Oh hey, it’s been a while. I’ve been busy but no less interested by the legal troubles of the administration. I’m currently in the process of updating my records here. I’ll update again once I’m caught up.
and I’m all caught up with the backlog I had! I still want to get updates on everything and those will get posted. I also want to look through that Lawfare article @dragonfly9 posted in November, many thanks for that.
Added: New Suit To Record (June 24, 2019):
FedEx v. Dept. of Commerce
Concerning: Trade Laws
Update: Lawsuit Filed
Added: New Suit To Record (July 2, 2019):
House Ways and Means Committee v the IRS and Treasury Dept.
Concerning: Constitution Violations
Update: Lawsuit Filed
Added: New Suit To Record (July 11, 2019):
American Federation of Teachers v Betsy DeVos
Concerning: Loan Forgiveness Programs
Update: Lawsuit Filed
The ACLU has also prepared a new lawsuit concerning the rescheduled ICE raids:
Just looking on CREW - Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington who have filed some lawsuits against the Government.
June 28, 2019
CREW filed an amicus brief supporting the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Jason Leopold of Buzzfeed News in their case against DOJ to obtain the full, unredacted Mueller Report through the Freedom of Information Act.
DOJ has argued that Exemption 5, the deliberative process privilege, applies to the Mueller Report. Records redacted under Exemption 5, which only applies to those that are predecisional and deliberative, cannot be accessed through FOIA requests. CREW argues that Special Counsel Robert Mueller submitted his report at the conclusion of his investigation to explain his final decisions, so Exemption 5 does not apply to his report.
Electronic Privacy Information Center Plaintiff Civil Action No. 19-cv-810 (RBW)
US Dept of Justice Defendant
Jason Leopold, Buzzfeed Plaintiff Civil Action No. 10-cv-957 (RBW)
US Dept of Justice Defendant
@Eliwood look here for more lawsuits (complaints, etc)
Thanks for the information @dragonfly9 - always appreciated! Got a quick update for now.
Updated: Lawsuit update (July 10, 2019):
The State of Maryland and The District of Columbia v Donald J. Trump
Concerning: Constitution Violations
Update: Lawsuit Dismissed By Appeals Court
Former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department and the FBI for violating his First Amendment rights by firing him after discovering 2016 texts in which he “expressed his political opinions” about then-candidate Donald Trump.
Why it matters: Strzok led the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and later worked for special counsel Robert Mueller, before being transferred and later terminated after the discovery of thousands of personal text messages exchanged with FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Strzok has been the target of attacks from conservatives and Trump allies who believe the Russia probe was politically motivated and part of a conspiracy to undermine the Trump presidency.
- Strzok’s attorney said in a statement: “The lawsuit shows that, in bowing to the president’s desires, FBI leaders trampled Pete’s free speech and due process rights in ways that should be deeply troubling to all in government, and indeed, to all Americans. Today, Pete Strzok is fighting back, and sending a message that the Administration’s purposeful disregard for constitutional rights must not be tolerated.”
Details: The lawsuit claims that there has been no assertion that Strzok’s speech violated the Hatch Act, and that even if it had, the government “cannot practice viewpoint discrimination in deciding what political speech by government employees to allow and what political speech to punish.”
- It goes on to claim that the Trump administration “has consistently tolerated and even encouraged partisan political speech by federal employees, as long as this speech praises President Trump and attacks his political adversaries” — specifically pointing to White House counselor Kellyanne Conway’s Hatch Act violations as an example.
- In addition to violating Strzok’s First Amendment, the lawsuit alleges that the firing violated his right to due process. It claims the FBI’s decision to fire Strzok was the result of “unrelenting pressure from President Trump and his political allies,” and that it did not “abide by the final decision of Assistant Director [Candice] Will to suspend and demote, rather than fire” him.
- Strzok also alleges that he was denied the right to appeal his firing. The lawsuit requests that he be compensated with back pay and reinstatement to his old job.
Link has lawsuit inside
Read the lawsuit:
Not sure if this has been posted…but
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe has sued the Trump administration for what he calls his “unlawful” termination, arguing that his firing last year was the result of improper political interference by the president.
“It was Trump’s unconstitutional plan and scheme to discredit and remove DOJ and FBI employees who were deemed to be his partisan opponents because they were not politically loyal to him,” the complaint alleges.
Several states pledged to sue over the Trump administration plan. In the lawsuit, 22 states and seven cities will claim the rule “disregards requirements of the federal Clean Air Act.”
“The Clean Air Act requires that limits on air pollutants, such as greenhouse gases, must be based on the emissions reductions achievable through the ‘best system of emission reduction,’” the New York attorney general’s office said in a statement.
The statement said the Trump administration rule limits states’ ability to switch from coal to other sources of power generation, which it called "the most cost-effective, proven, and successful approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions."
The states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.
and the paperwork is flying again! thanks as always for the involvement folks. I didn’t add the House Judiciary Commitee’s lawsuit since it’s technically not against the administration or Trump himself but I certainly welcome any thoughts on this.
Update: plaintiff’s lawsuit dismissed (July 30, 2019):
Democratic National Committee v. Russian Federation
Concerning: Election Meddling
Added (Filed July 30, 2019)
Donald Trump v. State of California
Concerning: Election Laws
Added (Filed August 13, 2019)
City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Dept. of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenen (Secretary of Homeland Security) and Kenneth T. Cuccinelli (Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)
Concerning: Immigration Laws
States of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, and the Cities of Boulder CO, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, and South Miami FL v. the Environmental Protection Agency
Concerning: Environmental Laws
Added (Filed August 6, 2019)
Peter P. Strzok v. Trump Administration
Concerning: Wrongful Firing
Thanks @Pet_Proletariat! I’ve added it to the list.
Got another one today:
Added (Complaint Filed August 26, 2019):
Alva Johnson drops her suit.
Wha? Thousands of lawsuits…well, we’re interested.
The DNC research team has mined thousands of lawsuits from nearly 50 states as part of a massive new trove on President Trump that will be weaponized through pols and reporters in key battlegrounds.
Why it matters: This new plan shows what Democrats think Trump’s biggest vulnerabilities will be. And unlike in 2016, Trump now has a policy record.
Details: The research includes roughly 7,000 lawsuits, as well an extensive document detailing every time then-candidate Trump told supporters at his 2016 campaign rallies that Mexico would pay for the wall.
- A source familiar said this document will likely find its way to local reporters, groups and Democrats in battleground states as Trump diverts funds from the military to pay for his border wall.
- The DNC has examples of what farmers and truckers say they feel about Trump’s tariffs, the way he’s “trashed American wheat,” and how the GOP tax law hurt truckers.
- They’ve combed through local news articles and monitored local cable interviews with residents in states like Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Texas to find these folks who are being hurt by Trump’s policies.
- And they’ve already filed “thousands” of Freedom of Information Act requests to get even more info on the president.
The big picture: Using Trump’s specific actions and broken promises is how DNC chairman Tom Perez is advising party officials and surrogates to define him in states he won in 2016 that they think are crucial to their 2020 election efforts.
At a meeting last week with about 20 Democratic operatives and strategists, Perez said the plan is to “make it about [Trump’s] performance as president, not his bigotry or awfulness,” according to one source in the room. “Prosecute the case that he is bad at his job and it is hurting people in real ways.”
- Democrats can point to “so many ways his actual policies have really hurt people or how he’s been ineffective in fulfilling his promises,” said one Democrat familiar with the DNC’s plans to define Trump in 2020.
- "Let’s say he goes to Youngstown, Ohio. We have everything he said, what he promised in 2016 to that community — maybe it’s ‘that bridge will be fixed’ — then we’ll show what’s actually happened since."
Actions taken against EPA for allowing serious insectiside that is known to kill bees.
A group of beekeepers joined forces on Friday against Trump’s EPA by filing a lawsuit over the agency’s move to put a powerful insecticide—one that scientists warn is part of the massive pollinator die-off across the U.S.—back on the market.
The lawsuit (pdf) charges that the EPA’s approval of sulfoxaflor—touted by its manufacturer, agro-chemical giant Corteva, as a “next generation neonicotinoid”—was illegally rendered as it put industry interests ahead of the health of pollinators and ignored the available science.
“EPA is harming not just the beekeepers, their livelihood, and bees, but the nation’s food system.”