***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

201,481 Views | 2329 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by flown-the-coop
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 5:40a, 8/12/25
AG
Yeah, that one hurts. NED is one of the swamp creatures of our globalists used to fund all kind of horrible crap.

And, the suit was over the $315 million appropriated in 2025, of which State had sent over $200 million by June, just not 'fast enough' for the *******s.

The real complaint isn't about the $95 million they want sent over immediately, but that the "Endowment" had been forced to lay off 100 of their staffers, around a third of the total, and they aren't happy about that at all. "Arbitrary and capricious" is bull*****
Reply Quote
3
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:35a, 8/12/25
AG
The Breyer inquisition is on again this week as to Trump using the Nat'l Guard to quell violence in LA.
Quote:
The governor has been unsuccessful so far.

Breyer ruled Trump illegally federalized the National Guard and ordered he hand back control to Newsom, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly lifted the ruling until it resolves the administration's appeal.

That decision is likely still months away.

As the appeal over Trump's authority proceeds, it does not address what activities the troops may engage in while on the ground.

That's the subject of this week's trial.

Newsom asserts the deployment violates the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 federal law that generally bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement.

Some of the troops have been stationed at several federal buildings in downtown Los Angeles, which is not at issue. But the state has taken aim at troops who have went elsewhere to accompany immigration agents, including during a violent raid at a cannabis farm last month that left one dead.

The administration argues the Posse Comitatus Act provides no pathway for California to sue. Even if it did, the administration contends the law is superseded by another statute it argues expressly authorizes the National Guard's efforts.

Will see what the dishonorable 'judge' who needs to retire just like his brother cooks up. Again, the illegal alien who died in the child labor pot farm raid jumped off a building to his death. Sorry for the bad source, I just haven't seen an update as to what might have happened yesterday.
Quote:
This week's trial will unfold in Breyer's courtroom in San Francisco. The Justice Department has criticized California for filing its lawsuit there, "hundreds of miles from the scene."

Breyer was appointed by former President Clinton and is the younger brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

The trial marks a major moment for California Attorney General Rob Bonta's (D) office, which is suing alongside Newsom.

Bonta has taken pride in the barrage of litigation he has brought against Trump. Last week, he touted that he is a plaintiff in 37 lawsuits against the administration and has restored more than $168 billion in funding to California.

Local Oakland coverage (video).
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:48p, 8/12/25


Reply Quote
8
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 1:24p, 8/12/25
It's so weird that these fascists say the government can't access government information. The same kooks never opposed Biden while he ran roughshod over patriots' rights.
Reply Quote
11
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:55a, 8/13/25
AG
I missed this yesterday but great news that this could be decided this year still.

Caveat, I have no guess as to whether SCOTUS will do the right thing or not.
Reply Quote
6
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:23a, 8/13/25

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
10
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 11:29a, 8/13/25
AG
Huge win.

ETA:
Quote:
The case is the one where a brand new Biden appointed District Judge "ordered" the Govt to pay $2 billion in USAID grants to a variety of NGOs who claimed their continued existence depended on the uninterrupted flow of money appropriated by the Dem Congress and Biden on their way out the door.

After failing to act quickly enough, the Judge gave the Govt 48 hours to get the money out the door.

SCOTUS stepped in to put a pause on that order.

But there were 2 separate issues in the case -- a pause in payments for work already done by the NGOs from Jan 20 to Feb. 13 when they brought suit, and the failure to pay anything for grants for work done after Feb. 13.

The Govt eventually paid all the grants for the first time period, and the lawsuit has continued over the second time period -- since Feb. 13.

This morning the DC Circuit agreed with the Govt and vacated the Prelim Injunction by Judge Ali ordering the Govt to pay out USAID funding.

I wrote extensively about this back in March.

Reply Quote
10
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:50p, 8/13/25

Reply Quote
4
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:59p, 8/13/25
AG
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
4
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:00p, 8/13/25
AG
Obligatory, Biden judge, approved 52-46. Was previously a municipal court judge in Boston.
Reply Quote
4
ThunderCougarFalconBird
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:38p, 8/13/25
AG
These judges have gone beyond typical "bad-faith" judging (where they issue opinion that they know will be vacated on appeal but at least have some dilatory effect) to outright countermanding the rule of law because of their political dispositions.
Reply Quote
8
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconBird • 4:40p, 8/13/25
AG
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
These judges have gone beyond typical "bad-faith" judging (where they issue opinion that they know will be vacated on appeal but at least have some dilatory effect) to outright countermanding the rule of law because of their political dispositions.

When they go against the Supreme Court with these cute little workarounds, it always looks bad for the whole judicial system.
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
10
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 4:53p, 8/13/25
Ultimately, they don't care. It's like Adam Schiff lying his ass off to the American people. They have no shame. They have political goals and that is it. It is how marxists operate. They want to re-make the system. Our laws and the Constitution mean nothing to them.
Reply Quote
6
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 4:59p, 8/13/25
AG
techno-ag said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
These judges have gone beyond typical "bad-faith" judging (where they issue opinion that they know will be vacated on appeal but at least have some dilatory effect) to outright countermanding the rule of law because of their political dispositions.

When they go against the Supreme Court with these cute little workarounds, it always looks bad for the whole judicial system.

I have been saying for years the federal judiciary is out of control because they are agenda driven and not law driven. Were I a federal judge that got a smackdown from SCOTUS, I'd be horrified and seriously consider stepping away from the bench, as I would question my competency.

These federal judges simply don't GAS.
Reply Quote
9
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to techno-ag • 6:12p, 8/13/25
AG
techno-ag said:
ThunderCougarFalconBird said:
These judges have gone beyond typical "bad-faith" judging (where they issue opinion that they know will be vacated on appeal but at least have some dilatory effect) to outright countermanding the rule of law because of their political dispositions.

When they go against the Supreme Court with these cute little workarounds, it always looks bad for the whole judicial system.

Marxists gonna marxist.

They don't care. Destroying the institution and sanctity of the court is a feature, not a bug, in their eyes.

Tear it all down and then come up with a new judicial system that looks a lot like the show court system the Soviet Union had back in the day.
Reply Quote
5
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:57a, 8/14/25
AG
The 3 days of oral argument before fraud Breyer out in San Fran wrapped up yesterday. Sounds like it was crazy. The operation was named "Excalibur" so Breyer and Newsom lawyers on his team go after the 'no Kings' narrative because it's a scary name that…oh whatever.


Fake news CNN might have made up some or all of these quotes:
Quote:
Justice Department attorney Eric Hamilton argued that there is no mechanism or precedent to challenge the law that Trump used to deploy the National Guard members, but Breyer interrupted him to ask, "What is the likelihood that in England in 1776 there would be an action, law or remedy to restrain the king of England?"

Breyer expressed specific concern that the Justice Department's logic would open the door to the deployment of federal officers everywhere that the president "determines that there is some threat to the safety of a federal agent."

Later, an attorney for the state of California, Meghan Strong, addressed the judge's questions about 1776, citing James Madison.

"What James Madison would have done, and what he did, was to draft a constitution that made sure that the president could never employ standing armies to control civilian life as the King had in 1776," Strong said.

"And the Posse Comitatus Act is merely a statutory embodiment of a longstanding historical principle and policy in our nation against the use of the military in the way the federal government is using the military here in LA," she added.

Since June, deployed troops have accompanied federal agents on immigration raids in the LA area and have temporarily detained civilians who tried to enter restricted areas.

Hamilton argued that the federalized guard and Marines were serving a "purely protective function" in California, something not barred by the Posse Comitatus Act.

But Breyer did not seem swayed by this, repeating his concern over the limits of federal law enforcement activity once it is already in place.

"What's to prevent a national police force, if properly in place as a result of certain things that have happened on day one, to go out on day 10, day 20, day 30, month two, month three, month four and assist the execution of other laws for other crimes?" the judge asked. "Is there any limiting factor at all?"

You've got nothing, you clown in a robe, and you will be reversed on appeal yet again.
Reply Quote
13
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:44a, 8/14/25
Breyer is not dumb. He is an anti-American political prostitute. He cares nothing about the Constitution.
Reply Quote
2
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:23a, 8/15/25
AG
Yet another Trump win vs.an Obama/Biden judge on appeal.

ETA: this is a big one re: CFPB and APA/judicial review. Again two sane Trump judges on panel, fortunately affording adult oversight.

Quote:
Via injunction a district judge in DC basically took over supervision of CFPB by blocking all layoffs and contract cancellations based on the theory that the Trump Admin was simply gutting the Agency to make it non-functional even if it could not kill the Agency outright because it was created by statute.

Appeals Court -- in 2-1 decision again with 2 Trump appointees in the majority -- vacate the Injunction as beyond the district court's jurisdiction.

Layoff and termination decisions must go through Merit System Protection Board like all job action claims -- district judge cannot review -- and downsizing of Agency as challenged by the Plaintiffs didn't focus on any individual "final agency actions" that might be subject to judicial review under the APA. Instead, the plaintiffs improperly bundled numerous individual actions -- none of with where "final" and "discrete" -- into an overall plan to eliminate the Agency and filed based on that overall plan.

The Appeals Court said such a challenge is not allowed under the APA and the Court made a legal error to conclude otherwise.

Injunction vacated and case remanded to district court.

More later.

A footnote, but this is at least how law used to be taught to 1L's:

Pillard, in her lengthy dissent, deserves to be mocked for her reasoning across the board. Obama judge, as one might have expected.
Reply Quote
8
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 11:08a, 8/15/25
nortex97 said:
Yet another Trump win vs.an Obama/Biden judge on appeal.

This is the best thing to come of this...

Reply Quote
7
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:13a, 8/15/25
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40a, 8/15/25
Reply Quote
7
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 11:46a, 8/15/25
AG
will25u said:

That one's doomed to failure, one would hope. Racism should not stand.
Pro College Station Convention Center
Reply Quote
9
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:04p, 8/15/25
That was fast!

Reply Quote
3
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 1:07p, 8/15/25
AG
The question becomes - how badly does the DC Circuit want to get hammered by SCOTUS? I'm guessing the en banc request gets denied.
Reply Quote
6
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 1:07p, 8/15/25
AG
Aggie Jurist said:
The question becomes - how badly does the DC Circuit want to get hammered by SCOTUS? I'm guessing the en banc request gets denied.

Agree.
Reply Quote
6
aezmvp
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 1:10p, 8/15/25
Totally expected. I'm sure this was prepared, or mostly so, well in advance when the panel came back with 2 Trump nominees. 50/50 that the en banc panel overturns it and sends it to SCOTUS. SCOTUS will likely either ignore it until the full case is heard or, if they're feeling salty with the DC circuit, nuke the stay again. DC circuit is pressing a lot of buttons so we'll see. I imagine the clerks rooms are spicy these days.
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:21p, 8/15/25

Reply Quote
8
1 edit
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:02p, 8/15/25
Reply Quote
2
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:05p, 8/15/25
AG
These kinds of shenanigans I expect in Mississippi and California state courts - not the 'supposedly' most sophisticated (and powerful) Circuit Court of Appeals. Obama really killed the legitimacy of the federal court system. So glad I'm close to retirement.
Reply Quote
8
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 8:10p, 8/15/25
AG
Via Harry Reid, but yes.

At least the 'blue slip' aristocratic veto for appellate nominees is gone, but in the DC circuit it's still the case that (communist) senators have too much power over nominations/confirmations.
Reply Quote
1
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 10:16p, 8/15/25
AG
Harry Reid is underrated as a commie lib sleaze-bag antichrist. Hopefully he cuddled up with pals Hitler, Stalin and John McCain.
Reply Quote
3
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 6:01a, 8/16/25
AG
Not sure they will take it en banc or not but holding it for a week and ordering Trump/Bondi to respond immediately makes me think it is likely.

I do think it's a very well written opinion though by the two (Trump appointed) judges. If the court does handle it en banc to reverse it strikes me as likely SCOTUS will flip it back, anyway, so the question then is whether it is worth it to waste time doing so.
Reply Quote
2
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:24p, 8/16/25
Reply Quote
7
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:57p, 8/18/25
Reply Quote
4
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:48a, 8/19/25
So this judge is saying the Executive(FTC) can't even investigate an entity(Media Matters) because to the judge it seems like "retaliation" or chilling their speech.

So now judges are just preempting investigations which is probably the most core/important Executive branch function because?

Activist judges are activists...

Thread



...

Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.