PALM SPRINGS, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management is seeking public input on proposed exploratory drilling on approximately 13 acres of public lands within a 2,424-acre project area, south of Lone Pine in Inyo County. If approved, Mojave Precious Metals Inc. could search for mineral deposits, including gold, on public lands where they currently hold mining claims.

Mojave Precious Metals Inc. proposes to modify its existing, approved plan of operations to drill 120 exploratory bore holes at up to 30 locations. Proposed drilling would aim to gather data on known areas of minerals. The plan modification includes work such as access road reconstruction, drill pad and sump construction, and other related activities.

The proposed project supports DOI Secretarial Order 3418 – Unleashing American Energy, by encouraging exploration and production on federal lands to meet the needs of American citizens. The proposed area is designated as open to mineral exploration.

The Bureau of Land Management will hold an in-person public meeting on Tuesday, June 10, 5–7 p.m. at Statham Town Hall, 138 N. Jackson St., Lone Pine, CA 93545. BLM staff will be available during the meeting to discuss the alternatives and analysis and answer any questions.

A Notice of Availability will publish in tomorrow’s Federal Register to open a 45-day comment period. Additional information is available at the BLM National NEPA Register, where comment may be submitted through the ‘Participate Now’ option (preferred). Comments may also be submitted via email to BLM_CA_RI_MojavePMetals@blm.gov, or delivered to the BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, ATTN: Mojave Exploration Drilling Project, 300 S. Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555. The public comment period closes June 16, 2025.

For more information, please contact BLM Ridgecrest Field Manager Philip DeSenze at BLM_CA_RI_MojavePMetals@blm.gov.

NEEDLES, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comments on a draft environmental assessment for a proposed access road and associated facilities on about six public acres adjacent to the existing Chubbuck Mine in San Bernardino County.

If approved, Braavos LLC would be authorized to improve an existing access road and construct, operate, and maintain a belt conveyor system, modular office, and rail loadout facility to transport raw materials from the limestone mine to market.

Additional information is available at the BLM National NEPA Register, where comments may be submitted through the “Participate Now” option (preferred); comments may also be emailed to BLM_CA_NE_REALTY@blm.gov or delivered to: Needles Field Office, Attn: Chubbuck Mine ROW Project, 1303 US-95, Needles, CA 92363. The comment period will close March 21, 2025.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. 2 firms speak out after Trump seeks lawyer…

Law Firms

2 firms speak out after Trump seeks lawyer sanctions for ‘unreasonable and vexatious’ suits against US

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 24, 2025, 11:20 am CDT

Two law firms have issued statements criticizing President Donald Trump after he issued a memo late Friday calling for sanctions, ethics referrals and reassessment of security clearances against lawyers and firms that engage in “frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation” against the United States.

The two firms taking a stand are litigation boutiques Selendy Gay and Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Bloomberg Law reports. BigLaw firms, on the other hand, “have been quiet” since Trump issued executive orders revoking security clearances for three large firms because of their client representations, the article says.

One of the three targeted firms—Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison—has since reached an agreement with Trump that lifts the sanctions that he had imposed. The other two targeted firms are Perkins Coie, which has filed suit, and Covington & Burling.

Selendy Gay said it supports “Perkins Coie, Covington and the American Bar Association in their courageous defense of the rule of law.” The statement said Selendy Gay “rejects the notion that the government can punish lawyers for their choice of clients or threaten judges for presiding over cases adverse to the administration.”

The Keker Van Nest statement said an attack on lawyers who “represent unpopular people and causes, including in matters adverse to the federal government” is “inexcusable and despicable.” The statement also encouraged firm leaders to sign an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie in its challenge to the executive order.

Trump’s latest memo targeting firms, which is dated March 22, cited the ability of the federal government to seek sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, agency regulations governing attorney conduct and state attorney ethics rules.

Far too many lawyers have ignored Rule 11’s ban on frivolous litigation “when litigating against the federal government or in pursuing baseless partisan attacks,” and Attorney General Pam Bondi should seek sanctions in such situations, according to the memo.

Bondi should also seek referrals to ethics regulators for conduct that appears to violate professional conduct rules, “including rules governing meritorious claims and contentions and particularly in cases that implicate national security, homeland security, public safety or election integrity,” the memo said.

In complying with the directive on ethics referrals, the memo said, Bondi “shall consider the ethical duties that law partners have when supervising junior attorneys, including imputing the ethical misconduct of junior attorneys to partners or the law firm when appropriate.”

The memo also directed Bondi to recommend additional steps, including reassessment of security clearances, for sanctionable or unethical litigation conduct in present litigation, or in litigation against the United States over the last eight years.

The memo said the immigration system is “replete with examples of unscrupulous behavior by attorneys and law firms.” Citing an example, the memo said “the immigration bar and powerful BigLaw pro bono practices frequently coach clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims, all in an attempt to circumvent immigration policies enacted to protect our national security.”

Another example cited in the memo was alleged “grossly unethical misconduct” by former Perkins Coie lawyer Marc Elias, now chair of the Elias Law Group, who hired the firm that compiled a “false ‘dossier’” with unsubstantiated allegations about Trump’s alleged connections. The allegations led to an FBI investigation.

The memo alleges that Elias “intentionally sought to conceal the role of his client—failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—in the dossier.”

Publications covering Trump’s latest memo include the New York Times, the Washington Post, Law360 and Reuters.

Legal advocacy groups and at least 12 major firms have been involved in many of the 100-pluis lawsuits challenging executive actions, according to Reuters.

Selendy Gay is challenging the administration’s rejection of job protections for career government employees, according to Bloomberg Law. Keker Van Nest is involved in six ongoing suits against the Trump administration, the publication reports.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The Trump administration is asking a federal appeals court to remove the lower court judge overseeing a case involving President Donald Trump’s use of an 18th century wartime authority to fast-track deportations of unlawful immigrants. The request from the Justice Department came after the administration was accused of willfully flouting the court’s Saturday order enjoining the government from removing more than 100 individuals from the country.

In a two-page filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Justice Department accused Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of acting outside the scope of his authority by ordering the Trump administration to bring back the detainees who were en route to Hondurous and El Salvador during Saturday’s hearing.

The administration did not comply with Boasberg’s oral order issued during the hearing instructing the Justice Department to return the immigrants to the United States. That order was not included in the written order he issued shortly after the hearing ended Saturday evening.

The Trump administration asserted that it fully complied with the court’s order and implored the appeals court to remove Boasberg for making the Justice Department defend its actions in an “open, public hearing.”

That development escalates the stakes of the district court’s inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction and the risks that the district court may force the government to disclose sensitive national security and operational security concerns or face significant penalties from the court. The Government cannot — and will not — be forced to answer sensitive questions of national security and foreign relations in a rushed posture without orderly briefing and a showing that these questions are somehow material to a live issue. Answering them, especially on the proposed timetable, is flagrantly improper and presents grave risks to the conduct of the Government in areas wholly unsuited to micromanagement supervision by a district court judge.

The controversy stems from a Saturday morning lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of several pseudonymous Venezuelan men seeking to bar President Donald Trump from going through with his stated plan to deport the men using the obscure measure. In quick fashion, Boasberg granted the plaintiffs’ request, barring the government from invoking the AEA to remove individuals for 14 days and holding a Saturday evening hearing on the matter.

During the hearing, Justice Department attorneys told the court that two planes had already departed carrying individuals to Honduras and El Salvador. Boasberg at about 6:45 p.m. on Saturday issued an oral order that “unambiguously directed the government to turn around any planes carrying individuals being removed pursuant to the AEA Proclamation,” plaintiffs wrote in Monday’s filing.

From the transcript, Boasberg stated:

[T]hat you shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Citing ‘anti-democratic takeover’ by ‘activist’…

Civil Procedure

Citing ‘anti-democratic takeover’ by ‘activist’ plaintiffs, Trump seeks money bond for injunction requests

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 13, 2025, 3:38 pm CDT

President Donald Trump is directing federal agencies to seek a money bond when plaintiffs file federal lawsuits against the administration that seek temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions.

“In recent weeks,” Trump said in a March 11 memo, “activist organizations fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in donations and sometimes even government grants have obtained sweeping injunctions” that meddle in executive policymaking.

“This anti-democratic takeover is orchestrated by forum-shopping organizations that repeatedly bring meritless suits, used for fundraising and political grandstanding, without any repercussions when they fail,” the memo said.

To deter frivolous litigation, Trump said, parties seeking injunctions against the federal government should be required under Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to post security that would cover potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction.

A White House fact sheet said injunctions “can cost taxpayers millions or even billions of dollars, especially when they mandate continued funding.”

Several judges have denied bond requests, including U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson of the District of Maryland, according to Bloomberg Law and Law & Crime.

Courts have frequently waived bond requirements “where a fundamental constitutional right is at stake,” Abelson wrote.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the District of Columbia also denied bond in a challenge to a Trump administration funding freeze, according to Bloomberg Law, Reuters and Law & Crime.

“In a case where the government is alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients, it would defy logic—and contravene the very basis of this opinion—to hold plaintiffs hostage for the resulting harm,” AliKhan said in granting a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Brendan A. Hurson of the District of Maryland also refused to require a bond in a challenge to anti-LGBTQ executive orders, Law.com reports.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The Judicial Conference of the United States today agreed to recommend to Congress the creation of new district and court of appeals judgeships (pdf) as the Judiciary faces a worsening shortage of Article III judges and caseloads continue to mount.

Approved by the federal Judiciary’s national policy-making body at its biannual meeting in Washington, the Judiciary asked Congress to create two judgeships in the courts of appeals and 69 judgeships in district courts, where the need is greatest.

District court filings have grown by 30 percent since 1990, when the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted. Since 1991, the overall number of authorized district court judgeships increased by only four percent. 

Burgeoning caseloads can lead to significant case delays. Delays result in increased costs for litigants and raise access to justice concerns, especially in civil cases that may take years to get to trial. Over the past 20 years, the number of civil cases pending more than three years rose 346 percent, from 18,280 on March 31, 2004, to 81,617 on March 31, 2024.

In developing judgeship recommendations, the Conference and its Committee on Judicial Resources use a formal survey process to study and evaluate Article III judgeship needs. Before a judgeship recommendation is transmitted to Congress, it undergoes several levels of careful consideration and review. The surveys are conducted every two years and the resulting recommendations are based on established criteria, including current workload factors and empirical standards.

In fiscal year 2024, weighted filings, which account for the different amounts of time district judges require to resolve various types of civil and criminal actions, were above 500 per judgeship in 20 of the 25 district courts where the Conference is recommending additional judgeships.  

In 12 of these courts, weighted filings exceeded 600 per judgeship and in five courts filings were greater than 700 per judgeship. The Conference generally requires district courts to have over 430 weighted filings per judgeship to recommend additional judgeships. Weighted filings data for each district court are published in Federal Court Management Statistics.

Congress in 2024 approved a bipartisan bill to address the critical need for new judgeships throughout the federal courts, the first such comprehensive bill in more than three decades. However, President Biden vetoed the bill on Dec. 23, 2024.

The Conference today also received two new reports required by statute, the Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), which reports on the activities of the AO and the Judiciary during the previous year, and Judicial Business, the Judiciary’s comprehensive annual statistical workload report. 

The 26-member Judicial Conference (pdf) is the policy-making body for the federal court system. By statute, the Chief Justice of the United States serves as its presiding officer and its members are the chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade.

The Conference convenes twice a year to consider administrative and policy issues affecting the court system, and to make recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch.

NEEDLES, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management is seeking public comments on a draft environmental assessment for a proposed access road and associated facilities on about six public acres adjacent to the existing Chubbuck Mine in San Bernardino County.

If approved, Braavos LLC would be authorized to improve an existing access road and construct, operate, and maintain a belt conveyor system, modular office, and rail loadout facility to transport raw materials from the limestone mine to market.

Additional information is available at the BLM National NEPA Register, where comments may be submitted through the “Participate Now” option (preferred); comments may also be emailed to BLM_CA_NE_REALTY@blm.gov or delivered to: Needles Field Office, Attn: Chubbuck Mine ROW Project, 1303 US-95, Needles, CA 92363. The comment period will close March 21, 2025.

Louisiana’s top law enforcement officials announced that they are seeking the extradition of a New York doctor for prescribing and mailing abortion pills to the mother of a pregnant minor in the Pelican State, where the procedure is prohibited in nearly all circumstances.

Dr. Margaret D. Carpenter and her practice, Nightingale Medical, were named in a grand jury indictment filed in January by West Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Tony Clayton, according to court documents reviewed by Law&Crime. Carpenter is based in New Paltz, located some 80 miles north of New York City.

Carpenter, the one-page indictment says, “on or about April 5, 2024, did knowingly cause an abortion to occur by means of delivering, dispensing, distributing, or providing a pregnant [woman] with an abortion-inducing drug,” the one-page indictment says. Doing so was “[c]ontrary to the law of the State of Louisiana and against the peace and dignity of the same,” the indictment adds.

The minor’s mother, whose name has not been released to protect the identity of the child, has also been indicted on felony charges in connection to the event.

While all states typically enforce extradition agreements, it does not appear that will be the case when states with abortion bans enacted after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade find themselves facing of against states that do allow the procedure.

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management is hosting several in-person and virtual public and stakeholder meetings to gather input to develop off-highway vehicle grant proposals for submission to the California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Grants support off-highway vehicle management activities, including visitor services, law enforcement, resource protection, planning and monitoring, and maintenance on BLM-managed public lands.

“The BLM uses these important grant funds to help manage, operate, and maintain the many BLM-managed off-highway vehicle recreation areas in the District,” said Acting California Desert District Manager Brandon Anderson.

Grant applications are being prepared for the 2025 grant cycle. Public comments will be most helpful to the field offices if received prior to the grant submission deadline of March 3.

Stakeholders and members of the public are invited to attend any of the meetings below. Participants are invited to join meetings virtually, by phone using the dial-in information, or attend in-person. The meeting schedule is as follows with options for participation below:

Needles Field Office: Tuesday, Feb. 11

9 – 10 a.m. public meeting and 10 -11 a.m. stakeholder meeting
Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/NzFQ50UONeb

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 868 2430 / Passcode: 948817

 

Ridgecrest Field Office: Tuesday, Feb. 18

4:30 – 5:15 p.m. stakeholder meeting and 5:15 – 6 p.m. public meeting
In-person: BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S Richmond Rd, Ridgecrest, CA 93555

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/LXuX50UNZo0

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 544 4745 / Passcode: 408376

 

Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office: Tuesday, Feb. 18

5 – 6 p.m. public meeting and 6 – 6:30 p.m. stakeholder meeting

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/EAxb50UOMNW

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 160 146 2122 / Passcode: 245615

 

Barstow Field Office: Wednesday, Feb. 19

5 – 6 p.m. public meeting

In person: BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/OJIl50UNZhl

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 710 5577 / Passcode: 693916

 

El Centro Field Office: Monday, Feb. 24

3 – 4 p.m. public meeting and 4 – 4:30 p.m. stakeholder meeting

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/xVqF50UNZn2

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 973 9827 / Passcode: 776862

 

After the proposals are submitted to the state, preliminary applications are available for review and comment from March 4 to May 5, by visiting the OHV grants web page  at https://ohv.parks.ca.gov, or by submitting written comments to the field offices by mail or email:

• BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, 92311, ATTN: Caleb Scruggs; cscruggs@blm.gov
• BLM El Centro Field Office, 1661 S 4th Street, 92243, ATTN: Michael Mujica; mmujica@blm.gov
• BLM Needles Field Office, 1303 S Highway 95, 92363, ATTN: Sabrina Bice; sbice@blm.gov
• BLM Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive, 92262, ATTN: Caroline Gish; cgish@blm.gov
• BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S Richmond Road, 93555, ATTN: Katrina Meyer; kmeyer@blm.gov

The California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division state program supports off-highway vehicle recreation in California by distributing funds collected from gas tax, entrance fees and off-highway vehicle registration. For information on the OHV grant program, past grant allocations, program regulations, and more, please visit the website.

PALM SPRINGS, Calif. – The Bureau of Land Management is hosting several in-person and virtual public and stakeholder meetings to gather input to develop off-highway vehicle grant proposals for submission to the California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. Grants support off-highway vehicle management activities, including visitor services, law enforcement, resource protection, planning and monitoring, and maintenance on BLM-managed public lands.

“The BLM uses these important grant funds to help manage, operate, and maintain the many BLM-managed off-highway vehicle recreation areas in the District,” said Acting California Desert District Manager Brandon Anderson.

Grant applications are being prepared for the 2025 grant cycle. Public comments will be most helpful to the field offices if received prior to the grant submission deadline of March 3.

Stakeholders and members of the public are invited to attend any of the meetings below. Participants are invited to join meetings virtually, by phone using the dial-in information, or attend in-person. The meeting schedule is as follows with options for participation below:

Needles Field Office: Tuesday, Feb. 11

9 – 10 a.m. public meeting and 10 -11 a.m. stakeholder meeting
Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/NzFQ50UONeb

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 868 2430 / Passcode: 948817

 

Ridgecrest Field Office: Tuesday, Feb. 18

4:30 – 5:15 p.m. stakeholder meeting and 5:15 – 6 p.m. public meeting
In-person: BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S Richmond Rd, Ridgecrest, CA 93555

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/LXuX50UNZo0

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 544 4745 / Passcode: 408376

 

Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office: Tuesday, Feb. 18

5 – 6 p.m. public meeting and 6 – 6:30 p.m. stakeholder meeting

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/EAxb50UOMNW

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 160 146 2122 / Passcode: 245615

 

Barstow Field Office: Wednesday, Feb. 19

5 – 6 p.m. public meeting

In person: BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, CA 92311

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/OJIl50UNZhl

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 710 5577 / Passcode: 693916

 

El Centro Field Office: Monday, Feb. 24

3 – 4 p.m. public meeting and 4 – 4:30 p.m. stakeholder meeting

Virtual via Zoom: https://ow.ly/xVqF50UNZn2

Phone: 833-568-8864 / Meeting ID: 161 973 9827 / Passcode: 776862

 

After the proposals are submitted to the state, preliminary applications are available for review and comment from March 4 to May 5, by visiting the OHV grants web page  at https://ohv.parks.ca.gov, or by submitting written comments to the field offices by mail or email:

• BLM Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, 92311, ATTN: Caleb Scruggs; cscruggs@blm.gov
• BLM El Centro Field Office, 1661 S 4th Street, 92243, ATTN: Michael Mujica; mmujica@blm.gov
• BLM Needles Field Office, 1303 S Highway 95, 92363, ATTN: Sabrina Bice; sbice@blm.gov
• BLM Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office, 1201 Bird Center Drive, 92262, ATTN: Caroline Gish; cgish@blm.gov
• BLM Ridgecrest Field Office, 300 S Richmond Road, 93555, ATTN: Katrina Meyer; kmeyer@blm.gov

The California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division state program supports off-highway vehicle recreation in California by distributing funds collected from gas tax, entrance fees and off-highway vehicle registration. For information on the OHV grant program, past grant allocations, program regulations, and more, please visit the website.