Budget cuts cause chaos for criminal justice practitioners

 From The Marshall Project:

The cuts have caused chaos in criminal justice grantmaking, creating a perception that the process is increasingly aligned with President Donald Trump and the Project 2025 agenda — even as some decisions contradict the administration’s own stated goals.

“We have seen the Department of Justice weaponized to be in service of President Trump's political agenda and weaponized to go after his opponents and critics and enemies,” Insha Rahman, vice president of advocacy and partnerships at the Vera Institute of Justice, said.

DOJ funding under the second Trump administration now serves the president’s agenda of mass deportation and a “law and order” approach to reducing crime, Rahman said. The DOJ terminated $5 million in outstanding funds to Vera, who, for 64 years, has run on a platform of criminal justice reform achieved by research. Rahman said the nonprofit had unwavering support from the federal government in the past. Now, Vera is among those organizations that sued to reinstate the funding.

In addition to grassroots anti-violence nonprofits, local police departments, prosecutors and courts, state departments of corrections, national criminal justice nonprofits and researchers had to pause or scale back programs, find other sources of funding, leave positions open or lay off staff. Equal Justice USA (EJUSA), a national nonprofit whose work included funding grassroots organizations supporting victims of violent crime or working to prevent violence also shut down.

“The opportunity to support a President’s agenda may be greater through OJP grant funding than it is through any of the federal government’s other grant-making components,” Gene Hamilton, a DOJ official during Trump’s first administration, wrote in the chapter about the department in Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership.

Since its creation in 1984, OJP has aimed to make the federal government a major supporter of state and local governments’ efforts to reduce crime, often through research, evaluation and development — and grants to encourage new programs, or to support promising models. The office is responsible for grants that transfer billions of federal dollars to state and local agencies making up the criminal justice system, as well as research and nonprofit organizations.

OJP provides site-based grants, which fund local governments or nonprofits to implement programs in particular places, research grants to study the effectiveness of programs, as well as training and technical assistance grants that share expertise to help local programs best use their funding. Training and technical assistance grants, often to national nonprofits like EJUSA or Vera, were the hardest hit in the April cuts. They accounted for more than $578 million in original funds, the Council on Criminal Justice found.

The Justice Department told grant recipients that were terminated that their work “no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities.” A termination letter reviewed by The Marshall Project said the department was focusing on direct support and coordination for law enforcement, “combatting violent crime”, “protecting American children,” and supporting victims of trafficking and sexual assault.

However, many of the grant cuts were in these areas. While police departments were not the primary recipients of terminated grants, the Justice Department ended grants aimed at supporting police. The department ended a grant that expanded police officer safety wellness training as part of a broader police mental health and wellness initiative. It also terminated a training and technical assistance grant to help rural law enforcement agencies implement plans to reduce violence. Beyond technical assistance, that grant also funded a few small, focused agency programs to confront violent crime problems.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: Trump Administration Breathes Life Into Lost Cause of the Confederacy

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
September 2, 2025

The Trump administration is talking about making the nation's capital and places like California and Chicago safe again — reminiscent of the campaign's mantra that evolved into an acronym that represents a political movement MAGA, Make American Great Again.

At the same time, President Donald Trump's acolytes are using the criminal justice system to get even with his political opponents. The FBI raided the home of former national security adviser John Bolton.

According to a carefully calculated leak to The New York Post, Bolton — a major critic of Trump — had the search of his home personally authorized by FBI director Kash Patel. Greg Sargent recently wrote in The New Republic, "Patel had openly declared in 2023 that 'the conspirators,' that is enemies of Trump and MAGA, must be prosecuted, and also that more loyalists with the resolve to see this through would be recruited to carry this out."

The Department of Justice appears to be Trump's personal enforcers. Patel's hit list is common knowledge, and his open involvement in the investigation of Bolten is meant to send a message to Trump's critics. This sounds more like the Mob — who decades ago federal prosecutors successfully crushed — than the Department of Justice.

At the same time, the Trump administration is doubling down on its crime crackdown in major cities. Trump has long painted major U.S. cities as unsafe and lawless. This is nothing new. During 2017 inaugural address, Trump spoke of "American carnage" in urban areas, pointing to crime and poverty, particularly in places led by Democrats.

The focus has not changed. Even though, cities like Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Chicago have been the focus of Trump's wrath, Southern cities like Memphis and Jackson, Mississippi have been ignored.

Not only is it a lie to say that cities like Chicago are "a mess" and dubious at best to suggest that the National Guard needs activated to clean up the mess — the rationale for deploying the National Guard is not about making cities safe it is about creating a "police state."

It has long been a staple of American governance that local and state law enforcement is to be conducted by civilians, not the military.

Ordinarily, a state's governor controls its National Guard. Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the president can "federalize" the National Guard, placing them under federal control and funding for federal missions like overseas deployments or suppressing domestic insurrections.

Trump invoked this authority first in Los Angles in June during immigrations protests. He cited "incidents of violence and disorder" tied to ICE operations. According to Katie Couric Media, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and other officials challenged the deployment, "arguing the order violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits U.S. troops from engaging in civilian law enforcement. A federal judge agreed, but the ruling was ultimately put on hold by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals."

The Posse Comitatus Act was meant to prevent the federal government from using the military as a domestic police force after Reconstruction.

This struggle is again evolving into a fight between red states and blue states — code for rural v. urban. While Los Angeles, Washington, DC and soon Chicago are under siege, there are plans to mobilize up to 1,700 National Guard troops from 19 Republican-controlled states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and Georgia and Texas.

This is a modern-day Reconstruction. Major urban areas being occupied by troops from predominately southern states. The Trump administration is breathing life into the lost cause of the Confederacy.

As Ty Seidule, professor emeritus at West Point, described in his book, "Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause," the south rebelled against the north because "(T)he Confederate States of America ... refused to accept the results of a democratic election in 1860."

Sound familiar?

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino 

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Impressive: 'without a doubt the most illegal search I’ve ever seen in my life'

 Veteran defense lawyers and law enforcement experts have been warning about the potential for overreach since the federal government muscled its way into policing decisions in the nation's capital nearly three weeks ago, reported NPR.

Inside the federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Monday, those tensions broke into open court.

A federal judge dismissed a weapons case against a man held in the D.C. jail for a week — concluding he was subject to an unlawful search.

"It is without a doubt the most illegal search I've ever seen in my life," U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said from the bench. "I'm absolutely flabbergasted at what has happened. A high school student would know this was an illegal search."

The judge said Torez Riley appeared to have been singled out because he is a Black man who carried a backpack that looked heavy. Law enforcement officers said in court papers they found two weapons in Riley's crossbody bag — after he had previously been convicted on a weapons charge.

The arrest — and the decision to abandon the federal case — come at a time of heightened scrutiny on police and prosecutors in the District of Columbia.

President Trump has ordered National Guard members and federal law enforcement officers to "clean up" the city and crack down on crime. He signed a new executive order on Monday to ensure more people arrested in D.C. face federal charges and are held in pretrial detention "whenever possible."

Newly confirmed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro has directed her prosecutors to seek maximum charges against defendants — and to seek to detain them. And the court system is straining to respond.

Riley, who entered the courtroom wearing a white skullcap and a bright orange jumpsuit, had been scheduled for a detention hearing. Instead, on Monday morning, the U.S. Attorney's Office moved to dismiss the case it lodged against him seven days ago.

"The government has determined that dismissal of this matter is in the interests of justice," prosecutors wrote in court papers.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said Pirro moved to dismiss the charges once she was shown body camera footage of the arrest on Friday.

Judge Faruqui, who spent about a dozen years as a prosecutor in that same office, expressed outrage about the charges.

"We don't just charge people criminally and then say, 'Oops, my bad,'" he said. "I'm at a loss how the U.S. Attorney's Office thought this was an appropriate charge in any court, let alone the federal court."

But Pirro pushed back against Faruqui's comments.

"This judge has a long history of bending over backwards to release dangerous felons in possession of firearms and on frequent occasions he has downplayed the seriousness of felons who possess illegal firearms and the danger they pose to our community," Pirro said in a statement to NPR. "The comments he made today are no different than those he makes in other cases involving dangerous criminals."

The judge said he had seven cases on his docket Monday that involved people who had been arrested over the weekend — the most ever, he said.

Faruqui also said "on multiple occasions" over the past two weeks, other judges in the federal courthouse had moved to suppress search warrants, a highly unusual move that makes the warrants inadmissible in court.

"Eyes of the world" are on the city

A day after police took Riley into custody, they arrested an Amazon delivery driver who had come under suspicion for having alcohol in his vehicle. The driver, Mark Bigelow, has been charged in the same federal court with resisting or impeding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.

Another man, Edward Dana, was charged last week with making threats against the president. Dana said he was intoxicated and in the course of other rambling — that included singing in the back of a patrol car — he made remarks about Trump, according to the court docket. Dana was unarmed.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya ordered a mental health assessment and competency screening and ordered Dana released last week.

But prosecutors appealed her ruling. On Monday, Chief Judge James Boasberg held his own hearing — and agreed with the magistrate's decision. He ordered Dana's release, with conditions.

In the Riley case, Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Helfand declined to describe the changed circumstances but instead spoke for a few moments privately with the judge, while the courtroom husher blocked the sound of the exchange.

Later, the judge said Helfand was not the problem and praised him for having "the dignity and the courtesy" to move to drop the case. But he told Helfand to deliver a message to his superiors — that charging people based on little or unlawfully obtained evidence would hurt public safety, not improve it.

"If the policy now is to charge first and ask questions later, that's not going to work," the judge said. "Arrests stay on people's records. That has consequences."

"Lawlessness cannot come from the government," Judge Faruqui added. "The eyes of the world are on this city right now."

The judge also delivered words of warning to Riley about the danger and harsh consequences of carrying weapons. "Yes, sir," the defendant replied.

Riley will remain in D.C. custody for now. Authorities in Maryland have 72 hours to pick him up for allegedly violating the terms of his supervised release there, for possessing a weapon last week near the grocery store in D.C.'s Union Market neighborhood. The DOJ spokesperson said Riley was being held pursuant to a detainer warrant for Prince George's County in Maryland.

Outside the courtroom, Riley's pregnant wife, Crashawna Williams, said she had missed school and had taken on extra responsibilities for their sons, ages 12, 8 and 3, following Riley's arrest.

"It's put everything on me; it's straining me," she said.

Public defender Elizabeth Mullin said the search and arrest by a combination of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police officers and federal agents was patently unlawful.

"This never should have happened," Mullin said. "He was doing nothing wrong. He was just walking into Trader Joe's to get some food."

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump administration punishing lawyers seen as obstacles to agenda

The Trump administration is escalating its efforts to punish lawyers whom it sees as obstacles to the president’s agenda, reported Politico.

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to impose “substantial monetary sanctions” on a California lawyer who briefly halted but ultimately failed to block the deportation of an immigrant from Laos who pleaded guilty to attempted murder in the 1990s.

Joshua Schroeder, an immigration and intellectual property attorney based in Los Angeles, appears to be the first target of President Donald Trump’s vow to discipline lawyers who hit the federal government with lawsuits that the administration deems frivolous.

Legal experts described the sanctions motion against Schroeder, which hasn’t been previously reported, as highly unusual. DOJ brought the disciplinary action after Schroeder asked federal judges to stop the deportation of his client, Vang Lor. In emergency court papers seeking to block the deportation, Schroeder cited the administration’s aggressive effort to expel other foreigners under the Alien Enemies Act, and he argued that his own client might be unlawfully ensnared in that effort.

Schroeder succeeded for a couple of weeks, but the Trump administration is now arguing that he falsely claimed his client was facing deportation under that rarely invoked law — and that he persisted even after government lawyers explained the deportation was based on ordinary immigration law.

DOJ’s forceful counterpunch comes after Trump signed a presidential memorandum in March instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States,” including immigration lawyers.

“This is part of the playbook that was announced,” UCLA law professor Scott Cummings said. “Would DOJ, under normal circumstances, move for sanctions against a lawyer who sought to protect their client from removal in this kind of a context? I don’t think so.”

“This is sending a message across the bow that, ‘Look, we are really serious about going after the lawyers, and here’s the case that we’re going to make real the comments that Trump made in his executive memorandum, and any other lawyers that are going to engage in this kind of representation need to be aware,’” Cummings added.

Schroeder said he views DOJ’s bid to fine him for his deportation-related lawsuits as part of Trump’s pressure campaign against law firms he regards as opposing his policies or supporting his political enemies.

“It reminds me of the executive orders that are really targeting these big law firms,” Schroeder said in an interview. “They’re able to go all the way down to the very bottom, that’s where I am — no offense to myself. … It’s top to bottom. It’s not just this elite struggle.”

While Schroeder appears to be the first attorney DOJ has asked a federal judge to sanction under Trump’s March order, Trump has gone after other individual lawyers — such as former special counsel Jack Smith’s lawyer Peter Koski and whistleblower attorney Mark Zaid — by stripping them of their security clearances.

Schroeder, a solo practitioner, said he took on Lor’s case without pay and that the Trump administration’s move is likely to discourage other lawyers from doing the same for other immigrants and indigent or unpopular clients.

“The profession encourages us normal, common attorneys to take pro bono cases,” Schroeder said. “If they are able to just attack someone like me for trying, it can chill our ability to help, not just in this type of case but in all cases.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson applauded DOJ’s effort, saying it would discourage meritless litigation. “It is essential to deter future attorneys from bringing baseless actions to the court that are only meant to delay or prevent the enforcement of the law,” she said.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Rapid-fire litigation to block an imminent deportation

Schroeder took his first formal action for Lor on May 25, filing a motion for a temporary restraining order with a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, near the detention facility where Lor was being held. Lor had been living with his wife in neighboring Oklahoma when he was arrested in April at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in. He told her in a call that he was about to be flown to Laos, court filings say.

Schroeder urged the judge to protect Lor from being swept up in the administration’s mass deportation efforts. The lawyer referenced Trump’s attention-grabbing deportation of 130 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador in March under the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law that gives the president the power to expel foreigners who are part of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” Schroeder also pointed to the administration’s attempt, days before Lor’s challenge was filed, to deport seven men to war-torn South Sudan even though they’re not from that country.

Fueling concerns his client could face a similar fate, Schroeder wrote, was the fact that, earlier that day, an ICE prisoner database showed Lor en route to the Bluebonnet Detention Facility, a Texas prison that was used to house a second group of Venezuelan detainees the Trump administration sought to deport under the Alien Enemies Act.

Schroeder argued that Lor faced the possibility of “summary deportation” to El Salvador under that law and that the Trump administration’s legal stance in other cases meant Lor could be put beyond the reach of U.S. courts before the courts addressed any protections he might be entitled to.

Lor came to the U.S. from Laos in 1987 on a green card and lived with his parents in California, according to court records. In 1998, he pleaded guilty to an attempted murder charge in state court in Merced, California. Immigration authorities say he was sentenced to 9 years in prison, but records show Lor got a total sentence of 22 years due to enhancements for using a firearm and inflicting great bodily injury.

It’s unclear how long Lor served in prison, but an immigration judge ordered him deported to Laos in 2018. That order — issued during the first Trump administration — wasn’t immediately carried out, perhaps because Laos was refusing to issue passports to its citizens facing deportation from the U.S.

Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act in March targeted only Venezuelan men and was aimed at members of the Tren de Aragua gang, although many of those deported have denied any gang ties. But the proclamation was initially signed in secret, and the administration has refused to say precisely when Trump signed it, fueling fears among immigration advocates that he may have issued additional orders under the wartime authority.

 Schroeder said in his TRO request that Lor’s immigration status was “unclear to counsel” and that he was not seeking “to prohibit the government from removing any individual who may lawfully be removed under the immigration laws.” The filing discussed at length Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, describing it as “an unleashing of unbounded war powers that could apply to any immigrant or disfavored U.S. citizen.”

Amid the uncertainty about Lor’s status, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, quickly ordered the government not to deport Lor pending further litigation. But sometime that night, May 25, he was loaded on a chartered Boeing 767 at Alliance Airport in Fort Worth. Flight-tracking data showed the plane was bound for Laos and Vietnam, via Honolulu and Guam.

Due to O’Connor’s order, when the plane arrived in Guam, Lor was unloaded and taken to a detention facility there. The 767 landed in Vientiane, Laos, on May 27 without Lor on board.

Schroeder refiled the lawsuit in Guam and got U.S. District Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood, also a Bush appointee, to order that Lor not be deported without 48-hours notice to the court. But after a hearing, Tydingco-Gatewood dismissed the case, saying she lacked jurisdiction to interfere with a deportation under the Immigration & Nationality Act.

“The evidence proffered by Respondents makes clear that Petitioner’s removal is not based on the AEA but is, in fact, based on a violation of the INA,” the judge wrote, effectively giving the green light for the administration to deport Lor.

Schroeder appealed, but Lor was deported to Laos around June 10, court records show.

Justice Department lawyers maintain in court filings that ICE officials notified Lor on April 19 and May 6 of his impending deportation, although those notices don’t mention him being sent to Laos and one says he was being considered for release.

Schroeder declined to discuss Lor’s current status in Laos, saying he did not have permission to do so. He didn’t use his client’s name when speaking to POLITICO. Lor is identified simply as “V.L.” in most of the court filings. However, his full name appears in the records government lawyers submitted of his California conviction and in the sanctions motion filed last week.

DOJ comes after the lawyer

The sanctions motion, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court of Guam and signed by DOJ attorneys in Washington and the U.S. territory in the Pacific, twice references Trump’s March directive to crack down on what he termed “unscrupulous behavior” by lawyers.

The motion accuses Schroeder of acting “in bad faith, unreasonably and vexatiously” and says he “multiplied proceedings by maintaining positions without bases in fact and law, without making a reasonable, competent inquiry, and for an improper purpose.” DOJ lawyers contend he persisted in claims that the government was deporting Lor under the Alien Enemies Act even though he “knew that assertion to be false.” Tydingco-Gatewood will make the initial decision on whether to grant DOJ’s request for sanctions.

Schroeder said his references to the Trump administration’s aggressive use of the Alien Enemies Act showed the urgency of determining where Lor was being sent and under what legal framework.

“The point is that notice and opportunity to be heard is a fundamental basis of all rights, and if you don’t have that no one can assert any sort of right and the government can do whatever they want,” the attorney said.

Some of Schroeder’s filings appear to have been hastily drafted. The 30-page TRO request filed in Texas makes fairly clear that Lor is from Laos and discusses the possibility of dozens of “mainland southeast Asian” immigrants being gathered for deportation, but at one point it erroneously says Lor is from Venezuela. An appeal Schroeder filed, which is still pending, refers to a court order issued in June as dating from 2010.

Schroeder said he was working “under very heightened pressure” because he had “only hours” to try to forestall his client being moved beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

“I had to do it very quickly, because he was in Guam and they might have taken him immediately,” Schroeder said this week. “So, I was just putting the basics together in my mind the way I was seeing it.”

Laos appears to be seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration in recent months by being more receptive to deportation of its citizens from the U.S. Lor is of Hmong descent, according to court filings, and like many in that ethnic group his parents are believed to have cooperated with U.S. military forces during the Vietnam War. Those who did so have often faced particular difficulty in getting passports or citizenship documents from Laos’ Communist government.

However, Laos announced in March that it was encouraging its citizens present in the U.S. illegally to return to Laos. But in June, days after the deportation flight Lor was taken off of due to the litigation, Trump put visa sanctions on the Southeast Asian country for a second time. “Laos has historically failed to accept back its removable nationals,” Trump wrote.

David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the sanctions motion seems like an overreaction given the aggressive and unusual tactics the Trump administration has used to carry out deportations in recent months.

“We’re in uncharted waters in terms of the way the federal government is enforcing the immigration laws,” Leopold said. “I think that at a minimum they should expect lawyers are going to be as zealous as possible in preventing their clients from being removed to a place like CECOT prison in El Salvador, or to South Sudan, or some other country where their life could be threatened. … We’ve got to expect lawyers to be aggressive.”

Schroeder attended Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, and graduated from Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, in 2013. He’s authored numerous law review articles on immigration and other topics.

Tydingco-Gatewood, the judge in Guam, has yet to schedule a hearing on the sanctions motion against Schroeder.

Schroeder said he expects the judge will turn down the motion, but the mere fact it was filed may prompt other lawyers to decline difficult cases that could upset the Trump administration.

“I think this motion for sanctions is not going to work, but it might do what they want it to do anyway,” Schroeder said. “I’m wondering if the filing of the motion itself is supposed to punish me. … That might be the whole point.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Senate confirms Fox News host as U.S. Attorney for DC

Jeannine Pirro has been among the most prominent and fiercest allies of Trump, including denying the outcome of the 2020 election

The U.S. Senate voted to confirm former Fox News host and prosecutor Jeanine Pirro as U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., reported NBC News.

The vote was along party lines, 50-45, with Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Tim Scott, R-S.C., Peter Welch, D-Vt., and Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., not voting.

Pirro had been serving as interim U.S. attorney for D.C. since May, after Trump appointed her to replace conservative activist Ed Martin as the top federal prosecutor in Washington.

In a Truth Social post announcing Pirro’s appointment, Trump lauded the former prosecutor as a “powerful crusader for victims of crime" and "incredibly well qualified for the position."

Pirro has been among the most prominent and fiercest allies of Trump, previously using her platform as a host of two Fox News programs to push conspiracy theories about voting in the aftermath of Trump's 2020 election loss. She was cited in a defamation lawsuit against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems for her role spreading election disinformation. Fox News ultimately reached a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion in 2023.

Pirro previously served as an assistant district attorney for Westchester County, New York, ultimately becoming the first woman elected to serve as the Westchester County district attorney. During her tenure, Pirro started the first domestic violence unit in a prosecutor's office, an accomplishment Trump cited in his decision to appoint her as a U.S. attorney.

Following her judicial career, Pirro in 2005 launched an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination for Senate in New York, aiming to challenge then-incumbent Hillary Clinton. Soon after, she launched a campaign for New York attorney general, but the effort was ultimately derailed by a federal probe over a plot by Pirro to record her then-husband, Albert Pirro, who she suspected was having an affair.

To read more CLICK HERE

Law&Crime: Donald Trump's latest legal effort may escalate fight over Jeffrey Epstein files

Matthew T. Mangino
Law&Crime News
July 23, 2025

President Donald Trump has all sorts of problems with the criminal justice system.

He pardoned hundreds of men and woman who were convicted of storming the capitol on Jan. 6, and his Department of Justice has purged career prosecutors who effectively conducted the prosecutions.

The Trump DOJ, headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has launched an investigation into the former director of the FBI James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan who looked into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump has fared much better with civil lawsuits — not those litigated, but those settled. His record with civil verdicts — those verdicts rendered by a jury — is not so good. New York Attorney General Letitia James got a verdict for the people of New York for $355 million against Trump for business fraud.  E. Jean Carroll was awarded $88.3 million as a result of two successful defamation jury verdicts against Trump.

On the other hand, Trump received a $15 million settlement – not in the form of a jury award, but money forked over by ABC Disney Entertainment. Paramount CBS did the same, handing Trump $16 million, and then announced the end of the popular "Late Show," hosted by Stephen Colbert, after Colbert called the payment a bribe to secure an upcoming merger.

No wonder, then, that Donald Trump has filed another lawsuit against a big-time media company. The president has sued Rupert Murdoch and two Wall Street Journal reporters for libel and slander over claims that he sent disgraced financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein a lewd letter and sketch of a naked woman.

President Donald Trump, from left, speaks while signing an executive order as Commerce Secretary nominee Howard Lutnick, Rupert Murdoch and Larry Ellison, chairman and chief technology officer of Oracle Corporation, listen in the Oval Office of the White House, Monday, Feb. 3, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The lawsuit was filed in a Florida federal court seeking $10 billion in damages. According to The Guardian, the suit came only a day after the WSJ "reported on a 50th birthday greeting that Trump allegedly sent to Epstein in 2003 that included a sexually suggestive drawing and reference to secrets they shared."

The card reportedly concluded with "Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret."

Trump has denied the report and claimed the letter is a fake.

This lawsuit may be more about trying to extract Trump from the center of the Epstein scandal than to cash in another cowering media outlet.

A little more than a week ago, a two-page memo from the Department of Justice and the FBI said they found no evidence that Epstein blackmailed powerful people or kept a "client list," and they reiterated that he died by suicide in his prison cell in 2019.

According to NPR, Epstein's death and imprisonment have been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, including a "prominent belief amplified by numerous right-wing figures who now serve in the Trump administration that the sex trafficker's death is proof, in part, that the government is run by shadowy figures out to undermine Trump."

As the outrage on the right grows, Trump posted a lengthy message on his Truth Social website telling his supporters to "not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about," and spread baseless conspiracies that the so-called files were created by Democrats to go after him. That post didn't go over well with Democrats or Republicans.

While pressure from Democrats is the norm, dissent from within the Trump administration is not. The President's inner circle — Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino — have been at odds with each other over the handling of the Epstein files. Prominent GOP leaders, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have suggested the files be released.

Then, on Friday, the president capitulated, ordering Bondi to seek the unsealing of grand jury testimony from the prosecution against Epstein."

Will the grand jury testimony calm the storm — or just fuel the growing tumult facing Trump and his administration?

(Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. He is a regular contributor to Law&Crime. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino)

To visit Law & Crime News CLICK HERE

Here is a name everyone should know--Erez Reuveni

You should know Erez Reuveni--the DOJ whistleblower--who has documented judicial nominee Emil Bove's disdain for the rule of law and U.S. Constitution.

The insistence that the Trump administration can do whatever it wants irrespective or rules, laws, or court orders; the demand that career officials are all in or must get the heck out; the willingness to obfuscate or just lie about what the administration has done, is doing, or means to do—both internally and in litigation—and the indignant rejection of any checks or mechanisms of accountability because they have a mandate from voters and Trump is deweaponizing the Justice Department and because there’s a unitary executive, reported Lawfare.  

What’s different about Reuveni is that he has brought a remarkable collection of receipts to the conversation. It’s not just the 27-page whistleblower complaint, which details in carefully crafted prose three separate incidents of the administration behaving—and demanding that he behave—unethically or illegally over a remarkably short period of time. It’s not just the 150 pages of supporting documentation, which includes multiple text exchanges, emails, and phone records supporting Reuveni’s claims. It’s the way all of this material intersects with an already-vibrant public record in the three cases at issue: The JGG case on Alien Enemy Act deportations to El Salvador, the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case, and the DVD case on deportations to third countries.

One can say, I suppose, that the public here has only one side of the story—a document dump from Reuveni and nothing from Bove or the other officials he accuses. But that’s not quite true. In all three of these cases, the government has had ample opportunity to explain its position before the courts, and in all three, the government has made its position very clear: It’s a big middle finger.

What’s more, Bove has been asked about Reuveni’s allegations specifically and under oath that he said the Justice Department might have to tell the courts, “fuck you” if they tried to stop Alien Enemies Act removals that had to proceed “no matter what.” He responded that he did not recall saying that but pointedly did not deny doing so.

Drew Ensign, an official Reuveni accuses of actively misleading the court, actually had an opportunity before Judge James Boasberg to clear up the matter Reuveni described, which took place on March 15 when the ACLU and Judge Boasberg were trying to make sure that Alien Enemy Act deportations were not happening illegally and were trying to determine whether planes were, in fact, currently deporting people or imminently going to do so.

To read more CLICK HERE

Further proof of this administration's conception of the 'imperial presidency'

Thanks to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) release, we now have the letters that Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to major tech companies like Apple, Google, and Oracle regarding their continued business with TikTok, reported Lawfare. These letters provide a legal rationale (if it can be called that) for the Trump administration’s commitment not to enforce the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA), the divestment-or-ban law that the Supreme Court upheld in January. The letters make two central claims, both of which are astonishing in their breadth and implications for executive power.

First, in some of the letters, the Justice Department purports to be “irrevocably relinquishing any claims” against the companies for violating PAFACAA during the non-enforcement periods declared by President Trump. As I’ve written before, such promises of non-enforcement are on shaky legal ground and represent a risky bet for the companies relying on them. A future administration would likely not be bound by these pronouncements, regardless of the Justice Department's assertion of its "plenary authority" over PAFACAA to enter into such settlements.

But the primary, and more constitutionally audacious, argument advanced in the letters is a claim of sweeping Article II power. According to Bondi, the president determined that an “abrupt shutdown” of TikTok would “interfere with the execution of the President’s constitutional duties to take care of the national security and foreign affairs of the United States.” On this basis, the attorney general “concluded that [PAFACAA] is properly read not to infringe upon such core Presidential national security and foreign affairs powers.”

Let’s be clear: The executive branch is asserting that if a president determines that a duly enacted statute is inconvenient for the conduct of foreign affairs—and that’s assuming this is about a good-faith view of foreign policy, and not, say, the financial interests of a major campaign donor with a massive stake in TikTok’s parent company—he can simply set it aside. This interpretation effectively creates a foreign-affairs exception to the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

This argument conveniently ignores that Congress has its own significant, constitutionally enumerated powers in the realm of foreign affairs. The authority to enact PAFACAA falls squarely within Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” a core legislative function under Article I. The logic of Bondi’s letters suggests that this power exists only at the sufferance of the president. Whenever a president finds a congressional commercial regulation to be an obstacle to his foreign policy goals, he can, by this reasoning, simply ignore it. Today it’s a social media app; tomorrow it could be any number of sanctions, trade, or immigration provisions that a president unilaterally decides to ignore based on some generic assertion of foreign affairs authority.

To be sure, there are rare circumstances where the president’s exclusive Article II foreign affairs powers can overcome a contrary congressional statute. The key modern precedent is Zivotofsky v. Kerry, where the Supreme Court held that the president has the exclusive power to recognize international borders and that Congress could not, via a passport statute, force him to contradict his recognition policy regarding the disputed status of Jerusalem.

But Zivotofsky’s holding was a narrow one. The Court took pains to emphasize that the case was “confined solely to the exclusive power of the President to control recognition determinations” and did not “question the substantial powers of Congress over foreign affairs.” It certainly did not anoint the president as the “sole organ” of American foreign policy, free to disregard any law he deems inconvenient.

The letters also deploy a disingenuous constitutional avoidance argument. They claim PAFACAA is “properly read” to include an exception for the president’s core foreign affairs powers. But the canon of constitutional avoidance only applies when a statute is ambiguous, allowing a court to choose a plausible interpretation that avoids a constitutional problem. That is not the case here. PAFACAA is crystal clear. It provides a specific, narrow 90-day extension mechanism contingent on a divestment process; it cannot plausibly be read to authorize a free-floating presidential power to suspend the law for foreign policy reasons. The Justice Department isn’t interpreting PAFACAA; it’s vetoing it after the fact.

The battle over TikTok is a major rule-of-law crisis in its own right. But its greatest significance may be how starkly it illustrates this administration's imperial conception of itself.

To read more CLICK HERE

DOJ wants life in prison for man pardoned by President Trump

Federal prosecutors are asking a judge to sentence a Jan. 6 rioter to a lifetime behind bars—despite President Donald Trump pardoning his crimes at the U.S. Capitol, reported The Daily Beast.

Edward Kelley, a 35-year-old East Tennessee native, was convicted in November of conspiring to murder FBI agents and other officials who investigated his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

                                            Edward Kelly 'Make America Great Again'

Kelley was separately convicted of throwing a Capitol cop to the ground, with the help of others, and smashing a window with a piece of wood. However, those charges were wiped away by the president’s sweeping pardon of so-called “Jan. 6ers” in January. 

Edward Kelley was wearing a helmet, gloves, and a paint respirator when he entered the U.S. Capitol. / Department of Justice

Kelley has contested that Trump’s pardon of his Capitol crimes should also apply to his conviction for plotting to kill FBI agents and local law enforcement in Tennessee.

The Department of Justice disagrees. In a sentencing memorandum filed Tuesday, and first reported by Politico, they asked a judge to send Kelley to prison for the rest of his life.

“Kelley created a list of specific people he intended to assassinate, including agents, officers, and employees of the FBI, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Maryville Police Department, Blount County Sheriff’s Office, and Clinton Police Department,” the memorandum read. “To effectuate his plan, Kelley sought the assistance of others to identify his victims’ pattern of life and to murder them at their offices, homes, and in public places.”

Part of his alleged plan was to attack his local FBI office in Knoxville by using “improvised explosive devices attached to vehicles and drones.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump nominates Fox News host Jeanine Pirro for full-time U.S. Attorney position

President Donald Trump is nominating former Fox News host and interim US Attorney Jeanine Pirro to a full term as the top federal prosecutor in Washington, DC, according to a White House news release, according to CNN.

Her nomination for a four-year term has been sent to the Senate, the release says.

She was named to the position on an interim basis last month after Trump’s first pick, Ed Martin, faced what appeared to be insurmountable pushback from Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Pirro, a longtime Trump ally, is a former judge and district attorney for Westchester County in New York. Until being tapped by Trump, she had not held a position in the justice system since 2005, when she left the district attorney’s office and began her career on television.

CNN’s KFile on Monday reviewed Pirro’s radio shows and found that she has repeatedly endorsed criminal investigations into Trump’s perceived political enemies, including federal prosecutors, local officials and judges involved in his various legal cases.

In addition to her attacks on federal law enforcement and the judiciary, Pirro has spent years promoting false and inflammatory claims. She downplayed the January 6 violence as a political “narrative,” calling for a Capitol Police officer and DOJ officials to be investigated.

Pirro also boosted unfounded claims that the 2020 election was stolen and was one of several hosts named in the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News. The lawsuit was later settled by Fox News for more than $787 million.

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump's DOJ is coming after journalists after attacks on judges, lawyers, colleges, universities and other dissenters

 The Justice Department reversed a Biden administration policy that prevented federal officials from seeking journalists' records and compelling their testimony in leak investigations. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated that reporters' records could be subpoenaed for reasons broader than unauthorized disclosures of classified information, according to an internal memo obtained by CBS News. Bondi said the reversal was necessary for "safeguarding classified, privileged, and other sensitive information." The memo also decried leaks that "undermine" President Trump's agenda. 

"This Justice Department will not tolerate unauthorized disclosures that undermine President Trump's policies, victimize government agencies, and cause harm to the American people," Bondi said. 

"This conduct is illegal and wrong, and it must stop," she said. 

Bondi said she supports a free and independent press and the Justice Department would only subpoena reporters' records as a last resort. Under the new rules outlined in the memo, subpoenaed journalists are entitled to advance notice, subpoenas are to be "narrowly drawn" and warrants should "limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities." Bondi said she must approve all efforts to question or arrest journalists. 

During the Trump administration, prosecutors obtained the phone records of journalists at CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post as part of leak investigations, all three outlets reported in 2021, citing disclosures from the Biden-era Department of Justice.

In 2022, attorney general Merrick Garland issued regulations that restricted federal prosecutors from seizing reporters' communications records, except in rare cases.

To read more CLICK HERE

Letter: Incredibly, acting US Attorney served as prosecutor and defense attorney in the same case

Five former prosecutors who worked on criminal cases stemming from the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol are urging the disciplinary office governing lawyers in Washington, DC, to open an investigation into Ed Martin the President’s controversial pick to be US attorney for Washington, DC, reported CNN.

Martin, who has been serving in the post on an interim basis since Trump returned to the White House, is a divisive pick for the job. 

The letter details Martin’s representation of defendants who were prosecuted by President Joe Biden’s Justice Department for their involvement in the Capitol attack. In one case, the letter says, Martin was still repping the individual even after being tapped to serve as interim US attorney. He didn’t withdraw his representation of the man until after the case was dismissed by a federal judge in DC.

“By acting simultaneously as a prosecutor and defense attorney in the same case, Mr. Martin violated Rule 1.7(a), which directs that ‘A lawyer shall not advance two or more adverse positions in the same matter,’” the letter reads.

“Collectively, Mr. Martin’s actions threaten to undermine the integrity of the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the legal profession in the District of Columbia,” the group told the disciplinary board. “The reputation of our community depends on a prompt and thorough investigation into Mr. Martin’s violations of his professional obligations.”

To read more CLICK HERE

Trump comes after the lawyers

Legal advocacy groups have sounded the alarms after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened new actions against lawyers and law firms that bring immigration lawsuits and other cases against the government that he deems unethical, reported Reuters.

In a memorandum to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi late on Friday, Trump said lawyers were helping to fuel "rampant fraud and meritless claims" in the immigration system, and directed the Justice Department to seek sanctions against attorneys for professional misconduct.

The order also took aim at law firms that sue the administration in what Trump, a Republican, called "baseless partisan" lawsuits. He asked Bondi to refer such firms to the White House to be stripped of security clearances, and for federal contracts they worked on to be terminated.

Ben Wizner, a senior lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new directive sought to "chill and intimidate" lawyers who challenge the president's agenda. Trump has separately mounted attacks on law firms over their internal diversity policies and their ties to his political adversaries.

"Courts have been the only institution so far that have stood up to Trump’s onslaught,” Wizner said. “Courts can’t play that role without lawyers bringing cases in front of them."

The ACLU is involved in litigation against the administration over immigrant deportations, including the expulsion of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

The Trump administration has been hit with more than 100 lawsuits challenging White House actions on immigration, transgender rights and other issues since the start of the president's second term. Legal advocacy groups, along with at least 12 major law firms, have brought many of the cases.

A White House spokesperson, Taylor Rogers, said “President Trump is delivering on his promise to ensure the judicial system is no longer weaponized against the American people."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the memorandum, which directed Bondi to assess lawyers and firms that brought cases against the government over the past eight years.

Law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters, which is working with the ACLU in an immigrant rights case against the administration, said in a statement that it was "inexcusable and despicable" for Trump to attack lawyers based on their clients or legal work opposing the federal government.

Representatives from other prominent law firms that are representing clients in cases against Trump's administration, including Hogan Lovells, Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Trump issued executive orders this month against law firms Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss, suspending their lawyers' security clearances and restricting their access to government buildings, officials and federal contracting work.

The president also last month suspended security clearances of lawyers at Covington & Burling, in each case citing the firms' past work for his political or legal opponents.

The Keker firm on Saturday called on law firms to sign a joint court brief supporting a lawsuit by Perkins Coie challenging the executive order against it.

Paul Weiss on Thursday struck a deal with Trump to rescind the executive order against it, pledging to donate the equivalent of $40 million in free legal work to support some of the administration's causes such as support for veterans and combating antisemitism.

Lawyers are bound by professional ethics rules that require them to investigate allegations before filing lawsuits and not deceive the courts. Imposing disciplinary sanctions on lawyers who violate such rules falls on the court system, not federal prosecutors, though prosecutors can charge lawyers with criminal misconduct.

Some lawyers aligned with Trump faced professional discipline over claims that they violated legal ethics rules in challenging Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election win over Trump.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who later was an attorney for Trump, was disbarred in New York and in the District of Columbia over baseless claims he made alleging the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Lawyers for Civil Rights, a legal advocacy group suing the administration over deportations, called Trump's sanctions threat hypocritical in a statement to Reuters, saying Trump and his allies "have repeatedly thumbed their noses at the rule of law."

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: A New Twist on the "Reviled" Advocate

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
March 18, 2025

American criminal jurisprudence has been turned on its head. For centuries lawyers have been attacked for advocacy on behalf of despicable criminals. Last week, the tables turned. President Donald Trump attacked prosecutors and government lawyers for advocacy on behalf of the people.

The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients was established more than 250 years ago with John Adams' representation of the British soldiers charged with murder during the Boston Massacre. Adams' trial summation set the standard for law and order.

Adams, who would later serve two terms as president of the United States, said of justice, "On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder to the clamours of the populace."

Today, more than ever, the clamor of the populace — through news media and social media — can almost instantly accuse, try and convict a person in the court of public opinion. Lawyers are often intentionally, or unintentionally, drug into the glare of the media and no longer perceived as only representing the accused, but of siding with the reprehensible conduct. A lawyer faced with the decision to take on a controversial client must legitimately ask herself, "Will I ever get any more law business in my community if I take this case?"

Attorneys are advocates for others. Many understand that representing the person or issue does not equate to accepting or endorsing what a particular client does. In practice, however, many people have difficulty accepting that a pedophile, terrorist, mass killer or racist hate group is entitled to legal representation.

At times, attorneys are demonized for representing defendants charged with heinous crimes — as if there was something immoral about providing a defense to someone charged with a crime. Such conduct undermines the fundamental protections of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "to have the assistance of counsel."

There have also been times when lawyers have failed to meet the lofty standards of protecting the United States Constitution. Denise Lieberman, writing for "Liberties," the newsletter of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, pointed out that during the McCarthy era the American Bar Association "declared that any attorney representing a person associated with the Communist Party was unworthy of membership in the bar, and even demanded that lawyers take loyalty oaths."

However, few were prepared for what we saw last week. President Trump focused his wrath, not on defense attorneys who represent unpopular clients, or legal organizations that capitulate to the rhetoric of demagogues — no, Trump vilified prosecutors.

President Trump made a speech at the Great Hall of the Department of Justice, where, according to The New York Times, he lashed out at lawyers and former prosecutors by name. He also accused the department's previous leadership of trying to destroy him. He labeled those who opposed him as "scum," "corrupt" and "deranged."

"Unfortunately, in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and good will built up over generations," Trump said, in speaking — of the Justice Department — to an audience at the Justice Department. "They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people."

Trump called himself the chief law enforcement officer in the country — of course, he is not. However, it was less than reassuring when the country's actual chief law enforcement officer — Attorney General Pam Bondi, said, according to Politico, "We will never stop fighting for (Trump) and for our country."

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010 was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.

To visit Creators CLICK HERE

Judges not in line with Administration subjected to threats and intimidation

Federal judges who have ruled against the Trump administration this year are confronting a wave of threats, potentially compromising their personal safety and the independence of the judiciary.

The sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett received a bomb threat earlier this month, and lower court judges who hit pause on some of President Trump's efforts to dismantle federal agencies and programs have been singled out on social media, reported NPR.

Republican lawmakers close to the president even have proposed impeachment proceedings against a few of those judges, who serve for life.

Elon Musk, who oversees the Department of Government Efficiency making cuts to federal agencies, himself has repeatedly posted on social media about impeaching judges who delay or block parts of Trump's agenda.

Efforts to undermine the judiciary come at the same time the Trump administration has moved to fire lawyers inside the Justice Department and the Pentagon, penalize private law firms who represented clients Trump does not like, and to back away from participation in the activities of the American Bar Association.

Judge Richard Sullivan, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said in his lifetime four federal judges have been killed in retaliation for their work on the bench.

"This is not hypothetical," Sullivan, who leads a Judicial Conference panel on security issues, told reporters in a news conference this week. The Judicial Conference is a representative body of federal judges that frames policies for courts. "It's real. It's happened before. We have to be certain that it doesn't happen again," he said.

The Federal Judges Association, a voluntary group of more than 1,000 judges across the nation, said the judiciary plays a "critical role in preserving democracy and a law-abiding society."

"Judges must be able to do their jobs without fear of violence or undue influence," the group said in a written statement to NPR.

Early threats

One thing stands out to legal experts: these attacks on judges are coming at a very early stage in the legal process — often, before the Supreme Court weighs in as the final decider.

"We have a system of justice that allows for appeals," Judge Jeffrey Sutton, chief judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, told reporters this week. "That's typically the way it works. Impeachment is not and shouldn't be a short-circuiting of that process. And so it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that."

Only 15 federal judges have faced impeachment, mostly for allegations of wrongdoing such as bribery, corruption or perjury, in the past couple of centuries.

Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the odds of a successful judicial impeachment are pretty low, and to remove a judge from the bench would require a two-thirds vote from the Senate.

"The more that people like Elon Musk are putting on the wall the idea that it's appropriate to attack these judges for nothing more than ruling against the federal government, the more that we're normalizing what really are in the main very serious threats to judicial independence," Vladeck said.

"Jeopardize the rule of law"

But Paul Grimm, who spent 26 years as a federal judge, said even the threat of impeachment can amount to intimidation.

"And if you try to intimidate judges, if that's your goal, so that they do not do their constitutional duty, then you jeopardize the rule of law," said Grimm, who leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. "And without the rule of law, every liberty and every right that we cherish as Americans is vulnerable."

Grimm said he worries a lot about online posts that display the home and work addresses of judges and their adult children, a step that he said "crosses the line."

Nearly five years ago, an angry litigant shot and killed the son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas in New Jersey.

In 2022, a California man carrying a gun and zip ties traveled to the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He turned away after spotting a security detail there. The man has pleaded not guilty to a charge of attempted assassination of the justice, and awaits trial this year.

And in 2023, a state court judge in Maryland was gunned down in his driveway.

Attacks over rulings

The U.S. Marshals say threats against federal judges have doubled in recent years, according to the most recent data. And those threats have been directed at both Democratic and Republican judges.

Justice Barrett came under withering criticism this month from some right-wing political commentators, after she voted alongside Chief Justice John Roberts and the liberals on the high court against Trump's effort to freeze foreign aid.

Lower court judges have faced online attacks for their early rulings on Musk's DOGE team, efforts to restore government web pages and the freeze on foreign aid.

The Marshals protect judges, but they also report to the U.S. attorney general, not to the courts themselves. That's got some members of Congress on alert.

"A judge's security is dependent in many ways on the Marshals Service who the president appoints to protect the judges, and if a president doesn't like a decision that's coming from a judge, theoretically they could pull their security," Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, said at a congressional hearing this month.

The administration has already yanked protection this year from former military and national security officials who disagreed with Trump in his first term.

Swalwell said Congress should consider giving judges their own security force — one that's independent from the White House.

To read more CLICK HERE

Judge scolds government for 'lie' about firing employees en masse

U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco delivered one of the most far-reaching court defeats to the Trump administration's efforts to gut the federal bureaucracy, according to the USA TODAY.

Alsup, appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, ordered six federal agencies to reinstate tens of thousands of federal government probationary workers fired in recent weeks.

Alsup said the Justice Department tried to obfuscate that the White House had improperly ordered agencies to fire workers en masse.

“I’ve been practicing or serving in this court for over 50 years and I know how we get at the truth, and you’re not helping me get at the truth,” Alsup said. “You’re giving me press releases, sham documents.”

 Supporters of all sizes, attend a rally to support federal workers terminated recently on Friday, March 7, 2025 at the Clement J. Zablocki VA Medical Center at 5000 W. National Ave. in Milwaukee.

He also scolded the government for the bogus boilerplate reason employees were given for their termination.

“It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” he said.

A federal judge in Maryland likewise said Thursday he didn't believe the government's claim that the fired employees had been individually reviewed.

"On the record before the Court, this isn't true," wrote U.S. District Judge James K. Bredar, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama. "It is simply not conceivable that the Government could have conducted individualized assessments of the relevant employees in the relevant timeframe."

After Alsup's ruling, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt accused the Bay Area judge of "attempting to unconstitutionally seize the power of hiring and firing from the executive branch."

"If a federal district court judge would like executive powers, they can try and run for president themselves,” she said in a statement.

To read more CLICK HERE

 

Trump visits Justice Department to gloat over return to power and demand for loyalty

President Trump’s triumphal entry into Justice Department headquarters darkened into an acid recitation of grievances against his enemies, as he demonstrated his power over a department that had tried and failed to hold him to account, reported The New York Times.

The event, held in the Great Hall of the Justice Department, was billed as a major policy address to reposition the department from the purported political “weaponization” of the Biden era to a renewed focus on crime, punishment and fighting drugs.

But in an hourlong speech, Mr. Trump veered from his prepared remarks to lash out at lawyers and former prosecutors by name in a venue dedicated to the impartial administration of justice. He also accused the department’s previous leadership of trying to destroy him and declared former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. the head of a “crime” family.

“Scum,” Mr. Trump called his adversaries, in the same room where Attorney General Robert Jackson delivered a tone-setting 1940 speech urging prosecutors be animated by “fair play” rather than a blind drive to win.

If Mr. Trump’s delivery verged on free association, his message was unmistakable: The president intends to bend the vast powers of federal law enforcement to his will — in the pursuit of an anti-crime agenda and, perhaps, vengeance.

“Unfortunately in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and good will built up over generations,” Mr. Trump told an audience of supporters and law enforcement officials. “They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.”

He implored his political appointees at the department not to “be deflected” by critics in enforcing his agenda. He also suggested he was preparing new executive actions to personally target the “violent vicious lawyers” who had prosecuted him or opposed his policies in court.

“We’re turning the page on four long years of corruption, weaponization and surrender to violent criminals, and we’re restoring fair, equal and impartial justice,” Mr. Trump said, standing at a lectern flanked by signs reading “fighting fentanyl.” Though he repeatedly railed against corruption, his Justice Department recently moved to dismiss a case against New York’s mayor and has drafted plans to shrink an anti-corruption unit.

As he assailed the investigations into him, Mr. Trump also heaped praise on Aileen M. Cannon, the federal judge in Florida who dismissed the criminal charges against him over the handling of classified documents, calling her “the absolute model of what a judge should be.”

“The case against me was bullshit,” Mr. Trump said, standing in the building where the charges were approved.

His appearance in the Justice Department headquarters, while not unheard of, was relatively rare for a president. Several of his recent predecessors have made the trip to deliver remarks or preside over ceremonial events, but none used the perch for aggressively partisan attacks as Mr. Trump did.

The speech served to punctuate the president’s return to power. Less than two years ago, in June 2023, his legal defense team trudged into the building to be briefed on the details of criminal charges he would face for hoarding classified materials at his house in Florida — the first of his two federal indictments that summer.

Mr. Trump reflected on those experiences several times and thanked his lawyers for their efforts in getting him off the hook. They had less success in his felony trial in New York, where he was convicted on 34 counts related to hush money paid to a porn actress.

Mr. Trump eventually returned to the text of his speech, and to the theme of crime-fighting, vowing to crack down on distributors of fentanyl and reduce the number of overdose deaths from the drug by 50 percent.

One of the keys to doing so, he said, was to appeal to the vanity of drug users. “You lose your look,” he said. “Everyone’s vain. They don’t want to lose their look.”

His digressive style gradually dampened the enthusiasm of many in the friendly crowd, who began scrolling their phones, particularly during his meandering description of the college basketball coach Bobby Knight. But they perked up when he reverted to bombast.

Mr. Trump accused judges who have ruled against him of being “corrupt,” even as he chastised critics of Ms. Cannon and her rulings in his favor, saying they sought undue influence. And he threatened to punish Biden administration officials who were responsible for the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan and those he falsely accused of rigging the 2020 election.

“These are people that are bad people, really bad people,” he said.

During his first several weeks in power, Mr. Trump and his appointees have torn down many of the barriers that have long existed between the White House and the Justice Department to prevent political interference in the application of justice — and forced out those standing in the way.

As a general rule, presidents are wary of injecting politics into the agency’s work. But Mr. Trump, who was twice indicted by the department, views it as the center of “deep state” resistance to him. For a man who long ago dispensed with the notion of an independent Justice Department, the visit was as much an expression of conquest and vindication as it was a venue for a policy-focused speech.

“Is it appropriate that I do it?” Mr. Trump mused, as he recounted his decision to deliver a speech inside the Justice Department.

“And then I realized, it’s not only appropriate, I think it’s really important,” he added.

The event had many trappings of a Trump campaign rally, including the music, even if set against the backdrop of the department’s marble-clad inner sanctum. The setting was part of an effort to emphasize the power of the institution Mr. Trump controls through loyal appointees.

Mr. Trump’s first two warm-up speakers, Kash Patel, the F.B.I. director, and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, offered a cheerful and cherry-picked recitation of the department’s accomplishments under Mr. Trump thus far — the acceleration of immigration enforcement, efforts to punish academic institutions that do not bow to the administration’s demand to purge diversity and inclusion programs, and intensifying efforts to fight fentanyl trafficking.

Mr. Blanche, a former federal prosecutor who served as the lead attorney in Mr. Trump’s two federal criminal cases, began by expressing his commitment to upholding the best traditions of the department. But he quickly shifted gears to profess personal loyalty to the president — something that none of his predecessors in the Biden administration ever did.

Mr. Trump, he said, “is a complete inspiration to me.”

Pam Bondi, the attorney general, echoed Mr. Blanche, calling Mr. Trump “the greatest president in the history of our country” and saying she works “at the directive of Donald Trump.”

Her words were another nod to the Trump administration’s aggressive effort to have a Justice Department that does not operate at arm’s length from the White House, but under its direct command.

To read more CLICK HERE