Today’s Legal Update
This is one of those everything, everywhere, all at once weeks. There is a lot going on that you need to know about, but most of it is cases or controversies in progress, with no final decision as of yet. It feels more like a Sunday night, where we prepare for the week ahead, than like a Thursday to me in that sense. But I’ll set up some of the most important developments for you here, and we’ll dig in as we get decisions.
Slush fund case-Virginia edition. There is a hearing Friday in the slush fund case in Virginia before Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia. She entered a temporary injunction that kept the fund from going into effect previously, with additional arguments scheduled for tomorrow. After the government argued the case is mooted because they are no longer moving forward, the plaintiffs asked the Judge to let them engage in limited discovery to determine whether the administration has really abandoned its plans to allow the president to dish out taxpayer money to January 6 defendants.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys put it like this: “If the administration truly intends to walk away from this $1.776 billion corrupt political kickback scheme, it should have no problem proving it. Instead, they are asking the court and the public to believe that the fund has been abandoned while the president continues publicly praising the slush fund and refusing to say it has been abandoned. Courts decide cases based on evidence, not shifting political statements. We are seeking discovery to gather facts so the administration can face accountability for one of the most extraordinary abuses of taxpayer funds in modern history.”
Last word on this goes to Representative Jim McGovern, a Democrat, representing Massachusetts’ second district. He said what he said.
Alabama again, this time, over the death penalty. When I originally wrote this section tonight, this matter had not been decided. But around 9:30 p.m. Central, the Supreme Court blocked Alabama’s use of nitrogen gas on a condemned inmate, who was scheduled to be executed Thursday at 6:00 pm. Their decision came on the heels of a Wednesday decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals that the method was unconstitutional. The order states the result—the execution was stayed—but is unsigned and does not include the Court’s reasons. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch noted their dissent and would have granted the state’s request to use this method of execution.
Jeffery Lee, the inmate who was scheduled for execution, challenged the use of nitrogen gas and had asked to be executed by a firing squad. Alabama turned to nitrogen gas in 2024, the first state to do so, as the drugs it used for lethal injections became increasingly difficult to obtain. In this method of execution, an inmate is strapped to a gurney and made to breathe nitrogen gas through a mask apparatus, ultimately depriving them of oxygen and leading to death by asphyxiation. In January of 2024 when it was first used, the Eleventh Circuit declined to interfere, writing that the fact that nitrogen hypoxia is “new and novel” does not mean it is inherently cruel and unusual. But more recently, there have been eyewitness accounts of inhumane suffering, and the American Thoracic Society filed a brief in this case arguing that “nitrogen hypoxia executions cause intense, inhumane suffering.”
The decision does not mean the state cannot execute Lee, who was put on death row by a judge, who overrode a jury’s decision that he should be sentenced to life in prison. That judicial override practice was subsequently ended, but people like Lee who had already but sentenced to death using it did not get any relief.
Cage fighting on the White House Lawn. Today, the White House let the press get a look inside of “The Claw,” where they plan to hold UFC cage fights this Sunday. The New York Times described what they saw like this: “The cage itself was an eight-sided feat of marketeering, its every angle prominently displaying the name of some sponsor who’d paid big bucks to have their brands juxtaposed against the ultimate backdrop: Live Trade on Polymarket … Bud Light … Pit Boss Grills … Total Wireless … Dial #Law Morgan & Morgan … Toyo Tires. The words ‘crypto.com’ were carved into each little metal step leading into the ring.”
In a Reuters and Ipsos poll published today, only 16% of Americans said it was “appropriate” for Mr. Trump to hold the fights on the South Lawn of the White House. But they’ll proceed unless a federal judge says no. The case is fully briefed, and we could get a decision at any moment. The Judge doesn’t have much time left to act, if he’s going to.
The plaintiffs continue to press their suit. Their most recent brief, filed yesterday, argues that the UFC shouldn’t be able to use the Lincoln Memorial chamber and that the court should grant a temporary restraining order to prevent the event from proceeding at all.
They particularly object to a plan they’ve learned of recently that involves closing access to the Lincoln Memorial so the cage fights can proceed.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs submitted an additional reply to convince the Judge to order halt to the UFC event
They argue that the event, “a volcano of corruption, if allowed to go forward, will mark an inflection point in American history.” They continue, “Unable to defend this spectacle for what it is, Defendants elect to defend something else entirely. They call the event a ‘celebration of the 250th Anniversary of American Independence’ and an ‘official act’ of the President immune from the Court’s scrutiny. But the evidence on display to the American people refutes that story.” It’s a hard argument to beat. As we’ve discussed, it could come down to whether the Judge thinks the plaintiffs have standing.
There are a lot of unanswered questions on this one. If the Judge rules against the government, Trump would almost certainly seek an immediate order from the court of appeals and, if unsuccessful there, go to the Supreme Court. How the district court will rule and whether appellate courts would move quickly enough to permit Trump to go ahead with his birthday plans if the plaintiffs were successful below remains to be seen.
And, like always, there’s a 1984, “Let’s rewrite history” moment tonight. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump has a new gambit to rewrite history. He is “pushing lawmakers to pass a resolution aimed at voiding his first-term impeachments.”
The Journal story assesses the plan like this: “The resolution would allow Trump to claim a symbolic victory on a matter that has dogged him since his first term, part of a broader effort to burnish his presidential legacy. It would have little legal significance, however, because the Constitution provides no procedure for undoing an impeachment, according to experts.” But it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily. This plan is better understood as part of the desperate effort by Trump that we’ve discussed to keep the history books from treating him as the worst president ever.
Reporters at the Journal asked Trump about his plan, and he responded, “It should be done because I did nothing wrong.” He also said, “It was a rigged deal—it was a whole rigged situation.” Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. In both cases, the House found sufficient reason to bring articles of impeachment. In both cases, Republicans in the Senate declined to part ways with the cult and vote to convict. So Trump is wrong, both when he says he did nothing wrong—the evidence speaks for itself—and also when he says the impeachments were rigged, when he was never convicted.
House Speaker Mike Johnson is taking the president’s request seriously. The Journal reported that his comments to them on the plan were “I think it makes a lot of sense the more the evidence comes out, the more we know they really were sham impeachments.” He also said, “We were saying it at the time, now we know. And they make a very compelling case that it should be expunged from the record, because it was a hyperpartisan attack job.”
Sorry, no dice. History will judge, and it should.
All in all, even with some wins, or at least stalemates for the moment, this week, Trump’s Justice Department is losing the fight that really matters in court, the one to maintain its credibility. A Trump appointee to the bench in the Middle District of Florida, Kyle Dudek, is unhappy with the government. He entered a three-page order in Iastrebov v. Warden.
Mr. Iastrebov is in immigration detention. The Judge wrote, “this Court ordered the Government to provide him with an individualized bond hearing,” after the government conceded he was entitled to one. Judge Dudek continued, “What happened next borders on the surreal.”
Here’s what happened: An immigration judge declined to hold the bond hearing. The government didn’t insist on it pursuant to the Judge’s order, though. When the petitioner renewed his motion, the Government, according to Judge Dudek, “casually announces that its previous concession ‘was in error’ and asks this Court to reverse itself and hold that Iastrebov is instead subject to mandatory detention.”
The Judge objects to the government’s disingenuous conduct, finding that it is “not just legally unsupportable, it is a masterclass in litigation cynicism. A federal court is not a testing lab where the Executive branch can pilot a concession to get a case closed, stand by silently while its own administrative process flouts the resulting mandate, and then stroll back in demanding a clean slate. Give me a break.”
But, and here’s the best part, the Judge doesn’t just tell the government to mend its ways. Instead, he ordered the petitioner released from the government’s custody:
“Iastrebov is entitled to a bond hearing. But because the Government has shown a complete inability to follow judicial directions … The Government is directed to release Iastrebov within 48 hours of this Order. Respondents shall facilitate his transportation from the detention facility by notifying his counsel when and where he can be collected.”
And just like that, the government has been bench slapped out of court.
Every day, there’s more to track. Slush funds, cage fights on the South Lawn, judges ordering the government to just release someone because they’ve violated the rules. I’m here every day making sense of it, separating the noise from what actually matters. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, joining means you’ll be part of a community that takes democracy seriously and makes independent reporting and analysis possible.
We’re in this together,
Joyce