Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
Judge David W. Dugan (S.D. Ill.) on Wednesday denied Illinois’s motion to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the state, which alleges that the Illinois Bivens Act and Court Access, Safety, and Participation Act (CASPA) violate the Supremacy Clause by controlling the federal government’s operations. The Bivens Act allows individuals subject to civil immigration enforcement to sue for violations of their constitutional rights and CASPA bars civil arrests within 1,000 feet of a courthouse of certain individuals attending or leaving state-court proceedings. (Order.)
The Justice Department suggested in a filing on Tuesday in the prosecution of James Comey that Comey had an “apparent financial incentive to stir up controversy” by posting the seashell photo on social media, as this occurred “just days” before Comey released a new novel. (Response.) (WaPo.) The Justice Department also filed its response on Tuesday to Comey’s motion to dismiss the indictment against him for vindictive and selective prosecution. (Response.)
Mary Comans, the former chief financial officer of FEMA, whom Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff (E.D. Va.) held was unlawfully fired in February 2025, filed proposed findings of fact on Tuesday ahead of a “name-clearing hearing.” The filing states that Comans “did not authorize the payments to New York City” that Trump administration officials referenced in statements describing her firing. (Proposed Findings.) (Order Regarding Findings and Hearing.) (WaPo.)
The Department of Health and Human Services told the New York Times on Wednesday that the administration no longer intends to recruit retiring Defense Department lawyers to provide legal representation to unaccompanied migrant children in immigration proceedings. (NYT.)
A Politico review of over 20,500 decisions in immigration proceedings found that “[j]ust eight judges, six of them appointed by President Donald Trump,” have delivered roughly a third of ICE’s victories in mandatory detention cases. The president’s second-term appointees have ruled for ICE in more than 60 percent of the detention cases they have decided, almost twice the rate of the judges the president appointed during his first term. (Politico.)
Erwin Chemerinsky and Aziz Z. Huq argued that “state and local governments have constitutional and legal powers that can be harnessed as a force to challenge repressive federal actions.” The essay introduces a Just Security series on state responses to federal overreach. (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 the same day.
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.”
National Park Service v. National Trust for Historic Preservation: The government filed an application on August 13 requesting the Supreme Court to stay a district court injunction blocking further construction of the White House ballroom. The National Trust for Historic Preservation filed its response on August 18. The government filed its reply on August 19.