#federaljudges — Public Fediverse posts

https://www.europesays.com/people/70152/ Chief Justice Roberts says Supreme Court is not making policy decisions #FederalJudges #JohnRoberts #Judiciary #law #RepublicansElections #SupremeCourt

https://www.europesays.com/people/64871/ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 5 solo Supreme Court dissents in one term #ConfirmationOfAmyConeyBarrett #DonaldTrump #FederalJudges #IndividualRights #Judiciary #SupremeCourt #Trump

Romanian man sentenced to 4 years for swatting Congress members https://www.byteseu.com/1977219/ #Congress #ConspiraciesPlots #CounterTerrorism #Cybercrime #FederalCourts #FederalJudges #JusticeDepartment #Romania

Roberts pushed to block Obama’s Clean Power Plan, internal memos show

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! The Supreme Court’s emergency order blocking former President Barack Obama’s…
#NewsBeep #News #Topstories #Climate #environmentregulation #federaljudges #Headlines #SupremeCourt #TopStories #WhiteHouse
https://www.newsbeep.com/495193/

https://www.europesays.com/people/10712/ Federal judge blocks Trump’s race-based college admissions data order #DeptOfEducation #DonaldTrump #Education #FederalJudges #JusticeDepartment #Trump

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

In interviews, former state and federal judges warn that democracy’s guardrails may already be weakened as the rule of law begins to falter.

November 28, 2025 at 5:00 a.m. EST, Today at 5:00 a.m. EST, 11 min

By Brianna Tucker

When the White House blasted a federal judge as “partisan” for dismissing the criminal cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James this week, it was an attack that has become common in President Donald Trump’s second term.

For many retired federal and state supreme court judges, it was another example of the president’s assault on the judiciary and further erosion of the rule of law.

In a dozen interviews with The Washington Post, former judges and one soon-to-be-retired judge described a judiciary under incredible strain and its integrity threatened by partisan attacks, antagonistic rhetoric from public officials and ambiguous decisions handed down by the nation’s highest court.

Many judges said the politicization of judges, the Supreme Court’s expanding use of emergency dockets and sustained criticism from the Trump administration have pushed the courts and democracyto a fragile tipping point — one where cooperation with rulings and adherence to the rule of law can no longer be assumed.

Follow Trump’s second term

“There’s not a person in our country that, whether they think about it or not, does not depend upon the ability of these fundamental rights and liberties to be protected in an action in court if there is someone who violates that,” said Paul Grimm, a retired judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The consequences, judges warn, are already becoming visible in who’s willing to serve as a jurist, global shifts in judicial norms and the types of justice the U.S. system can still deliver.

Read more: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

#ambiguousDecisions #democracy #emergencyDocket #endangered #federalJudges #judicialNorms #partisanAttacks #politicizationOfJudges #ruleOfLaw #scotus #strainingCourts #uSDistrictCourts #uSJusticeSystem #unitedStates

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

In interviews, former state and federal judges warn that democracy’s guardrails may already be weakened as the rule of law begins to falter.

November 28, 2025 at 5:00 a.m. EST, Today at 5:00 a.m. EST, 11 min

By Brianna Tucker

When the White House blasted a federal judge as “partisan” for dismissing the criminal cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James this week, it was an attack that has become common in President Donald Trump’s second term.

For many retired federal and state supreme court judges, it was another example of the president’s assault on the judiciary and further erosion of the rule of law.

In a dozen interviews with The Washington Post, former judges and one soon-to-be-retired judge described a judiciary under incredible strain and its integrity threatened by partisan attacks, antagonistic rhetoric from public officials and ambiguous decisions handed down by the nation’s highest court.

Many judges said the politicization of judges, the Supreme Court’s expanding use of emergency dockets and sustained criticism from the Trump administration have pushed the courts and democracyto a fragile tipping point — one where cooperation with rulings and adherence to the rule of law can no longer be assumed.

Follow Trump’s second term

“There’s not a person in our country that, whether they think about it or not, does not depend upon the ability of these fundamental rights and liberties to be protected in an action in court if there is someone who violates that,” said Paul Grimm, a retired judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The consequences, judges warn, are already becoming visible in who’s willing to serve as a jurist, global shifts in judicial norms and the types of justice the U.S. system can still deliver.

Read more: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

#ambiguousDecisions #democracy #emergencyDocket #endangered #federalJudges #judicialNorms #partisanAttacks #politicizationOfJudges #ruleOfLaw #scotus #strainingCourts #uSDistrictCourts #uSJusticeSystem #unitedStates

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

In interviews, former state and federal judges warn that democracy’s guardrails may already be weakened as the rule of law begins to falter.

November 28, 2025 at 5:00 a.m. EST, Today at 5:00 a.m. EST, 11 min

By Brianna Tucker

When the White House blasted a federal judge as “partisan” for dismissing the criminal cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James this week, it was an attack that has become common in President Donald Trump’s second term.

For many retired federal and state supreme court judges, it was another example of the president’s assault on the judiciary and further erosion of the rule of law.

In a dozen interviews with The Washington Post, former judges and one soon-to-be-retired judge described a judiciary under incredible strain and its integrity threatened by partisan attacks, antagonistic rhetoric from public officials and ambiguous decisions handed down by the nation’s highest court.

Many judges said the politicization of judges, the Supreme Court’s expanding use of emergency dockets and sustained criticism from the Trump administration have pushed the courts and democracyto a fragile tipping point — one where cooperation with rulings and adherence to the rule of law can no longer be assumed.

Follow Trump’s second term

“There’s not a person in our country that, whether they think about it or not, does not depend upon the ability of these fundamental rights and liberties to be protected in an action in court if there is someone who violates that,” said Paul Grimm, a retired judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The consequences, judges warn, are already becoming visible in who’s willing to serve as a jurist, global shifts in judicial norms and the types of justice the U.S. system can still deliver.

Read more: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

#ambiguousDecisions #democracy #emergencyDocket #endangered #federalJudges #judicialNorms #partisanAttacks #politicizationOfJudges #ruleOfLaw #scotus #strainingCourts #uSDistrictCourts #uSJusticeSystem #unitedStates

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

In interviews, former state and federal judges warn that democracy’s guardrails may already be weakened as the rule of law begins to falter.

November 28, 2025 at 5:00 a.m. EST, Today at 5:00 a.m. EST, 11 min

By Brianna Tucker

When the White House blasted a federal judge as “partisan” for dismissing the criminal cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James this week, it was an attack that has become common in President Donald Trump’s second term.

For many retired federal and state supreme court judges, it was another example of the president’s assault on the judiciary and further erosion of the rule of law.

In a dozen interviews with The Washington Post, former judges and one soon-to-be-retired judge described a judiciary under incredible strain and its integrity threatened by partisan attacks, antagonistic rhetoric from public officials and ambiguous decisions handed down by the nation’s highest court.

Many judges said the politicization of judges, the Supreme Court’s expanding use of emergency dockets and sustained criticism from the Trump administration have pushed the courts and democracyto a fragile tipping point — one where cooperation with rulings and adherence to the rule of law can no longer be assumed.

Follow Trump’s second term

“There’s not a person in our country that, whether they think about it or not, does not depend upon the ability of these fundamental rights and liberties to be protected in an action in court if there is someone who violates that,” said Paul Grimm, a retired judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The consequences, judges warn, are already becoming visible in who’s willing to serve as a jurist, global shifts in judicial norms and the types of justice the U.S. system can still deliver.

Read more: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

#AmbiguousDecisions #democracy #EmergencyDocket #Endangered #FederalJudges #JudicialNorms #PartisanAttacks #PoliticizationOfJudges #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #StrainingCourts #USDistrictCourts #USJusticeSystem #UnitedStates

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

In interviews, former state and federal judges warn that democracy’s guardrails may already be weakened as the rule of law begins to falter.

November 28, 2025 at 5:00 a.m. EST, Today at 5:00 a.m. EST, 11 min

By Brianna Tucker

When the White House blasted a federal judge as “partisan” for dismissing the criminal cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James this week, it was an attack that has become common in President Donald Trump’s second term.

For many retired federal and state supreme court judges, it was another example of the president’s assault on the judiciary and further erosion of the rule of law.

In a dozen interviews with The Washington Post, former judges and one soon-to-be-retired judge described a judiciary under incredible strain and its integrity threatened by partisan attacks, antagonistic rhetoric from public officials and ambiguous decisions handed down by the nation’s highest court.

Many judges said the politicization of judges, the Supreme Court’s expanding use of emergency dockets and sustained criticism from the Trump administration have pushed the courts and democracyto a fragile tipping point — one where cooperation with rulings and adherence to the rule of law can no longer be assumed.

Follow Trump’s second term

“There’s not a person in our country that, whether they think about it or not, does not depend upon the ability of these fundamental rights and liberties to be protected in an action in court if there is someone who violates that,” said Paul Grimm, a retired judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The consequences, judges warn, are already becoming visible in who’s willing to serve as a jurist, global shifts in judicial norms and the types of justice the U.S. system can still deliver.

Read more: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

#AmbiguousDecisions #democracy #EmergencyDocket #Endangered #FederalJudges #JudicialNorms #PartisanAttacks #PoliticizationOfJudges #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #StrainingCourts #USDistrictCourts #USJusticeSystem #UnitedStates

🎺 🇺🇸

Per #WSJ

Dozens of Jeffrey #Epstein victims’ names have been exposed in documents that were recently made public by #congress setting off a legal #dispute about the #JusticeDepartment’s plans to release more materials about the late sex offender.
Lawyers for the women have asked two #FederalJudges who oversaw the prosecutions of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to ensure that the victims’ privacy is protected in any additional document releases by the Justice Department.

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

Listen to this article · 11:18 min Learn more

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

By Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague

Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague cover the federal courts.

Oct. 11, 2025

Sign up for the Tilt newsletter, for Times subscribers only.  Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data. Try it for 4 weeks.

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.

The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

#Democrats #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudges #FederalJudicialSystem #Judges #JudicialCrisis #Republicans #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

Listen to this article · 11:18 min Learn more

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

By Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague

Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague cover the federal courts.

Oct. 11, 2025

Sign up for the Tilt newsletter, for Times subscribers only.  Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data. Try it for 4 weeks.

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.

The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

#Democrats #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudges #FederalJudicialSystem #Judges #JudicialCrisis #Republicans #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

Listen to this article · 11:18 min Learn more

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

By Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague

Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague cover the federal courts.

Oct. 11, 2025

Sign up for the Tilt newsletter, for Times subscribers only.  Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data. Try it for 4 weeks.

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.

The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

#Democrats #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudges #FederalJudicialSystem #Judges #JudicialCrisis #Republicans #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

Listen to this article · 11:18 min Learn more

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

By Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague

Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague cover the federal courts.

Oct. 11, 2025

Sign up for the Tilt newsletter, for Times subscribers only.  Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data. Try it for 4 weeks.

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.

The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

#Democrats #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudges #FederalJudicialSystem #Judges #JudicialCrisis #Republicans #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders

Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.

Listen to this article · 11:18 min Learn more

Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

By Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague

Mattathias Schwartz and Zach Montague cover the federal courts.

Oct. 11, 2025

Sign up for the Tilt newsletter, for Times subscribers only.  Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, makes sense of the latest political data. Try it for 4 weeks.

More than three dozen federal judges have told The New York Times that the Supreme Court’s flurry of brief, opaque emergency orders in cases related to the Trump administration have left them confused about how to proceed in those matters and are hurting the judiciary’s image with the public.

At issue are the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts. That emergency docket, a growing part of the Supreme Court’s work in recent years, has taken on greater importance amid the flood of litigation challenging President Trump’s efforts to expand executive power.

While the orders are technically temporary, they have had broad practical effects, allowing the administration to deport tens of thousands of people, discharge transgender military service members, fire thousands of government workers and slash federal spending.

The striking and highly unusual critique of the nation’s highest court from lower court judges reveals the degree to which litigation over Mr. Trump’s agenda has created strains in the federal judicial system.

Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office.

The judges responded to the questionnaire and spoke in interviews on the condition of anonymity so they could share their views candidly, as lower court judges are governed by a complex set of rules that include limitations on their public statements.

Of the judges who responded, 28 were nominated by Republican presidents, including 10 by Mr. Trump; 37 were nominated by Democrats. While those nominated by Democrats were more critical of the Supreme Court, judges nominated by presidents of both parties expressed concerns.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal Judges, Warning of ‘Judicial Crisis,’ Fault Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders – The New York Times

#Democrats #EmergencyOrders #FederalJudges #FederalJudicialSystem #Judges #JudicialCrisis #Republicans #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TheNewYorkTimes

Trump ally Michael Flynn submits ‘extreme’ legal brief brimming with bigotry in trans military case

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/talbott-amicus-brief-michael-flynn

Trump ally Michael Flynn submits ‘extreme’ legal brief brimming with bigotry in trans military case

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/talbott-amicus-brief-michael-flynn

Trump ally Michael Flynn submits ‘extreme’ legal brief brimming with bigotry in trans military case

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/talbott-amicus-brief-michael-flynn

Trump ally Michael Flynn submits ‘extreme’ legal brief brimming with bigotry in trans military case

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/talbott-amicus-brief-michael-flynn

Trump ally Michael Flynn submits ‘extreme’ legal brief brimming with bigotry in trans military case

https://web.brid.gy/r/https://www.advocate.com/news/talbott-amicus-brief-michael-flynn

Federal judges are above the law in the workplace: How a “Glassdoor for Judges” will help – GovTrack.us

 News From Us

Analysis and Commentary

Federal judges are above the law in the workplace: How a “Glassdoor for Judges” will help

Sept. 16, 2025 · by Aliza Shatzman

This guest post is from Aliza Shatzman, who in her first job after law school working for a judge learned the reality of judges’ conduct behind closed doors. She launched a transparency and accountability platform for recent law school graduates to rate their bosses and also advocates for policy reform.

While judges, regardless of party, rule for democracy, behind the bench, judges’ conduct is lawless and ungoverned. Judges regularly engage in misconduct that would be illegal — except that judges are exempt from all federal anti-discrimination laws.

Disturbingly, 1,700 federal judges who rule on issues of national significance and determine litigants’ lives, livelihoods, and liberty, are themselves above the laws they interpret. And more than 30,000 judicial branch employees — including judicial law clerks, permanent court staff, and federal public defenders — lack workplace protections, due to a legal loophole creating judicial immunity.

I learned the implications of this firsthand when, while serving as a judicial law clerk six years ago, I was harassed and discriminated against, fired, and retaliated against by the judge I worked for. When I tried to hold him accountable for attempting to destroy my career and reputation, I discovered law clerks like me are exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all federal anti-discrimination laws. I could not sue my harasser and seek redress. I filed a complaint, but I did not realize the judge’s friends decided whether to discipline him, since judges “self-police” their colleagues (much like Congress).

Judicial clerkships are prestigious first legal jobs where recent law graduates spend a year or two working closely with and learning from judges — researching, writing, going to court, and assisting with judicial decision-making. Clerks gain valuable insight into judges’ thinking, a coveted credential and, if they’re lucky, a lifelong mentor. But law schools almost never discuss potential downsides of clerking — the small, isolated, hierarchical work environment that’s ripe for abuse; lack of workplace protections and oversight; enormous power disparity between judge and clerk; and judges’ far-reaching power over clerks’ careers. Young attorneys are blinded to the hazards inherent in these unregulated work environments.

Because law schools are obsessed with placing as many students as possible into prestigious clerkships, they’re loath to collect and disseminate negative information about judges, necessitating a third-party, independent platform to collect information from graduates and disseminate it to students.

In 2022 I testified in support of the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA), which would finally extend anti-discrimination and whistleblower protections to the judiciary — protections extended to the other two branches of governmentin 1995.

Soon after, I launched The Legal Accountability Project (LAP), a court accountability and clerkship transparency nonprofit that’s leading the charge against harassment and workplace abuse in the courts.

A key aspect of LAP’s work is its award-winning, nationwide Clerkships Database (basically, “Glassdoor for Judges“), where clerks review their powerful, unaccountable bosses as managers — anonymously if they choose, to ensure candid responses. LAP’s Database — the largest independent repository of clerkship information in the U.S. — already contains nearly 2,000 candid reviews about approximately 1,200 federal and state judges, including information from every state, federal circuit, and most U.S. District Courts. It’s the only way for applicants to identify great bosses to apply to, and bad managers — or downright abusive judges — to avoid. LAP created accountability through transparency: there’s nothing imperious judges hate more than negative feedback they cannot see, dispute, or silence clerks from sharing through threats of retaliation.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Federal judges are above the law in the workplace: How a “Glassdoor for Judges” will help – GovTrack.us

#2025 #America #DonaldTrump #Education #FederalJudges #GlassdoorForJudges #GovTrack #GovTrackUs #Health #History #Judges #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates #Workplace

@Nonilex

"Because #SCOTUS is not explaining its #ShadowDocket rulings, #FederalJudges lack any meaningful guidance for future cases"

Necessary edit:

"Because the #JohnRoberts SCOTUS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of #LeonardLeo and the #FederalistSociety its Shadow Docket rulings deliberately lack any meaningful guidance for future cases.

SCOTUS will rule in favor of #DonaldTrump as King, at need. No further explanation is needed."

DOJ is walking back the White House’s goal to arrest 3,000 immigrants per day

Stephen Miller was unequivocal: Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers would seek to arrest 3,000 or more immigrants per…
#NewsBeep #News #Headlines #9thCircuitCourtofAppeals #administration #DonaldTrump #federaljudges #immigrants #immigrationlaw #JusticeDepartment #LosAngeles #massdeportation #quota #StephenMiller #UnitedStates #Us #USA #WhiteHouse
https://www.newsbeep.com/38122/

#Judges recount #DeathThreats, '#swatting' after rulings against #Trump

A group of #FederalJudges took the rare step of speaking out about receiving death threats & mysterious pizza deliveries in the name of a judge's #murdered son after they blocked parts of Trump's agenda.

"It was disturbing, it was frightening," Chief U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island said.

#law #StochasticTerrorism #DomesticViolentExtremists
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judges-recount-death-threats-swatting-after-rulings-against-trump-2025-07-31/

Trump’s Complaint About One Judge Is An Attack On The Entire Judiciary

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Trump’s Complaint About One Judge Is An Attack On The Entire Judiciary

The Constitution didn’t give the president the power to attack other branches of government. But that’s what Trump is doing.

Joyce Vance Jul 30, 2025

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Trump’s Complaint About One Judge Is An Attack On The Entire Judiciary

The Constitution didn’t give the president the power to attack other branches of government. But that’s what Trump is doing.

Joyce Vance Jul 30, 2025

On July 21, the Washington Post ran a piece headlined, “Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him.” A comprehensive analysis of hundreds of lawsuits filed against the administration’s new policies revealed “dozens of examples of defiance, delay and dishonesty,” by the government in handling the cases. Plaintiffs in more than a third of the cases that had progressed far enough for a judge to issue some type of ruling ordering the government to do—or not do—something accused the government of “snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked.”

That data suggests there are real reasons for the courts to be concerned about whether the Trump administration is gearing up to actively flout the authority of the Article III branch of government in a direct and unequivocal fashion. So far, the government has offered attenuated excuses for its most flagrant abuses, transparently designed to give them lawful ground to stand on. But as whistleblower allegations emerged during the shameful proceedings that led, just yesterday, to the confirmation of former Trump criminal defense lawyer Emil Bove to be a Third Circuit Judge, it became increasingly clear that they were just that, excuses. Bove, multiple witnesses confirm, had gone so far as to suggest that the government’s response to any judicial checks on Donald Trump’s plans to deport people to foreign prisons or war-torn countries would be “F***” the courts.”

Given that predicate, it should come as no surprise that judges are actively concerned. When the Judicial Conference of the United States met recently, the issue surfaced. That resulted in the Justice Department filing a complaint against District Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg. There is no way to soft-pedal this. The Trump administration wants to go to war with the federal judiciary. They’ve been moving that direction ever since the start of this administration.

A little background about the Judicial Conference, where DOJ alleges Judge Boasberg made inappropriate comments, to set the stage here. The Judicial Conference is a body consisting of federal judges from across the country who work together to represent the entire judiciary. It is the national policy-making body for the federal courts. The Chief Justice of the United States is the presiding officer. The members of the Conference are the chief judge of each of the federal judicial circuits, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each circuit. The judges serve for terms of between three and seven years, depending on the position they hold. They meet privately to conducts the courts’ business.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Trump’s Complaint About One Judge Is An Attack On The Entire Judiciary

#2025 #America #Authoritarianism #CivilDiscourse #Complaints #DonaldTrump #FederalJudges #Health #History #JoyceVance #Legal #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #RuleOfLaw #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

“Another whistleblower has come forward with evidence that raises serious concerns with Emil Bove’s misconduct. This is another damning indictment of a man who should never be a federal judge — and Senate Republicans will bear full responsibility for the consequences if they rubber stamp Mr. Bove’s nomination”

https://wapo.st/45asNIS

#EmilBove #Bove #DoJ #Judiciary #FederalJudges #law #fedilaw #GiftArticle #GiftLink #KilmerAbregoGarcia

Insane

The #Trump admin filed a lawsuit against ALL 15 #FederalJudges in #Maryland over a #CourtOrder blocking the immediate #deportation of #immigrants challenging their removals, ratcheting up a fight w/the federal #judiciary over #Trump’s #ExecutivePower.

The remarkable action lays bare the admin’s determination to exert its will over #immigration enforcement as well as its exasperation w/ [the #law] judges who have blocked #lawless #ExecutiveBranch actions.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-immigration-judges-lawsuit-170f6b00cc80b88f0120a079ac8818b0

Republican Attempt To Rein In #FederalJudges Is Stripped From Trump's Big Bill

Senate Democrats forced the removal of a provision in Republicans' sweeping domestic policy bill that sought to restricted the power of courts to block federal government policies with injunctions or restraining orders.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-attempt-rein-federal-judges-stripped-trumps-big-bill-rcna214483

#DemVictory #Trump2.0 #BlackMastodon

Federal judges are powerful. Some of their law clerks describe a toxic work culture

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/09/nx-s1-5382447/federal-judges-workplace-clerks

There is rot everywhere.
#usa #judiciary #federalJudges #lawClerks #harrassment

Political scientist Adam Bonica analyzed about 300 recent federal cases involving the Trump regime and discovered that #judges are using language which we’re not accustomed to hearing from the federal bench.

“They’re begging us to pay attention.”

#judiciary #courts #federalcourts #federaljudges #adambonica

https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/federal-judges-are-begging-us-to?r=10322&triedRedirect=true

@georgetakei

More shitty judicial nominees expected.

#justice #federaljudges #judicialnominees #ruleoflaw #ethics

Trump goes after Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society in fury over court ruling – Politico

President Donald Trump’s over-the-top trashing of Leonard Leo, a devout Catholic, as a “sleazebag” could further sour the president’s relationship with some longtime legal conservatives. | Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

Trump goes after Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society in fury over court ruling

Trump’s attack came after the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down his tariffs, a blow to the primary pillar of his economic agenda.

By Gregory Svirnovskiy and Josh Gerstein, 05/29/2025 10:13 PM EDT

President Donald Trump leveled unusually pointed criticism of a prominent conservative legal activist and organization Thursday as he railed against a ruling that struck down his sweeping tariffs.

The president, in a post on his social media platform, slammed Leonard Leo, the former chair of the Federalist Society, calling him a “sleazebag” who “probably hates America.

It was a striking characterization of Leo, who played a key role in working with Trump to shape the conservative Supreme Court.

“He openly brags how he controls Judges, and even Justices of the United States Supreme Court — I hope that is not so, and don’t believe it is!,” Trump wrote.

Trump’s attack came after the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday struck down his tariffs, a massive blow to the primary pillar of the administration’s economic agenda. The ruling was temporarily stayed by an appellate court on Thursday. One of the judges on the three-person panel that blocked the tariffs is Timothy Reif, who was appointed by Trump in his first term.

The blame, Trump said, lay with the Federalist Society.

“I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations,” he wrote. “This is something that cannot be forgotten!”

Leo, in a brief statement in response, did not criticize the president.

“I’m very grateful for President Trump transforming the Federal Courts, and it was a privilege being involved,” Leo said. “There’s more work to be done, for sure, but the Federal Judiciary is better than it’s ever been in modern history, and that will be President Trump’s most important legacy.”

Source Links: Trump goes after Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society in fury over court ruling – POLITICO

#CryBaby #FederalJudges #FederalistSociety #LeonardLeo #Politico #Project2025 #Sleazebag #Tariffs #Trump

Now would be a great time for all Federal judges to band together and figure out how to stop Trump’s abuses and hold him accountable.

#Judiciary #FederalJudges #StopTrump #USPol #RightMatters #LawMatters #JusticeMatters

@samlitzinger

#FBI to any #FederalJudges from here on out

"I'm going to light you up"

🎺

And so it fully begins. Federal judges arrested in their own courthouses sounds like MAGA goals.

#fascism #FederalJudges #arrests #idiocy

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CtVv7THWCKo&si=mvHLVkmJuIs8kjd2

#JoshHawley introduces #Senate bill to limit #power of #FederalJudges in wake of #DJT insolence over checks and balances from #judiciary branch as #WhiteHouse steps up attacks on judges who place limits on #PresidentialPower. House #GOP are already pursuing #impeachment against more than a half-dozen federal district court judges who made rulings against #Drumpf.

#GiftLink #SharedStory and https://wapo.st/4iBukwD

The Trump Administration is moving toward purposely causing a constitutional crisis by openly defying #CourtOrders, setting up a show down with the #SupremeCourt as #FederalJudges struggle to use their contempt powers to reign in Trump. @mspopok.bsky.social explains youtu.be/-9WLTT2SOa4?...

Trump CREATES CRISIS of HIS OW...

'Full-Scale #Authoritarian Takeover': #Vance and #Musk Take Aim at #FederalJudges

"We must push back hard against these next leaps down the pathway to #tyranny," said one Democratic in the House.

by Jon Queally
Feb 09, 2025

"Facing a string of judicial rulings in recent days that have struck down or at least put on hold a variety of efforts by the Trump administration that appeared to overstep its executive authority, both Vice President JD Vance and billionaire oligarch Elon Musk on Sunday took aim at the power of judges by saying their powers—despite being the recognized co-equal and third branch of the U.S. government—should be curbed or disregarded.

"'If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,' Vance tweeted Sunday morning, in a legally dubious post. Despite the claim, military generals are not free—either from laws of war, international human rights treaties, or chains of command—to do anything they please.

"'If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal,' Vance continued. 'Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.'

"Shortly before Vance's tweet, Musk, the world's richest person and who has been tasked by Trump to run the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) effort to dismantle key government agencies and programs, floated the idea that life-time appointed judges should, based on a set annual quota, be subject to termination by the political party in power. Currently, both chambers of Congress and the White House are controlled by Republicans.

"'I'd like to propose that the worst 1% of appointed judges, as determined by elected bodies, be fired every year,' Musk said on Sunday morning. 'This will weed out the most corrupt and least competent.'

"Over the last week, federal judges have intervened to block DOGE efforts to have unfettered access to a key Treasury Department payment system and also blocked the so-called 'Fork in the Road' offer to federal workers put forth by the unsanctioned Musk-led team at #DOGE.

"After a U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer responded to a suit brought by 18 state attorneys general on Friday by blocking DOGE access to the Treasury system, Musk retweeted a message suggesting that the best thing to do might be to ignore the order."

Read more:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/musk-vance-judges
#Fascism #AuthoritarianRule #ResistFascism #USPol

@heidilifeldman So they just need to take the next 2–4 years to make the situation (semi-)permanent.

Orbán in Hungary took the better part of a decade to do that, but he started with an intact system. But the #GOP has captured #SCOTUS for decades to come, controls #Congress and the #WH and how many #FederalJudges have been selected by #Trump45 ? And compliant media, surveillance internet companies, militarized police, and an oligarchy of billionaires to help out.

US attorney general’s professionalism can protect Americans’ privacy, former federal judge explains https://theconversation.com/us-attorney-generals-professionalism-can-protect-americans-privacy-former-federal-judge-explains-244390
#politics #federaljudges #cabinet

Eventually, the Framers of the #Constitution arrived at the system we have today. To preserve #independence, #FederalJudges are nominated by #POTUS but must be approved by #Senate. #Congress sets #judicial #salaries, which cannot be reduced. Judges have lifetime tenure, so they don’t fear that they will be removed for any particular decision. They can be impeached by Congress for #misconduct, but this is rare—only 15 federal #judges have been #impeached since 1789, all but 5 of them before 1937.

#President #JoeBiden administration’s #LGBTQ+ #education #protections #upheld by #Trump #judge in major #victory.

After a string of #Partisan #federaljudges #ruled against the #protections, a #Trump #judge upheld them.

#Women #Transgender #LGBTQ #LGBTQIA #Alabama #Conservatives #Extremism #Fascism #Courts #Corruption #Partisanship #RepublicanParty #Hate #Bigotry #Violence #Genocide #Discrimination #Transphobia #ThePartyOfHate

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/07/biden-administrations-lgbtq-education-protections-upheld-by-trump-judge-in-major-victory/

#Corrupt #Federaljudge #MatthewKacsmaryk: #drag is ‘vulgar and lewd,’ ‘sexualized conduct’

#Ruling ‘#bristles with #hostility toward #LGBTQ #people’ in clear #violation of the #rulesofconduct for #federaljudges.

#Women #Transgender #LGBTQ #LGBTQIA #Courts #Conservatives #Extremism #Fascism #RepublicanParty #Hate #Bigotry #Violence #Genocide #Discrimination #Transphobia #ThePartyOfHate

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2023/09/22/federal-judge-drag-is-vulgar-lewd-sexualized-conduct/