LightNews — News, ranked by scholars

southpaw

@nycsouthpaw.bsky.social

Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

point out, it is also unworkable. (See Dkt. No. 69-1 at 17.) The recordkeeping and administrative burden from such an arrangement, (see id.), ' also mandates nationwide relief. Nor is it clear what, if any, prejudice the Government would suffer from nationwide relief. In its brief in opposition, it points to none. (See Dkt. No. 84 at 57-59).

For all these reasons, the Court finds that relief must be nationwide. Anything less is ineffectual.

III. CONCLUSION

Citizenship by birth is an unequivocal Constitutional right. It is one of the precious principles that makes the United States the great nation that it is. The President cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order. The Court GRANTS the i Plaintiffs' motions for a nationwide preliminary injunction (Dkt Nos, 63, 74) and ENJOINS enforcement or implementation of the Order on a nationwide basis.

February 6, 2025 at 8:28 PM

Heinz Plomperg

@plomperg.bsky.social

DKT, Regierungsedition ...

#plompergdiverses

DKT Spielbrett, "Das kriminelle Talent", ...

January 7, 2025 at 1:55 PM

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social

Notably, @royalpratt.bsky.social appears to have gotten his hands on the unredacted copy of the preliminary injunction motion seemingly filed in error yesterday before being deleted and replaced with a redacted version.

Here's what that bit looks like in the public filing vs. the unredacted.

In fact, Defendants used gas in a residential neighborhood multiple times without audible warnings, after residents protested their arrest of a person in the front yard of a residence. See Dkt. 140; Dkt. 140 at 1 n.1; Exs. 90-93, 95-96 (available at Dkt. 140 at 1 n.2). Defendants’ own videos show [REDACTED] (cite to an Axon video). [REDACTED]. The gas [REDACTED]. There was no threat when gas was deployed.

November 4, 2025 at 8:58 PM

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

They describe the harm Roberts did by staying the order.

It's not just Marco Rubio killing children; it is Roberts now too.

www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

The government’s continued noncompliance with the district
court’s TRO forced one respondent to lay off 110 employees *yesterday.* Another will default
on severance obligations, triggering civil liability and potential regulatory enforcement, if it does not receive payment for past work by *today.* Meanwhile, many of those who depend
on respondents’ programming face starvation, disease, and death. See, e.g., AVAC Dkt. 13-
2, ¶ 11; GHC Dkt. 7-6, ¶ 13, GHC Dkt. 7-1, ¶ 8; GHC Dkt. 7-3, ¶ 14; GHC Dkt. 7-9, ¶ 14, GHC
Dkt. 46-2, ¶¶ 2-7.

[emphasis original]

March 1, 2025 at 4:54 PM

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

UPDATE: Judge Elkins — in light of this amicus brief (and the defendant’s reply) — gives DOJ a sur-reply on the Posse Comitatus challenge to JAG lawyers prosecuting in Minnesota, due by March 24, and sets argument on this issue at a previously scheduled April 3 hearing.

Mar 11, 2026
(Text-Only) ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Defendant's Reply (Dkt. 43) to the Government's Response (Dkt. 35) to his Motion to Strike Appearance of Government's Counsel (Dkt. 24) and the Amicus Brief filed in support of Defendant's Motion to Strike Appearance of Government's Counsel (Dkt. 39-1). The Government may file a sur-reply only as to arguments on Defendant's Motion to Strike (Dkt. 24) on or before March 24, 2026. The Court will hear argument on this motion at the hearing scheduled for April 3, 2026.
Ordered by Magistrate Judge Shannon
G. Elkins on 3/11/2026. (BH) (Entered:
03/11/2026

March 11, 2026 at 11:34 PM

Heinz Plomperg

@plomperg.bsky.social

Pleite wie Benko, ...

#plompergdiverses

October 24, 2025 at 8:15 PM

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

BREAKING: Trump's executive order targeting WilmerHale is unconstitutional, Judge Richard Leon — a GWB appointee — finds.

"The Founding Fathers knew this!"

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP,
Plaintiff,
V.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT, et al.,
)
)
)
)
)
) Civil Case No. 25-917 (RJL)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
May� 2025 [Dkt. #15; Dkt. #16]
The cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and
an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases, however daunting. The Founding
Fathers knew this! Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain
rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the
nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted no Executive Order has been issued
challenging these fundamental rights. Now, however, several Executive Orders have been
issued directly challenging these rights and that independence. One of these Orders is the
subject of this case. For the reasons set forth below, I have concluded that this Order must
be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be
unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!

May 27, 2025 at 8:52 PM

Joshua J. Friedman

@joshuajfriedman.com

NEW: Judge Murphy says the 8 men in Djibouti on their way to South Sudan WILL GET THE DUE PROCESS he previously ordered, saying that his remedial order remains in effect despite the Supreme Court's unreasoned order lifting the stay on his class-wide injunction.

Judge Brian E. Murphy: ELECTRONIC ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY MOTION TO ENFORCE JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs emergency Motion, Dkt. 174, is DENIED as unnecessary, subject to the below. The Courts May 21, 2025 Order on Remedy, Dkt. 119, remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding todays stay of the Preliminary Injunction. DHS v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153, slip op. At 12
(S. Ct. Jun. 23, 2025) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (The District Courts remedial orders [were] not properly before [the Supreme] Court because the Government has not appealed them, or sought a stay pending a forthcoming appeal.). For the avoidance of doubt, and to the extend Plaintiffs N.M. And D.D. Are indeed subject to third-country removal, see Dt. 175 at 5-7, N.M. And D.D. Are included among the individuals referenced in the May 21, 2025 Order. (BAH) (Entered: 06/23/2025)

June 24, 2025 at 12:24 AM

Josh Gerstein

@joshgerstein.bsky.social

BREAKING: Judge tosses libel suit former Ambassador to @RichardGrenell filed against former NSC official @OliviaTroye for saying he tried to get Pence to go to a white supremacist gathering abroad. Judge Alston (Trump/EDVA) finds no defamation. Doc: www.documentcloud.org/documents/25...

(Dkt. 15) 2025.02.27 Memorandum Opinion and Order

www.documentcloud.org

February 27, 2025 at 9:28 PM

Anna Bower

@annabower.bsky.social

UPDATE: Judge Breyer will allow audio-only Zoom access during witness testimony.

Defendants move to prevent public remote access to the upcoming bench trial.
Mot. (dkt. 146). They do so out of concern over the safety of certain Department of Defense and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who Plaintiffs will call as witnesses. Id. at 2; see also Pls.' Wit. List (dkt. 143). Plaintiffs take no position on the motion other than to suggest that Defendants' concerns can be alleviated by providing remote access without video a less drastic option than precluding remote access outright.
Mot. at 3. As Plaintiffs correctly point out, the trial will be held in open court, so witness names and testimony may be reported upon publicly, regardless of remote access. Id.
The Court concludes that audio-only streaming strikes the right balance between accommodating Defendants' concerns and ensuring public access to the upcoming bench trial, which will involve issues of significant public concern and interest. Accordingly, the Court orders that the August 11-13 bench trial will be accessible to members of the public via audio-only Zoom pursuant to Civil Local Rule 77-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 9, 2025
CHARLES R. BREYER

August 10, 2025 at 1:05 AM

Gabriel Malor

@gabrielmalor.bsky.social

Sweet fancy cupcakes, Judge Heil throws shade. (Pictured.)

The Court also notes that while Plaintiffs complain of “Defendant’s continued interference
with the day-to-day-operations . . . of Oklahoma’s public schools . . . ,” Plaintiffs only complain
of two (2) letters sent by Defendant to two (2) Oklahoma public schools in the past seven (7) years.
Dkt. No. 24 at 14; Dkt. No. 2 at 19-20. Again, the Complaint does not explain how these letters
have interfered with day-to-day operations in any real way. Indeed, it appears that upon receiving
these letters, the recipient schools simply forwarded the letters to OSDE for guidance, which, as
discussed earlier, appears to be within the scope of Plaintiffs’ duties. Dkt. No. 24 at 12.

August 14, 2025 at 2:20 PM

Joshua J. Friedman

@joshuajfriedman.com

"From this course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite lack of clarity as a means of evasion."

flaw with this argument is that, prior to May 20, 2025, the Court had already twice found that O.C.G.'s process was likely insufficient." Dkt. 40 at 6; Dkt. 64 at 42 n.43. Moreover, as of March 28, 2025, Defendants were claiming that O.C.G. was notified of his removal in January, roughly three weeks prior to his actual removal in February. Dkt. 31 at 4.12 It is therefore impossible to justify Defendants' position that O.C.G.'s case reasonably stood as a benchmark of compliance
with the due process protections this Court has determined to be required.
Defendants effectively tell this Court that it should have at least tried to micromanage the
Department of Homeland Security as it fulfills its required obligations, but that is not the role of
the courts. See Martinez v. Bondi, 132 F.4th 74, 84 (Ist Cir. 2025) (explaining that the appropriate remedy for improper agency action, "except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation"). Rather, this Court has strived to give Defendants as much flexibility as possible within legal bounds. At the end of the March 28, 2025, hearing, the Court presented Defendants with a good-faith opportunity to define the process provided under the
Preliminary Injunction:
THE COURT:
.. In the meantime, I take your point about the Court ordering
what "meaningful" means to heart. And so I would consider a motion to reconsider, if you wanted to narrow what that procedure looked like, or you wanted [to] come to an agreement about what it looked like, or you wanted to tell me, [t]his is what we're defining as meaningful, and I would like you to reconsider and adopt this.
I'm open to all of those things because you raise a very good point. And so, to the extent that the guidance that the Court is giving you is nothing more than a meaningful opportunity and you want some more direction or you want to narrow that with some more specificity, I would welcome a motion to consider.

If you file a motion to consider, I can hear you. I think you're in D.C.; so I can hear you, even by Zoom, within 24 hours.
Tr. of Mar. 28, 2025 H'rg at 68:13-69:3. Defendants' counsel thanked the Court for that
opportunity, id. at 69:4-5, but then declined to take it. 13
Consistent with this approach, the Court has repeatedly asked Defendants to weigh in on
the particulars of its remedies, and Defendants have consistently refused. See Dkt. 64 at 47 n. 49 ("The Court has been forced to decide on an appropriate time limit because Defendants were unable, unwilling, or incapable of meaningfully engaging in a discussion about what process was required to provide aliens with a meaningful opportunity to contest a finding that their fear was reasonable."). Even in this latest round of back-and-forth, nearly two months later, the Court again asked Defendants for input on the appropriate length of time to raise a fear-based claim-Defendants again refused to engage.'4 Tr. of May 21, 2025 Hr'g at 48:14 49:10 ("[Mr. Ensign]: Certainly, our position is that 24 hours is sufficient. We recognize you disagree, but we don't have a specific proposal in light of this Court's disagreement with that position."). Is The Court then suggested that Defendants could provide additional authority after the hearing, id.
at 50:21-51:10-Defendants did not. From this course of conduct, it is hard to come to any
conclusion other than that Defendants invite lack of clarity as a means of evasion.

May 27, 2025 at 12:43 AM

emptywheel

@emptywheel.bsky.social

Still working through the NEH decision and thinking, for about the 100th time, that it'd be really useful to use Trump's claim to oppose antisemitism against him.

legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/28...

Among the grants DOGE added to the slate of grants to be terminated was a proposal by
the National Catholic Center for Holocaust Education at Seton Hall University to provide
educational programming about the Holocaust. Dkt. No. 248-32, US-000041206, at 130; Dkt. No.
248-3, McDonald Dep., 225:7–226:19. McDonald was not the one who selected that grant for
termination, and he did not believe it implicated DEI. See Dkt. No. 248-3, McDonald Dep., 226:6–
11 (“Q: And in your view, does this grant relate to DEI? A: No. Q: Would you consider this to be
wasteful spend[ing]? A: I would not, no.”). It was DOGE personnel – specifically Justin
Fox – who sent McDonald and Wolfson the final list of all grants “to cancel” and all grants “to
keep.” Dkt. No. 248-5, Ex. 5, NEH_AR_000022; Dkt. No. 248-32, Ex. 32, US-000041206.

May 11, 2026 at 2:09 PM

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

BREAKING: Federal judge blocks DOJ from requesting or receiving patient information about those who have received gender-affirming medical care as minors at Packard Children's Hospital (Stanford).

The is the second order blocking these grand jury subpoenas: www.lawdork.com/p/doj-trans-...

In opposing plaintiffs’ motion, DOJ does not meaningfully defend the propriety of its
demand for patients’ sensitive health information. Instead, DOJ contends that because it now seeks
plaintiffs’ medical records through issuance of a grand jury subpoena rather than through an
administrative subpoena, plaintiffs’ sole recourse is to file a motion to quash the subpoena in the
issuing court pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17. For the reasons that follow, the
Court concludes, for purposes of plaintiffs’ motion, that Rule 17 likely does not preclude plaintiffs
from pursuing an action in this Court to enjoin the federal officials’ ongoing efforts to procure
their private medical information. And because plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of
success on their claim that DOJ’s efforts, if successful, would infringe upon their constitutional
privacy rights, the Court provisionally certifies a class of patients who received gender-affirming
care at Packard and grants plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunctive relief as to that class.1
Because the record does not establish that patients who received gender-affirming care at other
Californian hospitals face a similar risk of injury, the Court denies plaintiffs’ motions to the extent
they seek provisional certification of a statewide class and statewide injunctive relief.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to proceed via pseudonym (Dkt. No. 42) is
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ motions for provisional class certification (Dkt. No. 45) and for a
preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 46) are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
DOJ and Acting Attorney General Blanche, and all persons acting in concert with or on
behalf of such defendants, are hereby ENJOINED from requesting, receiving, producing,
transmitting, disclosing, or otherwise obtaining any records, documents, or information that
(1) identify members of the provisional class as having sought or received gender-affirming care
(or “Sex-Rejecting Procedures”); (2) disclose the clinical indications, diagnoses, assessments, or
other sensitive health information underlying the provision of such care to members of the
provisional class; (3) describe the gender-affirming care (or “Sex-Rejecting Procedures”) provided
to members of the provisional class or any consultations or patient intakes related to such care; or
(4) relate to the provision of informed consent and parent or guardian authorization for provisional
class members’ receipt of gender-affirming care (or “Sex-Rejecting Procedures”). Absent a further
order from this Court, the injunction shall remain in effect during the pendency of these
proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 2, 2026
P. Casey Pitts
United States District Judge

July 2, 2026 at 6:43 PM

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

DOJ argued today that the 5-4 ballroom case SCOTUS shadow docket order "mandates" the dismissal of veterans' case against Trump's 250-foot arch. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

For all these reasons, National Park Service mandates that the Court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 31, and deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. 36.
DATE: September 3, 2026
Respectfully submitted,
ADAM R.F. GUSTAFSON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
BRADLEY CRAIGMYLE
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Michael S. Sawyer
MICHAEL S. SAWYER, Senior Attorney
DANIEL LUECKE, Trial Attorney
Environment and Natural Resources Division

September 4, 2026 at 1:24 AM

Mrs. Detective PikaBOO, Esq.

@clapifyoulikeme.favrd.social

If a judge said “it should give any reasonable lawyer pause” about me I would walk into the Hudson

Mr. Feldman offered this screenshot and pointed to the third result to argue that "it is without question that the citation [included in his reply brief] does exist." (Dkt. #183). Significantly, however, while the third result is a real case citation, the citation does not match the one in Mr. Feldman's reply brief.
As for the case name, the reply brief cited "Himmelstein [v.] Comcast of the D.C., LLC," but the screenshot returns a result for "Himmelstein v. Comcast of the Dist., LLC." (Dkt. #180 at 11 (emphasis added); Dkt. #183 at 1 (emphasis
added)). As for the reporter citation, the reply brief cited, in relevant part, 44 F.
Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2012), but the screenshot showed a citation for 931 F.
Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2013). What is more, even without reading the case appearing as the third result (which the Court views as the baseline), it should
give any reasonable lawyer pause to cite a federal case from the D.D.C. while
discussing New York state law. Indeed, as it turns out, this third result is a Fair Credit Reporting Act case and makes no mention of GBL § 349.
Himmelstein v. Comcast of the Dist., L.L.C., 931 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2013).2

February 5, 2026 at 10:23 PM

Adam Klasfeld

@klasfeldreports.com

A federal judge BLOCKS certain restrictions on Justice Dept. grants issued under the Violence Against Women Act.

The grants help survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

Doc legacy.www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

"Plaintiffs bring this civil action to challenge Defendants’
decision to place allegedly unlawful conditions on all future grants issued under the Violence Against Women Act. See generally Compl. Declaratory & Injunctive Relief (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for Relief under 5 U.S.C. § 705 (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”), Dkt. No. 15. Because the Court concludes that the challenged conditions run afoul of the prohibition against arbitrary and capricious agency action, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion."

August 8, 2025 at 6:57 PM

Shawn Musgrave

@shawnmusgrave.bsky.social

The Intercept is chipping away at docket restrictions in various lawsuits over deportations, detentions, revoked student visas. Yesterday, Judge Reyes ordered the clerk to lift restrictions in one of the DDC cases over ICE's "Student Criminal Alien Initiative" www.courtlistener.com/docket/69878...

Text of Judge Reyes's order dated May 6:

MINUTE ORDER. With the consent of both parties, the Court ORDERS that the limitations on remote access to electronic files otherwise applicable in this case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c), be lifted except for Dkt. 17 and the exhibits to Dkt. 2. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to lift all viewing restrictions on the docket--i.e., to make all prior filings electronically available to the public--except for Dkt. 17 and the exhibits to Dkt. 2, which shall continue to be subject to the restrictions in Rule 5.2(c). All future filings shall be publicly available unless the Court grants leave to file a document under seal or in redacted form. The Court further ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a redacted version of Dkt. 17 on the docket as soon as practicable.Signed by Judge Ana C. Reyes on 05/06/2025. (lcacr2)

May 7, 2025 at 1:21 PM

Chris Geidner

@chrisgeidner.bsky.social

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

#34 in Grenell v. Troye (E.D. Va., 1:24-cv-00646) – CourtListener.com

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 28) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Complaint (Dkt. 26) is DISMISSED WI...

storage.courtlistener.com

March 25, 2026 at 5:25 PM

Tom_Harb

@tomharb.bsky.social

Vom Spiel DKT („Das kaufmännische Talent“) gibt es mehrere Sondereditionen mit Wien-Bezug. Unter anderem das „Wien DKT“, einige Bezirksausgaben wie die DKTs für Favoriten, Floridsdorf und die Donaustadt sowie auch ein DKT Hofburg Wien. #WienFakt

October 12, 2024 at 8:01 PM

Alt National Park Service

@altnps.bsky.social

A win! A federal judge in Washington ruled that protesters near the Capitol cannot be forced to remove flags displaying “8647,” finding no evidence the message constitutes a true threat against Trump.

Memorandum & Opinion – #20 in ACCOUNTABILITY NOW USA v. GRIESS (D.D.C., 1:26-cv-01385) – CourtListener.com

MEMORANDUM OPINION: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. 10, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. See document for details. A separate orde...

storage.courtlistener.com

June 1, 2026 at 10:18 PM

die quati

@katquat.at

wien is meins aber bin trotzdem fast pleite

Spielplan des Spiels „DKT“ mit den Spielfeldern Kobenzlstraße, Mariahilfer und Kärntner Straße mit jeweils zwei roten Häuschen drauf.

December 25, 2025 at 6:48 PM

Court Watch

@courtwatch.bsky.social

New opinion just dropped, granting Letitia James’ motion to unseal their motion to squash DOJ subpoenas against her office

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

Order on Motion to Unseal Case – #44 in In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas to the Office of the New York State Attorney General v. United States (N.D.N.Y., 1:25-mc-00019) – CourtListener.com

OPINION & ORDER granting # 2 NYOAG's Motion to Unseal Case, with the exception of Dkt. No. 38 . USAO shall refile all papers at Dkt. No. 38 (including exhibits) with limited redactions of all non-publ...

storage.courtlistener.com

October 31, 2025 at 10:05 PM

Courtney Milan

@courtneymilan.com

The other law firms showed up and were like "Hi, everyone! We're here, and we've put on our billing trousers!" and then they expected the money to roll in.