Trump wins over groups who challenged anti-DEI orders
Share this @internewscast.com

President Donald Trump observes as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent takes part in a ceremonial swearing-in of Paul Atkins as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, in the Oval Office of the White House on Tuesday, April 22, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).

The Trump administration received a welcome court order on Friday in a case implicating the federal spending freeze and immigrant rights.

In an elaborate minute order, U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss from Washington, D.C., appointed by Barack Obama, articulated substantial skepticism about the fundamental premise of the complaint in the developing case.

On Jan. 31, the plaintiffs, primarily the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, brought a lawsuit against the Department of Justice over a proposal to reduce funding for various “essential legal orientation programs.”

“The DOJ’s decision to shut down these national legal access programs poses a significant threat to the rights of immigrant children, adults, and families, especially those detained by the government,” Amica said in a press release announcing the lawsuit. “These legal orientation programs are crucial, as they provide immigrants — the vast majority of whom are unrepresented, and many of whom are confused and traumatized, do not speak English, and lack any legal education — with essential information about their rights throughout the immigration process and deportation proceedings.”

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

But since then, both motions practice and hearings have largely gone the government’s way in the Washington, D.C. district court. While the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order was denied, their motion for a preliminary injunction remains to be decided.

Friday’s order suggests the court is leaning against enjoining anything.

In late April, the government moved to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim. In their motion, the DOJ argued the case “is about a contract” and, citing recent Supreme Court precedent, that federal courts have no jurisdiction “to order the federal government to ‘pay … money’ under a contract — the very relief that Plaintiffs demand here.”

In essence, the government says the plaintiffs are in the wrong court.

Rather, the government says, the contract nature of the dispute means the litigation is governed by the obscure Tucker Act of 1887. Under this law, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction to rule on “any claim” against the federal government that relies “upon any express or implied contract with the United States.”

On Thursday, the coalition of nonprofits pilloried the Trump administration’s lawyers in a motion in opposition, calling out the defendants for allegedly misunderstanding the thrust of the case.

“From its very first sentence, the Motion rests on the demonstrably false premise that this is a ‘contract’ case involving ‘contract-based claims for monetary relief’ But Defendants cannot point to any part of the amended complaint that alleges breach of contract or seeks monetary damages or retroactive reimbursement,” Amica argues. “That is because Plaintiffs make no such claim.”

The plaintiffs’ language then gets even harsher:

Plaintiffs do not even have a contract with Defendants, let alone a breach of contract claim. Defendants may be right that a different complaint, by different plaintiffs, in a different case, raising claims for monetary damages based on a breach of contract, could be subject to the Tucker Act and could belong within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. But that is not this complaint, and it is not this case.

Share this @internewscast.com
You May Also Like

Shocking Highway Incident: Driver Shoots at Woman During High-Speed Overtake – Police Report

Inset: Christopher Corbi (Newtown Township Police). Background: Kathryn Runner discusses how she…

High-Stakes Trial: Intruder Faces Death Penalty for Shocking Murder of Prominent Lawyer in Her Sleep

The trial for a Kentucky man accused in the murder of a…

Tragic Consequences: Mother’s Anger at Partner Leads to Heartbreaking Infant Loss

Inset: Olivia Munoz (Mathis Police Department). Background: The 900 block of South…

Shocking Bali Villa Murder: Australian Trio Faces Trial – What You Need to Know

The trial is set to commence for three Australian men accused of…

Roommate Dispute Turns Violent with Hot Grease Attack: Police Report

Inset: William Clark (Leon County Sheriff’s Office). Background: The Florida residence where…

Tragic Incident at Bojangles: Man Fatally Stabs Deputy After Allegedly Killing Grandmother, Police Report

Inset left: Dominic Connelly (Craven County Sheriff”s Office). Inset right: Patricia Lopedote…

Tragic Twist: Maine Man Accused of Parents’ Murder Dies Mysteriously in Prison

A tragic chapter came to a sudden end when a Maine man,…

Police Discover Deceased 4-Year-Old in Woman’s Trunk

Share A 36-year-old woman in Georgia faces charges after police discovered the…

DA Reveals Shocking Oversight: 2-Year-Old Goes Missing Under Dad’s Unwatched Care

Background: News footage of the river where Dane Paulsen”s body was found…

Tragic Incident: Father Fatally Attacks Toddler Following Business Setback

Background: The Oregon Health & Science University”s Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland,…

Tragic Loss: 8-Year-Old Fatally Shot Due to Unsecured Firearm, Highlighting Urgent Need for Gun Safety

Share The parents of an eight-year-old Minnesota boy who tragically died in…

Kidnapping and Theft: Man Forces Ex-Girlfriend to Commit Walmart Heist, Say Police

Inset: Harrison Coleman (Androscoggin County Jail). Background: The Walmart where Harrison allegedly…