update - Federal judge orders Trump admin to give details of CA Nat'l Gd use under Posse Comitatus investigation

[mandrill]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A top Justice Department official nominated to become a federal appeals court judge said Wednesday that he never told department attorneys to ignore court orders, denying the account of a whistleblower who detailed a campaign to defy judges to carry out President Donald Trump's deportation plans.



Emil Bove's nomination for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has come under intense scrutiny after a fired department lawyer claimed in a complaint filed Tuesday that Bove used an expletive when he said during a meeting that the Trump administration might need to ignore judicial commands. Bove pushed back against suggestions from Democrats that the whistleblower’s claims make him unfit for the federal bench.

“I have never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order,” Bove told the Senate Judiciary Committee. He added: “I don’t think there’s any validity to the suggestion that that whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge.”

Bove, a former criminal defense attorney for Trump, has been at the forefront of some of the most contentious Justice Department actions since Trump's return to the White House, including the dismissal of the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. He also accused FBI officials of “insubordination” for refusing to hand over the names of agents who investigated the U.S. Capitol riot and ordered the firings of a group of prosecutors involved in the Jan. 6 criminal cases.



Bove took criticism of his tenure head on, telling lawmakers he understands some of his decisions “have generated controversy.” But Bove said he has been inaccurately portrayed as Trump's “henchman” and “enforcer” at the department.

“I am someone who tries to stand up for what I believe is right,” Bove said.

A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Bove was on Trump's legal team during his New York hush money trial and defended Trump in the two federal criminal cases brought by the Justice Department. If confirmed by the Senate, he'll serve on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears cases from Delaware, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Democrats said Bove has proven himself himself unfit for a lifetime appointment during his short tenure at the Justice Department, accusing him of abusing his power and putting his loyalties to Trump above all else.



“Bove has led the effort to weaponize the Department of Justice against the president’s enemies," said Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the committee. "Having earned his stripes as a loyalist to this president, he’s been rewarded with this lifetime nomination."

Bove's hearing came a day after the filing of a whistleblower complaint from a former Justice Department lawyer who was fired in April after conceding in court that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was mistakenly deported to an El Salvador prison.

That lawyer, Erez Reuveni, described efforts by top Justice Department officials in the weeks before his firing to stonewall and mislead judges to carry out deportations championed by the White House.

Reuveni described a Justice Department meeting in March concerning Trump’s plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act over what the president claimed was an invasion by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Reuveni said Bove raised the possibility that a court might block the deportations before they could happen. Reuveni claims Bove used a profanity in saying the department would need to consider telling the courts what to do and “ignore any such order,” Reuveni's lawyers said in the filing.


Bove said he has “no recollection of saying anything of that kind.”

He also faced sharp questions about his ordering the dismissal of Adams' corruption case, which led to the resignation of a top prosecutor in New York and several other Justice Department officials. Daniel Sassoon, then-interim U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, cited her objections to what she called a political “quid pro quo” with Adams’ legal team for the mayor to enforce Trump’s immigration policies only if he was freed from the looming prosecution.

Bove dismissed claims of a quid pro quo as “simply false.”

“And it’s refuted by the record," Bove said. “Mayor Adams’ lawyers filed a letter on the public docket in that case that stated explicitly there was no quid pro quo. One of those lawyers — and they’re both respected members of the bar — stood up in court at a hearing in the case and said the same thing. And then, critically, Mayor Adams himself was sworn under oath at the hearing.”


Republicans on the committee portrayed Bove as the victim of a Democratic-led smear campaign, noting the whistleblower's claims surfaced just before Bove's confirmation hearing.

Testifying during a separate hearing Wednesday, Attorney General Pam Bondi called the whistleblower's timing “suspect" and told lawmakers she stands by Bove.

During his time as a federal prosecutor in New York, Bove was involved in several high-profile cases, including a drug-trafficking case against the former Honduran president’s brother and those of a man who set off a pressure cooker device in Manhattan and a man who sent dozens of mail bombs to prominent targets across the country.

“Bove is unquestionably qualified for the role and has a career filled with accolades, both academically and throughout his legal career, that should make him a shoo-in for the Third Circuit,” White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement.


Bove’s actions, however, rankled some fellow prosecutors and defense attorneys. In 2018, the federal public defender’s office compiled complaints about his behavior from defense attorneys and sent them to two top officials in the U.S. attorney’s office. About 18 months after the email was sent, Bove was promoted to be co-chief of the office’s national security and international narcotics unit.

Alanna Durkin Richer, The Associated Press

Trump judicial nominee Bove denies advising Justice Department lawyers to ignore court orders

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Former Donald Trump personal attorney Alina Habba has been slapped with a formal ethics complaint over her conduct in her latest incarnation as acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

According to a report from Politico, as Habba's case against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) over allegations she assaulted ICE agents outside an immigrant detention facility in May, heads to federal court, Habba now finds herself under new scrutiny.



Politico's Ry Rivard is reporting liberal watchdog group Campaign for Accountability made a complaint this week with the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, alleging "improprieties" since the attorney accepted the interim appointment.

According to the complaint, Habba has "acted improperly since becoming a prosecutor." It "cites her actions in the McIver case, along with comments about turning 'New Jersey red' and announcing investigations into its Democratic governor and attorney general over immigration."

RELATED: 'Highly unusual' Alina Habba admission about NJ lawmaker may have blown up indictment

“In an atmosphere where other oversight bodies are caving to political influence, the bar’s duty to independently enforce these rules is ever more important,” explained executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith.

Habba is already facing a lawsuit filed against her by Newark Mayor Ras Baraka over his arrest –– with charges since dropped –– on the same day that McIver was arrested, with the suit stating Habba "directed and ratified" his "unlawful arrest”



The report notes that Campaign for Accountability filed a similar complaint in New York against another Trump personal attorney, Emil Bove, after he forced prosecutors to drop charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. Bove, from his perch in the DOJ, is now facing hearings after the president nominated him to a lifetime judicial appointment.

Alina Habba slapped with new ethics complaint over pursuit of NJ Democrats

 

[mandrill]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia will remain in jail for at least a few more days while attorneys in the federal smuggling case against him spar over whether prosecutors have the ability to prevent Abrego Garcia’s deportation if he is released to await trial.

The Salvadoran national whose mistaken deportation became a flashpoint in the fight over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies has been in jail since he was returned to the U.S. on June 7, facing two counts of human smuggling.


A federal Judge has ruled that Abrego Garcia has a right to be released and even set specific conditions during a court hearing on Wednesday for him to live with his brother. But Abrego Garcia's attorneys expressed concern that it would lead to his immediate detention and possible deportation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.


U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes also expressed doubts during the hearing about her own power to require anything more than prosecutors using their best efforts to secure the cooperation of ICE.

“I have no reservations about my ability to direct the local U.S. Attorney’s office,” the judge said. “I don’t think I have any authority over ICE.”



Holmes did not say when she would file the release order for Abrego Garcia, but it will not happen before Friday afternoon.

Judge: Government dilemma 'completely of its own making'

Abrego Garcia, who was shackled and wearing a red jumpsuit, was expected to be released Wednesday, if only into ICE custody. But the court hearing revealed instead the competing interests between two federal agencies within the Trump administration.

Acting U.S. Attorney Rob McGuire has said in court and in filings that one of the reasons he wants Abrego Garcia to stay in jail is to ensure that he remains in the country and isn't deported by ICE.

McGuire told the judge during Wednesday's hearing that he would do “the best I can” to secure the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE. But the prosecutor noted, “That’s a separate agency with separate leadership and separate directions. I will coordinate, but I can’t tell them what to do.”

The Canadian Press
Kilmar Abrego Garcia to remain in jail while attorneys debate whether he’ll be deported if released

But Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Sean Hecker, countered that the Department of Justice and Homeland Security are both within the executive branch and seem to cooperate on other things. For example, ICE has agreed not to deport cooperating witnesses who agreed to testify against Abrego Garcia.

Meanwhile, federal prosecutors had tried to stay Holmes' release order. But it was denied by another federal judge on Wednesday afternoon, who wrote that the government was asking the court to “save it from itself” in a situation that was “completely of its own making.”



U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. wrote that federal prosecutors should be making their arguments to DHS, not a court, “because the Department of Justice and DHS can together prevent the harm the Government contends it faces.”

“If the Government finds this case to be as high priority as it argues here, it is incumbent upon it to ensure that Abrego is held accountable for the charges in the Indictment,” Crenshaw wrote. “If the Department of Justice and DHS cannot do so, that speaks for itself.”



Jennifer Vasquez Sura, wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks during a news conference Wednesday, June 25, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/George Walker IV)© The Associated Press
Crenshaw, however, will allow prosecutors to file a brief in support of a motion to revoke the magistrate’s release order. An evidentiary hearing is scheduled for July 16.

In court on wedding anniversary

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador.


Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. At his detention hearing, Homeland Security special agent Peter Joseph testified that he did not begin investigating Abrego Garcia until April of this year.


Holmes, the magistrate judge, wrote in a ruling on Sunday that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community. He has lived for more than a decade in Maryland, where he and his American wife are raising three children.


However, Holmes referred to her own ruling as “little more than an academic exercise,” noting that ICE plans to detain him. It is less clear what will happen after that. Although Abrego Garcia can't be deported to El Salvador — where an immigration judge found he faces a credible threat from gangs — he is still deportable to a third country as long as that country agrees to not send him to El Salvador.



Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, said during a news conference before Wednesday’s hearing that it’s been 106 days since he “was abducted by the Trump administration and separated from our family.” She noted that he has missed family birthdays, graduations and Father’s Day, while “today he misses our wedding anniversary.”

Vasquez Sura said their love, their faith in God and an abundance of community support have helped them persevere.

“Kilmar should never have been taken away from us,” she said. “This fight has been the hardest thing in my life.”

Kilmar Abrego Garcia to remain in jail while attorneys spar whether he’ll be swiftly deported

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

Court Battle Over Billions in Electric Vehicle Infrastructure©unsplash
The fight over America's electric vehicle future just took a dramatic turn in a federal courtroom. U.S.

District Judge Tana Lin in Washington state partially granted a preliminary injunction that sought to free up the money approved under then-President Joe Biden that the Trump administration withheld earlier this year. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia sued over the move, arguing that the administration did not have the authority to block the congressionally approved funds.

This case represents more than just a policy disagreement – it's about who holds the power to control billions of taxpayer dollars. What's shocking is how quickly this program went from a bipartisan success story to a federal lawsuit battleground.

The program was set to allocate $5 billion over five years to various states, of which an estimated $3.3 billion had already been made available. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program wasn't some last-minute political add-on – it came from the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with support from both parties.

Crucially, the money Congress allocated to the NEVI program is not grant money that has to be competed for and won, which would give the executive branch discretion over whether it's awarded or not. Instead, it's what's called "formula funding," which means that Congress allocated it to states based on a calculation.

Each state gets a certain percentage of the total pool, as long as they follow the required steps, including making detailed plans for where they'd put chargers and how. The states played by the rules, got their plans approved, and then suddenly found themselves in court fighting for money they thought was already theirs.

In a memo released Thursday, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) informed state transportation directors that the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program will be under review. The agency said existing contracts will be honored — suggesting some ongoing projects will still receive funding — but that "no new obligations may occur under the NEVI Formula Program" effective immediately.

The timing couldn't have been worse for states already deep into construction projects. In February, the Trump administration halted the NEVI Formula Program, issuing a letter to states that prohibited new projects and cancelled previously-approved state plans for using the funds.

Although $3.27 billion had been allocated to states, only $525 million had been committed to specific projects, leaving $2.75 billion indefinitely frozen.

When we talk about billions, it's easy to lose sight of what this means for individual states. New York, for example, which is part of the lawsuit, has been awarded over $175 million in federal funds from the program, and state officials say $120 million is currently being withheld by the Trump administration.

That's not pocket change – it's enough to build charging stations across entire highway corridors. That holds back about $3 billion that states expected to receive for future construction projects, according to the research firm Atlas Public Policy.

Imagine planning a massive infrastructure project, getting federal approval, signing contracts with builders, and then having the funding yanked away without warning.

Lin ordered that funding be released in 14 of the states, including in Arizona, California and New York. But she denied granting the preliminary injunction for D.C., Minnesota and Vermont, saying that they did not provide enough evidence that they would face "irreparable harm" if the money wasn't immediately freed up.

The legal standard of "irreparable harm" became the deciding factor here – some states could prove they'd suffer immediate damage from the funding freeze, while others couldn't meet that burden. Seventeen attorneys general joined the suit, alleging that the freeze on funds disrupted projects that were underway — and in some cases already under construction — and that the disruptions will get worse if the pause continues.

(Only 14 of those states were granted relief in the injunction; the judge said two states and the District of Columbia did not provide the necessary evidence.) It's a perfect example of how legal technicalities can determine real-world outcomes.

In her ruling, Judge Tana Lin of the Western District of Washington wrote that although these issues of EV charging and policy preferences "lurk in the background of this case, the bedrock doctrines of separation of powers and agency accountability, as enshrined in Constitution and statute, are indifferent to subject matter and blind to personality." This isn't really about electric vehicles at all – it's about whether the executive branch can override Congressional funding decisions. As Lin wrote, the freeze "has pulled the rug out from under them." ...

working through the courts, the dispute centers on the separation of powers between the three branches of government. The judge essentially said that personal politics and policy preferences don't matter when Congress has already spoken with its wallet.

Today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Trump administration violated the law when it froze the billions for NEVI, and that officials should restore the funds for electric vehicle charging stations as authorized by Congress. Today, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Trump administration violated the law when it froze the billions for NEVI, and that officials should restore the funds for electric vehicle charging stations as authorized by Congress.

The GAO, often called the "congressional watchdog," is an independent agency that works for Congress, examining how taxpayer dollars are spent and providing Congress and federal agencies with fact-based information to help government work efficiently. When even the government's own watchdog says you're breaking the law, that's a pretty clear signal that you've overstepped your authority.

So far, 56 stations are up and running as a result of the program, while more than 900 sites in total have been "awarded" to date, according to Loren McDonald, chief analyst at Paren, another research analytics firm. McDonald said several hundred of the awarded sites are currently under construction and expected to open this year.

The program might have been slow to start, but it was finally gaining momentum when the freeze hit. By mid-2024, only eight NEVI-funded charging stations had opened in six states, despite the program kicking off three years earlier.

Many of them ran into the same complex permitting issues that any DC fast-charging project might encounter, but they were perceived as moving too slowly to keep up with EV adoption. Critics had a point about the slow rollout, but stopping the program entirely seemed like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Lin's ruling will take effect in seven days, which gives the Trump administration time to file an appeal and ask an appellate court to block her ruling from taking effect. The court order is a preliminary injunction, not a final decision in the case itself.

The judge also added a seven-day pause before it goes into effect, to allow the administration time to appeal the decision. After seven days, if no appeal has been filed, the Department of Transportation would have to stop withholding funds from the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program and distribute them to the 14 states.

The clock is ticking, and the Trump administration faces a choice: accept defeat or drag this fight into higher courts while billions remain frozen.

Republicans have sought to wind back support for EVs on numerous fronts. California and 10 other states this month filed suit challenging a repeal by Congress of the state's 2035 electric vehicle rules and heavy duty truck requirements.

A bill passed by the U.S. House in May would end a $7,500 tax credit for new EVs and repeal vehicle emissions rules designed to prod automakers into building more EVs.

This lawsuit is just one battle in a much larger war over America's transportation future. He signed an executive order "unleashing American energy" that specifically targeted NEVI funds and called on agencies to freeze funding from the Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure law.

The systematic dismantling of EV support programs suggests this is about more than just one charging network – it's about fundamentally different visions of America's energy future.

"For decades, communities like ours in Alamance County, North Carolina, have been denied access to basic infrastructure," said Omega Wilson, co-director of the West End Revitalization Association. "The NEVI Program offers a real chance to change that — with public investment in EV charging that finally includes rural Black and Brown neighborhoods." Freezing this funding jeopardizes thousands of jobs that went to local builders and contractors in every state.

The NEVI program is slated to create about 160,000 jobs in the U.S. As a result, Trump administration's freeze, states have suspended implementation of their EV charging projects under the national EV program, including pausing their contracting.

Behind all the legal arguments and political posturing are real communities that were counting on these infrastructure investments and real workers whose jobs hung in the balance. The judge's ruling represents a major victory for states that refused to back down when faced with what they saw as federal overreach.

While the legal battle is ongoing, the judge's ruling is an early win for the states and a setback for the Trump administration. Whether this preliminary victory will hold up on appeal remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the fight over America's electric vehicle infrastructure is far from over.

Will the Trump administration continue to push back against Congressional will, or will they recognize that some battles aren't worth fighting?

Judge Orders Trump Administration to Release EV Charger Funds in Federal Lawsuit

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]

 

[mandrill]