Illegality for all It’s a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the judicial system and those fighting back.
Thanks to a bad decision from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, the US Supreme Court is likely to be shot for further destruction Voting Rights Act.
The 8th Circuit is now the second most conservative federal court of appeals, affirmatively paid by rabies alone 5th Circuit. In a voting rights lawsuit filed by the Arkansas NAACP in 2023, the 8th Circuit unexpectedly retained that, in the face of decades of cases, private plaintiffs were unable to file a lawsuit. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
For decades, people and groups have sued the government under Section 2. This prohibits the refusal or restriction of voting rights based on race, color or membership in minority groups. The 8th Circuit ruling excludes that right and said only the federal government can file a voting rights lawsuit under that section.
And given that the Trump administration has already begun to dismantle the voting rights section of the Department of Justice, there are lawyers and was instructed to If you dismiss all active cases, it doesn’t look like the Fed is on the rescue immediately.
Earlier this week, the 8th Circuit held The civil plaintiffs were not allowed to use other federal laws, Section 1983file a claim for breach of voting rights. This will functionally prevent you from filing a voting rights lawsuit in the seven eligible states in the eighth circuit.
The decision was a gift to the Supreme Court’s Conservative Party, with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. Record Private plaintiffs support the notion that they cannot sue in Section 2. Life’s work Destroy the voting rights. This case is a way to continue to undermine core civil rights laws if it reaches the Supreme Court.
This week’s award for the most transparent malicious argument is…
Stephen Billy. You probably haven’t heard of Stephen Billy, but he is currently a senior adviser to the Office of Management and Budget, and he is busy making an absolute clown in federal court.
Last week, US District Judge Susan Ilston I was imposed A two-week suspension on the administration’s mass shooting efforts in two dozen agencies. However, as part of her ruling, she order Governments that provide all reductions in the forces and reorganization plans used to justify mass firing.
Not too fast, Stephen Billy says Tell the court They contain “very sensitive information” and “retain and retain agents” not offering these plans as they expel them in the wild.
It seems much more likely that people will discourage people from working for the federal government, not because they saw documents discussing their termination, but because they oversee the termination of tens of thousands of workers.
Illston changed courses some accordingly, change As her orders must be provided only to her, not to the plaintiff, for her review. Billy also needs to wait to see what reason he comes up with because he refused it.
Apparently you can’t just cancel the grant because people said that means something about you
What will the country come if the president cannot arbitrarily cancel funds in retaliation for protected freedom of speech?
After the American Bar Association Criticized President Donald TrumpTodd Blanche, former Trump criminal defense attorney and current assistant attorney general, Todd Blanche, throws a tantrum, Prohibited DOJ employees are engaged in “activist causes,” and therefore speak and attend ABA events. DOJ staff in policy positions were also prohibited from renewing their existing ABA membership.
A day later, the Trump administration plucked over $3 million in grants to the ABA. It was intended to be used to represent victims of sexual and domestic violence.
The ABA sued to recover funds, and earlier this week US District Judge Christopher Cooper granted Request for a provisional injunction from the ABA.
Most lawyers know that in law school the first amendment prohibits the government from retaliating against you based on the content of your speech. That’s exactly what the Trump administration did here. He punished the ABA for speaking out in a way the administration disliked.
However, most lawyers are not Trump’s former personal criminal defense attorneys, so the judge could quote directly from Blanche’s Hamhand memo whining about the ABA to demonize retaliation. Good job, Todd.
Trump never stops attacking law firms
In addition to trying to match legal professions by targeting Aba, the Trump administration continues to be committed to hurting law firms when Trump gets mad at them.
Wilmerhale is one of the largest law firms target By one of Trump’s executive orders. Trump is angry with the focus that Will Melhale had hired former special advisor Robert Mueller and one of his deputies, Andrew Weissman. Rather than bend your knees and giving the Trump administration millions with free legal services, Wilmer Hale I sued Washington, D.C., U.S. District Court has asked the court to block the order.
Another judge in that court was just It is forever prohibited The Trump administration will implement a similar executive order against Perkins Koy.
Meanwhile, even if the lawsuit is pending, the Trump administration has moved on, Stopped Security Clearance Anyway, for the two lawyers in the company.
If you stop investigating corruption, you won’t be able to suffer from corruption
The FBI is Shutter ring That official corruption force. You think that the administration, which has promised to eradicate fraud and pretend to fire employees from deep traitor states, would want to keep those responsible. However, the official corruption forces working with special advisor Jack Smith are the units. Surveyed Many Trump crimes.
In this example, the team could not be shut down just because it hurt Trump’s feelings. A government that is 100% committed to its own grafts and allows for the grafts of others is not useful for robust public corruption investigations.
After all, it would seriously hinder Trump’s efforts to turn the government into his own individual Corruption machine.
Campaign action
