By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee | Wednesday, April 16 |
|
|
By Zach Schonfeld and Ella Lee Wednesday, April 16 |
|
|
© (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) |
Biden Obama judges oversee Trump cases |
The Gavel has broken down the more than 200 lawsuits challenging major Trump administration actions and found that most of the cases — 72 percent — have been assigned by judges appointed by a Democratic president. The bulk of those cases are being overseen by those appointed by some of President Trump's top political foes — former Presidents Obama and Biden. The judges don't always rule against Trump, but their flood of injunctions — and plaintiffs' attempt to bring their cases in favorable courts — has led Trump to lash out by calling many of them Democratic activists and insisting they don't have the power to tell him how to conduct his administration's business. Here's the full breakdown of judges, by which president appointed them: • Trump: 33 • Biden: 69 • Obama: 66 • W. Bush: 16 • Clinton: 26 • H.W. Bush: 2 • Reagan: 12 The skew is no accident. Plaintiffs are regularly filing their lawsuits in "friendly" courts along the coasts in places like Boston, San Francisco and Seattle, where suits have a higher chance of being assigned to a Democratic appointee. Long gone are the days when North Texas's single-judge divisions were the epicenter of politically charged lawsuits during the Biden administration. Here's a look at the most common venues: • District of Columbia: 107 • District of Massachusetts: 23 • District of Maryland: 19 • Western District of Washington: 10 • Northern District of California: 9 • Southern District of New York: 9 The lack of balance also reflects recent presidents' focus on appointing judges to the federal bench. After Trump appointed 234 federal judges during his first term, Biden eked out just ahead by appointing 235, making diversity a priority in the process. But just because a judge was appointed by a Democrat or a Republican doesn't necessarily dictate how they'll rule. Trump has had his fair share of losses handed down by his own appointees — and wins from judges appointed by president's from the opposing party. As Chief Justice John Roberts argued in 2018: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." |
|
|
J6ers mad at Trump admin; Abrego Garcia judge goes off on DOJ |
J6ers vexed with Trump officials |
Trump's honeymoon period with the Jan. 6 defendants he granted sweeping clemency is over. "J6ers" and their advocates are growing increasingly vexed with the Trump administration because they don't believe it's delivering on his campaign promise of payback for their prosecutions. Trump's path to the White House was paved with promises of retribution against those he said weaponized the justice system against him and his supporters, including those prosecuted and convicted over their roles in storming the Capitol. It's spanned from exhaustive pardons to prosecuting the prosecutors and investigating the investigators. While the president made good on his vows for Jan. 6 clemency, pardoning more than 1,500 people and commuting others' sentences on his first day back in office, Jan. 6 defendants and their supporters are growing restless because they want the White House to hold accountable those who sent some of them to prison. Some, they say, should face counts of treason. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel are at the center of the storm. Suzzanne Monk, founder of the J6 Pardon Project, has started tracking on X how many Jan. 6 defendants had been arrested by this point in Biden's presidency. She told The Gavel in an interview that she began sharing the comparisons to shut down suggestions that they "need to wait" for criminal cases to materialize when the Biden administration "marched in" right after Trump left office. In the replies to her post, she said she would continue posting the stats "until we see action from the Bondi crew." The frustration against Trump's top law enforcement officials has split some of the president's loudest advocates. When Patel tapped an agency veteran involved in Jan. 6 prosecutions to run the FBI's Washington field office, the Jan. 6 community exploded in outrage online. Meanwhile, mainstream MAGA influencers like Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump Jr., the president's son, shared an article suggesting the frustrations were "manufactured outrage." "This is not manufactured outrage!!!" Richard "Bigo" Barnett, a rioter who lounged in then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) office that day, wrote on X. "We suffered greatly and to say so is a slap in our face!" He questioned Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino's lack of communication with the pardoned rioters. "We want justice! We want the promises made kept! We stood! We showed up when Donald asked! We have seen nothing," Barnett said. Want to read more about the breakdown between Trump's top officials and devoted Jan. 6 followers? Click here for the full story. |
Trump, Bukele leave Abrego Garcia judge without answers |
Trump's meeting with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele this week provided few answers to the federal judge overseeing the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported to El Salvador, she signaled during a hearing Tuesday. "This is all two very misguided ships passing in the night," U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis described the Trump-Bukele Oval Office meeting at a court hearing in Greenbelt, Md. For days, Xinis has demanded information on how the administration was complying with her order to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return, as upheld by the Supreme Court last week. The judge appeared irritated at Tuesday's hearing, saying the administration had provided her "nothing." Moments before the hearing, the government filed with the court the transcript of the on-camera Oval Office meeting, where both Trump and Bukele said they wouldn't return the man. "I don't consider the transcript that you gave me 15 minutes ago to be answering the questions. I just don't," said Xinis, an appointee of Obama. The judge also said Bukele's comments were a "nonresponsive answer if that were in a court of law." "Whatever you wish for me to take from it, it is not a direct response, nor is the quip about smuggling someone into the United States," she said in a reference to Bukele blowing off the notion of returning the man in the U.S., saying it would amount to smuggling him out of his home country. Xinis is still mulling whether to hold the administration in contempt, but she on Tuesday ordered four Trump administration officials who submitted affidavits in the case to sit for depositions in the next week. The officials are: Joseph Mazzara, acting general counsel at the Department of Homeland Security Evan Katz, assistant director of enforcement and removal operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Robert Cerna, acting field office director of enforcement and removal operations, ICE Michael Kozak, senior bureau official in the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the State Department One thing to watch: Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign suggested the government may invoke a privilege to block Mazzara's deposition or attempt to appeal the judge's order. |
In conversation: The lawyer suing Trump over tariffs |
Trump's tariffs are increasingly landing in the courts, with conservative interests leading the charge. The broadest case challenges the president's "Liberation Day" tariffs that imposed a 10 percent baseline tariff on foreign imports and added steeper reciprocal tariffs on dozens of nations. Trump has since paused some of the tariffs. The challenge is being brought by the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian public-interest firm that regularly champions conservative causes. We caught up with Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at the center who is leading the case, about why he believes Trump is encroaching on Congress's authority. "This is a huge, huge amount of power," Schwab told us. "It means that the president has the power to tariff anybody, anytime he wants, for any reason that he wants, and that just can't be." The center is perhaps most well-known for winning a 2018 Supreme Court case that held states could not mandate non-union government workers pay union dues. Earlier this year, it also represented a group of content creators at the Supreme Court in their unsuccessful attempt to strike down the federal TikTok ban. Now, the group is representing five small businesses who are raising alarm about covering the costs of Trump's tariffs. The lead plaintiff is V.O.S. Selections, which offers wines, spirits and sakes from 16 different countries. "You can't say that a wine in California is the same as a Bordeaux wine," Schwab said. Trump justified the tariffs by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which gives the president authority to impose necessary economic sanctions to combat an "unusual and extraordinary threat." Trump has justified the move by citing trade deficits with other countries. "We've had a trade deficit for like, 50 years, at least, and so it's a surprise" said Schwab. "It's a little weird to say that it's an emergency." |
|
|
Here are this week's relisted petitions. Check back next week to see if the justices take up any of the cases: |
The Supreme Court's April session kicks off later this week. Before oral arguments resume next week, the justices will hand down opinions Thursday at 10 a.m. EDT before convening for their closed-door conference to discuss the latest petitions. We've got our eye on one in particular. The Justice Department has asked the high court to take up its appeal of a ruling that allows a Black woman landlord to seek damages from the federal government over claims the U.S. Postal Service intentionally refused to deliver mail to two addresses she leased. Lebene Konan, the landlord, says two USPS employees withheld the mail because they didn't "like the idea that a black person own[ed]" the properties in Euless, Texas. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously allowed Konan's lawsuit to proceed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Ordinarily, citizens cannot file a tort lawsuit against the U.S. government to recover damages. But the FTCA provides an exception when a federal employee commits a "wrongful or negligent act" within their official duties. Just one problem, the Justice Department says. The FTCA does not apply to any claim "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter." This Court's review is warranted to resolve that circuit conflict. Review is also warranted because the Fifth Circuit's decision threatens to inflict substantial practical harms on USPS and the United States. "Under the logic of the Fifth Circuit's decision, any person whose mail is lost or misdelivered could bring a federal tort suit—and potentially proceed to burdensome discovery—so long as she alleges that a USPS employee acted intentionally. Congress enacted the postal exception specifically to protect the critical function of mail delivery from such disruptive litigation," the Justice Department wrote in its petition. Check back next week to see if the Supreme Court takes up USPS v. Konan. Konan has also filed her own petition, seeking to revive her additional equal protection argument that was rejected by the lower courts. One other new relist to watch— First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin. The dispute arises from New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin's (D) subpoena to the anti-abortion group under the threat of judicial sanctions. Represented by conservative Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, the group is asking the high court to take a look at their failed attempt to bring a First Amendment challenge to the subpoena. |
|
|
Don't be surprised if additional hearings are scheduled throughout the week. But here's what we're watching for now: |
- A federal judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit seeking to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from disclosing tax return information to immigration enforcement.
- Another Washington, D.C., federal judge is set to hold a summary judgment hearing in a challenge to the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to access the U.S. African Development Foundation's headquarters.
- A Washington D.C., federal judge will hold a temporary restraining order hearing in a challenge to DOGE's takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace.
|
- The Supreme Court will hand down opinions at 10 a.m.
- A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is set to hear arguments in the government's appeal of a judge's order directing the Trump administration to restore The Associated Press's access to key White House spaces.
- A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge by 21 Democratic state attorneys generals to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)'s suspension of $11 billion in public health funding because it was appropriated through COVID-19 related laws.
- Another Washington, D.C., federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit over Trump's executive order dismantling the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the emails terminating staff.
- Another Washington, D.C., federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit over Trump's executive order dismantling the U.S. Agency for Global Media and the emails terminating staff.
- A New Hampshire federal judge is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a challenge to the Education Department's Feb. 14 "Dear Colleague" letter warning schools of funding cuts if diversity, equity and inclusion efforts persist.
- Federal judges in Washington state and Arizona are set to hold temporary restraining order hearings in challenges to terminations of Student and Exchange Visitor Program records.
|
- A federal judge in Rhode Island is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit focused on three of seven agencies — the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service — targeted by an executive order, brought by 21 Democratic state attorneys general.
- A Baltimore federal judge will hold a preliminary injunction hearing over a challenge to the Education Department's warning to universities that they will face funding cuts if diversity, equity and inclusion programs persist.
- A federal judge in Chicago will hold a temporary restraining order hearing in a challenge to a SEVIS record termination.
|
- The Supreme Court will announce orders.
- The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether the structure of HHS's Preventive Services Task Force violates the Appointments Clause.
- The justices will also hear oral arguments over whether a late notice of appeal needs to be refiled after the judge reopens the window.
|
- The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments over whether a Maryland county has violated the First Amendment by not giving parents an opt-out option from LGBTQ-inclusive books in elementary school.
- The justices will also hear oral arguments over whether the government's decision to terminate efforts to levy a taxpayer's property moots certain proceedings.
- A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments in the government's appeal of a judge's order indefinitely blocking implementation of Trump's executive order effectively barring transgender people from serving openly in the military.
- A federal judge in New Hampshire is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a Dartmouth College computer science doctoral student's challenge to the termination of his Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS) record.
- A federal judge in New York is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing regarding a class-action habeas petition filed by two Venezuelan men in immigration custody who were threatened with removal under the Alien Enemies Act.
|
|
|
We'll be back next Wednesday with additional reporting and insights. In the meantime, keep up with our coverage here. |
400 N Capitol Street NW Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001
Copyright © 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment