Federal Judges’ Rapid-Fire Rulings Against Trump Admin Are Unlike Anything Seen Before

posted by Shipwreckedcrew at RedState 

Nearly all the civil lawfare cases being brought by partisan interest groups seeking to block policy changes being adopted by the Trump administration include efforts by the plaintiffs to secure immediate judicial intervention based almost entirely on the plaintiffs’ characterization of facts. With only a few exceptions, where the law did not give them a choice, the plaintiffs are using exclusively “friendly” judicial districts where nearly all – or in a couple of instances, actually all — of the judges are appointees of President Obama or President Biden. These liberal-progressive district judges are rushing to enter temporary restraining orders (TROs) that block the policy changes and thereby thrust the disputes into the appellate system at the earliest possible moment – and THEN these judges begin the process of developing the actual facts while the appeals process grinds on. Missing from pretty much every case that I have followed is any effort to explore early settlement discussions or an interim agreement that both sides can live with while they develop their cases.

In federal civil litigation I've been involved in over the years, the district court judge will often direct the parties to a magistrate for early settlement conferences to see if any kind of accommodation can be reached that avoids a TRO or injunction pending trial. This takes pressure off the district judge with an entire docket full of cases that have been pending long before the politically charged case arrived. Each federal judge also has dozens – maybe a hundred or more – criminal cases that have much shorter timelines due to constitutional requirements as well.  

Yet over and over again, we see these liberal-progressive judges stop the globe from spinning while they devote tremendous time and resources to these partisan political lawfare cases designed to disrupt the Trump administration. Here are four examples – among dozens – that typify this problem.

1. Newsom v. Trump – Northern District of California 

The first National Guard deployment case brought by California Governor Gavin Newsom over the activation and deployment of California Guardsmen to Southern California.  

• June 9 — The complaint was filed.
• June 10 — A motion for a TRO was filed.
• June 12 — The TRO was granted after a telephone hearing that same day. Not addressed in the TRO was the Posse Comitatus Act claim made by plaintiffs.
• June 19 — The 9th Circuit issued a stay of the TRO, finding the government likely to prevail on the merits.
• July 9 — Judge Charles Breyer scheduled a three-day bench trial for August 11-13 on the Posse Comitatus Act claim, which was not pending before the 9th Circuit.
• Aug. 11-13 — Bench trial held on Posse Comitatus Act claim only. 
• Sept. 2 — Judgment and order granting a permanent injunction based on Posse Comitatus Act violations.

Start to finish – 85 days, and based on the only claim that had not been addressed pretrial by the appeals court.

2. American Public Health v. Nat. Institutes of Health – District of Massachusetts

Case involving cancellation of grant funding for projects advancing DEI programs.

• April 2 – Complaint filed and case assigned to Judge Brian Murphy.
• April 4 – Supreme Court dismisses nearly identical type of claims based on lack of jurisdiction in California v. Dept. of Ed.  
• April 25 – Motion for preliminary injunction filed.
• May 1 – Judge Murphy recuses himself, and the case is reassigned to Judge William Young.
• May 30 – Motion to dismiss granted as to some claims, denied as to other claims.
• June 17 – One-day bench trial held before Judge Young on remaining claims.
• June 23 – Final judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs, vacating grant terminations. 

From reassignment to Judge Young to judgment – 53 days.  

The Supreme Court later chastised Judge Young in a different case for ignoring the court’s ruling in California v. Department of Ed., and allowing this case to proceed to a determination on the merits when the District Court lacked jurisdiction over claims such as those presented.    

3. National TPS Alliance v. Noem — Northern District of California

This is the case where Plaintiffs attempted to block the termination of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for Venezuelan citizens, making them subject to immediate deportation back to Venezuela.

• Feb. 19 – Complaint filed to block Sec. Noem’s decision to end TPS.  
• Feb. 21 – “Motion to postpone” agency action filed – same functionally as a TRO/injunction to prevent an administrative agency from taking announced action. The same urgency doesn’t attach to disposition because agency action is set to take place in the future – in this case, it was the first week of April. 
• Mar. 31 – Judge Chen in San Francisco issues 78-page opinion granting motion to postpone – basically an injunction on the effort to suspend TPS for Venezuelans.
• Apr. 2 – DOJ files a notice of appeal in the 9th Circuit.
• Apr. 4 – DOJ files motion to stay postponement by Judge Chen in both the 9th Circuit and with Judge Chen. Judge Chen denies motion same day.
• Apr. 15 – All briefing complete on motion to stay.
• April 18 – 9th Circuit denies motion to stay – postponement remains.
• May 1 – DOJ files application for emergency stay with SCOTUS.
• May 2 – Judge Chen in district court denies motion to stay all proceedings pending appeal.
• May 18 – SCOTUS grants stay of postponement ordered by Judge Chen. DHS again allowed to terminate TPS status of Venezuelans and begin deportation process.
• May 27 – Judge Chen ordered all briefing on motions for summary judgment to be complete by June 27, and argument on motions to take place on July 11 – six weeks.

There were literally dozens – likely over 100 – filings during the six-week period involving all kinds of discovery disputes between the two sides. The hearing date was eventually moved back three weeks to August 1. Again, the level of urgency and involvement by the district judge and magistrate judge on a daily basis to drive this case to a conclusion is simply beyond imagination. It’s as if Judge Chen had only one case he was dealing with. But it wasn’t over.

• June 18 – Briefing complete in 9th Circuit on appeal of order of postponement granted by Judge Chen – previous ruling was only on DOJ motion for stay. 
• July 16 – Oral argument held.
• Aug. 29 – Order entered affirming Judge Chen’s postponement order. Supreme Court stay still in place.

While the appeal of his postponement order was proceeding, Judge Chen continued with proceedings at the trial level in his Court.

• Aug. 1 – Hearing before Judge Chen on motion for summary judgment.
• Sept. 5 – Judge Chen grants summary judgment in favor of Venezuelans, terminating – not just postponing – DHS Sec. Noem’s action to end TPS status for Venezuelans.
• Sept. 10 – DOJ files a notice of appeal with the 9th Circuit.
• Sept. 12 – DOJ files a motion to stay Judge Chen’s order vacating the action by Sec. Noem to terminate TPS Status.  
• Sept. 17 – 9th Circuit denies motion to stay Judge Chen’s order. 
• Sept. 19 – DOJ files application for emergency stay with SCOTUS
• Oct. 3 – SCOTUS grants motion and stays Judge Chen’s order granting summary judgment pending conclusion of appeal in 9th Circuit.

While the length of time this case has been pending is greater than the first two examples, it took Judge Chen only from Feb. 19 to Mar. 31 – 40 days – to decide to postpone DHS Sec. Noem’s decision to end TPS status. After the Supreme Court granted a stay on that order – allowing Sec. Noem to begin deportations – it took Judge Chen from May 18 to Sept. 5 to bring the entire case to a conclusion, granting summary judgment in favor of the Venezuelans and vacating DHS Sec. Noem’s decision in just 109 days.  

But none of the above examples hold a candle to Judge Karin Immergut in the District of Oregon.

4. Oregon v. Trump — District of Oregon

This case involved the deployment of the Oregon National Guard to Portland

• Sept. 28 — Complaint filed seeking to prevent activation and deployment of Oregon National Guard. Case is originally assigned to Judge Michael Simon.
• Sept. 29 — Motion for TRO filed to halt in place all proceedings underway to activate Oregon National Guard.
• Oct. 2 — Judge Simon recuses himself, and case is reassigned to Judge Immergut. She leaves in place the scheduled hearing on the TRO set for Friday, Oct. 3. 
• Oct. 3 — Hearing on motion for TRO held.
• Oct. 4 — Judge Immergut issues TRO on Saturday afternoon prohibiting activation and deployment of Oregon National Guard.
• Oct. 5 — Judge Immergut issues a second TRO on Sunday evening prohibiting the deployment of California Guard to Portland. DOJ files a notice of appeal as to first TRO, and a motion to stay the same.
• Oct. 9 —  Oral argument on motion to stay held in 9th Circuit.
• Oct. 14 — Judge Immergut schedules a three-day bench trial on the merits of all claims made by Oregon and Portland to begin on October 29.
• Oct. 20 — 9th Circuit grants stay of TRO issued by Judge Immergut. The same day, there is a call by a judge of the 9th Circuit for an en banc rehearing of the motion to stay the TRO.
• Oct. 24 — The 9th Circuit stays the panel decision vacating Judge Immergut’s TRO. The en banc vote is set for Oct 27, and the stay of the panel decision is set to expire at 5:00 pm on Oct. 28.
• Oct. 28 — The 9th Circuit votes to rehear en banc the motion to stay the TRO and vacates the panel decision.
• Oct. 29 — Judge Immergut begins trial without the burden of the panel decision that had reversed her TRO.  
• Nov. 7 — Judge Immergut issues opinion and order granting judgment in favor of Oregon and Portland and permanently enjoins use of any National Guard troops in Portland. 

From the day the case was reassigned to Judge Immergut until she entered final judgment on the merits in favor of the plaintiffs – 36 days.  

Federal civil cases often take years to finish. There is no question that each of the cases above had reasons why they would have been expedited – the Trump administration’s change in policies was being held up by the early injunctive relief. But in each instance, the early injunctive relief was overturned, and the quickened pace of the cases was to get to an outcome.  

Shockingly – not – in each of the four cases above, the outcome ultimately was against the Trump administration. The urgency displayed by the judges in all the cases was ENTIRELY directed at the effort to stop the Trump administration from changing policies.  

It’s almost like there is nothing more they’d rather be doing.