His name is Pasha!

On Lawfare Daily, @mollyroberts.bsky.social and @katherinepomps.bsky.social discussed Lawfare’s new interactive tracker, which documents instances in which the Trump administration has failed to comply with federal court orders in immigration habeas corpus proceedings.

youtu.be/0Ww1zbVAHP0

The Prosecution of Smartmatic A rare corporate FCPA indictment tests whether courts will more closely interrogate prosecutorial motive.

Following the government's indictment of Smartmatic for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the voting systems vendor has asked a judge to dismiss the case for vindictive or selective prosecution. @mollyroberts.bsky.social evaluates the case & the motion’s likelihood of success.

Three Hundred Habeas Cases in Which the Government Has Defied Court Orders A database of non-compliance with court orders around the country.

What does it look like when the government violates court orders in 300 separate immigration habeas cases?

@katherinepomps.bsky.social and @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org announce a new database which tracks government non-compliance with court orders around the country.

What Is Trump’s ‘Election Integrity’ Order Even Trying to Achieve? It isn’t easy for the executive to impose election requirements, because the Constitution makes it impossible. But that hasn’t stopped the president from trying.

Confused about Trump’s new elections EO? You probably should be! But we tried to clear up the extremely unclear @lawfaremedia.org: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what...

Harmeet Dhillon tweet signing letter. She tried to cover the content of the letter with a cover page

Flipped and enhanced version of the letter indicating title VI investigation into Ohio state university school of medicine

Harmeet Dhillon, head of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, posted a photo of herself signing a document.

The document indicates that she is launching a Title VI investigation into The Ohio State University College of Medicine.

And again, if you love reading an hour and 45 minutes' worth of live tweets of oral argument, please consider supporting Lawfare: givebutter.com/journalism/m...

Lawfare Live: A Hearing on Anthropic's Preliminary Injunction Motion YouTube video by Lawfare

My colleagues and I are about to discuss the case live. Watch here: www.youtube.com/live/v4HrF1y...

Judge Lin says she anticipates making an order in the next few days. Court is adjourned.

What we're asking is not extraordinary at all. Return to status quo at a time where many lawful actions defendants could have taken. Can't engage in unconstitutional retaliation; can't impose secondary boycott for which they've conceded no authority; can't debar for all future contracting.

Actions unlawful, caused immediate/irreparable harm to Anthropic, its rights, partners, business interests in national security sector and beyond. These harms don't just stop at Anthropic: Dozens of amici have explained how they harm the broader public interest. Military experts, industry, etc.

Relief Anthropic is requesting is a reversion to the status quo pre-Feb. 27. So DoD could decide to terminate contracts as well as contracts where Anthropic is a subcontractor, but would have to go through the appropriate procedures.

Anthropic say it's using a different, familiar framework (three-point O'Brien framework). DOJ backtracks about the framework it had claimed Anthropic was using.

Anthropic's turn. Likely to succeed on powerful 1a retaliation claim, APA claim, Due Process claim and separation of powers claim. Detour into a 1a framework DOJ says Anthropic is using, and Anthropic says it isn't using -- and that hasn't been briefed.

Refers to brief for failure to show irreparable harm. Finally, balance of the equities. Again, miltiary authorites get deference. Also Anthropic is both saying the government is can choose not to work with Anthropic and asking the court to tell the government it has to keep working w/ Anthropic.

Now Due Process. Says Anthropic hasn't been deprived of a life, liberty or property interest. Reputation interests aren't enough. And Anthropic can litigate any contract grievance in the Court of Federal Claims.

DOJ now addressing the statutory questions. "Highly deferential standard" on arbitary and capricious action that is "doubled in the national security context." The term "adversary" -- we get a Webster's definition here -- doesn't necessarily mean a foreign state overseas.

That's the second defect, DOJ says, in the 1a claim. Says 3rd defect is government can show it still would have acted the same way absent any retaliatory motive.

When DOJ argues that President Trump's Truth Social post shows the dispute was about the contract negotiations, not speech, Judge Lin notes it's odd the U.S. government is saying a private company "strongarmed" it.

(This is the 1a dispute, obviously.)

Anthropic's refusal to agree to DoD terms is conduct, not speech. Judge says is going to press and bringing attention conduct, not speech? DOJ says that sounds like speech, but the refusal of terms is commercial conduct that isn't inherently expressive.

DOJ: Anthropic wants to tell DoD what it can and can't do with products it purchases. Revealed itself untrustworthy and unreliable in recent negotiations. Hence the president's directive, and the designation.

Now time for remaining arguments. DOJ starts.

Deadline for Anthropic to submit new evidence on contracts is 6 p.m. today. Deadline for government response is 6 p.m. tomorrow.

The government does NOT want this late-arriving evidence to be considered. Judge Lin says the government put in evidence just this morning, which was absolutely fair. So let's get this right rather than stand on ceremony. Will give government opportunity to respond to new evidence.

Anthropic says it named agencies it knew had contractors with Anthropic or used thru third-party provider, as well agencies that indicated they'd terminate use of its product. But it's working on a full/accurate list that it can submit this evening.

Oh, quickly back on the previous question -- Anthropic also said that it it doesn't have any control once its systems have been deployed.

Skipping Question 5 (got the date on the memo in a declaration this morning). Moving on the 6, which is about which agencies use Anthropic's product.

Arguing about terms isn't enough to make you an adversary. Clearly not what Congress was talking about. (Point made along the way: A saboteur isn't going to get into a contracting dispute. They'll accept the terms, then go do the nefarious things.)

"This is a supply chain risk designation in search of a justification or a rationale."