|
 |
Federal judges are the bulwark that is defending our democracy.
Today, in the Kennedy Center case, the lawyers went to court early, asking, as we’d suggested last night might happen, for an injunction to prevent Trump from demolishing the building. Judge Christopher Cooper acted quickly. As Norm Eisen, who represents the plaintiff, Congresswoman Joyce Beatty, a member of the Board, put it on Twitter, “We won! And we get discovery into this crazy demolition threat to boot.”
The Judge ordered the government to:
Provide a “detailed status report” and a sworn statement—the Judge is apparently no longer to take the government’s word for it—as to the temporary closure of and emergency repairs being done to the Kennedy Center.
Remember its obligation from a related case to inform the plaintiffs and the court of any change in plans regarding its prior representation that “the building will not be demolished and that no new structure will be constructed.”
Provide discovery to the plaintiffs.
All in all, it’s a compelling win for the plaintiffs, and perhaps more importantly, puts the government on notice that the court is out of patience. As to its obligation to alert the court and the plaintiffs to changed plans, the Judge wrote, “To avoid any confusion on that score given more recent events, the Court hereby ORDERS Defendants to provide such notice in writing to Plaintiffs in both cases more than 30 days before the implementation of any changes to the scope of the project plans.” That part is astonishing. “Given more recent events” can’t be interpreted as anything other than Trump’s comments, which we discussed last night, and the mock-up he was seen with discussing demolition of the Center.
In another case in the District of Columbia, Streever v. Mullin, Judge Rudolph Contreras delivered another stinging setback to the government. The plaintiff sued ICE after it served him with a written warning—a threat, really—that he would be prosecuted for expressing his displeasure with ICE’s leadership in a letter he wrote to acting director Todd Lyons if he didn’t stop his complaints. If you’re thinking, “Wow, that sounds like a classic First Amendment violation, the government imposing prior restraint on speech,” you’d be right.
Judge Contreras entered a preliminary injunction that prohibits ICE from “relying on the Warning Notice, issuing similar threats, or making good on the threats in the Warning Notice.”
Mr. Streever’s letter was not moderate in tone. But as the Judge pointed out, “Americans have long voiced their displeasure with their government. The Declaration of Independence itself is a list of grievances between Americans and the British government. And Americans have not always indulged in the elevated prose of the Declaration. Government officials have long endured ‘vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks.’” He noted nothing has changed since then, except for how this administration responds to criticism: “What is different is how the government responded in this case. ICE dispatched agents to Mr. Streever’s home” to threaten him with prosecution. The Judge granted the injunction, noting that what ICE did likely violated the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights.
Nothing in the plaintiff’s letter amounted to a threat. A prosecution here would have even less merit than the Comey seashell case, if that can even be possible. Streever simply expressed his displeasure with ICE in clear terms, writing after the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of ICE agents that:
“You are a monstrous human being and will go down in history as America’s Reinhard Heydrich, the butcher.
The way you are protecting the obvious execution in Minnesota, even as we see the videos, will lead to your downfall. Even Trump will turn on you before the end, and you will be a sad, despised man who eats himself alive with shame at your own pathetic weakness.
You will never know peace. You will seek to lose yourself, to escape the burden of knowing the truth about yourself. But wherever you go, you will find yourself. You will torment yourself until your last day on Earth.”
It’s all within the First Amendment.
Of course, the case is far from over. The government would be wise to leave it alone and refrain from appealing the injunction because the case is a stone-cold loser, but the Judge gave them 14 days to appeal before his injunction would go into effect. He wrote that he did that at the government’s request, so perhaps there will be an ill-advised appeal here. ICE is free to continue to investigate future conduct if necessary to protect the safety of agents, “so long as they do not issue threats to Mr. Streever deterring protected speech, such as the Warning Notice.” That’s another point in favor of Judge Contreras’ induction on appeal; it’s limited and addresses the government’s concerns while protecting the plaintiff’s fundamental constitutional rights.
District Judges are doing their job. But the issue continues to be whether their message is getting through to the Supreme Court. Today, The New York Times had an extremely unusual report that involved sitting federal judges criticizing the administration. It started with Judge Patrick Schlitz in Minneapolis, who was the Chief Judge last summer when all hell broke loose in that courthouse. In an interview, he called the administration’s actions “a grave threat to the rule of law.” The Times was able to speak with “six other members of Minnesota’s federal bench.”
We’ve discussed Judge Schlitz’s highly critical orders against the government at least three times. In January, he advised the government that his “patience was at an end” with their repeated violations of the right of people in their custody to a hearing, an essential part of due process. The Judge ordered the acting Director of ICE, Todd Lyons, to appear in his courtroom to explain his agency’s failures—not on Zoom but in person.
That hearing was canceled after the government complied with the rules, but Judge Schlitz wasn’t finished. He wrote, “Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted. This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence … ICE is not a law unto itself. ICE has every right to challenge the orders of this Court, but, like any litigant, ICE must follow those orders unless and until they are overturned or vacated.”
In late February, we were back before Judge Schlitz, who had entered another order in that same case. The U.S. Attorney in Minneapolis had been critical of the Judge’s conclusions about government misconduct. Judge Schlitz responded by double checking the cases he referred to and concluding that his assessment was correct. This time, he wrote, “This Court will continue to do whatever is required to protect the rule of law, including, if necessary, the use of criminal contempt. One way or another, ICE will comply with this Court’s orders.”
The Times points out that Judge Schlitz is “a George W. Bush appointee with almost 20 years of experience on the bench. He clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in the 1980s and has enjoyed close ties to the conservative legal establishment for decades.” In his interview, he told the reporters that “he thought the violations were largely the result of incompetence and staffing shortages, but also worried that the Justice Department had not taken their corrosive effect seriously enough.”
One of the stories the Judges told the Times involved a magistrate judge in Minneapolis, who declined to give the government the warrant it wanted to arrest journalist Don Lemon for what they characterized at the time as serious criminal conduct involving a church and the FACE Act. Here’s what happened to that Judge: “The condemnation of Judge Micko by Trump-aligned media outlets was followed by a series of violent threats, which have not been previously reported. In the interview, Judge Schiltz revealed that Judge Micko and his family had to be moved to a secure location, where they remained for several days. Judge Schiltz said that the administration’s statements were part of what had put Judge Micko in danger.”
One would hope even Supreme Court justices would be moved by that.
The report in the Times goes on to discuss how judges across the country began to follow suit after Judge Schlitz raised the alarm, no longer affording the government regularity, and calling its compliance with court orders into question. The report closes with a quote from Judge Schlitz: “Obedience to court orders is why people feel secure owning a home, saving money, getting married and having children. You walk down the street, and you assume you’re generally safe because of the law,” he said. “It’s the rule of law. If you don’t have it, you have either anarchy or you have authoritarianism. You have Russia or you have China or you have North Korea.”
District judges get it. They take their role as a check and balance seriously. The Supreme Court recently refused to let the administration try to prevent eligible American citizens from voting by mail. The question is whether they too will take their role as a check and balance more seriously, whether they will support the district courts. Congress has just gone out of session to avoid impeaching Pete Hegseth. The Republican Party has caved to Donald Trump. The lower federal courts continue to be the guardrail that protects democracy. But ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to be responsible for telling the monster it has created no, and making it stick.
If you’ve been reading Civil Discourse for free, I’m glad you’re here. I mean that. I keep almost everything. I write outside of paywalls because I think understanding what our government is doing—and what the courts are doing about it—shouldn’t depend on whether you can afford a subscription.
But if you can afford $50 a year, I’m asking you to become a paid subscriber. There’s a lot happening right now, and much of what matters most is buried in court orders, filings, and developments that disappear quickly from the headlines. I read them because the details matter. Then we work through them together here—what happened, what the law says, and what it means for the rule of law and our democracy. Paid subscribers make it possible for Civil Discourse to remain available to everyone. That’s the bargain here: those who can pay make sure everyone can read. And I think that matters.
We’re in this together,
Joyce