Trump Litigation Updates

@trumplitigation.lawfaremedia.org

1472 Followers 9 Following

Real time updates of @lawfaremedia.org's coverage of the Trump administration’s legal challenges

1. Petitioner Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s Petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 at ECF No. 1 is hereby GRANTED; 2. Respondents SHALL release Abrego Garcia from ICE custody immediately; 3. Respondents SHALL notify Abrego Garcia’s counsel of the exact time and location of his release no fewer than four hours prior to releasing him, and notify the Court of the status of Abrego Garcia’s release by email to chambers no later than 5:00 p.m. today, Thursday, December 11, 2025; 4. A representative of the United States Pretrial Services Office for this District SHALL separately contact Abrego Garcia’s criminal counsel with further instruction for installation on the release conditions previously imposed in his criminal case, United States v. Abrego Garcia, No. 3:25-CR-00115-1 (M.D. Tenn.);
After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority under 10 U.S.C. § 12406(3), which authorizes the federalization of the National Guard when “the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” The evidence the President relied on reflects a “colorable assessment of the facts and law within a ‘range of honest judgment.’” Newsom v. Trump, 141 F.4th 1032, 1051 (9th Cir. 2025) (per curiam) (quoting Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 399 (1932)). We thus conclude that Defendants are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal, and that the other stay factors weigh in their favor. We grant Defendants’ motion for a stay pending appeal.
1. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants,1 their officers, agents, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them (hereafter referred to as “Federal Agents”), are temporarily ENJOINED in this judicial district from: a. Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime. Defendants may order a Journalist to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement,
V. Conclusion For all these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to certification of their proposed class of certain unaccompanied alien children from Guatemala and to a preliminary injunction. Thus, the Court will grant their motion for class certification and provisionally certify the class described above. In addition, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. And it will order that Defendants, their agents, representatives, and all persons or entities in concert with them are enjoined from transferring, repatriating, removing, or otherwise facilitating the transport of any Plaintiff—including both named Plaintiffs and all members of the provisionally certified class—from the United States. Finally, the Court will require Plaintiffs to post a $1.00 nominal bond by September 22, 2025. /s/ Timothy J. Kelly TIMOTHY J. KELLY United States District Judge
ORDER For the reasons stated in the court’s Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 50, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff Sara Aviel’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 35, is GRANTED and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 40, is DENIED. It is further DECLARED that the purported removal of Sara Aviel from the Inter-American Foundation (the “IAF”) by President Trump and Pete Marocco was unlawful under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (“FVRA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq., and was therefore without legal effect. It is further DECLARED that members of the IAF Board may not be appointed except in accordance with Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It is further DECLARED that the FVRA does not permit the appointment of acting Board members to the IAF Board. It is further DECLARED that Sara Aviel remains the rightful president and chief executive officer (“CEO”) of the IAF and that she may only be removed by a properly constituted Board of the IAF. It is further
The government appealed the probable-cause order and moved for an emergency stay or a writ of mandamus terminating the criminal-contempt proceedings. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal. This Court granted an administrative stay pending consideration of these motions. We grant the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949); I.A.M. Nat’l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 789 F.2d 21, 24 (D.C.Cir. 1986). The panel is unanimous on this point. Judge Katsas and Judge Rao conclude that the government has satisfied the stringent requirements for a writ of mandamus. The Court therefore grants the government’s petition for mandamus and vacates the district court’s probable-cause order. Judge Pillard dissents from the grant of mandamus and the vacatur.
LINDA MCMAHON, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL. v. NEW YORK, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [July 14, 2025] The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her eferred to the Court is granted. The May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 1:25–cv–10601, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. This case arises out of the President’s unilateral efforts to eliminate a Cabinet-level agency established by Congress nearly half a century ago: the Department of Education. As Congress mandated, the Department plays a vital role in this Nation’s education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has thepower to abolish the Department.
Cite as: 606 U. S. ____ (2025) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24A1153 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. D.V.D., ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [June 23, 2025] The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court is granted. The April 18, 2025, preliminary injunction of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 25–cv– 10676, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of the Court. JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
This case indisputably presents a question of paramount importance and urgency: whether IEEPA authorizes tariffs. That pure question of law, implicating core separation-of-powers concerns, is in fact the only merits question that the government believes courts have the power to answer. It will inevitably fall to this Court to resolve it definitively. In light of the tariffs’ massive impact on virtually every business and consumer across the Nation, and the unremitting whiplash caused by the unfettered tariffing power the President claims, challenges to the IEEPA tariffs cannot await the normal appellate process (even on an expedited timeline). This Court should grant certiorari before judgment now so this case can be briefed over the summer and argued as soon as possible.
IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order. • Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles. • Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom. • The Court further STAYS this order until noon on June 13, 2025.
2. In February 2025, the State Department entered into an agreement or series of agreements with El Salvador pursuant to which the United States government has disappeared individuals living in the United States into confinement in El Salvador (“the Agreement”). 3. Under the Agreement, El Salvador has committed to accept individuals rendered from the United States and to hold them, incommunicado and potentially indefinitely, in facilities that are internationally infamous for human rights abuses. In exchange, the United States has agreed to pay fees to El Salvador. 4. Pursuant to the Agreement, the United States has already rendered hundreds of people to facilities in El Salvador. The United States has taken the position that once it has done so, it no longer exercises any control over the treatment of the rendered individuals or when they are ultimately released—if indeed they ever are. 5. Executive branch leaders have stated that the government plans to continue availing itself of the Agreement, sending more people, including potentially U.S. citizens, to indefinite detention in what is an effective black site.