judge

Defeat mounts as another judge tramples Trump’s 'shameful' attack on federal workers

The New York Times reports a Rhode Island federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to restore a union contract that President Donald Trump tried to bust with Veterans Affairs Department workers.

Doug Collins, the V.A. secretary, moved to nullify the agreement with more than 300,000 last August, as part of President Donald Trump’s effort to fire thousands of U.S. employees.

“In a 29-page opinion, Judge Melissa R. Dubose wrote that the union, the American Federation of Government Workers National V.A. Council, had made clear that the termination of the contract was retaliatory — and therefore in violation of the First Amendment — given the opposition to the Trump administration’s labor policies mounted by the union’s umbrella group, the American Federation of Government Employees,” reports the Times.

The decision to end the agreement, she wrote, “seems substantially motivated by the plaintiffs’ history and frequency of vocally opposing changes to labor policies.”

Dubose’s biggest argument for restoring the contract before the conclusion of the court case was the fact that the union was quickly shedding members after the termination of the agreement. That being so, she reasoned that waiting until the lawsuit was finished to restore the contract would cause painful losses for the union and its workers.

She ordered that the three-year contract, which was ratified in June 2023, be reinstated for the remainder of its term.

The Times reports the judge was convinced the Trump administration was acting in a deliberately retaliatory way thanks to Trump’s own words.

“A White House fact sheet on an executive order Mr. Trump’s executive order signed in March, which stated that ‘certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump’s agenda,’” reports the Times. “And she noted various anti-labor statements by Mr. Collins, which she said demonstrated that the ‘laser focus’ of the agency’s leaders ‘was on the ways the V.A. perceived employee unions as frustrating the work and purpose of the V.A.’”

In a statement celebrating the news, National V.A. Council union President Mary Jean Burke, said the decision overcame the Trump administration’s “shameful and hostile attempts to silence V.A. workers.”

Judge shuts down Trump's attempt to defund blue states

The New York Times reports a federal judge in Illinois blocked the Trump administration’s plot to snatch $600 million in public health funds from four states led by Democrats.

“Judge Manish S. Shah of the Federal District Court in Northern Illinois wrote in a two-page order that the plaintiff states — California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota — had provided enough evidence that the cuts were ‘based on arbitrary, capricious or unconstitutional rationales’ to halt what would have been deep cuts in federal public health funding that had already been allocated while legal arguments continue in the case,” reports the Times.

Some of the $600 million in grants was intended to help specific populations, often communities of color or gay and bisexual men, which scratches against the Trump administration’s campaign against federal funding for underprivileged racial and socioeconomic groups.

This order, said the Times, is the latest ruling squashing President Donald Trump’s broader effort to impose politically motivated federal cuts to Democratic-led states. Just last week, another federal judge extended an unrelated order blocking the Trump administration from withholding $10 billion in child care and social services funding in the same four states, as well as New York — despite New York paying, on average, $20 billion more in taxes to the federal government than it gets back in federal spending.

The Times reports a court also blocked Trump’s plan to suspend funding of food stamps and other hunger relief programs in Minnesota.

Judge Shah did not specify the $600 million in grants in his decision, but applied his ruling broadly to block the Trump administration from terminating all public health grants “based on undisclosed agency priorities.”

While judges are heartily attacking Trump’s attempts to defund blue targets others are dismantling Trump’s other endeavors. On Thursday, GOP-appointed Judge Richard Leon issued a scathing ruling in Sen. Mark Kelly's (D-Ariz.) lawsuit against the Pentagon, which sought to demote him for appearing in a video reminding soldiers that they do not have to carry out unconstitutional orders.

A Manhattan federal judge, meanwhile, put an end to Trump’s attempted extortion of New York and New Jersey residents by ordering the administration to “unfreeze funding for a sprawling project paving the way for work to resume on a new set of Hudson River tunnels.”

Georgia judge deals fatal blow to MAGA election lawsuit

A Georgia judge has officially dismissed lawsuit filed by supporters of President Donald Trump in Fulton County, Georgia, and paused another one.

That's according to a Monday article in the New York Times, which reported that Fulton County Superior Court Judge C.I. McBurney — who was appointed to the bench in 2012 by then-Gov. Nathan Deal (R) — ruled against conservative activist and 2020 election denier Garland Favorito on Monday. Favorito filed this particular lawsuit over 2020 ballots in Fulton County, and prior to issuing his decision, Judge McBurney said he planned to allow the ballots to be viewed upon request by members of the public.

However, after the Trump administration's FBI raided an election facility in Fulton County in late January, Judge McBurney ruled that because the ballots now technically belong to the Justice Department, the issue was effectively out of his hands. Favorito, who supported the raid, said McBurney's decision was "legally moot since the FBI has the ballots."

"We are left to hope that the bureau and the Department of Justice handle the ballots and related records with the care required to preserve and protect their integrity," McBurney wrote in his Monday decision.

McBurney also issued a stay in a separate civil case seeking the 2020 Fulton County ballots filed by the Georgia State Board of Elections, which is packed full of Trump-supporting Republican activists. The Georgia judge noted in the separate ruling that the ballots "were, until recently, here in Fulton County. Now, however, they are somewhere else. Where exactly the court cannot say." He observed that because the warrant was signed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Missouri, the Fulton County ballots may actually be in the Show Me State.

Monday's ruling comes just days after McBurney dismissed a separate lawsuit seeking to review the disputed Fulton County ballots, saying plaintiffs (which included Favorito) "presented zero legal or factual question" about the county's liability for their claims. Judge McBurney also ordered plaintiffs to pay roughly $40,000 in fines.

'The 2020 election is over': Judge throws out MAGA lawsuit and imposes steep fine

One week after President Donald Trump sent FBI agents to seize Fulton County’s 2020 ballots as part of a criminal probe, a Georgia judge has apparently had it up to here with Trump-style election deniers.

“The 2020 election is over,” said Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, dismissing Trump-supporters’ lawsuit and effort to review ballots and materials they allege would prove Trump should have won Georgia.

On top of tossing the suit, the judge ordered the four plaintiffs — consisting of a treasure hunter and members of a Georgia affiliate of the Tea Party Patriots — to pay nearly $40,000 to Fulton County and the county Superior Court clerk’s office for filing the frivolous suit.

McBurney ruled the lawsuit “presented zero factual or legal questions” concerning the county’s liability for certain claims and gave the plaintiffs until Monday to pay the attorney fees.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) reports McBurney's ruling is the “latest twist” in a long-running legal battle that centers on allegations of voting fraud in the 2020 election. Lead plaintiff Garland Favorito has become an influential figure among a group of Georgians who are convinced that fraud cost Trump the election, despite countless state and federal investigations finding no evidence of significant fraud in 2020. Then-President Joe Biden’s victory was confirmed by two recounts, including a hand count of every ballot.

One of Favorito’s consultants reviewing ballot images was Jovan Pulitzer, an inventor and scavenger who the AJC reports as having once “searched for the Ark of the Covenant.” Another face behind the fight was Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who joined Pulitzer in spreading election fraud conspiracies during a state Senate hearing at the Georgia Capitol.

“An attorney for Favorito, Todd Harding, has been involved in at least three other lawsuits alleging fraud in Georgia’s November and January U.S. Senate elections,” AJC reported in 2021.

“This is nothing more than a circus that’s being put on by those who promote the ’big lie’ that Trump won the election,” Fulton Commission Chairman Robb Pitts said in 2021. “Where does it end? The votes have been counted. The elections have been certified. It’s over.”

But even today, it apparently is not over because Trump has sent his politicized FBI to investigate and count ballots on their own under the cover of a federal warehouse.

Federal judge reveals how he may order Trump's ballroom to be 'taken down': report

CNN reports U.S. District Judge Richard Leon (a George W. Bush appointee) will not halt work on President Donald Trump’s $300 million ballroom, but he said he would hear arguments early next year about whether to issue a longer-term preliminary injunction against the project.

“The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued last week over the sprawling, privately funded project, claiming the White House has been unlawfully carrying out the construction because Trump hasn’t gotten approval from Congress or submitted his plans to the National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission of Fine Arts for review, which would give the public a chance to weigh in,” CNN reports.

“It’s not about the need for a ballroom, it’s about the need to follow the law,” argued Ted Heuer, an attorney for the preservation group. He added that had the group seen the assessments that were revealed in court papers Monday sooner, “we would have sued” before demolition of the East Wing began.

The group asked Leon to issue an emergency court order that would pause any further work on the ballroom until Congress authorizes it, the commissions review it and relevant environmental assessments are completed. But Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the nation’s top historic preservation group had failed to show how it was being irreparably harmed by the construction in a way that required immediate court intervention.

Leon added, however, that the Trump administration must follow through on a pledge to submit the project to the National Capital Planning Commission by the end of this year.

“The court will hold them to that,” Leon said during a packed federal court hearing in Washington. “They’ve got until the end of this month.”

CNN reports the judge also warned that underground work set to be completed in coming months “must not dictate the ballroom’s eventual size or shape while the early stages of the legal challenge unfold. If it does, he said, it would have to be taken down.”

Trump argues the ballroom project is not subject to any oversight from ither Congress or independent agencies and he should be able to continue with it without any serious scrutiny.

Read the full CNN report at this link.

'Terrible judgment': Conservative slams Trump-appointed judge for attending his rally

President Donald Trump's rally in Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania on Tuesday had one notable guest in attendance — Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Emil Bove. Now, multiple legal experts are questioning why a member of the judiciary was in the audience for a rabidly partisan event.

The New York Times reported Wednesday that Bove – who was one of Trump's personal attorneys before ascending to a top position in Trump's Department of Justice and eventually a judicial post – has been subjected to an official ethics complaint for attending the rally. While Bove didn't speak or stand behind Trump during his speech, he was spotted in the crowd by an MS NOW reporter, and told them he was "just here as a citizen coming to watch the president speak."

However, Trump's rally pivoted sharply from its stated topic of addressing the high cost of living to the president's typical rally fare, like railing against immigrants from underdeveloped countries. During one part of the speech, Trump attacked Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and repeated a debunked conspiracy theory while suggesting the four-term congresswoman and naturalized U.S. citizen should be deported.

In the complaint, which was filed by activist Gabe Roth of the group Save The Court, Bove is accused of violating rules all judges are bound to follow, which includes a prohibition on anything that could be seen as an "appearance of impropriety," and a ban on "political activity." Third Circuit Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares (an appointee of George W. Bush) will now decide whether to dismiss the complaint or appoint a committee to investigate it further, which could potentially result in Bove being formally censured or not being assigned to any new cases for a period of time.

"This was a highly charged, highly political event that no federal judge should have been within shouting distance of," Roth's complaint read.

Retired U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel (an appointee of Bill Clinton) told the Times he agreed with the assessment of the rally as a "political event." He added that Bove being in the crowd gave "at least the appearance of partiality, particularly given what the president said."

"I can’t understand how he could possibly think it appropriate to go there," conservative legal commentator Edward Whelan told the Times. "You can argue about whether the rules clearly prohibit what he did, but he showed terrible judgment."

Click here to read the Times' full report (subscription required).

Trump DOJ asks judge to jail Jan. 6 defendant after being caught near top Democrat's home

One pardoned January 6 defendant has attracted the attention of President Donald Trump's Department of Justice after he was seen in the vicinity of a high-ranking congressional Democrat's home.

Politico reported Thursday that 37 year-old Taylor Taranto, who received a pardon from Trump on the first day of his second term along with the other roughly 1,500 participants in the January 6, 2021 insurrection, was recently caught wandering the neighborhood of Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Federal prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to have Taranto incarcerated.

Nichols sentenced Taranto in October of this year to time served plus 36 months of probation after he issued a bomb threat and carried weapons in Washington D.C.'s Kalorama neighborhood in 2023, where former President Barack Obama lives. Taranto was seen in the neighborhood just one day after Trump posted the Obama family's address on his Truth Social account.

According to Politico, assistant U.S. attorney Travis Wolf said jailing Taranto was necessary due to the defendants "acute mental health concerns" and "alarming social media posts, including one from the parking lot of the Pentagon." Wold told Nichols that he feared Taranto was "on the path" to committing crimes similar to his 2023 offense.

Nichols — who was appointed by Trump in 2019 — didn't order Taranto back to prison, but said he would issue a ruling in the coming weeks. Taranto's probation officer asked for increased monitoring of the defendant's drug use and psychiatric treatment in lieu of jail time, and his attorney asked for her client to be allowed to return to his home in Washington state for the holiday season.

Taranto reportedly agreed to voluntarily drive back to his home state by 12 PM on Friday, and Judge Nichols ordered him to not return to Washington D.C. until after the start of the new year. Taranto was also ordered to attend a probation hearing in Washington state next Wednesday, and Judge Nichols said he was "absolutely prepared" to jail him if he didn't follow the court's orders.

The Trump administration previously suspended two DOJ prosecutors who attempted to sentence Taranto in October. Former Department of Homeland Security staffer Miles Taylor — who worked in Trump's first administration — accused the president of "coddling assassins."

Click here to read Politico's full article.

Florida Judge rules against Trump in lawsuit against major media company

President Donald Trump was recently handed another loss in court, after failing to convince a Florida judge that he was owed money by the Guardian newspaper for reporting on a federal investigation involving his company.

Guardian reporter Hugo Lowell reported Monday on the ruling by Judge Hunter W. Carroll of Florida's Twelfth Judicial Circuit, who is an appointee of then-Gov. Rick Scott (R). Carroll granted an anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion the Guardian filed, which defendants often file when alleging a lawsuit has been filed with the intent of intruding on First Amendment rights.

Additionally, Lowell reported that Judge Carroll found that reporting critical of Trump and his businesses could not be used by Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which is the parent company of his Truth Social platform, to demonstrate actual malice in litigation.

TMTG sued over a 2023 article in the Guardian, in which the paper reported on a federal investigation into the company by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). TMTG had accepted $8 million in emergency loans from shadowy entities it knew little about at the time it accepted the money. One loan for $2 million came from Paxum Bank, which is headquartered in the island nation of Dominica. The other $6 million loan came from an entity called E.S. Family Trust.

The Guardian reported at the time that one of the trustees of E.S. Family Trust was a director of Paxum Bank. And one of the bank's part-owners had ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. SDNY prosecutors were probing whether the loans violated federal money laundering laws.

According to that report, one of the executives of TMTG floated the idea of returning the money given the lack of details and transparency about who was providing the loans. TMTG co-founder Will Wilkerson — who eventually became a whistleblower in the federal investigation — told SDNY that Chief Financial Officer Phillip Juhan was uncomfortable about the murky nature of the two entities.

The $2 million from Paxum Bank was sourced in December of 2021 by Patrick Orlando, who was executive at Digital World Acquisition Corporation, which was the entity TMTG merged with when the company went public. Orlando charged a $240,000 finders' fee for the loan, which was sourced through an offshore bank. Donald Trump Jr. ultimately signed off on the loan, per the report.

'These are the facts': CNN host battles Trump official blaming SNAP on 'radical left judges'

CNN anchor Pamela Brown had a difficult time keeping Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins on track and answering questions on a Thursday interview with “The Situation Room.”

One point of contention was whether the Trump administration could indeed move federal money to fund SNAP food for low-income and impoverished families for a year, as ordered by a Rhode Island judge.

“I’m just reading through the court filings, the judge also said … that there was money available in another funding pots like the one that was used for $750 million transferred to WIC,” Brown told Rollins. “… This judge said you didn't do that. You didn't use that. You could have to fully fund SNAP, and you fought it all the way to the Supreme Court.”

“Okay, let's talk about that,” said Rollins. “That judge in Rhode Island is the largest Democrat donor—”

Brown attempted to pull her back to the question but Rollins insisted “Well, it's important.”

“This was a radical left judge who decided that we could take money — listen, there was a ‘No Kings’ rally, but then, all of a sudden, a radical left judge in Rhode Island, of all places, says, ‘oh no, but please make yourself king and find that money out of the clear blue sky and redirect it into the SNAP program.'"

“But there was $23 billion in Section 32 for the child nutrition program. And so this judge says that $4 billion could have been moved from that Section 32 fund to fully fund SNAP. Is that accurate facts?”

“No, that is not facts,” said Rollins. “That money is congressionally authorized. If we had used that money, it would have taken food out of the mouths of school children that came from an entirely different pot of money, non-congressionally authorized.”

“I just want to go back on this because in reading through the court cases ... the government did admit to the judge, and this was, I believe, the judge in Boston, that, yes, it could have dipped into this child nutrition fund that was an available option. This fund, again, had $23 billion in it, right? And even if you took out $4 billion to fully fund SNAP, that pot of money would still feed children through next year," Brown explained.

“Are we serious right now?” demanded Rollins. “Are we really talking about moving billions of dollars from one pot to another to feed children through next year, when the Democrats 15 different times voted not to?”

“I understand you want to keep it on Democrats, but what about the children that are hungry now because they didn't get the full SNAP?” Brown asked.

“Well, they should understand that the Democrats are the ones that are keeping — they even admitted it. ‘This is our greatest leverage point. If planes fall out of the sky, that may be what it takes.’ It was one thing after another, Pamela … I mean, for you to try to put this back on ‘this court said that and this left-leaning judge said that, and you guys, you guys should move this.’ It's completely a false narrative.”

“That's why I'm asking you,” said Brown. “These are just the facts. These are in court cases. This is what the USDA has previously said from the 2019 shutdown.”

Judge forces Trump admin to remove 'partisan' language from employees' emails

Federal workers recently scored a win in court over President Donald Trump's administration over political language inserted in their email auto-responses without their consent.

Politico reported Friday that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper (an appointee of former President Barack Obama) ruled in favor of a union representing federal workers to strike what he called "partisan messages" from Department of Education (Ed) employees' out-of-office messages. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) successfully argued that the messages violated workers' First Amendment rights.

"The Trump-Vance administration’s use of official government resources to spread partisan messaging using employees’ email was an unprecedented violation of the First Amendment, and the court’s ruling makes clear that even this administration is not above the law," AFGE national president Everett Kelley stated after the decision was handed down.

In his 36-page ruling, Cooper ruled that the messages that were inserted into Ed employees' auto-replies — which explicitly blamed Democrats for the ongoing government shutdown — were illegal.

"Nonpartisanship is the bedrock of the federal civil service; it ensures that career government employees serve the public, not the politicians," Cooper wrote. "But by commandeering its employees’ e-mail accounts to broadcast partisan messages, the Department chisels away at that foundation."

"Political officials are free to blame whomever they wish for the shutdown, but they cannot use rank-and-file civil servants as their unwilling spokespeople," he added. "The First Amendment stands in their way. The Department’s conduct therefore must cease."

According to the AFGE's lawsuit, Ed workers had initially provided anodyne out-of-office messages ahead of the shutdown, which were soon replaced with Trump administration's talking points: "Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of H.R. 5371 in the Senate which has led to a lapse in appropriations."

"None of us consented to this. And it’s written in the first-person, as if I’m the one conveying this message, and I’m not," one worker told NBC at the time. "I don’t agree with it. I don’t think it’s ethical or legal. I think it violates the Hatch Act."

Click here to read Politico's full article in its entirety.

'Do you need a moment?' Judge catches DOJ unprepared during Letitia James hearing

Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Keller Jr. openly admitted at the arraignment of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) Friday that the prosecution in her federal case is still sorting through what evidence it has.

“I am going through the discovery right now,” he told U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker (an appointee of former President Joe Biden), per a report published in NOTUS.

The admission came as James – who pleaded not guilty in Norfolk, Virginia on Friday – faced a courtroom that pressed the government for clarity and timeliness on its preparations.

"Normally, prosecutors fully investigate a case before pursuing an indictment and know well exactly what evidence exists to support criminal charges. However, this case is anything but normal," the report read.

When Keller sought until mid-November to complete evidentiary disclosures, the judge rejected the request.

“Waiting nearly a month after an indictment is not consistent with how we operate here,” Walker said.

Further remarks exposed the government’s lack of readiness, according to the report.

Keller proposed a two-week trial and estimated eight to ten witnesses. James’ defense lawyer, Abbe Lowell, countered he’d “be shocked” if there were that many.

When asked whether the pretrial services report had been received, Keller stuttered and turned to a colleague: “We have not, your honor… Oh, we have?”

"Do you need a moment?" the judge asked, referring to the lawyer's lack of preparation.

The hearing lasted under an hour and underscored that the team prosecuting James appears to be assembling its case as it moves forward.

The report noted that observers believe this mirrors another recent prosecution in Virginia – that of former FBI Director James Comey – in which the government admitted it was “just getting our hands around discovery.”

Meanwhile, James appeared before a supportive crowd after her arraignment, and accused the justice system of being used as “a tool of revenge.”

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.