Altruistic World Online Library

Jimmy Kimmel on Trump’s Disgusting Abuse of Power and What’s REALLY Happening in LA
Jimmy Kimmel Live
Jun 10, 2025 #Kimmel

Kaizen D. Asiedu@thatsKAIZEN

Los Angeles

https://x.com/i/status/1931848903349198941

Jimmy talks about what’s actually happening in Los Angeles right now for those who believe the city is some kind of totalitarian hellscape, protesters voicing their opposition to Trump’s disgusting and unnecessary abuse of power, Trump going around Governor Newsom to call in 4,000 troops from the National Guard and 700 active duty Marines, insisting that paid protesters are causing problems, creating a distraction from the fact that just a few days ago Elon Musk tweeted that Trump is in the Epstein files, and we take a look back at what past Presidents have said about immigration.



Transcript

[Jimmy Kimmel] i'm the host of the show thank you for
watching thank you for coming please
relax you know what You see here we have
a uh we have a full house tonight as we
always do here at our studio in
Hollywood which might be surprising for
those of you in other parts of the
country who have been watching cable
news and believe this city is some kind
of totalitarian hellscape right now it
most certainly is not in fact let's take
a look outside cuz I want you to see
what it's like in Hollywood right now
you won't see this elsewhere on
television not only is it not an
apocalypse they're having a Disney Pixar
movie premiere right now for Elio a
movie about aliens don't tell Trump
he'll send the Green Berets in too but I
just want to say thank God for President
Trump and the heroes at ICE for
protecting us from these bloodthirsty
fruit stand vendors spreading their
dangerous pineapple chunks and mangoes
with a squirt of lime all over the city
we are so grateful for what you have
done i'm very angry i have to say I
cannot believe what's going on i knew it
was going to be bad i did not know it
was going to be this bad people who have
lived here their whole lives people
who've been in this city longer than I
have the vast majority of whom have
never done anything wrong are being
abducted which is the correct word to
use by agents in masks hiding their
identities grabbing people off the
street and at work uh sending people to
detention centers and to protest that
which is not only our right as Americans
it's our responsibility losenos have
been gathering to demonstrate and with
very few exceptions peacefully
demonstrate to voice their opposition to
this disgusting and unnecessary abuse of
power instigated by our mentally ill
president who is dead set on
exacerbating this who actually wants
conflict who is intentionally inflaming
and lying to make it seem like there's a
war going on here he wants there to be a
war going on here and he doesn't care
who gets hurt in it there's a riot
outside we have more so-called unrest
here when one of our teams wins a
championship but that's not what you're
seeing on TV someone sets a fire in a
garbage can 12 camera crews go running
toward it trump wants it to seem like
anarchy so he goes around our governor
and he calls in 4,000 troops from the
National Guard and 700 active duty
Marines you know when we had the
wildfires that devastated big chunks of
our city he did absolutely nothing now
that we're in the middle of a
non-emergency
send in the National Guard hey Mr
president when is the last time you
spoke with Governor Nelson
[Music]
A day ago
called him up to tell him got to do a
better job he's doing a bad job causing
a lot of death and a lot of a lot of
potential death if we didn't send out
the National Guard and last time we gave
him a little additional help uh you
would have Los Angeles would be burning
right now no no when it will be calm and
sunny and 70° just like it is right now
what a hero you know he's always saving
our city from burning last time we were
burning back in January you remember he
had them turn on that great big faucet
that put all the fires out they met with
a very heavy force and if they weren't
you would have that city right now would
be on fire it would be burning down the
rest of it what's left over because the
other fire was started because they
wouldn't allow water into LA they
wouldn't allow water into California
because they had it all shifted out to
the Pacific Ocean and I turned it around
still with it does anyone believe this I
I He might be starting to convince
himself that did not happen he so
desperately wants to be the hero putting
out fires he's starting putting out a
fire you purposely start doesn't make
you a firefighter it makes you an
arsonist with a hose okay It's so nuts
i mean
the president of the United States has
been tougher on LA than on Russia
remember that twoe deadline he gave
Putin to sit down for peace talks with
Ukraine As of tomorrow it's 2 weeks but
by all means send the Marines to the
Grove this is an unstable person i mean
listen to this guy they say we're a
forest nation we live in a forest and
they don't have forest fires and in one
case he said "You know our trees are
much more flammable than California but
we don't have forest fires because we
clean the floor we sweep the floor of
leaves california is a disaster what
they've done in California they don't do
anything and if you did you wouldn't you
almost would not have forest fires and
you could say you in theory you
shouldn't have any forest fires and we
spend billions and billions of dollars a
year because uh people don't clean the
forests and we're going to clean the
forests we're going to start cleaning
them." Yeah yeah that's right any day
now he's going to send in a squadron of
Roombas to clean it up to clean he's
cleaning the forest the guy can't even
keep the clumps of hair out of his
shower drain and now he's cleaning the
forest and to be fair some of the
protesters broke the law they're
throwing water bottles three Whimos
these driverless cars got set on fire
which is ironic because the MAGA crowd
thinks immigrants are here to steal our
jobs but if you're a driver for Uber or
Lift you know the real threat is Whimo
you know Trump lies about everything a
lot of stuff but it's especially
maddening when he's lying about a
situation you are physically in i mean
everyone in this room right now knows
none of these doomsday scenarios the
president and his minions keep imagining
allowed is even or it's not remotely
true there are no mobs there are no
there's no violent insurrection there
are Americans who are upset marching to
protect their neighbors no matter what
this sick person says these are paid
insurrectionists or agitators or
troublemakers you can call it whatever
you want but these are paid
insurrectionists and these are paid
insurrectionists these are paid
troublemakers these are paid
troublemakers but these are paid people
in many cases they get money
they're paid
you see in that little mind that sticky
little brain covered with Aquanet it
would have to be paid because why would
anyone ever do anything without being
paid right Melania I mean that's how he
thinks look there are always going to be
when you're out on the street there are
always going to be nuts who set fires
and throw rocks at the police and the
military and they should never ever do
that and there are also going to be bad
members of law enforcement who think
it's okay to shoot rubber bullets at
journalists it's human nature we're
human beings but none of them should be
in this position in the first place
donald Trump created this problem he's
putting the police and the military in
danger he's the one deporting children
and their parents without any process
he's the one who has ICE agents outside
immigration offices arresting the people
who showed up to do the right thing and
check in with the immigration office
this is not a problem we had this is a
problem he made and is intentionally
doing everything he can to make it worse
he is purposefully pitting Americans
against each other to create protest
porn for Fox News because that's what
excites them he knows that the good
people are going to stand up for their
neighbors and he's exploiting that and
to those of you in the National Guard
who've been thrust into this when Donald
Trump orders you to do something that
you know is immoral try to get your
dad's podiatrist to write a note to say
you have bone spurs that resonates with
him he has tender feet he'll let you
stay home the people he's terrorizing
the vast vast majority of them have done
nothing wrong ever they came here to
work to give their families a better
life like almost all of our families did
and they're treating him like they like
they're a bunch of hyenas that got loose
from the zoo but here's the thing we
have to be smart he wants us to burn
this city down he wants that he smiles
when he sees that that's why we have to
do everything in our power to protest
peacefully and to respect the policemen
and the women and the military many of
whom probably agree with the people
they're now squared off against cuz he's
trying to make us look like a bunch of
savages but here's the thing uh Mr
president no matter what you do no
matter how much chaos you try to create
to distract us it's not going it's never
going to be enough to make us forget
that your buddy Elon wrote this about
you last week and we want to we do want
to see that list he has been very
successful bumping that out of the news
last week it was all anyone was talking
about elon versus Trump even the
right-wing media was talking about it
non-stop and taking it very hard look
you ever watch two parents fight That's
kind of what I feel like I'm in the
middle of right now i hate it when dad
and dad fight i would prefer that mom
and dad would just stop fighting i don't
want to see my parents fighting they're
still together this is just a fight it's
a spat you know i think it's fake
they'll work it out eventually i'm
hoping it's like a Ross and Rachel thing
that it's just a break do we have to
pick and choose which which dad we want
to live with
Yeah no I I want to live with both of
them
wait I thought you guys were against
children having two dads i'm confused
everyone was talking about Trump on the
Epstein list and fighting with Elon so
what did he do He manufactured a crisis
he he got back to what got him here in
the first place good old xenophobia i I
don't know what happened to the state's
rights he thinks so much of when it
suits him but I know I speak for a lot
of us here when I say leave us alone
here we don't need you we don't need
your help
we didn't ask for your help we don't
want your help i thought the idea was to
make America great this is not great try
to act like a president for once and in
case in case you don't know what that
looks like maybe this will help cuz it
looks like this we are one and all
immigrants or the sons and daughters we
are the descendants of 40 million people
who left other countries to make a new
opportunity for themselves and their
children the lamp of this grand old lady
is brighter today and the golden door
that she guards gleams more brilliantly
in the light of an increased liberty
for the people
from all countries i'm convinced that
the vast majority of Americans today
want these people to have another
opportunity i was in a party that
welcomed generations of immigrants if we
ever closed the door to new Americans
our leadership in the world would soon
be lost immigration
is not just a link to America's past
it's also a bridge to America's future
this is one country we like our
diversity we are proud of it amid all
the complications of policy
may we never forget that immigration is
a blessing and a strength these people
our neighbors our classmates
our friends they did not come here in
search of a free ride or an easy life
they came to work we don't demonize
immigrants we don't single them out for
attacks we don't believe they're
poisoning the blood of the country we're
a nation of immigrants and that's why
we're so damn strong they're eating the
dogs the people that came in they're
eating the cats they're eating They're
eating the pets
[Applause]
yeah that's right

EXCLUSIVE: Governor Newsom ADDRESSES State and Nation LIVE
MeidasTouch
Streamed live 19 hours ago

California Governor Gavin Newsom addresses California and the Nation about urgent matters involving Donald Trump’s recent orders.



Transcript

[Gov. Newsom] I want to say a few words about the
events of the last few days this past
weekend federal agents conducted
large-scale workplace raids in and
around Los Angeles those raids continue
as I speak california is no stranger to
immigration enforcement but instead of
focusing on undocumented immigrants with
serious criminal records and people with
final deportation orders a strategy both
parties have long supported this
administration is pushing mass
deportations indiscriminately targeting
hardworking immigrant families
regardless of their roots or risk what's
happening right now is very different
than anything we've seen before on
Saturday morning when federal agents
jumped out of an unmarked van near a
Home Depot parking lot they began
grabbing people a deliberate targeting
of a heavily Latino suburb a similar
scene played out when a clothing company
was raided downtown in other actions a
US citizen 9 months pregnant was
arrested a four-year-old girl taken
families separated friends quite
literally disappearing in response
everyday Angelinos came out to exercise
their constitutional right to free
speech and assembly to protest their
government's actions in turn the state
of California and the city and county of
Los Angeles sent our police officers to
help keep the peace and with some
exceptions they were successful like
many states California is no stranger to
this sort of unrest we manage it
regularly and with our own law
enforcement but this again was different
what then ensued was a use of tear gas
flashbang grenades rubber bullets
federal agents detaining people and
undermining their due process rights
donald Trump without consulting
California law enforcement leaders
commandeered 2,000 of our state's
National Guard members to deploy on our
streets illegally and for no reason this
brazen abuse of power by a sitting
president inflamed a combustible
situation putting our people our
officers and even our National Guard at
risk that's when the downward spiral
began he doubled down on his dangerous
National Guard deployment by fanning the
flames even harder and the president he
did it on purpose as the news spread
throughout LA anxiety for family and
friends ramped up protests started again
by night several dozen lawb breakakers
became violent and destructive they
vandalized property they tried to
assault police officers many of you have
seen the video clips of cars burning on
cable news if you incite violence I want
to be clear about this if you incite
violence or destroy our communities
you're going to be held to account that
kind of criminal behavior will not be
tolerated full stop already more than
220 people have been arrested and we're
reviewing tapes to build additional
cases and people will be prosecuted to
the fullest extent of the law again
thanks to our law enforcement officers
and the majority of Angelinos who
protested peacefully the situation was
winding down and was concentrated in
just a few square blocks downtown but
that that's not what Donald Trump wanted
he again chose escalation he chose more
force he chose theatrics over public
safety he federalized another 2,000
guard members he deployed more than 700
active US Marines these are the men and
women trained for foreign combat not
domestic law enforcement we honor their
service we honor their bravery but we do
not want our streets militarized by our
own armed forces not in LA not in
California not anywhere we're seeing
unmarked cars unmarked cars in school
parking lots kids afraid of attending
their own graduation trump is pulling a
military drag net all across Los Angeles
well beyond his stated intent to just go
after violent and serious criminals his
agents are arresting dishwashers
gardeners day laborers and seamstresses
that's just weakness weakness
masquerading as strength donald Trump's
government isn't protecting our
communities they're traumatizing our
communities and that seems to be the
entire point california will keep
fighting we'll keep fighting on behalf
of our people all of our people
including in the courts just yesterday
we filed a legal challenge to Donald
Trump's reckless deployment of American
troops to a major American city today we
sought an emergency court order to stop
the use of the American military to
engage in law enforcement activities
across Los Angeles if some of us could
be snatched off the streets without a
warrant based only on suspicion or skin
color then none of us are safe
authoritarian regimes begin by targeting
people who are least able to defend
themselves but they do not stop there
trump and his loyalists they thrive on
division because it allows them to take
more power and exert even more control
and by the way Trump he's not opposed to
lawlessness and violence as long as it
serves him what more evidence do we need
than January 6th i ask everyone take
time reflect on this perilous moment a
president who wants to be bound by no
law or constitution perpetuating a
unified assault on American traditions
this is a president who in just over 140
days has fired government watchd dogs
that could hold him accountable
accountable for corruption and fraud
he's declared a war a war on culture on
history on science on knowledge itself
databases quite literally are vanishing
he's delegitimizing news organizations
and he's assaulting the First Amendment
and the threat of defunding them at
threat he's dictating what universities
themselves can teach he's targeting law
firms and the judicial branch that are
the foundations of an orderly and civil
society he's calling for a sitting
governor to be arrested for no other
reason than to in his own words for
getting elected and we all know this
Saturday he's ordering our American
heroes the United States military and
forcing them to put on a vulgar display
to celebrate his birthday just as other
failed dictators have done in the past
look this this isn't just about protests
here in Los Angeles when Donald Trump
sought blanket authority to commander
the National Guard he made that order
apply to every state in this nation this
is about all of us this is about you
california may be first but it clearly
will not end here other states are next
democracy is next democracy is under
assault before our eyes this moment we
have feared has arrived he's taking a
wrecking ball a wrecking ball to our
founding father's historic project three
co-equal branches of independent
government there are no longer any
checks and balances congress is nowhere
to be found speaker Johnson has
completely abdicated that responsibility
the rule of law has increasingly been
given way to the rule of dawn the
founding fathers they didn't live and
die to see this kind of moment it's time
for all of us to stand up justice
Brandeise you said it best in a
democracy the most important office with
all due respect Mr president is not the
presidency and it's certainly not
governor the most important office is
office of citizen at this moment at this
moment we all need to stand up and be
held to account a higher level of
accountability if you exercise your
first amendment rights please please do
it peacefully i know many of you are are
feeling deep anxiety stress and fear but
I want you to know that you are the
antidote to that fear and that anxiety
what Donald Trump wants most is your
feelalty your silence to be complicit in
this moment do not give into him

Part 1 of 2

https://cfce73f5-6016-42c8-9343-fa96f88 ... e89c78.pdf

June 5, 2025

The Florida Bar
Attn: ACAP
651 E. Jefferson Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2300
[email protected]

Re: Ethics Complaint Against Pamela Jo Bondi1

The undersigned attorneys, law professors and former judges file this complaint seeking an investigation and appropriate sanctions against Pamela Jo Bondi, a member of The Florida Bar, who has engaged in serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.2

We file this complaint recognizing that Ms. Bondi currently serves as the Attorney General of the United States, the highest-ranking lawyer in the United States government. Indeed, we bring Ms. Bondi’s misconduct to your attention precisely because Ms. Bondi holds this exalted position, with the attendant responsibilities for subordinate lawyers under her authority who carry out her directives, and because the complaint highlights for the entire legal profession the importance of ethical rules to our independent, self-regulating profession.

Likewise, we file this complaint notwithstanding The Florida Bar’s recent reply to two previous ethics complaints filed against Ms. Bondi that it “does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.”3 The purported rationale for declining to investigate or prosecute is that such action “could encroach on the authority of the federal government concerning these officials and the exercise of their duties.”4 The Florida Bar’s dismissal is unsupported by history or precedent. As the Supreme Court has held:

Since the founding of the Republic, the licensing and regulation of lawyers has been left exclusively to the States and the District of Columbia within their respective jurisdictions. The States prescribe the qualifications for admission to practice and the standards of professional conduct. They also are responsible for the discipline of lawyers.5

Accordingly, this policy of The Florida Bar is an abdication of its jurisdiction and its responsibility to regulate the legal profession. Indeed, this policy means that the Bar will exercise no authority over the behavior of lawyers licensed in Florida who happen to be appointed as an officer of the United States.6 In other words, any such lawyers, including the Attorney General, are professionally unaccountable.

The Rules not only require that lawyers who are public officials are accountable for their ethical conduct, but they specifically declare that lawyers who are public officials have a higher duty than other lawyers to maintain ethical standards: “Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens. A lawyer’s abuse of public office can suggest an inability to fulfill the professional role of attorney.”7 Nowhere in the Rules or Comments is there an exemption for lawyers who are federal public officials. Moreover, the McDade Amendment, 28 U.S.C § 530B, plainly makes Department of Justice lawyers subject to state bar rules.8 Therefore, we ask The Florida Bar to do its duty and investigate the serious professional misconduct discussed herein.

Summary of the Complaint

The gravamen of this complaint is that Ms. Bondi, personally and through her senior management, has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of “zealous advocacy” as announced in her memorandum to all Department employees, issued on her first day in office, threatening employees with discipline and possible termination for falling short.9 She has exerted this pressure even though the Rules of Professional Conduct limit the “zeal” of attorneys to “lawful and ethical measures.”10 Such conduct violates Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-8.4(a), which makes it misconduct for a lawyer to “knowingly assist or induce another … to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct”; Rule 4-5.1, which imposes ethical duties on Ms. Bondi to take reasonable measures with respect to her managerial duties as Attorney General and her supervisory duties over subordinate lawyers to ensure that lawyers in the Department comply with their ethical duties; and Rule 4-8.4(d), which prohibits a lawyer from engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

In this complaint, we highlight three glaring examples of Department lawyers being terminated or forced to resign as a result of demands that they act unethically issued by Ms. Bondi or a member of her senior management, including Emil Bove, initially the Acting Deputy Attorney General (the No. 2 position in the Department) and now the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General (the No. 3 position); Todd Blanche, the current Deputy Attorney General; and Edward Martin, then Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and now chief of the Justice Department’s “Weaponization Working Group” and the Department’s pardon attorney.

In the simplest and most alarming example, Ms. Bondi and her deputy, Mr. Blanche, fired an experienced and accomplished attorney, Erez Reuveni, for telling the truth before a tribunal in the case involving Kilmar Garcia,11 who was deported to El Salvador due to an administrative error, and contrary to a court order that he not be deported to that country. The second example is the forced resignation of Denise Cheung, who had served in the Department for nearly a quarter century, when she declined to open a criminal investigation because there was insufficient predication. And the third example of this pattern of conduct occurred when the Department proposed to dismiss the criminal indictment of Mayor Eric Adams of New York without prejudice in exchange for Mr. Adams’ assistance on immigration enforcement. Because the dismissal was based on an improper quid pro quo, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York and almost a dozen other lawyers in that office and the Department’s Public Integrity Section objected to the proposed dismissal. As a result, they were forced to resign immediately or placed on administrative leave and later resigned rather than express regret for the prosecution.

Through her “zealous advocacy” memorandum and its application in these three cases, Ms. Bondi has sent a message to all Justice Department lawyers that they must disregard the applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, fundamental ethical principles, and longstanding norms of the Department in order to zealously pursue the President’s political objectives—and, if they fail to do so, they will be disciplined or fired. However, as Ms. Bondi and her senior staff are fond of saying, no one is above the law,12 and this includes Ms. Bondi.

This complaint will first describe Ms. Bondi’s and her senior managers’ conduct in connection with these examples. It then identifies the ethical provisions she likely has violated and explains how her actions endanger the rule of law and the administration of justice.13

I. Factual Statement

A. Ms. Bondi’s “Zealous Advocacy” Memorandum

On her first day as Attorney General (February 5, 2025), Ms. Bondi issued a memorandum to all Justice Department employees entitled General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States.14 It states in part

It is the job of an attorney privileged to serve in the Department of Justice to zealously defend the interests of the United States. Those interests, and the overall policy of the United States, are set by the Nation's Chief Executive, who is vested by the Constitution with all "[E]xecutive Power." More broadly, attorneys are expected to zealously advance, protect, and defend their client’s interests. Department of Justice attorneys have signed up for a job that requires zealously advocating for the United States.

The responsibilities of Department of Justice attorneys include not only aggressively enforcing criminal and civil laws enacted by Congress, but also vigorously defending presidential policies and actions against legal challenges on behalf of the United States. The discretion afforded Department attorneys entrusted with these responsibilities does not include latitude to substitute personal political views or judgments for those that prevailed in the election.

When Department of Justice attorneys, for example, refuse to advance goodfaith arguments by declining to appear in court or sign briefs, it undermines the constitutional order and deprives the President of the benefit of his lawyers. It is therefore the policy of the Department of Justice that any attorney who because of their personal political views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Department's mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination, consistent with applicable law.15

As subsequent events demonstrate, the zealousness intended by Ms. Bondi’s memorandum entails the routine violation of ethical strictures applicable to Department lawyers and has resulted in these lawyers being fired for complying with those limits or forced to resign rather than violate their ethical obligations.

B. Kilmar Garcia Litigation

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran citizen. He entered the United States around 2011.16 In 2019, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) instituted removal proceedings against him. In response, Garcia sought a “withholding of removal” order preventing the United States from removing him to El Salvador. That order was issued in October 2019 after the immigration judge agreed it was more likely than not that Garcia would be persecuted by gangs if he were forced to return to his home country. The government did not appeal that order, so it became effective.

In March of this year, Mr. Garcia was detained by ICE and, without notice or legal process, flown to El Salvador and placed in the notorious “Terrorism Confinement Center” (CECOT).17 On March 24, his family filed suit in federal district court in Maryland against several federal defendants, including the Secretary of Homeland Security and Ms. Bondi. They also sought an emergency temporary restraining order asking the court to order the defendants to request the government of El Salvador to return Mr. Garcia.

The government filed its response on March 31, arguing principally that the district court lacked jurisdiction for several reasons, and that it was not likely that El Salvador would respond positively to a request from the United States.18 Critically, the response conceded that, “[o]n March 15, although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error.”19

At the April 4 hearing on the TRO motion, the government was represented by Erez Reuveni, the Acting Deputy Director of DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation and one of the DOJ lawyers who signed the March 31 response. As such, Mr. Reuveni had no option but to say at the outset, consistent with the Department’s March 31 response, “we concede the facts. This person should—the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed.”20 In an exchange with the court, he explained why: there was a withholding of removal order, now final, that forbade the government from returning Mr. Garcia to El Salvador. As a result, he acknowledged, “[t]here’s no dispute that the order could not be used to send Mr. Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.”21 When the court pressed him on what document the government had relied upon to initiate Mr. Garcia’s removal in 2025, Mr. Reuveni again had no option but to concede “[t]hat is not in the record, and the government has not put that into the record. And that’s the best I can do.”22

Similarly, Mr. Reuveni had to concede that the withholding of the removal order meant that, as a matter of law, Mr. Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador,23 and that there was “no case directly on point to Your Honor’s question.”24 The court thanked Mr. Reuveni, no less than three separate times, for his “candor.”25 Mr. Reuveni did point out where there was a “dispute” between the parties,26 and he argued at some length why the government believed the court had no jurisdiction in the case.27

And yet, the very next day, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche placed Mr. Reuveni on administrative leave for failing to “follow a directive from your supervisors,” “engaging in conduct prejudicial to your client” and not “zealously advocat[ing] on behalf of the United States.”28 And the next day, Ms. Bondi appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and made it clear that Mr. Reuveni’s suspension was a direct consequence of her February 5 “zealous advocacy” memorandum:

He was put on administrative leave by Todd Blanche on Saturday. And I firmly said on Day 1, I issued a memo that you are to vigorously advocate on behalf of the United States. Our client in this matter was Homeland Security—is Homeland Security. He did not argue. He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do. He’s on administrative leave now. . . . You have to vigorously argue on behalf of your client.29

The Fox host, Shannon Bream, twice pointed out that “the government ha[d] admitted there was an error in deporting him.”30 Neither time did Ms. Bondi dispute that assertion; nor did she explain how Mr. Reuveni could have done so. Rather, she simply said that Mr. Reuveni’s conduct “would be a defense attorney walking in conceding something in a criminal matter. That would never happen in this country.” 31

Ten days later, Mr. Reuveni was fired by Mr. Bove at Ms. Bondi’s direction.32 Mr. Blanche also suspended Mr. Reuveni’s immediate supervisor, August Flentje, for failure to supervise Mr. Reuveni.33

C. EPA Clean Energy Contract Investigation

Denise Cheung served for over 24 years in the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia.34 She was most recently the Chief of the Criminal Division of that office. On February 17, 2025, the Department’s Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) (then headed by Mr. Bove in an acting capacity) instructed Ms. Cheung to open a criminal investigation into whether EPA had unlawfully awarded a clean energy project contract, and to issue grand jury subpoenas pursuant to the investigation. She was instructed to take that action by close of business that evening to prevent contract awardees from drawing down contract funds held by Citibank.

Ms. Cheung conferred with colleagues with substantial white collar criminal prosecution experience, reviewed documentation provided by ODAG, and concluded that the documents on their face did not provide the predicate for opening a criminal investigation. After much internal debate, ODAG said a “freeze letter” requesting that the bank freeze the funds would be adequate. Ms. Cheung contacted the FBI’s Washington Field Office to start that process. Ms. Cheung also viewed a Project Veritas video that ODAG claimed provided probable cause.

Ms. Cheung sent a draft freeze letter to the Principal Deputy U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (PAUSA). The PAUSA proposed inclusion of language stating that the government had probable cause to believe that contract funds held by the bank were subject to seizure and forfeiture. Ms. Cheung said the language was not appropriate, based on evidence she had reviewed. Ms. Cheung provided the FBI with alternative language that said “there may be conduct that constitutes potential violations of [the federal criminal code] that merits additional investigation.” The FBI issued the letter to Citibank at 7:28 pm.

The PAUSA and Interim U.S. Attorney Martin called Ms. Cheung shortly afterward, objecting to the language of the freeze letter and directing Ms. Cheung to immediately send a second letter to the bank, signed by herself and Mr. Martin, announcing the commencement of a criminal investigation and ordering the bank not to disburse any funds. Ms. Cheung responded that she continued to believe there was insufficient evidence to issue such a letter, including insufficient evidence to tell the bank there was probable cause to seize the accounts that had been identified. Because Ms. Cheung believed she did not have legal authority to send the letter, she told Mr. Martin she would not send it. Mr. Martin then asked for her resignation, which she submitted the following day.

Mr. Martin then personally submitted an application for a seizure warrant, not signed by any other prosecutors in his office.35 A U.S. magistrate judge rejected it on the grounds that the application (which included an affidavit from an FBI agent) failed to establish a reasonable belief that a crime had occurred. Mr. Bove then approached at least one other U.S. attorney’s office in the southeastern United States about launching a grand jury investigation of the same contract and seeking a court-ordered bank freeze, but prosecutors in that office also refused to do so.

D. Dismissal of Eric Adams Prosecution36

In September 2024, the Department indicted Eric Adams, the Mayor of New York City, on five counts arising from his alleged solicitation of illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals. Shortly after the election, Mr. Adams and his defense team initiated contact with Trump staff and ultimately met with the President-Elect himself. On January 31, 2025, Mayor Adams’ counsel met with then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Bove and the prosecutors working on the case, led by Danielle Sassoon, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. At that meeting, as documented by Ms. Sassoon, the Mayor’s counsel indicated that he could be helpful to the Administration’s immigration enforcement priorities if he was no longer facing prosecution. Also, as reported by Ms. Sassoon in her resignation letter, Mr. Bove “admonished a member of my team who took notes during that meeting and directed the collection of those notes at the meeting’s conclusion.”37

On February 10, Mr. Bove sent a memorandum to Ms. Sassoon, stating that he was acting pursuant to the authorization of the Attorney General. The memorandum instructed her to dismiss the indictment after obtaining Mr. Adams’ consent to dismissal of the indictment without prejudice to it being refiled. Mr. Bove’s memorandum provided two grounds for dismissal: (1) doing so would enable Mr. Adams to assist in immigration enforcement; and (2) Damian Williams, Ms. Sassoon’s predecessor, improperly “weaponized” the prosecution. Mr. Bove’s memorandum also stated that the decision to dismiss had been reached without consideration of the merits of the prosecution.

Ms. Sassoon wrote Ms. Bondi on February 12 to request a meeting and express her grave misgivings about this memorandum. She expressed concern that the agreement with Mayor Adams to consent to dismissal had been “negotiated without my office’s awareness or participation.” She explained that offering to drop a prosecution in exchange for a promise of assistance violated the Department of Justice Manual and the Rules of Professional Conduct, and would constitute prosecutorial misconduct. She also explained that Mr. Williams had very little involvement in the investigation, that the decision to indict originated with career staff, and that Mr. Williams’ public statements were typical for a U.S. Attorney. “Moreover,” she added, “dismissing without prejudice and with the express option of again indicting Adams in the future creates obvious ethical problems, by implicitly threatening future prosecution if Adams’s cooperation with enforcing the immigration laws proves unsatisfactory to the Department.”

Ms. Sassoon said “I am mindful of your recent order reiterating prosecutors’ duty to make good-faith arguments in support of the Executive Branch’s positions. See Feb. 5, 2025 Mem. ‘General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States.’ But because I do not see any good-faith basis for the proposed position, I cannot make such arguments consistent with my duty of candor.” She offered to resign if Ms. Bondi chose not to meet with her or to reevaluate the dismissal directive.

Mr. Bove responded on February 13, “accepting” Ms. Sassoon’s resignation and placing the two lead prosecutors on administrative leave, pending an investigation of all three attorneys’ “insubordination” by the Office of Attorney General and the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility.38 The letter quoted from the “zealous advocacy” memorandum and added: “Your Office was not exempted from . . . the Attorney General’s memorandum.” That same day, Mr. Bove transferred the Adams prosecution from the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York to the Department’s Public Integrity Section. The two leaders of the Public Integrity Section and three other lawyers there promptly resigned rather than participate in dismissing the case.

Ms. Sassoon resigned on February 14, along with one of the two lead prosecutors.39 Also that day, Mr. Bove held a conference call with the remaining lawyers in the Public Integrity Section, stating that two of them would need to sign the dismissal motion—or it was strongly implied, they would all be fired. He gave them one hour to decide. A senior Section lawyer offered to sign the motion “to protect the other lawyers,” and it was ultimately filed that day with the additional signatures of Mr. Bove himself and the then head of the Department’s Criminal Division.

On April 22, three of the prosecutors who had been placed on administrative leave resigned. They explained that Mr. Blanche, newly appointed as the Deputy Attorney General, had conditioned their return to service on expressing regret and admitting misconduct in connection with refusing to dismiss the Adams case. They resigned rather than “abdicate our legal and ethical obligations in favor of directions from Washington.”40

On April 2, Judge Dale Ho reluctantly dismissed the indictment, although he did so with prejudice, declaring that “everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the Indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions.”41 Judge Ho also rejected the Department’s claims of misconduct by Southern District prosecutors: “There is no evidence—zero—that they had any improper motives.”42

II. Ethical Rules Violated

A. Applicable Rules of Professional Conduct

1. Ms. Bondi

The McDade Amendment makes plain that an attorney for the federal government is bound by State laws, ethical rules and federal court rules in the State “where such attorney engages in that attorney’s duties, to the same extent and in the same manner as other attorneys in that State.”43

Ms. Bondi is a member of The Florida Bar. Under Rule 4-8.5 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, she “is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction although engaged in practice elsewhere.” The Comment to this Rule adds:

In modern practice lawyers frequently act outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice, either in another state or outside the United States. In doing so, they remain subject to the governing authority of the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice. If their activity in another jurisdiction is substantial and continuous, it may constitute the practice of law in that jurisdiction. See rule 4-5.5.

If the Rules of Professional Conduct in the 2 jurisdictions differ, principles of conflict of laws may apply. Similar problems can arise when a lawyer is licensed to practice in more than 1 jurisdiction.

Although Ms. Bondi heads a federal agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, she is not a member of the D.C. Bar and therefore is not subject to the disciplinary authority of the D.C. Bar under the current rules issued by the D.C. Court of Appeals.44 Under the choice of law rules issued by the Department of Justice to implement the McDade Amendment, however, Ms. Bondi is subject to Florida’s ethical rules.45 The Florida Bar therefore has disciplinary authority over this bar complaint and its Rules of Professional Conduct apply to Ms. Bondi’s conduct that is the subject of this complaint.

2. Department Lawyers

Under the Department’s choice of law rules, the Department lawyers that Ms. Bondi and her senior management team supervise (i) when involved with a particular case, are subject to the “rules of ethical conduct of the court before which a case is pending”; and as noted above (ii) where no case is pending, are subject to the ethical rules of the attorney’s state of licensure unless choice of law principles direct the attorney to comply with the ethical rules of another jurisdiction or court.46 Accordingly, Mr. Reuveni is subject to the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct since the Garcia case is pending in federal district court in Maryland; Ms. Cheung, as a member of the D.C. Bar, is subject to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct; and Ms. Sassoon is subject to the New York Rules of Professional Conduct since the Adams case was pending in New York and she is a member of the New York State Bar.

B. Supervisory Misconduct (Rules 4-8.4(a) and 4-5.1)

Ms. Bondi’s principal ethical violation arises from her perversion of the concept of “zealous advocacy” into an overriding campaign, individually and through Messrs. Blanche, Bove and Martin, to coerce and intimidate the lawyers they supervise into violating their ethical obligations. In each of the examples discussed above, Ms. Bondi and her senior “team”47 ordered Department lawyers to do things those lawyers were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination—or fired them for not having done so.

To recap:

Erez Reuveni. Mr. Blanche first suspended, and then fired, Erez Reuveni for telling the truth in a federal district court located in Maryland about why Kilmar Garcia was deported to El Salvador. Ms. Bondi endorsed this action in a television broadcast. But Mr. Reuveni was required to make these concessions by the duty of candor to the tribunal imposed on him by Maryland Rule 19-303.3(a)(1) & (4), which provide in relevant part: “An attorney shall not knowingly . . . make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal . . . or offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.”48 As noted above, the court thanked Mr. Reuveni, no less than three separate times, for his “candor.”49

In subsequent appellate proceedings, two judges on a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals took special note of the treatment of Mr. Reuveni:

Of note, in response to the candid responses by the Government attorney to the district court’s inquiry, that attorney has been put on administrative leave, ostensibly for lack of “zealous[] advocacy.” . . . But, the duty of zealous representation is tempered by the duty of candor to the court, among other ethical obligations, and the duty to uphold the rule of law, particularly on the part of a Government attorney. United States Department of Justice, Home Page, https://www.justice.gov/ (last visited Apr. 6, 2025) (“Our employees adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior, mindful that, as public servants, we must work to earn the trust of, and inspire confidence in, the public we serve.”).50

Denise Cheung. Mr. Bove and Mr. Martin sought to get Ms. Cheung, an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, to open a criminal investigation in a circumstance where she and her senior colleagues agreed that the available evidence was insufficient to support such action.51 She also refused to sign a letter to a bank declaring that probable cause existed to justify seizing assets held by the bank. Ms. Cheung’s conclusions were subsequently validated by a U.S. magistrate judge and at least one other U.S. Attorney’s office.

Adams Prosecutors. Mr. Bove and Ms. Bondi accepted the resignations of Ms. Sassoon and almost a dozen other Department lawyers handling (or told to handle) the Adams prosecution because they refused to ask a court to dismiss a well-founded indictment as part of a political deal. In her resignation letter, addressed to Ms. Bondi, Ms. Sassoon explained that offering to drop a prosecution in exchange for a promise of assistance would violate Section 1- 8.100 of the Department’s Justice Manual, the words of which are worth quoting here:

The rule of law depends upon the evenhanded administration of justice. The legal judgments of the Department of Justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence. It is imperative that the Department’s investigatory and prosecutorial powers be exercised free from partisan consideration. It is a fundamental duty of every employee of the Department to ensure that these principles are upheld in all of the Department’s legal endeavors.52

She also pointed out that:

Threatening criminal prosecution even to gain an advantage in civil litigation is considered misconduct for an attorney. See, e.g., D.C. Bar Ethics Opinion 339; ABA Criminal Justice Standard 3-1.6 (“A prosecutor should not use improper considerations, such as partisan or political or personal considerations, in exercising prosecutorial discretion.”).53

Ms. Sassoon acknowledged the “zealous advocacy” memorandum, but said that, because she could not see any good-faith basis for the proposed deal, to support it in court would violate her duty of candor under New York Rule 3.3.54

All of the foregoing lawyers. In addition to the different rules that applied to each of the Department lawyers discussed above, Ms. Bondi’s campaign of coercion also prevented all of these lawyers from complying with their own duties to “exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice” as required by every relevant jurisdiction’s Rule 2.1 of professional conduct, or were terminated for their unwillingness to violate that duty. Ms. Bondi’s threat to subject to discipline or terminate any Department lawyer who refuses because of their “personal . . . judgments” to sign a brief or appear in court stands in direct conflict with Department lawyers’ duty under Rule 2.1. That duty is binding on a lawyer in every relevant jurisdiction even if that lawyer is a subordinate acting at the direction of another.55 Reuveni, Cheung, Sassoon and other lawyers involved in the Adams prosecution were compelled to either quit their jobs to avoid violating that duty or were fired for doing so. In the cases of Ms. Cheung and the Adams prosecution, Department lawyers were placed under intense pressure to knuckle under and violate their ethical duties.

In the EPA Clean Energy contract investigation, Ms. Cheung had an ethical duty to evaluate whether there was sufficient evidence to open a criminal investigation and for claiming that contract funds held by a bank were subject to seizure and forfeiture. But rather than acknowledge Ms. Cheung’s exercise of her professional judgment, Interim U.S. Attorney Martin demanded that she sign a letter stating that she was commencing a criminal investigation and ordering the bank not to disburse any funds. When she refused to ignore her ethical duties by signing the letter, Martin fired her.

In the Adams case, lawyers in the Criminal Division were required to exercise their independent professional judgment with respect to whether the motion to dismiss the indictment could be filed in good faith and whether it was otherwise consistent with their professional duties. But instead of acknowledging and accommodating their concerns and ethical obligations, Mr. Bove accepted Ms. Sassoon’s resignation and moved the case to the Public Integrity Section, called a meeting with the attorneys in the unit, and gave them an hour to decide who would sign the motion with the implied threat of dismissal looming over the conversation.56 Since Mr. Bove was Ms. Bondi's deputy, it is reasonable to assume, subject to further investigation, that she was aware of and approved his actions.

In a recent opinion on the ethical duties of government lawyers, the New York City Bar Association squarely addressed the relationship between a lawyer’s duty to zealously advocate and the duty to exercise independent professional judgment. The Bar Association held that if a government lawyer in exercising her independent professional judgment determines there is no basis for a legal position she is directed to take, she is ethically prohibited from following the directive:

Each lawyer retains a personal obligation to comply with the Rules, even if also being obliged to “advocate zealously” on behalf of the government that employs them. Because each lawyer must comply with the Rules, it follows necessarily that each lawyer must retain the independent judgment to determine whether a certain course of conduct must result in a violation of the Rules. That being so, no government lawyer may follow a policy that requires them to follow instructions regardless of consequences. . . Lawyers, as officers of the legal system and the courts, may not take positions or make arguments that they believe have no legal basis. Therefore, lawyers must always retain the discretion to make independent professional judgments about the law – from the law of the land down to the lowliest rule and regulation.57

Accordingly, Mr. Reuveni, Ms. Cheung and Ms. Sassoon were ethically required to take the actions they took and Ms. Bondi’s responses violated her ethical duties under two Florida rules:

First, her conduct violates Rule 4-8.4(a), which provides that it is misconduct for a lawyer to “violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another. . . .”58 In every case above, Ms. Bondi acted directly, or through Messrs. Bove, Blanche or Martin, to compel their subordinate lawyers to violate those lawyers’ professional obligations. These actions were knowing, moreover, since in every case, one or more lawyers were fired or allowed to resign after they had explained how following these orders would cause them to act unethically.

Second, Ms. Bondi’s actions violate Rule 4-5.1, the ethical rule regarding a lawyer’s ethical responsibility with respect to her managerial duties as Attorney General and her supervision over subordinate lawyers. Rule 4-5.1(a) requires that managers “make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm59 has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers therein conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.” Rule 4-5.1(b) applies to the Department of Justice and requires a lawyer “having direct supervisory authority over another lawyer [to] make reasonable efforts” to ensure that their subordinates conform to the Rules.

The ethical problem vividly illustrated by the three examples concerns both Ms. Bondi’s managerial and supervisory duties. Ms. Bondi’s “zealous advocacy” memorandum and the actions of her senior team set in motion measures designed to ensure that subordinates would violate their ethical obligations whenever it serves the priorities of the Administration. Such activity is surely more blameworthy than the usual violation of Rule 4-5.1, which turns on the reasonableness of a supervisor’s efforts. It is even more egregious that the person driving this campaign is the Attorney General of the United States, the highest-ranking lawyer in the nation and the holder of an august and storied office.

Ms. Bondi may object that, in each of these examples, most of the overt acts were taken by her deputy at the time, or in one example by the Interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. But, as just noted, Rule 4-8.4(a) prohibits a lawyer from violating the Rules of Professional Conduct “through the acts of another.” Similarly, Rule 4-5.1 focuses on what actions a lawyer has taken to shape the actions of his or her subordinates. The adequacy and nature of those actions must be assessed in light of those subordinates’ actions. Where the reaction of subordinates is to resign rather than commit an unethical act, the nature of the measures put in place by Ms. Bondi is plain. Also, Ms. Bondi expressly adopted the actions of her deputies in both the Reuveni and Adams examples. She proudly took credit, on nationwide television, for Mr. Reuveni’s suspension. And she was the sole addressee of Ms. Sassoon’s letter, which requested a meeting with her to discuss the issues it raised. While Mr. Bove responded to that letter the next day, it is inconceivable that he did so without first checking with Ms. Bondi since he was her deputy.

Ms. Bondi may also argue, in the Reuveni example, that she had no intention of requiring unethical behavior; that all she really meant was something more benign, like for her lawyers, when the facts and law are against them, to “pound the table and yell like hell,” per the aphorism attributed to Carl Sandburg.60 It is clear, however, from her Fox News appearance that what really irked Ms. Bondi was Mr. Reuveni’s up-front concession of the facts. As she said on the broadcast, that “would be a defense attorney walking in conceding something in a criminal matter. That would never happen in this country.”61 This of course was not a criminal proceeding, and as we explain in the next section, Ms. Bondi either misunderstands or grossly overstates the actual conduct of lawyers in judicial proceedings.

The crowning irony of this case is that, as the comment to Rule 4-1.3 clearly explains, while “[a] lawyer must . . . act with commitment and dedication to the interests of the client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf,” the lawyer may only “take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor.”62 Rule 4-1.3 does not justify requiring a subordinate to breach his or her duty of candor to the tribunal, to initiate a criminal investigation without sufficient evidence, or to use the powers of a prosecutor to advance an administration’s political goals. The comment also clarifies that “reasonable diligence does not require the use of offensive tactics or preclude the treating of all persons involved in the legal process with courtesy and respect”—unlike the way Ms. Bondi and her colleagues have treated their own lawyers. Ms. Bondi’s “zealous advocacy” memorandum thus exceeds what Rule 4-1.3 requires. Rather, what the memorandum expresses is Ms. Bondi’s determination to coerce her subordinates into a concerted campaign of unethical behavior. As explained below, that campaign threatens the administration of justice.

Additional proof of Ms. Bondi’s breach of her duty under Rule 4-5.1(a) to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the Department has instituted measures to reasonably assure that all lawyers comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct can be gleaned from the removal of the head of the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”)—Jeffrey Ragsdale.63 OPR handles internal ethics investigations.64 Tellingly, despite the fact that Mr. Ragsdale was ousted more than two months ago, OPR’s website does not identify anyone as having replaced him as head of the Office. All it states under the heading “Leadership” is “Counsel”.65 It is reasonable to infer that Mr. Ragsdale’s termination and Ms. Bondi’s failure to appoint a successor reflect her decision to require that Department lawyers adhere to the directives of her senior leadership team even if the directive violates a lawyer’s ethical duties.66 This is exactly the message that Ms. Bondi’s “zealous advocacy” memorandum delivered.

C. Ms. Bondi’s Actions Threaten the Administration of Justice (Rule 4-8.4(d)

Rule 4-8.4(d) provides that a lawyer commits misconduct when she “engage[s] in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis . . .”67 While we acknowledge that this Rule focuses on a lawyer’s conduct in a specific case, the spirit of the Rule is aimed at protecting the administration of justice and “the public’s confidence in our system of justice.”68 This broad purpose encompasses a range of conduct that seriously undermines the administration of justice.

Here, by aggressively implementing a zealous advocacy policy that is directed towards conduct in pending and future judicial proceedings, and which requires her subordinates to routinely violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, Ms. Bondi has elevated loyalty to the person who appointed her (President Trump)69 over the interests of her client (the United States). The “zealous advocacy” memorandum itself conflates the two, by stating that President Trump “sets . . . the interests of the United States”:

It is the job of an attorney privileged to serve in the Department of Justice to zealously defend the interests of the United States. Those interests, and the overall policy of the United States, are set by the Nation's Chief Executive, who is vested by the Constitution with all "[E]xecutive Power.”

Ms. Bondi’s memorandum, and the campaign of coercion and intimidation she has set in motion to implement it, go far beyond the particulars of the three examples discussed above. Rather, they influence—and are intended to influence—the conduct of all Department lawyers in every matter. Indeed, because the Department is the one federal agency focused directly on the law, and staffed by lawyers, Ms. Bondi’s campaign affects all federal lawyers. Thus, it is profoundly prejudicial to the administration of justice in both existing and future cases and accordingly violates the spirit of Rule 5-8.4(d).

Department lawyers have historically seen themselves as setting an example for all government lawyers. The degree to which this proud tradition has now been trampled upon is made apparent by several well-known descriptions of the unique role of Department lawyers. The most famous, deservedly, is The Federal Prosecutor, a speech delivered in the Great Hall of the Justice Department on April 1, 1940, by former Solicitor General, then-Attorney General, and later Supreme Court Justice, Robert H. Jackson, at the Second Annual Conference of U.S. Attorneys:

The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. . . . This authority has been granted by people who really wanted the right thing done – wanted crime eliminated –but also wanted the best in our American traditions preserved. . . .

Your positions are of such independence and importance that while you are being diligent, strict, and vigorous in law enforcement you can also afford to be just. Although the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done. . . .

[T]he citizen's safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.70

Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland expressed similar sentiments:

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor—indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.71

In United States v. Tapp, Chief Judge William T. Moore Jr. observed:

The traditional understanding about state and federal prosecutors is that they should have heightened ethical responsibilities. Traditional thinking is that federal prosecutors should represent the government in a loyal and disinterested manner. They are charged with an overarching duty to seek justice.72

We count on lawyers to conduct themselves ethically at all times. Justice Department lawyers have a higher obligation. Ms. Bondi has launched a concerted effort to override ethical obligations whenever they stand in the way of achieving her and her superior’s political goals. This conduct is deeply prejudicial to the rule of law and the administration of justice, as well as a violation of her own ethical obligations. We urge The Florida Bar to investigate the allegations made here and to take appropriate action.

Respectfully submitted:

Jon May**
Creative Criminal Defense Consultants

LAWYERS DEFENDING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

By: ________/s/
Scott Harshbarger, Chairman
Former National President of Common Cause
Two-term Attorney General of Massachusetts**

DEMOCRACY DEFENDERS FUND

By: ________/s/___________
Norm Eisen, Executive Chair
Democracy Defenders Fund

LAWYERS FOR THE RULE OF LAW

By:_________/s/___________
Daniel N. Arshack
President, Lawyers for the Rule of Law

Part 2 of 2

Richard Abel**
Connell Distinguished Professor of Law
Emeritus
UCLA School of Law

Jane Aiken**
Former Dean
Wake Forest School of Law
Member of the DC bar

Anthony V. Alfieri**
Michael Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair
& Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law

Ty Alper**
Clinical Professor of Law
University of California Berkeley, School of
Law

Martha W. Barnett
Former President, American Bar
Association
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Anita Bernstein**
Anita and Stuart Subotnick Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law School

Shelley Broderick**
Dean Emerita & Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Chair
of Social Justice
UDC David A. Clarke School of Law

Susan Brooks**
Professor of Law
Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School
of Law

Virginia Canter
Ethics and Anticorruption Chief Counsel
and Director
Democracy Defenders Fund

James W. Conrad, Jr.
Principal, Conrad Law & Policy Counsel**
Volunteer, Lawyers Defending American
Democracy

Scott Cummings**
Robert Henigson Professor of Legal Ethics
University of California Los Angeles, School
of Law

Angela J. Davis**
Distinguished Professor of Law
American University Washington College of
Law

Evan Falchuk
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Nicholas Fels
Retired Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Helen E. Freedman
Justice of the New York Appellate Division,
First Department. (Ret.)

Bennett Gershman**
University Distinguished Professor of Law
Pace School of Law

Nancy Gertner**
Former U.S. District Court Judge (D. Mass)
Senior Lecturer in Law, Harvard Law
School

Cynthia Godsoe**
Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law School

Lissa Griffin**
Professor of Law
Pace School of Law

John Wesley Hall**
Past President NACDL
Past Chair NACDL Ethics Committee

Stephen F. Hanlon**
Former Pro Bono Partner, Holland &
Knight, LLP
Past Chair, Section of Civil Rights & Social
Justice, American Bar Association

G.S. Hans**
Clinical Professor of Law
Director, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
Clinic
Cornell Law School

Barbara Jaffe
Associate Justice, New York Supreme Court
(Ret.)

Marcy L. Kahn
Associate Justice, New York Supreme
Court, Appellate Division (Ret.)

JD King**
Professor of Law
Rutgers Law School

John Koski
Former Partner and Global Chief Legal
Officer, Dentons
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Bruce Kuhlik**
Former Assistant to the Solicitor General,
U.S. Department of Justice
Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University
Law Center
Volunteer, Lawyers Defending American
Democracy

Lisa Lerman**
Professor of Law Emerita
The Catholic University of America

Theo Liebmann**
Clinical Professor of Law
Executive Director Freedman Institute for
the Study of Legal Ethics
Hofstra School of Law

David Luban**
Distinguished University Professor
Georgetown University Law Center

Richard Lubin
Past President of the American Board of
Criminal Lawyers
Former Board Member of National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers

Bruce Lyons
Past President, National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers
Past President, Criminal Law Section,
American Bar Association

Stephen Marcus**
Volunteer, Lawyers Defending American
Democracy
Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University
Law Center

Howard Matz
Former U.S. District Judge (C.D.CA)

Thomas Mela
Retired Managing Attorney of the
Massachusetts Advocates for Children
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

John T. Montgomery
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Karla Moskowitz
Justice of the New York State Appellate
Division, First Department (Ret.)

Cheryl Niro
Past President, Illinois State Bar
Association
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Lorriane Nordlund
Judge, Fairfax (VA) County Circuit Court
(Ret.)

Patsy Palmer**
Co-Founder, D’Alemberte & Palmer, PLLC

Barbara J. Pariente
Retired Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme
Court

Russell G. Pearce**
Professor of Law
Edward & Marilyn Bellet Chair in Legal
Ethics, Morality, and Religion
Fordham University School of Law

Jeffrey J. Pokarak**
Professor of Law
Director, Supreme Court Clinic
Suffolk University Law School

Peggy A. Quince
Retired Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme
Court
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Gershon M. (Gary) Ratner
Co-Founder and Board Member, Lawyers
Defending American Democracy
Former Associate General Counsel for
Litigation, U.S. Department of Housing &
Urban Development

Mitt Regan**
McDevitt Professor of Jurisprudence
Director, Center on National Security and
Law
Coordinator, Program on Law, Ethics, and
International Security
Georgetown University Law Center

Lauren Stiller Rikleen
Executive Director and Board Member,
Lawyers Defending American Democracy
Past Chair Civil Rights & Social Justice
Section of the American Bar Association
Former President, Boston Bar Association

Cassandra Robertson**
John Deaver Drinko - BakerHostetler
Professor of Law
Case Western Reserve University School of
Law

Estelle H. Rogers
Former Member, ABA House of Delegates
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Tanina Rostain**
Agnes Williams Sesquicentennial Professor
of Justice Innovation
Georgetown University Law Center

Robert Rubinson**
Dean Gilbert A. Holmes Professor of
Clinical Theory and Practice
University of Baltimore School of Law

David Rudovsky**
Kairys Rudovsky Messing Feinberg & Lin
Senior Fellow
University of Pennsylvania Carey School of
Law

Philip Schrag**
Delaney Family Professor of Public Interest
Law
Georgetown University Law Center

Tony Sebok**
Professor of Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Ilene Seidman**
Clinical Professor of Law Emerita
Suffolk University Law School

R. Kelly Sheridan
Past President, Rhode Island Bar
Association
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Gary Simson**
Macon Chair in Law and Former Dean,
Mercer Law School
Professor Emeritus, Cornell Law School
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

David Singleton**
Professor of Law
UDC David A. Clarke School of Law

Rima Sirota**
Professor of Law, Legal Practice
Georgetown University Law Center

Abbe Smith**
Scott K. Ginsburg Professor of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

Janet R. Studley**
Past Chair, Section of Civil Rights & Social
Justice, American Bar Association

Jeff Swartz**
Miami-Dade County Court Judge (Ret.)
Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Law,
Cooley Law School, Tampa Bay Campus
Past Chair, Fla. Sup. Ct. Judicial Ethics
Advisory Committee

Bruce Lee Udolf
Associate Independent Counsel for the
Whitewater investigation
Former Chief of the Public Integrity Section,
USAO, SDFL

Rodney J. Uphoff**
Elwood L. Thomas Missouri Endowed
Professor Emeritus of Law
University of Missouri School of Law

Bradley Wendel**
Edwin H. Woodruff Professor of Law
Cornell Law School

Walter H. White Jr.
Former Wisconsin Securities Commissioner
Past Chair Civil Rights & Social Justice
Section of the American Bar Association
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Lucien Wulsin**
Founder and Retired Executive Director,
Insure the Uninsured Project
Board Member, Lawyers Defending
American Democracy

Ellen Yaroshefsky**
Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics
Hofstra School of Law

** These signatories have signed solely in their individual capacities and.do not do so on behalf
of the named organization or other affiliation.

_______________

Notes:

1 Ms. Bondi’s Florida Bar Number is 886440. Her contact information is: United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 20530-0001 202-514-2000

2 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.3, Comment. (“An apparently isolated violation may indicate a pattern of misconduct that only a disciplinary investigation can uncover.”).

3 Letters from Allie F. Huston, Bar Couns., Fla. Bar (May 20, 2025) and Christopher S. Wackes, Bar Couns., Fla. Bar (May 20, 2025) (on file with the author).

4 Id. (the text of the letters is identical).

5 Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 442 (1979).

6 We note that although The Florida Bar may not, pursuant to Rule 3-7.16(d) of Florida’s Rules of Discipline, investigate bar complaints against “constitutional officers” until after they vacate office, this limitation only applies to officers appointed under the Florida Constitution. See Kane v. Robbins, 556 So. 2d 1381, 1382 (Fla. 1989) (“In any event, school board members are now accorded constitutional status by article IX, section 4(a), Florida Constitution.”). See also § 112.3142, Fla. Stat. (2025) (defining “constitutional officers” for purposes of ethics training to include “the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the Attorney General, the Chief Financial Officer, the Commissioner of Agriculture, state attorneys, public defenders, sheriffs, tax collectors, property appraisers, supervisors of elections, clerks of the circuit court, county commissioners, district school board members, and superintendents of schools.”).

7 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4, Comment. (“A lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.”).

8 See discussion infra, pp. 10-11.

9 Memorandum of U.S. Att’y Gen. Pamela Bondi to all Dep’t Emp. on General Policy Regarding Zealous Advocacy on Behalf of the United States (Feb. 5, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1388521/dl?inline.

10 See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.3, Comment.

11 Sadie Gurman, He Represented Contentious Immigration Cases for the Government. His Candor Lost Him His Job, WALL ST. J. (Apr. 15, 2025, at 9:00 ET), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/this-la ... licansand- democrats-his-candor-cost-him-his-job-b3515a38?reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink.

12 See Luke Barr, Alexander Mallin & Ivan Pereira, 'No one is above the law': AG Bondi blasts judges accused of helping undocumented immigrants evade, ABC NEWS (Apr. 25, 2025, at 16:40 ET), https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-hannah- ... =121161497 (Att’y Gen. Bondi); Marina Dunbar & Maya Yang, FBI arrests Wisconsin judge and accuses her of obstructing immigration officials, GUARDIAN (Apr. 25, 2025, at 12:27 ET), https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/ 2025/apr/25/judge-hannah-dugan-milwaukee-arrest?CMP=share_btn_url (FBI Director Patel); and Chris Perez, ‘Egregiously unqualified political hack’: Former US attorneys eviscerate Ed Martin — with over 100 voicing opposition to Trump’s selection of him as DC’s top prosecutor, L. & CRIM. (Apr. 2, 2025, at 14:51 ET), https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/eg ... -edmartin- with-over-100-voicing-opposition-to-trumps-selection-of-him-as-dcs-top-prosecutor (U.S. Att’y D.C. Edward Martin).

13 This complaint is based entirely on publicly-available primary documents and news reports. The undersigned disclaim any personal knowledge of any of the events discussed here.

14 Bondi, supra note 9, at 1.

15 Id. (emphasis added).

16 All the factual statements in this and the following paragraph are drawn from the complaint in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951, (D. Maryland Mar. 24, 2025) ECF No. 1.

17 Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951, (D. Maryland Apr 06, 2025) ECF No. 31, at 1.

18 Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951, (D. Maryland Mar. 31, 2025) ECF No. 11. The Department’s opposition was signed by Yaakov M. Roth, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Civil Division, Mr. Reuveni, and Christopher I. Pryby, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation.

19 Id. at 3. As a defendant in this case, represented by the government’s lawyers – as well as those lawyers’ supervisor—Ms. Bondi should be bound by this assertion. See Israel v. John Crane, Inc., 601 F. Supp. 3d 1259, 1266 (M.D. Fla. 2022) (“Moreover, lawyers are agents of their clients; clients are therefore bound by what their lawyers assert in a case.”).

20 Hr’g Tr. No. 8:25-cv-00951, 19 (D. Maryland Apr. 4, 2025) (on file with the author).

21 Id. at 25.

22 Id. at 21.

23 Id. at 23-25.

24 Id. at 28.

25 Id. at 20, 35-36, and 50.

26 Id. at 40-41.

27 Id. at 42-49.

28 Glenn Thrush, Justice Dept. Accuses Top Immigration Lawyer of Failing to Follow Orders, NEW YORK TIMES (Apr. 5, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/05/us/p ... awyerleave. html?searchResultPosition=7.

29 Video posted by Fox News (@FoxNews), FACEBOOK, AG Pam Bondi accuses district court judges of playing ‘whack-a-mole’ (Apr. 6, 2025), https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos ... urtjudges- of-playing-whack-a-mole-with-anti-tru/672899485221131/

30 Id.

31 Id. In fact, Rule 4-3.3 applies equally in civil and criminal cases, except where a client in a criminal case insists on presenting false testimony. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.3(b). That is obviously inapplicable to Mr. Reuveni. Also, Ms. Bondi's statement that a defense attorney would never “concede something in a criminal matter” is incorrect. Criminal defense attorneys often concede facts or points of law if they are undisputed and it is in the interest of their client to do so.

32 See Glenn Thrush, As White House Steers Justice Dept., Bondi Embraces Role of TV Messenger, N.Y. TIMES (May 12, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/12/us/p ... d=urlshare.

33 Thrush, supra note 28.

34 The facts in this section are drawn from Read the resignation letter by Denise Cheung, a veteran D.C. federal prosecutor, WASH. POST (Mar. 6, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va ... ionletter- denise-cheung/.

35 The facts in this paragraph are drawn from Spencer S. Hsu, Maxine Joselow & Nicolás Rivero, FBI takes up EPA probe amid pushback from judge, prosecutors, WASH. POST (Feb. 27, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/dcmd- va/2025/02/27/trump-fbi-epa-grant-investigation/.

36 Except as otherwise noted, the facts in this section are drawn from Lola Fadulu & Alyce McFadden, A Timeline of Eric Adams’s Indictment, and What Came Next, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/article/ericadams- indictment-timeline.html; Letter from Danielle Sassoon, Fmr. U.S. Att’y S.D. N.Y. to Pamela Bondi, U.S. Att’y Gen. (Feb. 12, 2025) (on file with the author); Read the letter from Emil Bove accepting Danielle Sassoon’s resignation, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 13, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... -frombove- 1.html; and E-mail from Hagan Scotten, Asst. U.S. Att’y S.D. N.Y. to Emil Bove, Princ. Assoc. Dep. U.S. Att’y Gen. (on file with the author).

37 Letter, supra note 36, at 3.

38 Read the letter from Emil Bove accepting Danielle Sassoon’s resignation, supra note 36, at 1-2 and 5. Mr. Bove placed Hagan Scotten and Derek Wikstrom on administrative leave. Two other prosecutors, Celia Cohen and Andrew Rohrbach, were also placed on leave sometime later.

39 The resignation email that the lead prosecutor, Mr. Scotten, sent to Mr. Bove is particularly scathing: No system of ordered liberty can allow the Government to use the carrot of dismissing charges, or the stick of threatening to bring them again, to induce an elected official to support its policy objectives. . . . [O]ur laws and traditions do not allow using the prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool, or enough of a coward, to file your motion. But it was never going to be me. E-mail, supra note 36, at 1.

40 Jonah Bromwich & William Rashbaum, Adams Case Prosecutors Resign Rather Than Express Regret to Justice Dept., N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 22, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/nyre ... torsresign. html.

41 Read the ruling dismissing corruption charges against Eric Adams, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 2, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... uling.html

42 Id., slip op. at 2.

43 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a). Congress passed the McDade Amendment in 1998 in response to the Department of Justice’s claim that federal government lawyers were not bound by state ethics rules regarding contacting witnesses represented by counsel. See Nina Marino and Richard Kaplan, Moving Towards a Meaningful Limitation on Wrongful Prosecutorial Contact with Represented Parties, 4 PUB. INT. L. REV. 36 (1999). This law now binds all federal government lawyers, including the Attorney General. See id. § 530B(c) (cross-referencing 28 C.F.R. § 77.2(a) (“The phrase attorney for the government means the Attorney General . . . .”).

44 Pursuant to Rule XI, Section 1(a) of the D.C. Court of Appeals’ Rules Governing the District of Columbia Bar, the D.C. Court of Appeals and the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility have disciplinary jurisdiction over members of the D.C. Bar, persons appearing pro hac vice in a D.C. case, licensed special legal consultants, clinical professors providing legal services, and persons who have been suspended or disbarred by the D.C. Court of Appeals. See also Bd. Pro. Resp. R. 8.5(a). (“A lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, regardless of where the lawyer’s conduct occurs.”).

45 See 28 C.F.R. § 77.4(c)(1) (“Where no case is pending, the attorney should generally comply with the ethical rules of the attorney’s state of licensure, unless application of traditional choice-of-law principles direct the attorney to comply with the ethical rule of another jurisdiction or court, such as the ethical rule adopted by the court in which the case is likely to be brought.”) See also R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.5, Comment (“If the Rules of Professional Conduct in the 2 jurisdictions differ, principles of conflicts of laws may apply.”). There are no material differences between the Florida and District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct that Ms. Bondi allegedly violated and therefore Florida’s conflicts of laws rule does not apply.

46 See 28 C.F.R. § 77.4(a) and (c). While the Department’s rules prescribe the applicable rules of conduct, they do not address which state bar has disciplinary jurisdiction to determine if a Department lawyer has violated the rules.

47 Ms. Bondi herself refers to these individuals as her “team.” See Pamela Bondi, U.S. Att’y Gen., Introduction at the Department of Justice (Mar. 14, 2025) (“Hi, please be seated. Welcome to the Department of Justice and I love our team. Todd Blanche, Emil Bove, Kash Patel, soon to be Terry Cole, Gaddy Serralta, thank you all. . . . I am so proud to have a team with Emil and Todd and all of our great team and we all work for the greatest president in the history of our country.”), https://www.rev.com/transcripts/trump-speaks-at-doj.

48 Md. R. Prof. Conduct 19-303.3(a)(1), (4).

49 Hr’g Tr., supra note 20, at 20, 35-36, and 50.

50Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-1345, 2025 WL 1021113 (4th Cir. April 7, 2025) (concurring opinion of judges Thacker and King), slip op. at 8 note 4.

51 See The Att’y Gen. Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations, Op. Att’ys Gen. 20-22 (Sep. 29, 2008) (discussing circumstances justifying predicated investigations (and thus use of grand jury subpoenas)). Part II.B.3(a) states: A predicated investigation may be initiated on the basis of any of the following circumstances:

a. An activity constituting a federal crime or a threat to the national security has or may have occurred, is or may be occurring, or will or may occur and the investigation may obtain information relating to the activity or the involvement or role of an individual, group, or organization in such activity.

52 U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 1-8.100 (2025). She also cited § 9-27.260 of the Manual, which states: “prosecutors may not be influenced by a person’s ‘political association, activities, or beliefs.’”

53 Letter, supra note 36, at 2.

54 Rules of Professional Conduct [22 NYCRR 1200.0] rule 3.3.

55 See, e.g., R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.2(a). A subordinate can only be excused from exercising independent professional judgment in the event of “an arguable question of professional duty,” and then only if the lawyer acts in accordance with his or her supervisor’s “reasonable resolution” of that question. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4- 5.2(b). Ms. Bondi’s termination of Mr. Reuveni for answering the Court’s questions honestly, Mr. Martin’s demand that Ms. Cheung announce the commencement of a criminal investigation and order the bank not to disburse funds and his termination of Ms. Cheung for refusing to do so, and Mr. Bove’s demand that Ms. Sassoon file a motion to dismiss the indictment against in the Adams case were not “reasonable resolution[s]” of Reuveni’s, Cheung’s and Sassoon’s duty to exercise independent professional judgment. If Reuveni had failed to answer the Court’s question honestly and if Cheung and Sassoon had acceded to Martin’s and Bove’s demands, they would have violated their duties under Rule 4-2.1 as well as their other ethical duties identified above. Accordingly, Ms. Bondi has no basis for arguing that if Mr. Reuveni, Ms. Cheung and Ms. Sassoon had acted in accordance with the demands of their supervisors, they would not have violated their ethical duties pursuant to Rule 4-5.2(b).

56 Devlin Barrett, Adam Goldman, Glenn Thrush & William Rashbaum, In Moving to Stop Adams Case, Career Lawyer Sought to Stave Off Deeper Crisis, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 16, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/us/p ... =url-share.

57 NY City Bar Assn Comm on Prof Ethics Formal Op. 2025-1 [2025].

58 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(a) (emphasis added).

59 There is no question that this rule applies to supervisors in legal offices contained within a government agency. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.1, Comment. (“[L]awyers who have managerial authority over the professional work of a ‘firm’... include members of a partnership, the shareholders in a law firm organized as a professional corporation, and members of other associations authorized to practice law; lawyers having comparable managerial authority in a legal services organization or a law department of an enterprise or government agency…”) (emphasis added). See also R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4, Preamble. (“‘Firm’ or ‘law firm’ denotes a lawyer or lawyers in a law partnership, professional corporation, sole proprietorship, or other association authorized to practice law; or lawyers employed in the legal department of a corporation or other organization.”) (emphasis added).

60 Quote by Carl Sandburg, GOODREADS, https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/918291 ... -youargue- the-law-if.

61 See video supra note 29.

62 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-1.3, Comment.

63 Perry Stein, Shayna Jacobs, Carol Leoning & Ann Marimow, Several top career officials ousted at Justice Department, WASH. POST (Mar. 7, 2025), https://wapo.st/43l7uEQ.

64 Attorney Professional Misconduct Matters, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST. (Nov. 22, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opr/professional-misconduct.

65 Office of Professional Responsibility, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST. (2025), https://www.justice.gov/opr.

66 Stacy Ludwig, formerly the Director of the Department’s Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, also left her position at the Department of Justice. The purpose of this Office is “to provide professional responsibility advice and training to Department attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys worldwide, on how to carry out their duties, in compliance with the applicable rules of professional conduct.” Former Director of the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office Stacy Ludwig, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST. (Mar. 10, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/archives/prao/s ... tor-ludwig. A replacement Director has not been appointed, again supporting the conclusion that Ms. Bondi is violating her duties under Rule 4-5.1(a) by failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the Department comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, U.S. DEP’T OF JUST. (2025), https://www.justice.gov/prao.

67 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d). We note that D.C. Rule 8.4(d) states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “[e]ngage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice” but does not state that the conduct must be “in connection with the practice of law.” Nor does the D.C. Rule provide examples of the types of conduct that trigger the application of the Rule. Since Ms. Bondi’s conduct relates to the practice of law and both rules prohibit conduct that is “prejudicial” to or “interferes” with the “administration of justice,” there is no material difference between them.

68 R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-8.4(d), Comment.

69 Bondi supra note 47.

70 Robert Jackson, Fmr. U.S. Att’y Gn., Address at the Second Annual Conference of United States Attorneys (Apr. 1, 1940). See also R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-3.8, Comment (“A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.”).

71 Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935).

72 United States v. Tapp, 2008 WL 2371422 (S.D. Ga. 2008) at *10 (emphasis in original).

**********************************

Trump’s Legal Team RUNNING WILD as Bar Complaints Gets REJECTED
Legal AF
Jun 11, 2025

Bar Associations are struggling to rein in Trump and his Administration’s blatant lawlessness. A new bar complaint rejected by The Florida Bar against AG Pam Bondi, is that the outlier or par for the course. Legal AF hosts Michael Popok and Melba Pearson are joined by Jamie Conrad of Lawyers Defending American Democracy, who helped craft the complaint, and Judge Barbara Jaffe, one of its signatories, to break it down.



Transcript

[Michael Popok] Welcome to a special edition of Legal AF
with Michael Popok and Melba Pearson
We're going to talk with a couple of
amazing guests about a development that
just happened related to a grievance
filed a bar grievance filed against Pam
Bondi the attorney general of the United
States I can only think of about a dozen
or so things that that grievance could
have been based on um violation of the
Department of Justice guidelines being a
political hack instead of using proper
prosecutorial discretion um using proper
ethics Uh she's already uh her
department overall has already been
chastised time and time again in federal
courts for uh doing things like um not
being candid with the tribunal lying to
judges u firing lawyers who told the
truth to judges and are no longer with
the Department of Justice because that's
not part of their policy and a group of
about 70 different leading uh people in
our field in in Melbour Myfield um
ethicists law professors uh lawyers
former justices of the Florida Supreme
Court former judges and and others got
together put together a what I think is
an airtight grievance and something
happened at the Florida bar of which
Melba and I are a member that wasn't
what we expected Let's bring in our
guests We have uh uh Barbara Jaffy
retired judge from the New York Supreme
Court and we've got Jamie Conrad who uh
works with a group called Lawyers
Defending American Democracy was one of
the architects for the grievance Barbara
also worked on it It was one of the
signitories And let's bring everybody in
and let's start talking about what
happened Jamie since you put the thing
together why don't you talk about what
was the rationale behind it how is it
framed what were what was your argument
about why uh rules of professional
responsibility in Florida have been
violated by Pam Bondi and then we can
take it with the rest of our team Okay
thanks very much Um yeah what um several
of us had noted um was that that uh the
attorney general in her first day issued
this memorandum on zealous advocacy on
behalf of the United States and and that
sort of got a few people's attention
because for two reasons but related ones
She said well the the president of the
United States determines the interests
of the United States but she also
described the lawyers of the justice
department as the president's lawyers
which they're not there are the United
States's lawyers um um but but so there
was some interest in gosh how is this
going to play out um within the justice
department and
very quickly it emerged that that what
uh Attorney General Bondi means by
zealous advocacy is that she expects
lawyers for the department of justice to
violate their own ethics obligations
whenever that suits the interests of
President Trump Um and and we cited
three examples in in excruciating detail
including the the example you bring up
of the of the the lawyer in federal the
lawyer who was fired for telling the
truth in federal district court in
Maryland And then two other examples I
can go into Um and so we explained kind
of the common themes to those examples
and uh why that indicated ethics
violations by the attorney general And
what in particular uh I mean just just
to bring everybody sort of into our
world for a moment in a teachable moment
Every state has a rule of rules of
professional responsibility or conduct
Most of them modeled after some model
rules with some with some changes We uh
the lawyers on this round table all
swore uh allegiance to it and an oath to
it to uphold it and to practice pursuant
to it That's what makes us a profession
a self-p policing profession right i
mean there's the unitary bar states like
Florida where there is a thing called
the they they love to capitalize that
the the Florida bar and then there's
places like New York where I also
practice along with Barbara where uh
divisions or departments of of the court
system the appellet court of which you
were sworn regulate your conduct but
using the same rules What were the rules
that you outlined or that was outlined
in the grievance that you believe have
been violated by uh Pam Bondi there
there really three The first of them and
the numbers kind of are the same from
state to state One is called 8.4A
and and that prohibits a lawyer from
trying to uh induce somebody else to
violate the ethics rules um which which
she did kind of consistently in these
three examples The second one is it's
5.1 and that's sort of a supervisory
thing The general notion there is that
if you're in charge of a legal
department at a company or a firm or a
government agency you need to have some
kind of system to make sure that your
the people you supervise comply with
ethics rules And we said that she
essentially turned that on its head and
tried to make sure that her employees
didn't comply with ethics rules whenever
it got in in the way of what she wanted
And then the third one is kind of a
catch-all 8.4A which is basically um uh
interfering with the the uh threatening
the administration of justice And and
and that's kind of the broad notion that
lawyers are meant to uphold the rule of
law and the justice system and not
undermine it So Melba from your vantage
point of being both an American Civil
Liberties Union lawyer and weren't you a
prosecutor yes former prosecutor and
former ACLUF federal prosecutor state Oh
you're a state Okay But as even as a
state prosecutor did did did you think
that you were not subject as a lawyer to
that you left them you abandoned them at
the at the door of your office when you
became a prosecutor absolutely not And
that was one of the things that was very
important to me in selecting what office
I was going to work with because I never
wanted to be in a situation where I
couldn't look at myself in the mirror
And I was compromising not only my
personal ethics but the ethics that have
been set forth to the Florida Bar I
raised my right hand I swore an oath I
took that seriously So I never wanted to
be in a situation where I was forced to
move forward with a case where I felt I
had insufficient evidence Maybe Sorry
don't mean to interrupt you Go ahead
Yeah or or that I knew the police did
something that was inappropriate and
just cover it up and keep moving Anyway
that that's suborn perjury while you're
at it Exactly Did I fall asleep in the
Florida bar review course on ethics when
they told me that if I became a federal
prosecutor or federal officer that I was
I could therefore abandon my the rules
of professional responsib
yeah like hold on let me look yeah no
nowhere nowhere and and and again it's
just so tragic because prosecutors
especially prosecutors have a higher
burden you know yes all lawyers have to
follow the ethical rules but a
prosecutor holds someone's life
literally life in their hands you can
determine whether or not someone goes to
prison for life you can determine
whether or not someone faces the death
penalty and gets put to death you have a
higher burden and you have to make sure
that you do everything by the book
correctly And again if you don't have a
case you have no business bringing that
in court And that's what happened here
Sorry I don't mean to cut you off Let's
take it from a judge's perspective
because we have Judge Barbara Jaffy here
Um so judge couple of things Um are you
aware of this doctrine that the Florida
Bar you know I don't want to leave
people on pins and needles here Why
don't you talk about what the Florida
Bar did in the They just said "We're not
going to uh exercise our authority over
Miss Bondi because she is a federal
officer and we don't want to get we
don't want to encroach on the feds doing
what she's got to do which is very
disingenuous because there's no
authority for that." And yet she
practicing law without a license then
I mean I don't I don't understand and
she gets to go to court and argue as a
member of the bar but she's not
regulated by the bar So it seems I mean
your audience should also know that
every law student has to take a a course
on ethics Ethics is a real cornerstone
of of legal training But in Florida it
seems like it's the wild west I happen
to see that Governor Scott had actually
uh refused uh removed a prosecutor the
chief prosecutor who was uh refused to
impose the death penalty in several
cases And on the first case he removed
her from that case And then he removed
her from many cases blanket removal Yeah
Simply because she made it known that
she would not do a capital prosecution
did the same thing which was her yes
which was within her discretion So your
audience should understand that when you
said self-regulating it it really is
self-regulating and that's the honor
code that we all are familiar with Yes
there are disciplinary committees and
somebody is going to file a complaint
like uh Jamie did and his um wonderful
organizations who filed this complaint
Well let's do it this way If a state or
federal prosecutor come into your
courtroom and you have found through
factf finding that they have been uh
they had lied to the tribunal right they
had forget candid They lied to the
tribunal
You wouldn't would you refer them over
to a bar grievance committee absolutely
Absolutely And I've done it
Right There you go And you've done And
has that bar grievance committee turned
around and said "Sorry they're feds They
don't have to comply with ethics Well it
wasn't a fed right if it had been you
know in New York that would not have
happened right and that's the problem
that it's jurisdiction by jurisdiction
It's like Texas circling the wagons
around um who was the one that wanted to
release the Kraken uh Sydney Powell and
not disbarring her when she should have
been disparred You know whereas if
you're in Wisconsin or Arizona or or
some other freethinking state you know
your your law license shouldn't depend
on right the lackis that are put in
place by the governor into those
positions I'm actually embarrassed for
the Florida Bar I've been a proud member
of it since 95 I'm really embarrassed by
their reaction Mela what were you gonna
say yeah I was just going to start want
to jump in and say how Rudy Giuliani got
disbarred for all of his foolishness
in both New York and in DC So there is
precedent for it It's not like this
can't done It's just Florida threw up
their hands and was like I don't want to
do anything How long They didn't take
much They didn't take that long How long
was the actual How long was the
grievance how how many pages was the
grievance and then how how short was the
Florida Bar response and how quickly was
it given it's 23 pages single space not
counting the you know two or three pages
of signatures um uh their dismissal We
filed on June 5 They came back basically
the very next day with a a one-page form
letter This is the third uh complaint
against against Bondi that they've
dismissed uh that's about you know 100
words Um but but you mentioned you know
it's sort of disingenuous The thing
that's so maddening about this is that
there are sort of stated purposes Well
we don't want to encroach on the freedom
of the federal executive branch to do
its thing But the the policy of the
United States with respect to the
coverage of government lawyer justice
department lawyers uh by state ethics
rules is that they are covered There's a
law called the McDade amendment that was
passed in 1998 because at one point in
in that time the justice department
actually said that they weren't subject
to ethics rules and this had to do with
lawyers contacting unrepresented parties
which represented parties which you're
not supposed to do you're supposed to
contact their lawyer And so Congress
passed this McDate amendment and said
that uh government lawyers and they
specifically say that the attorney
general is one of these government
lawyers are supposed to be subject to
state ethics rules just like any other
lawyer in that state So how did Florida
get around that they
All right Are are you going to do a
supplement a motion hearing this will be
the basis for our you know next steps Um
is that normal for the Florida Bar not
to meet the arguments that you put
forward i mean I find that very strange
They you know they have this thing
There's this sort of odd constitutional
officer doctrine in Florida that
apparently goes back to the 19th century
where some some office that's created by
the state constitution the gets treated
in a in a sort of kid glove way Um and
and so for uh some period of time uh
although there's not actually a rule
that says this um this the state bar has
refrained from reviewing the ethical
behavior of people who have an office
spelled out in the Florida Constitution
but it's never to our knowledge it's
never been applied to somebody who has
an office created under the federal
constitution which you think you know is
sort of not a of the state's business
They let let the feds worry about that
Melba why don't you take it take it home
here for the audience about what are the
implications and ramifications of state
bars refusing to um admonish and
investigate members of Donald Trump's
inner circle when it comes to the the
legal process the Department of Justice
his former criminal defense and
impeachment lawyers are all his inner
circle U you know whether you all four
uh Emil Amil Bo maybe or maybe not be on
the third In the meantime he's the
number three in the Department of
Justice Blanch the number two Pam Bondi
the number one and uh John Sauer the
solicitor general All you know we talked
about them at length for years as Donald
Trump's uh you know criminal defense
brain trust And to now to imagine a
world where they are untethered to
ethics potentially Um what is I guess
take it from there and also what should
federal judges do when federal
prosecutors violate their oath whether
it's Pam Bondi or anybody else what do
they do they ref look there's grievance
processes through the federal courts is
that now where we need to need to take
these matters well I I I think so I
think so I mean a couple things so first
off one aspect that's very critical to
any barb membership is what's called
continuing legal educ education credits
So every year or every reporting cycle
you have to take classes to basically
stay current And one of those classes is
ethics So it's not like you you know
took it in law school and you can forget
about it and not worry about it In order
to keep your bar license you're supposed
to continue to take ethics classes So
again the fact that they're not even
tying this to the to what their
day-to-day duties are or even thinking
about that is just so problematic But to
have all of these attorneys completely
untethered I think what needs to happen
these judges need to start telling them
to bring their toothbrush and hold them
in contempt When people start seeing
themselves complain and go have to sit
in the box and the box is usually where
for those who don't know in the
courtroom there's an area where you have
to sit when you're about to be taken
into custody So once you hit that box
you already know what time it is you
know that you're gonna go into custody
and have a bologoney sandwich that's
going to be stale on horrible
wonderbread Okay So you know once I
think that starts happening people will
have to start changing their tune
because now the A USA's themselves are
going to be like I'm not going to jail
for this I I got bills to pay I got a
family to support This is not what I
signed up for And judges are going to
have to start growing a pair Sorry Judge
Jeffy Are gonna have to start growing a
pair You're retired Sorry uh on this
issue because we have an administration
that uh indicted a state court judge
indicted a member of Congress and today
threatened to arrest and indict a
sitting governor of the United States So
judges
I'm sorry they're going to have to pull
their weight And when they get a guy
like Drew Enson lying to them uh about
Armando Abrego Garcia in the courtroom
um and about the planes whether it's
Judge Bodberg's ch uh courtroom or Judge
Zennus' courtroom like like Melba said
they better start bringing their
toothbrushes or as I was taught when I
did a fair amount of white collar
criminal defense in my career just make
sure at the end of your day when your
client goes through the metal door you
go through the wooden door We got to
send some of these people through the
metal door Yeah I have a question Is it
possible to start an investigation
against Pam Bondi and in in service of
this doctrine or this um you know
preference that you don't encroach do
the investigation just don't sanction
until she's out of office Has anybody
ever raised an idea like that does that
make sense if you certainly lose that
protection right yeah I mean but that
that's part of what they said They said
they can't invest investigate or
prosecute They said they they can't do
absolutely anything which again if it
was one of us we don't enjoy that same
privilege And I think I think Jamie I
think this should be tested I brought up
with Barbara on a side text that Alina
Haba should be next on the list and New
Jerseyy's bar should get a bar grievance
And I think they might take it more
seriously New York and New Jersey sort
of take things more seriously especially
given Alina Haba doing the same thing I
mean the tone is from the top The chief
law enforcement officer of America is
Donald Trump which is a chilling thought
Uh and then right down from there Pam
Bondi just a political hack doing his
bidding And and there's no greater
political hack than uh Alina Haba who
it's obvious that the entirety of the
Department of Justice just uses the DOJ
manual as a doors stop It's just holding
open the door They're not reading it
They're not applying it They're not
abiding by it And then what are this is
this is the struggle we'll leave this
chat with What are we to do to police
our profession um and to give confidence
to to to the um to our audience to the
civilians that uh are part of the public
criminal justice system at all How do we
renew that confidence if we can't
regulate the conduct and behavior of an
outofcrol attorney general short of
putting them in jail we have jailed
attorney generals in the past see the
Nixon administration So it it does
happen but but let's just leave I'll
just go around the horn What what what
is the next step here other than asking
the Florida Bar to reconsider is it
trying to go after somebody like Galina
Hava is it getting federal judges to
make referrals to fed the federal side
of this equation what is it let's start
with Judge Jaffy Well if I were a
betting gal I would bet that New Jersey
right now is enacting some kind of rule
that would preclude Alina from being
uh from filing a complaint against her
That's You think New Jersey is going to
block it the blue state of New Jersey
why well isn't there anybody I mean is
it totally blue New Jersey is there
anybody oh okay Yeah I'm from New Jersey
Let's do it there Let's Let's go Let's
go That's what I'm saying You got Murphy
you got the attorney general you've got
the legislature Uh you you just had uh
uh you Baraka mayor of New York get
arrested on phony charges and him filing
a lawsuit against Alina Haba Now is the
time If I'm surprised Baraka hasn't done
it maybe he has So Jamie isn't this uh
Elad's next uh step breaking news right
well Elad you know they're that's not a
partisan organization They're they're
basically just focused on defending the
rule of law and and and and
trying to flag people who are who are
trampling it But but um you know in
answer to your question we need to do
whatever wherever whenever we can to to
buck up and and support the bar
associations uh and state bars that that
will do their jobs and the judges that
stick out their necks to to to to call
things the way they see them because I
mean the rule of law is the only thing
at this point that distinguishes us from
Hungary or Venezuela Yeah agreed That
that and the food Um Mel Melba Melba why
don't you why don't you round it out as
a Florida bar member what do you think
should happen next i think it needs to
be a full court press Every tool that we
have in our toolbox we need to use So
whether we're looking at judicial
referrals whether we're looking at
filing bar complaints in other states uh
whether we're looking at voting because
remember you know some judges are
elected So you know doesn't apply to
federal judges They were appointed but
state judges may have a role in some of
this too So you know again fullcourt
press any and every tool we need to
throw at it and not be afraid But
contempt I think is the big one Stop
putting people in in in in in the jail
cell We will see a whole different chain
of events Quote of the show bring your
toothbrush That that'll change hearts
and minds Absolutely I'm glad everybody
got together You're on a special edition
of Legal AF with retired judge Barbara
Jaffy with Jamie Conrad with Melba
Pearson and of course with Michael
Popach talking about how we regulate and
hold lawyers accountable who also happen
to be federal officers like the attorney
general of the United States Take a
moment You're here already Take a moment
hit the free subscribe button for Legal
AF Help us to continue to grow We're
trying to reach 700,000 subscribers
before this month is over We can only do
it with your fervent support and make
our move you join our movement and make
your journey part of our own So until my
next report along with Melba Pearson
this is Legal AF uh reporting.

BREAKING: Sen. Padilla Thrown to Floor, HANDCUFFED at Kristi Noem Presser
The Bulwark
Jun 12, 2025 Bulwark Takes

Senator Alex Padilla was tackled and handcuffed at a DHS press conference in Los Angeles after attempting to ask Secretary Kristi Noem a question. Sam Stein and Tim Miller break down the unprecedented and shocking event.



Transcript

hey guys it's me Sam Stein managing
editor at the Bull Work and I'm here
with Tim Miller we have some really
breaking news about 30 minutes ago
Senator Alex Padilla of California was
physically uh detained pushed onto the
ground and arrested at a press
conference featuring DHS Secretary
Christy Nome
crime I'm putting it in quotes and I'll
get to that in a little bit was he had
the temerity to be disruptive and ask
her a [ __ ] question and push her on
some of the stuff that she's been saying
out there about the people they're
deporting this footage is ridiculous and
outrageous tim do you want to go first
or should we play the footage yeah no um
let's play the footage then I'll get it
on the back okay here's the footage this
is from Padilla's office uh you can see
it's shot by an aid to the senator
sir sir hands up hands up i'm Senator
Alex Padilla i have questions for the
secretary because the fact of the matter
is a half a dozen violent criminals that
you're rotating on your on your I also
On the ground on the ground on the
ground hands behind your back hands
behind your back my hands go behind my
back all right cool other hand lay lay
flat lay flat other hand turn other hand
there's no recording allowed out here
i did not know there's no recording
allowed out here per FBI rights for
building for what i'm sorry there's no
recording allowed out here
that's my boss i have no here you can
record there's no recording okay there
you have it us senator pushed to the
ground handcuffed
treated like you know a trespasser on a
at a federal building yeah uncurren what
he did also right like this is a press
conference they're in a federal building
the department the Secretary of Homeland
Security is having a press conference
where she's ostensibly there to take
questions from the gathered media uh
I've been to plenty of press conferences
such as this i've been a PR flack that
wrangles people at press conferences um
you know this is not like a private
event by nature it's a public event um
you know you're inviting the cameras in
you're you're asking to make a point uh
this is a sender right of course you
know if a random person on the street
went came in and started screaming and
shouting and trying to charge the center
you know like there are moments where
you could be too disruptive but you can
see in that video that this is sitting
US senator that comes in is trying to
ask a question um you know uh and and
maybe in out of order right maybe he
wasn't called upon but still in a free
country I believe that is still legal i
believe that you're allowed to ask
questions of our elected officials um
without you know without being thrown to
the ground and um and by jack booted
thugs and that's what happens in this
video i mean I I I was pretty alarmed
when I saw the first 20 seconds of it
that just pushed him out into the
hallway yeah again this is a free
country like if if he and he's
identifying himself I'm I'm Senator Alex
Padilla throughout the video and to have
like this sec this combination of it
looks like FBI officials uh Gnome
security DHS take him out into the
hallway throw him down onto the ground
and handcuff him he was not presenting
any threat he was not presenting any
physical threat he said that he was a US
senator and and I this this is just when
you combine it with what we've seen from
this DHS you know with the masked agents
going around California it's probably
one of the things is going to ask about
there there have been tons of examples
now of video we're seeing of mass agents
going up to people demanding they have
papers racially profiling them if they
bullying them if they do not have papers
pushing them around without like
presenting any identification uh you
know when you combine that type of
behavior with you combine what I talked
about with Andrew Weissman um about how
uh Cash Patel is now suing critics of
him they're trying to bully critics this
is an administration that is across the
board you know trying to use
authoritarian thug tactics to silence
legitimate criticism and like that is it
is not an exaggeration to say that is
the behavior of an author of an an
aspiring authoritarian regime like the
the fundamental right of America in the
number one amendment in the constitution
is that people have a right to express
themselves certainly if anyone has a
right to express themselves it would be
a United States senator at an open press
conference who's concerned about how his
constituents are being treated by an
unelected
federal official in in Christ
a federal building it's he's a United
States senator it's it's unreal um it's
kind of leaves you a little bit
speechless uh it it gives truth to the
lie that these people care about the
First Amendment no it's [ __ ] you
know I was kind of reminded of this um
for people who are out there being like
"Oh well he deserves this is a small
little anecdote but early on during the
Doge cut days a number of Democratic
lawmakers showed up at the Department of
Education and they held a press
conference outside the Department of
Education to talk about the Doge cuts."
And what happened linda McMahon showed
up and crashed their press conference
okay and that just happens it's It was
It was clever it was But they she
exercised her free speech people moved
on goes back to the old days when I was
campaigning against Mitt Romney in a
primary when I was on John McCain's side
we were trying to hit him for being a
flip-flopper we sent a dolphin to his
press conference who was making dolphin
noises and shouting at him during the
press conference you don't get arrested
that is again that democracy a country
that is democratic that has free speech
it is messy sometimes you have to deal
with people who are offering counter
views to you when you're speaking when
you're speaking in public and the idea
that this that he should be physically
assaulted and handcuffed and handcuffed
right it's crazy now I I'm again this is
a dynamic situation i'm speaking right
now almost 300 p.m uh so just keep that
in mind when you're listening to this
padilla's office has put out a statement
saying that he is uh no longer um in
custody he's currently he's not
currently detained uh the office says we
are working to get additional
information they say quote "Senator
Padilla is currently in Los Angeles
exercising his duty to perform
congressional oversight of the federal
government's operations in Los Angeles
and across California he was in the
federal building to receive a briefing
with General Guot and was listening to
Secretary Nom's press conference he
tried to ask the Secretary question was
forcibly removed by federal agents
forced to the ground and handcuffed
chuck Schumer went on the floor to
denounce this we can play that video now
mr president I just saw something that
sickened my stomach the manhandling of a
United States senator we need immediate
answers to what the hell went on i yield
the floor and then on top of that we
have Lisa Marowski among others saying
she found this is a Republican saying
she found the footage shocking quote
"It's not the America I know." Maybe but
it is the America we have it's the
America we becoming yeah right and I get
you get in this point right like the
push back to this there are a couple
push backs I want to talk about from the
MAGA side um and ranging in various
degrees of bad faith but one of it is
that like look people voted for this
people voted for this type of
immigration enforcement and you know so
that so this is what they're going to
get mass deportations and and if you
just even try to take that at face level
at face value well yeah but you know
people in California also voted for Alex
Padilla they voted for Gavin Newsome
they voted for Karen Bass right and so
these elected officials also have the
not only right but duty to represent the
constituents that elected them and the
idea that they can be silenced bullied
pushed around that the government can go
over Gavin Newsome's head and federalize
the California National Guard based on
nonsense and then and then physically
push a senator to the ground go around
the request of the mayor like that is
not the democratic process sorry you
can't just say "Oh Americans voted for
this." No not true actually Americans
did not vote for this let me just point
Let me just quickly point out it's not
just Padilla they brought charges
against a sitting member of Congress for
interrupting uh you know ICE operations
in New Jersey they went after a mayor a
sitting mayor i mean that's any one of
these would be insane and they are
insane but taken together you having a
real pattern here yeah and they went and
again just to show the ridiculousness of
this all of them during their testimony
in front of Congress Gnome Patel etc
We're all talking about the politization
of the government that happened under
Biden how they were going to
depoliticize and like here we go way
beyond anything that was ever even
imaginable during the Biden years uh
then you have others who are basically
for this charlie Kirk uh tweeted "No one
is above the law it's about time these
Democrats stop acting like they are."
What law did he break
i I asked exactly that very question to
Charlie Kirk he has not replied yet some
people are replying with he was creating
a disturbance disorderly conduct
disorderly [ __ ] disorderly conducting
snowflakes that's snowflake [ __ ] yeah
what a bunch of snowflakes we're going
to arrest someone now for a senator for
criticizing for for shouting a question
at the DHS secretary it's like of all
people Charlie Kirk whose like group
turning point go say like they do this
stuff all the time like go after
Democratic politicians and and troll
them and shout them down like trolling
is now going to be illegal in this
country uh you point you were sending me
a couple of other uh spokes are going
even further i mean this one really was
crazy but um Jeremy Redford who is he
used to be a spokesman for um the Santis
now he's a spokesman for the attorney
general of Florida hinting that they he
thinks Padilla should be deported
padilla's from the valley man he's not
he's not a foreigner i don't know what
the hell that's talking about but it's
it's grotesque just because he's got a
Hispanic last name he's suggesting he
should be deported i mean what the hell
is that i mean I hope this is a wakeup
call to all you know I mean Donald Trump
improved a lot with Latino voters and
not I'm not out here saying that this is
deserved or anything obviously it's not
but like everyone should just be aware
of what's happening like it should be
blunt about it there is a racially
profiling campaign that's happening from
this administration that they're doing
unapologetically and they're going to
they're specifically targeting
workplaces in Los Angeles for
deportation where there are a lot of
Hispanic workers and and the rhetoric
coming from the administration about you
know about who is you know who they're
going for and who you know they think
might be a suspect and it is all and
there are there are non-Hispanics that
are getting sucked up in the drag net
but the but the racial profiling element
from this from the top all the way down
to now spokespeople for for Republican
political officials is just blatant it's
crazy um the flip side of this is and I
don't I'm not trying to politicize it
but you know Democrats have been looking
for confrontation is one way to put it
but someone to just get up and say
enough's enough i need answers to these
questions i don't think they anticipated
a sitting US senator getting handcuffed
as part of this but you can see I mean
you could feel it tangibly like the
frustration and the anger and the
emotion uh that is percolating now among
Democrats over this specifically but
more broadly what's happening in
California it is it's like you watch
something actually take hold i'm seeing
it right in front of me no Democratic
voters want it and and they should we
all people that oppose what this
administration should is doing it's
right but it is righteous and so like
extreme circumstances call for extreme
countermeasures so this isn't a call to
be clownish and to try to show off to
get attention for yourself it's not that
it's just like there is a lot to be
outraged about right now if you were a
senator again representing California
and your constituents are being targeted
and molested unfairly by this
administration by masked thugs you have
a right to get your questions answered
and and doing so in a manner that's not
just oh well I put out a press release
and the gentle lady from South Dakota I
hope that you would consider if they're
going to act like [ __ ] thugs then
they need to be confronted and so good
on Alex Padilla for doing it all right
I'm going to read you a statement that
was issued by Trisha Mclofflin oh my god
she is I know Trisha DHS spokesperson
she tweets this senator Padilla chose
disrespectful political theater and
interrupted a live press conference
without identifying himself or having a
Senate security pin on as he lunged
towards Secretary Gnome mr brady was
told repeatedly to back away and did not
comply with the officer's repeated
commands secret Service thought he was
an attacker and officers acted
appropriately senator Secretary Nome met
with Senator Padilla after and held a
15inute meeting first of all [ __ ]
[ __ ] i mean we can see the [ __ ]
video like what is she is she crazy we
can see the video he says "I'm a United
States senator i'm a United He says it
i'm Senator Alex Padilla i have
questions for the secretary." Like what
is she talking about we can all see the
video yeah he says it over and over
again this idea that And like I hate the
the whole This other thing the MAGA
snowflake [ __ ] he was disrespectful
disrespectful like oh they care so much
about being respectful like that is a
that is the high got to uphold the norms
yeah it's like they've got to be they
need to be respected and because you
know the whole thing is such phony
baloney elsa did not comply with the
officers report he was out in the
hallway he was on the hallway when they
pushed him to the ground and cuffed him
what is she talking about he did comply
with the requests like he was they said
to get down on the ground he was get
down on the ground
it's like these these statements they
ask you not to like believe what you see
with your own eyes it's madness well
we'll see where this ends up i mean it's
going to be a very live live story um
I'm sure we're going to be talking about
it a lot more we wanted to get a you
quick cut video uh on the news i'm sure
Tim and I will be back talking about it
a little bit more but thank you for
subscribing to the feed um definitely
tell your friends about the feed because
we do quick hitting videos like this
we'll talk to you later

Part 1 of 2

Judge orders Trump to return National Guard to California's control
by Avery Lotz
Axios
44 mins ago 6/12/25
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/13/trump- ... deployment

Live: Gov. Newsom speaks after judge sides with California against Trump administration
NBCLA
Streamed live 61 minutes ago

Gov. Newsom speaks after judge rules to temporarily block the Trump administration from activating National Guard troops in Los Angeles.

A federal judge on Thursday granted California Gov. Gavin Newsom's request to block the Trump administration from federalizing the National Guard for deployment to Los Angeles amid protests over federal immigration raids. The administration filed a notice of appeal soon after the ruling.

The big picture: The administration has activated some 4,000 National Guard members and mobilized hundreds of Marines in response to LA protests sparked by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.

• Newsom has slammed the move as "purposefully inflammatory" and has been locked in a tense standoff with President Trump for days.

• The unrest has spread, with demonstrations denouncing the administration's mass deportation push popping up coast to coast.

Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in a Thursday evening order in response to Newsom's request for emergency relief that the president did not follow congressionally mandated procedures by federalizing the California National Guard.

• "His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," wrote the Clinton-appointed judge.

• "He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith."

Catch up quick: On June 10, Newsom requested a temporary restraining order to "prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city."

• The request did not seek to bar the Guard from protecting federal buildings or property but rather sought "narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law."

• Breyer did not initially intervene in that request and granted the Trump administration more time to respond to the governor.

What they're saying: "The court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets," Newsom said on Thursday evening X.

• "This win is not just for California, but the nation. It's a check on a man whose authoritarian tendencies are increasing by the day," he added, as he called on Trump to immediately end the "illegal militarization" of LA. "History is watching."

The other side: The Justice Department in a Wednesday filing argued that Trump had "every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law."

• The government emphasized that the National Guard and the Marines are not engaged in law enforcement and are rather protecting law enforcement.

• Representatives for the White House, Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment on the ruling on Thursday evening.

************************************

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 4.64.0.pdf
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 25-cv-04870-CRB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On June 6, 2025, the federal government initiated immigration raids across the City of Los Angeles. Protests swiftly followed, and some individuals involved in those protests were unruly and even violent. State and local law enforcement responded. The following day, President Trump ordered that members of the California National Guard be federalized, and thereupon assumed control of those forces. At this early stage of the proceedings, the Court must determine whether the President followed the congressionally mandated procedure for his actions. He did not. His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.

I. BACKGROUND

A. California National Guard

The California Army National Guard and the California Air National Guard (together, the California National Guard) are part of the organized militia of the State of California and federally recognized units of the reserve components of the U.S. military. Eck Decl. (dkt. 8-3) ¶ 20. Governor Newsom is the commander-in-chief of the California National Guard when it is under state control. Id. ¶ 31; Cal. Const., art. V, § 7. President Trump is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, including the National Guard when it is under federal control. U.S. Const. art. II § 2, cl. 1. A president can call the National Guard into federal service under Title 10 of the United States Code. Id. ¶ 27. That is what happened here.

California has the largest National Guard in the country, with 18,733 members, 12,212 of whom are currently available. Eck Decl. ¶¶ 28, 30. The California National Guard is “vital” in carrying out state functions such as “emergency and natural disaster response, cybersecurity, and drug interdiction.” Id. ¶ 31. For instance, 2,500 California National Guard members were activated in response to the destructive fires in Los Angeles County in January 2025. Id. ¶¶ 35–36. Some serve on Taskforce Rattlesnake, the state’s specialized fire combat unit. Id. ¶¶ 14, 39–40. Others serve on the Counterdrug Taskforce, which specializes in stopping fentanyl trafficking at the U.S.-Mexico border. Id. ¶¶ 15, 42–43.

B. ICE Actions and Public Protest

On June 6, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement began carrying out immigration raids in Los Angeles. Olmstead Decl. (dkt. 8-2) ¶ 6. The Associated Press reported that ICE executed search warrants at multiple locations across Los Angeles. Espíritu Decl. (dkt. 8-1) Ex. F (“Federal immigration authorities have been ramping up arrests across the country to fulfill President Donald Trump’s promise of mass deportations.”). Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell stated that “federal officials did not brief his department, which made it difficult to respond to the mobs of people who began to protest.” See McPhee, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell Says, ‘Violence I Have Seen Is Disgusting,’ Recounting Attacks on Cops, L.A. Mag. (June 8, 2025), https://perma.cc/G24N-PZHE. ICE reportedly targeted “several locations in downtown L.A. and its immediate surroundings” that are “known to have significant migrant populations and labour-intensive industries.” Espíritu Decl. Ex. G. These included two Home Depot stores, a donut store, and a clothing wholesaler. Id. Ultimately, between 70 and 80 people were detained, and 44 arrested. Espíritu Decl. Exs. G, H.

State and city leaders expressed concern and disapproval. Governor Newsom reportedly stated that the “[c]ontinued chaotic federal sweeps … to meet an arbitrary arrest quota are as reckless as they are cruel.” Espíritu Decl. Ex. D. Mayor Karen Bass told reporters that she received no notice that the raids were to be conducted, and that the raids “sow[] a sense of chaos in our city, and a sense of terror.” Id. And Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn reportedly said: “They aren’t targeting violent criminals—they are sweeping up hardworking people in our communities just trying to provide for their families. These agents are armed to the teeth and it is clear their goal is to make people afraid and it’s working.” Id.

Some members of the public gathered in protest. A group of people assembled at the site of an ICE operation in Los Angeles’s Garment District and tried to prevent ICE from leaving. Santacruz Decl. (dkt. 22-1) ¶ 7; Espíritu Decl. Ex. D. Another one of the primary protests on June 6 took place at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 6. The protests were explicitly about the immigration raids. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. D (“Friday evening, protesters marched in downtown L.A. condemning Friday’s immigration raids.”). The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, which was monitoring the protests, was in regular communication with representatives of the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 6. Both stated that they did not need additional resources, and LAPD reassigned additional officers to the area. Id.

That evening, protesters reportedly marched in downtown Los Angeles. Espíritu Decl. Ex. D. There were about 800 protesters at two sites. Santacruz Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10. Some protesters threw “concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects at Federal Protective Service officers guarding a parking lot gate; some protesters attempted “to use large rolling commercial dumpsters as a battering ram.” Id. ¶ 11. Officers protected the gate entrance with pepper balls and other nonlethal force, until LAPD arrived and pushed the crowd away. Id. ¶ 13. Some of the protesters used “chairs, dumpsters, and other items as weapons.” Id. ¶ 14. LAPD declared an “unlawful assembly,” and while some individuals resisted, the protesters departed by 11:00 p.m. Id. ¶¶ 16, 17. Two federal buildings were vandalized and sustained minor damage. Id. ¶ 17.

On June 7, both the ICE operations and responsive protests continued. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 7. In addition to the protest at the Metropolitan Detention Center, protests also emerged in Paramount and Compton. Id. LASD provided 200 deputies to respond to the Paramount and Compton protests, including a team with specialized training in handling civil unrest. Id. Customs and Border Protection officers arrived from San Diego to assist with immigration enforcement operations. Santacruz Decl. ¶ 18.

During the evening hours of June 7, the protest at the Metropolitan Detention Center was “fairly in control,” with some protesters targeting the building. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 9. Federal officers pushed protesters away while LAPD officers moved in front and declared an unlawful assembly; by 2:15 a.m., “most of the protestors had left the area.” Id. In Paramount and Compton, there were about 300 to 400 protesters present. Id. ¶ 10. Some protesters threw rocks and other objects (including a Molotov cocktail), burned a vehicle, looted a gas station, and vandalized property. Id. ¶ 9. There was an extended clash between some protesters and officers, with a crowd boxing in the officers and throwing fireworks, rocks, and mangos at them, and “using shopping carts to barricade the street.” Santacruz Decl. ¶ 20. One officer was briefly trapped inside her law enforcement vehicle when a crowd surrounded it, shook it, and threw stones at it. Id. A DHS fence was damaged, and three government vehicles were damaged. Id. ¶ 21. Local law enforcement brought the situation under control by 4:00 a.m. and LASD was able to demobilize its teams. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 9. About 11 people were arrested for engaging in unlawful behavior at the protests that night. Id. ¶ 10.

C. Federalizing of National Guard and Continued Protest

President Trump intervened in the response to the protests on the evening of June 7, issuing a memorandum to the Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, and Secretary of Homeland Security. See June 7 Memo (Espíritu Decl. Ex. O at 108–09). Although it did not name California, Los Angeles, or any other geographic area, the memo asserted that “[n]umerous incidents of violence and disorder have recently occurred and threaten to continue in response to the enforcement of Federal law by [ICE] and other United States Government personnel.” Id. It continued: “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” Id. (emphasis added). The memo explained that due to “these incidents and credible threats of continued violence,” President Trump was calling

into Federal service members and units of the National Guard under 10 U.S.C. [§] 12406 to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including enforcement of Federal law, and to protect Federal property, at locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur based on current threat assessments and planned operations.

Id. President Trump further directed Secretary Hegseth “to coordinate with the Governors of the States and the National Guard Bureau in identifying and ordering into Federal service the appropriate members and units of the National Guard under this authority,” calling for “at least 2,000” National Guard personnel to be on duty “for 60 days or at the discretion of” Secretary Hegseth. Id. (emphasis added). Finally, the memo provided that Secretary Hegseth could “employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary.” Id.

Secretary Hegseth issued an order that same night, attaching the June 7 Memo, and announcing that 2,000 members of the California National Guard were being “called into Federal service effective immediately for a period of 60 days.” See June 7 DOD Order (Espíritu Decl. Ex. P at 111). The top of the order read:

MEMORANDUM FOR ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA

Id. The order further stated that the Commander of U.S. Northern Command would control the 2,000 National Guard members. Id.

Defendants did not notify Governor Newsom of their intent to federalize the California National Guard prior to issuing the June 7 Memo or the June 7 DOD Order. Espíritu Decl. Ex. K (June 8 letter from Sapp to Secretary Hegseth).1 Governor Newsom only learned of the June 7 DOD Order from the Adjutant General after the Adjutant General received it. Id. The Adjutant General relinquished command to the commander of U.S. Northern Command, and thereafter the commander of U.S. Northern Command, not the Governor, has issued all orders to the federalized National Guard. Espíritu Decl. Ex. J. Responding to these events, Governor Newsom issued a statement that “[t]he federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles—not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle.” Espíritu Decl. Ex. Q. On June 8, the New York Times reported that President Trump wrote on social media that he had directed his cabinet officials to “take any actions necessary to ‘liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion,’” and said, “we’re going to have troops everywhere.” Espíritu Decl. Ex. M.

The National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles on June 8, but “it was not clear what role they were to play or what orders they were provided,” and “there were concerns” that they “did not have the equipment or training necessary to handle the situation.” Espíritu Decl. Ex. R; Olmstead Decl. ¶ 11. Initially that morning, the city was quiet. Espíritu Decl. Ex. R. That afternoon, protesters increased to about 3,500, particularly near the Metropolitan Detention Center, where the National Guard was deployed. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 12. “[M]any of the protestors appeared angry that the National Guard had been federalized and was now present in their city.” Id.; Espíritu Decl. Ex. M (New York Times stating that “aggressive federal response … in turn sparked new protests across the city.”). “The presence of the National Guard seemed to only inflame the protesters further.” Olmstead Decl. ¶ 12.2

LAPD, LASD, and the California Highway Patrol deployed to the protest area as protesters, blocked Highway 101. Id. ¶ 13. Several blocks away, individuals reportedly vandalized Waymo driverless vehicles. Espíritu Decl. Ex. R. Some people “moved through downtown, setting off commercial-grade fireworks toward federal officers and throwing objects at passing law enforcement vehicles.” Santacruz Decl. ¶ 26. Individuals “lit fires in dumpsters and trash bins[,] looted at least one store,” and vandalized buildings. Id. At least 42 people were arrested in connection with their conduct during the June 8 protests. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 14.

That same day, Governor Newsom’s office wrote to Secretary Hegseth, stating that the June 7 DOD Order did not comply with the law or even with President Trump’s June 7 Memo. Espíritu Decl. Ex. K. The letter argued that “local law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order” and that deploying the National Guard without adequate training or orders “risks seriously escalating the situation.” Id. Asserting that the deployment represented “a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation,” the letter asked Secretary Hegseth to rescind the June 7 DOD Order. Id.

Instead, on June 9, Secretary Hegseth posted on social media that “approximately 700 active-duty U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton are being deployed to Los Angeles to restore order” and “defend federal law enforcement officers.” Eck Decl. ¶ 18. Secretary Hegseth then issued a second order federalizing another 2,000 National Guard members for 60 days. June 9 DOD Order (Espíritu Decl. Ex. P at 114). Defendants did not consult with Governor Newsom in advance of the June 9 DOD Order. Espíritu Decl. Ex. S. On June 9, a thousand demonstrators gathered, and one person drove by firing paintballs at the FPS inspectors. Santacruz Decl. ¶ 28. The crowd clashed with LAPD officers, injuring five. Id. ¶ 31.

Over the course of the protests, state and local law enforcement arrests increased by the day, with over 400 individuals ultimately being arrested in total. Olmstead Supp. Decl. (dkt. 39-3) ¶ 14.3 The parties have not introduced any evidence of any protesters carrying firearms, and there is no evidence of any organized (as opposed to sporadic) violence.

D. Procedural History

Plaintiffs Newsom and the State of California bring suit against Defendants Trump, Hegseth, and the DOD, arguing that Defendants’ actions exceeded the scope of their authority. See Compl. (dkt. 1). The complaint includes causes of action for: (1) ultra vires, against all Defendants; (2) violation of the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, against all Defendants; and (3) violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, against Secretary Hegseth and the Department of Defense. Id. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. Id. ¶ 107. On June 10, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a TRO, asking the Court to rein in the President’s use of military force in Los Angeles. Mot. (dkt. 8); Reply (dkt. 39). Defendants have opposed the motion, see Opp., and the Court held a hearing on June 12.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking a temporary restraining order must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard for temporary restraining order the same as for preliminary injunction). Alternatively, if the party demonstrates that “the balance of hardships tips sharply in [its] favor,” it need only show that “serious questions going to the merits were raised” and that the other two Winter elements are satisfied. All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Either way, success on the merits “is the most important Winter factor.” Disney Enters., Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). And when the government is a party, the last two Winter factors—the equities and the public interest—merge. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Biden, 993 F.3d 640, 668 (9th Cir. 2021).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court begins with the likelihood of success on the merits and, concluding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on at least some of their claims, then proceeds to the remaining Winter factors.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Plaintiffs bring three claims—an ultra vires claim, a Tenth Amendment claim, and an APA claim—but rely only on the first two for purposes of their motion for a temporary restraining order. Mot. at 7–11, 12–15 (ultra vires), 11–12 (Tenth Amendment). As part of their ultra vires claim, Plaintiffs contend that President Trump exceeded his lawful authority in three ways: First, although he cited 10 U.S.C. § 12406, which permits the President to federalize the National Guard, none of the three statutory conditions for invoking that statute were met. Second, he failed to comply with § 12406’s procedural requirement that any order issued under that statute “shall be issued through the governors of the States.” Third, he federalized the National Guard for an unlawful purpose in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385. The Court addresses these three arguments before turning to Plaintiffs’ Tenth Amendment claim.

1. Section 12406’s Conditions for Federalization

Through the Militia Act of 1903, Congress authorized the President to “call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary,” but only if

(1) the United States, or any of the Commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;

(2) there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States; or

(3) the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.

Pub. L. No. 57-33, § 4, 32 Stat. 775, 776 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 12406). Neither President Trump nor Secretary Hegseth specified by a citation to the statute which of these conditions justified federalizing the National Guard, though President Trump’s memorandum suggests that he relied on the second, the third, or both. June 7 Memo ( “To the extent that the protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”). Defendants confirm in their opposition brief and at the June 12 hearing that they rely on the second and third conditions.4 Opp. at 13–16.

Defendants also challenge whether the Court can even properly evaluate whether these conditions were met, asserting that § 12406 reserved this determination to the President’s discretion alone. Id. at 10–13. This presents a preliminary question for the Court to resolve before addressing the merits of the § 12406 conditions for federalizing the National Guard.

a. Justiciability

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803). Thus, federal courts have “no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 404 (1821). The Supreme Court has recognized only limited exceptions to this general rule—one of which is known as the “political question” doctrine. Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 195 (2012). This doctrine recognizes that certain “[q]uestions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Marbury, 5 U.S. at 170. The political question doctrine is, however, a “narrow exception” to the general rule that “the Judiciary has a responsibility to decide cases properly before it, even those it ‘would gladly avoid.’” Zivotofsky, 566 U.S. at 195 (quoting Cohens, 19 U.S. at 404).

Baker v. Carr is the canonical case examining this doctrine. 369 U.S. 186 (1962). In Baker, the Court proposed six ways in which a case might present a political question and thus be unfit for judicial review: (1) if there is “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department,” (2) if there is “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it,” (3) if it would be impossible to decide the issue “without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion,” (4) if it would be impossible for a court to “undertak[e] independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government,” (5) if there is “an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made,” or (6) if there is “potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” Id. at 217. “Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for non-justiciability on the ground of a political question’s presence.” Id.

Defendants contend that the third Baker formulation—the existence of a policy question “clearly for nonjudicial discretion”—applies here to render nonjusticiable the question whether § 12406’s conditions for federalization of the National Guard were met. Opp. at 12–13. They rely on the language of § 12406 itself, stating that the statute gives sole and exclusive discretion to the President to determine whether “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or whether he “is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” Id. at 10–13. Indeed, at the hearing Defendants contended that the President could invoke § 12406 on no evidence whatsoever and remain immune from judicial review. And to be sure, when the “executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, … their acts are only politically examinable.” Marbury, 5 U.S. at 166; see also Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462, 477 (1994) (“Where a statute … commits decisionmaking to the discretion of the President, judicial review of the President’s decision is not available.”).

Defendants misconstrue the plain language of § 12406, however. The statute permits the President to federalize the National Guard “[w]henever” one of the three enumerated conditions are met, not whenever he determines that one of them is met. 10 U.S.C. § 12406. Defendants point to the language providing that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any state in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.” Id. (emphasis added). But their argument puts the cart before the horse. For the President to exercise his discretion (as to how many National Guard members or units to federalize), there must first be an invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute the laws. Consider, as an analogy, 5 U.S.C. § 3345, which applies “f an officer of an Executive agency … whose appointment to office is required to be made by the President … dies, resigns, or is unable to perform the functions and duties of the office.” Id. § 3345(a). The President’s discretion in what to do next, see id. § 3345(a)(2)–(3), does not mean that the President can unilaterally and without judicial review declare that a vacancy exists in order to fill it. That is classic ipse dixit.

Defendants assert that, despite the plain language of the statute, the Supreme Court’s 1827 Martin v. Mott decision compels a different outcome. 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 19 (1827). Martin arose from a militiaman’s refusal to enter federal service to fight in the War of 1812 after President Madison had ordered the New York militia into federal service pursuant to a predecessor statute to the Militia Act of 1903. See id. at 28. That statute provided that “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state, or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.” Act of Feb. 28, 1795, ch. 36, 1 Stat. 424, 424. Martin thus presented the question: “Is the President the sole and exclusive judge whether the exigency has arisen, or is it to be considered as an open question, upon which every officer to whom the orders of the President are addressed, may decide for himself, and equally open to be contested by every militia-man who shall refuse to obey the orders of the President?” 25 U.S. at 29–30. The Supreme Court held “that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.” Id. at 30. It stated that the President “is necessarily constituted the judge of the existence of the exigency in the first instance, and is bound to act according to his belief of the facts.” Id. at 31. And so the Court concluded that “[w]henever a statute gives a discretionary power to any person, to be exercised by him upon his own opinion of certain facts, it is a sound rule of construction, that the statute constitutes him the sole and exclusive judge of the existence of those facts.” Id. at 31–32.

In J.A.V. v. Trump, a challenge to President Trump’s actions under the Alien Enemies Act, the federal government relied on Martin to make a similar argument to the one they make here. --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 1257450 (S.D. Tex. May 1, 2025). The plaintiffs in that case were Venezuelan citizens who alleged that President Trump’s removal of Venezuelan citizens had exceeded the terms of the AEA, which allows the President, in his discretion, to remove certain noncitizens when “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government.” Id. at *2, 5; 50 U.S.C. § 21; see also Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 164 (1948) (the AEA “confers on the president very great discretionary powers”). President Trump argued there, as he does here, that the political question doctrine shielded his attempt to remove Venezuelan citizens from the United States because “whether the AEA’s preconditions are satisfied is a political question committed to the President’s discretion.” J.A.V., 2025 WL 1257450, at *7. And he cited Martin for the same proposition as he does here. See Opp. to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 12, J.A.V., No. 25-cv-72 (filed Apr. 23, 2025), ECF No. 45.

Judge Rodriguez rejected President Trump’s attempt to preclude judicial review. He emphasized that “‘questions of interpretation’ fall within the Judiciary’s responsibility” and that this can involve “analyzing whether a government official has impermissibly crossed statutory boundaries” by “determining the meaning of statutory terms and gauging the government’s actions against those determined parameters.” J.A.V., 2025 WL 1257450, at *9. Accordingly, he went on to define “invasion” and “predatory incursion” before concluding that President Trump had not adequately established the existence of either. J.A.V., 2025 WL 1257450, at *14–18.

The Court agrees with Judge Rodriguez’s thoughtful reasoning in J.A.V. and finds it applicable here. To start, J.A.V. is in line with other recent decisions rebuffing efforts from Defendants to skirt judicial review of their alleged statutory violations. See, e.g., J.G.G. v. Trump, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 890401, at *9 (D.D.C. 2025) (“Simply because a legal claim implicates foreign affairs or national security, however, does not mean that the political-question doctrine places it ‘beyond judicial cognizance.’” (citation omitted)). It is also consistent with a long line of precedent recognizing the judiciary’s role in interpreting statutory text. See, e.g., Zivotofsky, 566 U.S. at 196 (determining whether federal officials’ “interpretation of [a] statute is correct” is “a familiar judicial exercise”); Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986) (“[O]ne of the Judiciary’s characteristic roles is to interpret statutes, and we cannot shirk this responsibility merely because our decision may have significant political overtones.”); El-Shifa Pharm. Indus. Co. v. United States, 607 F.3d 836, 842 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“[T]hat a case may involve the conduct of the nation’s foreign affairs does not necessarily prevent a court from determining whether the Executive has exceeded the scope of prescribed statutory authority or failed to obey the prohibition of a statute or treaty.”); Stark v. Wickard, 321 U.S. 288, 310 (1944) (“The responsibility of determining the limits of statutory grants of authority … is a judicial function entrusted to the courts by Congress by the statutes establishing courts and marking their jurisdiction.”). Finally, even though the AEA and § 12406 are different statutes, they both grant the President discretion in some respects while still containing important statutory conditions that must be met for that discretion to be exercised. See Ludecke, 335 U.S. at 164, 171. Accordingly, the Court concludes that § 12406 does not preclude judicial review of whether a rebellion has occurred or is in danger of occurring, or whether the President is unable to execute federal law.

To be sure, based on longstanding deference to the President on matters of national security and foreign policy, courts cannot second-guess a President’s factual determinations in support of a proclamation under the AEA that an invasion or predatory incursion had occurred or was threatened. J.A.V., 2025 WL 1257450, at *10 (citing Holder v. Humanitarian L. Project, 561 U.S. 1, 34 (2010), Chi. & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103, 111 (1948), and Martin, 25 U.S. at 315); see also Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 708 (2018) (“[T]he Executive’s evaluation of the underlying facts is entitled to appropriate weight, particularly in the context of litigation involving ‘sensitive and weighty interests of national security and foreign affairs.’” (quoting Humanitarian L. Project, 561 U.S. at 33–34)). As discussed below, the Court here—like Judge Rodriguez in J.A.V.—does not question Defendants’ factual assertions. The Court considers only whether those factual assertions, if true, constitute a rebellion or make the President unable to execute federal law.

That said, the Court points out that this case is not one involving the kind of foreign policy or national security questions that traditionally are left to the President. It instead implicates the President’s domestic use of military force, a matter on which the courts can certainly weigh in. As the Supreme Court stated over fifty years ago:

The concerns of the Executive and Legislative Branches in response to disclosure of the Army surveillance activities … reflect a traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs. That tradition has deep roots in our history and found early expression, for example, in the Third Amendment’s explicit prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes without consent and in the constitutional provisions for civilian control of the military. Those prohibitions are not directly presented by this case, but their philosophical underpinnings explain our traditional insistence on limitations on military operations in peacetime. Indeed, when presented with claims of judicially cognizable injury resulting from military intrusion into the civilian sector, federal courts are fully empowered to consider claims of those asserting such injury; there is nothing in our Nation’s history or in this Court’s decided cases, including our holding today, that can properly be seen as giving any indication that actual or threatened injury by reason of unlawful activities of the military would go unnoticed or unremedied.

Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 15–16 (1972) (emphasis added).6 Between the unique concerns raised by federal military intrusion into civilian affairs and the fact that federal officials are not uniquely positioned to ascertain what is happening on the ground (as compared to, say, state and local officials), the Court is not convinced that the judiciary cannot question presidential assertions about domestic activities leading to military action. See Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 177 (Holmes, J., dissenting) (“The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”).

At bottom, § 12406 does not reserve to sole presidential discretion the determination of whether a rebellion has or is in danger of occurring or whether the President is unable to execute federal law. Accordingly, the Court now turns to the questions whether (1) “there [was] a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or (2) “the President [was] unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

b. Rebellion

Section 12406 does not define the term “rebellion,” so the Court must interpret the term “consistent with [its] ‘ordinary meaning at the time Congress enacted the statute.’” Wis. Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 585 U.S. 274, 277 (2018) (cleaned up) (citation omitted). In this endeavor, the Court may turn to contemporary dictionary definitions for insight. See, e.g., id. (relying on dictionary definitions of “money”); Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S. Ct. 659, 667 (2025) (relying on dictionary definitions of “prevailing party”); City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 941 F.3d 931, 940 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We give Congress’s words their ordinary and everyday meaning, and may consult dictionary definitions to ensure a plain interpretation.”). And where there are multiple dictionary definitions, the Court must apply “the contextually appropriate ordinary meaning, unless there is reason to think otherwise.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 70 (2012). Part of understanding context involves recognizing that statutes “should be construed so that effect is given to all [their] provisions, so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.” Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (citation omitted).

Both parties quote the definition of “rebellion” from the current edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, which is:

1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler; esp., an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, usu. through violence.

2. Open resistance or opposition to an authority or tradition.

3. Hist. Disobedience of a legal command or summons.

Rebellion, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). The Court’s own research has turned up the following definitions from the late 1800s and early 1900s—the relevant time period for understanding what Congress meant when they passed the Militia Act of 1903:

Deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws and operations of the government, committed by a subject.

Rebellion, Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed. 1891).

1. An open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government to which one owes allegiance; or the taking of arms traitorously to resist the authority of lawful government; revolt. Rebellion differs from insurrection and from mutiny. Insurrection may be a rising in opposition to a particular act or law, without a design to renounce wholly all subjection to the government. Insurrection may be, but is not necessarily, rebellion. Mutiny is an insurrection of soldiers or seamen against the authority of their officers.

2. Open resistance to lawful authority.

Rebellion, American Dictionary of the English Language (1900).

The taking up of arms traitorously against the government; the forcible opposition and resistance to the laws and process lawfully installed. If the rebellion amounts to treason, it is punished by the laws of the United States with death. If it be a mere resistance of process, it is generally punished by fine and imprisonment.

Rebellion, The Cyclopedic Dictionary of Law (1901).

1. The act of rebelling; open and avowed renunciation of the authority of the government to which one owes obedience, and resistance to its officers and laws, either by levying war, or by aiding others to so; an organized uprising of subjects for the purpose of coercing or overthrowing their lawful rule or government by force; revolt; insurrection.

2. Open resistance to, or defiance of, lawful authority.

Rebellion, Webster’s International Dictionary of the English Language (1903)

Where dictionaries list multiple definitions of “rebellion,” the first definition is the one demanded by context here. The first definition of “rebellion” in each dictionary is political in nature, as opposed to the more open-ended concept of “rebellion” that some dictionaries provide as a secondary definition. Indeed, dictionaries’ examples of the secondary usage of the term never apply in the political arena. See, e.g., Rebellion, Oxford English Dictionary (rev. 2009).7 And if there were any room for doubt, the language of § 12406 (requiring that the rebellion be “against the authority of the Government of the United States”) resolves the question in favor of the political definition of “rebellion.”

From there, the Court observes that the dictionary definitions from the turn of the century share several key characteristics. First, a rebellion must not only be violent but also be armed. Second, a rebellion must be organized. Third, a rebellion must be open and avowed. Fourth, a rebellion must be against the government as a whole—often with an aim of overthrowing the government—rather than in opposition to a single law or issue.

The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of “rebellion.” Defendants refer repeatedly to “violent rioters,” and “mobs,” see, e.g., Opp. at 1, and so the Court pauses to state that there can be no debate that most protesters demonstrated peacefully. Nonetheless, it is also beyond debate that some individuals used the protests as an excuse for violence and destruction. Some bad actors on June 6 threw “concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects at … officers,” Santacruz Decl. ¶ 11, and used “chairs, dumpsters, and other items as weapons,” id. ¶ 14. Others threw rocks and other objects, including a Molotov cocktail, on June 7. Olmstead Decl. ¶ 9. A “violent crowd” boxed in officers, threw fireworks, rocks, and mangos, and trapped one officer in her car, surrounding it, shaking it, and throwing stones at it. Santacruz Decl. Ex. 20. Some people on June 8 set off fireworks toward officers and threw objects at their vehicles. Santacruz Decl. ¶ 26. Someone on June 9 fired paintballs, id. ¶ 28, and a crowd injured five LAPD officers, id. ¶ 31.

Violence is necessary for a rebellion, but it is not sufficient. Even accepting the questionable premise that people armed with fireworks, rocks, mangoes, concrete, chairs, or bottles of liquid are “armed” in a 1903 sense—the Court is aware of no evidence in the record of actual firearms—there is little evidence of whether the violent protesters’ actions were “open or avowed.” Some presumably engaged violently with officers at close quarters in the daylight, while many others threw items under cover of darkness, protected by a crowd, identities concealed. Certainly, the peaceful protesters were “organized” to some degree, in that people knew generally knew where to go to participate in protests, see, e.g., Espíritu Decl. Ex. F (“Dozens of protesters gathered Friday evening outside a federal detention center in Los Angeles where lawyers said those arrested had been taken, chanting ‘set them free, let them stay!’”), but there is no evidence of organized, as apart from sporadic or impromptu, violence.8 Nor is there evidence that any of the violent protesters were attempting to overthrow the government as a whole; the evidence is overwhelming that protesters gathered to protest a single issue—the immigration raids. See, e.g., Espíritu Decl. Ex. D (“Friday evening, protesters marched in downtown L.A. condemning Friday’s immigration raids.”). While Defendants have pointed to several instances of violence, they have not identified a violent, armed, organized, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole. The definition of rebellion is unmet.

Moreover, the Court is troubled by the implication inherent in Defendants’ argument that protest against the federal government, a core civil liberty protected by the First Amendment, can justify a finding of rebellion. The U.S. Reports are chock-full of language explaining the importance of individuals’ right to speak out against the government—even when doing so is uncomfortable, even when doing so is provocative, even when doing so causes inconvenience. See, e.g., Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 24–25 (1972) (“To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. … That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength.”); Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 508 (“But, in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression. Any departure from absolute regimentation may cause trouble. … Any word spoken … that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance. But our Constitution says we must take this risk.”); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 550–51 (rejecting the argument that a conviction for breach of the peace “should be sustained because of fear expressed by some [onlookers] that ‘violence was about to erupt’ because of the demonstration” and explaining “that constitutional rights may not be denied simply because of hostility to their assertion or exercise” (quoting Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 535 (1963))); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”); Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574 (1995) (“[T]he point of all speech protection [] is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”).

Applying these principles, courts have repeatedly reaffirmed that peaceful protest does not lose its protection merely because some isolated individuals act violently outside the protections of the First Amendment:

Moreover, although defendants make much of the fact that some demonstrators had allegedly violated the law, transforming the peaceful demonstration into a potentially disruptive one, the Supreme Court has expressly held that “the right to associate does not lose all constitutional protection merely because some members of the group may have participated in conduct or advocated doctrine that itself is not protected.”

Jones v. Parmley, 465 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 2006) (cleaned up) (quoting NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 908 (1982)); see also Black Lives Matter Seattle-King Cnty. v. City of Seattle, 466 F. Supp. 3d 1206, 1213 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (finding that instances of protesters “launch[ing] objects at the police, ranging from rocks, bottles, fireworks, traffic cones, traffic flares, and more,” warranted only “ensur[ing] an adequate police presence” and “arrest[ing] those who engage in such conduct” rather than “suppress[ing] legitimate First Amendment conduct as a prophylactic measure” (quoting Collins v. Jordan, 110 F.3d 1363, 1372 (9th Cir. 1996))); Index Newspapers LLC v. City of Portland, 480 F. Supp. 3d 1120, 1143 (D. Or. 2020) (“The fact that there are some violent offenders [] does not give the Federal Defendants carte blanche to attack journalists and legal observers and infringe their First Amendment rights.”). In short, individuals’ right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” is untenable and dangerous.

In a short paragraph, Defendants suggest that even if there was no rebellion that would justify federalizing the National Guard, there was still a “danger of a rebellion,” which would satisfy § 12406. Opp. at 16. This argument cannot withstand scrutiny. For starters, President Trump and Secretary Hegseth did not rely on a “danger of a rebellion” when issuing the memorandum and orders that federalized the National Guard under s 12406. See June 7 Memo; June 7 Order; June 9 Order.9 It is concerning, to say the least, to imagine that the federal executive could unilaterally exercise military force in a domestic context and then be allowed to backfill justifications for doing so, especially considering how wary courts are of after-the-fact justifications even where the stakes are lower. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 50 (1983) (“[C]ourts may not accept appellate counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action.”). But in any event, Defendants do not even explain how the Court should determine whether there is a “danger of a rebellion.” “Rebellion” remains the operative word, and so any difference between a “rebellion” and a “danger of a rebellion” must be a difference of degree, not one of kind, with respect to the conduct of the alleged rebellion. With that in mind, Defendants have still not established a factual basis—again, even assuming their factual assertions to be correct—from which this Court can conclude that there is a danger of an organized, violent, armed uprising with the goal of overthrowing the lawful government of the United States.

Accordingly, Defendants do not satisfy the “rebellion” condition.

Part 2 of 2

c. Execution of the Laws

The third condition justifying the federalization of the National Guard, and the second advanced by Defendants, is that “the President [was] unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.” 10 U.S.C. § 12406; Opp. at 16–17. Defendants argue that they satisfy this condition because the Los Angeles protests threatened the safety of federal law enforcement personnel and interfered with the sites where ICE agents were enforcing alien removal laws. Opp. at 16. Defendants concede that ICE succeeded in arresting 44 people on June 6, but insist that “that limited success came with the risk of danger,” and that, had the protests not interfered with their operations, ICE “would have been able to carry out additional execution-of-the-laws activity.” Id.

Whether ICE could have detained more people in the absence of the protests is mere conjecture—Defendants provide no support for that assertion. Even assuming that Defendants are correct, however, the statute does not allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces obstacles that cause him to underperform in executing the laws. Nor does the statute allow for the federalizing of the National Guard when the President faces some risk in executing the laws, though of course federal employees should never have to fear danger when performing their jobs. The statute requires that the President be “unable” to execute the laws of the United States. That did not happen here. See Espíritu Decl. Exs. G, H (between 70 and 80 people were detained, and 44 arrested by ICE).

A classic example of a president being “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws”—indeed, the only other time in this Country’s history that a president has exclusively relied on § 12406 to federalize the National Guard—is the 1970 Postal Service Strike. See Opp. at 3 (drawing parallel to Postal Service Strike). Frustrated by low pay and poor working conditions, letter carriers voted on March 17, 1970 to strike, “threaten[ing] to bring the nation to a standstill.” Pope, Operation Graphic Hand, Smithsonian Nat’l Postal Museum (Mar. 23, 2017), https://postalmuseum.si.edu/operation -graphic-hand. By March 19, 1970, the mail service was “paralyzed,” the areas affected by the strike were growing, and “[ b]ills, dividend checks, income-tax returns, advertising brochures, credit cards, bank statements, sales flyers and personal mail lay uncollected in thousands of mail drops.” Bigart, Mail Service Here is Paralyzed by Postal System’s First Strike; Business Beginning to Feel Pinch, N.Y. Times (March 19, 1970), https://perma.cc/8VYB-CT32. On March 23, 1970, President Nixon declared a state of national emergency, ordering 25,000 personnel from the National Guard and other military branches into New York City “to get some mail moving.” Pope, supra; see also Bigart, Troops Welcomed as Mail Carriers, N.Y. Times (March 26, 1970), https://perma.cc/9A9N-PLHD; Exec. Order No. 11,519, 35 Fed. Reg. 5003 (Mar. 23, 1970). In that case, the mail system was incapacitated—the “regular forces” of letter carriers were on strike, and there was no other way to deliver the mail. In this case, the regular forces were and are still very much on duty. While ICE was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have, ICE was nonetheless able to execute the federal immigration laws. Indeed, ICE continues to carry out enforcement actions, executing those laws. See Espíritu Supp. Decl. (dkt. 39-1).

Accordingly, Defendants do not satisfy the “execution of the laws” condition.

2. Section 12406’s Procedural Requirements

Shortly after enacting the Militia Act of 1903, Congress amended the Act to require that any orders issued under § 12406 be issued “through the governor of the respective State … from which State … such troops may be called.” Militia Act of 1908, Pub. L. No. 60-145, § 3, 35 Stat. 399, 400. Section 12406 maintains this requirement: “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States … .”

Plaintiffs assert that President Trump failed to comply with this procedural requirement. They explain that Governor Newsom first learned that President Trump had called 2,000 of California’s National Guard members into federal service when California’s adjutant general forwarded him the June 7 DOD Order. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. K. From that point on, the commander of U.S. Northern Command, not the Governor, has issued all orders to the federalized National Guard. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. J. Similarly, Secretary Hegseth—not Governor Newsom—issued the June 9 order calling another 2,000 National Guard members into federal service. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. S.

Defendants assert that they complied with § 12406 because written at the top of the June 7 and June 9 DOD Orders was the label “THROUGH: THE GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.” Opp. at 17. True enough. But an interpretation of § 12406 that permits the President to federalize a state’s National Guard by typing the phrase “Through the Governor of [insert state here]” at the top of a document that the President never sends to the governor strains credibility, especially given that Congress specifically amended the statute to add the requirement that orders “shall be issued through the governors.” See Militia Act of 1908 § 3.

Defendants also argue that they complied with this requirement by sending the order to California’s adjutant general, who is tasked with issuing orders “in the name of the Governor.” Opp. at 17 (citing Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 163). But § 12406 specifically requires that orders federalizing the National Guard be issued “through the governor of the respective State,” not through a different state official (even one who can issue orders in the governor’s name). Indeed, when Congress has wanted to accommodate other state officials, it has done so expressly. For example, the Secretary of Defense may “order a member of a reserve component under his jurisdiction to active duty” except that members “may not be ordered to active duty … without the consent of the governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned.” 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) (emphasis added). And, in fact, § 12406 specifically provides for, “in the case of the District of Columbia,” orders to issue “through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

As a final point, Plaintiffs emphasize that Defendants did not provide Governor Newsom “an opportunity to provide or withhold his consent” or even “to consult … as to which service members and in what number should be called, and for what purposes and what period of time.” Mot. at 6. Defendants respond that § 12406 says nothing about obtaining a governor’s consent as a prerequisite for federalizing the National Guard. They are correct: section 12406 does not expressly require consent or approval of a governor to federalize that state’s National Guard, unlike similar statutes. Cf. 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) (allowing the Secretary of Defense to “order a member of a reserve component under his jurisdiction to active duty” only with “the consent of the governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned” (emphasis added)). That said, the June 7 Memo specifically ordered Secretary Hegseth to “coordinate with the Governors of the States” in the process of calling National Guard members to federal service, and Defendants do not claim to have done so. And in any case, the instant motion does not require the Court to determine whether or how § 12406 would operate if Secretary Hegseth had attempted to issue his orders through Governor Newsom and he had refused, as the President and Secretary circumvented the Governor (and thus, the procedure mandated by statute) from the outset.10

Regardless of whether Defendants gave Governor Newsom an opportunity to consult with them or consent to the federalization of California’s National Guard, they did not issue their orders through him, and thus failed to comply with § 12406.

3. The Posse Comitatus Act

Plaintiffs’ third argument for why President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard exceeds his legal authority rests not on § 12406 but a different statute—the Posse Comitatus Act. First enacted in 1878, the Act prohibits military personnel from acting as a “posse comitatus,” or those “upon whom a sheriff could call for assistance in preventing any type of civil disorder.” United States v. Dreyer, 804 F.3d 1266, 1272 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (citation omitted); Act of June 18, 1878, ch. 263, § 14, 20 Stat. 145, 152. The current version of the Act provides:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 1385. The Act reflects “‘a traditional and strong resistance of Americans to any military intrusion into civilian affairs’ that ‘has deep roots in our history and found early expression, for example, in the Third Amendment’s explicit prohibition against quartering soldiers in private homes without consent and in the constitutional provisions for civilian control of the military.’” Dreyer, 804 F.3d at 1272 (quoting Laird, 408 U.S. at 15).

The Posse Comitatus Act does not provide a private cause of action for damages. Black Lives Matter D.C. v. Trump, 544 F. Supp. 3d 15, 40 (D.D.C. 2021), aff’d sub nom. Buchanan v. Barr, 71 F.4th 1003 (D.C. Cir. 2023). But a plaintiff can still bring an ultra vires claim where, as Plaintiffs assert is the case here, an “agency has disregarded a specific and unambiguous statutory directive” or “has violated some specific command of a statute.” Id. at 41 (quoting Griffith v. FLRA, 842 F.2d 487, 493 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). So if Plaintiffs are correct that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s federalization of the National Guard requires National Guard members to violate the Posse Comitatus Act, such a violation may provide a basis for their ultra vires claim.

At present, Plaintiffs contend that that the federalized National Guard troops and the Marines are “likely” to engage in “active involvement in the execution of the laws” in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. See Mot. at 14; see also United States v. Khan, 35 F.3d 426, 431 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). They concede that there are a number of “supportive activities” in which the military can engage without running afoul of the Act, such as “maintenance and repair, transportation, training facilities, counterdrug and counter-transactional organized crime training, and surveillance support.” Mot. at 15. But Plaintiffs note that the federalized National Guard members will soon provide support during immigration enforcement operations and not only at federal buildings. Id. at 14 (citing Eck Decl. ¶ 19). And they suspect that such support will lead to the military “physically confront[ing], detain[ing], or search[ing] civilians,” which would constitute “executing civil laws.” Id. at 15–16. By the time they filed a reply brief, Plaintiffs asserted that “that threat has already become a reality,” because heavily armed National Guard members have been photographed standing near ICE agents during arrests. Reply (dkt. 38) at 11 (citing Espíritu Reply Decl. Exs. 2, 3). While the sight of an armed National Guard member no doubt has the potential to intimidate, Plaintiffs do not contend that National Guard members have in fact participated in any arrests.

Defendants respond that they have not violated the Act, and will not, as the June 7 Trump Memo and the June 7 and June 9 DOD Orders do not direct the federalized National Guard members to undertake activities that would violate the Act. See Opp. at 20–23; see also Knell Decl. (dkt. 22-4) ¶ 7 (“Since Saturday, June 7, federalized California National Guard personnel have conducted operations in Los Angeles strictly consistent with the directions of the President’s June 7 memorandum ... . They are protecting federal personnel performing official functions as well as property at designated locations.”). Of course, federal officials do not only act through official documents. President Trump reportedly wrote on social media that he had directed his cabinet officials to “take any actions necessary to ‘liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion,’” and said, “we’re going to have troops everywhere,” which certainly differs from the circumscribed role professed in the opposition brief. See Espíritu Decl. Ex. M; see also id. (“Tom Homan, the president’s border czar, suggested in an interview with NBC News that the administration would arrest anyone, including public officials, who interfered with immigration enforcement activities, which he said would continue in California and across the country.”); Fortinsky, Bondi Says California at ‘Good Point’: ‘We’re Not Scared to Go Further’, The Hill (June 11, 2025), https://perma.cc/G6HR-Q5M8 (quoting Attorney General Bondi: “We’re not scared to go further. We’re not frightened to do something else if we need to.”); Bowden, Noem Asks Hegseth to Exceed Trump’s Order and Force the Military to Arrest LA Citizens to Protect ICE Agents, The Independent (June 11, 2025) (“DHS chief Kristi Noem wants the US military directly involved in detaining and arresting protesters in Los Angeles, according to a letter sent to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.”), https://perma.cc/XG9F-EQF9.

The Court has already concluded that Defendants exceeded their lawful authority by violating 10 U.S.C. § 12406. The Court therefore need not reach this additional basis for Plaintiffs’ ultra vires claim at this early moment in the litigation. When the Court has before it Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the record will be more complete as to any and all military activities, and whether, as Plaintiffs contend, the presence of troops near ICE agents during raids “in dense, urban communities” indeed results in “military forces [being] drawn into a variety of law enforcement activities, such as confronting, interrogating, detaining, or searching civilians perceived as security threats.” See Reply at 12. At that point—just a week from now—the parties will be free to make whatever arguments they wish in connection with the Posse Comitatus Act.

As of now, the Court only has counsel’s speculation of what might happen.

4. Tenth Amendment

Plaintiffs’ second claim in their complaint is that President Trump’s federalization of the National Guard “infringes on Governor Newsom’s role as Commander-in-Chief of the California National Guard and violates the State’s sovereign right to control and have available its National Guard in the absence of a lawful invocation of federal power.” Compl. ¶ 95. Plaintiffs’ argument rests in part on their assertion that President Trump acted ultra vires when he federalized the National Guard, see id. ¶ 100, and in part on their allegation that using National Guard members to “quell” or “prevent” protests is an exercise of police power, which is traditionally reserved to the states, see id. ¶¶ 96–98.

Focusing on the first piece of Plaintiffs’ argument, Defendants argue that the Tenth Amendment issue “is wholly derivative” of whether President Trump lawfully invoked § 12406. Opp. at 20. And because Defendants assert that they did not violate § 12406, they contend that there is no Tenth Amendment problem. Id.

Yet the Court has concluded that Defendants did violate § 12406, so their argument against Plaintiffs’ Tenth Amendment claim starts from a flawed premise. And even if that were not the case, Defendants fail to grapple with the second part of Plaintiffs’ Tenth Amendment claim—that their use of the National Guard and the Marines comes into conflict with California’s police power. It is well-established that the police power is one of the quintessential powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. E.g., United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618–19 (2000) (the reservation of police powers to the states is “one of the few principles that has been consistent since the [Constitution] was adopted”); Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 203–04 (1824) (“No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress; and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation.”).

Although Defendants identify some stray violent incidents relating to the protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, and from there boldly claim that state and local officials were “unable to bring rioters under control,” Opp. at 19–20, it is not the federal government’s place in our constitutional system to take over a state’s police power whenever it is dissatisfied with how vigorously or quickly the state is enforcing its own laws. Quite the contrary, the Founders reserved that power, and others, to the states in the Tenth Amendment. See Patterson v. Kentucky, 97 U.S. 501, 504 (1878) (“Whether the policy thus pursued by the State is wise or unwise, it is not the province of th

e national authorities to determine. That belongs to each State, under its own sense of duty, and in view of the provisions of its own Constitution.”). Of course, federal authority extends to protecting legitimate federal interests, such as protecting federal personnel and facilities. Plaintiffs do not contest this. See Mot. at 2. As discussed above, the parties vigorously dispute whether the National Guard and the Marines were deployed to Los Angeles merely to protect federal personnel and facilities or to engage in more routine law enforcement, and the Court does not at this point reach any conclusion on this issue. But with respect to the Tenth Amendment claim, that is not the only consideration at play; there is also the fact that the federalization of 4,000 members of California’s National Guard necessarily prevents Governor Newsom, as the commander-in-chief of his state’s National Guard, from deploying them as needed. Had Defendants complied with the substantive and procedural requirements of § 12406, the federal interests reflected by that statute may well override Governor Newsom’s interest in retaining his National Guard members. But they did not. So whether or not the National Guard is exercising illegitimate federal police power in Los Angeles, the unlawful federalization of those members has interfered with the state’s legitimate police power, and thus it violates the Tenth Amendment.

For the above reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Tenth Amendment claim.

B. Likelihood of Irreparable Harm

A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must “demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 22 (emphasis in original); see also Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 667 F.3d 765, 788 (7th Cir. 2011) (harm need not be certain to occur for injunctive relief to issue). The party must show a “sufficient causal connection” between the defendant’s conduct and their anticipated injury. “Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages.” Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014).

Plaintiffs identify two types of harm that they claim to be likely to suffer in the absence of a temporary restraining order. First, they assert that there is a “very high risk of substantial civil unrest as a direct result of Defendants’ inflammatory and confrontational deployment of the military in a large, civilian population center.” Mot. at 16. Second, they contend that “Defendants’ unlawful federalization of 4,000 California National Guard members … diverts necessary state resources” from addressing serious problems facing California, such as wildfires and drug trafficking. Id. at 17–18. Defendants respond that these harms are “speculative” and “unsubstantiated.” Opp. at 26.

As for Plaintiffs’ first asserted harm, they have established that the continued presence of National Guard members and Marines in Los Angeles risks worsening, not improving, tensions on the ground. “The presence of the National Guard seemed only to inflame the protesters further.” Olmstead Decl. ¶ 12. Indeed, local law enforcement arrests jumped after the National Guard was deployed. Olmstead Supp. Decl. ¶ 14 (29 arrests on June 7, 41 arrests on June 8, 135 arrests on June 9, and 297 arrests on June 10). Defendants reiterate that civil unrest began before President Trump nationalized the National Guard, Opp. at 26, but that does not address Plaintiffs’ point that military presence in a civilian population center will worsen—and has worsened—the situation. And contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Plaintiffs have provided evidence backing up their concern, so it is not merely “hypothetical or possible.” Id. (citing Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922, 931 (1975)).

In fact, it is common sense that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth’s unilateral exercise of federal power risks doing more harm than good. That is the very point that Justice Jackson made in his renowned concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:

The appeal, however, that we declare the existence of inherent powers [out of necessity] to meet an emergency asks us to do what many think would be wise, although it is something the forefathers omitted. They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies.

343 U.S. 579, 649–50 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) (emphasis added). Indeed, as Justice Jackson explained using examples from Weimar Germany, the French Republic, and World War II–era Great Britain, “emergency powers are consistent with free government only when their control is lodged elsewhere than in the Executive who exercises them.” Id. at 651–62. The issue presented in Youngstown (whether the President had implied constitutional authority to seize steel production plants during wartime) is admittedly different than that presented here (whether the President can federalize the National Guard over the objection of a state governor and without evidence of a rebellion). But Justice Jackson’s lesson remains poignant: federal overreach risks instigating the very behavior that the federal government fears. To put a finer point on it, the federal government cannot be permitted to exceed its bounds and in doing so create the very emergency conditions that it then relies on to justify federal intervention.

Turning now to Plaintiffs’ second asserted harm, Plaintiffs explain that California’s National Guard provides important state services, including by fighting wildfires, see Eck Decl. ¶¶ 35–36, 39–40, and drug trafficking enforcement, id. ¶¶ 42–43. Plaintiffs have also shown that National Guard members are often relied upon to their fullest capacity and, indeed, are likely to be so relied upon in 2025. Id. ¶¶ 32–33. Defendants respond that “Plaintiffs do not identify any type of exigency that they would direct these resources [to] that approaches the seriousness of the situation in Los Angeles.” Opp. at 27. But this overstates the violence in Los Angeles, which even by Defendants’ own account is limited to isolated actors and is primarily damage to property, and vastly understates the risks to property and human life caused by wildfires and trafficked drugs like fentanyl.11 Perhaps Defendants simply mean that there is not an immediate (as in today) need for California’s National Guard to be deployed, but even that is untrue. As Plaintiffs point out, as of June 11 there were 13 fires over 10 acres, including one that has consumed over 4,200 acres, burning in California. Eck Suppl. Decl. (dkt. 39-2) ¶ 10. And in any case, Defendants’ myopic focus on whether there is currently an exigency misunderstands the nature of emergencies, which are inherently unplanned for.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established that they are likely to suffer at least these two forms of harm in the absence of immediate injunctive relief.

C. Balance of Equities and Public Interest

A party seeking injunctive relief must also demonstrate that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. See Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “‘In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.’” Id. (quoting Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982)). Because the government is a party, the last two Winter factors merge. E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant, 993 F.3d at 668.

The Court begins by observing that significant harm has already occurred. President Trump’s June 7 Memo marks the first time that a President has invoked § 12406, lawfully or not, against the wishes of a state governor. Regardless of the outcome of this case or any other, that alone threatens serious injury to the constitutional balance of power between the federal and state governments, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future domestic military activity.12 There is a reason that § 12406 and other similar statutes, such as the Insurrection Act, apply only in the narrowest and most extreme of circumstances—they jeopardize the delicate federalism that forms the basis of our very system of government. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring) (“Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.”). The continued deployment of federal troops in Los Angeles13 for 60 days would further entrench this harm.

Moreover, Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of prevailing in their argument President Trump’s invocation of § 12406 was in fact not lawful, both exceeding the scope of his authority and violating the Tenth Amendment. When Plaintiffs establish “a likelihood that Defendants’ policy violates the U.S. Constitution, Plaintiffs have also established that both the public interest and the balance of the equities favor [injunctive relief].” See Arizona Dream Act Coalition, 757 F.3d at 1069. Defendants are not harmed by “an injunction that merely ends an unlawful practice or reads a statute as required to avoid constitutional concerns.” See R.I.L.-R v. Johnson, 80 F. Supp. 3d 164, 191 (D.D.C. 2015). They may continue to enforce the immigration law, even without the assistance of the National Guard.

Defendants no doubt have an “interest in protecting federal agents and property.” See Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 977 F.3d 817, 831 (9th Cir. 2020). But they have no legitimate interest in doing so beyond the bounds of their authority. See R.I.L-R, 80 F. Supp. 3d at 191. Federal agents and property may actually well be served by de-militarization and a concurring de-escalation of the situation. Regardless, Plaintiffs and the citizens of Los Angeles face a greater harm from the continued unlawful militarization of their city, which not only inflames tensions with protesters, threatening increased hostilities and loss of life, but deprives the state for two months of its own use of thousands of National Guard members to fight fires, combat the fentanyl trade, and perform other critical functions. As discussed above, Defendants’ actions also threaten to chill legitimate First Amendment expression.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the balance of equities tips in their favor and that an injunction restraining the President’s use of military force in Los Angeles is in the public interest.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.

• Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles.

• Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.

• The Court further STAYS this order until noon on June 13, 2025.

• Plaintiffs are ORDERED to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. The bond shall be filed in the Clerk’s Office and be deposited into the registry of the Court. If said bond is not posted by the aforementioned date and time, this Order shall be dissolved.

• Defendants are further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction should not issue. A hearing on this order to show cause will be held on June 20, 2025 at 10 a.m. Plaintiffs’ moving papers shall be filed no later than June 16, 2025; Defendants’ opposition shall be due no later than June 18, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ reply shall be due on June 19, 2025.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2025

CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

_________________

Notes:

1 President Trump called Governor Newsom at some point and purportedly “directed him to take action to stop the violence.” Opp. at 5 & n.4 (citing Colton & Roberts, Trump brings receipts, Fox News (June 10, 2025), https://perma.cc/EX6D-V8Y5). No one suggests that President Trump mentioned the National Guard.

2 The LAPD Chief whom Defendants quote as stating that “things have gotten out of control,” see Opp. (dkt. 25) at 1, n.2, made that comment on the night of June 8.

3 LAPD made 29 arrests on June 7. Id. LAPD, LASD, and CHP made at least 41 arrests on June 8, 135 arrests on June 9, and 297 arrests on June 10. Id.

4 To be sure, nothing in the June 7 Memo, the June 7 DOD Order, or the June 9 DOD Order remotely suggested that the United States or California had been “invaded or [was] in danger of invasion by a foreign nation.” 10 U.S.C. § 12406 (emphasis added).

5 Martin, like other cases that Defendants cite (for example, California v. United States), involved issues of foreign policy and national security not presented in this case. See Martin, 25 U.S. at 31 (“[T]he evidence upon which the President might decide that there is imminent danger of invasion, might be of a nature not constituting strict technical proof, or the disclosure of the evidence might reveal important secrets of state, which the public interest, and even safety, might imperiously demand to be kept in concealment.”); California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th Cir. 1997) (“In this case, the issue of protection of the States from invasion implicates foreign policy concerns which have been constitutionally committed to the political branches.”).

6 In Laird, the plaintiffs challenged federal military action taken pursuant to the Insurrection Act, which grants certain presidential discretion. Id. at 3 & n.2. The Court did not reject the lawsuit on justiciability grounds, though, but for lack of any injury to the plaintiffs. Id. at 13. Indeed, as quoted above, the Court strongly insisted that judicial review remained available for any claim “of judicially cognizable injury.” Id. at 16.

7 The Oxford English Dictionary’s secondary definition of “rebellion” is “[o]pen or determined defiance of or resistance to any authority, controlling power, or convention; an instance of this.” Examples of this usage include spiritual rebellion (“The event of this evening has reconciled me to God and humanity! I had risen in angry rebellion against providence.” (quoting Brontë, Wuthering Heights, 87 (New York, Harper & Bros. 1858) (1847))) and familial rebellion (“He had forgotten that he had it, but told me when he saw it that he remembered it as the first thing that made him begin to rise against his father in a rebellion which he recognized as righteous.” (quoting Butler, The Way of All Flesh, 178 (New York, E.P. Dutton & Co. 1917) (1903))).

8 To the contrary, the record suggests that the violent individuals might not have been bona fide protesters. See McPhee, supra (“McDonnell said of the most violent protestors … ‘many come in from other places just to hurt people and cause havoc.’”).

9 At the hearing, Defendants contended that President Trump’s use of the phrase “[t]o the extent” in the June 7 Memo means that he relied on the “danger of a rebellion” clause. But the June 7 Memo states: “To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion,” not a danger of rebellion.

10 Where Presidents have federalized the National Guard against a state governor’s wishes, they have used other statutes to do so. See Exec. Order No. 11,207, 30 Fed. Reg. 3743 (Mar. 23, 1965) (relying on the Insurrection Act, then codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 332–334, and now codified at 10 U.S.C. §§ 252–254). It seems that this would be the proper course if a governor refused to issue an order, as forcing a governor to do so would raise serious anti-commandeering problems. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).

11 Indeed, President Trump has officially recognized that fentanyl trafficking is a “national emergency” and a “public health crisis,” Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Proceeds with Tariffs on Imports from Canada and Mexico, White House (Mar. 3, 2025), and called the January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires a “tragedy [that] affects the entire Nation,” Emergency Measures to Provide Water Resources in California and Improve Disaster Response in Certain Areas, White House (Jan. 24, 2025).

12 Defendants argue that the separation of powers cuts against judicial intervention, see Opp. at 2, but they focus exclusively on the separation between the Executive and the Judiciary, missing entirely the important balance between federal and state power.

13 And potentially nationwide, as the June 7 Memo invoking 10 U.S.C. § 12406 does not name Los Angeles or California or any other geographical area and purports to apply to “the Governors of the States,” not just California. Indeed, amici from Washington, Delaware, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and the Office of the Governor of Kansas contend that they “are implicated by the unlimited scope of” the June 7 Memo. See States Amici (dkt. 30-1) at 2. Whether the memo adequately satisfies any of the conditions of § 12406 as to jurisdictions beyond Los Angeles is not before this Court.

OUTRAGEOUS: US Senator Padilla ATTACKED at DHS Presser
The Lincoln Project
Jun 12, 2025

If a US Senator is not safe from being handcuffed and detained for free speech, none of us are safe.

The Lincoln Project is a leading pro-democracy organization in the United States — dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of democracy. Our fight against Trumpism is only beginning. We must combat these forces everywhere and at all times — our democracy depends on it.



Transcript

[Rick Wilson] Hey folks, it's Rick. Listen, let's get something very, very, very, abundantly clear. Members of the US cabinet are not, and have never been, God. They have never been inviolate. They have never been people who no one can address. When you saw her [Kristy Noem] armed guards, her thugs -- and I'm going to use that word; they're probably honorable guys who were thinking to themselves, “You know, this is my job now, and they told me what I have to do, and I'm going to just follow orders -- threw Alex Padilla, a United States Senator, after he had identified himself as such, threw him to the ground, did the hand in the camera, and now DHS is tweeting "Oh, he was trying violently to lunge at her" – GET THE F*CK OUT OF HERE! [Video Clip of takedown of Sen. Padilla]

[ICE] Sir sir hands up, hands up.

[Sen. Padilla] I'm Senator, Alex Padilla. I have question for the Secretary, because the fact of the matter Is, a half a dozen violent criminals that you're rotating on your, on your … I want to have …

[ICE] On the ground, on the ground. Hands behind your back, hands behind your back.

[Sen. Padilla] If you feel my hands behind my back …

[ICE] All right Cool. Other hand. Lay flat, lay flat. Other hand. Turn other hand.

[ICE 2] There's no recording out here.

[Reporter] I did not know there's no recording allowed out here

[ICE 2] Per FBI, right is. I'm sorry, there's no recording out here. that's my boss. I have to.

[Reporter] There's no recording line on here.

[ICE 2] You can record, there's no recording line.

[Reporter] There's no recording line. I understand that.

[Rick Wilson] Every single one of you knows what's going on here. This is more authoritarian theater, and now they've crossed the line. Now you have the executive branch saying to the legislative branch, "Not only are we going to disregard anytime you're not obedient to us, now we're going to violently assault you if you attempt to hold us to account." In America, which you may recall we still live in, in America there are rules of engagement. And sometimes politics is a tough Business. Sometimes you have to answer questions to people you don't want to answer them. Sometimes you have to be asked questions in public you don't want to answer. And I know. I get it that Kristy Noem doesn't believe that she's accountable to anyone. But I have some bad news for you, Kristi. You are accountable. And I have some bad news for the people working all up and down the chain at ICE, and DHS, and everywhere else right now. You think your dick is 2 feet long. You think you're 12 feet tall, and covered in steel. You think nothing can touch you. You think Trump will pardon you when this is all over. You think there'll never be any accountability for doing the things that you're doing. You think that snatching American citizens off the streets is just fine. You think that handling American citizens without warrants, without ID, wearing masks, is acceptable. Noem is going to the F*cking Hague. You guys are going to have civil problems for the rest of your lives. You know what? Law enforcement does a tough job, and you guys do a tough job. But right now you're doing it on behalf of people who will hang you out to dry. If you're a DHS officer, if you're a cop, and frankly, even if you're a member of the military who's now been deployed against American citizens, you will be held accountable. This world will end. This Trump world will come to a close someday. You will be remembered for what you have Done. THERE IS NOT A WORLD WHERE YOU GET TO THROW A U.S. SENATOR TO THE GROUND, WHERE YOU GET TO PHYSICALLY ASSAULT A U.S. SENATOR, TO VIOLENTLY ASSAULT A U.S. SENATOR, DOESN’T EXIST. IT DOESN’T EXIST. THAT WORLD DOES NOT EXIST. Your names will become public, and rightly so. They're going to become public now, or they're going to come become public during the Truth and Reconciliation phase of this show. And there will be one one day when Donald Trump is going to walk out to the Oval Office lawn, and that 57,000th Big Mac is going to take its toll. And when his rotting corpse is laying there in the hot sun of Washington, this era, where you think you have magical protection, comes to a close, YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS HAS NEVER WORKED OUT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS WORLD.  

Now for you Secretary Noem, I get that you are not terribly bright. You are not terribly cogent about what you're involved in. You love the theatricality of it. You love being the center of attention. You love having Stephen Miller's hand up your butt like a puppet. But you're going to be the one who hangs out to dry, too. You're going to be the one who is going before a U.S. Senate committee, sooner than later, and I got to tell you something. I've been around a long, long, long, time, and there are few clubs in this world where the members of those organizations pull together across partisan lines. Man, you go at one of them, you go at all of them. And I got to tell you, I can imagine the conversations being had right now in the U.S. Senate This is not going to go well for Team Trump, and for Team Noem. It's not going to go well when you try to reframe this as, “he violently lunged at me.” There's video. We've seen it. He identified himself, Senator Padilla identified himself as he came in the room, and was manhandled, physically assaulted, and thrown to the ground. And I don't care who the guy's guarding you are. I don't care if they're DHS, or FPS, or FBI -- it does not matter. You treat a United States Senator with violence because you're confronted in public, what do you think happens to regular American citizens, folks? What do you think happens? This is one more signal of their intentionality about driving this as hard and as fast as they can, as far to the fascist right as they can. Just following orders guys is not an Excuse, and it's not a reason, and it's not a protection, and it's not a shield. And I know you all think to yourself, "Oh, at the end of the Trump administration, every one of us will get a federal pardon just in case." He's [Trump] probably not going to live to the end of the administration. He's physically unwell. You can see it. Whatever weird colostomy bag, or leg Brace, or catheter he's wearing, combine that with the vocal aphasias, with the constant mental slipping in public, falling down the stairs of the airplane -- all of this is going to add up to something that none of you are prepared to face.

America is turning on this question right now. They are turning on this tactic you're using, particularly because at DHS and ICE, you have caught American citizens up in your net. You have caught legal residents up in your net. And you've treated them the same way as you would illegal and criminal. And there is a differentiation here, by the way, which you are aware of, because the number of criminals you're actually rounding up is deminimus, isn't it guys? This is an example that America should pay attention to right now. If they are willing to physically assault, violently physically assault, and throw to the ground, a United States Senator, not one American should think for a moment they won't apply the same, or worse, force to you.

As for US senators I know many of you are deeply, deeply, deeply in love with Donald Trump. And by “in love with,” I mean you're scared shitless of him. You don't want to get primary’d. You don't want to get Trump mad at you. You don't want him to tweet bad things about you. FOR ONCE, IN YOUR GODDAMNED LIVES, HAVE A SCINTILLA OF MORAL COURAGE, AND STAND UP AND SAY SOMETHING IN PUBLIC. Are you really going to sink your legacies with Kristy Noem and Donald Trump??? It's insanity. It's absolute insanity. None of this makes any sense. Because his numbers are falling. His numbers on immigration are falling. His approval numbers are falling. His economic approval numbers are falling. And I know it's hard to pull that Velcro off; I know it's hard to strip away from your obedience to Trumpism that you've conditioned yourselves to do for the last several years, but you are clinging to a falling star. You are clinging to a methodology of violence and hatred. You are clinging to something the American people are rejecting. The just following orders rule, by the way, it applies to you too, Republicans. If you saw Barack Obama doing this, if you saw Joe Biden ordering this, let's take a a Gdunkan experiment. Here, let's do a counterfactual for a moment. Let's say Joe Biden had ordered DHS troops, or ICE troops, or ATF, to go and start raiding white supremacist compounds in Idaho, or Nebraska, or Arkansas, because he wanted to seize their guns, their illegally possessed guns? What would you do? What would you do? You'd lose your Goddamned minds is what you'd do. You'd ignore the target, and focus on the Tactic. You'd ignore the facts on the ground, and focus on the narrative. Right now this narrative is impossible for you as Republicans to get out of. You are trapped with him unless you do something publicly.

Folks, this is a day and a week we're going to remember for a long time. It's been a terrible week for this country. It's been terrible because of one man. Well, two men really. Stephen Miller is, you Know, half a man at least. One man and his minions who are willing to use the military, and to turn the power of the State against American citizens. And why? Because those American citizens are protesting a policy of this government. They are exercising their First Amendment rights. And the very, very small handful who engaged in any kind of violent activity are not the targets. They're after all of us.

Fighting back is the number one thing you can do, folks. No Kings this weekend, because I get it, and I think most of you get it, that no Kings means also no minions of Kings running roughshod over everyone else in the kingdom.

Thanks. Talk to you soon.  

Schiff Takes Over Senate Floor to Blast Trump's Attack on Senator Padilla
Sen. Adam Schiff
Jun 12, 2025

What we saw today is not America.

This is not who we are.

We are better than this.



Transcript

THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA.

MR. SCHIFF: MR. PRESIDENT, A LITTLE MORE THAN A COUPLE HOURS AGO MY FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE, SENATOR ALEX PADILLA, ATTENDED A PRESS CONFERENCE IN A FEDERAL BUILDING IN LOS ANGELES, BEING HELD BY THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY KRISTI NOEM. INSTEAD OF TREATING HIM WITH RESPECT, INSTEAD OF ANSWERING HIS QUESTIONS, HE WAS GRABBED BY HER SECURITY DETAIL. HE WAS PHYSICALLY FORCED FROM THE ROOM, FORCED TO THE GROUND, HIS ARMS PINNED BEHIND HIS BACK.

THIS ASSAULT IS UNLIKE ANYTHING I HAVE EVER SEEN, PERHAPS UNLIKE ANYONE IN THIS CHAMBER HAS EVER SEEN. AND IT CRYSTALLIZES THE THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY AND ITS DEMOCRACY. IF THE ADMINISTRATION CAN SO MISTREAT A MEMBER OF THIS BODY, WHAT CAN IT DO TO EVERY OTHER AMERICAN? WHAT CAN IT DO TO EVERY OTHER RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? WHAT CAN IT DO TO YOU? WHAT CAN IT DO TO YOUR NEIGHBOR, AND TO YOUR COMMUNITY?

THE ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF SENATOR ALEX PADILLA, HOWEVER, DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN ISOLATION. IT TOOK PLACE AT A TIME OF HEIGHTENED TENSION IN LOS ANGELES, AND AROUND THE NATION. EARLIER THIS WEEK, I RETURNED FROM MY HOME IN LOS ANGELES, A CITY IN WHICH THOUSANDS HAVE PEACEFULLY PROTESTED THE ADMINISTRATION'S HARSH IMMIGRATION POLICIES, AND AT WHICH THE PRESIDENT HAS ORDERED THE MOBILIZATION OF THOUSANDS OF NATIONAL GUARDSMEN TO DEAL WITH A FEW VANDALS AND MISCREANTS THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS CAPABLE OF SUBDUING. THE QUESTION IS WHY. WHY ORDER IN THE MILITARY IF THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY? WHY ORDER IN THE MILITARY OVER THE OBJECTION OF MUCH OF THE LOCAL AND STATE OFFICIALS? WHY COMMIT TO THE EXPENSE? WHY GO TO THE TROUBLE? WHY UNDERTAKE SUCH AN OBVIOUS PROVOCATION? WHY IN A CITY OF UNDER 500 SQUARE MILES, DID DONALD TRUMP FEEL IT WAS NECESSARY OVER VIOLENT PROTESTS IN A FEW BLOCKS? THESE ARE SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I IMAGINE THAT ALEX PADILLA WANTED TO ASK THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.

BUT NOW TODAY WE MUST ADD ONE MORE QUESTION. WHY WOULD THEY TREAT SENATOR ALEX PADILLA WITH SUCH FORCEFUL AND DISGRACEFUL DISREGARD, FORCING HIM TO THE GROUND? WHY? AND THE ANSWER INVOLVES FAILURE, AND DISTRACTION, AND DISRESPECT, AND DISREGARD. FAILURE OF THE PRESIDENT'S IMMIGRATION POLICY, FAILURE OF HIS ECONOMIC POLICY, A DESIRE TO DISTRACT FROM THESE FAILURES, DISRESPECT OF OUR MILITARY AND ITS ROLE IN CIVIL SOCIETY, AND DISREGARD OF OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED. FAILURE OF DONALD TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION POLICY, THE FAILURE IN PARTICULAR OF HIS PROMISE TO DEPORT MASSIVE NUMBERS OF VIOLENT CRIMINALS, A FAILURE THAT WAS INEVITABLE BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON A LIE, A FOUNDATIONAL LIE, FOUNDATIONAL TO HIS CAMPAIGN AND TO HIS PRESIDENCY, THE ORIGINAL LIE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THE ONE HE SPOKE AS HE DESCENDED THE GOLDEN ESCALATOR IN 2015 AND SUGGESTED OF THE FOLKS COMING TO THIS COUNTRY AS IMMIGRANTS AND MIGRANTS, THAT THEY WERE MURDERERS, AND RAPISTS, AND VIOLENT CRIMINALS, BENT ON DOING HARM TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THAT NATIONS OPENED THEIR PRISONS, AND LET OUT THEIR WORST OFFENDERS SO THEY COULD COME TO THE UNITED STATES, AND WRECK OUR WAY OF LIFE. A LIE THAT THE PRESIDENT HOPED HE COULD RIDE A WAVE OF FEAR, THAT HE COULD IN TURN RIDE INTO OFFICE.

THE TRUTH, OF COURSE, IS THE VAST NUMBER OF PEOPLE COMING TO THIS COUNTRY ARE PEACEFUL, HARDWORKING PEOPLE, WHO WANT NOTHING MORE THAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET AHEAD, TO ENJOY A GOOD LIFE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THEMSELVES AND FOR THEIR FAMILY. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THIS, BUT THEY ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT OUR BORDER WAS BROKEN, THAT OUR SYSTEM WAS CHAOTIC, THAT THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM WAS ITSELF BROKEN, THAT ASSYLUM TOOK TOO LONG TO ADJUDICATE, AND PEOPLE WAITING LAWFULLY TO EMIGRATE SHOULD BE GIVEN PRIORITY OVER THOSE WHO DO NOT.

AS PRESIDENT TRUMP PROMISED, HIS FOCUS WOULD BE ON THE DEPORTATION OF VIOLENT CRIMINALS. BUT HE ALSO PROMISED MASS DEPORTATIONS. AND THE ONLY WAY TO SQUARE THAT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE VERY SPECIFIC, AND THE VERY BROAD, WAS TO GO BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL LIE, THAT ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE VIOLENT CRIMINALS WHO MEAN US HARM. IF YOU CAN MAKE THE COUNTRY BELIEVE THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE TARGETED IN YOUR IMMIGRATION RAIDS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PAINSTAKING WORK OF TRACKING DOWN PEOPLE WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS WHO DON'T WANT TO BE FOUND. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT LIE THAT ALL IMMIGRANTS ARE VIOLENT CRIMINALS, THEN YOU CAN DO BROAD SWEEPS ON RESTAURANTS, OR ON FARMS, IN GARMENT FACTORIES, OR HIGHSCHOOL GRADUATIONS, IN RANDOM NEIGHBORHOODS, AND HOMES, OR AT THE HOME DEPOT. JUST GO OUT THERE AND ARREST ILLEGAL ALIENS, THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, A FRUSTRATED STEPHEN MILLER, DEMANDED, AFTER BERATING DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS FOR THE SLOW PACE OF THEIR OPERATIONS. 3,000 ARRESTS A DAY WAS WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION INSISTED ON AS A NEW QUOTA. AND GONE WAS ANY PRETENSE OF LOOKING FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

AND SO THE INDISCRIMINATE RAIDS, AND INDISCRIMINATE CRUELTY BEGAN TO MULTIPLY. PICKING UP PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP FOR IMMIGRATION APPOINTMENTS, OR TAKE THE OATH OF CITIZENSHIP, OR TAKE THAT OATH ONLY TO DEPORT THEM. SEPARATING FATHERS FROM THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, MOTHERS FROM THEIR CHILDREN, HUSBANDS FROM THEIR WIVES. A FARM WORKER WHO WORKED IN THE FIELDS FOR DECADES, HARD WORK, BACKBREAKING WORK, WORKING IN THE HEAT AND THE COLD, WORKING DURING A DEADLY PANDEMIC WHILE OTHERS STAYED HOME, WORK THAT MOST U.S. CITIZENS DON'T WANT TO DO, CHASED THROUGH THE FIELDS THEY HARVESTED TO BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES, A MOTHER CHASED DOWN THE STREET BY HOODED I.C.E. AGENTS AWAY FROM HER TERRIFIED AND SCREAMING TEENAGE DAUGHTER.

AMERICANS DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS, DON'T WANT THIS, AND IN THE MIDST OF THIS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE STARTED TO SPEAK OUT. AT FIRST IN SMALL WAYS, IN PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS, THEN AT TOWN HALLS AND IN GATHERINGS AT THEIR SCHOOLS. AND THEN AS THE RAIDS INCREASED IN THEIR SCOPE, AND THE SCOPE OF THEIR CRUELTY, BY TAKING TO THE STREET, AS IS OUR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, AND ALSO A RIGHT GIVEN BY OUR CONSTITUTION.

SOME OF THOSE PROTESTS HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN LOS ANGELES, WHERE ANGELINOS GATHERED TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THESE ACTIONS, AGAINST THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES, AND THE INJURY TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND OUR ECONOMY. AND IN THE MIDST OF THESE PROTESTS, SOME NUMBER OF AGITATORS WERE ATTRACTED BY THE CONFLICT, AND SAW IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO VANDALIZE, ASSAULT LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND ENGAGE IN OTHER REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT. LIKE MOTHS TO A FLAME, EVERY CITY HAS THESE MISCREANTS, AND SO DOES LOS ANGELES. THEY CARE NOT ABOUT IMMIGRATION POLICY, OR IMMIGRANTS, OR MIGRANTS WHO ARE AFFECTED. AND OUR STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ARE MORE THAN CAPABLE OF DEALING WITH THEM, AND THEY DID.

BUT AMIDST HIS FAILURE OF ECONOMIC POLICIES AND BACKLASH, DONALD TRUMP SAW AN OPPORTUNITY. HIS TARIFF WARS WERE NOT IMPROVING OUR TRADE WITH OTHER NATIONS, AND INSTEAD WERE PROMPTING THE BOYCOTT OF AMERICAN GOODS BY CLOSE ALLIES, LIKE CANADA, AND CAUSING LAYOFFS AT AMERICAN PORTS, HIGHER PRICES AT TARGET AND WALMART, AND ELSEWHERE. HE HAD TO FEND OFF AMAZON PLANTS TO INCLUDE A LINE ITEM FOR THE TRUMP TARIFF TAX ON EACH TRANSACTION, WHICH WOULD HAVE MADE IT EVEN MORE OBVIOUS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HE WAS BETRAYING THE CENTRAL PROMISE OF HIS CAMPAIGN, TO BRING PRICES DOWN WHEN THEY ARE GOING UP.

AND HIS BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL WAS IN TROUBLE OVER A BIG, UGLY, PRICE TAG. FAR FROM REDUCING THE DEBT OR DEFICIT, THE BILL WAS REVEALED TO COST TAXPAYERS A WHOPPING $2.4 TRILLION ADDED TO THE NATIONAL DEBT. HE WAS BORROWING THE MONEY FROM OUR KIDS, AND OUR GRANDKIDS, TO FUND A TAX CUT FOR HIMSELF AND HIS RICH FRIENDS. EVEN THE WORLD'S RICHEST MAN, AND HERETOFORE THE PRESIDENT'S BIGGEST BENEFACTOR, ELON MUSK, CALLED THE BILL A DISGUSTING ABOMINATION, AND MADE IT CLEAR THAT REPUBLICANS SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF VOTING FOR IT. AND THE OPPORTUNITY DONALD TRUMP SAW IN ALL THIS FAILURE WAS THIS, CALL IN A DISTRACTION, CALL IN THE TROOPS, CALL IN THE MARINES NOT TO SAVE A CITY, BUT TO SAVE HIMSELF FROM DROWNING IN FAILURE.

AND SO HE DID. 4,000 TROOPS FROM CALIFORNIA'S NATIONAL GUARD, AND 700 FROM THE MARINES. AND THE REACTION IN LOS ANGELES, OF COURSE, WAS THE ONE THAT HE DESIRED -- ESCALATION, NOT DE-ESCALATION. MORE CONFLICT, NOT LESS. MORE CHAOS, AND THE KIND OF CHAOS HE THRIVES ON, THE KIND OF CHAOS WHERE THE INSURRECTIONISTS COME FIRST. ON THE FIRST DAY, HE PARDONED HUNDREDS OF CRIMINALS WHO BEAT POLICE OFFICERS, TRYING TO RECLAIM THE MANTLE OF A LAW AND ORDER PRESIDENT. IT HAS NOT WORKED. IT WILL NOT WORK. AMERICANS HAVE A LONG MEMORY AND WILL NOT SOON FORGET THE IMAGES OF JANUARY 6, WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAT CALMLY IN THE WHITE HOUSE DINING ROOM, DINING ON BURGERS AND FRIES WHILE OUR CAPITOL POLICE WERE UNDER ASSAULT. AND THE SAME MAN WHO CALLED IN THE GUARD TO HANDLE A COMPARATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF CRIMINALS AND VANDALS IN L.A. REFUSED TO CALL IN THE GUARD TO STOP THOUSANDS OF THEM FROM RANSACKING THIS CAPITOL.

THE LAST TIME A PRESIDENT CALLED IN THE NATIONAL GUARD OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE GOVERNOR OF A STATE WAS IN 1965, WHEN THE SEGREGATIONIST GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS IGNORED A RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND REFUSED TO INTEGRATE THE SCHOOLS IN THAT STATE. LYNDON JOHNSON CALLED IN THE NATIONAL GUARD TO AVOID VIOLENCE AND TO PROTECT THE STUDENTS TRYING TO ATTEND SCHOOL. THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES COULD NOT BE MORE DIFFERENT THAN TODAY, WHEN OUR PRESIDENT HAS CALLED IN THE GUARD KNOWING IT IS MORE LIKELY TO PROVOKE VIOLENCE THAN TO STOP IT.

WE MUST REJECT ANY THINKING OF OUR CITIES AS A BATTLE SPACE, THAT OUR UNIFORMED MILITARY IS CALLED UPON TO DOMINATE. A SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ONCE SAID WE SHOULD USE OUR MILITARY ONLY WHEN REQUESTED TO DO SO, ON VERY RARE OCCASIONS, BY STATE GOVERNORS. THOSE ARE THE WORDS OF DONALD TRUMP'S FIRST SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. THOSE WERE THE WORDS OF THE FIRST TRUMP DEFENSE SECRETARY, JAMES MATTIS, PERHAPS THE ONLY TRUMP CABINET MEMBER IN HIS FIRST TERM, OR THE PRESENT TERM, TO LEAVE HIS OFFICE WITH A STRONGER REPUTATION THAN BEFORE HE ARRIVED. MILITARIZING OUR RESPONSE, MATTIS SAID, SETS UP A CONFLICT, A FALSE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE MILITARY AND CIVILIAN SOCIETY. IT ERODES THE MORAL GROUND THAT ENSURES A TRUSTED BOND BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM AND THE SOCIETY THEY ARE SWORN TO PROTECT, AND OF WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ARE A PART. KEEPING PUBLIC ORDER, HE SAID, RESTS WITH CIVILIAN, STATE, AND LOCAL LEADERS WHO BEST UNDERSTAND THEIR COMMUNITIES, AND ARE ANSWERABLE TO THEM.

IN CALIFORNIA, WE LOVE OUR NATIONAL GUARD. WE REVERE THEM AS WE DO THE MARINES. THE GUARD IS ALWAYS THERE WHEN WE NEED THEM, DURING FIRES AND FLOODS, AFTER DEVASTATING EARTHQUAKES. THEY SERVE US AT HOME AND ABROAD, ALWAYS PROTECTING OUR INTERESTS, OUR LIVES, OUR HOMES, AND OUR FREEDOM. THERE IS A BOND BETWEEN US, A BOND OF RESPECT, AFFECTION, AND TRUST THAT MUST NOT BE BROKEN. DONALD TRUMP DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THIS. HE CANNOT UNDERSTAND IT ANY MORE THAN HE CAN UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE A LIFE OF MILITARY SERVICE. THE MAN WHO ONCE CALLED SOLDIERS, SAILORS, MARINES AND AIRMEN WHO FIGHT AND DIE ON OUR NATION'S BEHALF, SUCKERS AND LOSERS, COULD NOT POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND. NOR DOES HE CARE ABOUT MISUSING THEM. HIS PARTISAN AND DISRESPECTFUL, AND INFLAMMATORY SPEECH AT FORT BRAGG, MAKES CLEAR AND THE COMMANDEERING OF A COSTLY PARADE. THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMY, AN ARMY MY FATHER WAS PROUD TO SERVE IN. WE SHOULD HONOR THE ARMY, BUT THE CELEBRATION OF THE VANITY OF A PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT CELEBRATE THE MILITARY, BUT HIS CONTROL OVER IT, THAT IS NOT A REASON, FROM HIS RAUCOUS AND OFTEN DIVISIVE NATURE.

THIS CONGRESS HAS PROHIBITED THE USE OF THE MILITARY FOR DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES EXCEPT FOR NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES OF REBELLION AND INSURRECTION. THIS IS VITAL, NOT ONLY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTRY FROM A MAN WHO WOULD ABUSE THE MILITARY TO BECOME A KING, BUT ALSO TO PROTECT THE MILITARY FROM A LACK OF TRUST THAT WOULD ACCOMPANY ITS SUBVERSION TO A PARTISAN END.

OUR COUNTRY IS APPROACHING ITS 250TH BIRTHDAY. IT IS WORTH REMEMBERING WHY WE CHOSE TO SEPARATE OURSELVES FROM OUR BRITISH MASTERS. THE PREAMBLE OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IS FAMILIAR TO US ALL, AND ITS POETIC RESTORATION OF TRUTHS THAT ARE SELF-EVIDENT. BUT WHAT HAS BEEN LOST TO US OVER TIME WERE THE LONG LIST OF GRIEVANCES SET OUT IN THAT, GRIEVANCES THAT DROVE THE IMPETUS FOR REVOLUTION. IT IS A HISTORY OF INJURIES AND USURPATIONS. THIS IS WHAT THEY WROTE. THE DECLARATION PROVIDES IN ITS LIST OF GRIEVANCES, QUOTE, "HE HAS OBSTRUCTED THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. HE HAS ERECTED A MULTITUDE OF NEW OFFICES AND SENT HITHER SWARMS OF OFFICERS TO HARASS OUR PEOPLE. HE HAS CUT OFF TRADE TO ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD, AND TRANSPORTED US BEYOND THE SEAS, THEY CITED, IN WORDS THAT WERE PRESCIENT FOR TODAY. HE HAS KEPT AMONG US IN TIMES OF PEACE, STANDING ARMIES, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF OUR LEGISLATURES, HE HAS EFFECTED TO RENDER THE MILITARY INDEPENDENT OF AND SUPERIOR TO THE CIVIL POWER.

ALL OF THESE GRIEVANCES THAT WERE SO VIVID AT THE TIME OF REVOLUTION, OUR REVOLUTION, ARE SO VIVID TODAY. TODAY THEY CAN BE INSTILLED INTO A SINGLE IMAGE, THAT OF SENATOR ALEX PADILLA ON THE GROUND, FACE TO THE GROUND, AND IN HANDCUFFS. IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR AN IMAGE OF OUR DEMOCRACY IN HANDCUFFS, LOOK NO FURTHER.

AMERICA, WE HAVE A CHOICE. WE CAN REDEDICATE OURSELVES TO THE VISION OF OUR FOUNDERS, ONE BORN OF STRUGGLE AGAINST AUTOCRACY, WHICH ELEVATED THE PEOPLE OVER THE POWERFUL, THAT BELIEVED WE POSSESSED THE ABILITY TO SELF-GOVERN. WE CAN REDEDICATE OURSELVES TO THAT VISION, OR WE CAN CONTINUE TO TRAVEL DOWN THAT PRESCIENT PATH OF INCIVILITY, OF DIVISION, OF RIGHT NOT MAKING RIGHT, BUT OF MAKING WRONG, A CELEBRATION NOT OF SELF-GOVERNANCE, BUT OF DESTRUCTION.

I BELIEVE WE ARE A GREAT COUNTRY. I BELIEVE WE ARE A GREAT COUNTRY BECAUSE WE HAVE STRIVED TO BE A GREAT COUNTRY. I BELIEVE IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE ALEX PADILLA, WONDERFUL PEOPLE, COURAGEOUS PEOPLE, PATRIOTIC PEOPLE. THE STORY OF ALEX PADILLA IS A STORY OF ALL OF US. HE IS A GOOD AND DECENT MAN. HE IS A GREAT AND CAPABLE SENATOR. HE DESERVED BETTER THAN WHAT HE GOT IN THAT FEDERAL BUILDING IN LOS ANGELES. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER.

LET US REMEMBER OURSELVES. LET US REMEMBER WHO WE ARE. WE'RE THE COUNTRY OF JEFFERSON, AND OF LINCOLN, AND OF WASHINGTON. WE ARE THE COUNTRY OF JOHN LEWIS AND WE ARE THE COUNTRY OF GIANTS. WE STAND ON THEIR SHOULDERS. WE OWE OUR LIFE, OUR LIBERTY, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE HAPPINESS TO THEIR BRILLIANT LEGACY. WE HAVE COME TO THE RESCUE AND LIBERATION OF OTHER WORLDS, OF OTHER PARTS OF THIS GLOBE. WE HAVE FOUGHT FOR DEMOCRACY, WE HAVE CHAMPIONED DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS. WE BELIEVED IN TREATING OTHERS AS WE WOULD TREAT OURSELVES. THIS IS WHO WE ARE. ALEX PADILLA, FACE DOWN IN A FEDERAL BUILDING, FORCED TO THE GROUND BY AGENTS OF THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY -- THIS IS NOT WHO WE ARE.

I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK OF THE WORDS OF MY LATE, WONDERFUL COLLEAGUE, ELIJAH CUMMINGS, BECAUSE THEY ARE A POTENT REMINDER. WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS. WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS. WE ARE NOT A COUNTRY THAT SENDS THE MARINES INTO A CITY, NOT TO RESTORE ORDER, BUT TO CREATE DISORDER. WE ARE A BETTER COUNTRY THAN THAT. WE ARE NOT A COUNTRY THAT NEEDS TO HAVE A PARADE HONORING OUR PRESIDENT, TO SHOWCASE OUR MILITARY MIGHT ON HIS BIRTHDAY. WE ARE A BETTER COUNTRY THAN THIS. THERE HAVE BEEN GIANTS WHO HAVE SERVED IN OUR MILITARY. THERE HAVE BEEN GIANTS WHO SERVED IN THIS BODY, GREAT PEOPLE FROM ALL DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS. AND THE STRENGTH OF THIS COUNTRY IS THAT IT IS STILL SO POSSIBLE. WE HAVE BEEN A COUNTRY THAT HAS WELCOMED PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE WORLD BECAUSE WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY BRING THEIR WORK ETHIC, AND THEIR STRIVING WITH THEM. AND IT HAS LIFTED OUR COUNTRY FORWARD.

WE HAVE THAT BEAUTIFUL STATUE OF LIBERTY NOT BECAUSE WE DISDAIN IMMIGRANTS, NOT BECAUSE WE VIEW THEM AS A THREAT, BUT BECAUSE WE CELEBRATE WHAT THEY HAVE BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY. AND I THINK IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WE HAVE FORGOTTEN WHO WE ARE. AND EVERY NOW AND THEN WE JUST NEED TO STEP BACK FROM THE ABYSS AND REMIND OURSELVES OF WHERE WE CAME FROM, AND THAT IN THIS GREATEST NATION ON EARTH, WHAT IS POSSIBLE.

I DIDN'T SERVE WITH ALEX PADILLA IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, AND DIDN'T GET TO SERVE WITH HIM, OR GET TO KNOW HIM WELL UNTIL I CAME TO THIS BODY. AND I TOLD MY COLLEAGUES WHEN I GOT HERE, YOU'RE ALL WONDERFUL PEOPLE BUT NOBODY DID BETTER THAN I DID IN WHO I GOT AS MY SEAT MATE. AND I MEAN THAT WITH ALL MY HEART. HE IS A GOOD AND GENUINE AND DECENT AND CAPABLE AND BRILLIANT MAN. I'LL NEVER FORGET THAT IMAGE I SAW TODAY. BECAUSE, TO ME, IT'S THE IMAGE OF WHAT'S BEST IN THIS COUNTRY BEING BROUGHT TO THE GROUND.

AND SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK EVERY MEMBER OF THIS BODY TO THINK ABOUT THE LEGACY WE'VE BEEN CHARGED WITH PROTECTING, AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO FROM THIS DAY FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS INCREDIBLE EXPERIMENT IN SELF-GOVERNANCE CONTINUES, AND THAT WE NEVER SEE AN ACT LIKE WE SAW TWO HOURS AGO TAKE PLACE AGAIN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Minnesota state lawmaker killed and another injured in targeted shootings
2 hours ago
By Danai Nesta Kupemba
BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj83q2e562o

A Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband were shot and killed in their home early on Saturday morning in what Governor Tim Walz called an "act of targeted political violence".

House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, 55, a Democrat, and her husband were killed in Brooklyn Park, a city near Minneapolis.

State Senator John Hoffman, 60, also a Democrat, and his wife were targeted in their home in nearby Champlin in a related shooting.

They were shot multiple times and are out of surgery, Walz said, adding he was "cautiously optimistic" they would survive.

A manhunt is underway for a suspect who was impersonating a police officer.

Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley said a suspect was using a police "badge and uniform" to manipulate his way into the lawmakers' homes, and was even driving a car that looks like a "police vehicle" and was equipped with emergency lights.

Minnesota Superintendent Drew Evans said officers received a call at 02:00 local time regarding the incident involving Hoffman and his wife.

Evans said another call was placed to police at 03:35, when officers were proactively checking on Hortman.

The police exchanged gunfire with the suspect at Hortman's home, but he managed to escape.

Chief Bruley said police are engaged in an "extensive manhunt" alongside the FBI, SWAT and hundreds of police officers. He said police took the suspect's car and believe he is travelling on foot.

Champlin Police said the "suspect or suspects remain at large", but there is no indication of an "ongoing threat to the public".

Authorities are warning people in the area not to answer their door for a police officer unless there are two officers together.

Brooklyn Park Police Department has issued a shelter-in-place order for a three-mile (4.8 km) radius of Edinburgh Golf Course.

In a statement, President Donald Trump said "such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America," and authorities would be "prosecuting anyone involved to the fullest extent of the law".

Bob Jacobson, the state's commissioner of public safety, said public servants have been "targeted in a violent and cowardly way".

Jacobson added that the suspect exploited the trust that "our uniforms are meant to represent" which is "deeply disturbing" to those who wear the badge.

Saturday was a "dark day" for Minnesota, but "we will not allow fear or violence to define who we are or how we move forward", he said.

He added there is increased security in place for elected officials and others who may be at risk.

Zach Lindstrom, the mayor of nearby Mounds View, said elected officials had received a "safety alert".

Walz activated the State Emergency Operations Center - used for managing disasters or emergencies - in response to the shootings.

The governor said Minnesota had lost a "great leader and I lost the dearest of friends".

He called Hortman "a formidable public servant, a fixture and a giant in Minnesota", saying "she woke up every day determined to make the state a better place".

"We don't settle our differences with violence or gunpoint in the state of Minnesota," Walz said.

Former Vice President Al Gore also paid tribute to Hortman, who briefly worked for him while he was a member of the US Senate.

"Though she was only there for a short time, she had a lasting impact," said Mr Gore. "There is absolutely no excuse for political violence."

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added in a statement that she was "heartbroken" by the targeted shootings.

"This climate of politically-motivated violence must end," said Mrs Pelosi, whose husband was attacked during a politically-motivated break-in at their home in 2024.

Hortman, an attorney, was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2004, and served as House Speaker from 2019 to 2025.

She "led efforts to protect women's rights, invest in clean energy, and secure free school lunch for kids", said US Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, in a statement.

In 2020, she became an advocate for policing reform in the wake of the killing of George Floyd, successfully helping to enact a state ban on police choke holds that caused Floyd's death at the hands of Minneapolis police.

She had two children. Her husband, Mark, was also killed.