Law Dork

Pair of lawsuits challenging Trump's targeting of Chicago get first hearings The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration's military deployment efforts and harsh treatment of protesters and journalists. More hearings are set for later this week.

NEW: Pair of lawsuits challenging Trump's targeting of Chicago get first hearings.

The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration's military deployment efforts and harsh treatment of protesters and journalists. More hearings are set for later this week.

Tonight, at Law Dork:

No TRO today in the second Illinois case, either, but Judge Ellis has found the plaintiffs challenging ICE protest enforcement actions have standing for TRO purposes and are likely to succeed on First and Fourth Amendment claims. They also went through the proposed TRO in depth. Follow up coming —>

Note that this is in addition to the Illinois v. Trump lawsuit over military deployment in or to Illinois, where a different judge heard brief arguments and ordered a DOJ response Wednesday and hearing Thursday, but rejected the request for an immediate TRO.

See more here on that. —>

Read @chrisgeidner.bsky.social's thread for an ongoing hearing over a TRO that is set to be granted in a case raising Fourth and First Amendments claims, including press and religion claims, over the response to ICE protests in the Northern District of Illinois (i.e., Chicago). —>

Here is the orders list out of SCOTUS's long conference.

Because we already got the new grants on Friday, this is a lot of denials, including the news that the court rejected Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

Illinois and Chicago filed suit against Trump while I was in court.

Complaint below.

Here is the TRO motion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

And legal arguments: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

A hearing before Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, is set for 2p CT.

Law Dork | Chris Geidner | Substack The Supreme Court, law, politics, and more. Click to read Law Dork, by Chris Geidner, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

And, subscribe to Law Dork to support this essential independent legal journalism: www.lawdork.com

Judge Karin Immergut held a hearing tonight and issued a second TRO in the Oregon v. Trump case, barring the Trump administration from sending *any* National Guard federalized under 10 U.S.C. 12406 to Oregon from any state or D.C.

Check out @chrisgeidner.bsky.social's thread for much more —>

NEW: Oregon and Portland filed an amended complaint in their lawsuit against Trump tonight, with a new plaintiff added who is joining them: California. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

It's already time for a new SCOTUS term. Or, the summer that wasn't. A look back, a look ahead. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.

Will Chief Justice John Roberts and the Republican appointees end the notion of co-equal branches by raising the executive above all else in backing Trump’s unending desire for more power and fewer limits?

That is the question of this term, and Law Dork will be covering all of it.

NEW: It's already time for a new SCOTUS term. Or, the summer that wasn't.

A look back, a look ahead.

This evening, at Law Dork: www.lawdork.com/p/its-alread...

UPDATE: DOJ has filed a notice that it is appealing tonight's time-limited TRO — an order that is generally not appealable — to the Ninth Circuit. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Law Dork | Chris Geidner | Substack The Supreme Court, law, politics, and more. Click to read Law Dork, by Chris Geidner, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

Order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

More to come at Law Dork: www.lawdork.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON and the CITY OF PORTLAND, Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:25-cv-1756-IM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; PETE HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants.

CONCLUSION For the above reasons, this Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 6, and temporarily enjoins Defendants' September 28, 2025, Memorandum ordering the federalization and deployment of Oregon National Guard service members to Portland. The TRO expires in fourteen days on October 18, 2025, and the parties are ORDERED to comply with the attached TRO. The Defendants' request to stay or administratively stay the Temporary Restraining Order, see Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF 35 at 41, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED DATED this 4th day of October, 2025 at 3:40 p.m. pacific daylight time. /s/ Karin J. Immergut Karin J. Immergut United States District Judge

NEWS: Judge Karin Immergut on Saturday issued a temporary restraining order blocking Trump and Hegseth’s effort to activate the National Guard in Oregon.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, was reassigned the case after DOJ sought to recuse the first-assigned judge. www.lawdork.com/p/dojs-recus...

Supreme Court lets Noem end legal status for many Venezuelans in the U.S. The majority gave virtually no reasoning. The Democratic appointees objected, but only Justice Jackson wrote: "[Y]et another grave misuse of our emergency docket."

“This is not law. It is a spell, announced by a phantom. It is an empty decision, but coming as it does on behalf of a majority of the Supreme Court, it will have unfathomably cruel effects as it stands up Noem’s actions.”

Read it at Law Dork now:

Supreme Court lets Noem end legal status for many Venezuelans in the U.S. The majority gave virtually no reasoning. The Democratic appointees objected, but only Justice Jackson wrote: "[Y]et another grave misuse of our emergency docket."

Friday’s SCOTUS decision was issued in a brief, unsigned order that contained virtually no reasoning. It was accompanied by no signed opinions from any of the justices in the majority and over opposition from the three Democratic appointees. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote.

Supreme Court lets Noem end legal status for many Venezuelans in the U.S. The majority gave virtually no reasoning. The Democratic appointees objected, but only Justice Jackson wrote: "[Y]et another grave misuse of our emergency docket."

NEW: Supreme Court lets Noem end legal status for many Venezuelans in the U.S.

The majority gave virtually no reasoning. The Democratic appointees objected, but only Justice Jackson wrote: "[Y]et another grave misuse of our emergency docket."

Tonight, at Law Dork:

Our lower court colleagues have already chosen the obvi-ous—i.e., least disruptive and most humane-answer to that question.? So, this stay application presents us with an antecedent decision: whether the Government's interest in terminating TPS right now is so urgent that this Court, rather than the able judges currently exercising jurisdiction over the matter, should be the one to decide those individuals' interim fate. See Noem v. Doe, 605 U.S. . (2025) (JACKSON, J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 7-8); see also Magnum Import Co. v. Coty, 262 U. S. 159, 164 (1923) (explaining that "this Court requires an extraordinary showing" before it will override the stay decision of a lower court, rendered "with a much fuller knowledge [of the case] than we can have"). Only if the Government demonstrates such a time-sensitive need should we even consider vetoing the lower courts' unanimous judgment about the most equitable interim status. The Government has made no such showing. Yet, for the second time in this same case, the Court grants it the

JACKSON, J., dissenting extraordinary relief it seeks. We once again eschew re-straint—ignoring the need for exigency or any other prudent threshold limitation on the exercise of our discretion— and wordlessly override the considered judgments of our colleagues. We once again use our equitable power (but not our opinion-writing capacity) to allow this Administration to disrupt as many lives as possible, as quickly as possible. I view today's decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. This Court should have stayed its hand. Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families' pleas for the stability our Government has promised them. Because, re-spectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.

Sotomayor and Kagan would deny the application.

Jackson, alone, writes, accusing the majority of "privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them."

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 25A326 KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR A STAY [October 3, 2025] In March of this year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered a preliminary order postponing the effective date of the Secretary of Homeland Security's decision to remove "temporary protected status" (TPS) from Venezuelan nationals living in the United States. See 8 U.S. C. §1254a; 5 U.S. C. §705. In May, this Court stayed that order while the Government appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed the District Court's preliminary order. Last month, the District Court entered final judgment in respondents' favor, holding unlawful and setting aside the Secretary's actions effectuating her decision— namely, her vacatur of a pending extension of TPS for Venezuelan nationals, and her termination of that status itself. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2). (The District Court also concluded that the Secretary unlawfully vacated a TPS extension for Haitian nationals. The Government now seeks to stay the portions of the District Court's judgment pertaining to Ven-ezuela, but not Haiti. See Application 7, n. 6.) The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties' legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here.

NOEM v. NATIONAL TPS ALLIANCE JACKSON, J., dissenting The September 5, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 25-cv-1766, is stayed as to the Venezuela vacatur and Venezuela termination, pending the disposition of the Government's appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of 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 and JUSTICE KAGAN would deny the application. JUSTICE JACKSON, dissenting from the grant of application for stay.

BREAKING: SCOTUS (again) allows Sec. Noem to proceed with ending Temporary Protect Status for more than 600,000 Venezuelans, over the objection of the three Democratic appointees.

The Government now asks us to reverse the preliminary injunctions in these cases. We see no reason to do so. The Government is right that the Framers of the Citizenship Clause sought to remove the stain of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 119 How.) 393 (1857), which shamefully denied United States citizenship to "descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves," even when the descendants were born here. Id. at 403. But the Framers chose to accomplish that just purpose in broad terms, as both the supreme Court in United States . Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Congress in passing § 1401(a) have recognized. The Government is therefore wrong to argue that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in showing that the children that the EO covers are citizens of this country at birth, just as the Government is wrong to argue that various limits on our remedial power independently require us to reverse the preliminary injunctions.?

The analysis that follows is necessarily lengthy, as we must address the parties' numerous arguments in each of the cases involved. But the length of our analysis should not be mistaken for a sign that the fundamental question that these cases raise about the scope of birthright citizenship is a difficult one. •It is not, which may explain why it has been more than a century since a branch of our government has made as concerted an effort as the Executive Branch now makes to deny Americans their birthright.

Thus, it is no surprise that, when presented with even more uncontroverted evidence by the State-Plaintiffs about the need for an injunction of the current breadth, the District Court again found that a narrower injunction would leave unremedied "administrative and financial harms." We therefore decline to conclude that the District Court has abused its discretion in fashioning relief. See Philip Morris, Inc. v. Harshbarger, 159 F. 3d 670, 680 (1st Cir. 1998) (explaining that "[als a general rule, a disappointed litigant cannot surface an objection to a preliminary injunction for the first time in an appellate venue" because doing so deprives the district court of the opportunity to "consider [the objection] and correct the injunction if necessary, without the need for appeal" (quoting Zenon, 711 F.2d at 478)).

The "lessons of history" thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one's parents rather than -- in all but the rarest of circumstances -- the simple fact of being born in the United States. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948). Nor does the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which countermanded our most infamous attempt to break with that tradition, permit us to bless this effort, any more than does the Supreme Court's interpretation of that amendment in Wong Kim Ark, the many related precedents that have followed it, or Congress's 1952 statute writing that amendment's words in the U.S. Code. The District Court's order for entry of the preliminary injunctions is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further consideration consistent with this decision.

BREAKING: The First Circuit rejects Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. In the New Jersey-led multistate case, the appeals court, in a 100-page ruling, keeps the nationwide scope of the injunction blocking the EO in place. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

MEMORANDUM OPINION By way of context, a federal prosecutor is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all. The obligation to govern impartially concerns, above all, the state’s exercise of coercive power—meaning its power to deprive its subjects of life, liberty, or property . . . As a representative of the state, a prosecutor’s exercise of coercive power must be impartial . . . [in] that prosecutorial power may not be exercised vindictively—meaning that the prosecutor may not punish a defendant for exercising a protected statutory or constitutional right. United States v. Zakhari, 85 F.4th 367, 384–85 (6th Cir. 2023) (Kethledge, J., concurring) (citations and quotations omitted). This context frames review of Defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s (“Abrego”) motion to dismiss his indictment for vindictive and selective prosecution. (Doc. Nos. 104–05). The Government opposes the motion (Doc. No. 121), and Abrego has replied (Doc. No. 127). Abrego’s motion is not ripe for decision because he seeks discovery and an evidentiary hearing because there is some evidence of vindictiveness here. For the reasons that follow, the Court holds that the totality of events creates a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that there is a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” that entitles Abrego to discovery and requires an evidentiary hearing before the Court decides his motion. United States v. Andrews, 633 F.2d 449, 457 (6th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 927 (1981).

BREAKING: Federal judge in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's criminal case finds that "there is a 'realistic likelihood of vindictiveness' that entitles Abrego to discovery" in response to his motion to dismiss the case for vindictive or selective prosecution. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

* Order list: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

* Wolford v. Lopez docket: www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docke...

(ORDER LIST: 606 U.S.) FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2025 24-699 24-983 24-1046 24-1238 25-95 CERTIORARI GRANTED EXXON MOBIL CORP. V. CORPORACIÓN CIMEX, ET AL. HAVANA DOCKS CORP. V. ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, ET AL. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. WOLFORD, JASON, ET AL. V. LOPEZ, ATT'Y GEN. OF HI The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. MONTGOMERY, SHAWN V. CARIBE TRANSPORT II, LLC, ET AL. PUNG, MICHAEL V. ISABELLA COUNTY, MICHIGAN The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.

The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier?

SCOTUS this morning announced the following grants out of the long conference — including the following question over a challenge to Hawaii's gun restrictions that bar guns from private spaces open to the public unless the owner expressly allows guns.

Judge William Young's ruling against Rubio and Noem is a lesson for all in the Trump era Young lays bare the unconstitutionality of the Trump administration's student deportation efforts — and issues a challenge to America. Also: More court pushback.

NEW: Judge William Young's ruling against Rubio and Noem is a lesson for all in the Trump era.

Young lays bare the unconstitutionality of the Trump administration's student deportation efforts — and issues a challenge to America.

Today, at Law Dork:

O R D E R Upon consideration of the motion to hold case No. 25-5157 in abeyance, the opposition thereto, the reply, and the Rule 28(j) letter; and the motion to hold case No. 25-5184 in abeyance, the opposition thereto, the Rule 28(j) letter, and the notice withdrawing motion to hold case in abeyance, it is ORDERED that the motion to hold case No. 25-5157 in abeyance be denied. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to hold case No. 25-5184 in abeyance be deemed withdrawn. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the following briefing schedule will apply in No. 25- 5303: Appellants’ Brief October 20, 2025 Appendix October 20, 2025 Page 2 USCA Case #25-5157 Document #2138231 Filed: 10/01/2025 Page 2 of 3 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5157 September Term, 2025 Appellees’ Brief November 5, 2025 Appellants’ Reply Brief November 12, 2025 The Clerk is directed to calendar Nos. 25-5157, 25-5184, and 25-5303 for oral argument on the same day and before the same panel in December 2025. The parties will be informed later of the date of oral argument and the composition of the merits panel.

Substantively, the order means the appeals are moving forward and will be heard in December.

Order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Hnited States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT September Term, 2025 No. 25-5303 1:25-cv-01362-PLF Federal Education Association, et al., Appellees V. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Appellants BEFORE: Millett, Pillard, and Garcia, Circuit Judges ORDER

BREAKING: It appears the DC Circuit "special panel" — motions panel — for October is Millett, Pillard, and Garcia (Obama, Obama, Biden). BUT, this could be something random because it's over three cases challenging Trump's federal employee union-busting effort.

Here’s a note at Law Dork on this from @chrisgeidner.bsky.social: substack.com/@chrisgeidne...

(ORDER LIST: 606 U.S.) WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2025 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 25A312 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL. V. COOK, LISA D. The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument in January 2026. The Clerk is directed to establish a briefing schedule for amici curiae and any supplemental briefs responding to amici.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows Lisa Cook to remain as a Federal Reserve Board Governor for now.

The court schedules oral arguments for January on DOJ's request to allow Trump's purported firing of Cook to take effect during litigation.

Judge who wanted to ban mifepristone refuses to dismiss case Despite SCOTUS's ruling that the original plaintiffs lacked standing, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is allowing three non-Texas states to keep the lawsuit going in his court.

Tusday's Kacsmaryk order: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Law Dork, June 2024, on SCOTUS decision: www.lawdork.com/p/mifepristo...

Law Dork, January 2025, on Kacsmaryk not dismissing case: www.lawdork.com/p/breaking-j...

Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z • Document 273 Filed 09/30/25 Page 1 of 27 PagelD 19186 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Intervenor Plaintiffs, V. U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants, 2:22-CV-223-Z and DANCO LABORATORIES, LLC, et al., Intervenor Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court are Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Intervenor-States' Amended Complaint ("Defendants' Motion" (ECF No. 218), filed January 18, 2025, and Intervenor-Defendant Danco Laboratories, LLC's Motion to Dismiss Intervenor-States' Amended Complaint ("Danco's Motion") (ECF No. 221), filed January 28, 2025 (together, the "Motions"). The Court granted Intervenor Plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated response to the Motions. ECF Nos. 226, 227. Intervenor Plaintiffs responded to the Motions on February 20, 2025. ECF No. 228. Defendants and Danco replied on May 5, 2025, after the Court granted a deadline extension. ECF Nos. 247, 248, 241. On August 22, 2025, Texas and Florida also moved to intervene. ECF No. 254. Louisiana followed suit on September 19, 2025. ECF No. 264. The Motions are now ripe. Having considered the Motions, briefing, and relevant law, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion and DENIES as MOOT Danco's Motion. The Court also DENIES as MOOT Texas, Florida, and Louisiana's Motions to Intervene. This case is TRANSFERRED to the Eastern District of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. Section 1406(a).

Finally, I am sure others have covered, but ...

Judge Kacsmaryk finally moved on the mifepristone case that he should have dismissed more than a year ago now.

Instead, he transferred the states' challenge to mifepristone access to the federal court in the Eastern District of Missouri.