A New York judge has dismissed a legal challenge from Texas attempting to enforce a civil judgment against a doctor who prescribed abortion pills via telemedicine. The Texas Attorney General sought to enforce the judgment against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, but the Ulster County Clerk refused, citing New York’s shield law protecting providers from out-of-state actions. Justice David Gandin ruled in favor of the clerk, stating the medical services were legal in New York and protected under the shield law. This ruling serves as a precedent for the state’s shield law, and the Texas Attorney General’s office has not yet commented on whether the case will be appealed.
Read More
In response to the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard members to Oregon, a federal judge issued a new, broader order preventing any National Guard members from being relocated from any state for federal service in Oregon. The judge found the administration was directly violating her prior order, which found no justification for federalized military presence in the state, particularly after learning that California and Texas National Guard members were being sent. The judge argued that the administration lacked a legal basis for bringing federalized National Guard members into Oregon, further asserting that there was no threat of rebellion or other valid reason for the deployments. Ultimately, the judge’s ruling was based on her prior findings that there was no credible legal justification for the deployment of National Guard members in Portland, and the court found the reassignment of National Guard members appeared to violate both federal law and the 10th Amendment.
Read More
US appeals court rejects Trump bid to oust Fed’s Lisa Cook, and it feels like a very important moment in a longer story. The core of this is that a federal court has just said “no” to Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve board. It’s not just a formality either; the court ruled the removal was illegal and has put her back in her position. It really underscores the legal challenges Trump faces, and frankly, the kind of things he seems to want to be able to do without any real basis.
This whole situation started with accusations aimed at Cook.… Continue reading
The Trump administration has requested the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of his tariff policies, despite rulings against them from two lower federal courts. The petition itself presents factual claims that, if taken seriously, would likely lead the Court to strike down the tariffs under the “major questions doctrine.” However, the Court’s Republican justices have seemingly used this doctrine inconsistently, applying it against Democratic President Biden while potentially seeking a way to exempt Trump. This doctrine has no legal basis and appears to be a tool used selectively to invalidate policies, potentially offering an exception for foreign policy decisions.
Read More
A federal judge has blocked the deportation of Kilmar Abrego García, an immigrant and father, after his detention by ICE. The judge ordered the Trump administration to keep Abrego García in the U.S. while considering legal challenges to his deportation to Uganda, a move which was strongly opposed. Despite this order, ICE arrested and began processing Abrego García for deportation. A hearing has been scheduled to address the lawsuit filed by his attorneys challenging the deportation, with the government agreeing to comply with the judge’s order.
Read More
The state will continue to operate the 3,000-person migrant detention center despite a recent court ruling. According to officials, the facility is lawful and the legal challenges are attempts to stall immigration enforcement efforts. Environmentalists, the left, and Democrats are reportedly behind the pushback, with the government appealing the court’s decision. The lawsuit, filed by climate activists and the Miccosukee Tribe, alleges the government violated federal law by failing to adequately assess the facility’s environmental impact on the Everglades.
Read More
A significant portion of the Justice Department’s Federal Programs Branch, responsible for defending Trump administration policies, has departed or announced their departure since the election. Reuters reported that nearly two-thirds of the approximately 110 lawyers in the unit have left. These departures could pose challenges for the unit, particularly as it faces numerous lawsuits related to controversial policies. The DOJ is actively recruiting replacements and reallocating personnel to maintain its litigation capacity, but the impact on the department’s ability to defend the President’s agenda in court remains to be seen.
Read More
A Honduran mother and her two children are suing the Trump administration following their arrest at an immigration court in Los Angeles, marking the first legal challenge against courthouse arrests targeting children under a new ICE directive. The family, seeking asylum after fleeing violence, was detained by ICE agents upon exiting the courthouse and subsequently transported to a detention center in Texas. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, highlighting the 6-year-old son’s medical condition, leukemia, and missed appointments as a result of their detention. The plaintiffs, represented by the Immigrant Rights Clinic and The Texas Civil Rights Project, are seeking the family’s immediate release and argue the arrests violate due process.
Read More
A recently passed House spending bill includes a provision requiring financial bonds for injunctions against the Trump administration, effectively limiting legal challenges to the wealthy. This measure, buried within the bill, has drawn criticism for potentially shielding the administration from accountability by making legal action financially prohibitive for most Americans. Experts like Erwin Chemerinsky deem the provision unprecedented and harmful, arguing it’s designed to limit judicial power and prevent court orders from being enforced. Human Rights Watch similarly warns of the provision’s autocratic implications, hindering challenges to the administration’s actions.
Read More
A federal appeals court temporarily stayed a lower court ruling that invalidated most of President Trump’s tariffs, granting the administration’s request for a pause. This stay allows the administration time to argue against the lower court’s decision, which found the president lacked the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. Plaintiffs, including state attorneys general and businesses, have a week to respond before the appeals court makes a final decision. The White House strongly criticized the lower court’s ruling, while plaintiffs expressed confidence in a reversal.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood