update - Bondi fires DoJ ethics head, effective immediately

[mandrill]

Judge hammers Trump lawyer after Ábrego García timelines don't add up
Judge Paula Xinis probed the U.S. Justice Department over a timeline that doesn't add up in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García, the Maryland man sent to a brutal prison in El Salvador by accident.

A DOJ prosecutor previously told the judge that Ábrego was deported as a result of a "clerical error," ABC News reported in April.



Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney and Lawfare's Anna Bower were live-posting about the hearing on X and Bluesky. The DOJ seeks to have the case dismissed and said that it is moot, given that Ábrego is back in the U.S.

Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.

"The idea behind the motion was that [the] DOJ/government had no power to facilitate [the] return of Ábrego, and thus that the court had no jurisdiction. Xinis says she has questions about the motion bc DOJ never withdrew it," wrote Bower.

Among the observations Cheney pointed out was that the judge was "pressing [the] DOJ on why they claimed on May 27 they had no power to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S., even though they had secretly secured a grand jury indictment against him 6 days earlier."

"When you filed the motion, did counsel know that this was happening and that his preparations were being made for his return?" the judge asked, according to Bower. There was then a "long pause." Ultimately, DOJ lawyer, Bridget O'Hickey, admitted that is "correct." She said that they were negotiating with the government of El Salvador.





"But you had the idea that defendants needed a criminal indictment to secure their release?" the judge asked.

"Hard to say without getting into specifics of negotiations," O'Hickey replied.

"Was the indictment one of the steps the government made to facilitate Abrego's return?" the judge then asked. Bower said that there was an even longer pause.

O'Hickey said that Ábrego "was under investigation anyway."

"He wasn't under investigation until April 28," corrected the judge.

"I don't think that's true," the DOJ said.

"It was in sworn testimony," the judge replied.

"Ok," the judge continued, "so indictment wasn't the sole purpose to facilitate return, but it was part of it. Is that DOJ's position?"

Bower said that there was another long pause before O'Hickey said, "No. He wasn't indicted for the purpose of bringing him back. He was under investigation."



Xinis asked if it played a role, and O'Hickey said she couldn't "represent that to the court."

"Can't, or won't?" the judge hammered.

"I know he was indicted because he was investigated," said O'Hickey, with no further details.

Cheney noted that the DOJ attorney contradicted "the government's sworn testimony from the Tennessee criminal case, saying Ábrego García's criminal probe began before April 28."

Ultimately, the DOJ attorney "says she can't explain the contradiction."

See the full quote thread from Bower here.

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

GREENBELT, Md. (AP) — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he's released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday.

Supporters of Kilmar Abrego Garcia rally outside of the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt, Md., where a hearing was scheduled to be held on returning him to Maryland, Monday, July 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)© The Associated Press
The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him.



Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia's American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him from being expelled again.

Guynn said U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he’s released from jail and send him to a “third country” that isn’t his native El Salvador. However, Guynn said he didn’t know which country that would be.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said trying to determine what will happen to Abrego Garcia has been “like trying to nail Jello to a wall." She scheduled a hearing for Thursday for U.S. officials to explain possible next steps if Abrego Garcia is released.

Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in his native El Salvador. The Trump administration claimed he was in the MS-13 gang, although Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime and has repeatedly denied the allegation.



When the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia, it violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shielded him from being sent to his native country. The judge had determined that Abrego Garcia likely faced persecution by local gangs that had terrorized him and his family and prompted him to flee to the U.S.


Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face federal human smuggling charges. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage.



Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers told a judge that some government witnesses cooperated to get favors regarding their immigration status or criminal charges they were facing.

They've also accused the Trump administration of bringing Abrego Garcia back “to convict him in the court of public opinion” with the intention of deporting him before he can defend himself at trial.

A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia, determining he's not a flight risk or a danger. But she agreed to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys, who raised concerns the U.S. would try to immediately deport him.

In court documents, Abrego Garcia's lawyers cited “contradictory statements” by the Trump administration. For example, Guynn told Xinis on June 26 that ICE planned to deport Abrego Garcia, though he didn't say when.


Later that day, DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told The Associated Press that the Justice Department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia "will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he’s committed.”

Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked Xinis to order the government to take him to Maryland upon his release from jail, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working construction and raising a family.

Xinis is still considering that request. Guynn told the judge on Monday that she doesn’t have the jurisdiction to decide where Abrego Garcia would be detained. Xinis responded by asking why she couldn’t order an “interim step” to ensure that Abrego Garcia isn’t “spirited away again.”


Anrew Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, said he should be given notice and an opportunity to challenge his removal in court.

“That’s the baseline of what we’re asking for,” he added.

Meanwhile, Xinis denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss the lawsuit over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation.

The government had argued the litigation was moot because it returned him to the U.S. Xinis said “the controversy” isn’t over simply because he's back.

___

This has been corrected to show that Jonathan Guynn is a civil division attorney with the Department of Justice, not a prosecutor.

___

Finley reported from Norfolk, Virginia.

US will try to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial, Justice Department attorney says

 

[mandrill]

With much of MAGA world up in arms over news that Donald Trump’s Justice Department and FBI have concluded that Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide and didn’t keep a “client list” to blackmail prominent figures, Piers Morgan tweaked one of the president’s top acolytes on Monday for previously promising “incredibly disturbing” details in the Epstein probe.


“Hmmmm… what happened?” Morgan tweeted while sharing a clip of an interview he conducted with then-White House counselor Alina Habba in February. At the time, Habba insisted that the “shocking” Epstein files would be made public imminently.

The DOJ and FBI issued a joint two-page memo this week summarizing the agencies’ “exhaustive review of investigative holdings related to Jeffrey Epstein.” Despite it being a matter of faith on the right that the convicted sex offender was murdered to keep him from revealing a laundry list of powerful clients who engaged in sex with underage girls, the administration is now contradicting the very conspiracy theories that it helped burnish in the first place.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list,’” the memo reads. “There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”



Notably, the top two officials in the FBI – director Kash Patel and deputy director Dan Bongino – spent the past few years as MAGA media influencers who devoted much of their energy to disputing the official claim that Epstein committed suicide in a jail cell while awaiting trial in 2019. In recent months, though, both FBI leaders have reversed course on their Epstein conspiracy-mongering and have insisted that “he killed himself” based on evidence they reviewed.

It isn’t just Patel and Bongino who have faced the wrath of Trump supporters over the lack of payoff in the Epstein investigation. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who claimed in February that she had the deceased financier’s “client list” sitting on her desk for review, has been under intense pressure to deliver on her overcooked promises following a disastrous photo-op when she provided binders to MAGA media influencers that largely consisted of already-public information on the Epstein case.



Amid the right-wing meltdown over the administration’s memo, which has been led by former “first buddy” Elon Musk, Habba’s appearance on Morgan’s show quickly drew notice on social media.

“It is incredibly disturbing,” Habba, who is now the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, told Morgan this past winter. “We have flight logs, we have information, names that will come out.”



After the British tabloid host wondered if the files would be “shocking,” Habba breathlessly hyped the possibility that multiple people would likely face prosecution once the information became public.

“I don’t see how it’s not shocking — that there were so many individuals that were hidden and kept secret and not been held accountable,” she exclaimed, adding: “I believe in accountability. So you have to now go through your process. Now, I won’t say they’re guilty until they go through their time in court. But again, now it’s time for accountability.”

On top of that, Habba insisted that both Patel and Bondi would make sure to follow through and hold Epstein’s supposed clients accountable, prompting Morgan to ask if that meant “criminal actions” would be taken.

“Absolutely! I think it would be negligent for us not to,” she proclaimed, noting that “we don’t have time” to “hide lists” or “protect political friends.”


Morgan, meanwhile, wasn’t the only one to invoke Habba’s past remarks and unambiguous vows that the Trump administration would be filing charges against Epstein co-conspirators.

“They’re lying to you! Trump’s lawyer and acting New Jersey U.S Attorney Alina Habba went on Piers Morgan a couple of months ago and stated that they had EVERYTHING regarding the Epstein files,” QAnon-promoting former GOP Senate candidate Lauren Witzke, for instance, fumed. “SO WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY??????!”

The administration’s letter concluding that there is no secret Epstein “client list” comes just a month after Musk accused Trump of being “in the Epstein files” after the world’s richest man first had a falling out with the president.

While the former Department of Government Efficency chief would later delete the accusation and claim he went “too far” as he looked to mend his relationship with the president, Musk declared that the DOJ memo was “the final straw” as he posted a series of memes mocking the administration over its handling of the Epstein case.


Piers Morgan calls out Alina Habba for hyping ‘incredibly disturbing’ Epstein files that never materialized

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942402525392482816

 

[Frankfooter]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942402525392482816

There should be no sympathy for MAGA.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942010728908575083

 

[richaceg]

 

[Frankfooter]

Another post of trolling.
Do you love him for the rape, the racism or getting away with being the asshole you always wanted to be?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1942418516759502883

 

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge has allowed the Trump administration to rescind nearly $800 million dollars in grants for programs supporting violence reduction and crime victims.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington on Monday denied a preliminary injunction sought by five organizations on behalf of all recipients of the more than 360 grant awards, and granted a motion by the federal government to dismiss the case. Mehta called the Department of Justice's actions “shameful,” but said the court lacked jurisdiction and the organizations had failed to state a constitutional violation or protection.



“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence,” Mehta wrote in his ruling. “But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”

The Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs cancelled the grants worth more than $800 million in April, saying it had changed its priorities to, among other things, more directly support certain law enforcement operations, combat violent crime and support American victims of trafficking and sexual assault.

A message left seeking comment from Democracy Forward officials was not immediately returned. A Department of Justice spokesperson declined to comment on the ruling.

The lawsuit filed by the Democracy Forward Foundation and the Perry Law firm argued that the grant terminations did not allow due process to the organizations and lacked sufficient clarity. The lawyers also said the move violated the constitutional separation of powers clause that gives Congress appropriation powers.



Many of the organizations that lost the federal money said the unexpected cancellations mid-stream had meant layoffs, program closures and loss of community partnerships.

The five organizations named as plaintiffs sought class status to represent all affected grant recipients. Attorneys General from at least 18 states and the District of Columbia had filed amicus briefs in support of the action, as well as local governments and prosecuting attorneys- several of whom had lost grants for victims programs, alternatives to prosecution programs or others.

The Justice Department asked Mehta to dismiss the suit, arguing in a court filing that there was “no legal basis for the Court to order DOJ to restore lawfully terminated grants and keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States.”

Noting that it intended to redirect the grant funds, it called the suit a “run-of-the mill contract dispute” and said it belonged in a different court.

Associated Press, The Associated Press

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday backed President Donald Trump’s effort to carry out mass firings and reorganizations at federal agencies, putting on hold a lower court order that had temporarily blocked the president from taking those steps without approval from Congress.


The decision is the latest in a series of significant wins for Trump at the Supreme Court, including an opinion making it more difficult to challenge executive orders and rulings backing the administration’s deportation policies.


In an unsigned order, the high court said that lower courts had stopped the plans based on the administration’s general effort, rather than specific agency “reduction in force” plans that would drastically cut the size of the government workforce.



No vote count was released, but Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court’s liberal wing, dissented.


The case stems from an executive order Trump signed in mid-February that kicked off the process of significantly reducing the size of federal agencies, an issue the president campaigned on last year. Departments subsequently announced plans to lay off tens of thousands of employees.


But federal departments are created by law and lower courts have repeatedly held that the White House can’t unilaterally wipe them out or leave them so short staffed that they cannot carry out their legal responsibilities.


“Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful … we grant the application,” the court wrote in its brief order. “We express no view on the legality of any agency RIF and reorganization plan produced or approved pursuant to the executive order and memorandum.”


In other words, the court left open the possibility that it could rule against a specific plan in the future if the reductions appeared to make it impossible for an agency to carry out its obligation under the law.


The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of more than a dozen unions, non-profits and local governments, who have billed it as the largest legal challenge to the Trump administration’s effort to downsize the federal workforce.


“Today’s decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy,” the coalition said in a statement. “This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution.”


The coalition said it will continue to “argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”


The White House said the Supreme Court ruling is “another definitive victory for the President and his administration.”


“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the president’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the president from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” White House spokesman Harrison Fields said in a statement to CNN.

Jackson: Ruling is ‘hubristic and senseless’

“In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless,” Jackson wrote in her dissent. “Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts – including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities.”


At bottom, Jackson wrote, the case was about whether the administration’s effort “amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives – and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened.”


“Yet, for some reason,” she added, “this court sees fit to step in now and release the president’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”







Related article The behind-the-scenes power John Roberts wields to ensure his influence with justices


The order covers major reductions at more than a dozen agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Labor, Treasury, State, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency.


Some of the proposed cuts include a reduction of some 10,000 positions at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health, according to court records. The Treasury Department proposed reducing the number of Internal Revenue Service positions by 40%. The Department of Veterans Affairs planned to eliminate 80,000 jobs, according to the groups that sued, though on Monday the VA reduced that figure to 30,000, which it said will be accomplished mainly through a hiring freeze, deferred resignations, retirements and normal attrition.


The heads of some agencies have said that they were holding off on their reorganizations and reductions because of the district court order. CNN has reached out to several departments about their plans to proceed.


“HHS previously announced our plans to transform this department to Make America Healthy Again and we intend to do just that,” HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said in an email to CNN.


Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the court’s liberal wing, said she agreed with the decision, which she described as limited.


“I agree with Justice Jackson that the president cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” Sotomayor wrote. “Here, however, the relevant executive order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law.’”


A federal court in California previously blocked the administration from conducting deeper layoffs and the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined to intervene. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court in early June.


“Presidents may set policy priorities for the executive branch, and agency heads may implement them,” US District Judge Susan Illston, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in in May.


But, she wrote, “a president may not initiate large-scale executive branch reorganization without partnering with Congress.”


Writing for the majority in the appeals court decision, US Circuit Judge William Fletcher, another Clinton appointee, said that “the kind of reorganization contemplated by the order has long been subject to Congressional approval.”


This story has been updated with additional details.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08/politics/supreme-court-trump-rifs

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

President Donald Trump called the U.S. Supreme Court's June 27 decision limiting the ability of federal judges to use nationwide injunctions to block his policies "a monumental victory," but his legal win may be less definitive than it first appeared.



The Supreme Court's decision curtailed the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions that can stop the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, anywhere in the entire country.

The Trump administration said it would move quickly to challenge such injunctions. However, the ruling by the court's 6-3 conservative majority contained exceptions, allowing federal judges to continue to issue sweeping rulings blocking key parts of the Republican president's agenda.

In the short time since the ruling, lower-court judges have already blocked Trump's asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, prevented his administration from ending temporary deportation protections for Haitian migrants and forced the government to restore health websites deemed to run afoul of Trump's efforts to squash "gender ideology."


One of the biggest tests of the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. CASA will come on Thursday, when a federal judge in New Hampshire will consider whether to prevent Trump's executive order curtailing birthright citizenship from taking effect nationally on July 27.



That executive order was at the heart of the Supreme Court's ruling, which did not address the legality of the policy, but held that judges likely lack authority to issue universal injunctions and ordered three judges to reconsider rulings blocking the policy nationwide.

Issued on his first day back in office in January, the order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident.

CLASS STATUS

The plaintiffs in the New Hampshire birthright citizenship case are looking to seize upon one of the major exceptions to the Supreme Court's ruling. They argue it allows judges to continue to block Trump policies on a nationwide basis in class action lawsuits.

The lawsuit, which was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others hours after the Supreme Court ruled, seeks class action status on behalf of babies who would be subject to Trump's executive order and their parents.



The plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, who previously issued a more narrow injunction blocking Trump's order, to go further this time by allowing the plaintiffs to sue as a nationwide class and issuing an order blocking Trump's ban from being enforced against members of the class.

At least one other judge has already followed this formula.

On July 2, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington determined that Trump's denial of asylum to migrants on the southern border exceeded the president's authority.

He then certified a class that covered all individuals subject to the presidential proclamation on asylum and issued an injunction to protect the class -- effectively a nationwide injunction.

The administration appealed the ruling, which White House aide Stephen Miller called a judge's attempt to "circumvent" the Supreme Court’s ruling by recognizing "a protected global 'class' entitled to admission into the United States."


"I think there's going to be a lot more class actions," said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the ACLU, which brought the asylum case.

Class actions must follow what is known as Rule 23, which requires the plaintiffs to meet several elements including proving that the proposed class members suffered the same injury. Conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned lower courts against certifying nationwide classes without "scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23.”

The process to certify a class can often take months. A senior White House official told Reuters the administration will be watching class certification decisions closely and plans to aggressively challenge them to prevent abuse of the process.

The government says the named class plaintiffs in the New Hampshire case are too different from one another to be able to proceed as a class action. They include an asylum seeker and someone on a student visa.


Judges have used other legal tools to block Trump administration policies on a nationwide basis, including by finding the government failed to comply with administrative law, another exception in the Supreme Court's ban on injunctions.

Judges did so in two separate rulings last week blocking the Trump administration from ending a program that allows a half million Haitians to stay and work temporarily in the United States, and requiring the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to restore government websites that had been scrubbed early in Trump's tenure following an executive order.

Separately, on July 2, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy during a hearing in Boston raised the possibility that he could on the same basis continue to block the U.S. Department of Defense from sharply cutting federal research funding provided to universities throughout the country.

"There’s a strong argument that CASA doesn’t apply at all," Murphy said.

(Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware and Nate Raymond in Boston, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot)

Analysis-Judges keep blocking Trump's policies despite US Supreme Court injunction curbs

 

[mandrill]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — President Donald Trump's administration sued the California Department of Education on Wednesday for allowing transgender girls to compete on girls sports teams, alleging the policy violates federal law.

The move escalates a battle between the Republican administration in Washington and Democratic-led California over trans athletes.



The lawsuit filed by the Justice Department says California's transgender athlete policies violate Title IX, the federal law that bans discrimination in education based on sex. The department says California's rules “are not only illegal and unfair but also demeaning, signaling to girls that their opportunities and achievements are secondary to accommodating boys.”

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi warned other states that allow trans girls to compete in female athletics that they could also face challenges by the federal government.

“If you do not comply, you’re next,” she said in a video posted on social media. “We will protect girls in girls sports.”

The state Education Department and the California Interscholastic Federation, the governing body for high school sports that was also named a defendant, said they would not comment on pending litigation.



Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom's office deferred to the federation and the education agency to comment on the lawsuit because the governor was not named a defendant. But Newsom's office said the Trump administration's attacks on the state's transgender athlete policies are “a cynical attempt” to distract from the federal government's withholding of funds for after-school and summer programs.

California has a more than decade-old law on the books that allows students to participate in sex-segregated school programs, including on sports teams, and use bathrooms and other facilities that align with their gender identity.

Trump criticized the participation of a transgender high school student-athlete who won titles in the California track-and-field championships last month. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote in a letter after the meet that the California Interscholastic Federation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution by allowing trans girls to compete against other female athletes.



The federal Education Department earlier this year launched an investigation into California's policies allowing athletes to compete on sports teams consistent with their gender identity. The agency said last month that the policies violate Title IX, and it gave the state 10 days to agree to change them. But the state this week refused.

Trump also sparred with Maine's Democratic governor over that state's transgender-athlete policies. Gov. Janet Mills told the president in February, “We'll see you in court,” over his threats to pull funding to the state over the issue. His administration filed a lawsuit in April alleging Maine violated Title IX by allowing trans girls and women to compete against other female athletes.

The Justice Department's lawsuit against California says its policies “ignore undeniable biological differences between boys and girls, in favor of an amorphous ’gender identity.'”

FILE - Student athletes hold signs during a hearing to consider bills to pass rules banning transgender student-athletes, April 1, 2025, in Sacramento, Calif. (AP Photo/Yuri Avila, File)© The Associated Press
“The results of these illegal policies are stark: girls are displaced from podiums, denied awards, and miss out on critical visibility for college scholarships and recognition,” the suit says.

Meanwhile, on his podcast in March, Newsom angered some party allies when he questioned the fairness of trans girls competing in girls sports. GOP critics have called on the governor to back a ban, saying his remarks do not square with his actions.


The issue is part of a nationwide battle over the rights of transgender youth in which states have limited transgender girls from participating on girls sports teams, barred gender-affirming surgeries for minors and required parents to be notified if a child changes their pronouns at school. More than two dozen states have laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in certain sports competitions. Some of the policies have been blocked in court.


, R-Calif., speaks to a crowd gathered at an event space during a two-day swing through South Carolina on Tuesday, July 8, 2025, in Bennettsville, S.C. (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)© The Associated Press
Trump signed an executive order in February aimed at barring trans girls and women from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

Proponents of a ban, including the conservative California Family Council, say it would restore fairness in athletic competitions. But opponents, including the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Equality California, say bans are an attack on transgender youth.


In Oregon, three high school track-and-field athletes filed a federal lawsuit against the state this week seeking to remove records set by transgender girls and prevent them from participating in girls sports. They say allowing trans girls to compete against other female athletes is unfair and violates Title IX.

The U.S. Education Department launched investigations earlier this year into Portland Public Schools and the state's governing body for high school sports over alleged violations of Title IX for allowing trans girls to compete in girls sports.

Trump administration sues California over transgender athlete policies

 

[nottyboi]

View attachment 451592

It would be cool if the ruling went : Thou Shalt Not Post the 10 Commandments at public Schools. Consider this an 11th Commandment