Morning Report

August 25, 2025 — Morning Report

Aug 25, 2025

825 AM TT·825 AM YT

San Fran v. Trump 25-cv-01350

The sanctuary cities case added a lot of new plaintiffs, and the court expanded the injunction to cover them — the government didn't present any objection beyond repeating its original ones. Then the court had to decide whether a specific HUD grant was covered by the injunction. The question: was there enough of a nexus between the grant and the immigration enforcement condition the government was using to withhold it? Answer: no. The grant must be paid. To a lot more plaintiffs now.

San Francisco v. Trump (25-cv-01350) had two developments on Friday, August 22. First: the case has been growing in size as more jurisdictions file to join. A number of new plaintiffs sought inclusion in the existing injunction barring the administration from withholding funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. The government objected, but the court noted that its objection to adding new plaintiffs amounted to simply repeating the same objections it had made to the original injunction. With no new argument to consider, the expansion was granted — the injunction now covers the additional plaintiffs. Second: a specific HUD grant was at issue. Despite the existing injunction, the administration had continued withholding a particular HUD housing grant from covered cities, arguing that it wasn't covered. The court applied a nexus test: is there a sufficient connection between the grant and the immigration enforcement condition the government is using to justify withholding it? If the HUD grant funded traffic lights and the cities passed a law requiring stop signs instead, that might be nexus. But the housing grant and immigration enforcement don't intersect enough — the court found no sufficient nexus and held that the HUD grant was covered by the injunction and must be paid.

Spending Clausenexus test for grant conditionsinjunction expansion to new plaintiffsHUD grantssanctuary city policy

Constitutional question: The Spending Clause doesn't give the executive unlimited power to attach any conditions to any federal grant — the nexus requirement prevents the spending power from becoming a general regulatory power over state and local governments. The HUD grant decision enforces that limit concretely: appropriated housing money cannot be withheld to pressure cities on immigration policy that has no relationship to housing. The case's growth (more plaintiffs joining) is itself constitutionally significant — it documents the breadth of the administration's funding-withholding strategy and the number of governments affected.

F.o.Everglades v. Noem 25-cv-22896

A Trump-built immigration detention facility in the Florida Everglades — "Alligator Alcatraz" — got hit with a new court order. No new detainees. Stop all construction. Remove the fencing blocking Native American tribal access within 60 days. Remove the lights, the extra sewage, the water. And the reason there's no fix-the-study process here? The judge: "There weren't deficiencies in the agency process. There was no process. There were no experts, no evaluations, nothing."

Friends of the Everglades v. Noem (25-cv-22896) is the environmental and tribal rights challenge to "Alligator Alcatraz" — a federal immigration detention facility built on a former airstrip in the Florida Everglades, within the Big Cypress Wildlife Management Area. The judge had issued a TRO against further building a few weeks earlier. Last week, the judge issued a further substantive order. The court had evaluated the environmental impact of the facility and the cultural impact on Native American groups with historic access rights to the land. The government's procedural argument was that when an environmental impact study process is deficient, the proper remedy is to order the government to redo the study correctly. The court rejected this: the problem wasn't a deficient study, it was the absence of any process whatsoever. Direct quote: "There weren't deficiencies in the agency process. There was no process. There were no experts, no evaluations, nothing." Because the government had shown no interest in doing it right in the first place, it didn't get the chance to try again. Result: no new detainees can be housed at the facility. All construction must stop. The government has 60 days to remove fencing that is blocking Native American tribal access, and to remove all supplemental infrastructure — lights, sewage, water additions. Bryan noted that removing sewage and water doesn't necessarily mean the facility will close (people are currently inside), and cautioned against news reporting characterizing it as a shutdown order. He'd heard stories from inside that conditions were not designed with comfort in mind.

NEPAenvironmental impact studycategorical exclusionBig Cypress Wildlife Management AreaNative American historic access rightsTRO → PIno-process finding (vs. deficient-process finding)60-day removal order

Constitutional question: NEPA requirements exist to ensure that the government cannot build large infrastructure projects affecting the environment and cultural resources without first assessing the impact. The facility's construction on land subject to Native American historic access rights adds a constitutional dimension: tribal access rights established by treaty or federal recognition cannot be extinguished by executive action — the fencing order directly violates those rights. The 60-day removal deadline is enforceable as a court order, with contempt exposure for non-compliance.

CM v. Noem 25-cv-23182

The second Alligator Alcatraz case — the one about the people inside rather than the building — had a Fifth Amendment claim about immigration hearings, which got mooted because the government gave people access to a facility in North Miami. But there are remaining claims. And there was a venue fight: the detention facility is in Collier County, which is in a different judicial district from Miami. The federal government won the venue fight. The case moves to the Middle District of Florida.

CM v. Noem (25-cv-23182) is the companion case to F.o.Everglades v. Noem, focused on the rights of people detained inside the Alligator Alcatraz facility rather than the facility's environmental and cultural impact. The case had multiple claims. One was a Fifth Amendment due process claim: detainees were being held without access to immigration proceedings — effectively denied the ability to have their cases heard. That claim became moot when the Trump administration arranged for detainees to have access to a facility in North Miami where their immigration cases could be processed. With due process access provided, that portion of the claim was dismissed as moot. Other claims remained. Those claims triggered a procedural battle over where the case belonged: the case was filed in federal court in Miami (Miami-Dade County runs the airstrip), but the facility is physically located in Collier County, which is in the Middle District of Florida — a different federal judicial district. Bryan found it puzzling that the federal government fought to transfer the case out of Miami, since the Miami judge handling it was a Trump appointee. But the government won: the case will be transferred to the Middle District of Florida and will continue there.

Fifth Amendment due processmootness (access to immigration proceedings granted)venuetransfer to Middle District of Florida

Constitutional question: The Fifth Amendment due process claim was the sharpest constitutional issue in the case: detention without any access to immigration proceedings is a deprivation of liberty without the process the Constitution requires. The government's decision to provide Miami access mooted that specific claim, but it illustrates a pattern across these cases — the government sometimes concedes the minimum required to eliminate the most powerful constitutional claims, leaving narrower or procedurally harder claims to continue. The venue transfer is procedurally significant for plaintiffs: starting over in a new district court (even a Trump-appointed one) resets the procedural posture and costs litigation time.

Harvard v. HHS 25-cv-11048

The Trump administration filed a notice of supplemental authority in the Harvard case on Saturday, citing Justice Barrett's SCOTUS plurality opinion that grant disputes belong in the Court of Federal Claims. The argument: dismiss this case. Two problems: (1) Barrett was the only justice who signed that particular reasoning — it's a plurality opinion and doesn't bind anyone. (2) The Harvard judge had already said this case is more about the First Amendment than money, and COFC doesn't do First Amendment. Bryan: might be spaghetti at the wall, or they're testing the argument for 30 cases at once.

Harvard v. HHS (25-cv-11048) is Harvard University's challenge to the Trump administration's freeze on federal grants to the university — a high-stakes case involving billions in research funding. On Saturday, August 23, the administration filed a notice of supplemental authority: it pointed the court to Justice Barrett's recent SCOTUS plurality opinion in NIH v. APHA, which suggested that cases involving federal grant payment disputes belong in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC), a specialized federal court for money and contract claims against the government, rather than regular district courts. The Trump administration's argument: under that new "authority," the Harvard case should be dismissed — or at minimum, transferred to COFC. Bryan identified two problems with this argument. First: Barrett's opinion that cases should go to COFC was a plurality — only she signed that reasoning. None of the other four justices in the majority shared her specific COFC analysis. A plurality opinion is not binding precedent and doesn't apply to other cases. Trump's lawyers know this. Second: the Harvard judge had already addressed the jurisdictional question and concluded that the Harvard case is more about the First Amendment than about money. The First Amendment claim centers on whether the grant freeze was retaliation for constitutionally protected academic speech and viewpoints. The Court of Federal Claims handles money and contracts — it doesn't adjudicate First Amendment claims. Bryan's read: this is either spaghetti-at-the-wall, or the administration is going to file 30 identical motions in 30 different cases at once and see which one survives. Either way, the Harvard case was an unlikely target for the first test.

Court of Federal Claims jurisdictionplurality vs. majority opinion (precedential value)First Amendment vs. contract claimsnotice of supplemental authorityHarvard federal grant freeze

Constitutional question: The First Amendment claim in Harvard v. HHS is constitutionally significant: if the government can condition or terminate federal research grants based on the viewpoints universities express or the subjects their researchers investigate, it gains a powerful lever over academic freedom. Courts have held that the government cannot use funding as a mechanism to compel or punish speech. The administration's COFC strategy, if it worked, would channel First Amendment claims about funding conditions into a court that has no First Amendment jurisdiction — effectively eliminating judicial review of the constitutional claim by routing it into an incompetent forum. The Harvard judge's pre-emptive First Amendment characterization of the case may be designed precisely to prevent this routing.

← August 22, 2025 — Morning Report August 26, 2025 — Morning Report →