A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday halted key sections of President Donald Trump’s sweeping executive order purporting to unilaterally change the rules regarding how federal elections are run, finding that the plaintiffs in the case were “substantially likely to prevail” on the merits.

In a 120-page order, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction blocking the president’s measure that would require amending the national voter registration form to require proof of U.S. citizenship as well as a provision ordering federal agencies to “assess the citizenship” of individuals who receive public assistance before they are provided a voter registration form.

Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, wrote that allowing those measures to be implemented would cause “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs and “would not be in the public interest.”

“Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States — not the President — with the authority to regulate federal elections,” the order states. “Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.”

The court noted that the legislation in Congress is the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility [SAVE] Act, a Republican-backed measure critics have said could potentially disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. Many provisions of the SAVE Act are encompassed by Trump’s executive order.

A federal judge in Colorado this week appeared skeptical of allowing the Trump administration to resume using an 18th-century wartime authority to fast-track the removal of Venezuelan migrants with limited notice and minimal, if any, due process.

U.S. District Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney on Monday heard arguments from attorneys representing the Justice Department and immigration rights groups regarding whether she should renew a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the government from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) to deport migrants to a notorious work camp in El Salvador.

The hearing came after the U.S. Supreme Court in the early morning hours of Saturday issued an order — the first and only Saturday order issued this term — directing the government “not to remove” any immigrant detainees subject to President Donald Trump’s proclamation invoking the AEA in northern Texas.

The Saturday order follows the justices April 7 order in which they unanimously held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal” under the AEA “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

In light of the high court’s ruling, an incredulous Sweeney questioned how the government could prevail in the instant case, asking the government’s attorney, “How could I not continue the temporary restraining order?” the Daily Camera reported.

Seeking to have the TRO lifted, the DOJ assured the court that any individuals subject to removal under the act would be given 24 hours to challenge their deportation before a judge, Denver CBS affiliate KCNC reported.

Attorneys from the ACLU and the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, the organizations representing the two unnamed petitioners in the case, pushed back on the administration’s position, asserting that affording migrants only one day to file individual habeas corpus petitions could not possibly comply with the Supreme Court’s directive requiring “reasonable time” for court challenges.

Attorneys representing several Venezuelan men being detained in Texas have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to once again weigh in on the Trump administration’s unprecedented use of an 18th-century wartime authority to fast-track deportations of accused gang members, claiming that the government has been flouting the court’s order to provide detainees with notice before they’re removed to a notorious work prison in El Salvador.

The high court in the early morning hours of Saturday issued an order — the first and only Saturday order issued this term — directing the government “not to remove” any immigrant detainees subject to President Donald Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA). The Saturday order came after the justices on April 7, unanimously held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal” under the AEA “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”

In Monday’s 15-page filing, the ACLU, which represents the detainees, asserted that the administration was not abiding by the court’s order. Instead, they allege the government has been shuffling groups of migrants between different judicial districts and providing them with “English-only AEA notices” less than a day before they are deported without “any explanation” as to how they may seek judicial review.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge’s warning about potential violence…

Judiciary

Federal judge’s warning about potential violence after Trump’s comments was not ethics violation, 3rd Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 3:29 pm CDT

A federal judge didn’t violate ethics rules when he commented about the potential for violence when “people in positions of authority” make negative comments about a judge or the judge’s family members, according to a federal appellate judicial council.

Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton of Washington, D.C., didn’t comment on the merits of a pending matter and did not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, said Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia. Chagares wrote the opinion for the 3rd Circuit’s judicial council that dismissed two ethics complaints against Walton.

Reuters and Law360 have coverage.

Chagares’ Jan. 31 opinion, which was released last week, did not identify Walton as the judge in question. But a Walton representative confirmed to Law360 and Reuters that he was the subject of the opinion.

Walton had commented on CNN on March 28, 2024, in response to a question about then-candidate Donald Trump’s social media attacks against New York Judge Juan Merchan, according to prior coverage by Reuters. Merchan was presiding in a case accusing Trump of falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump was convicted in May 2024.

Trump had criticized Merchan as a “radical left judge” and a Trump hater at “the highest level” in a March 22, 2024, post on Truth Social, his social media platform, according to another prior story by Reuters. Trump also labeled Merchan’s daughter a “rabid Trump hater” before Walton appeared on CNN.

Reuters published this comment by Walton: “I think it’s very important that people in positions of authority be very circumspect in reference to the things that they say, so that they’re not causing others to act on what they say and maybe cause injury or death to someone as a result of that.”

Law360 referred to additional comments from Walton’s interview.

“I can’t get into someone’s mind to say whether they appreciate the impact that they’re doing, but I would think that he’s—any reasonable thinking person would appreciate that when they say things, they can sometimes resonate with others,” Walton said. “And I think that’s particularly true when you have somebody who has status in our society, and they make certain statements that can cause people to act on those statements, even if they don’t necessarily intend for someone to do so.”

None of Walton’s remarks concerned the merits of Trump’s case, and they do not constitute partisan political activity, Chagares said.

“Rather, [Walton] spoke about the experience of receiving threats, reflected on the tragedy of colleagues whose family members had been killed, and encouraged circumspection with respect to public remarks that can have unintended consequences,” Chagares said. Walton “also emphasized the importance of the independence of judicial officers in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that laws are applied equally to all who appear before a judge.”

Chagares did not identify who filed the complaints. But conservative activist Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, a conservative group, has said he filed one of them.

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

Members of President Donald Trump‘s cabinet violated federal law by using the encrypted Signal messaging app to discuss military actions in the Middle East, a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., alleges.

In a 16-page filing, nonprofit government transparency organization American Oversight alleges Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and various other Trump administration officials violated the Federal Records Act (FRA) during a multiple-day group chat about how to plan and “coordinate imminent U.S. military strikes in Yemen.”

The conversations in question occurred between March 11 and March 15, according to the lawsuit. The government’s use of the popular messaging app was first reported this week when the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, reported that he was accidentally added to the group chat by national security adviser Michael Waltz.

Signal is widely used for its encryption functions. The app is also well-known for its ability to automatically delete messages after a certain period of time, subject to user specifications. The use of the auto-delete feature in the chat, the plaintiffs say, runs afoul of federal law.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Friday, took the Trump administration to task over its use of an 18th-century wartime power to summarily deport more than 100 alleged Venezuelan gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. The case quickly became a legal tinderbox, beginning when the administration allegedly ignored a court order directing it to have two planes full of migrants immediately returned to the country.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wasted no time in calling out Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign over the Justice Department’s conduct in connection with the case, particularly highlighting the tone and tenor the government has employed in recent court filings.

The judge said the filings contained “the kind of intemperate and disrespectful language that I am not used to hearing from the United States.”

Boasberg also repeatedly indicated that he was skeptical that President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 could be used during peacetime and against a nebulously defined “enemy” — in this case the Venezuelan gang Tran de Aragua (TdA) — as opposed to a foreign government.

The judge appeared even more concerned that those detained and deported under the statute seemingly have no way to challenge being detained and shipped off to another country’s prison.

“I agree the policy ramifications of this are incredibly troublesome and problematic and concerning,” Boasberg said. “I agree it’s an unprecedented and expanded use of an act that has only been used in the War of 1812, World War I and World War II, when there was no question there was a declaration of war and who the enemy was.”

The Trump administration has hung “a sword of Damocles” over the heads of teachers and schools in their efforts to forbid diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in public education, a lawsuit filed Wednesday in New Hampshire federal court alleges.

On Valentine’s Day, the civil rights division within the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to educational institutions that receive federal funding. The government warned institutions “must cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and beyond” or “face investigation and loss of federal funding.”

The plaintiffs, in their 48-page lawsuit, said the DOE’s guidance amounts to a “fundamental contradiction” by referencing civil rights law, violates “due process in failing to set clear standards,” and chills “First Amendment protected speech and expression” in a way that “could not stand no matter the process followed.” To that end, the correct — mandatory — process was not followed, the lawsuit adds.

“The Letter fails to acknowledge — let alone explain — its marked change from [the DOE’s] prior guidance and interpretations of Title VI, as well as other federal civil rights and education laws,” the filing reads. “And it fails to account for reliance interests created by decades of law, regulations, and longstanding agency guidance and interpretations. Moreover, it exceeds [the DOE’s] authority and is contrary to law, including the body of law it purports to interpret.”

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 on Friday blocked the Trump administration’s plans to make “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) initiatives illegal.

In late January, the 45th and 47th president signed executive orders which purported to root out DEI from federal government contracts and by barring government contractors with DEI programs of their own. Additionally, Trump directed the U.S. Attorney General to “deter” such “programs or principles” and to consider launching “civil compliance” investigations to effectuate such deterrence.

On Feb. 3, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) and several other plaintiffs filed a 42-page lawsuit in Maryland federal court. The group describes itself as an organization that aims to help members “advance equity, inclusion, and the value of belonging within their campus communities.”

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged the Trump administration’s anti-DEI directives were unconstitutional for myriad reasons. On Friday, a federal court agreed on at least two counts.

A federal appeals court has rejected President Donald Trump‘s attempt to boot the Biden administration’s whistleblower advocate Hampton Dellinger from his post at the Office of Special Counsel, voting 2-1 to let him keep his job through a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a lower court judge. Trump’s Justice Department had asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to rule by noon Friday, saying it has “the opportunity to seek expeditious review” from the Supreme Court, should they be swatted down. The rejection came Saturday just before 11 p.m.

“The relief requested by the government is a sharp departure from established procedures that balance and protect the interests of litigants, and ensure the orderly consideration of cases before the district court and this court,” wrote judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs in the late night ruling. “The government asks us to resolve disputed issues that plainly have not been finally adjudicated by the district court. The litigation of Dellinger’s motion for a preliminary injunction is ongoing … and that litigation raises issues that are overlapping, if not identical, to those that would be presented in an appeal of the TRO.”