Federal Courts

The erosion of the presumption of regularity presents opportunities to those challenging the Trump administration’s agenda in court.

Trump v. Cook marked a significant break from the traditional judicial deference known as the "presumption of regularity."

Anthropic v. Department of War reveals why courts must distinguish genuine national security judgments from pretextual ones and how to do it.

The D.C. Circuit upheld Navarro's contempt of Congress convictions, holding that executive privilege must be claimed by the president or an official authorized by the president.

After suspending donations to SPLC, major charitable giving platforms must question whether it is prudent to defer to a DOJ that courts no longer trust.

Steps should be taken to strengthen grand juries by giving courts and defense counsel more tools to act as a much-needed check on prosecutors.

A detailed record of federal courts and grand juries rejecting the Trump administration’s use of subpoenas, search warrants, and indictments.

As surely as day follows night, survivors will continue their quest for justice and accountability. The Supreme Court’s decision marks the end of an era, but a new dawn awaits.

A comprehensive study of immigration habeas litigation from the second Trump administration, assessing how courts responded to protect judicial authority and individual rights.

A magistrate judge's review of a search-warrant application may be the last meaningful safeguard against federal interference in an election.

Options for the DC Circuit en banc in these contempt of court proceedings.

The Trump administration's executive order on mail-in voting is unconstitutional. States and Congress—not the President—have authority to regulate federal elections.