The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has sidelined a lawyer involved in a deportation case deemed “wholly lawless” by a judge. This action highlights a concerning trend of prioritizing loyalty over legal integrity within the administration. The lawyer, in his attempts to fulfill his duties, truthfully answered questions posed by the judge regarding the deportation. These answers apparently revealed a lack of evidence justifying the detention and deportation, exposing the questionable legality of the government’s actions.
The lawyer’s honest responses, instead of being praised for their transparency and adherence to legal ethics, resulted in him being placed on leave. This suggests that the administration values unwavering support above accurate reporting and the pursuit of justice.… Continue reading
Judge Alsup denied the Trump administration’s request to stay his order reinstating thousands of unlawfully fired probationary federal employees. The judge cited the increasing difficulty of reinstatement with each passing day and the government’s attempts to obstruct the legal process. Alsup deemed the administration’s mass firings a sham, designed to circumvent statutory requirements, and rejected the DOJ’s arguments regarding administrative burdens and speculative harm claims. He emphasized that OPM cannot direct agencies to fire employees under the guise of guidance, and the administration’s refusal to provide testimony further demonstrated its obstructive tactics. The DOJ intends to appeal the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.
Read More
In a rare address at the Department of Justice, President Trump urged investigations into Democrats, nonprofits suing his administration, and news organizations, framing it as a mandate from his 2024 election victory. He attacked the judiciary for prosecuting him, praising loyalist appointees within the DOJ while denouncing perceived political bias in the courts and media. Trump explicitly called for a crackdown on perceived enemies, including specific individuals and organizations, claiming their actions are illegal and part of a coordinated effort to undermine him. His remarks marked a significant departure from traditional DOJ independence, with the Attorney General publicly endorsing him as “the greatest president.”
Read More
The Department of Justice has expanded the scope of President Trump’s Jan. 6 pardons to encompass related gun and drug charges stemming from FBI searches conducted during the investigation. This interpretation covers cases like those against Elias Costianes and Daniel Ball, who faced separate gun charges after their arrests for involvement in the Capitol riot. Prosecutors have moved to dismiss these additional charges, citing the pardons’ applicability to offenses connected to the Jan. 6 events. This broader application of the pardons marks a significant shift from the DOJ’s initial stance.
Read More
President Trump ordered the dismissal of all remaining U.S. attorneys appointed by the Biden administration, citing unprecedented politicization of the Justice Department. This action, while unusual in its abruptness, follows Trump’s campaign promise to depoliticize the DOJ and comes after several Biden-appointed attorneys resigned or were terminated last week. The dismissals represent a significant shakeup within the department, with Trump replacing them with his own nominees requiring Senate confirmation. Trump’s critics, however, express concerns about the ongoing politicization of the Justice Department under his administration.
Read More
Trump’s reported instruction to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to terminate all remaining Biden-era US attorneys is a significant and controversial move. The sheer scale of the action—a complete dismissal of all holdovers from the previous administration—immediately raises concerns about its legality and its implications for the rule of law.
The immediate reaction suggests widespread alarm. Many view this as a blatant power grab, an ideological purge designed to install loyalists and silence dissenting voices within the department. Such a drastic measure, critics argue, risks undermining the independence of the DOJ, a critical institution for upholding the justice system.
The comparison to historical events, both domestic and international, is frequently drawn.… Continue reading
In response to concerns over the safety of FBI employees, a court order prevents the Department of Justice from publicly releasing a list of agents involved in January 6th investigations, including those working on the Trump case. This agreement, reached after a lawsuit filed by FBI employees and their union, mandates a two-day notice period before any dissemination of the list to any entity, including the White House or DOJ itself. The order stems from fears of targeted harassment and violence should the identities of these agents be revealed. This temporary measure allows the court to further consider the matter before a final ruling on a preliminary injunction.
Read More
Attorney General Pam Bondi issued multiple memos outlining new DOJ policies, including reviving the death penalty, targeting sanctuary cities, and enforcing a return-to-office mandate. A particularly striking memo targets private sector Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, potentially subjecting them to criminal investigation. This action, based on a dubious interpretation of the *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard* ruling, threatens First Amendment rights by suppressing speech and association related to DEIA. The memo directs investigations and potential criminal penalties against companies with DEIA programs, potentially leading to immediate legal challenges.
Read More
Two lawsuits allege that the Department of Justice (DOJ) violated FBI agents’ First Amendment rights and the Privacy Act by compiling and circulating their identities in connection with January 6th and classified documents investigations. Agents fear potential retaliation, including termination, demotion, or denial of opportunities, from both direct Trump-related actions and indirect actions by DOJ loyalists potentially sharing this information with his supporters. The lawsuits aim to prevent further collection and dissemination of this sensitive information. The FBI Agents Association is also involved, amplifying concerns about the potential exposure of agents’ personal information and the risk of reprisal.
Read More
Nine anonymous FBI agents filed a class-action lawsuit against the Justice Department, alleging an unlawful, retaliatory directive from President Trump to remove agents involved in the January 6th Capitol riot and Mar-a-Lago investigations. The suit cites a DOJ questionnaire targeting thousands of agents, potentially leading to termination or endangering agents and their families due to threats from pardoned January 6th defendants. A second lawsuit, involving the FBI Agents Association and seven additional anonymous agents, followed, similarly accusing the DOJ of mass, unlawful terminations. These actions are viewed as retaliation for agents fulfilling their duties.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker