The Week Ahead

July 27, 2025

Heading into the coming week, there is a big assortment of cases to pay attention to: cases heading toward appeal, new cases in courts, administrative matters, and even a case not yet filed that we may see this week. Let’s dive right in.

Appeals in the Offing

Trump’s ongoing effort to confuse his base about what’s in the Epstein files involves asking a federal judge to release just a limited bit of them, transcripts of grand jury testimony. Of course, we know that’s barely a sliver of what’s available and unlikely to be the pertinent parts people are interested in, since those transcripts will only involve witness testimony necessary to indict Epstein and Maxwell, not anyone else. It’s the other people that all the fuss is about.

It was also an effort by Trump to shift the focus away from himself, since he knew that the unusual request to release grand jury testimony was likely to get tied up in court, which would permit him to play his usual delay game. That’s just how it’s playing out. A federal judge in the Southern District of Florida correctly ruled that the law in that Circuit did not permit release.

In her order denying Trump’s request, the Judge also closed the matter, which suggests that it is now a final, appealable order that the Trump administration can take to the Eleventh Circuit. For the appellate nerds among us, not any order a judge enters is ripe for appeal—the order must be “final” to be appealable. But what does finality mean?

This issue is similar to one decided by a 2007 per curiam opinion (an opinion of the court, not signed by any one judge) issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Justice Kavanaugh was on the panel in In Re: Grand Jury, which held that a district court order denying a witness access to transcripts of his or her own testimony is appealable as a final decision. To reach that decision, they reviewed older cases where a party wanted access to the grand jury transcripts of the testimony of other witnesses—that’s similar to the situation here, where a party, the government, that already has access, wants to publicly release the transcripts. Supreme Court caselaw holds that “an order denying such third parties access to a transcript ‘disposes of all of the contentions of the parties and terminates a separate proceeding pending before the grand jury court [and] is therefore appealable as a ‘final decision.’” That same analysis would probably apply to this unusual situation, permitting Trump’s Justice Department to appeal. We could see that as early as this week, although they may wait to see how the other two courts, both in the Second Circuit, where the law is a bit more friendly to the request, rule.

Friday night, in two cases, The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities and American Council of Learned Societies, v. McDonald, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York blocked the cancellation of $175 million in National Endowment for the Humanities grants. DOGE terminated the grants in April. A lawsuit filed the following month challenged the terminations of grants to 1,400 recipients under provisions in various executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The Judge ruled that the government had engaged in transparent viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and granted a preliminary injunction against the terminations, but only for parties who had raised the First Amendment argument.

The Judge went out of her way to signal that this was a preliminary injunction that was only temporary, “narrowly tailored to maintain the status quo until we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief. It does nothing more.” It sounds like an appeal was on her mind, and we may see one from the Trump administration this week.

Then there is the maybe-U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Alina Habba, who was replaced by the court in that district by her First Assistant, Desiree Grace, a longtime prosecutor. Last week, Trump's DOJ took steps to try to keep Habba in her role for at least another 210 days as the acting U.S. Attorney, but Grace took to LinkedIn to announce she plans on doing the job the court appointed her to do. This one is likely to show up in court this week as well. The Trump administration is spending more time trying to keep Habba, whose tenure has been a disaster for the office, in place, than it is on law enforcement in New Jersey. The New York Times reported she has “shattered morale inside the U.S. attorney’s office and left many prosecutors looking for a way out.” This administration doesn’t know when to take the loss.

Following the Trump administration’s lawsuit against New York City, claiming its sanctuary city policy is constitutionally impermissible and violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, in a similar lawsuit DOJ filed in Chicago, a federal judge dismissed the Trump administration’s case. That case challenged policies in the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago, and Cook County that limit the powers of state and local police to assist federal law enforcement on immigration-related matters. The Judge ruled that the federal government lacks standing to bring the suit, and although it permits the government to try and amend its case, the Judge’s assessment that a successful lawsuit of this nature would “allow the federal government to commandeer States” doesn’t seem to leave a lot of doubt about how she views the Trump administration’s efforts to bring states and cities to heel. Expect to see this one headed towards appeal sooner, rather than later, as well.

The cases in Illinois and New York are part of a nationwide effort by the administration to knock out sanctuary city policies. There are pending cases against Los Angeles, New York State, Colorado, Illinois, the city of Rochester, New York, and several New Jersey cities, as well.

New Matters

Neiyerver Adrián Leon Rengel, whom the Trump administration deported to El Salvador, where he was held in prison, filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Homeland Security last week, accusing it of wrongful detention. Specifically, the complaint alleges he was wrongfully removed from the United States without cause or due process. Rengel says he has no ties to gangs and wants to clear his name. This is a first step towards filing a lawsuit and one that can be replicated by others who endured similar treatment at the hands of the administration. In other words, a trickle could become a deluge, and if DHS refuses to act, as it almost certainly will, complainants have the right to appeal to federal court.

A former prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida has filed a lawsuit against the government. Mike Gordon was one of the prosecutors in the Capitol Siege Section, which prosecuted Capitol rioters, until he was terminated without any explanation. Career prosecutors have civil service protection against firing in the absence of cause, and Gordon and two other terminated employees are suing the administration. Gordon, a prosecutor with an impeccable reputation, was detailed to D.C. to work on the January 6 cases but had since returned to Florida and was busy working on a variety of cases there when he was fired with no warning.

A Possible New Case to Watch For

The superintendent of schools in Winooski, Vermont, Wilmer Chavarria, was detained and held by CBP as he was returning from a trip to Nicaragua, where he had gone to visit family. Chavarria is a naturalized U.S. citizen. In a letter to the media about the event, he said he was separated from his husband and “subjected to abusive interrogation” and “treated in a manner that is deeply disturbing and unacceptable.” The school district said he was held for more than five hours.

Among Chavarria’s claims:

• He asked whether he was being detained and was told no, but was also told he wasn’t free to leave—legally meaning he was in detention.

• He was told he didn’t have any constitutional rights because he was at a port of entry. While there are fewer rights in this setting, for instance, devices can be searched without obtaining a search warrant in some cases, it is not true that you lose all of your rights at the border.

• Chavarria said the people detaining him “threatened to stain my record so I would never get a job again.” They also threatened him with extended detention if he didn’t give them passwords to files on his devices that included student and school district information.

Chavarria has said he is working with his congressional delegation to get answers, but is nervous about “poking the bear.” Still, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see lawsuits filed on behalf of Chavarria and others experiencing similar treatment at the border. The longer this continues, the more people who are at risk.

---

So, we head into this week with a lot of legal activity on the horizon. The courts continue to be one of the most important barriers to the Trump administration’s full-court press against democracy, slowing and sometimes stopping the assault. Courtrooms are where our futures are taking shape, but given the press of cases, even important decisions don’t always make the headlines. Subscribe to Civil Discourse to stay aware of these cases, their progress, and why they matter, and if you’re able to, please consider a paid subscription. They make it possible for this work to keep going and help it reach everyone who needs it.

We’re in this together,

Joyce

P.S. Have you started reading our first-ever book club selection, 1984, yet? If not, the details are here.