Categories for Courts

26,820. 7/22/2019

COURTS/IMMIGRATION/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “The Trump administration said on Monday [7-22-19] that it would speed the deportations of undocumented immigrants who cannot prove they have been in the United States for more than two years, allowing federal agents to arrest and deport more people without a hearing before a judge. Critics warned that the new rule, set to take effect on Tuesday [7-23-19], could also prevent asylum seekers from applying for refuge in the United States before they are deported. Within hours of its announcement, the American Civil Liberties Union vowed to block it in court. The shift will expand the use of an immigration law that, until now, was used only to fast-track deportations for migrants who had been in the United States for just a few weeks and were still within 100 miles of the southwestern border. Now, those stopped by federal agents anywhere in the country who cannot prove they have been in the United States for more than two years can be deported without a hearing.”

Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Caitlin Dickerson, “Trump Administration Expands Fast-Tracked Deportations for Undocumented Immigrants,” The New York Times online, July 22, 2019

26,662. 7/17/2019

COURTS/INVESTIGATIONS/MICHAEL COHEN/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/WOMEN: “A judge on Wednesday [7-17-19] ordered the release of documents relating to hush-money payments by Donald Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen to two women who said they had sexual encounters with the president and disclosed that federal prosecutors had ended their investigation of the matter. U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan ordered that the documents, used by prosecutors to obtain a search warrant for Cohen’s home and office last year, must be unsealed by 11 a.m. (1500 GMT) on Thursday [7-18-19], declaring the issue of ‘national importance.’ Cohen, 52, pleaded guilty in 2018 to directing payments of $130,000 to adult film star Stormy Daniels and $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal to avert a scandal shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has denied having the encounters more than a decade ago with Daniels and McDougal. Pauley said because prosecutors had informed him that their investigation of the payments was over, there was no reason to keep the documents secret.”

Brendan Pierson, “Judge orders release of documents related to hush payments by Trump’s ex-lawyer,” Reuters, July 17, 2019 10:25 am

26,644. 7/17/2019

COURTS/DEMS/HOUSE OF REPS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “House Democrats have kicked and screamed about the White House’s refusal to allow key Trump officials to come before Congress. But they haven’t done the one thing they can do to force the issue: Go to court. Democrats have handed out procedural slaps on the wrist — from subpoenas to contempt citations — and all have been summarily blown off by a White House claiming ‘absolute immunity’ from congressional testimony. The seeming lack of results has fueled criticism among progressive lawmakers and activists. But there are real reasons for the go-slow approach: An overstretched team of House lawyers along with Democrats’ fear of an adverse court ruling that could have long-lasting ramifications. House Democrats say they are also focused on meticulously building a record of the Trump administration’s resistance to their investigations in order to help persuade a court to rule in their favor and break the White House blockade. Rushing into it, they say, could backfire — even as angst on the left has begun to swell.”

Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney, “Why Democrats’ oversight machine is moving so slowly against Trump,” Politico, July 17, 2019 5:03 am

26,421. 7/10/2019

COURTS/LAWSUIT/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/TRUMP BUSINESS: “A federal appeals court panel has unanimously thrown out a lawsuit accusing President Donald Trump of violating the Constitution by continuing to do business with foreign and state governments while serving as president. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia — who joined together to file the suit against Trump in 2017 — lacked legal standing to object to his alleged violations of the Constitution’s clauses prohibiting receipt of so-called ‘emoluments’ while in office. Writing for the court, Judge Paul Niemeyer concluded that the case turned on unduly speculative claims that the Washington, D.C. and Maryland governments were being harmed by people favoring Trump’s D.C. hotel in order to curry favor with him. ‘The District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics,’ Niemeyer wrote.”

Josh Gerstein, “Appeals court tosses emoluments suit against Trump,” Politico, July 10, 2019 1:24 pm

26,408. 7/10/2019

COURTS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/TRUMP PEOPLE: “In a legal victory for President Trump, a federal appeals court panel on Wednesday [7-10-19] ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming that he had violated the Constitution by collecting profits from government guests at his hotel in the nation’s capital. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., found that the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia had no legal standing to sue Mr. Trump. The judges roundly rejected the premise of the case, which claimed that the Trump International Hotel, blocks from the White House, is unfairly siphoning off business from hotels in which the local jurisdictions have a financial interest. The lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Constitution’s anti-corruption, or ‘emoluments,’ clauses, was about to enter the evidence-gathering phase…Until Mr. Trump took office, no court had ever ruled on the meaning of the emoluments clauses or how they could be enforced, if at all. The Fourth Circuit panel’s decision is unlikely to be the last word. The plaintiffs could appeal to the full court, which is less conservative than the judges who ruled. All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.”

Sharon LaFraniere, “Federal Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Emoluments Case,” The New York Times online, July 10, 2019

26,389. 7/9/2019

COURTS/SOCIAL MEDIA/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “A federal appeals court on Tuesday [7-9-19] upheld a lower court ruling that President Donald Trump’s habit of blocking Twitter users he disagrees with violates the First Amendment. A unanimous panel of judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit on Tuesday upheld the district court ruling finding the president’s prolific use of Twitter for official purposes means that blocking users for being critical amounts to discrimination based on their viewpoints. The case was brought against Trump, his social media guru Dan Scavino and former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders by a group of Twitter users who say they were blocked by the president, represented by attorneys with Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute.”

Caitlin Oprysko, “Judges: Trump violates First Amendment when he blocks Twitter critics,” Politico, July 9, 2019 1:00 pm

26,381. 7/9/2019

COURTS/JUSTICE DEPARTMENT/MICHAEL FLYNN/TRUMP PEOPLE: “Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser, backed off his planned testimony in a federal case against a former associate, according to court documents unsealed on Tuesday [7-9-19]. Mr. Flynn had previously admitted that he lied on foreign lobbying disclosure forms submitted to the Justice Department but now is blaming his former lawyers, accusing them of filing inaccurate forms without his knowledge. He did not dispute that the filing itself contained false information. His latest gambit could provoke another dramatic and risky confrontation with the federal judge who delayed sentencing Mr. Flynn last year in a separate case so he could continue to cooperate with the government in the hopes of a lighter punishment. And it was the latest strange turn in a prosecution that should have run its course without much drama after Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to lying to investigators and agreed to cooperate with the special counsel’s investigators. Mr. Flynn’s lawyers might not care what the judge does if they believe President Trump will pardon his former national security adviser.”

Adam Goldman, “Michael Flynn Changes His Story, Putting Him on Collision Course With Judge,” The New York Times online, July 9, 2019

26,378. 7/9/2019

COURTS/SOCIAL MEDIA/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “President Trump has been violating the Constitution by blocking people from following his Twitter account because they criticized or mocked him, a federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday [7-9-19]. The ruling could have broader implications for how the First Amendment applies to the social-media era. Because Mr. Trump uses Twitter to conduct government business, he cannot exclude some Americans from reading his posts — and engaging in conversations in the replies to them — because he does not like their views, a three-judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, ruled unanimously. The ruling was one of the highest-profile court decisions yet in a growing constellation of cases addressing what the First Amendment means in a time when political expression increasingly takes place online. It is also a time, Judge Barrington D. Parker wrote, when government conduct is subject to a ‘wide-open, robust debate’ that ‘generates a level of passion and intensity the likes of which have rarely been seen.’”

Charlie Savage, “Trump Can’t Block Critics From His Twitter Account, Appeals Court Rules,” The New York Times online, July 9, 2019

26,311. 7/5/2019

CENSUS/CITIZENSHIP/COURTS/JUSTICE DEPARTMENT/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/TRUMP PEOPLE: “The Trump administration confirmed Friday [7-5-19] that it will press forward with efforts to add a citizenship question to next year’s census, with President Donald Trump saying he’s exploring the possibility of reviving the question via executive order and government lawyers telling a federal judge that they’ve “been asked to reevaluate all available options’…The Trump administration’s plans to add such a question to the decennial census were dealt a surprise blow last week by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Trump administration’s ‘explanation for agency action’ was ‘incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decison making process’ and ordered government lawyers to present a more truthful explanation to a lower court. Chief Justice John Roberts, siding with the court’s four liberals, wrote the majority opinion. In a court filing Friday, lawyers for the Justice Department confirmed that both DOJ and the Commerce Department were still weighing ‘whether the Supreme Court’s decision would allow for a new decision to include the citizenship question.’”

Caitlin Oprysko and Josh Gerstein, “DOJ says it will continue to explore path for citizenship question as Trump considers executive order,” Politico, July 5, 2019 4:06 pm

26,310. 7/5/2019

COURTS/GOP/JOE BIDEN/NOMINATIONS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “Former Vice President Joe Biden said he would be open to renominating to the Supreme Court federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland, whose Senate confirmation in 2016 was thwarted by the Republican Senate . In an interview with Iowa Starting Line on Friday [7-5-19], the Democratic presidential hopeful called Garland a ‘first-rate person.’ Obama first nominated Garland in 2016 to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, however, announced the Senate would not consider an appointment until after the presidential election. Upon taking office, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill the seat…Biden said he would not try to expand the court as president, but added that reforming campaign finance laws to allow for public financing could reduce partisan gridlock during judicial nominations.”

Rishka Dugyala, “Biden open to renominating Merrick Garland,” Politico, July 5, 2019 2:38 pm

26,221. 7/2/2019

CENSUS/CITIZENSHIP/COURTS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “The Trump administration said Tuesday [7-2-19] that it will not ask about citizenship status on the 2020 census, backing off a contentious effort to reinstate the question over objections from opponents who successfully argued to the Supreme Court that it would disenfranchise minority groups. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who originally directed the Census Bureau to add the question, said in a statement that he was moving ahead with printing the 2020 census despite his disagreement with the court’s ruling last week…The order to print came suddenly, surprising attorneys who had challenged the Trump administration. As recently as Monday [7-1-19], President Donald Trump had said his administration was looking for ways to delay the once-a-decade tally so that the question could be included…The government had initially said that Monday was the deadline to begin printing forms. As late as Monday afternoon, however, the administration asked a federal judge in Maryland for more time to decide how it would proceed following the Supreme Court decision.”

Ariane de Vogue and Gregory Wallace, “Trump administration won’t ask about citizenship on census,” CNN Politics, CNN.com, July 2, 2019 9:19 pm

26,218. 7/2/2019

COURTS/IMMIGRATION/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “A federal judge in Seattle on Tuesday [7-2-19] blocked the Trump administration policy denying bond hearings to asylum seekers. US District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled that people who are detained after entering the US to seek protection are entitled to bond hearings and the chance to be released from custody under the Constitution…Attorney General William Barr in April announced a policy that some asylum seekers who have established credible fear and are subject to deportation cannot be released on bond by immigration judges — a major reversal from a prior ruling that could lead to immigrants being held indefinitely…The ban will go into effect in two weeks, Pechman added. The decision means the Department of Homeland Security will not have sole discretion to decide whether to release immigrants who crossed the border illegally and later claimed asylum, as the policy would have granted. The policy would have effectively blocked concerted efforts by immigration lawyers and immigrant rights advocates to push for bond hearings for detained asylum seekers.”

Dave Alsup and Caroline Kelly, “Federal judge blocks Trump policy keeping asylum seekers detained,” CNN Politics, CNN.com, July 2, 2019 9:01 pm

26,110. 6/27/2019

COURTS/ROBERT MUELLER/ROGER STONE/TRUMP PEOPLE: “Lawyers for Roger Stone, a former political adviser to President Donald Trump, on Thursday [6-27-19] denied accusations by prosecutors that he violated a court-imposed gag order by posting comments on social media about former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Stone’s lawyers said he was exercising his First Amendment rights within the confines of the gag order…Last week, prosecutors accused Stone of trying to ‘fan the flames’ and poison the jury pool ahead of his November trial. They asked Judge Amy Berman Jackson to hold a hearing to consider changing his conditions of release, which could potentially land him behind bars.”

Reuters Staff, “Lawyers for ex-Trump adviser Stone deny he violated judge’s gag order,” Reuters, June 27, 2019 4:49 pm

26,101. 6/27/2019

COURTS/LEGAL/PARDONS/PAUL MANAFORT/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “Paul J. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign manager, was escorted into a courtroom on Thursday [6-27-19] to face state fraud charges that the Manhattan district attorney has brought in an effort to ensure Mr. Manafort could still face prison time even if he is pardoned for his federal crimes. Appearing in New York State Supreme Court on Thursday, Mr. Manafort, who once wore designer suits and commanded lucrative fees as a political consultant, wore navy blue scrubs, a loose brown belt and white sneakers, his hands shackled at his waist. He walked with a slight limp and had to be helped as he got into his seat. ‘Not guilty,’ he said when asked how he pleaded to the charges in a 16-count indictment that he falsified business records and engaged in a conspiracy to fraudulently obtain millions of dollars in loans for several residential properties in New York. Mr. Manafort has been serving a seven-and-a-half-year sentence at a federal prison in Pennsylvania after being convicted of tax and bank fraud in two cases stemming from Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.”

Sharon Otterman, “Manafort Pleads Not Guilty to N.Y. Charges Designed to Thwart a Trump Pardon,” The New York Times online, June 27, 2019

26,010. 6/25/2019

COURTS/DEMS/LAWSUIT/TRUMP BUSINESS: “A federal judge on Tuesday [6-25-19] refused to put on hold a lawsuit by about 200 Democratic lawmakers accusing President Donald Trump of violating an anti-corruption provision of the U.S. Constitution with his private business dealings, a move that clears the way for them to seek some of his financial records. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected a request by Trump administration lawyers to halt the case and let them file an expedited appeal of key preliminary rulings he issued against the president. Sullivan said an immediate appeal would not be efficient. The lawsuit is one of two brought against Trump accusing him of violating the so-called emoluments clause of the Constitution, which bans U.S. officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments without congressional consent. The other was brought by the Democratic attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia.”

Jan Wolfe, “Trump loses bid to halt Democratic lawsuit over foreign payments,” Reuters, June 25, 2019 12:18 pm

25,984. 6/24/2019

COURTS/DEMS/RUSSIA INVESTIGATION/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “The House Judiciary Committee reached a deal with a key source of information for Robert S. Mueller III’s obstruction of justice investigation that will allow her to delay public testimony that had been scheduled for Monday [6-24-19] but require her to answer written questions as the committee waits. Democrats who control the committee said they were willing to take those steps because the witness, Annie Donaldson, is in her third trimester of pregnancy and lives in Alabama. They said she would still be required to testify in person in the coming months before the committee, which is investigating whether President Trump obstructed justice when he tried to thwart the special counsel’s examination of his campaign’s ties to Russia. But like most everything between Congress and the Trump administration these days, what comes next is unlikely to be that simple. The White House is expected to intervene to try to block Ms. Donaldson, a former White House lawyer, from answering any questions, in writing or in person, about her government service.”

Nicholas Fandos, “Democrats Strike Deal With an Obstruction Witness, but a Court Fight Looms,” The New York Times online, June 24, 2019

25,872. 6/19/2019

CENSUS/CITIZENSHIP/COURTS/DEMS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “In a blow to the Trump administration, a federal trial judge said Wednesday [6-19-19] that he believes new evidence presented in a challenge to the 2020 census citizenship question ‘raises a substantial issue.’ The decision could lead to reopening one of three federal trials into the citizenship question and lead to further examinations of Republican redistricting consultant Thomas Hofeller’s role in developing the question. Earlier this month, the ACLU and a team of lawyers at Arnold & Porter said that they had obtained a trove of documents from Hofeller, a deceased Republican redistricting expert who, they allege, played a significant role in the decision to add the question. Hofeller wrote a study in 2015 concluding that using ‘citizen voting age’ population as the redistricting population base would be ‘advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.’ The administration has always denied political motivation, saying instead that the Justice Department had determined that the question was necessary to better comply with federal voting rights law.”

Gregory Wallace, “Judge in census case: New evidence alleging political motivation behind citizenship question ‘raises a substantial issue’,” CNN Politics, CNN.com, June 19, 2019 6:01 pm

25,621. 6/11/2019

COURTS/DEMS/HOUSE OF REPS/RUSSIA INVESTIGATION/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “The House voted on Tuesday [6-11-19] to authorize the Judiciary Committee to go to court to enforce two subpoenas related to Robert S. Mueller III’s inquiry — threatening to open a new legal front in the Democrats’ efforts to investigate President Trump and his administration. The resolution, which passed along party lines, 229 to 191, grants the Judiciary Committee the power to petition a federal judge to force Attorney General William P. Barr and the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to comply with congressional subpoenas that they have either completely or partly defied. But it also empowers other House committees to move more quickly to court in future disputes — authorities that could quickly be put to the test. The House Oversight and Reform Committee, for instance, is expected to vote Wednesday to recommend separate contempt of Congress citations against Mr. Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross over that panel’s investigation into the administration’s efforts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.”

Nicholas Fandos, “House Approves Court Action to Enforce Democrats’ Subpoenas,” The New York Times online, June 11, 2019

25,589. 6/10/2019

BORDER/COURTS/HOUSE OF REPS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/WALL: “The House of Representatives today appealed a federal judge’s decision to uphold President Donald Trump’s ability to funnel billions of non-congressionally approved dollars toward border wall construction. The move deepens the legal fight between the Democrat-led House and Trump over his February declaration of a national emergency as part of a plan to access $6.7 billion in funds to build a wall. Trump announced the emergency after Congress refused to provide a similar amount for the wall. The appeal will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Last week, D.C.-based District Court Judge Trevor McFadden — a Trump appointee — shot down the House’s challenge to Trump’s attempt to move the money. The House had argued Trump overstepped his executive authority when he used emergency powers and provisions in counter-drug and military construction statutes to redirect $6.1 billion toward a wall. House lawmakers did not contest the transfer of $600 million from a Treasury Department drug forfeiture fund, however.”

Ted Hesson, “House appeals judge’s decision upholding Trump’s border wall emergency,” Politico, June 10, 2019 6:13 pm

25,479. 6/6/2019

2016 ELECTION/COURTS/DEMS/INVESTIGATIONS/RUSSIA/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT: “U.S. congressional Democrats moved closer on Thursday [6-6-19] to suing in federal court for access to the unredacted Mueller report on Russian election meddling, and its underlying evidence, taking a step bound to intensify their clash with President Donald Trump. After months of stonewalling by Trump of their many investigations of him and his presidency, Democrats unveiled a resolution that authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to seek a court order to enforce its subpoenas against U.S. Attorney General William Barr and former White House Counsel Don McGahn. Both have refused to cooperate with the Judiciary Committee, which wants the unredacted report by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller on his probe into Russian election meddling and possible obstruction of the probe by Trump, and documents related to the investigation, as well as testimony from McGahn, a major player in the Mueller inquiry. The resolution, which the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to consider on Tuesday [6-4-19], replaces an earlier plan by House lawmakers to vote formally on whether to hold Barr and McGahn in contempt of Congress, aides said.”

-David Morgan, “House Democrats move to fight Trump’s stonewalling in court,” Reuters, June 6, 2019 11:12 am

25,461. 6/6/2019

ATTORNEY GENERAL/COURTS/DEMS/HOUSE OF REPS/TRUMP PEOPLE: “After weeks of pledging to hold Attorney General William P. Barr and the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II in contempt for defying subpoenas, House Democrats appear poised to pursue an alternative path to try to force them into sharing information. A resolution that the House Rules Committee unveiled on Thursday [6-6-19] would authorize the House to petition a federal court to enforce its requests for information and testimony related to the report of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, but without mentioning contempt. The committee is expected to consider the proposal on Monday, followed by a full House vote on Tuesday [6-4-19]. The resolution appears to be something of a tactical reversal by Democrats, who did not immediately explain their decision. The Judiciary Committee approved a report last month that formally recommended the House hold Mr. Barr in contempt, and lawmakers continue to use that language to describe next week’s vote.”

Nicholas Fandos, “House Plans Vote to Fight Barr in Court but Back Off Contempt,” The New York Times online, June 6, 2019

25,427. 6/5/2019

BORDER/COURTS/DEMS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/WALL: “RT @realDonaldTrump: Just had a big victory in Federal Court over the Democrats in the House on the desperately needed Border Wall. A big s…” 

Donald Trump, Twitter.com, June 5, 2019 1:46 am

25,384. 5/30/2019

BORDER/COURTS/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/WALL: “The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a federal court to block additional sections of President Donald Trump’s proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Attorneys asked the court to halt construction of a border wall in Southern California and three sections near Tucson, Ariz., late Wednesday. The ACLU, representing the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition, has a good chance of initially prevailing, given the same California court has already suspended the construction of sections in Yuma, Ariz., and El Paso, Texas. The ACLU, in a court filing, said it presents ‘virtually identical’ arguments to those in the previous case. The construction of the border wall on protected federal land ‘will irreparably harm Plaintiff Sierra Club’s members’ recreational and aesthetic interests in the borderlands they live in, use, and treasure,” the attorneys wrote. The Justice Department on Wednesday said it would appeal a federal judge‘s decision to halt a $1 billion transfer of Pentagon counterdrug funding to cover expansions of the Yuma and El Paso sectors and asked the court to let construction proceed in the meantime.”

Ian Kullgren, “ACLU seeks to block more sections of Trump’s border wall,” Politico, May 30, 2019 9:47 am

25,341. 5/29/2019

BORDER/COURTS/JUSTICE DEPARTMENT/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/WALL: “The Trump administration on Wednesday [5-29-19] asked a federal judge to allow construction of the president’s border wall to commence while it appeals an unfavorable ruling from last week. In court filings, the Justice Department said it would appeal a federal judge‘s decision to halt a $1 billion transfer of Pentagon counter-drug funding to cover expansions of two border barriers. The administration said the planned sections of border wall — in Yuma, Ariz. and El Paso, Texas — sit atop Homeland Security’s list of priorities due to high volumes of drug smuggling through those areas…The administration asked the district court to make a decision by next Wednesday while it appeals to the Ninth Circuit. Oakland, Calif.-based U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam had blocked President Donald Trump’s fund transfer’s last week, rejecting the government’s argument that the move was based on ‘unforseen’ need. The administration had planned to start construction on the Yuma section this week, DOJ attorneys wrote.”

Ian Kullgren, “Trump appeals order partially blocking border wall funding,” Politico, May 29, 2019 5:04 pm

25,271. 5/25/2019

BORDER/COURTS/OBAMA/TRUMP AS PRESIDENT/WALL: “Another activist Obama appointed judge has just ruled against us on a section of the Southern Wall that is already under construction. This is a ruling against Border Security and in favor of crime, drugs and human trafficking. We are asking for an expedited appeal!”

Donald Trump, Twitter.com, May 25, 2019 2:35 pm