The Week Ahead
Federal judge issues order on Trump ads
Sunday evening, a federal judge ordered an immediate halt to the taxpayer-funded pro-Trump ads. The ban extended to ads scheduled to run tonight. Sunday morning on Meet the Nation, CBS’s Margaret Brennan acknowledged one of those taxpayer-funded ads would run on her show. Trump has said his PAC will pay for future ads—it remains to be seen whether that will actually happen and whether that level of coordination between political and PAC is legal. But $20 million in funds Congress allocated to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was used to purchase the ads that have run on major networks.
District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of a group of plaintiffs, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads. The plaintiffs called them an illegal misuse of funds. Judge Rochon ordered the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night.
The lawsuit alleges that running the ads violates the law and raised a Fifth Amendment Equal Protection Clause claim, because “These political ads are intended to help Republicans and hurt Democrats in tight elections,” and “Defendants have thrown the might of the federal government behind one political party and attacked its opposition.”
“Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements” during the two-week duration of the Judge’s temporary restraining order. The order went into effect at 6:45 p.m. ET on Sunday, according to its terms.
The administration had advised the court in a Saturday filing that DHS placed ad buys through Sunday. It said it told its vendor to not make any additional ad purchases after today. But there were reports on social media tonight that despite the court’s order, CBS aired one of the enjoined ads during 60 Minutes. That program begins at 7:00 p.m. ET. The government will likely argue that the order was not transmitted in time for the ad to be pulled, but we are likely looking at additional inquiry as the relevant facts to that determination come out.
January 6 witness Cassidy Hutchinson is being investigated by DOJ
Hutchinson, a former Trump administration employee, gave riveting testimony during the House January 6 hearings. Unsurprisingly, news reports this week suggested that she is being investigated by a grand jury in the District of Columbia for making false statements or committing perjury—it’s not entirely clear which—and perhaps for other crimes. Trump’s revenge prosecution tour continues.
At least one report suggested there would be no indictments until after the midterm elections. One has to wonder whether that’s because the administration doesn’t want to face the possibility that a grand jury might balk at indicting a case.
Trump disputed Hutchinson’s testimony at the time she gave it. But Brett Baier called the testimony “powerful” at the time, leaving his FOX News co-anchors speechless for a few seconds. Baier went on to say, “He says she’s lying. Cassidy Hutchinson is under oath, on Capitol Hill The president is on Truth Social.” It all raises an interesting prospect: If there is an indictment and a trial, might Hutchinson’s lawyers decide to call the president to the witness stand?
Texas
MAGA is getting increasingly desperate in Texas, with both Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico and gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa looking strong. A social media furor erupted when Nick Sorter posted that Talarico had just recently received mental health treatment at an “Ohio mental hospital.” Sorter describes himself as “On-scene covering stories MSM won’t. Frequently seen on Fox News, Newsmax, NewsNation, Timcast, & more.” He has 1.6 million followers on Twitter. There was just one problem with his claim, though. It does not appear to be true.
The Lindner Center quickly posted that Talarico had never been a patient with them.
Talarico had been out with the flu, but Sorter was quick—too quick, it turns out—to try and morph it into something else. Talarico’s campaign will likely ask Sortor to retract the false statement, although Talarico handled the situation with class and charm on Twitter, posting that he had “never even been to Ohio,” where the Lindner Center is located.
Under Texas law, a would-be plaintiff must request a retraction of a false statement before filing a defamation case. The defendant has to publish the correction “in the same manner and medium as the original publication” and to acknowledge “that the statement specified as false and defamatory is erroneous.” On the internet, that means “the publisher appends” the correction “to the original publication.” Presumably, Sortor would have to retweet with the correction or respond to the original tweet with the correction. A smart lawyer would probably advise him to do both.
But Texas law also gives the defendant 30 days to make the retraction, which would take us past election day, so the Lindner Center tweet correcting Sortor’s claim may be the best remedy Talarico will get ahead of election day.
Subpoenas to Ivanka, Jared, and Don Jr.
Donald Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against British Broadcaster BBC back in December of 2025. BBC has been trying to subpoena Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump for testimony, arguing that the three have “‘personal knowledge’ and likely have records relevant to elements of Trump’s claims against the broadcaster.” But in August, the BBC said it had been unable to serve its subpoenas on the three because of Secret Service agents and private protection, asking the court for help.
On Friday, Federal Magistrate Judge Enjolique Lett granted the BBC’s motion for alternative service of subpoenas on the Trumps and Kushner. Instead of using “personal service,” handing the subpoena over in person, which is what the Federal Rules provide for, now the BBC can serve the subpoenas via certified mail to their home and business addresses and email to their attorneys, given the presence of security personnel. The three can appeal the Magistrate Judge’s decision to a District Judge, but at some point, the fiction that they can’t be served gives way to the reality that they’re aware of the subpoenas and are using the Secret Service to dodge them.
It’s likely we’ll see efforts to use the Judge’s order to serve the Trumps and Kushner this week. Testimony will prove interesting when it follows. It will almost certainly be under oath.
No Kings
Next Saturday, October 17, is the next No Kings event, this one designed to encourage people to vote early if they can and to have a plan. The midterms are upon us. Go vote!
If you read Civil Discourse regularly but haven’t subscribed, I hope you’ll decide to today. I write because I think it’s important for all of us to understand what’s happening, especially when it comes to the law and our courts. I want you to have the facts and the context you need to make up your own mind about the news. Subscriptions are free, and if you’re able to become a paid subscriber, you’ll help me keep it that way for everyone. I’m grateful to all of you who read and share my work
We’re in this together,
Joyce