Tag Archives: Department of Justice

Alternet: ‘Novel take on the Constitution’: Trump gives away the game on claim GOP is ‘party of states’ rights’

Posted on by
Reply

CNN analyst Aaron Blake said President Donald Trump is now leading Republican party in its assault on states’ rights.

“[Trump] has spent much of his second term attempting to chip away at states’ rights — or at least, the ones he doesn’t like,” said Blake, adding that Trump more recently referred to states as subservient to the federal government in a pitch to get rid of mail-in voting and voting machines.

“Remember, the States are merely an ‘agent’ for the Federal Government in counting and tabulating the votes,” the president posted on Truth Social. “They must do what the Federal Government, as represented by the President of the United States, tells them, for the good of our country, to do.”

This was not Trump’s first reference to states as “agents” of the federal government, but it was one of the first that referenced himself personally as more powerful.

“This is a rather novel take on the Constitution, to put it mildly,” said Blake, explaining that the Constitution says the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections … shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Congress may tweak regulations, but there is no role for the president.

“And Trump isn’t saying that Congress should outlaw mail-in voting or voting machines, mind you. Instead, he’s saying the states ‘must’ get rid of them because he tells them to — apparently because he was elected president and because he has determined it’s “for the good of the country,” said Blake. “This is merely the latest in a long line of drastic Trump claims to power.

Trump claimed during his first term that the Constitution gave him absolute power, even when out of office, reports Blake. He’s “floated terminating portions of the Constitution, while repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was rigged.” Earlier this year, Blake notes Trump suggesting his actions “couldn’t be illegal as long as he was acting to ‘save’ the country.”

These things are inconsistent with decades of conservative orthodoxy, which holds that the federal government should be small and that states should lead the way, said Blake. The 2016, Republican Party platform devoted an entire section to states’ rights, arguing “Every violation of state sovereignty by federal officials is not merely a transgression of one unit of government against another; it is an assault on the liberties of individual Americans.”

But since then, Blake says Trump has issued executive orders targeting state and local governments’ “sanctuary” policies, and he’s directed the DOJ to block states from enforcing their own pollution laws. He’s also dispatched troops to Los Angeles without the consent of the governor and federalized the police in Washington, DC. He also tried unsuccessfully to block funding to New York for trying to curb traffic congestion and threatened other state’s funding over transgender rights.

Blake said “if nothing else,” Trump’s latest Truth Social post “has finally said how he really feels about the concept of states’ rights.”

‘Novel take on the Constitution’: Trump gives away the game on claim GOP is ‘party of states’ rights’

https://www.alternet.org/trump-washingotn-dc-troops

Politico: DC sues over Trump administration’s attempted takeover of city police

Posted on by
Reply

Washington officials are suing the Trump administration over what they call a “baseless power grab” after the Department of Justice ordered a new “emergency” head of District police.

“By illegally declaring a takeover of MPD, the Administration is abusing its temporary, limited authority under the law,” Schwalb wrote in an X post Friday. “This is the gravest threat to Home Rule DC has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it.”

The lawsuit, filed in federal court, warns that the attempted takeover could “wreak operational havoc” on the Metropolitan Police Department because of the confusion about who has operational control. The city’s lawyers say the push by President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi violates the law in multiple ways — exceeding the president’s legal power to intervene in city affairs and rescinding policies adopted by local government.

They’re asking a federal judge to immediately rescind Bondi’s attempted takeover and effort to rewrite Washington police policies, declaring them to be unlawful. It’s unclear how quickly a judge will act, but the emergency nature of the filing could lead to proceedings as soon as Friday.

The suit is the biggest pushback from city officials since Trump invoked a provision of the Home Rule Act — the 1970s law that allows for limited self-governance by Washington’s government — that allows the president to direct the Metropolitan Police Department’s services to address “special conditions of an emergency nature.”

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee known for her take-no-prisoners approach from the bench. Reyes, most notably, blocked Trump’s transgender military ban before her injunction was paused by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Amid the litigation, the Justice Department filed a complaint against Reyes for her pointed comments to government attorneys — though she at times also praised their advocacy and made similarly pointed comments to lawyers for the transgender service members.

In a declaration accompanying the city’s bid for an immediate restraining order, D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith said the administration’s gambit is “endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers.”

“In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive.”

The suit underscores that no president in history has invoked the authority to manage the city’s police department. And the city’s lawyers say the president’s power to do so requires cooperation between city officials and the federal government, not a hostile takeover.

Bondi on Thursday issued an order that directed Drug Enforcement Administration head Terry Cole to assume “all the powers and duties” of the city’s police chief as the new “Emergency Police Commissioner,” “effective immediately.”

[“Bimbo#3”] Bondi’s order also purported to rescind or suspend several Washington police orders — including one issued by Smith earlier on Thursday that allowed for limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser and Schwalb — both Democrats elected by Washington residents — insisted late Thursday that [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi could not legally disrupt the typical chain of command for MPD officers by requiring them to report to Cole.

“Therefore, members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” Schwalb wrote in a letter Thursday to Smith that was circulated by Bowser. “Regardless of the [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi order, no official other than you may exercise all the powers and duties of the Chief of Police.”

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Democrats’ attempts to “stifle” [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi’s orders are “par for the course” for the party.

“The Trump Administration has the lawful authority to assert control over the D.C. Police, which is necessary due to the emergency that has arisen in our Nation’s Capital as a result of failed leadership,” Jackson said in a statement.

A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment.

Trump on Monday issued an executive order invoking the Home Rule Act, insisting that the District was overrun by violence. He also deployed the National Guard to the city.

But before [“Bimbo#3”] Bondi’s order Thursday looking to replace the MPD chief, city officials have largely limited their criticism of the Trump administration, noting that Washington was in a fairly unique situation that gave the federal government broad powers and authorities.

“The feds have an outsize role in D.C., we all know that,” Bowser told POLITICO Wednesday morning. “Right now, having a surge of officers enhances our MPD forces on a temporary basis. We’re going to stay focused on hiring more MPD or, when this temporary surge is over, figuring out more permanent partnerships to tap into when we need a surge of officers.”

But Trump’s Monday press conference went far beyond what his executive order said, with the president saying his administration would “take our capital back.”

“Giving us additional resources is a good thing, but that’s also quite different than federalizing our police force,” D.C. Council Chair Phil Mendelson said Wednesday in an interview. “Donald Trump is not going to tell our police how to police.”

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have introduced dueling legislation over Trump’s moves. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) announced a resolution Friday to grant Trump “the authority to maintain federal control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) in Washington, D.C. for as long as necessary to restore law and order.”

Democratic lawmakers also introduced a joint resolution Friday to terminate the administration’s control of D.C. police by voiding Trump’s proclamation of a crime emergency in Washington. But without control of either chamber of Congress, the effort among Democrats is almost certainly futile.

“Trump has made clear that his efforts in D.C., where 700,000 taxpaying American citizens lack the protections of statehood, are part of a broader plan to militarize and federalize the streets of cities around America whose citizens voted against him,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) in his statement.

DC sues over Trump administration’s attempted takeover of city police
Attorney General Pam Bondi last night said she was naming the DEA head as the emergency police commissioner.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/15/dc-police-trump-lawsuit-00511086

Daily Beast: U.S. Citizen: I Was Seized by ICE and Held for Days Without Water

Posted on by
Reply

Andrea Velez spent two days in a Los Angeles detention center despite telling ICE officers that she is a U.S. citizen.

An American citizen has told how she was held by ICE for 48 hours, claiming she was denied water despite proving her legal status.

Andrea Velez, 32, had just arrived at work in Downtown Los Angeles on June 24 when agents grabbed her and forced her into a car.

Velez told NBC4 News Los Angeles that an immigration raid was going on when she was slammed to the ground. Velez, a graduate of Cal Poly Pomona, who works in fashion was taken into custody while her mother, Margarita Flores, screamed at agents to stop.

“She’s a U.S. citizen,” Velez’s mother, an immigrant from Mexico, said through tears. “They’re taking her. Help her, someone.”

Velez said she was sitting in a detention center and was given nothing to drink for 24 hours. In total she spent two days in detention. She said that the ordeal has left her unable to physically return to work.

“I’m taking things day by day,” she told the station.

The incident had been notorious from the beginning. LAPD officers were called to the scene because it was reported as a “kidnapping” but did not intervene when it became clear it was an ICE action—even though it was against a U.S. citizen, ABC& Los Angeles previously reported.

Velez was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect. A federal criminal complaint alleged that the agent was chasing after a man but Velez stepped into the agent’s path and extended her arm “in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.” The complaint added that her arm hit the agent in the face.

The incident had been notorious from the beginning. LAPD officers were called to the scene because it was reported as a “kidnapping” but did not intervene when it became clear it was an ICE action—even though it was against a U.S. citizen, ABC& Los Angeles previously reported.

Velez was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect. A federal criminal complaint alleged that the agent was chasing after a man but Velez stepped into the agent’s path and extended her arm “in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.” The complaint added that her arm hit the agent in the face.

Velez denied wrongdoing. She said that during the incident, someone grabbed her and slammed her to the ground. She tried to tell the agent, who was in plainclothes, that she was an American citizen. But he told her she was “interfering” and he was going to arrest her.

“That’s when I asked him to show me his ID, his badge number,” she said. “I asked him if he had a warrant, and he said I didn’t need to know any of that.”

Velez said she repeatedly told ICE officers she was a U.S. citizen. When she was taken into a Los Angeles detention center, she gave officers her driver’s license and health insurance card to prove her citizenship status. She was still locked behind bars.

Velez’s family was unaware of her whereabouts for more than a day until lawyers for the family tracked her down.

Later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed her case without prejudice, meaning it could be reopened if prosecutors decide to.

Velez’s attorneys told NBC Los Angeles that they are exploring legal moves against the federal government.

Between 2015 and 2020, ICE erroneously deported at least 70 U.S. citizens, arrested 674 and detained 121. It is unclear how many have been mistakenly taken amid the Trump administration’s mass campaign to deport 1 million immigrants per year.

In January, U.S. citizen Julio Noriega was looking for work in Chicago when he was swept up in the mass raids. In May, Georgia college student Ximena Arias-Cristobal was detained after police pulled over the wrong car during a traffic stop. In June, a deputy U.S. marshal was detained in Arizona because he “fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE.” That same month, a Ph.D. student named Job Garcia was tackled and thrown to the ground by ICE for recording a raid in Los Angeles.

A recent lawsuit claims that at least three American-born children have been removed from the country. The sudden banishment includes a 4-year-old boy with stage-four kidney cancer who was receiving critical, life-saving medical treatment in the United States. He was shipped from Louisiana to Honduras in April.

The Daily Beast has reached out to ICE for comment.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told the Daily Beast: “FALSE. ICE provided Andrea Velez with water, food, sanitary products, and she was given restroom breaks as needed. The media needs to stop peddling lies and smears that have led to a 1000% increase in assaults against our brave ICE officers.”

U.S. Citizen: I Was Seized by ICE and Held for Days Without Water
Andrea Velez spent two days in a Los Angeles detention center despite telling ICE officers that she is a U.S. citizen.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-citizen-andrea-velez-i-was-seized-by-ice-and-held-for-days-without-water

The Hill: [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi ramps up pressure on 32 ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’: Who’s on the list?

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi said Thursday she was ramping up pressure on 32 “sanctuary jurisdictions,” urging them to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

“I just sent Sanctuary City letters to 32 mayors around the country and multiple governors saying, you better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she told a Fox News reporter. 

“And they have, I think, a week to respond to me, so let’s see who responds and how they respond. It starts at the top, and our leaders have to support our law enforcement,” she added. 

The measure comes after an Aug. 5 release from the Justice Department highlighting various states, cities and counties deemed noncompliant with regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.

“For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in the letter to officials across the country. 

“Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in a post announcing the move. 

She cited a late April executive order from President Trump as legal grounds for the push. 

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for the 32 jurisdictions that received letters from [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi. 

The below jurisdictions received a letter from the Department of Justice on Aug. 5:

States:

  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Illinois
  • Minnesota
  • Nevada
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Vermont
  • Washington

Counties:

  • Baltimore County, Md.
  • Cook County, Ill.
  • San Diego County, Calif.
  • San Francisco County, Calif.

Cities:

  • Albuquerque, N.M.
  • Berkeley, Calif.
  • Boston
  • Chicago
  • Denver
  • District of Columbia
  • East Lansing, Mich.
  • Hoboken, N.J.
  • Jersey City, N.J.
  • Los Angeles
  • New Orleans
  • New York City
  • Newark, N.J.
  • Paterson, N.J.
  • Philadelphia
  • Portland, Ore.
  • Rochester, N.Y.
  • Seattle
  • San Francisco City

Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi is one of the stupidest women on Earth. Despite already losing a couple such cases on well-established Tenth Amendment grounds, she is now threatening to replicate her failures in 12 states, 4 counties, and 19 cities. When God passed out brains, Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi must have been hanging out near the manure spreader.

The bottom line is that the federal government can’t compel state and local governments to do its bidding. If the state and local governments don’t wish to comply or assist, the federal government must do its own dirty work.

Bondi ramps up pressure on 32 ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’: Who’s on the list?

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5454204-bondi-immigration-enforcement-urge

KTLA: 2 Los Angeles protesters charged with assaulting federal officers at immigration rally

Posted on by
Reply

Resist ICE!

Support the resistance!

A federal grand jury has indicted two Southern California residents on charges that they allegedly assaulted federal officers during an anti-immigration enforcement protest last month outside a federal building in downtown Los Angeles, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday.

Erin Petra Escobar, 34, of the Palms neighborhood of Los Angeles, is charged with one felony count of assault on a federal officer or employee and one misdemeanor count of depredation of government property. Nick Elias Gutierrez, 20, of Hawthorne, faces two felony counts: one for assault on a federal officer or employee, and another for assault on a federal officer or employee resulting in bodily injury.

The indictment alleges that on July 17, a small group of protesters gathered outside the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse to protest recent immigration enforcement operations. Court documents allege that Escobar was seen using a permanent marker to write on and damage federal property. When officers approached to detain her, Gutierrez allegedly grabbed an officer’s bulletproof vest straps and shook him. During the struggle to detain Gutierrez, one officer dislocated his left ring finger.

Escobar and Gutierrez were eventually arrested. While being transported to a nearby holding cell, Escobar allegedly spat into the face of one of the officers, according to prosecutors.

Both defendants are scheduled to be arraigned on August 15 in United States District Court in Los Angeles. They are currently free on a $5,000 bond.

If convicted, Escobar faces a statutory maximum sentence of eight years in federal prison for the assault charge and up to one year for the depredation charge. Gutierrez faces up to 20 years for the assault resulting in injury count and a maximum of eight years for the assault charge.

The United States Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Protective Service is investigating the case, which is being prosecuted by the Justice Department’s General Crimes Section.

An indictment contains allegations, and both defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

2 Los Angeles protesters charged with assaulting federal officers at immigration rally
A federal grand jury has indicted two Southern California residents on charges that they allegedly assaulted federal officers during an anti-immigration enforcement protest last month outside a fed…

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/protesters-charged-assaulting-federal-officers-immigration-rally

NBC News: U.S. citizen detained by ICE in L.A. says she wasn’t given water for 24 hours

Posted on by
Reply

Andrea Velez was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect. The DOJ later dismissed her case.

A U.S. citizen who was detained by immigration agents and accused of obstructing an arrest before her case was ultimately dismissed said she is still traumatized by what happened.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained Andrea Velez in downtown Los Angeles on June 24. She was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect.

The Justice Department dismissed her case without prejudice. It did not immediately reply to a request for comment Tuesday.

Velez, a production coordinator for a shoe company, recalled seeing federal agents when her mother and sister dropped her off at work.

“It was like a scene,” she told NBC Los Angeles. “They were just ready to attack and chase.”

Velez said someone grabbed her and slammed her to the ground. She said that she tried to tell the agent, who was in plainclothes, that she was a citizen but that he told her she “was interfering with what he was doing, so he was going to arrest me.”

“That’s when I asked him to show me his ID, his badge number,” she said. “I asked him if he had a warrant, and he said I didn’t need to know any of that.”

A federal criminal complaint alleged that an agent was chasing a man and that Velez stepped into the agent’s path and extended her arm “in an apparent effort to prevent him from apprehending the male subject he was chasing.”

The complaint said Velez’s arm hit the agent in the face.

Velez said she denied any wrongdoing and insisted she was a U.S. citizen. She was taken to a detention center in downtown Los Angeles, where she gave officers her driver’s license and her health insurance card, but she was still booked into jail, she said.

She said she spent two days in the detention center, where she had nothing to drink for 24 hours.

Velez said that the ordeal traumatized her and that she has not been able to physically return to work.

“I’m taking things day by day,” she told NBC Los Angeles.

Her attorneys told the station that they are exploring legal options against the federal government.

Her story echoes those of others who have said they were wrongfully detained by immigration agents under President Donald Trump’s push for mass deportations.

Job Garcia, a Ph.D. student and photographer, said he was immigration agents tackled him and threw him to the ground for recording a raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles. He was held for more than 24 hours before his release. In July, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said it was seeking $1 million in damages, alleging that Garcia was assaulted and falsely imprisoned.

In June, a deputy U.S. marshal was briefly detained in the lobby of a federal building in Tucson, Arizona, because he “fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE,” the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement.

And in May, Georgia college student Ximena Arias-Cristobal was granted bond after she was detained by immigration agents after local police pulled over the wrong car during a traffic stop.

U.S. citizen detained by ICE in L.A. says she wasn’t given water for 24 hours
Andrea Velez was charged with assaulting a federal officer while he was attempting to arrest a suspect. The DOJ later dismissed her case.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna224493

CNN: Attorney General [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi orders prosecutors to start grand jury probe into Obama officials over Russia investigation

Posted on by
Reply

Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into accusations that members of the Obama administration manufactured intelligence about Russia’s 2016 election interference, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

A grand jury would be able to issue subpoenas as part of a criminal investigation into renewed allegations that Democratic officials tried to smear Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign by falsely alleging his campaign was colluding with the Russian government. It could also consider an indictment should the Justice Department decide to pursue a criminal case.

The move follows a referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who declassified documents in July that she alleges undermine the Obama administration’s conclusion that Russia tried to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton.

Gabbard requested that the Justice Department investigate former President Barack Obama and top officials in his administration for an alleged conspiracy.

Soon after Gabbard’s referral, [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi announced that the DOJ was creating a “strike force” to assess the evidence released by Gabbard and “investigate potential next legal steps which might stem from DNI Gabbard’s disclosures.”

The Justice Department declined to comment.

CNN has reported that the allegations from Gabbard misrepresent what the intelligence community concluded over Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election.

While Gabbard insisted the Russian goal in 2016 was to sow distrust in American democracy and not to help Trump, the unsealed documents don’t undercut or alter the US government’s core findings in 2017 that Russia launched a campaign of influence and hacking and sought to help Clinton lose.

Fox News first reported [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s grand jury request.

Department of Justice under King Donald and Bimbo #3 Bondi = Ministry of Personal Retaliation

Attorney General Bondi orders prosecutors to start grand jury probe into Obama officials over Russia investigation | CNN Politics
Attorney General Pam Bondi directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into accusations that members of the Obama administration manufactured intelligence about Russia’s 2016 election interference, a source familiar with the matter told CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/04/politics/justice-department-russia-grand-jury

Law & Crime: ‘It violates my order’: Federal judge calls out DOJ for making ‘completely novel’ pro-Alina [“Bimbo #4”] Habba argument he specifically didn’t want to hear yet

Posted on by
Reply

Though he refused to dismiss a drug-trafficking indictment, a federal judge said he wants to hear more about whether U.S. Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi unlawfully reappointed acting U.S. Attorney Alina [“Bimbo #4”] Habba to her role, opening the door to scrutiny of the Trump administration’s method of apparently sidestepping a court and the U.S. Senate’s blocking of certain nominations.

Chief U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew Brann, sitting by designation in the criminal cases of Julien Giraud Jr. and Julien Giraud III after the New Jersey district court declined to appoint [“Bimbo #4”] Habba itself upon the expiration of her 120-day acting limit, decided Friday that the Girauds were “not entitled to dismissal.” At the same time, the defendants made a persuasive enough case for “additional argument regarding the legality of Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s appointment” and the authority of the assistant U.S. attorneys under her command or supervision.

“I begin with dismissal of the indictment, which I conclude is not available, and then turn to injunctions against Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba and anyone acting under her authority, which I conclude would be appropriate if the Girauds prevail on the merits,” the judge wrote.

Regarding dismissal, Brann determined that the Girauds could not credibly argue their indictment, obtained through the Senate-confirmed then-U.S. Attorney Philip Sellinger, is “somehow retroactively taint[ed]” by Habba’s appointment, whether or not that was lawful.

But the Girauds can still make their best pitch for blocking Habba, and her assistants, from prosecuting them going forward.

“The Girauds argue in the alternative that Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba should be enjoined from prosecuting their case, and that any AUSAs acting under her supervision be similarly barred. As discussed in the previous section, the Court generally agrees that this remedy would be the appropriate response to the constitutional and statutory violations the Girauds claim,” the judge wrote. “This relief raises two questions: (1) can the Court bar Ms. [“Bimbo #4”] Habba from participating in the Girauds’ prosecution, and (2) does a bar on Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s participation extend to AUSAs?”

“As to the first question, I conclude that the answer is yes,” Brann added.

The answer to the second question, about [“Bimbo #4”] Habba’s AUSAs, was more nuanced. Brann indicated he would not go so far as to block the whole office from prosecuting, but that he could when these prosecutors “do so under Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s authority” — again, if her reappointment was illegal.

“To be clear, the Court is not suggesting that it might impose the ‘officewide disqualification’ the Government fears,” the judge said. “Instead, the Court agrees that a valid remedy for the violations the Girauds’ assert, if I find that they occurred, may be to bar AUSAs from engaging in prosecutions when they do so under Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s authority.”

The line prosecutors or a higher-up DOJ official could still legally come to court under AG [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s authority, with [“Bimbo #4”] Habba in effect recusing herself and not putting her name and title on any filings, Brann said.

“The Court sees no reason why AUSAs acting directly under the delegated authority of Ms. [“Bimbo #3″] Bondi, or possibly another Department of Justice official with sufficient authority to extend Ms. Bondi’s powers to AUSAs in New Jersey, would need to be disqualified,” he explained. “Moreover, so long as it is clear that they are acting under Ms. [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi’s—and not Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba’s—authority (essentially a temporary recusal until this matter is resolved), there would appear to be no issue with all of District of New Jersey’s AUSAs moving prosecutions forward now.”

Along the way, even as the judge blasted as “misplaced” the Girauds’ challenge of Habba’s authority for relying on U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s Appointments Clause-based dismissal of special counsel Jack Smith’s Mar-a-Lago prosecution of Trump, Brann also had some stern words for the DOJ.

The judge noted that he had ordered both the defendants and the DOJ to submit briefs under the assumption that [“Bimbo #4”] Habba was unlawfully appointed, yet the DOJ included an argument that said [“Bimbo #4”] Habba was lawfully appointed one way or another.

Recall that in order to keep [“Bimbo #4”] Habba as acting U.S. attorney Trump pulled her nomination. [“Bimbo #4”] Habba resigned before her acting 120-day stint technically expired and before her first assistant Desiree Leigh Grace’s appointment by court as U.S. attorney became effective.

[“Bimbo #3”] Bondi promptly fired Grace and then reinstalled Habba, citing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act when naming Habba first assistant in the U.S. attorney’s office. At the same time, just in case anyone questioned that legal authority, Habba was named a “Special Attorney to the United States Attorney General” under a federal statute governing the commission of special attorneys, giving her the power to act as a U.S. attorney through another means.

Brann said the DOJ violated his order by citing the latter authority in support of [“Bimbo #4”] Habba, putting the proverbial “cart before the horse.”

“The Government’s argument to the contrary puts the cart before the horse. It argues that no remedy is available to the Girauds by simply rejecting the premise—which I ordered them to assume—that Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba has been illegally appointed, instead contending that she is legally exercising the powers of the United States Attorney through a delegation of the Attorney General’s power to conduct and supervise ‘all litigation to which the United States . . . is a party’ as a ‘Special Attorney’ or in her role as the First Assistant United States Attorney,” he wrote.

“But that is explicitly a merits argument: the Girauds are only entitled to no remedy if the Court finds that Ms. [“Bimbo #4”] Habba’s appointment as a Special Attorney is valid or that Ms. [“Bimbo #3″] Bondi can delegate a First Assistant a level of authority commensurate with the United States Attorney’s,” Brann continued. “Because it violates my Order, I do not consider the argument at this stage.”

The judge added that the DOJ’s maneuvering has “extreme implications that it openly embraces,” making a full briefing and oral argument on the “completely novel question” appropriate.

“[B]y using the Special Attorney designation and delegation, Ms. [“Bimbo #4″] Habba may exercise all of the powers of the United States Attorney without being subject to any of the statutory limitations on that office,” Brann wrote, summarizing the DOJ’s argument. “Whether the Attorney General may statutorily or constitutionally delegate all of the powers of a specific office created by separate statute and constrained by its own statutory limitations in order to evade those limitations is a completely novel question, and one that inherently implicates the Appointments Clause and thus the merits of the Girauds’ motion. I defer resolving it until it has been fully briefed.”

Federal judge dings DOJ for making pro-Alina Habba argument he specifically didn’t want to hear
Though he refused to dismiss an indictment, a judge said he wants to hear more about whether Pam Bondi unlawfully reappointed acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba.
‘It violates my order’: Federal judge calls out DOJ for making ‘completely novel’ pro-Alina Habba argument he specifically didn’t want to hear yet

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.

What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁

Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Fight over Trump’s order to deny birthright citizenship heads toward Supreme Court, with 14th Amendment protections at stake

https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176

Independent: Trump team weighs releasing Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview with DOJ officials over Epstein case: report

Posted on by
Reply

It was not previously known that such a recording existed, but a final decision in whether to release it or not has yet to be made

The Trump administration is considering publicly releasing an audio recording of an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and senior officials from the Department of Justice about Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new report.

It was not previously known that such a recording existed, and officials are currently discussing whether or not to release a transcript of the discussion between the British socialite and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Maxwell, 63, was the disgraced financier’s ex-girlfriend, and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after her 2021 conviction for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple girls. Her attorneys have taken an appeal of her conviction to the Supreme Court.

The interview between the socialite and the DOJ came following ongoing pressure on the administration to be more transparent over the Epstein case, following a July 6 memo which stated that convicted pedophile died by suicide in 2019 and there was no evidence to support the existence of a so-called “client list.” Such claims caused uproar among the MAGA faithful.

Sources told CNN that the audio recording was currently being transcribed and digitized, but that some parts that may reveal sensitive information – like the names of victims – would need to be redacted.

The outlet reported that as of Tuesday morning, a final decision on whether to release the recording and the transcript, had not been made.

CNN also reported that, per its sources, some within the administration were concerned that making details from the interview public would bring the Epstein controversy back into the public spotlight, when many officials close to the president believe the story has largely died down.

When asked for comment by The Independent, the administration denied that any such decisions were being made about the transcript, and that Trump had already addressed the issue.

In a statement, Steven Cheung, White House Communications Director, said: “This is nothing more than CNN trying desperately to create news out of old news. He already addressed this issue in an interview with Newsmax, a real news outlet that routinely gets better ratings than CNN.”

Discussions about the recordings and transcript come after the DoJ admitted that the grand jury transcripts in Maxwell’s criminal case, contain mostly publicly available information.

Trump previously asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to make public “any and all pertinent” grand jury transcripts in both the Epstein and Maxwell cases, in order to stymie the ongoing furore.

A judge overseeing Maxwell’s case asked the government to provide more information to the court. The department provided a version of the transcripts that identifies which information is not publicly available. However, Bondi admitted in a Monday filing that “much” of the information in the transcripts was already made publicly available.

Trump weighs releasing Ghislaine Maxwell’s Epstein interview with DOJ: report
It was not previously known that such a recording existed, but a final decision in whether to release it or not has yet to be made

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/ghislaine-maxwell-doj-interview-epstein-b2802282.html