DOJ 47

If you work for the Department of Justice, you are not one of America's lawyers, but one of Trump's lawyers.

“When Department of Justice attorneys, for example, refuse to advance good-faith 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.”

“As President Trumps' [sic] lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities like the [Associated Press] that refuse to put America first.”

US Attorney for District of Columbia Ed Martin,

It turns out, if you work for some Big Law firms, you might be one of his lawyers, too!

This website tracks the Trump administration's use of the courts during his second presidency. You can follow updates on cases, law firms, or lawyers.

Recent updates

Donald Trump Jr takes cash to be a part of the Executive Branch
2025-04-29 /people-bribing-trump

I mean, what even is this.

Justin Wolfers
I read this article 3 times and still can't figure out whether it's an elaborate prank from The Onion -- spoofing the domain of mainstream media -- or if it's our new reality.
embed
Donald Trump Jr. co-founds new private members club, Executive Branch, with a $500,000 fee
Executive Branch held a launch party that included members of President Donald Trump's administration as well as wealthy CEOs, tech founders and policy experts.

Trump Judge Terry Doughty
2025-04-26 /conservatives-denying-trump

Trump's administration deports a 2-year-old US citizen, causing a Trump-appointed judge to wonder if perhaps it was unlawful.

Kyle Cheney
NEW: A federal judge raised alarm Friday that the Trump administration appeared to have deported a 2-year-old U.S. citizen to Honduras with "no meaningful process" — even as her father was fighting to keep her in the country. Details w/ @joshgerstein.bsky.social www.politico.com/news/2025/04...

Letter to Wikimedia Foundation
2025-04-25 /threats-by-us-attorney-ed-martin

Sarah McLaughlin
New Ed Martin letter—this time to Wikipedia about its tax-exempt status. In it, he asks about topics including its editorial practices, editor anonymity, "hateful content and conduct by editors," and content used to train LLMs. www.thefp.com/p/trump-pros... Letter: drive.google.com/file/d/1ocNy...
April 24, 2025 Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. AKA Wikipedia P.O. Box 98204 Washington, DC 20090-8204 VIA EMAIL: business@wikimedia.org legal@wikimedia.org To Whom it May Concern, As the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, I regularly receive requests for information, clarification, and official comment. I regard such inquiries with the seriousness they warrant and respond appropriately through formal correspondence, such as this letter. It has come to my attention that Wikipedia, which operates via its fiscal sponsor, the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., is engaging in a series of activities that could violate its obligations under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. As a nonprofit corporation, which is incorporated in the District of Columbia, the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to specific legal obligations and fiduciary duties consistent with its tax-exempt status. In addition, the public is entitled to rely on a reasonable expectation of neutrality, transparency, and accountability in its operations and publications. In its 2023 IRS Form 990, the Wikimedia Foundation describes its mission as, “empower[ing] and engag[ing] people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain and to disseminate it effectively and globally. . . [.]” As you know, Section 501(c)(3) requires that organizations receiving tax-exempt status operate exclusively for “religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes. . . [.]” It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation, through its wholly owned subsidiary Wikipedia, is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spreadpropaganda to the American public. Wikipedia is permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security and the interests of the United States. Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia’s “educational” mission. In addition, Wikipedia’s operations are directed by its board that is composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers. Again, educational content is directionally neutral; but information received by my Office demonstrates that Wikipedia’s informational management policies benefit foreign powers. Moreover, we are aware that search engines such as Google have agreed to prioritize Wikipedia results due to the relationship that Wikipedia has established with these tech platforms. If the content contained in Wikipedia articles is biased, unreliable, or sourced by entities who wish to do harm to the United States, search engine prioritization of Wikipedia will only amplify propaganda to a larger American audience. Lastly, it has come to our attention that generative AI platforms receive Wikipedia data to train large-language models. This data is now consumed by masses of Americans and American teachers on a daily basis. If the data provided is manipulated, particularly by foreign actors and entities, Wikipedia’s relationship with generative AI platforms have the potential to launder information on behalf of foreign actors. In light of these concerns, my Office seeks information pertaining to Wikimedia’s compliance with the laws governing its tax-exempt status. To assist with our investigation of this matter, I request the following documents and information, covering the time period of January 1, 2021 to the present, as soon as possible but no later than May 15, 2…5. What policy does the Foundation have in place to ensure that content submissions, editorial decisions, and article revisions reflect a broad spectrum of viewpoints, including those that may be in tension with the views of major financial or institutional backers? 6. What is the Foundation’s official process for addressing credible allegations that editors or contributors have materially misled readers, engaged in bad-faith edits, or otherwise manipulated content in ways that undermine Wikipedia’s commitment to neutrality? Similarly, what is the Foundation’s official process for auditing or evaluating the actions, activities, and voting patterns of editors, admins, and committees, including the Arbitration Committee, in order to ensure the Foundation’s policies and the policies of its projects are enforced? Detail all instances in which these processes have been utilized in the last six years. 7. Does the Foundation maintain a public, formally adopted policy explicitly prohibiting hateful content and conduct by editors? If so, what enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance and accountability, and which namespaces and content on the platform do these mechanisms apply to? Further, how does the Foundation ensure that sources used in writing content on Wikipedia and elsewhere do not violate its policies, including but not limited to those against discrimination? 8. Given growing public concerns regarding the large-scale manipulation of particular categories of content by ideologically motivated editors, what safeguards exist to detect and prevent undue influence by individuals or coordinated networks who use editorial or administrative authority to systematically distort content? Provide details regarding actions taken by the Foundation using these safeguards over the last six years. Additionally, detail any changes over time to these safeguards. 9. In view of public criticisms, including those expressed by Wikipedia Co-Founder Dr. Lawrence M. Sanger, r…effects of that content on search results and data already used to train LLMs? What measures does the Foundation take to ensure that these companies, as well as the broader public, understand misinformation, bias, and other problems across its projects, including Wikipedia? I look forward to your cooperation with my letter of inquiry after request. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Please respond by May 15, 2025. Should you have further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call my office or schedule a time to meet in person. All the best. Edward R. Martin, Jr. United States Attorney for the District of Columbia

Sean Davis, CEO of The Federalist thinks the president should ignore the Supreme Court
2025-04-20 /shit-americans-say

Rachel Bitecofer
CEO of The Federalist is opening calling on Trump to defy the Supreme Court.

JGG v Trump: Catch-22
2025-04-20 /specious-arguments

In JGG v Trump, Solicitor General John Sauer asks the Supreme Court in 24A1007:

Roger Parloff
To prevent class relief ordering adequate notice & due process to all aliens subject to the Alien Enemies Act proclamation, DOJ offers several catch-22s. One is: Since named plaintiffs deny being Tren de Aragua, they aren't subject to the proclamation, so can't serve as class representatives.

JD Vance goes to the Colosseum
2025-04-19 /shit-americans-say

...or at least, his wife did. JD bailed at the last minute.

Josh Marshall
From a fiery article in the Times of London. They shut down the Colosseum so JD could get a private tour. Everyone else who'd gotten tickets in advance was out of luck. So many layers contained in the passage about the irate Trump voter in the second graf. www.thetimes.com/world/europe...

Letter to CHEST medical journal re: competing viewpoints
2025-04-17 /threats-by-us-attorney-ed-martin

Charlotte Garden
1. This is so poorly written that the sentence that is -- I think -- supposed to convey a semi-veiled legal threat is incomprehensible. 2. I'm jealous of whichever lawyer gets to write the response.
A letter from the acting US Attorney for DC, requesting information from the editor of the medical journal CHEST about how it selects articles

Absence of evidence is evidence of terrorism
2025-03-18 /specious-arguments

In JGG v Trump, the government files a declaration by Robert Cerna:

Ryan Goodman
2/ This does not instill confidence that the Government has accurately or properly identified individuals under the Alien Enemies Act: Government declaration: "[T]he lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose." Full context:

Sean Murphy, DOJ, AUSA
2025-03-14 /trump-resignations

Sean Murphy (6 years at DOJ) was an AUSA.

Per an NPR report, he resigned in protest of the direction the DOJ was going.

Olivia Horton, DOJ, Trial Attorney
2025-03-07 /trump-resignations

Olivia Horton (6 months at DOJ) represented the US government in Doe v OPM.

Per a court filing in that case, she resigned from the Department of Justice on March 7, 2025.

Per an April 6, 2025 court filing in the Abrego Garcia case, she appears to now be working for Quinn Emanuel.