Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 2h

Off to the Supreme Court, where I’ll be attending and covering this morning’s Voting Rights Act arguments over Louisiana redistricting.

Subscribe to Law Dork for my full report: www.lawdork.com

Chris with glasses, a pink tie, light blue pin-dot shirt, and a royal blue jacket.

25 34 450

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 20h

NEWS: The Supreme Court will not stop Florida from killing Samuel Smithers today. There were no noted dissents.

(ORDER LIST: 607 U.S.)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2025

CERTIORARI DENIED
25-5829 SMITHERS, SAMUEL L. V. FLORIDA
(25A406)

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death
presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court is
denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

12 44 100

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 1d

Here is today’s full SCOTUS orders list: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

www.supremecourt.gov

1 6 24

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 1d

NEW: The Supreme Court will not hear a case over a Colorado school district’s alleged actions discouraging disclosure of students’ gender identity to the students’ parents.

The case was a bad vehicle for considering the issue, even Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch note.

Cite as: 607 U. S. _
_ (2025)
1
Statement of ALITO, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JONATHAN LEE, ET AL. U. POUDRE SCHOOL DISTRICT R-1
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-89. Decided October 14, 2025
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, respecting the denial of certiorari.
I concur in the denial of certiorari because petitioners do not challenge the ground for the ruling below. But I remain concerned that some federal courts are "tempt[ed]" to avoid confronting a "particularly contentious constitutional ques-tion]": whether a school district violates parents' fundamental rights "when, without parental knowledge or con-sent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process." Parents Protecting Our Chil-dren, UA v. Eau Claire Area School Dist., 604 U. S.
(2024) (ALITO, J., dissenting from denial of certio-rari) (slip op., at 1-2) (citing Troxel v. Granville, 530 U. S. 57, 70 (2000) (plurality opinion)). Petitioners tell us that nearly 6,000 public schools have policies-as respondent allegedly does-that purposefully interfere with parents' access to critical information about their children's gender-identity choices and school personnel's involvement in and influence on those choices. Pet. for Cert. 24. The trou-bling-and tragic-allegations in this case underscore the
"great and growing national importance" of the question that these parent petitioners present. Parents Protecting Our Children, 604 U. S., at _ (slip op., at 1).

6 56 220

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 1d

NEW: Barrett turns to Fox News, rather than the docket, to explain her silence in key rulings.

Justice Barrett wrote nothing in the racial profiling shadow docket ruling, but had something to say on Fox News Sunday.

Tonight, at Law Dork:

Barrett turns to Fox News, rather than the docket, to explain her silence in key rulings

Justice Barrett wrote nothing in the racial profiling shadow docket ruling, but had something to say on Fox News Sunday. And, for paid subscribers: Closing my tabs.

www.lawdork.com

44 150 560

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 4d

Here is the promised opinion from Judge Perry in the Illinois troops case: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Case: 1:25-cv-12174 Document #: 70 Filed: 10/10/25 Page 1 of 51 PagelD #:994
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
STATE OF ILLINOIS, a sovereign state; and the CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal corporation,
Case No. 25-cv-12174
Plaintiffs,
Judge April M. Perry
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PETER B.
HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Defense; UNITED STATES ARMY; DANIEL P. DRISCOLL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER

6 64 230

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 4d

BREAKING: Federal judge finds the Trump admin likely violated the First (viewpoint discrimination) and Fifth (vagueness) Amendments in a case over changed domestic violence grant conditions.

Preliminary injunction issued.

(A TRO previously was issued.)

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Case 1:25-cv-00342-MRD-PAS
Document 72
1683
Filed 10/10/25 Page 1 of 39 PagelD #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
RHODE ISLAND COALITION
AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al.,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 25-cv-342-MRD-PAS
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Melissa R. DuBose, United States District Judge.

Over twenty non-profit coalitions that receive federal grant money to help
support survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault as well as members of
society who are unhoused or without stable housing filed suit against the United
States Departments of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD") as well as various administrators and subagencies who fall
under and within these agencies (hereinafter the "Coalitions" or the "Plaintiffs").
Compl. at 1-4. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are springing new conditions
on them as grantees and are requiring compliance with new spending restrictions on grant funds (the "Grants"), all in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (the
"APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706, the U.S. Constitution's clearly articulated separation of
Case 1:25-cv-00342-MRD-PAS Document 72
1684
Filed 10/10/25 Page 2 of 39 PagelD #:
powers principles such as the Article I Spending Clause, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment. Id. 11 4, 66-89. The new
conditions and certifications foisted upon the grantees are focused on compelling
compliance with sweeping changes imposed by the executive branch by way of Executive Orders ("E.O.s") aimed at eliminating programs that are perceived as promoting gender ideology; diversity, equity, and inclusion; elective abortions; and
antidiscrimination. Id. 11 21-31, MPI at 73-74.

IV. CONCLUSION
As stated, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs have met their burden as
to the preliminary injunction factors and finds them entitled to relief. Pursuant to Section 705 of the APA, the Court finds that it is necessary and appropriate to grant
the Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary stay of the Challenged Conditions.
See 5
U.S.C. § 705 (permitting a reviewing court to "issue all necessary and appropriate
process to postpone the effective date of an agency action or to preserve status or
rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings on such conditions as may be
required and to the extent necessary to prevent irreparable injury").
38
Case 1:25-cv-00342-MRD-PAS Document 72 Filed 10/10/25 Page 39 of 39 PagelD #:
1721
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Melissa R. DuBose
United States District Judge
October 10, 2025

4 150 510

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 5d

UPDATE: DOJ filed a notice that it is appealing the 14-day TRO, an order that is not generally appealable. This will go to the Seventh Circuit. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
STATE OF ILLINOIS and the CITY OF CHICAGO,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 1:25-cv-12174
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., in their official capacities,
Defendants.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all Defendants in the above-captioned case hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from this Court's October 9, 2025, Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. ECF No.
67.

11 97 300

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 5d

NEW: The trials of litigating against Trump.

As Trump actions are blocked in Chicago, Trump appellate appointees push back on the order blocking Trump's troop efforts in Portland. And, another Trump target indicted.

Tonight, at Law Dork:

The trials (and errors) of litigating against Trump

As Trump actions are blocked in Chicago, Trump appellate appointees push back on the order blocking Trump's troop efforts in Portland. And, another Trump target indicted.

www.lawdork.com

6 64 380

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 5d

Tonight’s no-media-admitted execution in Indiana was the 35th execution in America this year.

It has been since 2014 that so many executions were carried out in one year — and that was the total for the year.

Indiana Capital Chronicle @indianacapitalchronicle.com · 5d

Indiana executes Roy Lee Ward for 2001 murder of teenager

indianacapitalchronicle.com/2025/10/10/i...

Indiana executes Roy Lee Ward for 2001 murder of teenager Stacy Payne • Indiana Capital Chronicle

Death row inmate Roy Lee Ward was executed by lethal injection early Friday morning at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City.

indianacapitalchronicle.com

8 41 120

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 5d

BREAKING: Federal judge issues TRO following a second day of hearings, blocking the Trump administration from “ordering the federalization and deployment of the National Guard of the United States within Illinois” from now through Oct. 23. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
STATE OF ILLINOIS, a sovereign state; and the CITY OF CHICAGO, an Illinois municipal corporation,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 25-cv-12174
Judge April M. Perry
V.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PETER B.
HEGSETH, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Defense; UNITED STATES ARMY; DANIEL P. DRISCOLL, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Army,
Defendants.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Doc. 3, and
ORDERS as follows:
1. Defendants,' their officers, agents, assigns entered, and all persons acting in concert with them, are temporarily enjoined from ordering the federalization and deployment of the
National Guard of the United States within Illinois.
2. This Temporary Restraining Order is at 5:55 P.M. central time on this 9th day of October
2025 and expires on October 23, 2025 at 11:59 P.M.
'President Trump, one of the name Defendants, is not enjoined by this Order.

3. Within two (2) calendar days of entry of this Temporary Restraining Order, Plaintiffs
shall post a nominal bond of $100. The bond shall be filed in the Clerk's Office and be
deposited into the registry of the Court.
4. Defendants' Request to Stay or Administratively Stay the Temporary Restraining Order,
Doc. 62 at 58, is DENIED.
5. A telephone hearing will be held on October 22, 2025, at 9:00 A.M. to address whether
this Temporary Restraining Order should be extended for an additional fourteen (14)
calendar days.
Dated: October 9, 2025
Coul MPeray.
APRIL M. PERRY
United States District Judge
2

10 290 1.3K

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 5d

BREAKING: Federal judge issues a TRO in the Northern District of Illinois (including Chicago and the Broadview ICE facility), providing protections for protesters and journalists covering the protests.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

Some of the key elements:

1. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants,' their officers, agents, assigns, and all
persons acting in concert with them (hereafter referred to as "Federal Agents"), are temporarily ENJOINED in this judicial district from:
Dispersing, arresting, threatening to arrest, threatening or using physical
force against any person whom they know or reasonably should know is a Journalist, unless
Defendants have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a crime.
Defendants may order a Journalist to change location to avoid disrupting law enforcement,
' President Trump, one of the named Defendants, is not included in this Order.
1
Case: 1:25-cv-12173 Document #: 42 Filed: 10/09/25 Page 2 of 6 PagelD #:836
as long as the Journalist has an objectively reasonable time to comply and an objectively
reasonable opportunity to report and observe;

b. Issuing a crowd dispersal order requiring any person to leave a public place
that they lawfully have a right to be, unless dispersal is justified by exigent circumstances as defined by Department of Homeland Security Use of Force Policy (updated Feb. 6,
2023), Sections III.F and XII.E;
С.
For purposes of this Order, a crowd dispersal order is a lawful command
given by a Federal Agent for all persons to leave a designated area when three or more persons are committing acts of disorderly conduct that are likely to cause substantial harm in the immediate vicinity;
d. Using riot control weapons including kinetic impact projectiles (KIPs), Compressed Air Launchers (e.g., PIS and FN303), Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) Spray, CS gas, CN gas, or other chemical irritants, 40 mm Munitions Launchers, less-lethal shotguns,
Less-Lethal Specialty Impact-Chemical Munitions (LLSI-CM), Controlled Noise and Light Distraction Devices (CNLDDs), Electronic Control Weapons (ECWs) - on members of the press, protesters, or religious practitioners who are not posing an immediate threat to the safety of a law enforcement officer or others;

To facilitate the Defendants' identification of Journalists protected under
this Order, the following are examples of indicia of being a Journalist: visual identification as a member of the press, such as by carrying a professional press pass, badge or credentials; wearing distinctive clothing or patches that identify the wearer as a member of the press; or carrying professional gear such as professional photographic or videography
equipment. Other indicia of being a Journalist under this Order include that the person is standing off to the side of a protest, not engaging in chanting, sign holding, shouting slogans, or otherwise protesting, and documenting protest activities, although these are not
requirements. These indicia are illustrative, and a person need not exhibit every indicium
to be considered a Journalist under this Order. Defendants shall not be liable for unintentional violations of this Order in the case of an individual who does not wear a press pass, badge, or other official press credential, professional gear, or distinctive clothing that identifies the person as a member of the press.

It is further ORDERED that all Federal Agents, excepting those who do not wear a
uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official
4
Case: 1:25-cv-12173 Document #: 42 Filed: 10/09/25 Page 5 of 6 PagelD #:839
duties or are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties, must have visible identification (for which a unique recognizable alphanumeric identifier sequence
will suffice) affixed to their uniforms or helmets and prominently displayed, including when
wearing riot gear.

20 710 2.1K

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 6d

This order — storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... — is in advance of Thursday arguments, does not change much, and does not tell us much of anything about the merits (as the order itself also states). It is not objectionable, as these things go.

The Thursday arguments are far more important:

2025-10-09 9:00 am Courtroom 2, 3rd Floor Rm 330, James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse, San Francisco
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges
Case No. Title Nature Origin Time / Side
25-6268 State of Oregon, et al. v. Trump, et al. - Federal officials appeal the district court’s order granting the State of Oregon and the City of Portland’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and temporarily enjoining the federalization and deployment of Oregon National Guard service members to Portland. [3:25-cv-01756-IM] Civil OR 20 min

1 21 110

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 6d

In the Oregon troops case, the Ninth Circuit panel granted an administrative stay of the Saturday OR NG TRO but *not* the Sunday deployment TRO.

"Thus, the effect of granting an administrative stay preserves the status quo in which National Guard members have been federalized but not deployed."

Case: 25-6268, 10/08/2025, DktEntry: 32.1, Page 1 of 4
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF OREGON and CITY OF PORTLAND,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
No. 25-6268
D.C. No.
3:25-cv-01756-IM
District of Oregon, Portland
ORDER
FILED
ОСТ 8 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DONALD J. TRUMP, In his official capacity as President of the United States; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

In the circumstances here, granting an administrative stay will best preserve the status quo. Prior to the October 4 temporary restraining order, Oregon National
Guard members had been federalized but not deployed. The Memorandum
authorized federalization of the Oregon National Guard members. An
administrative stay of the October 4 temporary restraining order will maintain the federalization of Oregon National Guard members, because that order prohibits implementation of the Memorandum. Additionally, the second temporary restraining order has not been challenged or appealed, and it prohibits the deployment of National Guard members in Oregon. Thus, the effect of granting an administrative stay preserves the status quo in which National Guard members
3
25-6268
Case: 25-6268, 10/08/2025, DktEntry: 32.1, Page 4 of 4
have been federalized but not deployed.
Administrative Stay GRANTED.

2 130 450

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 6d

NEW: State attorneys general and Trump, featuring N.J. A.G. Matthew Platkin.

"The Supreme Court has seemed like almost overeager to jump into these fights," Platkin says of recent shadow docket rulings. "That is not the way this court is supposed to function."

This evening, at Law Dork:

State attorneys general and Trump, featuring N.J. A.G. Matthew Platkin

"The Supreme Court has seemed like almost overeager to jump into these fights," Platkin says of recent shadow docket rulings. "That is not the way this court is supposed to function."

www.lawdork.com

5 50 170

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 6d

I’ll be going live with @newjerseyoag.bsky.social Platkin to talk all things Trump at 3:30p. Join us then!

open.substack.com/live-stream/...

LIVE SOON: State attorneys general and Trump, featuring N.J. A.G. Matthew Platkin

Starting Oct 8 at 3:30 PM EDT

open.substack.com

6 39

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 6d

NOTE: DOJ appealed the CASA class injunction in the birthright citizenship EO challenges to the Fourth Circuit (Docket: 25-2188) on Tuesday.

DOJ filed SCOTUS cert petitions on the other class injunction & a multistate case, so this case has (for now) taken a back seat, but we'll see what happens.

17 70

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 6d

Smithers cert petition: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

Stay of execution application: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

www.documentcloud.org

1 4 31

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 6d

This will go absolutely nowhere, but, I'm glad they're asking it, and I hope it gets coverage as part of DeSantis's ugly bloodlust execution spree.

If Florida kills Samuel Smithers next week, it will be the state's 14th execution this year — nearly 3 times more than the 5 carried out in Texas.

In the Supreme Court of the United States
SAMUEL LEE SMITHERS, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
CAPITAL CASE
DEATH WARRANT SIGNED
Execution Scheduled: October 14, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. ET

CAPITAL CASE
QUESTION PRESENTED
1. Does the execution of the elderly violate the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment based
on the evolved standards of decency?

8 69 220

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 7d

NEW: Supreme Court likely to strike down Colorado's conversion therapy ban.

A lesson in how defining the case often resolves the case.

Today at Law Dork:

Supreme Court likely to strike down Colorado's conversion therapy ban

A lesson in how defining the case often resolves the case.

www.lawdork.com

18 57 200

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 7d

First take out of arguments: Despite efforts by Sotomayor to put off a decision, it appeared the Supreme Court will subject Colorado’s conversion therapy ban to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, with a majority likely to strike it down outright.

More to come at Law Dork:

Law Dork | Chris Geidner | Substack

The Supreme Court, law, politics, and more. Click to read Law Dork, by Chris Geidner, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

www.lawdork.com

9 41 99

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 8d

NEW: Pair of lawsuits challenging Trump's targeting of Chicago get first hearings.

The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration's military deployment efforts and harsh treatment of protesters and journalists. More hearings are set for later this week.

Tonight, at Law Dork:

Pair of lawsuits challenging Trump's targeting of Chicago get first hearings

The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration's military deployment efforts and harsh treatment of protesters and journalists. More hearings are set for later this week.

www.lawdork.com

3 89 320

Reposted by Law Dork

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 8d

No TRO today in the second Illinois case, either, but Judge Ellis has found the plaintiffs challenging ICE protest enforcement actions have standing for TRO purposes and are likely to succeed on First and Fourth Amendment claims. They also went through the proposed TRO in depth. Follow up coming —>

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 8d

"At this point, DHS is on notice," Ellis says, but she says she would rather give a couple days for DOJ to get "real answers," particularly as to the identification issue, from clients.

A follow-up hearing will be at 2:00 p.m. CT Wednesday.

Parties are also asked to confer in the interim.

6 200 590

Law Dork @lawdorknews.bsky.social · 8d

Note that this is in addition to the Illinois v. Trump lawsuit over military deployment in or to Illinois, where a different judge heard brief arguments and ordered a DOJ response Wednesday and hearing Thursday, but rejected the request for an immediate TRO.

See more here on that. —>

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 8d

Illinois and Chicago filed suit against Trump while I was in court.

Complaint below.

Here is the TRO motion: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

And legal arguments: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

A hearing before Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, is set for 2p CT.

Kyle Cheney @kyledcheney.bsky.social · 9d

BREAKING: Illinois has filed suit to block Trump's deployment of the military to Chicago.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

1 9

Law Dork @lawdorknews.bsky.social · 8d

Read @chrisgeidner.bsky.social's thread for an ongoing hearing over a TRO that is set to be granted in a case raising Fourth and First Amendments claims, including press and religion claims, over the response to ICE protests in the Northern District of Illinois (i.e., Chicago). —>

Chris Geidner @chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 8d

NEW: I'm listening in on a second new lawsuit out of Illinois today, addressing First Amendment freedoms surrounding protests, including press and religious claims.

Judge Sara Ellis, an Obama appointee, is hearing the TRO motion and has found the plaintiffs, for TRO purposes, have standing.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHICAGO HEADLINE CLUB, BLOCK CLUB CHICAGO, CHICAGO NEWSPAPER GUILD LOCAL 34071, NABET-CWA LOCAL 54041, ILLINOIS PRESS ASSOCIATION, RAVEN GEARY, CHARLES THRUSH, STEPHEN HELD, DAVID BLACK, WILLIAM PAULSON, AUTUMN REIDY-HAMER, and LEIGH KUNKEL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
V.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS); TODD LYONS,
Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); MARCOS CHARLES,
Acting Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE;
RUSSELL HOTT, Chicago Field Office
Director, ICE; RODNEY S. SCOTT,
Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); GREGORY BOVINO, Chief Border Patrol Agent, CBP; DANIEL
DRISCOLL, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);
WILLIAM K. MARSHALL III, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United States;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNIDENTIFIED FEDERAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS; UNIDENTIFIED FEDERAL AGENCY DEFENDANTS; and
DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States,
No. 25-cv-12173
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR INJUCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

1 1 14