The Trump goons in the DOJ were trying to stop a lawsuit against fossil fuel companies' impact of climate change on the state. A federal judge, Helen Gillmor, blocked the lawsuit because she said the DOJ had no standing.
In the ruling, Gillmor said that an "abstract, theoretical future harm" is not a valid basis for a lawsuit. The lawsuit didn't amount to any "concrete harm" that would allow an entity to sue Gillmor ruled.
The lawsuit was kicked out of court because the DOJ's theory of harm would require predicting claims brought against unknown companies, predicting the lawsuit would be successful; " guessing" that oil companies would react in a specific way, and then hypothesizing that the reaction would somehow harm the U.S. commerce and future energy policy.
Here's some more recent cases where judges called bullshit on the Trump regimes pathetic attempts to twist justice into a knot with lies and exaggerations:
- Rhode Island Voter Data Dismissal (April 2026): A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from the DOJ that sought to force Rhode Island to turn over unredacted voter registration rolls.
- Illegal Use of Emergency Powers (April 2026): A California court ruled against the Trump administration for illegally invoking emergency powers to force the restart of the Sable Offshore Corp pipeline.
- Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Blocked (February 2026): U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking an executive order intended to end birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens. The ruling noted the order was likely unconstitutional.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: The Supreme Court has taken up the birthright issue. So far, the justices have shown skepticism about the Trump regime's arguments on birthright citizenships. The court has delayed making a decision thus far by first taking up the procedural question of universal injunctions.
In what was a first for an American president Trump attended the hearing hoping to somehow intimidate the justices. It didn't work. They didn't even acknowledge his presence.
--------------------------------------------------------------
- Tariffs and Trade Authority (February 2026) This case was a major loss for Trump who had been touting how his tariffs are helping the economy. The Supreme Court didn't see it that way. In fact, the court ruled against Trump and ordered him to pay back refunds from his illegal tariffs. It was a major loss for Trump's illegal agenda.
Currently there are 316 active cases challenging the Trump regime's actions.
There are 22 lawsuits challenging state and local laws filed by the Trump regime. If you want to do a deep dive on court cases involving Trump and his regime, go to Lawfare for a complete history of court cases during Trump's second term.
I know that at times it seems like Trump is getting away with defying the constitution and state laws. After all his attacks are almost daily and most people don't bother following court cases to their conclusion.
My goal today is to let everyone know that there is active resistance against Trump. Despite his many efforts to implement an authoritarian regime most of the courts are calling bullshit on him.
As it Stands, the one court that I do worry about is the Supreme Court with its conservative majority, but they have made some positive major rulings recently. And I expect they'll uphold the current law on Birthright Citizenship.
No comments:
Post a Comment