Nate Raymond

A federal judge in Boston removed the last injunction blocking the Trump administration from ending Temporary Protected Status for more than 5,000 Ethiopians in the United States. The decision followed a Supreme Court ruling that limited judicial oversight of TPS terminations and rejected arguments that only the attorney general, rather than the Department of Homeland Security, can end the protections. A separate claim alleging racial or national-origin animus will continue, while immigrant advocates warn that returning Ethiopians face serious humanitarian dangers.

A federal judge temporarily halted a Trump administration policy that would have removed work permits from thousands of asylum seekers and Temporary Protected Status holders. The ruling blocks USCIS from enforcing new restrictions tied to a 2025 law that imposed asylum fees and curtailed employment authorization for TPS recipients from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine. Immigrant rights groups argued the policies were improperly implemented without public notice and applied retroactively. The judge allowed fee collection to continue but barred penalties for nonpayment while the case proceeds.

Amy Coney Barrett faced criticism from Donald Trump and his allies after dissenting in several high‑profile Supreme Court cases, including rulings on mail‑in ballots, tariffs and birthright citizenship. Despite prominent breaks that angered MAGA figures, legal scholars note she has supported conservative positions in most major cases involving Trump or Republican priorities. Appointed in 2020, she has played a significant role in the court’s broader conservative shift, influencing decisions on abortion, affirmative action and gun rights.

Amy Coney Barrett drew criticism from Donald Trump and his allies after breaking with him in rulings on mail ballots, tariffs, and birthright citizenship, despite her overall conservative record. While Trump and key supporters labeled her a turncoat or a disappointment, legal experts noted she still aligns with conservative positions in most major cases, including decisions on immigration, transgender sports bans, gun rights, and voting regulations. Analysts cautioned against interpreting her recent decisions as a shift to the left, emphasizing her continued role within the court's conservative majority.

An appeals court paused a ruling that required national parks to reinstall exhibits on slavery and climate change removed during Donald Trump's administration. The court found the plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm, increasing the government's likelihood of success on appeal. The removed exhibits, including one addressing George Washington’s enslaved workers, had been taken down under an executive order targeting displays considered disparaging of Americans. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley previously ruled the removals unlawfully attempted to alter historical interpretation.

A U.S. appeals court temporarily blocked a district judge’s order requiring the National Park Service to reinstall dozens of exhibits on topics such as slavery and climate change that were removed under Donald Trump’s administration. The panel indicated the government is likely to succeed on appeal, citing insufficient evidence of immediate harm to the plaintiffs. Advocacy groups argue the removals constitute censorship, while the Department of the Interior maintains it supports public engagement with historic sites. The dispute centers on an executive order targeting what Trump characterized as revisionist narratives portraying the United States as inherently racist or oppressive.

A federal appeals court upheld an injunction blocking the Trump administration from firing 19 intelligence officers assigned to DEI initiatives, ruling that the CIA and ODNI violated due process by not offering reassignment or appeal opportunities required under agency regulations. The decision, supported by two Democratic-appointed judges, rejected the rationale behind terminations tied to a 2025 executive order eliminating federal DEI programs. A dissenting judge argued the agencies held broad authority to dismiss employees and urged Supreme Court review.

A federal judge in Boston halted Donald Trump’s executive order seeking tighter mail‑in voting controls, preventing it from taking effect before the November midterm elections. Judge Indira Talwani ruled in favor of Democratic-led states that argued the order unlawfully interfered with state election administration and lacked legal authority. The blocked order would have required federal agencies to compile eligible voter lists, restricted Postal Service ballot deliveries, and directed the Justice Department to prioritize investigations of election officials. States and voting rights groups warned the measure could create confusion and disenfranchise voters.

A federal judge in Boston blocked Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail‑in voting regulations, preventing it from taking effect before the November elections. Judge Indira Talwani ruled that the order unlawfully interfered with state authority over federal election administration. The directive had instructed federal agencies to compile voter eligibility lists, restrict ballot delivery, and prioritize prosecutions of officials issuing ballots to ineligible voters. Twenty‑three states, the District of Columbia, and voting rights groups argued the order would force destabilizing changes and disenfranchise voters. Talwani’s decision contrasts with a Washington judge’s refusal to halt the policy in a related case now under appeal.

A federal appeals court lifted a prior block on the Trump administration’s expansion of fast-track deportations, allowing expedited removal to apply to migrants anywhere in the U.S. who cannot prove two years of continuous residence. The ruling, authored by Judge Justin Walker and joined largely by Judge Neomi Rao, held that the expansion falls within congressional limits and provides sufficient opportunity for migrants to contest removal. Judge Robert Wilkins dissented, arguing the process is inadequate for migrants apprehended inside the country. DHS welcomed the decision, while the advocacy group that challenged the policy did not immediately comment.

A Russian national, Denis Obrezko, was extradited from Thailand to the United States to face charges connected to cyberattacks attributed to the espionage group Void Blizzard. U.S. authorities allege he helped facilitate unauthorized access to American companies’ systems, with the FBI linking him to cryptocurrency transactions used to support the attacks. Void Blizzard, identified by Microsoft as targeting sectors in NATO countries and Ukraine, is believed to have compromised at least 11 U.S. companies. The case is being pursued by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and Thai officials state the extradition followed domestic law and treaty obligations.

A federal judge in Boston invalidated the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee, ruling it an unauthorized tax rather than a permissible penalty under immigration law. The decision followed challenges from Democratic state attorneys general and noted that very few employers had paid the fee. Citing a recent Supreme Court ruling limiting Trump’s emergency powers, the judge concluded the administration lacked authority to impose such a tax. The White House said it expects the ruling to be overturned on appeal, while related lawsuits against the fee continue, including one from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit challenging Boston’s policy limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, ruling the Justice Department lacked standing. The judge noted that even without the ordinance, a state court ruling already prevents Boston police from assisting ICE in civil immigration enforcement. The decision adds to a series of failed challenges against sanctuary policies nationwide.

A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s lawsuit challenging Boston’s ordinance limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, ruling that the Justice Department lacked standing and that the city’s police lack legal authority to act on federal civil detainers. The decision reflects consistent judicial rejection of similar challenges to sanctuary policies and reinforces a 2017 Massachusetts ruling restricting local involvement in civil immigration enforcement. Local officials and advocacy groups supporting Boston’s position welcomed the outcome.

A federal judge in Minnesota ruled that the Department of Justice can use active-duty military lawyers to prosecute civilians, rejecting claims that the practice violates the Posse Comitatus Act or Defense Department regulations. The case involved Paul Johnson, charged with assaulting a border agent during heightened immigration enforcement. Judge Shannon Elkins determined that congressional statutes allow JAG attorneys to serve as special assistant U.S. attorneys, though she acknowledged regulatory violations that she said did not justify removal of the military lawyer. Johnson’s attorney plans to appeal.

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking a Trump administration directive requiring universities to submit evidence that they no longer consider race in admissions. Seventeen Democratic state attorneys challenged the directive, which added new requirements to federal education surveys. The move follows increased scrutiny of The PhD Project, a nonprofit supporting minority doctoral students, after a federal investigation led dozens of universities to end partnerships. The Department of Education argues the program violates Title VI by limiting eligibility based on race. The administration framed the enforcement effort as promoting compliance with federal law and equal opportunity.

A U.S. judge dismissed the case of Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, a Babson College student deported to Honduras after an ICE officer failed to carry out a judicial order preventing her removal. Although the court previously directed the administration to facilitate her return, Lopez Belloza declined to board the arranged flight after learning ICE intended to detain and deport her again. The judge ruled that her refusal eliminated the court’s remaining jurisdiction, noting she could have pursued legal action in Texas had she returned under the court’s protection.

Families of two Trinidadian men killed in a U.S. missile strike on a suspected drug boat near Venezuela have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Boston, alleging unlawful killings carried out under a Trump‑era policy. The case challenges a series of 36 authorized strikes that have caused more than 120 deaths and seeks damages under federal statutes. The Trump administration maintains that the operations complied with international law, while the Center for Constitutional Rights argues they were illegal acts requiring judicial intervention.

Families of two Trinidadian men killed in a U.S. missile strike near Venezuela filed a wrongful death lawsuit arguing the Trump administration’s campaign against suspected drug boats unlawfully targeted civilians. The case challenges the legality of one of dozens of strikes that have killed over 120 people, asserting the victims were not part of any armed conflict and were returning home from work. Filed under maritime and international law, the suit seeks damages and questions whether the operation complied with legal standards. Human rights groups and some members of Congress have also raised concerns over the administration’s justification for treating drug cartels as armed groups.

A federal appeals court ruled that a district judge lacked authority to order the release of Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention, reinstating the Trump administration’s effort to deport him. The Third Circuit panel held that his claims must be raised through a petition for review after a final removal order. Khalil, arrested in March amid pro‑Palestinian campus protests, had previously been released by court order but now faces potential re‑arrest. Authorities acknowledge he committed no crime, but his detention was justified by officials under a rarely used foreign‑policy statute related to antisemitism, a rationale his legal team disputes.

A federal judge ruled that major medical organizations may proceed with their lawsuit challenging vaccine policy changes enacted under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy. The groups argue Kennedy unlawfully restructured the CDC’s immunization advisory panel and directed removal of broad COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, actions they say will reduce vaccination rates. They seek to void all panel votes since the June reorganization, including a decision to end universal hepatitis B vaccination for newborns. After government efforts to dismiss the case were rejected, the plaintiffs plan to seek expedited relief ahead of the panel’s February meeting.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s term includes cases on presidential authority, transgender athlete bans, tariffs, voting rights, conversion therapy, gun restrictions, campaign finance, religious freedom, agency independence, abortion‑related investigations, prisoner rights, death penalty eligibility, and compensation claims involving Cuba. Several cases involve challenges to actions taken under Donald Trump, while others address state laws on guns, LGBT issues, and election districts. Rulings are expected across the term, with some arguments already scheduled and others awaiting dates.

Civil liberties groups representing university faculty and scholars are challenging the Trump administration in federal court over allegations that immigration authorities revoked visas and detained international students engaged in pro‑Palestinian advocacy. The lawsuit argues that the State Department and Homeland Security adopted an unwritten policy targeting non‑citizen students for their political views, violating First Amendment protections. The administration denies the existence of such a policy, asserting deportations are not based on ideology. U.S. District Judge William Young has ordered a full trial to determine whether free speech rights were violated, with potential remedies to follow if the plaintiffs prevail.

A legal dispute before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will determine whether a groom who ended an engagement can reclaim a $70,000 Tiffany ring, potentially prompting changes to state law on engagement rings. The case centers on whether fault should determine ownership, with prior rulings alternating over the issue. Critics argue that current laws are outdated and gender‑biased, while the parties involved support different reforms. The ring remains in escrow while the court evaluates whether Massachusetts should follow a no‑fault return rule or eliminate special legal treatment for engagement rings altogether.

Roger Ver, known as “Bitcoin Jesus,” was arrested in Spain on US charges of mail fraud and tax evasion for allegedly depriving the Internal Revenue Service of $48 million between 2014 and 2017. Prosecutors claim he provided misleading information that undervalued companies holding large bitcoin reserves during his expatriation process after renouncing US citizenship in 2014. Ver later sold company‑owned bitcoins for about $240 million without paying required taxes. The US plans to seek his extradition, while his attorney maintains he relied on professional tax advice and intends to contest the charges.

The U.S. Senate voted 49-47 to elevate federal judge Alison Nathan, who presided over Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex abuse trial, to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Her confirmation was part of a broader effort by the Democratic-led chamber to advance President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees. Nathan, previously appointed to the district court by Barack Obama upon Chuck Schumer’s recommendation, will continue handling her current cases despite the promotion. The decision follows Maxwell’s conviction for aiding Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minors. During her vetting, Republicans questioned Nathan’s positions on compassionate release, immigration, and gun rights. Biden has additional vacancies to fill on the court, where Republican appointees currently hold six of thirteen seats.

A Pennsylvania jury ordered Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary to pay $8 billion in punitive damages to Nicholas Murray, who developed enlarged breasts after taking the antipsychotic drug Risperdal as a minor. The case marked the first in the state allowing punitive damages in a series of related lawsuits after a 2018 ruling permitted application of individual state laws. Johnson & Johnson argued the award was disproportionate and expected to be overturned, while legal experts anticipated a reduction on appeal. Plaintiffs allege the company failed to warn about the risk of gynecomastia and improperly marketed the drug for unapproved pediatric uses.

Testimony in a Boston federal court detailed how Insys Therapeutics executives allegedly bribed doctors, including through inappropriate encounters, to boost prescriptions of the fentanyl spray Subsys, approved only for cancer pain. Former sales representative Holly Brown described sales director Sunrise Lee giving a lap dance to Illinois doctor Paul Madison during efforts to influence his prescribing habits, while prosecutors argued that Insys paid Madison tens of thousands of dollars for sham speaking events. Several Insys executives, including founder John Kapoor, face racketeering conspiracy charges, all of which they deny. Madison, described as running a questionable medical practice, was later convicted on unrelated insurance fraud charges.

A California jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million to Eva Echeverria, who claimed long-term use of the company’s talc-based baby powder caused her terminal ovarian cancer. The verdict, including $347 million in punitive damages, is the largest in ongoing litigation alleging the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risks. Johnson & Johnson plans to appeal, asserting scientific support for the product’s safety. The case is the first of hundreds in California, while previous trials in Missouri have produced significant verdicts but now face jurisdictional challenges following a recent US Supreme Court decision limiting where injury lawsuits can be filed.

A federal judge is considering whether to unseal the FBI search warrant used to access emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Huma Abedin has requested access to the warrant, which she and Weiner were never provided despite procedural rules. The warrant was obtained after James Comey informed Congress of newly discovered emails, drawing renewed attention to the Clinton private server investigation days before the election. Investigators had found the emails during a separate probe into Weiner, but Comey later said they did not change his earlier conclusion that no charges were warranted.

A U.S. federal judge imposed an injunction on Apple after finding the company conspired with major publishers to fix e‑book prices, appointing a monitor to oversee compliance for up to five years. The ruling follows earlier findings that Apple and five publishers sought to disrupt pricing set by Amazon, all publishers having already settled with regulators. The U.S. Justice Department welcomed the decision for protecting competition, while Apple stated it would appeal, maintaining it did not engage in price fixing.