Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Living constitutionalismOriginalism
Strict reading of Article II advice-and-consent requirement and emphasis on constitutional framework over executive practice in [1]. Rural Development Innovations Li… ↗
The case involved a challenge by the nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to the Department of Justice's May 2026 settlement agreement and order establishing a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to compensate individuals for alleged government targeting. CREW sought a temporary restraining order, stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705, and preliminary injunction, claiming the Fund violated separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, statutory authority, and the First Amendment. After the Acting Attorney General stated in congressional testimony that the DOJ would not proceed with the Fund, and with no contrary evidence presented, the court denied the motion. It held the case likely moot under the presumption of regularity or, alternatively, not ripe for review due to significant uncertainty about any implementation. The court found no justiciable controversy or cognizable hardship warranting immediate judicial intervention.
This case involves plaintiffs L.C., a minor, and her father Massimiliano Cali challenging actions by defendants including President Trump related to the designation of an individual named Albanese, which affected the plaintiffs' rights. The court had previously granted a preliminary injunction, and defendants moved for a stay of that order pending appeal or alternatively a short administrative stay. The court denied the motion after applying the four-factor test for stays pending appeal, finding that defendants failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because the First Amendment applies due to substantial U.S. connections, the injunction does not improperly interfere with executive foreign affairs authority, and it is not overbroad. The court also determined that equitable factors, including irreparable harm to plaintiffs' travel, property, and family rights, did not support a stay.
In L.C. v. Trump, the plaintiffs—a minor U.S. citizen child and her Italian father—challenged federal sanctions imposed on the child's mother and father's wife, Francesca Albanese, an Italian scholar serving as a UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Albanese had recommended that the International Criminal Court investigate war crimes by Israeli and American nationals and companies in connection with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that the sanctions, issued under an executive order targeting support for ICC actions, were triggered solely by Albanese's protected speech rather than any direct involvement in ICC enforcement, imposing undue burdens on the family through restrictions on U.S. travel, banking, and property. It concluded that the policy was overbroad under the First Amendment, that the equities favored relief, and that enjoining the designation was necessary to provide complete relief.
The case concerns a preliminary injunction halting construction of a new ballroom on White House grounds, which the court had previously ruled was ultra vires absent congressional authorization. The National Trust for Historic Preservation sought clarification after defendants argued that the injunction's safety-and-security exception permitted the entire project to continue. The court clarified and amended the order to prohibit only above-ground construction of the ballroom itself, while allowing below-ground work on national security facilities, presidential security measures, and site protection. This distinction was based on the original opinion's focus on visible construction as the source of irreparable harm to historic preservation interests, combined with deference to executive security needs. The court provided notice that any non-compliant above-ground work during a brief stay period could be subject to later removal.
The case concerned whether President Trump had statutory authority to construct a large East Wing ballroom addition to the White House using private funds without new congressional approval. The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued the National Park Service and related defendants, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the project on the grounds that it lacked legal authorization and risked irreparable harm to the historic structure. The district court granted the injunction, concluding that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits because no existing statute—such as those governing White House maintenance, repairs, or appropriations—granted the President the claimed power to proceed with new construction. The court emphasized that Congress has long exercised control over White House modifications through specific legislation and that the project must stop until Congress provides express authorization.
In this criminal case, defendant Dremale Vanterpool moved to dismiss federal drug and firearm charges arising from a June 2023 incident in Washington, D.C., arguing that the government violated his speedy trial rights and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 by failing to preserve body-worn camera footage, and that bringing federal charges after dismissing similar state charges was vindictive prosecution. The district court denied the motion to dismiss, finding no constitutional violation or basis for exercising supervisory powers to dismiss the case with prejudice. The court reasoned that the government's explanation for the federal charges under a new "Make D.C. Safe Again" gun initiative provided a lawful, non-retaliatory motivation, consistent with circuit precedent on similar policy-driven transfers from D.C. Superior Court. However, the court reserved judgment on whether to impose lesser sanctions due to the strength of the defendant's arguments regarding evidence preservation.
