​
Doxing Campaign Expands from Judges
To Include Capitol Police and Lawmakers

     U.S. Capitol police and members of Congress are the latest to get hit with a wave of doxing in which anonymous perpetrators send pizzas to their homes under an assumed name.
     Doxing refers to gathering personal information about someone and using it in a public way intended to shame or intimidate them.
     Until now, judges in seven states have been the primary victims of the doxing. They included Michelle Childs of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
     Each of the judges has presided over lawsuits that had strong political overtones, such as opposing Trump administration policies. In Childs’ case, she participated in a ruling against President Donald Trump’s authority to fire an independent government watchdog.
     Childs has received seven of the pizzas.
     The pizzas often are sent under the name of Daniel Anderl. He was the son of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas.
     He was fatally shot in 2020 at the judge’s home in New Jersey by a disgruntled attorney posing as a delivery driver.
     The pizzas arrive without any notes or other explanation but the message is clear, according to police. It is that this time we’re sending you a pizza but next time it might be something more unpleasant.
     The doxing has continued for at least four months. U.S. Capitol police acknowledge they do not know who is doing it but they intend to find out.
     "These recent pizza deliveries are troubling and yet again, bring to light the heightened threat landscape we are living in," the Capitol Police said in a statement. "Violence and threats, of any kind, targeted at elected officials will not be tolerated.”
     They declined to identify which members of Congress are receiving the pizzas, only that they are both Republicans and Democrats.
     The laws that would be used to prosecute the anonymous senders are sketchy. 
     There are two federal laws that could potentially address doxing: the Interstate Communications Statute and the Interstate Stalking Statute.
     However, they do not specifically mention doxing and they are rarely enforced successfully against it.
     The Interstate Communications Statute only criminalizes explicit threats to kidnap or injure someone. There were no explicit threats with the pizza deliveries.
     The Interstate Stalking Statute is designed primarily to prevent online harassment but is rarely enforced because of the privacy concerns in tracking Internet use.
     Instead, anti-doxing enforcement is left mostly to the states. California and Colorado reportedly have the most effective laws against it.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Supreme Court Gives Trump
More Executive Order Authority

     The Supreme Court last week limited the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions that block controversial executive orders from the president.
     The immediate issue was an executive order from President Donald Trump that ended birthright citizenship, or the right to be an American citizen by virtue of being born in the United States or because at least one parent of a newborn was a U.S. citizen.
     Lower federal courts issued injunctions saying the executive order could not be enforced because it was an unconstitutional violation of the 14th Amendment.
     The Supreme Court disagreed. It said federal courts cannot issue “universal” injunctions that apply nationwide, only injunctions for or against the states, groups or individuals who sue.
     Twenty-two states and the American Civil Liberties Union filed lawsuits to declare Trump’s executive order 14160 unconstitutional when he signed it in January.
     Four federal judges granted injunctions that agreed with the plaintiffs. The Justice Department sued to stop them.
     The Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Justice Department has the effect of expanding Trump’s authority for other executive orders unrelated to birthright citizenship. They have included punishments of major law firms, dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development and closing down most of the U.S. Department of Education.
     In each case, federal judges tried to intervene to stop the executive orders from being enforced. 
     Trump called nationwide injunctions a “grave threat to democracy” during a press conference after the Supreme Court ruling. “This is a very big moment,” he said.
     He denied that the ruling would undermine the authority of the judicial branch of government.
     “It only takes power away from bad judges,” Trump said.
     In overriding the lower courts, the 6-to-3 Supreme Court majority opinion said, “The question before us is whether the government is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the district courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act. The answer to that question is yes.”
     The court’s opinion said it was not deciding whether automatic citizenship for children born in the United States should end, only the constitutionality of Trump’s executive order. It said judges lack authority for “universal injunctions” that apply to people who are not parties to a lawsuit. 
     "Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," the opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett says.
     Birthright citizenship is scheduled for a separate hearing before the Supreme Court in October. The Justice Department is suing to end it.
     “The violent criminals in our country are the priority,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said while standing beside Trump at the White House press conference.
     The Supreme Court’s three liberal judges dissented against greater restrictions on federal judges.
     Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent said the new limit on universal injunctions "disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to nonparties."
     The lead case is Trump et al. v. CASA Inc. et al. in the U.S. Supreme Court.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Bondi Says Justice Dept. on “High Alert”
After Iranian Threats of Reprisal for Bombing

     U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the Justice Department is on “high alert” after U.S. bombings of Iran’s nuclear sites.
     Bondi testified last week during a House Appropriations Committee hearing that Iranians who entered the United States illegally represent a threat of terrorist sleeper cells.
     “Over 1,000 have entered our country, and I can tell you we are on high alert and everyone is looking at that very closely,” Bondi said.
     Bondi is one of several national and local officials who are urging increased vigilance.
     The U.S. Department of Homeland Security warned in an advisory of a "heightened threat environment" after the U.S. bombing of nuclear sites in Iran.
     Its National Terrorism Advisory System said "low-level cyber attacks against U.S. networks by pro-Iranian hacktivists are likely, and cyber actors affiliated with the Iranian government may conduct attacks against U.S. networks."
     In addition, the State Department issued a “Worldwide Caution” against a "potential for demonstrations against U.S. citizens and interests abroad."
     Since the shooting started last month, foreign terrorist organizations have called for attacks against U.S. assets and personnel in the Middle East, according to the Department of Homeland Security.
     An internal U.S. Customs and Border Protection memo said the threat of Iranian-backed sleeper cells in the United States has “never been higher.” It added that “thousands of Iranian nationals have been documented entering the United States illegally and countless more were likely in the known and unknown got-a-ways.”
     The Federal Bureau of Investigation held a conference call with state and local law enforcement agencies to advise them on how to prepare for the heightened risks.
     Locally in Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel E. Bowser said she consulted with federal security officials on best security practices.
     “Together, we are monitoring intelligence and, as always, ask everyone to stay vigilant,” Bowser wrote on X. “If you see something, say something.”
     The security warnings also inflamed partisan politics in Washington over who should be blamed for the heightened risks.
     In one example, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, D-Miss., the ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that “we are at an increased threat level today – and apparently for at least the next three months – because of Donald Trump’s actions in the Middle East.”
     He called for a congressional investigation to review whether Homeland Security and FBI officials are taking adequate measures to protect the United States. He blamed Trump administration efforts to save money by downsizing the government for increasing the nation’s security risks.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

Media Matters Sues Federal Trade Commission
For “Retaliatory” Investigation of its News Report

     A Washington, D.C., media watchdog organization accuses the Federal Trade Commission in a new lawsuit of retaliating against it for reporting about extremist content on social media site X.
     The FTC notified Media Matters in May that it was being investigated for possibly colluding illegally with advertisers by reporting that ads were appearing on X next to pro-Nazi posts.
     X is owned by Elon Musk, who led Trump administration efforts to downsize the federal government in an efficiency move.
     “The Court should put an end to the latest effort by the Trump Administration and Elon Musk’s government allies to punish, intimidate, and harass Media Matters for publishing reporting they do not like,” the lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., says.
     The Media Matters lawsuit continues a struggle between President Donald Trump and media organizations that have criticized his administration.
     Trump also has sued CBS News, shut the Associated Press out of the White House press pool and moved to close down international broadcaster Voice of America.
     Media Matters is a nonprofit with liberal leanings that its founder said was intended to spotlight “conservative misinformation.”
     A 2023 Media Matters report said advertisements for major firms like IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast’s Xfinity were being displayed on X next to user posts containing antisemitic content. It included praise for Adolf Hitler.
     Several large companies suspended their X advertising after the report.
     Before the FTC investigation, the attorneys general of Texas and Missouri started investigating Media Matters while alleging the nonprofit was engaged in fraud for its inaccurate reports.
     In both cases, Media Matters succeeded in blocking the state attorneys general by seeking injunctions that invoked First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
     Like with the lawsuit against the FTC this week, Media Matters argued the attorneys general were abusing their authority by trying to retaliate against the organization.
     “Now the Federal Trade Commission seeks to punish Media Matters for its journalism and speech in exposing matters of substantial public concern,” the group said in its lawsuit. “The campaign of retribution against Media Matters must stop.”
     The FTC demanded that Media Matters hand over communications with other organizations that evaluate misinformation and hate speech. It also is seeking information about lawsuits in which X accused some groups of conspiring in advertiser boycotts.
     Media Matters said the FTC document demands were intended to help Musk fulfill his threats of “a ‘thermonuclear’ lawsuit against Media Matters – and his supporters in government were quick to pile on.”
     X is suing Media Matters for defamation in a lawsuit that continues.
     The FTC investigation is part of a wider effort by the Trump administration to use law enforcement for political reprisal, despite the fact it represents violations of constitutional rights, Media Matters says.
     “The Trump Administration has opened investigations into former officials who were critical of the President,” the lawsuit says. “And it has targeted swaths of civil society deemed to be disloyal: universities, cultural institutions, public radio, and other media outlets.”
     The case is Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, case no.1:25-cv-01959, in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.

D.C. Attorney General Sues Nonprofit
Alleging Misappropriated Grant Money

     The District of Columbia’s attorney general is suing a nonprofit he accuses of misappropriating funds intended under a city contract to prevent gun violence.
     The lawsuit seeks to recover more than $250,000 awarded to Women in H.E.E.L.S. (Healing, Elevation, Empowerment, Love, Support) Inc. for a violence reduction program in the Congress Heights neighborhood.
     The lawsuit blames Ikeia Hardy, the nonprofit’s chief executive, for diverting $57,302 of the grant money to her personal checking account.
     Women in H.E.E.L.S. was awarded up to $814,000 a year in fiscal 2022 and 2023 after a competitive grant process.
     The lawsuit alleges Women in H.E.E.L.S. failed to return the part of the money suspected of being diverted after the attorney general terminated its contract in March 2023. The termination was based on accounting discrepancies the nonprofit could not explain.
     “Nonprofits in particular that are the beneficiaries of public grants are also the beneficiaries of public trust,” said Adam Gitlin, chief of the attorney general’s Antitrust and Nonprofit Enforcement Section, in a statement. “They need to be doing what they are supposed to be doing with public funds.”
     Other allegations in the lawsuit say Women in H.E.E.L.S. violated city regulations by hiring a business for “professional services” that was associated with one of its employees. The organization lost its federal tax-exempt status after failing to file required Internal Revenue Service forms.
     Hardy responded to the allegations in a statement saying, “This is an ongoing legal matter, so I cannot speak in detail at this time. What I can say is that the allegations are misleading. With all the challenges surrounding violence interruption and public safety, I’ve become an easy target. I stand by my work and my integrity, and I look forward to having my day in court to resolve this matter and clear my name."
     The lawsuit is filed in D.C. Superior Court as District of Columbia v. Women in H.E.E.L.S., Inc. and Ikeia Hardy.
     For more information, contact The Legal Forum (www.legal-forum.net) at email: tramstack@gmail.com or phone: 202-479-7240.​