#plaintiffs
LightNews LightNews
muellershewrote.com
BREAKING: DOJ is trying to BLOCK testimony in the criminal contempt proceedings against the government. The plaintiffs just filed an important response. My latest: www.muellershewrote.com/p/plaintiffs...
Plaintiffs in the Alien Enemies Act Contempt Proceedings File a Blistering Response
The government wants to block testimony from a DOJ lawyer and whistleblower Erez Reuveni next week because they’re trying to protect Emil Bove. The plaintiffs respond.
www.muellershewrote.com
December 12, 2025 at 8:53 AM
muellershewrote.com
The plaintiffs would like to enter exhibit 228 into evidence...
atrupar.com Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · May 28
Trump: "Harvard has gotta behave themselves ... I want Harvard to be great again."
May 28, 2025 at 4:54 PM
dsc250.bsky.social
- Religious exception rulings apply only to the plaintiffs.

- Environmental regulations continue to be enforced despite rulings against them (just not against plaintiffs).

- and on and on.

The left has to use this decision, not just criticize it.

It'll be chaos, but that's what the Justices get.
June 27, 2025 at 2:31 PM
muellershewrote.com
Your honor, plaintiffs' exhibit one.
September 21, 2026 at 3:27 PM
muellershewrote.com
Was I up until 1 AM writing this? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes. Judge Boasberg just ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Testimony from Reuveni and Ensign WILL GO FORWARD next week barring intervention from a higher court. www.muellershewrote.com/p/plaintiffs...
Plaintiffs in the Alien Enemies Act Contempt Proceedings File a Blistering Response
The government wants to block testimony from a DOJ lawyer and whistleblower Erez Reuveni next week because they’re trying to protect Emil Bove. The plaintiffs respond.
www.muellershewrote.com
December 12, 2025 at 8:22 PM
klasfeldreports.com
BREAKING

Judge Boasberg ORDERS the Trump admin to facilitate the return of the more than 100 men spirited out of the country last year without notice or a hearing.

Plaintiffs may also submit habeas petitions from abroad, he says.

Doc buff.ly/rccakD7
The Court, accordingly, ORDERS that: 1. Plaintiffs shall file under seal (but not ex parte) by February 20, 2026, a Notice indicating which Plaintiffs are currently in which third countries; 2. Plaintiffs shall by February 27, 2026, file a Notice noting the number of Plaintiffs who wish to travel independently to a U.S. port of entry or who wish to be flown from a third country to the United States for their court proceedings, understanding that in both scenarios they will be detained upon arrival. Plaintiffs shall simultaneously file a separate Notice under seal listing the names of such individuals; 3. Plaintiffs shall by March 9, 2026, file a Notice giving the number of Plaintiffs (in Venezuela or third countries) who wish to file supplements to their habeas class petition, including challenges to the Proclamation or their identification as TdA members. Plaintiffs shall likewise file a simultaneous Notice under seal listing those individuals’ names The Government shall promptly return to Plaintiffs upon written request by their current counsel all passports and identification documents that any agency currently retains, and it shall make good-faith efforts to obtain any of Plaintiffs’ passports or identification documents that were transferred to El Salvador; and 5. The Government shall file a Status Report by March 13, 2026, explaining how and when it will transport any Plaintiff seeking return to the United States from a third country. In that Status Report, the Government shall also inform the Court as to the feasibility of returning Plaintiffs still in Venezuela who wish to return for their proceedings. It shall also describe the steps taken to obtain any passports or identification documents from El Salvador.
February 12, 2026 at 4:04 PM
kyledcheney.bsky.social
THAT DIDN'T TAKE LONG: Plaintiffs in one lawsuit against DOGE have alerted the court to President Trump's remarks tonight calling Elon Musk the "head" of the office.
March 5, 2025 at 4:32 AM
joshkovensky.bsky.social
The plaintiffs are now up
March 21, 2025 at 7:16 PM
klasfeldreports.com
A hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. CT (10 a.m. ET) on the state of Minnesota's request to halt the ICE surge in the Twin Cities.

I'm covering the proceedings remotely.

From the state's memo:

buff.ly/ub2bHso
The balance of the equities tips sharply in Plaintiffs’ favor. Plaintiffs seek to protect their sovereignty as well as their residents’ health, welfare, and safety. Plaintiffs also seek to retain control over local law enforcement, education, and public safety. At bottom, Plaintiffs seek to protect fundamental principles of American federalism from Defendants’ unprecedented intrusion. The public is in no way benefited from such unlawful or unconstitutional activity and there is substantial public interest in “Americans trusting their own government to follow the rule of law.” ... On the other hand, the federal government faces no harm from an injunction. The federal government has enforced federal law in Minnesota for decades without the support of thousands of federal agents roving the streets and making illegal stops. Defendants may continue to enforce such laws even with Plaintiffs’ requested injunction in place.
January 26, 2026 at 2:52 PM
heathercherone.bsky.social
Ellis says she is "ordering complete relief to the plaintiffs."
November 6, 2025 at 5:25 PM
jamellebouie.net
crazy, almost like there’s a chance that class actions may not provide the relief plaintiffs gained under the universal injunction
chrisgeidner.bsky.social Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · Jun 30
BREAKING: DOJ will oppose a request for class certification — to create a class-action lawsuit — in the Maryland CASA case challenging Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court ended universal injunctions and said class actions remain available for broad relief.
chrisgeidner.bsky.social Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · Jun 30
Rosenberg says DOJ will oppose the motion for class certification.
June 30, 2025 at 6:36 PM
annabower.bsky.social
UPDATE: Counsel for the plaintiffs say that DOJ filed its declaration in camera and ex parte—meaning with the judge and without providing access to the plaintiffs.

Now the plaintiffs seek access to that declaration ⬇️

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
MOTION FOR PROVISION OF COURT-ORDERED DECLARATION Based on correspondence with Defendants, Plaintiffs understand that Defendants filed the declaration ordered by the Court following today's hearing in camera and ex parte, with no notice to Plaintiffs. See Ex. A. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order Defendants to provide a copy of the declaration to Plaintiffs as soon as possible in light of the declaration's significant relevance to Plaintiffs' emergency motion and the urgency of the situation, in which Plaintiffs face the threat of imminent return to persecution or torture by Monday, September 15. Following today's hearing, this Court ordered that Defendants file a declaration by 9:00 PM ET "setting forth the government's efforts, in light of Ghana's transfer of at least one Plaintiff to his home country, to keep Plaintiffs from being removed to their countries of origin or other countries where they fear persecution or torture." Sept. 13, 2025 Minute Order. At 10:41 PM ET, after no such declaration had been filed, Plaintiffs' counsel emailed Defendants' counsel requesting that they provide an estimated time of filing. Ex. A. Defendants' counsel responded they had "provided... the declaration for review in camera due to the sensitive nature of the diplomatic relations contained therein." Id. In a follow-up email, they stated that they lacked "authorization" to provide the declaration to Plaintifis' counsel, including pursuant to a protective order, and that they would "ask the agency if we can share the declaration with you but do not expect we will receive an answer tonight." Id. In light of the magnitude of potential harm to Plaintifis and Plaintifis' supplemental briefing due tomorrow currently at 12 PM Plaintiffs' counsel urgently require access to Defendants' declaration. As discussed at the September 12, 2025 hearing before the Court, Plaintifis have a right to see whatever agreement or understanding has been reached between the United States and Ghana. See Tr. 28:1-6, D.A. v: Noem, No. 25-3135-TSC (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2025) (*THE COURT: All right. Here's the thing. If this agreement has been reduced to writing, plaintifis need to see it. I'll issue whatever protective order I need to issue."). As Plaintifts' counsel informed Defendants' counsel, Plaintifis are willing to receive the declaration subject to a protective order, as counsel including Plaintifis' counsel here-have in other significant cases involving foreign policy matters. For example, in J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766, Chief Judge Boasberg ordered jurisdictional discovery into the question whether Plaintifls were "in custody," notwithstanding the fact that "[s)uch discovery may very well implicate matters of the most delicate diplomacy." J.G.G., ECF No. 116 at 6. Plaintifis' counsel in that case reccived that discovery under scal. The govemment regularly provides to litigants, subject to protective orders, materials that touch on foreign policy or law enforcement issues. See, eg, M.A. v. Noem, No. 1:23-cv-01843-TSC (case challenging government's asylum bar, the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways Rule). Courts heavily disfavor ex parte submissions. …
September 14, 2025 at 4:20 AM
emptywheel.bsky.social
Hoping the VOS Selection plaintiffs alert SCOTUS...
atrupar.com Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · Jan 18
WELKER: What is the national emergency that justifies this new slate of tariffs?

BESSENT: The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency
January 18, 2026 at 3:35 PM
rgoodlaw.bsky.social
Judge Kelly:

"Nothing in the record that predates this suit suggests that the revocation of
Plaintiffs’ hard passes was motivated by national security concerns."
September 24, 2026 at 5:49 AM
marisakabas.bsky.social
Inbox: USIP Plaintiffs Seek Emergency Court Order to Prevent Trump Name from Being Carved into Building

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
September 18, 2026 at 2:04 PM
annabower.bsky.social
Unsolicited advice for Article III judges, their clerks, and litigants in immigration cases: TROs enjoining removal should specify that plaintiffs shall not be removed "from United States CUSTODY"

Don't let what happened to Boasberg happen to u!!
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Given the exigent circumstances, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. As the Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, the Court accordingly ORDERS that: 1) The Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for TRO is GRANTED; 2) The Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court; and 3) The parties shall appear for a hearing on August 31, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14 before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. A zoom link will follow. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025.
September 5, 2025 at 3:09 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
NEWS: Judge Lamberth, who has been hearing a challenge over trans individuals in prison facing transfers due to Trump’s anti-trans orders (and has granted relief to those individuals), today granted similar relief to trans women *already* moved to male facilities. He orders them moved back.
On March 14, 2025, the plaintiffs moved with the consent of the defendants to file a Second Amended Complaint in this dispute. See Consent Mot. for Leave to File, ECF No. 58. The Second Amended Complaint is substantially identical to the First Amended Complaint, except that it adds two additional plaintiffs, Rachel Doe and Ellen Doe. The new plaintiffs are in most respects similarly situated to the other plaintiffs in this suit, with one exception: while the other plaintiffs were pending transfer to a male penitentiary when the Court ruled on their motions for a 1 Case 1:25-cv-00286-RCL Document 68 Filed 03/19/25 Page 2 of 4 preliminary injunction, these new plaintiffs have already been transferred to male facilities. See Second Amended Compl. T1 45, 50, ECF No. 58-2. The plaintiffs have now moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order against them and to have them returned to female prison facilities. Mot. for PI, ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the defendants are enjoined and restrained from implementing sections 4(a) and 4(c) of Executive Order 14168 with regard to plaintiffs Rachel Doe and Ellen Doe, pending further Order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED that the Defendants shall immediately transfer plaintiffs Rachel Doe and Ellen Doe back to women's penitentiaries and reinstate or continue their gender dysphoria treatment, pending further Order of this Court. Date: March > 4 2025 , 12:30 p.m. Ten Ca Lanite Royce C. Lamberth United States District Judge
March 19, 2025 at 6:53 PM
jamellebouie.net
just learned that one of the plaintiffs, lillian bevier, is a federalist society chud
July 1, 2025 at 12:05 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
BREAKING: Federal judge orders that hormone therapy and social accommodations be maintained for transgender people in federal prisons, blocking Trump admin policies.

Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, granted class certification and prelim. injunction in a lawsuit challenging the policies.
For the reasons contained herein, the Court concludes first that the plaintiffs' action is not barred by the administrative exhaustion requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"); second, that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their APA claims, and that the Court accordingly need not assess the plaintiffs' constitutional claims based on the limited record now available; third, that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a grant of preliminary injunctive relief, and that the balance of the equities favors granting such relief; fourth, that the plaintiffs' proposed class meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2); and fifth, that the President shall not be dismissed from the case as a defendant at this juncture given the potential availability of declaratory relief. In accord with these legal conclusions, the Court will ORDER that the plaintiffs' proposed class, with slight modification from the Court explained below, be certified 7 Case 1:25-cv-00691-RCL Document 67 Filed 06/03/25 Page 8 of 36 and that class counsel be appointed. The Court will further ORDER the BOP to make social accommodations available to all class members to the same extent they were available prior to the issuance of the Executive Order, and to provide hormone therapy to all class members who have been prescribed hormone medications by BOP or other medical personnel to the same extent as before the issuance of the Executive Order.
June 3, 2025 at 5:09 PM
taniel.bsky.social
Just now: The plaintiffs who were arguing that Utah GOP's congressional map is illegal won in court.

The judge orders one of the two maps submitted by the plaintiffs ('map 1') be used.

The ruling, if it stands, guarantees that Democrats will pick up a congressional seat in Utah next year.
November 11, 2025 at 6:55 AM
muellershewrote.com
KELLY: Before we get to First Amendment considerations, the first stop is 5th Amendment due process. So plaintiffs? 5/
September 23, 2026 at 7:37 PM
waldo.net
The Supreme Court is so illegitimate that cases are often about fictional matters with plaintiffs who have been harmed in no way, now to the point where they are not aware that they are plaintiffs in a Supreme Court case.
brianlyman.bsky.social Brian Lyman @brianlyman.bsky.social · Oct 12
“One of them, Albert ‘Skip’ Caissie Jr., 78, said in a phone interview that he wasn’t aware that he was involved in a Supreme Court case.”
Who Are the Louisiana Voters Behind a Major Supreme Court Challenge?
www.nytimes.com
October 12, 2025 at 2:32 PM
joshuajfriedman.com
Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss ask Judge Howell to find Rudy Giuliani in contempt for additional defamatory statements after he missed yesterday's deadline to respond to their contempt motion storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
NOTICE OF MR. GIULIANI'S FAILURE TO FILE ANY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT Per this Court's minute order dated November 20, 2024, Mr. Giuliani was instructed to file any response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Civil Contempt (ECF No. 19) by December 2, 2024, and "CAUTIONING defendant that failure to respond [] will be treated as conceding that motion." November 20, 2024 Minute Order. Mr. Giuliani failed to file a timely response. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Ruby Freeman and Wandrea' Moss ("Plaintiffs") respectfully request that this Court hold that Mr. Giuliani has conceded the motion, and enter an order that Mr. Giuliani is in civil contempt and reserving the entry of appropriate sanctions until after the December 12, 2024 hearing. Mr. Giuliani was properly served notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Civil Contempt and the November 20, 2024 Order. On November 20, 2024, Plaintiffs' counsel sent the Motion for Civil Contempt and November 20, 2024 Order via FedEx for overnight delivery to Defendant's attention at 315 South Lake Drive, Unit 5D, Palm Beach, FL 33480. Ex. 1. Service of those materials was effective upon delivery to FedEx, pursuant to the parties' joint stipulation. ECF No. 14 at 3. Those materials were delivered on November 21, 2024. Ex. 2. Additionally, Plaintiffs' counsel provided a copy of the motion to Mr. Giuliani's counsel, Kenneth Caruso, David Labkowski, and Joseph Cammarata via an email on November 20, 2024. Ex. 3. Mr. Giuliani, moreover, was fully aware of Plaintiffs' Motion for Civil Contempt, as well as the Court's Order scheduling a hearing on the Motion for December 12, 2024. During a November 26, 2024 hearing in the Southern District of New York in the pending enforcement actions, Freeman v. Giuliani, 24-cv-6563 and Freeman v. Giuliani, 24-mc-353, Mr. Giuliani's counsel discussed the Motion for Civil Contempt on the record at length, including references not just to the Motion but the hearing date. Ex. 4 at 17:14-20. Mr. Giuliani was present in the courtroom and personally participated in the hearing. Mr. Giuliani sought a postponement a January 16, 2025 trial date in that Court in part because, according to Mr. Giuliani's counsel, Plaintiffs' Motion for Civil Contempt is Mr. Giuliani's "main focus right now." Id. at 17:21-23. For all of these reasons, the Court should grant the Motion for Civil Contempt as conceded, should enter an order that Mr. Giuliani is in civil contempt, and the December 12, 2024 hearing should be narrowed to focus on the appropriate civil contempt sanction for Mr. Giuliani's violation of the consent injunction.
December 3, 2024 at 8:41 PM
muellershewrote.com
First, DoJ argued the mail vote plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue because USPS hadn’t published the final rule. Now that it has, DoJ changes its argument saying plaintiffs muet first take their complaint to the Postal Regulatory Commission before filing in federal court.
johnhawkinson.bsky.social John Hawkinson @johnhawkinson.bsky.social · 24d
IT: Now the rule is out, you're saying go to the commission which doesn't have to answer for 90 days, which is 20 days after the election.
that is your position?

DOJ: Yes.

IT: Intervenors?
S: Congress tried to challenge these claims to the Commission and appeals to the DC Circuit.
September 3, 2026 at 2:02 PM
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Sounds like some fireworks here today.

Plaintiffs' brief: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

DOJ response: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
kyledcheney.bsky.social Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney.bsky.social · Jun 16
BREAKING: A federal judge in Massachusetts (the Reagan-appointed William Young) has declared the Trump administration's cuts to NIH grants — ostensibly over Trump's EOs on gender ideology and DEI — are "illegal" and "void." He's ordering many grants restored.
June 16, 2025 at 6:37 PM