In the previous Evening Docket, I expressed regret for not being around on Friday and during the weekend due to being out of town. Despite my absence, the courts were remarkably active over the weekend, making it a bit of a task to catch up on all the events that unfolded in the last 72 hours.
Notwithstanding the challenge, I have endeavored to summarize the court activities from Friday, Saturday, and Sunday for you in today’s update.
- Abrego Garcia v. Noem – 8:25-cv-00951 – (case challenging removal of plaintiff — a/k/a “Maryland father” — to El Salvador) — The administration has continued to file daily status reports, with Sunday’s including an update on Abrego Garcia’s known whereabouts, namely: “Abrego García told Sen. Van Hollen on April 17 that he had been transferred from CECOT to the detention facility “Centro Industrial” in Santa Ana about eight days prior. Abrego García told Sen. Van Hollen that he had been placed in the administrative building of Centro Industrial, in a room of his own with a bed and furniture, and that he was not in a cell.” Monday’s status report affirms this, noting that the Salvadoran government has stated “that Mr. Abrego García is being held at the CentroIndustrial penitentiary facility in Santa Ana, ‘in good conditions and in an excellent state of health.'”
- American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. OPM – 3:25-cv-01780 – (case challenging termination of probationary employees) — On April 18, Judge William Alsup (Northern District of California) entered an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
- Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. HHS – 3:25-cv-02847 – (case challenging contract termination for gender-affirming care services for minors) — The administration appealed the TRO entered by Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín (Northern District of California) and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on Friday, concluding that the TRO was not appealable.
- J.G.G. v. Trump – 1:25-cv-00766 – (case challenging deportation of TdA-designated individuals) — While the administration has filed a notice of appeal as to Judge James Boasberg’s order finding probable cause for contempt, Boasberg denied the administration’s request for a stay pending appeal. He also denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an additional temporary restraining order (TRO) and to expedite that motion. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative (temporary) stay as to Boasberg’s contempt finding to allow the parties time to brief the matter.
- Nagarapu v. Student and Exchange Visitor Program – 1:25-cv-01175 – (case challenging termination of Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS)) — On Monday, Judge Jia Cobb (D.C.) entered a TRO ordering the administration to postpone the effective termination date of the plaintiff’s SEVIS record (changing the “authorized end date” back to August 25, 2026).
- National TPS Alliance v. Noem – 3:25-cv-01766 – (case challenging DHS revocation of Temporary Protected Status) — On April 18, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration’s motion to stay Judge Edward Chen’s (Northern District of California) March 31 order (postponing the effect of Secretary Noem’s decisions to vacate the extension of and then terminate the 2023 designation of Venezuelans as eligible for TPS) pending the appeal of that order.
- National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought – 1:25-cv-00381 – (case challenging dismantling of CFPB) — On April 17, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for an order to show cause, asserting that the administration was violating the court’s preliminary injunction. A hearing was held before Judge Amy Berman Jackson (D.C.) on April 18, after which she entered an order suspending the administration’s proposed reduction in force (RIF) (covered in various news reports) until she could make a formal ruling on the motion to enforce. Then, on April 19, Berman Jackson entered a follow-up minute order clarifying that: “The April 18 order prohibits defendants from discontinuing an employee’s access to work systems as part of the enjoined RIF, but the provisions in the March preliminary injunction order that enable the agency to make individual employment decisions in the ordinary course of business remain unchanged.” (In essence, she’s telling the administration to hold on any broad, sweeping actions until she can formally rule, but this does not prevent individual decisions based on particularized assessments.) The administration has now appealed Berman Jackson’s April 18 order to the D.C. Circuit.
- Orr v. Trump – 1:25-cv-10313 – (case challenging transgender passport policy and Executive Order 14168) — On April 18, Judge Julie Kobick (Massachusetts) granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. (Mostly, she gave the plaintiffs what they requested and enjoined the administration from enforcing their passport policy (requiring that passports reflect biological sex, rather than gender identity) as to all but one of the named plaintiffs.)
- Ozturk v. Hyde – 2:25-cv-00374 – (case challenging protestor Rumeysa Ozturk’s removal from the U.S.) — On April 18, Judge William Sessions (Vermont) entered an order that his court would retain jurisdiction over the case and that Ozturk is to be transferred into ICE custody in Vermont (which is where she was when she initially filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus) no later than May 1, 2025, setting a hearing on her habeas petition for May 22, 2025.
- Shilling v. Trump – 2:25-cv-00241 – (case challenging transgender individuals serving in the military) — On April 18, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the administration’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Benjamin Settle (Western District of Washington) on March 27, 2025, pending the appeal of the case on the merits.
- W.M.M. v. Trump – 1:25-cv-00059 – (case challenging removal of aliens pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act) — This one had a very busy weekend that ended up with a makeover on Monday. I’ll try to explain — please bear with me. The case was initially filed last Wednesday in the Northern District of Texas, with the pseudonymous A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. — “Venezuelan men in immigration custody at risk of imminent removal under the President’s Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act (‘AEA’) — seeking habeas relief from the court (with the assistance of their ACLU attorneys) and also seeking to have a class action certified. District Court Judge James Hendrix denied their motion for TRO on Thursday, and on Friday, set a briefing schedule on the class certification issue. The petitioners requested an emergency status conference and, when the court didn’t act quickly enough for their liking, appealed the case to the 5th Circuit — which promptly divested the district court of jurisdiction, so Judge Hendrix vacated his earlier order regarding the briefing schedule. While the 5th Circuit was reviewing the matter, the petitioners filed an “emergency application” for an “emergency injunction” with the Supreme Court, which promptly turned around and entered a ridiculously bizarre order effectively placing a hold on any further deportation efforts under the AEA. Justice Samuel Alito then let the court have it with his (100 percent correct) dissent as to the court’s order. The 5th Circuit then denied the petitioners’ motion for a temporary administrative stay and an injunction pending the appeal as premature and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, sending the case back to the district court. Meanwhile, the AARP (the non-profit advocacy organization for retired persons) moved to intervene in the case and have the style of it changed to avoid confusion, so Judge Hendrix amended his prior order re: pseudonyms to downsize “A.A.R.P.” to “A.R.P.” and re-style the case so that it will now proceed under W.M.M.’s name. The Trump administration has now filed its response to the petitioners’ SCOTUS application, and the petitioners have replied to that. Now, we wait to see how the Supreme Court elects to proceed.
