Please help us improve the Executive Functions Roundup by taking a few minutes to complete this brief survey.
The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday challenging President Trump’s decision to charge Truth Social users a fee of up to $100,000 for early access to certain posts by the president and other government officials on the platform. (Complaint.) (NYT.)
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion on Wednesday concluding that “[c]ertain race- and sex-based programs administered by the National Science Foundation violate the Constitution’s equal-protection guarantee.” (Opinion.)
The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network on Tuesday issued a final rule that “permanently removes the requirement for U.S. companies and U.S. persons to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN under the Corporate Transparency Act.” (Press Release.) (Final Rule.) (NYT.)
ICE plans to purchase “gloves that can deliver electric shocks” for Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement Removal Operations officers and agents. (NYT.) (Notice.)
Joe Lancaster argued that the litigation over the construction of the White House ballroom could “make courts rethink” the deference they typically give the executive branch on national-security matters. (Reason.)
Roger Parloff argued that recent court filings documenting the FBI’s effort to find evidence that James Comey knew “86” meant “to kill” reinforce that the case against Comey is a “shameful and vindictive prosecution, in which high-level Justice Department officials are plowing ahead against all credible evidence to punish an enemy of the president.” (Lawfare.)
Bill Shipley argued that the lawsuits challenging Executive Order 14,399, which concerns mail-in ballots, are “more complicated tha[n] most understand.” (Shipwreckedcrew.)
Yuvraj S. Tuli argued that district court decisions enjoining the executive orders targeting law firms and Anthropic’s designation as a supply chain risk suggest a way to reconcile “an unresolved tension” between Trump v. Hawaii and Department of Commerce v. New York. (Just Security.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Trump v. California: The government filed an application on July 27 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3, arguing that a stay “would allow the federal government to rush out an unprecedented, legally indefensible voter-verification and ballot-interception program.” The government filed a reply on August 4, arguing that the states rest their challenge on “speculation about what impact the Executive Order would have if it were ultimately implemented in violation of federal law.” The government filed a supplemental brief on August 12 to “inform the Court of a recent order in a parallel case” and the states responded.
Alabama v. California: Twelve states filed an application on July 29 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction that blocked federal agencies from implementing certain portions of the president’s March 31 executive order entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The 23 states and the District of Columbia challenging the order filed a consolidated opposition on August 3. The twelve states filed a reply on August 4, arguing that the executive order “imposes zero obligations on the States or public.”