a lawsuit to invalidate the map. This map was part of Texas’s aggressive mid-decade push to redraw congressional boundaries at the behest of Mr. Trump.
The court issued a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the use of the map drawn this summer, and ordered that the 2026 congressional election in Texas proceed under the map enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2021.
Judge Jeffrey V. Brown, appointed by Mr. Trump in 2019, authored a 160-page opinion in which he found substantial evidence suggesting that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map. The court cited a July letter from the Justice Department to Texas lawmakers, which focused on the racial composition of districts. The letter argued that the state’s 2021 map was unconstitutional because it included districts where no ethnic group had an outright majority. However, the court dismissed this assertion as “legally incorrect.”
Judge Brown was joined by Judge David C. Guaderrama, appointed by former President Barack Obama. Judge Jerry Smith, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, dissented from the decision.
Civil rights leaders who initiated the lawsuit celebrated the court’s decision on Tuesday.
Robert Weiner, the director of the voting rights project at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling. He emphasized that it represents a victory for Black voters and other communities of color in Texas. Weiner further stated that it is a clear violation of the Constitution to intentionally dismantle districts where Black and Brown voters collectively constitute a majority. He condemned this as “discrimination by design” and declared it illegal.
Judge Sara Ellis
US District Judge of the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Resister
Nov 7 - A federal judge on Thursday delivered a scathing condemnation of the use of force in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign in this city. She accused officers of unnecessarily terrorizing local residents who had sought peaceful protests or documented their actions.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis presented several instances of what she deemed excessive force, contradicting statements from federal authorities who defended the actions of immigration officers who employed tear gas, pepper spray, or other nonlethal crowd control measures.
These incidents followed the judge’s previous decision last month to issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting officers from using chemical munitions against nonviolent demonstrators and journalists.
Ellis expressed her disbelief in the defendants’ evidence, questioning the overall actions of the defendants. She emphasized that the government’s use of force appears to be arbitrary and unrelated to any specific threat. Ellis found the current use of force by federal agents shocking and unconscionable.
As she issued a longer-term preliminary injunction, Ellis prohibited immigration officers involved in “Operation Midway Blitz,” a large-scale enforcement operation launched by the Trump administration in September, from using tear gas and pepper spray on individuals who pose no threat.
This injunction, which also mandates the use of body cameras, replaces the temporary restraining order issued by Ellis in early October. It will remain in effect while a court challenge brought by a nonprofit journalism organization is being litigated. The judge declined to stay the ruling pending a potential appeal from the government.
This case has emerged as a pivotal test case regarding whether the administration is infringing upon the free speech rights of protesters opposing President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign or employing reasonable force against individuals who cross the line into threats and violence directed at law enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis presented several instances of what she deemed excessive force, contradicting statements from federal authorities who defended the actions of immigration officers who employed tear gas, pepper spray, or other nonlethal crowd control measures.
These incidents followed the judge’s previous decision last month to issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting officers from using chemical munitions against nonviolent demonstrators and journalists.
Ellis expressed her disbelief in the defendants’ evidence, questioning the overall actions of the defendants. She emphasized that the government’s use of force appears to be arbitrary and unrelated to any specific threat. Ellis found the current use of force by federal agents shocking and unconscionable.
As she issued a longer-term preliminary injunction, Ellis prohibited immigration officers involved in “Operation Midway Blitz,” a large-scale enforcement operation launched by the Trump administration in September, from using tear gas and pepper spray on individuals who pose no threat.
This injunction, which also mandates the use of body cameras, replaces the temporary restraining order issued by Ellis in early October. It will remain in effect while a court challenge brought by a nonprofit journalism organization is being litigated. The judge declined to stay the ruling pending a potential appeal from the government.
This case has emerged as a pivotal test case regarding whether the administration is infringing upon the free speech rights of protesters opposing President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign or employing reasonable force against individuals who cross the line into threats and violence directed at law enforcement.
Judge David M. Gandin
Ulster County Judge, New York
Resister
Nov 1 - A judge in New York State dismissed a lawsuit on Friday, marking the first legal challenge by a conservative state against shield laws. These laws aim to safeguard healthcare providers who send abortion pills to patients in states with abortion bans.
The lawsuit, filed in July by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, sought to compel a New York court to enforce an order from a Texas judge. This order stemmed from a case filed last year against a New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to a patient in Texas. The order imposed a $113,000 penalty on Dr. Margaret Carpenter and prohibited her from continuing to send abortion medication to Texas.
Earlier this year, Mr. Paxton’s efforts were thwarted by the acting clerk of Ulster County, New York. The clerk, Taylor Bruck, declined to accept Mr. Paxton’s legal filing, citing New York’s shield law. This law is designed to protect healthcare providers who prescribe abortion pills through telemedicine and send them to patients in states with abortion bans.
Shield laws, which have been adopted in some form by approximately 20 states, prevent authorities from complying with subpoenas, extradition requests, and other legal actions taken by other states against abortion providers. These laws represent a significant departure from the usual interstate cooperation in legal matters.
On Friday, Ulster County Judge David M. Gandin dismissed Mr. Paxton’s lawsuit against Mr. Bruck. The judge ruled that the lawsuit failed to present sufficient allegations to establish a violation of lawful procedure or an error of law.
Judge Gandin explained that since the medical services provided by Dr. Carpenter are legal in New York State, her actions fall within the definition of “legally protected health activity” under the shield law. He emphasized that her activities were precisely the type of conduct the shield law was intended to protect.
The lawsuit, filed in July by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, sought to compel a New York court to enforce an order from a Texas judge. This order stemmed from a case filed last year against a New York doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to a patient in Texas. The order imposed a $113,000 penalty on Dr. Margaret Carpenter and prohibited her from continuing to send abortion medication to Texas.
Earlier this year, Mr. Paxton’s efforts were thwarted by the acting clerk of Ulster County, New York. The clerk, Taylor Bruck, declined to accept Mr. Paxton’s legal filing, citing New York’s shield law. This law is designed to protect healthcare providers who prescribe abortion pills through telemedicine and send them to patients in states with abortion bans.
Shield laws, which have been adopted in some form by approximately 20 states, prevent authorities from complying with subpoenas, extradition requests, and other legal actions taken by other states against abortion providers. These laws represent a significant departure from the usual interstate cooperation in legal matters.
On Friday, Ulster County Judge David M. Gandin dismissed Mr. Paxton’s lawsuit against Mr. Bruck. The judge ruled that the lawsuit failed to present sufficient allegations to establish a violation of lawful procedure or an error of law.
Judge Gandin explained that since the medical services provided by Dr. Carpenter are legal in New York State, her actions fall within the definition of “legally protected health activity” under the shield law. He emphasized that her activities were precisely the type of conduct the shield law was intended to protect.
John Dickerson
CBS News Anchor and Journalist
Resister
Oct 27 - CBS News anchor John Dickerson, a longtime journalist, has become the latest high-profile figure to leave the network. This announcement comes amidst concerns about the network’s ownership and its ability to maintain editorial independence.
Dickerson, who has been with CBS News for over 16 years, has held various roles, including moderating Face the Nation and serving as chief political analyst. He announced his resignation on Instagram, effective at the end of the year, and shared the news during a morning meeting of CBS Evening News staff.
CBS News staffers expressed their reactions to Bari Weiss’s appointment as editor-in-chief, describing it as “utterly depressing.”
Dickerson expressed his gratitude for the opportunities and experiences he’s had at CBS, including the work, audience attention, and the honor of being part of the network’s history. He also thanked his colleagues for helping him become a better journalist and a better person.
Bari Weiss, the new CBS News editor-in-chief, is expected to revamp the evening news program. She’s been actively searching for a new anchor and has shown interest in Bret Baier, an anchor on the right-wing Fox News. However, Baier is currently under contract with Fox for several more years.
Dickerson’s departure from the network follows Shari Redstone’s settlement of a lawsuit with the Trump administration over a 60 Minutes interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. While legal experts deemed the lawsuit to have little merit, Redstone required approval from federal regulators to sell the company to an entertainment company backed by billionaire Larry Ellison.
Some observers and CBS employees perceive Dickerson’s departure as a move by Redstone to appease Trump and prioritize her business interests over journalistic integrity.
Away from the news division, the network abruptly announced the cancellation of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert shortly before Paramount’s takeover by Skydance Media was finalized. This decision sparked widespread criticism.
Despite the criticism, regulators ultimately approved the deal. However, the network’s new CEO, David Ellison, has also faced criticism for hiring a Trump ally as the network’s ombudsman and appointing Weiss, who lacks broadcast journalism experience and has frequently criticized news organizations like the New York Times, as the editor-in-chief.
In April, a longtime 60 Minutes executive producer left the network, citing a loss of journalistic independence. In May, the president and chief executive officer of CBS News resigned, stating that there was a clear disagreement between the company and her regarding the future direction.
Dickerson, who has been with CBS News for over 16 years, has held various roles, including moderating Face the Nation and serving as chief political analyst. He announced his resignation on Instagram, effective at the end of the year, and shared the news during a morning meeting of CBS Evening News staff.
CBS News staffers expressed their reactions to Bari Weiss’s appointment as editor-in-chief, describing it as “utterly depressing.”
Dickerson expressed his gratitude for the opportunities and experiences he’s had at CBS, including the work, audience attention, and the honor of being part of the network’s history. He also thanked his colleagues for helping him become a better journalist and a better person.
Bari Weiss, the new CBS News editor-in-chief, is expected to revamp the evening news program. She’s been actively searching for a new anchor and has shown interest in Bret Baier, an anchor on the right-wing Fox News. However, Baier is currently under contract with Fox for several more years.
Dickerson’s departure from the network follows Shari Redstone’s settlement of a lawsuit with the Trump administration over a 60 Minutes interview with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris. While legal experts deemed the lawsuit to have little merit, Redstone required approval from federal regulators to sell the company to an entertainment company backed by billionaire Larry Ellison.
Some observers and CBS employees perceive Dickerson’s departure as a move by Redstone to appease Trump and prioritize her business interests over journalistic integrity.
Away from the news division, the network abruptly announced the cancellation of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert shortly before Paramount’s takeover by Skydance Media was finalized. This decision sparked widespread criticism.
Despite the criticism, regulators ultimately approved the deal. However, the network’s new CEO, David Ellison, has also faced criticism for hiring a Trump ally as the network’s ombudsman and appointing Weiss, who lacks broadcast journalism experience and has frequently criticized news organizations like the New York Times, as the editor-in-chief.
In April, a longtime 60 Minutes executive producer left the network, citing a loss of journalistic independence. In May, the president and chief executive officer of CBS News resigned, stating that there was a clear disagreement between the company and her regarding the future direction.
Elizabeth Yusi
Federal Prosecutor in the Norfolk Office of the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia
Resister
Oct 17 - Federal prosecutor Elizabeth Yusi and her deputy were fired by President Trump, according to three individuals familiar with the matter. This dismissal comes as the latest fallout from career Justice Department officials’ attempts to hinder President Trump’s efforts to seek retribution against his perceived political opponents.
Ms. Yusi, who oversaw significant criminal cases in the Norfolk office of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia, had initially resisted President Trump’s public calls for the indictment of New York State Attorney General Letitia James. She had informed her colleagues that she lacked probable cause to file charges. The reason for her deputy, Kristin G. Bird’s, firing remains unclear.
The Justice Department has yet to respond to a request for comment.
Despite the concerns raised by career prosecutors about the case, President Trump’s inexperienced handpicked choice, Lindsey Halligan, led to the indictment of Ms. James last week. The indictment accused Ms. James of mortgage fraud. It alleged that she had falsely claimed in loan documents that she would use a Norfolk, Virginia, home as a secondary residence but instead used it as a rental property. This allowed her to secure favorable terms that saved her approximately $19,000.
Ms. Yusi, who oversaw significant criminal cases in the Norfolk office of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia, had initially resisted President Trump’s public calls for the indictment of New York State Attorney General Letitia James. She had informed her colleagues that she lacked probable cause to file charges. The reason for her deputy, Kristin G. Bird’s, firing remains unclear.
The Justice Department has yet to respond to a request for comment.
Despite the concerns raised by career prosecutors about the case, President Trump’s inexperienced handpicked choice, Lindsey Halligan, led to the indictment of Ms. James last week. The indictment accused Ms. James of mortgage fraud. It alleged that she had falsely claimed in loan documents that she would use a Norfolk, Virginia, home as a secondary residence but instead used it as a rental property. This allowed her to secure favorable terms that saved her approximately $19,000.
Email Us With Your Ideas and Feedback xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send me periodic Email Reminders with the link to this website