With the past week being as woolly as it's been, I didn't have the chance (or, frankly, the mental bandwidth) to keep up with the court cases involving the Trump administration the way I typically do. There were several decisions of note that I just wanted to provide a quick rundown of for those who enjoy following along with the judicial realm developments:
First up, we have one of the many "removal of independent agency leader" cases:
⚖️ In Perlmutter v. Blanche (removal of director of Copyright Office), D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals GRANTS plaintiff's motion to enjoin admin. from "interfering with appellant’s service...pending further order of the court."https://t.co/oKSmuvV0Iv
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 10, 2025
- ❌ This one is styled "Perlmutter v. Blanche" and involves the removal of the director of the Copyright Office. The D.C. District Court judge who initially ruled on the case (Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee) denied the plaintiff's motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and asked for a stay pending their appeal, which the court of appeals granted, enjoining "appellees Todd Blanche, Paul Perkins, Sergio Gor, Trent Morse, and the Executive Office of the President, and their subordinates and agents...from interfering with appellant’s service as Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office pending further order of the court." In other words, Perlmutter gets to hang onto his job while the case works its way through the appellate process — unless the administration successfully petitions for rehearing en banc and/or winds up taking it up to the Supreme Court, which then stays the stay.
Next up, a familiar case, with a familiar sort of ruling from a familiar judge:
⚖️ In National TPS Alliance v. Noem (DHS revocation of TPS [Venezuela/Haiti]), Judge Edward Chen DENIES admin's motion to stay pending appeal. https://t.co/EUQkHB2Uzh
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 10, 2025
- ❌ In National TPS Alliance v. Noem (regarding the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans and Haitians), Northern District of California District Court Judge Edward Chen (an Obama appointee), after granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs, denied the administration's motion for a stay pending appeal. (Motions for an administrative stay and a stay pending appeal are currently before the 9th Circuit — we can expect a ruling from them on one or both of those motions shortly.)
There's this one regarding immigrant verification requirements:
⚖️ In State of NY v. DOJ (immigrant verification requirements), Judge Mary McElroy GRANTS preliminary injunction. [Decision entered on Wednesday - having to play a bit of catch-up here.]https://t.co/zWhmmLlRzO
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 12, 2025
- ❌ In State of New York v. DOJ, a case regarding notices issued by several administration departments (Justice, Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services) announcing that, going forward, "immigration verification will be necessary for individuals to access emergency services for domestic violence victims and veterans, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, mental health crisis programs, and plenty more." Rhode Island District Court Judge Mary McElroy (appointed by Trump) granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Then, we've got a win for the administration from, perhaps, a surprising quarter:
⚖️ In American Association of Physics Teachers v. National Science Foundation (termination of grants), Judge Jia Cobb (D.C.) DENIES plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.https://t.co/tyExanGxjp
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 12, 2025
- ✅ In American Association of Physics Teachers v. National Science Foundation (regarding the termination of federal grants), D.C. District Court Judge Jia Cobb (a Biden appointee) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
Next up, a case involving Executive Order 14238 - "Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy":
⚖️ In State of Rhode Island v. Trump (changes to Social Security Administration), 1st Circuit Court of Appeals DENIES administration's motion for stay pending appeal.https://t.co/rn8MuRjfIs
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 12, 2025
- ❌ In State of Rhode Island v. Trump (regarding reductions in force in several agencies, including the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service), the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals denied the administration's motion to stay the preliminary injunction entered by Judge John McConnell Jr. (in May) pending the appeal.
This one (I guess) qualifies as a "win" (or maybe more of a wash) for the administration:
⚖️ In Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr (immigration detention policy), Judge Sunshine Sykes (Central District of California) DENIES motion for preliminary injunction as moot and requests parties to show cause why case should not be dismissed.…
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 12, 2025
- ↔️ In Lazaro Maldonado Bautista v. Ernesto Santacruz Jr (regarding immigration detention policy), Central District of California District Judge Sunshine Sykes (a Biden appointee) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as moot and indicated she'll dismiss the case unless the parties show cause why she should not. (To be clear, the motion is moot because the administration subsequently "provided evidence that each of the Petitioners was provided with an individualized bond hearing and subsequently released on bond." Thus, the plaintiffs essentially got the relief they'd requested in their suit.)
Next up, Head Start:
⚖️ In Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program v. Kennedy (dismantling of Head Start), Judge Ricardo Martinez (Western District of Washington) GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.https://t.co/Pu6fIGSsfH
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 12, 2025
- ❌ In Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program v. Kennedy (regarding the dismantling of Head Start), Western District of Washington District Judge Ricardo Martinez (a Bush 43 appointee) granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.
This one's quite notable, given the ridiculous nature of the district court rulings:
⚖️ In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy (defunding Planned Parenthood), 1st Circuit Court of Appeals GRANTS admin's motion for stay pending appeal.https://t.co/96mMxbuKft
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 12, 2025
- ✅ In Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Kennedy (regarding the defunding of Planned Parenthood pursuant to the OBBB), the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administration's motion for stay pending appeal.
Streiff has a more detailed write-up of this one here:
Appeals Court Tosses Ridiculous Ruling That Kept Money Flowing to Planned Parenthood
More immigration-related rulings here:
⚖️ In African Communities Together v. Lyons (immigration raids and arrests), Judge P. Kevin Castel (Southern District of New York) GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief.https://t.co/f8c1og3Kpu
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 12, 2025
- ↔️ In African Communities Together v. Lyons (regarding immigration raids and arrests), Southern District of New York District Judge P. Kevin Castel (another Bush 43 appointee) granted — in part — plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief. (This one's a bit convoluted for purposes of this summary, so I'll simply note that one of the plaintiff organizations was found to have one standing, while one was not, and a portion of the relief requested by the plaintiff organization that does have standing was granted, but a portion of it was not.)
More immigration:
⚖️ In Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem (expedited removal for those on parole), D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals LIFTS its prior administrative stay and DENIES administration's request for stay pending appeal.https://t.co/zouE38mq7S
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 14, 2025
- ❌ In Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem (expedited removal for those on parole), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted its prior administrative stay and denied the administration's request for a stay pending appeal. D.C. District Court Judge Jia Cobb previously ordered a stay of agency action while the case is fully litigated. In sum, no stay of the stay, so expedited removal for those on parole is on hold — for now.
Okay, now this is another biggie (and another smackdown of Massachusetts District Court Judge Indira Talwani by the 1st Circuit, for that matter):
⚖️ In Doe v. Noem (termination of categorical parole programs (CHNV)), 1st Circuit Court of Appeals vacates district court's stay of termination. https://t.co/vtQwalaSXp
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 14, 2025
- ✅ In Doe v. Noem (regarding DHS termination of categorical parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans), Judge Talwani had stayed the DHS termination policy. The 1st Circuit has now vacated that stay, noting: "In sum, we hold that the Plaintiffs have not made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed in showing that the Secretary's decision to terminate the CHNV parole programs exceeded her discretion as authorized by the INA." Nor did they find it likely that plaintiffs could show DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's termination was arbitrary and capricious. In a nutshell, the termination of the CHNV parole program may proceed.
Last, but not least:
⚖️ In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. OPM (termination of probationary employees), Judge William Alsup (Northern District of California) GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (in part); DENIES admin's MSJ.https://t.co/055eU7anfi
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) September 14, 2025
- ❌ In American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO v. OPM (regarding the termination of probationary employees), Judge William Alsup (Northern District of California) granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied the administration's cross-motion for summary judgment. (This one has already been appealed to the 9th Circuit.)
Alright, that was a lot, wasn't it? And those were just the decisions of note — and that was just over the span of three or four days. Those lawyers are staying busy!
Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication to include emoji signifiers of whether each decision was a "win," "loss," or "draw" for the administration following the great suggestion by a reader.