Nearly all the civil lawfare cases being brought by partisan interest groups seeking to block policy changes being adopted by the Trump administration include efforts by the plaintiffs to secure immediate judicial intervention based almost entirely on the plaintiffs’ characterization of facts. With only a few exceptions, where the law did not give them a choice, the plaintiffs are using exclusively “friendly” judicial districts where nearly all – or in a couple of instances, actually all — of the judges are appointees of President Obama or President Biden. These liberal-progressive district judges are rushing to enter temporary restraining orders (TROs) that block the policy changes and thereby thrust the disputes into the appellate system at the earliest possible moment – and THEN these judges begin the process of developing the actual facts while the appeals process grinds on. Missing from pretty much every case that I have followed is any effort to explore early settlement discussions or an interim agreement that both sides can live with while they develop their cases.

In federal civil litigation I've been involved in over the years, the district court judge will often direct the parties to a magistrate for early settlement conferences to see if any kind of accommodation can be reached that avoids a TRO or injunction pending trial. This takes pressure off the district judge with an entire docket full of cases that have been pending long before the politically charged case arrived. Each federal judge also has dozens – maybe a hundred or more – criminal cases that have much shorter timelines due to constitutional requirements as well.  

Yet over and over again, we see these liberal-progressive judges stop the globe from spinning while they devote tremendous time and resources to these partisan political lawfare cases designed to disrupt the Trump administration. Here are four examples – among dozens – that typify this problem.

  1. Newsom v. Trump – Northern District of California 

The first National Guard deployment case brought by California Governor Gavin Newsom over the activation and deployment of California Guardsmen to Southern California.  

Start to finish – 85 days, and based on the only claim that had not been addressed pretrial by the appeals court.

Recommended
Karmelo Anthony's History of Alleged Violence Laid Bare in Stunning Court Docs Kept From the Jury Kyle Becker Jelly Roll Just Got a Very Public Lesson in the Consequences of Trashing Trump Teri Christoph

  1. American Public Health v. Nat. Institutes of Health – District of Massachusetts

Case involving cancellation of grant funding for projects advancing DEI programs.

From reassignment to Judge Young to judgment – 53 days.  

The Supreme Court later chastised Judge Young in a different case for ignoring the court’s ruling in California v. Department of Ed., and allowing this case to proceed to a determination on the merits when the District Court lacked jurisdiction over claims such as those presented.    

  1. National TPS Alliance v. Noem — Northern District of California

This is the case where Plaintiffs attempted to block the termination of Temporary Protective Status (TPS) for Venezuelan citizens, making them subject to immediate deportation back to Venezuela.

There were literally dozens – likely over 100 – filings during the six-week period involving all kinds of discovery disputes between the two sides. The hearing date was eventually moved back three weeks to August 1. Again, the level of urgency and involvement by the district judge and magistrate judge on a daily basis to drive this case to a conclusion is simply beyond imagination. It’s as if Judge Chen had only one case he was dealing with. But it wasn’t over.

While the appeal of his postponement order was proceeding, Judge Chen continued with proceedings at the trial level in his Court.

While the length of time this case has been pending is greater than the first two examples, it took Judge Chen only from Feb. 19 to Mar. 31 – 40 days – to decide to postpone DHS Sec. Noem’s decision to end TPS status. After the Supreme Court granted a stay on that order – allowing Sec. Noem to begin deportations – it took Judge Chen from May 18 to Sept. 5 to bring the entire case to a conclusion, granting summary judgment in favor of the Venezuelans and vacating DHS Sec. Noem’s decision in just 109 days.  

SEE ALSO: Supreme Court Answers the Question of What You Call 300K Venezuelans Without Legal Residence in the US

Oregon Judge Issues Final Judgment on National Guard Case - 3 Guesses and the First 2 Don't Count

But none of the above examples hold a candle to Judge Karin Immergut in the District of Oregon.

  1. Oregon v. Trump — District of Oregon

This case involved the deployment of the Oregon National Guard to Portland

From the day the case was reassigned to Judge Immergut until she entered final judgment on the merits in favor of the plaintiffs – 36 days.  

Federal civil cases often take years to finish. There is no question that each of the cases above had reasons why they would have been expedited – the Trump administration’s change in policies was being held up by the early injunctive relief. But in each instance, the early injunctive relief was overturned, and the quickened pace of the cases was to get to an outcome.  

Shockingly – not – in each of the four cases above, the outcome ultimately was against the Trump administration. The urgency displayed by the judges in all the cases was ENTIRELY directed at the effort to stop the Trump administration from changing policies.  

It’s almost like there is nothing more they’d rather be doing.   

Editor's Note: This article was updated post-publication to note that the Judge Breyer in question is Charles, rather than Stephen.