10 TODD BLANCHE: Let's just go a few more 11 minutes and take a break, I know it's after lunch. 12 So do you -- we talked several hours ago 13 about your father and his business a little bit. 14 After your father passed, do you know 15 whether Mr. Epstein was involved in your family 16 business, that you know of? 17 GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Absolutely not, in any 18 respect. First of all, there was no family business 19 left. Start with that problem. And the second one 20 is, my family didn't like him very much. And they 21 were busy dealing with their own problems and there 22 was no relationship whatsoever. 23 Oh, I mean, he -- my mum and he got along 24 quite well. That was it. But that was -- she's an 25 old lady and, you know, he was nice to her. Page 164 1 TODD BLANCHE: We're repeat -- we're now 2 being a little repetitive, but you're confident that 3 before you met Mr. Epstein, he didn't know your 4 father, and so there's no -- he wouldn't have done 5 business with your father's companies in the '80s 6 either. 7 GHISLAINE MAXWELL: Absolutely not. I'm a 8 hundred percent sure of that. I never met him. I 9 never saw him. I never heard his name. No. 10 Nothing.
According to former Israeli military intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe,who I first interviewed in December 2019, Epstein’s affiliation with Israeli intelligence dated back at least to the mid-1980s, when Ben-Menashe was personally introduced to Epstein by Robert Maxwell. Per Ben-Menashe, Maxwell introduced Epstein as having been approved by the "higher ups" in the Israeli intelligence network where Ben-Menashe and Maxwell were both operating. The introduction reportedly occurred at Maxwell’s offices in London.85
During this period, Ben-Menashe has stated that he believes one of these "higher ups" was Ehud Barak, the future Prime Minister of Israel who was head of the Israeli military intelligence directorate AMAN from 1983 to 1985. Ben-Menashe could not recall the exact date of his introduction to Epstein, but stated that it occurred within that 1983-1985 period in which Barak held this post. Barak would later become infamous for his close proximity, not only to Epstein, but his sex trafficking/sex blackmail operation, which is discussed in the next chapter.
In a September 2019 interview with journalist and former CBS News producer Zev Shalev, he stated "he [Maxwell] wanted us to accept him [Epstein] as part of our group.… I’m not denying that we were at the time a group that it was Nick Davies [Foreign Editor of the Maxwell-Owned Daily Mirror], it was Maxwell, it was myself and our team from Israel, we were doing what we were doing."86
Past reporting by Seymour Hersh and others revealed that Maxwell, Davies, and Ben-Menashe were involved in the transfer and sale of military equipment and weapons from Israel to Iran on behalf of Israeli intelligence during this time period. Ben-Menashe was not aware of Epstein being involved in arms deals for anyone else he knew at the time, but did confirm that Maxwell wanted to involve Epstein in the arms transfer in which he, Davies, and Ben-Menashe were engaged on Israel’s behalf.
After the initial introduction, Ben-Menashe would witness Epstein at Maxwell’s offices on several occasions, stating that Epstein was "frequently present" at that location. Ben-Menashe stated specifically that Epstein "used to be in [Robert Maxwell’s] office [in London] quite often" and would arrive there between trips to and from Israel.87 Ben-Menashe also asserted that Ghislaine Maxwell accompanied her father so frequently that she was involved in his intelligence-related activities to some extent. However, he stopped short of saying how involved she was or what she had specifically been involved in prior to her father’s death. Ghislaine’s early life and her relationship with her father is detailed in Chapter 15.
Aside from Ben-Menashe’s claims, there are also statements made by Steven Hoffenberg that, during the late 1980s, Epstein had boasted of his ties to Israel’s intelligence services, claiming that it had been Ghislaine Maxwell who had made the introduction.88 Furthemore, Zev Shalev reported that another well-placed and independent source, who has remained anonymous, had corroborated Ben-Menashe’s assertions that Epstein had been an intelligence asset for Israel.89
Close ties to Israel’s government later in his life can also be seen in an odd visit Epstein made to Israel in 2008. The visit was odd partly due to the timing, as it took place during the course of his trial and just a few months before he was sentenced to prison in June 2008. In April of that year, the Palm Beach Daily News reported that Epstein was staying at the Tel Aviv Hilton and quoted an Epstein spokesman as saying that he was "spending Passover, meeting with Israeli research scientists, and taking a tour of military bases."90 Access to military bases is certainly not something easily obtained by tourists to Israel, even very wealthy ones, again suggesting that Epstein had long-standing connections to Israel’s national security apparatus, along with his "friendship" to Ehud Barak.
Top Trumper Is ARRESTED For SPIKING Grandchild’s ICE CREAM Occupy Democrats Aug 29, 2025
A top North Carolina Trumper just got arrested for a truly disturbing crime against his own granddaughter.
Transcript
Another day, another Trumploving politician arrested for child [DELETE]. Anyone noticing a disconcerting pattern here? If your answer is no, stay with me. Your tune is about to change. Welcome to Occupy Democrats. I'm David Reddish. Donald Trump and MAGA have a kitty problem. While the Republican party continues to target schools for educating children rather than indoctrinating them or drag queens reading to children or banning books like the diary of Anne Frank for revealing the evils of anti-semitism and fascism. Gee, I wonder why a litany of MAGA politicos keep running into trouble with the law for child abuse. Take for example the original Trumper Matt Gates. The Department of Justice investigation into Florida Congressman Matt Gates is focused on payments he and another Florida official allegedly made to women for sex. According to the latest report in the New York Times, The Times says the meetups happened in 2019 and 2020 and that the men paid the women via mobile apps and sometimes cash. The Republican lawmaker has not been charged and vehemently denies the accusations. It is a horrible allegation and it is a lie. According to the Times and AP, investigators are also looking into whether Gates violated federal sex trafficking laws by allegedly having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paying for her to travel with him. Or then just two months ago, there was the issue of Freedom Caucus founder R.J. May. We want to begin with breaking news. We are learning more information about a Lexington County representative who has been charged with some disturbing allegations this midday. We're learning South Carolina State Representative R.J. May has been indicted by a federal grand jury on 10 counts related to the distribution of child. The 38-year-old Lexon County lawmaker is in federal court right now. This after he was arrested on Wednesday. Now, investigators say May used the messaging app Kick under a false name to share graphic videos involving minors. The activity was first flagged in May of 2024 and linked to May's home IP address and his cell phone. He now faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted. Following the indictment, House Speaker Muriel Smith suspended May from office without pay. News9 at this very moment is in federal court and we'll continue to follow this story and update you on air and online at wltx.com. Those two stooges are bad. Stay tuned. But wait, you say this is all coincidental. Donald Trump himself has nothing to do with it. Well, as my grandmother likes to say, you can tell a man by the company he keeps. And apart from Donald Trump being an adjudicated rapist, a close friend of Jeffrey Epstein, the sex trafficker, and apart from 27 women accusing him of sexual abuse, not to mention his making creepy comments about lusting after his daughter Ivanka, Trump has a cabinet full of accused sexual predators. Pete Hegth, RFK Jr., Elon Musk, Linda McMahon, the list goes on and on. MAGA has a child abuse problem. And if you need further proof, here it is. Meet Jamie Yley, the chairman of the Suriri County Board of Elections in North Carolina. Earlier this month, he tipped off police that a Dairy Queen was slipping ice cream. As it turns out, he knew more than he was telling. Wilmington police say James Yley put pill ice cream of kids earlier this month. Just moments ago, the director of the Siri County Board of Elections confirmed to 12 Investigates that the chair was arrested. Now, police say that video footage shows Chairman Yley putting ice cream from Dairy Queen that was given to kids. Investigators say they were alerted from Yoki himself about the act. But when investigators looked into the matter, they learned the suspect was the tipster Yi. He was arrested just yesterday and faced a judge earlier today. He now faces four felony charges, including child abuse. 12 investigates has obtained has tested positive for cocaine a we just received a statement from the state board of elections. It reads the state board of elections and Siri County Board of Elections are aware of the charges against Mr. Yokley, the chair of the Siri County Board of Elections. We will continue to collect information about the situation and will provide support to the Suriri County Board as needed to ensure it is able to continue serving the county's voters. End quote. He's expected to be in court next month. So I ask you, dear viewer, was Yi just trying to portray himself as a hero, a man blowing the whistle on sleazy ice cream scoopers for attention and glory? Or was he trying to get his granddaughters high as a sexual stimulant? Maybe he had something in mind besides ice cream. But then what do you expect from a movement founded by perverted predators? If you ask me, they're far more insidious than grandmothers who might be in the country illegally, or teachers telling children about the role slavery and racism played in causing the Civil War. I think these people are far more dangerous than journalists or even cabinet officials who criticize policy or who, you know, share the truth with the world. So much for the party of law, order, and moral fortitude. This is occupied Democrats.
Trump's NIGHTMARE gets WORSE as Judge DOUBLES DOWN Legal AF Aug 30, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69566723/make-the-road-new-york-v-huffman/ MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK v. NOEM (1:25-cv-00190) District Court, District of Columbia Last Updated: Aug. 30, 2025, 10:59 a.m. Assigned To: Jia M. Cobb https://ia803408.us.archive.org/31/item ... 4.64.0.pdf UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants. Case No. 25-cv-190 (JMC)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
For nearly three decades, the federal government has subjected noncitizens apprehended at the border to fast-paced summary removal. Using that procedure, these people are quickly turned back across the border, typically after a single conversation with an immigration officer. This process, known as expedited removal, has long been applied to noncitizens “who are apprehended immediately proximate to the land border and [who] have negligible ties or equities in the [United States].” Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 Fed. Reg. 48877-01, 48879 (Aug. 11, 2004).1
Recently, the Government departed from this longstanding practice. In January 2025, the Government expanded the scope of expedited removal to noncitizens apprehended anywhere in the United States. And in the last few months, the Government has made aggressive use of its newly expanded expedited removal power. When people have appeared in immigration courts for their normally paced immigration proceedings, for instance, the Government has moved to dismiss 1 Unless otherwise indicated, the formatting of citations has been modified throughout this opinion, for example, by omitting internal quotation marks, emphases, citations, and alterations and by altering capitalization. All pincites to documents filed on the docket in this case are to the automatically generated ECF Page ID number that appears at the top of each page. Case 1:25-cv-00190-JMC Document 64 Filed 08/29/25 Page 1 of 48 2 those proceedings, promptly arrested individuals inside of those courts, and then shuttled them into much faster moving—and much less procedurally robust—expedited removal proceedings. Days later, these people find themselves removed. The problem, though, is that unlike the group of people who have traditionally been subject to expedited removal—those detained at or near the border shortly after crossing—the group of people the Government is now subjecting to expedited removal have long since entered our country. That means that they have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment. When it exponentially expanded the population subject to expedited removal, the Government did not, however, in any way adapt its procedures to this new group of people. But when it comes to people living in the interior of the country, prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process. That is because most noncitizens living in the interior have been here longer than two years, rendering them ineligible for expedited removal, and many are seeking asylum or another form of immigration relief, entitling them to further process before they can be removed. The procedures the Government currently uses in expedited removal, however, create a significant risk that it will not identify these disqualifying criteria before quickly ordering someone removed. And the lack of available review means that once the removal happens, it is largely too late to correct the error. In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them. Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk. The Government could accuse you of entering unlawfully, relegate you to a bare-bones proceeding where it would “prove” your unlawful entry, and then immediately Case 1:25-cv-00190-JMC Document 64 Filed 08/29/25 Page 2 of 48 3 remove you. By merely accusing you of entering unlawfully, the Government would deprive you of any meaningful opportunity to disprove its allegations. Fortunately, that is not the law. The Constitution guarantees that “no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.” A. A. R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1367 (2025). That is equally true of those here unlawfully, who are “entitle[d] . . . to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings.” Id. Plaintiff Make the Road has made a strong showing that the Government’s expansion of expedited removal violates the due process rights of those it affects. So too has the organization demonstrated that its members will be irreparably harmed if the designation and guidance effectuating the expansion are not stayed. Because the public interest and equities also favor Make the Road, the Court will GRANT the requested stay. In so holding, the Court does not cast doubt on the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute, nor on its longstanding application at the border. It merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the Government must afford them due process. The procedures currently in place fall short.
Judge Cobb, who is already not happy with the Trump Administration in denying due process 5th Amendment rights to a Governor of the Federal Reserve, just blasted them for denying Due Process to migrants who have been in this country for longer than 2 years in a new decision. Popok pulls it all together in his new hot take.
Donald Trump thinks along with his Department of Justice and Homeland Security that he is an unstoppable object. But meet the immovable force of one federal judge named Gia Cobb. Judge Cobb, appointed by Joe Biden, now has three separate cases in front of her, including a new ruling from yesterday in which she has blocked the Trump administration from denying due process rights that she finds quote unquote skimpy, where he's trying to deport people who have long been in this country, who are not anywhere near the border, and try to send them off without any due process at all, including arresting them at immigration court, throwing them in the back of a van, and making them disappear. Not under her watch, not under her new ruling that I'm going to cover right now on Legal AF here. Take a moment, hit the free subscribe button if you like this kind of content. That's what keeps us on the air. Who is Gia Cobb? Gia Cobb is the same judge. I'll be talking about her throughout the day and on Legal AF Substack and Substack Live who's handling and presiding over the case brought by the Federal Reserve Board of Governor uh Lisa Cook and about her termination and there's due process issues that she's uncomfortable with in that case as well. She's also the judge that just this couple of weeks ago blocked the removal of people that had have been applying for asylum here in the United States. Also finding that due process was not properly complied with under the fifth amendment of the constitution. Here the Trump administration tried to expand by executive order their removal powers. Now, the removal powers of the president at the border, literally the border, or up to a 100 miles of the border, have already been affirmed by the United States Supreme Court. You want to do expedited proceedings that have little or no due process, this United States Supreme Court MAGA majority doesn't seem to have a problem with it. However, as you get deeper into the interior of the country, and the people have been here longer, they didn't just recently sort of cross the border. They've been here for quite some time laying down roots, paying taxes, doing jobs, working with dignity. Then Judge Cobb says they have a vested interest that can't be disturbed without providing fifth amendment due process rights. Let me read to you from the actual order so you know what I'm talking about here. Um, she has a third a 48page order and here's what she had to say in her new ruling. For nearly three decades, the federal government has subjected non-citizens apprehended at the border to fast-paced summary removal. Using that procedure, these people are quickly turned back across the border, usually by a single conversation with an immigration officer. See, no real need for due process rights. Recently though, the government departed from this long-standing practice, as page one of the order, and expanded the scope to non-citizens apprehended anywhere in the United States. and they have been using this aggressive newly expanded removal power. The problem though, the judge continues on page two, is that unlike the group of people who have been traditionally been subject subject to expedited removal, those detained at or near the border who have no real vested interest, right? They just got here. They just put their foot on US soil. The group of people the government is now subjecting to expedited removal have long since entered our country. That means this is this is listen to the judge's words here that they because they've had their feet on solid US soil for so long have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore it must be afforded due process under the fifth amendment when it exponentially expanded the population subject to expedited removal. The government did not in any way adapt its procedures to this new group of people. But when it comes to people living in the interior of the country, prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process. That is because most non-citizens living in the interior have been here longer than 2 years, rendering them ineligible for expedited removals. You can't even use that procedure. And the lack of available review means that once the removal happens, it is largely too late to correct the error. The judge continues on page two over to three. In defending the skimpy process, the government makes a truly startling argument. Not the first one she's heard this week. I'll I'll I'll put you on the the edge of your seat for what she said yesterday in Lisa Cook's hearing here about these migrants being deported without due process. She says, "The government makes a truly startling argument that those who enter the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them. Were that right, not only non-citizens, but everyone would be at risk. The government could accuse you of entering unlawfully, relegate you to a bare bones proceeding where you would prove your unlawful entry, and then uh and then immediately remove you. By merely accusing you of entering unlawfully, the government would deprive you of meaningful opportunity to disprove its allegations. Fortunately, that is not the law. The Constitution guarantees that no person shall be removed from the United States without opportunity at some point to be heard, citing a case from 2025 involving Donald Trump. That is equally true of of those here unlawfully who are entitled to due process of the law in the context of removal proceedings. and she has therefore granted the preliminary injunction on summary judgement um and stopped this proceeding. Now the reason I wanted to point out Judge Cobb is because properly so along with other federal judges she is a protector of due process and fifth amendment rights. It drives her baddy when the Trump administration comes in almost tongue and cheek and says yeah we're not giving them any due process rights because uh because why? They've been here two years already. They have a vested equity interest in staying in this country and they have a constitutional right to it as well. But to but to the Trump administration, it's just like throw them in the van, get them in the train, get them out of here. You know, listen, my people were um a lot of the popox no longer exist because they were put on trains without due process and taken to internment camps and concentration camps, never to be seen from again. So, I have a special sensitivity to these particular issues. So does Judge Gia Cop. She just said yesterday, and I have a separate hottake and a separate live video that's up on Substack Live right now about this. In the case involving the Federal Reserve Chairman, Lisa Cook, the lawyers for the Trump administration actually looked her in the eye and said, uh, when she said, "Well, how are you going to fire her as Federal Reserve governor without due process?" You know, somebody you have to prove up that she committed some sort of misconduct, some sort of uh uh, you know, mal malfeasants in office. And a judge, I would assume, has to has to address that. What is your version of due process? Oh, there was a I'm I'm paraphrasing only slightly. There was a mean tweet. She said, "Excuse me? You're not you're not claiming that the social media post by Trump's person, Bill Py, accusing her of mortgage fraud is due and her not responding to the social media post is her due process." Yes, I am. I'll let that land on the table for a minute. You can see where Judge Cobb is developing her own allergy to the Trump administration's arguments about due process, can't you? Three weeks ago, she said, "You're not going to be able to take away people who are here on temporary asylum without due process." In this case, from yesterday, she issued her opinion, which I'll post on legal AF Substack, in which she says, "You're not going to be able to take these people away either who have been here for two years or more using your summary removal status." It's not like somebody came across the border, has no vested interest in being in America, got their toe on US soil, and therefore got turned around. You say, "No, they need due process." She says, "I get that, and I get the Supreme Court's ruling, and I will follow it, but people who have been living here for two years, you got to go through a due process process in order in order to satisfy the fifth amendment in the Constitution." And we're all at risk if the if the uh federal government was able to do that. I mean, that's a very great point that she's making, that the government could could determine whether you have due process rights or not by the way that they capture you. If they capture you and apply this statute, they would cut off your due process rights and you'd have to you'd have no ability to be heard from. But if if the judges step in on due process, then they wouldn't be able to do this. So, what's going to happen? She sits in DC. The Trump administration may or may not take an appeal. We used to automatically say, "Well, the Trump administration will take an appeal." But there are plenty of cases where the Trump administration is picking their battles and they're not taking cases to the next level of appeal and they're folding their cards. Uh we've we've covered a number of these examples where the Trump administration's like, "Yeah, uh we're on a losing streak a little bit. Let's let's stop pressing a losing hand." and funding is coming out for certain organizations. Um, they've relented on certain types of cases. Now, they're still taking the ones that they really really want up to the United States Supreme Court, which has given them 16 wins against about eight losses. So, but they're they're not taking all of them. There's thousands of cases that are down to the federal courts, 400 against the Trump administration right now. They're not all going to end up at the United States Supreme Court. So, we'll see if they decide to challenge this particular ruling. And if they do, I'll I'll update you on it right here on Legal AF. Thank you for being here on Saturday, a long uh Labor Day weekend celebrating organized labor uh on uh on our Saturday. We'll continue to bring you videos all weekend through Monday.
Trump's ENTIRE SCHEME Gets TOSSED Out of COURT... AGAIN!?! Legal AF Aug 30, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
In breaking news, in a 7-4 decision the Court of Appeals for the Fed Circuit has struck down Trump's Tariff scheme as unconstitutional and illegal. Popok explains what happens next with part of the case being sent to the lower court to resolve an issue about the injunction, and the case being stayed while the Supreme Court takes up the issue.
Transcript
We got some breaking and shocking news. Donald Trump's tariffs have been put on life support because they've been called into question and have been declared unconstitutional and illegal by a 7 to 4 decision of the federal uh circuit court of appeals who have ruled against the tariff scheme. At least two major elements of Donald Trump's tariff scheme. his reciprocal tariffs. Remember all those in April in the Rose Garden, all 150 different nations that got up to 20% reciprocal tariffs and his uh trafficking tariffs, the retaliatory tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and China related allegedly to opioid trade. And so this 7 to4 decision which was split I wouldn't say along uh party lines but you had Obama and Biden supporters who sided with President Trump and you've got Biden and Obama and Clinton uh nominees I should say who uh were siding against him. So the Democrats split but it was 7 to4 and there's going to be two results from this decision which I will go into in detail here on Legal AF Saturday morning. One is the case is also going back on a remand from this appellet panel back to the trial court level which is the court of uh the court of international trade in New York because they want that court to take a look at if they need to modify the injunction the thing that blocked these tariffs from going into place to make sure it's compliant with the United States Supreme Court decision from a couple of months ago in a case we call CASA where the court said federal judges should not in general use nationwide injunctions. They should only have injunctions that are narrow to the parties in front of them. The parties that are in front of them who brought this case is a group of small businesses and about 14 or 15 states. So the question is, do we narrow the injunction to only apply to those things? How do you do that with a international tariff scheme that is the very heart of Donald Trump's economic policy? But they sent it back for that. They also stayed their decision which declares unconstitutional and illegal Trump's um tariff program until the Supreme Court can rule on it or take it up in October. But you now have a second group of judges. It was 3-0 at the Court of International Trade, 7 to four now. So if you want to look at the math, 10 uh 10 out of 14 judges that have looked at the issue have all said Donald Trump did something unconstitutional and illegal. But that's the procedure. You're here on Legal AF. That's your procedure. Hit the hit the subscribe button while we're here as I continue to talk about what happened here on this Saturday morning. Okay. How do we get here? About uh 6 months ago, uh two groups brought their cases to different judges about Trump's tariffs, claiming the small businesses and business and the states claiming that Trump did not have the power to do it, that Trump's power exceeded the constitution, that Congress did not delegate that authority to him and would have to do it expressly. And there's nowhere in the international economic u emergency procedures act that gives the president that power. That was sort of how the issue was framed. It goes to an it was originally in front of two different judges. Trump moved it cuz he didn't want it in in this uh one particular court. Moved it to New York to the Court of International Trade, a specialty court that deals with trade issues. They make a ruling against Donald Trump 300. Of course, he hates it. They stayed their issue where the next court stayed that injunction. That's why Trump's been able to continue to tout these things, continue to promote these tariffs, use them as a bludgeon against his negotiating partners, and collect billions of dollars. All at risk, by the way, because of this new this new order. It then gets consolidated. These two different cases, the small businesses and the states that those two cases come together, end up in one package, and end up at the the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Full briefing there. This is onbunk meaning all the judges one sat out. So there were 11 voting judges. They held they held oral argument a month ago. We reported on it and we thought things were going poorly for the Trump administration especially when Judge Raina who ended up in the majority said something like I'm going to make this simple. Point to me where in the statute in that Congress created and passed there is one mention in the International Economic Emergency Procedures Act one that says you can fine tax or levy the way you're doing it. It says a bunch of other things about how you can regulate in when there's when there's an economic emergency but show me where they use that language and if it's missing isn't that fatal to your case. So when we we were all like well that was a good way to start off the oral argument and that's sort of what prevailed in the unsigned opinion percurion meaning seven got together they all collaboratively drafted it there's a couple of people that wrote their own concurrences or additional statements and four that voted against. That's how that worked. Majority wins. Fundamentally, how did they come to their decision that Trump did an illegal unconstitutional thing? They found that for two reasons. One, they said nowhere in AIPA is there language that gives the the president the power to tariff duty uh or impose taxes. Lots of other powers that are expressly mentioned, but nothing expressly in there. And therefore, under a doctrine that the Supreme Court calls the major question doctrine, which means that when Congress speaks, they speak clearly. And if it's a major issue like you're we're going to give you our constitutional power as Congress under article one president to to take over and we're just going to give it to you to tax and uh and tariff, which is our our constitutional power only under article one. We're going to give that to you, president, under article two. It has to be expressly provided in the statute delegating that authority. And since it isn't, then therefore Congress did not mean to accidentally delegate all that authority of tariffing over to the president. That's the major argument. That's how it's going to go up to the United States Supreme Court. Exactly like that. This is what they had to say in their ruling. We're talking about AIPA. AIPA provides that after declaring a national emergency pursuant to um another statute. The president may investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit any importation or exportation of any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest. Notably, the opinion continues, IPA does not use the word tariffs, duties, nor any similar terms like customs, taxes, or imposts. IPA also does not have a residual clause granting the president power beyond those which are explicitly listed. Now, we're back to major question. Congress knows how to give the power to tax, the power to excise, the power to impose some sort of duty to the president because they use it in the statute and that's missing from AIPA. And that is the sole basis for Donald Trump's power. Without AIPA, the ability to declare an economic emergency, then he's not going to be able to do it. And they didn't even go into they said we're not even going to go into whether AIPA allows any kind of tariffs or whether the the the declaration of a national emergency because of a trade imbalance. You know, meaning Donald Trump woke up one day and realized, whoa, we're we're um we're exporting more than we're importing or we're importing more than we're exporting and we have a trade imbalance. It's an emergency. I mean, it's not really an emergency. It's been going on for 10 years, including during the first Trump administration. But the the court said, "We're not even dealing with that. We're not even going to get into whether he properly declared his powers under AEIPA. We'll assume that he has even with those powers do the reciprocal tariffs against 150 countries, which is trying to fix the trade imbalance somehow by a percentage, or that the um trafficking tariffs against countries that aren't doing enough to stop the fentinel trade according to Donald Trump. Does he have the power to do that? And they answered 7 to4 they do not. Now there are tariffs that are not part of this order in this decision that remain standing. We call them sectoral tariffs. They have to do with things like um sectors, not countries. Like the duties he's imposed on steel, aluminum, copper, computer chips, certain type of equipment, automobiles, you know, um metal, all of that would stay. But the ones just globally against every country, which averages about 20% in real tariffs, they are now struck down. Subject to, however, to be to be clear, subject to two components, two two new roads, sending back the case to the Court of International Trade to determine whether the injunction itself blocking these tariffs needs to be narrowed in any way. My gut is that they're going to say that that it does not it does not have to be. the fact that the states are involved, which is what under the case from the summer, the Supreme Court said, "We don't like international uh national injunctions, universal injunctions being imposed by trial courts, but we'll allow it if states are involved." Well, I think the states are involved here, the 14 states that brought the case. So, I think that injunction is going to survive and then there's this ultimate block until October when the Supreme Court comes back into in session. So, Trump can continue to collect these tariffs. Now, he's busy attacking all the judges once again um and saying he'll he'll survive and he'll and he'll prevail and United States will prevail. They were so worried about this judgment coming out last night, they must have sensed it was coming because it's been sitting around for a few weeks because yesterday before the judgment, the order came out. All of a sudden, they made a new filing after the case was closed, after the record was closed, after the oral arguments were all over and they were busy writing this or getting this into final. They suddenly submitted uh affidavits or declarations or letters from the Treasury Secretary Scott Bent, the Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik, and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said nothing about the law, nothing about the facts. It's just we'll be embarrassed. I'm not making this up. We'll be embarrassed. It'll be an international embarrassment. It'll lead to the the ending of the peace negotiations in Russia and Ukraine. It, this is what they wrote, it'll be a a a financial a financial disaster for America, you know, and a financial crisis if you if you don't declare that he has those powers. Look, why don't you just say there's nothing in the law that allows this, but you're throwing yourself on the mercy and you're trying to put political pressure on the judges to give you a power that doesn't exist. There's a reason no president in history has ever tried to use AIPA to impose these types of tariffs. The only thing close was Nixon on a predecessor statute where he imposed a tariff and they said, "Yeah, but that's more like a sanction, more like regulatory for a short amount of time. Well, that we think that is covered by Yaipa, not these 150 on a giant board in the Rose Garden." No, that's not going to fly. So, that's what's going to happen. So summary as you know um they have been called into question they've been declared to be 7 to4 unconstitutional and um illegal under IPA. It applies to the reciprocal tariffs 150 countries and the trafficking tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China related to drugs but not the other sectoral tariffs. So about twothirds of the tariffs I would say on balance have now been have now been declared invalid. But the injunction has to still be determined and reshaped if necessary by the other court, the lower court, the court of international trade and the whole thing's on hold until Supreme Court picks up the case in October where we will continue to follow it right here on Legal AF. So until my next report, take a minute, hit the free subscribe button, come over to Substack for Legal AF where I post this decision, you can read it for yourself as well.
Lawyer who shielded Ivanka Trump now issues dire warning about her dad Adam Nichols July 3, 2025 12:41PM ET Lawyer who shielded Ivanka Trump now issues dire warning about her dad Adam Nichols July 3, 2025 12:41PM ET BeLoud Share Lawyer who shielded Ivanka Trump now issues dire warning about her dad Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner leave the St. Regis hotel, on the second day of the wedding festivities of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and journalist Lauren Sanchez, in Venice, Italy, June 27, 2025. REUTERS/Guglielmo Mangiapane
The powerhouse attorney who shielded Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump from Mueller's Russia probe is now sounding the alarm about their patriarch's rampage against America's institutions.
Abbe Lowell delivered a chilling warning to The Financial TimesFinancial Times: the system that once protected them is now under unprecedented assault.
"I have never been as concerned as to whether our system can withstand the pressure it is being put to," Lowell declared, warning that Trump is "pushing the tree to the point that it could break."
ALSO READ: ‘Not worried, no, no, no, no, nope': GOP squirms as Trump-Epstein scandal spirals
Back in 2017, when Mueller's investigation was bearing down on the Trump family, Lowell swooped in to protect both Kushner and Ivanka from potential criminal charges.
Now, the 73-year-old legal veteran—who's also defended Bill Clinton and Hunter Biden—is watching Trump demolish the very constitutional framework that protected his family, he said.
"The crack you put in the wall today becomes the gash tomorrow," Lowell had warned Congress in 1998. Today, he grimly notes that prophecy is coming true: the wall is "more than cracked, not yet crumbled."
Fighting back, Lowell launched Lowell & Associates to combat government "over-reach." He claims nine law firms have already "buckled" under Trump-era intimidation, accepting nearly $1 billion in work while silencing internal critics. His new firm is attracting defectors from those compromised organizations.
Current clients include New York AG Letitia James—now under federal investigation after her massive Trump fraud victory—and former DHS official Miles Taylor, whose security clearance vanished after criticizing Trump.
With a Supreme Court favoring broad executive power, Lowell warns challengers must focus on First Amendment grounds rather than presidential authority. Because if Trump succeeds in dismantling judicial independence, Lowell predicts, "there will just be rubble from that wall."
Saudi Arabia Launches Surprise Missile Strike on Tel Aviv – World in Shock Iron Dome 8.31.25
The world is in shock as Saudi Arabia launches a surprise missile strike on Tel Aviv, sparking fears of a full-scale Middle East war. Explosions rocked Israel’s economic heart, shattering the fragile balance of power in the region. With Israel preparing retaliation, the U.S. caught in the middle, and Iran praising the move, the world stands on the brink of a conflict that could reshape global politics.
In this 15-minute deep dive, we break down:
• What happened in Tel Aviv • Israel’s immediate response • Saudi Arabia’s motives • The global reaction • The risk of a wider war
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71240524/lgml-v-kristi-noem/ L.G.M.L v. KRISTI NOEM (1:25-cv-02942) District Court, District of Columbia Last Updated: Sept. 1, 2025, 1:23 p.m. Citation: L.G.M.L v. KRISTI NOEM, 1:25-cv-02942, (D.D.C.) Date Filed: Aug. 31, 2025
1. Aug 31, 2025. COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number BDCDC-11924020) filed by M.F.A.P.V., M.O.C.G., L.F.M.M., M.Y.A.T.C., L.M.R.S., G.A.B.B., H.L.E.C., L.G.M.L, T.A.C.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bonilla, Hilda) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
2. Aug 31, 2025. MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by G.A.B.B., H.L.E.C., L.F.M.M., L.G.M.L, L.M.R.S., M.F.A.P.V., M.O.C.G., M.Y.A.T.C., T.A.C.P.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits A-L Declarations, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bonilla, Hilda) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
3. Aug 31, 2025. NOTICE Notice to the Court Regarding Attempted Service Related to Emergency Motion for TRO by G.A.B.B., H.L.E.C., L.F.M.M., L.G.M.L, L.M.R.S., M.F.A.P.V., M.O.C.G., M.Y.A.T.C., T.A.C.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Bonilla, Hilda) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Given the exigent circumstances, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. As the Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, the Court accordingly ORDERS that: 1) The Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for TRO is GRANTED; 2) The Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court; and 3) The parties shall appear for a hearing on August 31, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14 before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. A zoom link will follow. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
MINUTE ORDER: The Plaintiffs are ORDERED to make all reasonable efforts to give notice to the Defendants of the Court's Order entered this morning at 4:22 a.m. on August 31, 2025, and that a hearing will be held in this matter on August 31, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14 before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. At the hearing, the Parties should be prepared to discuss, among other things, how the Court should proceed with respect to class certification. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
MINUTE ORDER: The court will provide access for the public to telephonically attend the hearing scheduled for August 31, 2025, at 3:00 PM. The hearing can be accessed by dialing the Toll-Free Number: 833-990-9400 (Meeting ID: 908397395). It is hereby ORDERED that the attendees using the public access telephone line shall adhere to the following: persons remotely accessing court proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting any court proceedings (including those held by telephone or videoconference). Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the presiding Judge. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (zlsj)
MINUTE ORDER: The court will provide access for the public to telephonically attend the hearing scheduled for August 31, 2025, at 12:30 PM. The hearing can be accessed by dialing the Toll-Free Number: 833-990-9400 (Meeting ID: 908397395). It is hereby ORDERED that the attendees using the public access telephone line shall adhere to the following: persons remotely accessing court proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting any court proceedings (including those held by telephone or videoconference). Violation of these prohibitions may result in sanctions, including removal of court-issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the presiding Judge. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (zlsj) Modified to amend hearing time on 8/31/2025 (znbn).
4. Aug 31, 2025. REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed by L.F.M.M., L.M.R.S., L.G.M.L, M.F.A.P.V., M.O.C.G., M.Y.A.T.C., G.A.B.B., H.L.E.C., T.A.C.P., YOUNG CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN'S RIGHTS. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by M.Y.A.T.C., T.A.C.P., M.F.A.P.V., M.O.C.G., L.F.M.M., L.G.M.L, G.A.B.B., L.M.R.S., H.L.E.C.. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Kristi Noem, # 2 Summons Department of Homeland Security, # 3 Summons Todd Lyons, # 4 Summons U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, # 5 Summons Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., # 6 Summons U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, # 7 Summons Angie Salazar, # 8 Summons Office of Refugee Resettlement, # 9 Summons Pamela Bondi, # 10 Summons U.S. Department of Justice, # 11 Summons Marco Rubio, # 12 Summons U.S. Department of State, # 13 Summons U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia)(Bonilla, Hilda) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
5. Aug 31, 2025. MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Efren C. Olivares, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-11924081. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by G.A.B.B., H.L.E.C., L.F.M.M., L.G.M.L, L.M.R.S., M.F.A.P.V., M.O.C.G., M.Y.A.T.C., T.A.C.P., YOUNG CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN'S RIGHTS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bonilla, Hilda) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court received notification that putative class members are in the process of being removed from the United States. The hearing previously set for August 31, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 14 has been rescheduled to August 31, 2025, at 12:30 p.m. in Courtroom 14 before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. Zoom information will be emailed to the parties. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
MINUTE ORDER: The 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 8/31/2025 at 12:30 PM in Courtroom 14- In Person before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. (znbn)
6. Aug 31, 2025. MOTION to Certify Class by G.A.B.B., H.L.E.C., L.F.M.M., L.G.M.L, L.M.R.S., M.F.A.P.V., M.O.C.G., M.Y.A.T.C., T.A.C.P., YOUNG CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN'S RIGHTS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION)(Bonilla, Hilda) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has reviewed the Plaintiffs' Complaint, Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and Motion to Certify Class. Given the exigent circumstances, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set. The Plaintiffs have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief, including irreparable harm from transportation outside the United States. In light of the Plaintiffs' 2 Motion for TRO and the Plaintiffs' 6 Motion to Certify Class, the Court further ORDERS that the Defendants shall not transfer, repatriate, remove, or otherwise facilitate the transport of any Plaintiff or member of the putative class from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court. The Court ORDERS that the Defendants cease any ongoing efforts to transfer, repatriate, remove, or otherwise facilitate the transport of any Plaintiff or member of the putative class from the United States. The putative class includes all Guatemalan unaccompanied minors in Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement custody as of 1:02 AM on August 31, 2025, the time of the filing of the Complaint, who are not subject to an executable final order of removal. "[ b]ecause courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class, [the Court] need not decide whether a class should be certified as to the detainees' [] claims in order to temporarily enjoin the Government from removing putative class members." A. A. R. P. v. Trump, 145 S. Ct. 1364, 1369 (2025) (citing 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions § 4:30 (6th ed. 2022 and Supp. 2024)). Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025, 12:37 PM. (lcak)
Minute Entry for hybrid Motion Hearing held before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. Arguments held on Plaintiffs' Motion 6 to Certify Class. Motion taken under advisement; forthcoming Order. (Court Reporter: Elizabeth Davila) (lsj)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Motion Hearing held on August 31, 2025, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to file a status report by August 31, 2025, at 4:00 PM. The report should address the current status of the deplaning of putative class members. If all class members have not been deplaned and moved back to the custody of ORR by that time, the Defendants should advise when they expect that to occur. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court ordered the Defendants to file a status report by August 31, 2025, at 4:00 PM. They have not done so. The Court ORDERS the Defendants to show cause why a status report was not filed by that deadline. The Defendants remain under their obligation to file a status report addressing the current status of the deplaning of putative class members. If all class members have not been deplaned and moved back to the custody of ORR, the Defendants should advise when they expect that to occur. The Court further ORDERS the Plaintiffs to file a status report by August 31, 2025, at 6:30 PM, that addresses their understanding of whether the putative class members have been deplaned and moved to ORR. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
7. Aug 31, 2025. NOTICE of Appearance by Drew C Ensign on behalf of All Defendants (Ensign, Drew) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
8. Aug 31, 2025. STATUS REPORT by PAMELA BONDI, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR, KRISTI NOEM, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, MARCO RUBIO, ANGIE SALAZAR, TODD LYONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Ensign, Drew) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Defendants' 8 Status Report, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to file a further status report by August 31, 2025, at 8:30 PM. The report should address whether all putative class members are in ORR custody. If all putative class members are not in ORR custody by that time, the Defendants should advise at what time today they expect transfer to ORR custody to be completed. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
9. Aug 31, 2025. Second STATUS REPORT by PAMELA BONDI, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR, KRISTI NOEM, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, MARCO RUBIO, ANGIE SALAZAR, TODD LYONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Ensign, Drew) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Defendants' 9 Status Report, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to file a further status report by August 31, 2025, at 10:45 PM. The report should address whether all putative class members are in ORR custody. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
MINUTE ORDER: The Parties are ORDERED to comply with the following briefing schedule. The Plaintiffs will file their Motion for Preliminary Injunction by September 2, 2025. The Defendants will file their Opposition by September 5, 2025. The Plaintiffs will file their Reply by September 8, 2025. The Court will hold a hearing on September 10, 2025, at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
10. Aug 31, 2025. Third STATUS REPORT by PAMELA BONDI, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR, KRISTI NOEM, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, MARCO RUBIO, ANGIE SALAZAR, TODD LYONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Ensign, Drew) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Defendants' 10 Status Report, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to file a further status report notifying this Court when all putative class members are returned to ORR custody. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 8/31/2025. (lcak)
11. Aug 31, 2025. Supplemental STATUS REPORT by PAMELA BONDI, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR, KRISTI NOEM, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, MARCO RUBIO, ANGIE SALAZAR, TODD LYONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Ensign, Drew) (Entered: 08/31/2025)
12. Sep 1, 2025. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, held on 8-31-2025; Page Numbers: 1 - 27. Date of Issuance: 9-01-2025. Court Reporter: Elizabeth Davila, Telephone number: 202-354-3242. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 9/22/2025. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/2/2025. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/30/2025.(Davila, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/01/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Defendants' 11 Supplemental Status Report, the Court ORDERS the Defendants to file a further status report by September 1, 2025, at 12:00 PM. The report should address whether the minor children discussed in the 11 Supplemental Status Report have all been returned to ORR custody. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 9/1/2025. (lcak)
13. Sep 1, 2025. Supplemental STATUS REPORT by PAMELA BONDI, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR, KRISTI NOEM, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, MARCO RUBIO, ANGIE SALAZAR, TODD LYONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, US DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Ensign, Drew) (Entered: 09/01/2025)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file a status report by August 31, 2025, at 6:30 PM. They have not done so. The Court ORDERS the Plaintiffs to show cause why a status report was not filed by that deadline. The Plaintiffs remain under their obligation to file a status report addressing their understanding of whether the putative class members have been deplaned and returned to ORR. Signed by Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan on 9/1/2025. (lcak)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
L.G.M.L., L.M.R.S., M.O.C.G., H.L.E.C, T.A.C.P., M.F.A.P.V., L.F.M.M., G.A.B.B., A.R.M.D. M.Y.A.T.C. 1 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated by and through their next friend, YOUNG CENTER FOR IMMIGRANT CHILDREN’S RIGHTS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ANGIE SALAZAR in her official capacity as Acting Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, PAMELA BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-2942
PLAINTIFF’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT FLIGHTS DEPARTING UNITED STATES IN THE NEXT FOUR HOURS
[x] Officials undertaking deportation operations in Texas earlier this year
A US judge has temporarily blocked an attempt by the Trump administration to deport dozens of unaccompanied Guatemalan children back to their home country.
District Court Judge Sparkle Sooknanan's order on Sunday was in response to reports children had been put onto planes and were about to be sent to Guatemala, where lawyers argued they would be at risk of abuse and persecution.
The children arrived in the US alone and are in government custody while their immigration claims are assessed.
Guatemala's President Bernardo Arévalo and lawyers for the US justice department said the children were not being deported, but rather repatriated so they could be reunited with family.
President Arévalo criticised the ruling and promised to continue fighting to bring the children home under a pilot programme he had proposed to President Trump.
Guatemalan news site Prensa Libra said dozens of parents had already gathered at a reception centre for returned migrants in the capital, Guatemala City, to await the return of their children when news of the ruling broke.
Xiomara Lima said her 17-year-old son Gerson had called her at 01:00 local time (07:00 GMT) to tell her he was being taken to Guatemala. "Now we don't know when he will return," she told Prensa Libre after his flight was stopped.
Gilberto López also travelled to the reception centre from his rural home only to be told that his nephew would not be arriving.
"He went [to the US] to help us, because we're poor and there is no cure here [for our health problems]," he said of his nephew's reasons for leaving, according to Prensa Libre.
The legal proceedings were sparked early on Sunday when immigrant advocacy groups asked for an emergency injunction, claiming around 600 children could be put on planes in Texas and deported.
Judge Sooknanan then issued a temporary restraining order barring officials from sending a group of 10 migrant children between the ages of 10 and 17 to Guatemala.
At a hastily arranged hearing on Sunday afternoon, Judge Sooknanan, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, expanded the order to cover all unaccompanied children said to be at risk of deportation. The order will be in place for 14 days.
At the hearing, Judge Sooknanan sought assurances from Trump administration lawyers that planes had not already departed with the children on board.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign said all planes were "on the ground" in the US. He told the judge one plane may have taken off but had returned.
Ensign said the flights were not part of a deportation effort but for family reunifications with parents and other relatives in Guatemala.
He also said the Guatemalan government and the children's relatives had requested the reunifications. Advocacy groups said that was untrue in at least some cases.
In court filings, lawyers for the children argued the action was in violation of federal laws designed to protect children who arrive in the US alone. They said some of the children had pending cases before immigration judges and expressed credible fears about being returned.
"In the dead of night on a holiday weekend, the Trump administration ripped vulnerable, frightened children from their beds and attempted to return them to danger in Guatemala," Efrén C Olivares of the National Immigration Law Center, which filed the suit, said in a statement.
"We are heartened the court prevented this injustice from occurring before hundreds of children suffered irreparable harm."
White House immigration advisor Stephen Miller criticised the judge for blocking the flights.
"The minors have all self-reported that their parents are back home in Guatemala," he wrote on X. "But a Democrat judge is refusing to let them reunify with their parents."
Since the start of his second term, Trump has embarked on sweeping efforts to remove undocumented migrants - a key election promise that drew mass support during this campaign.
In June, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump to resume deportations of migrants to countries other than their homeland without giving them the chance to raise the risks they might face.
In June, the US Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump to resume deportations of migrants to countries other than their homeland without giving them the chance to raise the risks they might face.
The Cracker Barrel mess exposes the cynicism of the rightwing culture war Sidney Blumenthal The restaurant means little to activists – it’s simply a tool to bludgeon perceived enemies and flex conservative power Sun 31 Aug 2025 11.19 EDT https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ulture-war
First they came for the Smithsonian. Then they came for Cracker Barrel.
Whether it’s the museums or the corporations – or the universities, law firms, federal departments and agencies – the attack lines of the Trump culture war and its culture warriors are the same. The vicious full-scale assault on the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain after the company naively wandered on to the battle zone by altering its “Old Timer” logo exposes the cynicism of the whole operation and its ulterior motive to impose an authoritarian regime over every aspect of American society.
On 19 August, Donald Trump launched his purge campaign against the Smithsonian with a post denouncing it as “the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE’ …where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.”
Within 24 hours, the son echoed the father, but with a different target in the crosshairs. The day after Trump denounced the Smithsonian, Donald Trump Jr took umbrage at Cracker Barrel, joining a rightwing social media mob.
Cracker Barrel’s sales had gone flat partly due to its creaky image, symbolized by a logo featuring a geezer in overalls seated cross-legged and leaning on a barrel, promoted as the “Uncle Herschel” of the store’s founder. At the company headquarters in Lebanon, Tennessee, the “Uncle Herschel Memorial” features statues of “Uncle Herschel” seated on a bench listening to a Cracker Barrel waitress. Marketing research, however, showed that the rickety ambience was off-putting to a younger suburban clientele. So “Uncle Herschel” was retired, the logo cleaned up with just the brand name front and center, the interiors with dark brown log cabin walls whitewashed and more brightly lit.
But this marketing facelift, a common corporate design “refinement”, as it is known, was a new frontier beyond “the last remaining segment of ‘WOKE’”. Don Jr retweeted a post by an account called the Woke War Room attacking Julie Felss Masino, the Cracker Barrel CEO: “She scrapped a beloved American aesthetic and replaced it with sterile, soulless branding. She should resign and be replaced with leadership that will restore Cracker Barrel’s tradition.”
If Don Jr had ever eaten at a Cracker Barrel, he would have had to leave the confines of Manhattan and Palm Beach. There is not a single Cracker Barrel to be found in any borough of New York City, or on Long Island either. His personal experience with “tradition” is not located in the biscuit mix section of the country store. If Don Jr’s complaint is with “soulless branding”, it does not extend to the sale of the $DJTJR (Donald J Trump Jr) crypto memecoin. But this bit of brazen hypocrisy is lost in the ocean of the Trump family’s grifting.
When the right launched its version of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, now with the power of the Trump administration behind it, nobody predicted that Cracker Barrel would become collateral damage. The Tennessee-based chain, founded in 1969, trafficked in faux rustic pre-second world war nostalgia, an image from before the existence of supermarkets, shopping malls and the interstate highways where most of the restaurants are located. Cracker Barrel was a little theme park. Customers entered through a retail outlet that resembled a country store. On the restaurant’s walls hung old advertising signs, farm implements and framed antique photos of 19th-century folk with a grim American Gothic look. The menu consisted of “homestyle food”, including “the best classic meatloaf” with mashed potatoes and gravy.
But in the 1990s and early 2000s the business suffered protests after the firing of employees suspected of being gay and reached an agreement with the justice department to change its management practices after allegedly segregating Black diners. The clientele that favored the kitsch decor also dwindled. In response, the company shed its old prejudiced practices and recently unveiled its makeover to update its tired image. That provided the pretext for the calculated Maga explosion.
Hillsdale College, a rightwing citadel in southern Michigan that has been vehement in ramping up the culture wars, posted on X the plain Cracker Barrel logo on one side of a frame with a statue of George Washington splattered with red paint on the other under the line: “Same energy.” The Hillsdale account added: “Cracker Barrel is a beloved cultural icon, tied to the lifestyle and memories of truth-seeking Americans.”
According to this college, a center of conservative thought, the restaurant chain is apparently the cultural equivalent of the Smithsonian, or should be exhibited there, and its customers who have pulled in for the chicken fried steak are “truth-seeking Americans”, presumably as opposed to those who stop for the chicken wings at Chili’s. The culture war doesn’t stop at the logo’s edge.
The Woke War Room that aroused Don Jr used the attack line that Cracker Barrel perpetrates a “DEI regime”. The CEO’s picture was placed next to the rainbow logo of the LGBTQ+ Alliance. The post also noted that America First Legal, a far-right group founded by Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy involved in Ice raids, the culture war against universities and apparently much else, had filed complaints with the Equal Opportunities Employment Commission and the Tennessee attorney general alleging racial discrimination by Cracker Barrel because of its DEI policy. The Maga mob piled in with misogynistic tweets against the female CEO.
A Maga social media influencer, Robby Starbuck, advancing himself within the rightwing constellation as an anti-DEI activist, threatened: “Oh my goodness. When you see what we’ve got on Cracker Barrel … Wow. I don’t think anyone knew it was as bad as the stuff we received. We’re talking total capture by leftism at the exec level. We have photos, videos, etc. Should I put it all in 1 video or release 1 by 1?”
In 2022, Starbuck, whose given name is Robert Newsom, was excluded from running in the Republican primary for the Tennessee fifth congressional district by the Tennessee Republican party, which found that he was not “a bona fide Republican”. His exclusion was upheld by the Tennessee supreme court.
On 23 August, Fox News featured his video denouncing Cracker Barrel for its involvement in gay pride events – “a microcosm of the parasitic operating procedure of leftwing activists” with a “soulless, godless, hedonistic vision of the future”. This month, he began advising Meta “on efforts to curb what they describe as political bias in its AI tools”, according to the Wall Street Journal. His advisory role comes amid a defamation settlement after a Meta AI chatbot inaccurately said he had been involved in the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. He has only been part of social media mobs.
Stoking the ferocity of the onslaught against Cracker Barrel, Starbuck spoke with Christopher Rufo, who has positioned himself among the chief culture war activists on the right. He had been the key adviser to the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, in his crusades to ban books, attack the Walt Disney Company as “woke” and assail universities.
Rufo is a certain kind of zealot who has achieved his greatest influence under Trump, like Miller and Project 2025’s Russell Vought, now the head of the office of management and budget, self-styled ideological commissars with a Bolshevik mentality.
In a speech in 2022 at Hillsdale College, which Rufo titled Laying Siege to the Institutions, he boasted of his “very aggressive” campaign against Disney. “You have to be ruthless and brutal in pursuit of something good,” he said, in a Leninist spirit, describing a “narrative war” with American corporations and institutions. “We get in there, we defund things we don’t like, we fund things we do like.”
The following year, Rufo spent six weeks in Hungary as a fellow at the Danube Institute, a thinktank closely aligned with the country’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán. “My deepest interest,” Rufo wrote, “was to understand how Hungary … is attempting to rebuild its culture and institutions, from schools to universities to media … Hungary’s leaders are serious people combatting the same forces confronted by conservatives in the West.” One lesson Rufo drew from Orbán’s “culture-war strategy” was that there would be, “for the foreseeable future, a large state that has power over family, education, and culture, and conservative political leaders are abdicating their responsibility if they do not employ it to advance conservative aims”.
When Trump won the 2024 election, Rufo contributed his battle plan alongside the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. “In the transition period, I laid out a counterrevolution blueprint that outlined my strategy for how the president and the administration could take decisive action in the war against these left-wing ideologies.”
He crowed about the accusation of reverse discrimination against virtually every institution public and private – ”anti-white bigotry should face just as severe a sanction as anti-Black bigotry” – and said he sought “to figure out how to adjust the formula of finances from the federal government to the universities in a way that puts them in an existential terror and have them say, Unless we change what we’re doing, we’re not going to be able to meet our budget for the year.”
But until Rufo talked to Starbuck about the villainy of Cracker Barrel, he said, he had not paid attention. “At first, I dismissed the story as trivial. I have never set foot in a Cracker Barrel and, as such, have little stake in what is emblazoned above its doorways,” Rufo wrote in City Journal, the magazine of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative thinktank where he is a senior fellow. “The logo change might have caught the public’s initial attention, but the underlying political story had real stakes. If companies that depend on conservatives adopt radical left-wing policies, they must face the consequences.”
Rufo decided that Cracker Barrel was a worthy target for the overarching culture war. “Some might dismiss the Cracker Barrel campaign as minor, or even embarrassing … But there is enormous value in making an example of the company and cementing a fear that conservatives can spontaneously lash out at any institution that crosses the line. Today, it’s Cracker Barrel; tomorrow it might be Pepsi, Target, or Procter & Gamble.”
Cracker Barrel’s “Old Timer” logo had to be manufactured into a cause célèbre for a larger purpose. “Even if we don’t care about Cracker Barrel in particular,” Rufo wrote, “we should all care about the ideological capture of American institutions and use whatever power we have to reverse it. And for that to occur, the Barrel must be broken.”
With that call to arms, Rufo gives the game away. He doesn’t really take the conspiratorial fiction seriously. It is useful only as an instrument for bludgeoning those designated as objective enemies in order to build toward absolute power. In the gradation of his hierarchy of conservative principles, the highest value is cynicism. Rufo’s rhetoric has the characteristic tone of Stalin’s statement on 29 July 1936 declaring his Great Purge: “The inalienable quality of every Bolshevik under present conditions should be the ability to recognize an enemy of the Party no matter how well he may be masked.”
On 26 August, Trump entered the fray, saying that Cracker Barrel should “admit a mistake … Make Cracker Barrel a WINNER again. Remember, in just a short period of time I made the United States of America the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. One year ago, it was ‘DEAD.’ Good luck!”
That evening, Cracker Barrel executives reportedly called the Trump White House to offer unconditional surrender. “They thanked President Trump for weighing in on the issue of their iconic ‘original’ logo,” Taylor Budowich, the cabinet secretary, posted. “They wanted the President to know that they heard him … and would be restoring the ‘Old Timer.’ So smart! Congrats Cracker Barrel and America!” The White House issued an official statement announcing the restoration as if it were a decisive presidential action: “Congratulations Cracker Barrel!” Nobel prize!
“Uncle Herschel” was back, the “woke” conspiracy again defeated, another victory in the culture war. Today Cracker Barrel. Tomorrow the Federal Reserve.
Sidney Blumenthal, former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth. He is a Guardian US columnist.
This article was amended on 31 August 2025 to correct the location of Hillsdale College. It is in southern Michigan, not eastern as an earlier version said.
FFrom Cracker Barrel to Sydney Sweeney, Trump Has an Opinion to Share In his second term, President Trump is using his power to reshape American culture, not just American policy. He has threatened consequences for many who disagree.
Mr. Trump at the Kennedy Center earlier this month.Credit...Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
Listen to this article · 6:08 min Learn more Share full article Katie Rogers By Katie Rogers Reporting from Washington
Published Aug. 30, 2025 Updated Aug. 31, 2025
Cracker Barrel didn’t ask for this.
Just a couple weeks ago, it was a restaurant where patrons could play checkers and eat Chicken n’ Dumplins. That changed when the chain removed an image of a man sitting next to a barrel from its logo. The restaurant endured cultural backlash from conservatives, including President Trump’s eldest son, who accused the company’s executives of supporting diversity efforts.
After a call with White House officials and a logo change earlier this week, the company unwoked itself to Mr. Trump’s liking.
“Congratulations Cracker Barrel!” read the statement from Mr. Trump, who celebrated the old barrel man’s return to the logo. “All of your fans very much appreciate it.”
It used to be that you could switch off the so-called culture wars, or at least find a place to mute them for a little while. Cracker Barrel was actually one of those places. But now, not even something as low stakes as a company’s logo can escape the gaze of a president bent on changing — or forcing — American life to reflect his own views and tastes, which often mirror the far-right ideological movement that fueled his rise.
The White House declined to comment on why this matter was worthy of the president’s time, and why officials had held the call with Cracker Barrel. But an official passed on a statement from Mr. Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, who praised the president’s “unmatched business instincts.”
The logo debacle seems like a small thing, but really, it shows how Mr. Trump is now using his power to reshape all aspects of American culture, not just American policy. He has not hesitated to retaliate against those who disagree.
Image
A Cracker Barrel restaurant in Binghamton, N.Y., whose sign shows the chain restaurant’s original logo.Credit...Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press He has effectively taken over the Kennedy Center, where he will decide what art is appropriate to receive national recognition, and where he will host the annual awards ceremony. (No “wokesters,” he said of the recipients.) He is reviewing Smithsonian museums and exhibits “to assess tone, historical framing and alignment with American ideals.” He issued an executive order requiring that all future federal buildings eschew modernist architecture. He called in the National Guard to control Washington’s crime, and now its members, some with little to do, are spreading mulch in parks downtown.
He has returned to earlier threats to investigate or exert control over television networks. After crowing over the cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” whose host is an ardent critic, Mr. Trump vowed to investigate NBC over extending the contract of the late-night host Seth Meyers. (His contract was extended before Mr. Trump took office for the second time.)
Golf buddies have also been given the benefit of the presidential bullhorn. Mr. Trump has demanded that Roger Clemens, the former major-league pitcher whose career was overshadowed by steroid suspicions, be elected to the Hall of Fame, “NOW.” (Mr. Clemens played golf with the president recently.)
Turn off the television and he’ll turn up at your college football game talking about transgender people in sports. Try to do some doomscrolling on Instagram and there’s Sydney Sweeney, she of the “Good jeans” American Eagle ad. Mr. Trump proudly claimed recently that she is a registered Republican with the “HOTTEST” commercial going. Mute social media and he’ll be onstage at the Kennedy Center, praising the physique of Sylvester Stallone.
Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard who studies authoritarianism and threats to democracies, said that Mr. Trump’s impulses have led to unprecedented attacks on American institutions, and that the early months of his term appear to have emboldened him.
“We have a lot of muscle in American society,” Mr. Levitsky said. “It’s a very wealthy society and a lot of highly skilled lawyers, and it is well organized. The United States has the raw materials to push back. It’s just not doing it.”
Mr. Levitsky predicted that Americans might be finding the cultural overreach into their homes and televisions and social media accounts “annoying.” But he said there was little to stop the president from continuing his disruptive cultural campaign.
Editors’ Picks How a Blind Pianist Spends a Day Performing and Rock Climbing 4 Rules for Buying the Best Olive Oil Brad Pitt Pays $12 Million for a House in the Hollywood Hills Mr. Trump’s criticisms and demands have evolved since he was a pop culture obsessive who lived on Twitter to comment on the news of the day. When he entered the White House, he used the presidential bully pulpit to attack a dizzying range of critics, from celebrities to former members of his first presidential administration.
In some cases, the line between his political opponents living under mere threat of retaliation and those actually facing it is growing thinner.
A number of former Trump administration officials whom Mr. Trump has considered insufficiently loyal have had their Secret Service details pulled, including Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state, and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the former government scientist. They are part of a growing list of Democrats, including Vice President Kamala Harris, who’ve also had their details revoked.
A number of other perceived enemies of Mr. Trump are facing investigations, including Lisa Cook, a Fed governor the president has accused of mortgage fraud. (She has not been charged with a crime.)
Others have been threatened without evidence, including former President Barack Obama, whom Mr. Trump has accused of undermining his 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Obama’s office called those claims a “weak attempt at distraction.”
Even his old pop-culture Twitter foils have faced increasingly dark threats. Rosie O’Donnell, a longtime and very vocal Trump critic, is now living in Ireland. Mr. Trump has mused about revoking her American citizenship, which is unconstitutional.
One former target who got off relatively easy was Taylor Swift, the pop star who recently announced her engagement to Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs. Ms. Swift did not endorse Mr. Trump, and he has attacked her before. This week, in the Cabinet Room of the White House, Mr. Trump magnanimously offered her good luck with her engagement. But not before pointedly wishing Mr. Kelce good luck.
Katie Rogers is a White House correspondent for The Times, reporting on President Trump.
Houthis Bomb IDF General Staff HQ, Israeli Port? 3rd Revenge Attack In 24 Hours After PM’s Killing Hindustan Times Sep 2, 2025 #Houthis #Israel #DroneAttack
In retaliation for the strike that killed their prime minister, the Houthis launched a wave of drone attacks targeting Israel’s General Staff HQ in Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport, Ashdod Port, and Hadera power station. Reports also indicate a strike on a ship in the Red Sea, following an earlier tanker attack. With tensions escalating, the region edges closer to all‑out war between the Houthis and Israel.
***************************
Houthis BOMB IDF HQs in Tel Aviv BREAKING: Houthis Sammad-4 Drones, Yafa Missiles Pound Israel Oneindia News Premiered 2 hours ago #Houthis #Israel #HouthisVsIsrael
Yemen’s Houthi forces have escalated their attacks, claiming strikes on IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv using advanced Sammad-4 drones and Yafa ballistic missiles. The unprecedented assault marks one of the boldest Houthi operations against Israel, signaling a dangerous new phase in the conflict. Reports suggest multiple projectiles targeted strategic military sites, while Israeli defenses scrambled to respond.
***********************************
Houthi PM Killing Sparks Revenge On Israel With 2nd Attack In 24 Hrs; After Missiles, Now Drone Hit Hindustan Times 8.49M subscribers Sep 2, 2025 #houthis #israel #dronestrike
The Houthis have intensified their attacks on Israel, launching a second drone strike within just 24 hours. Israeli Air Force forces [say they] successfully intercepted the drone before it could breach the country’s airspace, preventing potential damage. This wave of aggression comes in direct retaliation after an Israeli airstrike killed a senior Houthi political leader, escalating tensions in an already volatile region. The cycle of attack and retaliation highlights the growing instability in the Middle East and raises concerns about further escalation between Iran-backed militias and Israel.
After Snapping Ties With Israel, Erdogan Jolts Netanyahu With Big ‘Palestine’ Demand From Trump Hindustan Times Sep 2, 2025 #Erdogan #Trump #Palestine
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has demanded that U.S. President Donald Trump reverse a travel ban on Palestinian Authority officials ahead of the UN General Assembly. Erdogan called the move a violation of UN principles and a political favour to Israel. As Turkey pushes for genocide charges against Israel and stronger recognition for Palestine, tensions rise globally over the Gaza conflict and U.S. foreign policy.
