A Jan. 6 defendant from Texas who ran for Congress last year and is reportedly attempting another political run has been granted permission to “examine and publish” footage, evidence and discovery from his criminal case surrounding the events of the 2021 Capitol attack — but the Justice Department says not so fast.

Ryan Zink, 35, of Lubbock, was granted access last week by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on account of the DOJ not filing a memorandum in opposition to Zink’s March 22 motion to lift a protective order keeping his case material sealed. Boasberg issued a minute order on April 9 announcing his decision, which the DOJ apparently saw and responded to Wednesday with the document in question.

“As the Government has not opposed Defendant’s Motion to Lift Protective Order, the Court orders that the Motion is granted, and the Protective Order is lifted,” a docket entry from Boasberg said last week.

In response, the DOJ’s top prosecutor in Washington, D.C., Ed Martin, signed off on a memorandum in opposition Wednesday that said granting such a request to Zink would put people at risk and pose a threat to national security.

“Lifting a protective order in this case creates a dangerous opportunity and could potentially place sensitive information in the possession of those who would use it to harm the national security, in addition to allowing terabytes of information including individual defendants’, witnesses’, and victims’ personal identifying information to be released to the public,” Martin said. “The government has thus demonstrated that release of these materials could cause a significant hazard to others, and there is no prejudice to the defendant from continuing the protective order here.”

The federal judge who has been going back and forth with the Trump administration over its mass deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 (AEA) — and whether administration officials blatantly ignored orders he gave to shut them down — took a Justice Department lawyer to task on Thursday with an hourlong onslaught of questions and comments about the case, including warnings about holding people in contempt.

At one point during the hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg flat-out called the Justice Department’s actions “pretty sketchy” as it continued to try and say certain information about the Trump deportation flights couldn’t be shared with Boasberg, even in a classified facility and under seal.

“If I don’t agree, if I don’t find your legal arguments convincing and I believe there’s probable cause to find contempt, what I’m asking is how should I determine who the contemnor or contemnors are?” Boasberg asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Immigration Litigation Drew Ensign, who was arguing on behalf of the DOJ.

Under the turbulent glare of national attention, a federal district judge on Thursday made comity the informal order of the day — while also promising to issue a restraining order against several members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet over the Signal group chat scandal.

But first he sought to set the record straight.

“Some questions have been raised regarding this court’s random assignment,” U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg intoned — emphasizing the penultimate word. “All cases are randomly assigned.”

The jurist is, as of late, unusually well-known — largely due to being the target of Trumpworld ire over a series of anti-government court rulings and concomitant dressings-down of government lawyers in the Alien Enemies Act case. Seemingly aware of the consternation, the judge explained in detail the “automated” process that put him in charge of another high-profile case against the Trump administration.

A federal court of appeals has upheld a temporary restraining that bars the government from summarily deporting immigrants without due process by citing an obscure wartime law.

In a per curiam order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit tersely rejected the Trump administration’s bid for an emergency stay of the temporary restraining order issued on March 15, by D.C. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, a jurist who got his start under George W. Bush and who was later promoted by Barack Obama.

Each of the three judges on the three-judge panel, however, wrote separately to explain their votes. Circuit Judges Patricia Millett, an another Obama appointee, and Karen L. Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote concurrences. Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, penned a dissent.

In the case before the court, the Trump administration claimed something not entirely unlike plenary authority to quickly deport immigrants using the Alien Enemies Act  (AEA) of 1789. The law, which has not been used since World War II, has hitherto been understood to apply only during an actual war with another country. Its use by the Trump administration to target suspected foreign gang members poses a matter of first impression for the judiciary at large.