A federal judge in Maryland on Thursday expressed severe misgivings about the Trump administration‘s efforts to root out “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives, but insisted he had little power to change the current state of play in an ongoing legal battle.

In the underlying litigation, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, a membership organization, won a late February injunction barring the new policies. This initial victory came when U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, a Joe Biden appointee, found that the directives were both unconstitutionally vague and violative of the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

But the victory was short-lived.

On March 14, Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, along with Circuit Judges Pamela Harris and Allison Rushing, granted the government’s request for a stay pending appeal.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The plaintiffs, undeterred, then asked Abelson to vacate his original injunction, citing what the court termed “new factual developments.” This effort was in service of a bid for a new preliminary injunction.

“[T]hey believe that ‘evidence related to agencies’ interpretation and implementation of the Executive Orders’ would further support the likelihood of success on the merits of their already-asserted claims, and further that they ‘could amend their complaint to add new facial claims’ challenging the executive order provisions at issue,” the court explains. “The new ‘facial claims’ Plaintiffs state they may add in an amended complaint would be claims under the Administrative Procedures Act.”

Such an injunction would more or less reset the case – and force the Trump administration to spend several weeks requesting and litigating another stay. And, the plaintiffs argued, even the appellate panel that paused the first injunction would be amenable here.

From the plaintiff’s motion, at length:

The concurrences emphasized that their opinions spoke only to the record so far and that future developments might alter the outcome. In his concurrence, for example, Chief Judge Diaz noted he was satisfied “for now” that Defendants had met their stay burden, but explicitly “reserve[d] judgment on the extent to which the government relies on the Orders’ savings clause provisions as it enforces the Orders’ directives ” …

Similarly, in her concurrence, Judge Harris concluded “for now” that Defendants had met their burden, but offered the “caveat” that “[a]gency enforcement actions that go beyond the Orders’ narrow scope may well raise serious First Amendment and Due Process concerns, for the reasons cogently explained by” this Court.

A group of journalists has sued the Trump administration over its efforts to shut down the Voice of America news network and other federally-funded global media organizations.

The lawsuit, filed Friday, names Kari Lake – the stalwart Arizona political candidate, election denier, and Donald Trump ally — along with the agency she oversees, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which houses VOA, among the defendants. The plaintiffs allege that the administration’s massive cuts to the agency, which threaten thousands of jobs, violate their First Amendment free speech rights as well as the separation of powers, by taking a chain saw to an agency approved by Congress.

The VOA network — which is not broadcast within the U.S., but is heard by more than 350 million people worldwide each week — has long been on the president’s list of agencies to be targeted. In his March 15, 2025, executive order, Trump refers to the organization as “the voice of radical America” and asserts that under his watch, “taxpayers are no longer on the hook for radical propaganda.”

The order then goes on to cite multiple right-wing media organizations, including the Daily Caller and The Washington Free Beacon, as proof of VOA’s alleged “radical” agenda.

Donald Trump’s attack on perceived enemies continues apace, with the 45th and 47th president issuing yet another executive order targeting a law firm — this time, railing against a firm linked to former special counsel Robert Mueller, who led the investigation into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

The chief executive issued an order on Friday titled “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss,” labeling the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP as a national security threat. Much of the language echoes that of an executive order issued earlier this month aimed at Hillary Clinton-linked law firm Perkins Coie, as well as a February order focused on the firm Covington & Burling, linked to former special prosecutor Jack Smith.

A federal judge in Seattle slammed the brakes Tuesday on President Donald Trump’s “dismantling” of the U.S. refugee resettlement system, saying his decision to suspend support for 90-day intervals “crossed the line” of separation of powers.

“To be sure, the president has substantial discretion to suspend refugee admissions, but that authority is not limitless,” U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead said in court after issuing a preliminary injunction from the bench, according to the Seattle Times. “I cannot ignore Congress’ detailed framework on refugee admissions. The plaintiffs face concrete irreparable harm.”

A coalition of faith organizations, refugees and U.S. citizens whose family members are refugees are suing the Trump administration in the Western District of Washington. They were seeking a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and a permanent injunction over an executive order that the president handed down last month — Executive Order 14163 — which aims to suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 90-day intervals “until such time as the further entry into the United States of refugees aligns with the interests of the United States.”

A federal judge has hit pause on an effort by the Trump administration to ban federal support for transgender medical care.

On Friday afternoon, Joe Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Lauren King, sitting in Seattle, issued a temporary restraining order in favor of three states and three doctors who sued the government on Feb. 7.

The court barred a litany of named federal defendants from “enforcing or implementing” two major sections of a recent anti-transgender executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

Under the terms of Executive Order 14187, which is fashioned as an effort to protect “Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” the 45th and 47th president intends to cut off all federal funding for institutions that offer pediatric gender transition services or provide any kind of gender-affirming care for people under the age of 19.

A transgender prison inmate has filed a lawsuit against Donald Trump’s administration over the constitutionality of the executive order he signed his first day in office directing the government to recognize only two sexes when housing federal prisoners, while also barring their access to gender-affirming medical care. It marks the first official challenge of Trump’s gender order, which the suit blasts as an “imminent threat” to transgender rights.

“Under the Fifth Amendment, sex classifications are subject to heightened scrutiny and are presumptively unconstitutional,” the complaint for the inmate, who is identified by the pseudonym Maria Moe, reads. “On January 23, 2025, Marie Moe’s publicly accessible BOP classification of her sex was ‘female.’ On January 25, that classification indicated ‘male.””

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to take away funding from a children’s hospital if it fails to follow his executive order requiring medical care facilities to ask patients about their immigration status on intake forms.

Abbott made the post on X in response to a doctor’s viral video on TikTok telling patients they were under no obligation to answer the citizenship question.

“Hey Texas Children’s Hospital & Baylor College of Medicine this doctor is putting your Medicaid & Medicare funding at risk. [You] better think twice & have crystal clear records. There will be consequences for failing to follow the law in the Order,” Abbott said in the post.