Trump Litigation Updates

The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations estimates that DOGE "generated at least $21.7 billion in waste across the federal government, despite its ostensible goal of eliminating government waste," noting this amount could've covered the rescissions package twice—with $2.9 billion to spare

DOJ’s complaint against Judge Boasberg appears to quote from the same Judicial Conference memo that the Federalist reported on earlier this month.

The Federalist did not publish the memo, but the reporter claims that this is the entirety of the section summarizing Boasberg’s remarks

🧵 1/

Lawfare's Trump Administration Litigation Tracker 314 active cases, including 12 suits by the Trump administration challenging state or local laws 46 dismissed suits or appeals 14 Supreme Court stays or order to vacate lower court orders 1 Supreme Court affirmation of lower court order 20 suits where judges granted summary judgment or a permanent injunction for plaintiffs 5 suits where judges ruled for the federal government

🚨Trump Administration Litigation Tracker Updates🚨

The tracker is tracking 314 cases!

- The Supreme Court stayed an order reinstating the Consumer Product Safety Commissioners that President Trump attempted to fire.
- Preliminary injunction granted in suit challenging sanctions against the ICC.

cfce73 b6a83776d0414519997d45d06243f067

Here's a link to the administrative claim against the Department of Homeland Security filed by Neiyerver Adrián Leon Rengel, the first claim from one of the 252 Venezuelan men sent to CECOT in March.

Rengel seeks $1.3 million in damages under the FTCA.

www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

Over at @lawfaremedia.org, I explain the new Schedule G and some broader trends that signal an effort to make a significant portion of the federal workforce subject to at-will removal.

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

Jul 23, 2025 DEMOCRACY PROJECT. (Jacobson, Daniel) (Entered: 07/23/2025) Main Doc Response to motion Buy on PACER MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of Defendants' 36 Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal and Plaintiff's 38 response thereto, the motion is DENIED. For all of the reasons articulated in the Court's July 21, 2025 Opinion, Defendants' conduct in removing the Public Apportionments Database unequivocally violates federal law. See Mem. Op., ECF No. 34. The Court's Opinion addressed each of the Defendants' arguments reiterated in the Motion to Stay, concluding that the public disclosure requirement of the 2022 and 2023 Acts does not infringe upon Executive power nor does it "impede the Presidents constitutional authority over the implementation of appropriations[.]" Defs.' Mot., ECF No. 36 at 4. The Court further denies Defendants' requests to extend the administrative stay or stay the statutory time requirement of publishing apportionment decisions within two days of their approval. As to the first, Protect Democracy states that Defendants have already requested such relief from the Court of Appeals. As to the second, this is the first time Defendants have made the request-despite ultiple rounds of briefing-and provide no points and authorities in support of it. The Court will not be complicit in further delaying Plaintiff and the public of information they are entitled to know as a matter of federal law!!! Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 7/23/2025. (Icegs2)

Two exclamation points!! In a minute order!!

Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes grants Abrego’s motion to stay the issuance of his release order for 30 days.

This means Abrego will remain in criminal custody (not ICE custody) for 30 days, subject to further order by the court.

MORE: Judge Paula Xinis, who presides over Abrego’s civil case in Maryland, bars the government from taking Abrego into ICE custody in Tennessee following his release from criminal custody.

He must be returned to Maryland on an order of supervision.

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

In the event the Court denies the government's motion for revocation, Mr. Abrego, with the government's consent, seeks a 30-day stay of the issuance of any release order. We have been advised by the government that if the Court denies the government's motion for revocation, the defendant would be transferred to the custody of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), and DHS would begin removal proceedings. Given the uncertainty of the outcome of any removal proceedings, Mr. Abrego respectfully requests that, should the Court deny the government's motion for revocation, the issuance of an order releasing Mr. Abrego be delayed for 30 days to allow Mr. Abrego to evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary. The government does not object to this request, and such a short delay will not affect the parties' ability to confer regarding a proposed scheduling order or to prepare for trial. The government has informed defense counsel that it will continue producing discovery during this 30-day time period, the parties will continue to collaborate on a scheduling order in advance of the July 30, 2025 deadline, and do not anticipate continuance of the January 27, 2026 trial date due to this requested relief. Dated: July 20, 2025 New York, New York Respectfully

We’re still awaiting an order from Judge Crenshaw on whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia will be released from criminal custody.

But if Crenshaw agrees he should be released, DOJ and Abrego Garcia’s team have agreed to a 30-day delay so he can consider his legal options against efforts to deport him.

Attys for Abrego (Garcia) have asked Judge Crenshaw, if he issues an order releasing him from criminal custody, to stay it for 30 days to prevent DHS from immediately deporting him. This seems to give Judge Xinis in Maryland time to craft relief.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

On Friday, in a 34-page unanimous ruling, the 1st Circuit denied govt a stay of Judge Young’s July 2 order declaring NIH’s cancellation of 100s of research contracts as “breathtakingly arbitrary & capricious.” Some interesting things...
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
1/5

In light of govt's claims about its deal with Venezuela, @ACLU asks Judge Boasberg to order govt to state whether it will "bring members of the class [of Venezuelans sent to CECOT under Alien Enemies Act] back to the US" for the legal process they were previously denied.

Special Agent Joseph said he interviewed the government’s star witness, Jose Hernandez-Reyes, in May.

Before that, Hernandez-Reyes had been interviewed by other investigators.

But Joseph testified that he *still* hasn’t read the reports from those prior interviews.

That struck me as odd… 1/

KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA DETENTION HEARING: PART II

Starting a new thread because Bluesky is operating a little slow on the other thread.

Court is still in recess.

The hearing will resume shortly.

Follow along 🧵⬇️

federal courthouse in Nashville, TN

HAPPENING NOW: Hello from the federal courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee, where Judge Waverly Crenshaw is set to hold an evidentiary hearing to decide whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be released from criminal custody.

I'm here for @lawfaremedia.org.

Follow along ⬇️

BEFORE: Henderson, Wilkins, and Childs, Circuit Judges ORDER Upon consideration of the Supreme Court's order and judgment granting the petition for certiorari, vacating this court's May 14, 2025, order, and remanding for further consideration; the petition for writ of mandamus, the opposition thereto, and the reply; the motion for stay, the opposition thereto, and the reply; and the motion for summary disposition, the opposition thereto, and the reply, it is ORDERED that the mandamus petition be granted in part and denied in part. The petition is granted to the extent that the district court's April 15, 2025, order requires petitioners to serve responses and objections to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8 and Requests for Admission Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. The district court is directed to modify its April 15 order to exclude those interrogatories and requests. In all other respects, the petition is denied. The Supreme Court determined that "[the portions of the District Court's April 15 discovery order that require the Government to disclose the content of intra-Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored." U.S. DOGE Serv. v. CREW, 145 S. Ct. 1981, 1982 (2025). The Court explained that "[a]ny inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade," and that "separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications." Id. The Court's order directed this court to "take appropriate action to narrow the April 15 discovery order consistent with [the Court's] order." Id. In moving for summary disposition, respondent has withdrawn the discovery requests that pertain to "recommendations" made by U.S. DOGE Service employees and others-specifically, Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 8 and Requests for Admission Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10. Ex…

States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT September Term, 2024 FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative stay entered on April 18, 2025, be dissolved, and the motion for stay be dismissed as moot. Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk BY: Is/ Selena R. Gancasz

NEW: After SCOTUS sent DOGE discovery fight back down to DC Cir., the appeals court narrows scope of discovery ordered by Judge Cooper — but keeps portion of the order that would require the purported acting administrator of DOGE, Amy Gleason, to sit for a deposition.

#WITAOD

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

LINDA MCMAHON, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET AL. v. NEW YORK, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [July 14, 2025] The application for stay presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her eferred to the Court is granted. The May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 1:25–cv–10601, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should 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, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. This case arises out of the President’s unilateral efforts to eliminate a Cabinet-level agency established by Congress nearly half a century ago: the Department of Education. As Congress mandated, the Department plays a vital role in this Nation’s education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has thepower to abolish the Department.

Today the Supreme Court stayed, on a 6-3 vote, a district court preliminary injunction that had prevented the Trump administration from firing over 1,300 employees of the Department of Education. The administration can now move forward with its plan to dismantle the agency.

GONES REAR HEARSE ORDER The United States of America, by and through Robert E. McGuire, Acting United States Attorney, pursuant to this Court's Order (DE # 56) submits this list of potential witnesses who the United States may call at the evidentiary hearing in this matter set for July 16, 2025, at 1:00 p.m.: 1. Special Agent Peter Joseph, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI): SA Joseph is the case agent and will testify about his review of the body worn camera (BWC) footage from the November 30, 2022, traffic stop and his interviews with multiple witnesses during the course of the investigation.

DEFENDANTS SNESS STORIES16. Defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia writes pursuant to this Court's order (ECF 56) to disclose that he does not anticipate calling any witnesses or introducing any exhibits as part of his case-in-chief at the July 16, 2025 evidentiary hearing on the government's motion to revoke Magistrate Judge Holmes's order releasing him pending further proceedings in this matter. Dated: July 14, 2025 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sean Hecker Sean Hecker Jenna Dabbs David Patton HECKER FINK LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, 63rd Floor New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 763-0883 Fax: (212) 564-0883 shecker@heckerfink.com jdabbs@heckerfink.com

NEW: The parties have filed their witness lists ahead of an evidentiary hearing on whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia should be released from criminal custody.

Special Agent Peter Joseph will testify for the government.

Abrego Garcia’s team does not anticipate calling any witnesses.

=Menu LAWFARE Two weeks after this exchange, in an episode that does not appear in Reuveni's account, Ensign again appeared before Judge Boasberg and was asked specifically a put what he knew during this period of the adjournment. Boasberg asked him: "So what I want to know here, as an officer of the court, you are telling me that you had no knowledge whatsoever between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on that day that planes were in the air or shortly would be in the air? You had no knowledge whatsoever of that?" In response, Ensign doubled down: "Your Honor, I had no knowledge from my client that that was the case. I had knowledge from plaintiffs' submissions to the Court that that might have been occurring. I can also assure you, as an officer of the Court, I diligently tried to obtain that information but was not able to do so." But this, at least if you believe Reuveni's account, was not true either: If it wasn't true-as Reuveni alleges-when Ensign told Judge Boasberg on March 15 that "that he did not know whether AEA removals would take place 'in the next 24 or 48 hours," then it also wasn't true when Ensign told Boasberg on April 3 "as an officer of the court" that he had no knowledge between 5:00 pm and 6:00 pm of that day of any imminent flights. In other words, if the administration-not to mention the individuals Reuveni criticizes-has not cleared things up, has not taken factual issue with Reuveni's claims, and has not explained good faith mistakes, it's not for lack of opportunities to do any of these things. Rather, it has passed

DOJ whistleblower Erez Reuveni says Drew Ensign made a false statement to Judge Boasberg during a hearing on Alien Enemies Act removals.

If Reuveni’s right, it wasn’t the only time Ensign misled the court.

Ben Wittes explains:

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

A thread about DOJ’s astoundingly misleading responses to the 27-page Reuveni letter (since backed with 150pp of corroborating texts/emails), alleging contempt-like conduct in 3 cases: JGG, Abrego, DVD.
Let’s examine DAG Todd Blanche’s & AG PamBondi’s responses. ...
1/9

Lawfare Live: Trials of the Trump Administration, July 11 YouTube video by Lawfare

In 1 hour, watch @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org, @annabower.bsky.social, @rparloff.bsky.social, and @sranderson.bsky.social discuss recent hearings over the detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. AFGE allowing the Trump admin to implement layoffs, and more.

courthouse in greenbelt

HAPPENING NOW: Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia are back in court following yesterday’s wild evidentiary hearing.

The parties have re-convened for oral argument on Abrego’s motion to be returned to Maryland if he’s released from criminal custody in TN next week.

Follow along ⬇️ 🧵

Federal courthouse in greenbelt with people milling about outside. A woman holds a sign that reads "Gestapo ICE 2025"

HAPPENING NOW: Hello again from Greenbelt, Maryland, where an ICE official is set to be questioned about the Trump administration's plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he's released from criminal custody in Tennessee.

I'm here for @lawfaremedia.org.

Follow along 🧵⬇️

These documents contain numerous disturbing details that not only corroborate the whistleblower’s claims but also highlight DOJ’s efforts to mislead a federal court and disregard its orders.

READ THE DOCS HERE: www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...

AND HERE: www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...

Reuveni: guess its find out time on the "fuck you" Colleague: Yup. It was good working with you. Reuveni: the first el sal flight lands in an hour so says flightaware Colleague: Well maybe they land and drop off all the title 8 people.

Text: These messages occurred after a period of non-responsiveness from Mr. Reuveni's supervisors described in Mr. Reuveni's June 24, 2025 disclosure, beginning at the last paragraph of p. 10 through the end of the first paragraph on p. 12, and also after Mr. Reuveni reviewed public information that two flights had landed in Honduras by 8:10 pm. The messages corroborate the statement on p.7 of Mr. Reuveni's June 24, 2025 disclosure that, "Bove stated that DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order." Reuveni: Guess we are going to say fuck you to the court Super Colleague: Well Pamela Jo Bondi is Not you

NEW: Newly released documents corroborate whistleblower's allegation that Emil Bove said DOJ might have to say “fuck you” to court orders enjoining the removal of migrants under the Alien Enemies Act

The documents show the whistleblower alluding to the "fuck you" comment in texts w/ DOJ colleagues:

COMING UP at 1 pm: The Trump administration plans to call Thomas Giles—the Assistant Director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations in Los Angeles, California—to testify about the government’s plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he’s released from criminal custody in Tennessee.

In a stip the govt is proposing to try to end Abrego’s civil case—which Abrego’s attys have not agreed to—it would commit to 3 things:
1st, not to remove him to El Salvador unless it persuades an immigration judge to lift his 2019 “withholding” order.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
/1

NEW: Mahmoud Khalil asked the court to preliminarily enjoin the govt from detaining or removing him from the US based on the second charge related to his green card application.

I'm about as concerned as one can get about efforts to unlawful efforts to dismantle federal agencies. But a lot of the coverage of today's Supreme Court decision is, in my mind, seriously overstating its significance.

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...