By: Dianne Post
April 23rd 2026 | Substack
As an attorney, it is very frustrating when I hear people say, “and nobody is doing anything” when many people are doing many things regarding the attacks on our democracy.
Just Security, a website maintained by students at NYU law school, keeps up to date data on lawsuits against this administration and its violent and illegal actions. Cases are tracked by: State attorneys general as plaintiff or defendant, case status, and every executive order from A to V. Our AZ attorney general is one of those AGs doing a lot of filing – and winning.
The issues tracked are: Civil Liberties and Rights; Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility; Enforcement; Environment; Federalism; Government Grants, Loans, and Assistance; Immigration and Citizenship; International Institutions; Miscellaneous; Removal of Information from Government Websites; Structure of Government/Personnel; Trade Law; and Transparency. Many of the lawyers and scientists working in the various government agencies have already saved the material from the website elsewhere for restoration when this nightmare is over. This isn’t the first time they have seen this. It occurred during the baby Bush term too.
The total number of cases currently tracked on April 15 was 763. The Overall Case Status Snapshot was: Government Action Blocked: 62; Government Action Temporarily Blocked: 131; Government Action Blocked Pending Appeal: 34; Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff: 21; Total Plaintiff Wins: 248.
On the other side: Temporary Block of Government Action Denied: 51; Government Action Not Blocked Pending Appeal: 40; Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 30; Total Government Wins: 121.
Awaiting Court Ruling: 342; Government Action Temporarily Blocked in Part; Temporary Block Denied in Part: 17; Case Closed: 35. The lawyers are doing their job. Of course there is always more that could be done but there is only so much time in a day. Though I did just read that one lawyer charged for 69 hours in one day. (I think he’s going to visit his clients in jail.)
Another source of angst for the public but especially for lawyers and the lower courts is the shadow docket. In general constitutional and supreme court law professors are very negative toward it. It has no structure and makes it clear this is an activist court – exactly the opposite of what Justice Roberts claims.
The orders are of dubious legality but fortunately are slowing down. However, it shows the purely political nature of this court. During the Biden administration, the Supreme Court was pushing power to the court e.g. with use of the major question doctrine and ending the Chevron agency deference. But today, they have reversed strategy to push power to the executive.
A professor I recently heard feels that the court seems to be afraid of this administration and is trying to avoid confrontation because they fear he will simply say I’m not going to follow the law so send your army as President Andrew Johnson did when his attacks on Indigenous people were ruled unconstitutional.
The court has bucked the administration in a few cases e.g. not sending Venezuelans to the prison in El Salvador and tariffs. It seems they will also buck him in the idiotic citizenship case.
But the idea of preventing irreparable harm while a case is going on is being totally ignored so that often the harm is done before the plaintiff wins e.g. the elimination of money to public television and radio. It’s been held unconstitutional, but stations are closed.
The process has no structure because usually no oral arguments are permitted and even if there is a brief, it’s only 15-20 pages for some very complex ideas. The Supreme Cult decisions offer no reasoning so lower courts have nothing to follow and they are not happy. The practice undermines the court as a barrier to overreach and as an institution deserving of legitimacy or respect.
Both Justice Jackson and Sotomayor have blasted the court repeatedly and publicly for this practice. Jackson recently called it “scratch-paper musings” that can “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.” She also referred to it as back-of-the-envelope, first-blush impressions of the merits of the legal issue.
As she correctly said, the President is not harmed when what he wants to do is illegal. When Justice Sotomayer blasted the process at the University of Alabama, she said her colleague “probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” I immediately thought – his maid. But then he doesn’t really know her either.
Justice Jackson pretends to not understand the reason why the court is doing this, but I think she really knows as do we. Roberts agrees with the administration and has been finagling to do this a long time. An April 20 story reported leaked memos from the Court which is extraordinary on its own. No one would ever leak anything from the Supreme Court – until now because it has so debased itself. The leaked memos show that Roberts is very clearly partisan and goal driven not calling “balls and strikes” as he claimed.
When Obama was president and argued that his priorities, like addressing climate change, were thwarted by a certain law or action the court said so what. Now that we have a Republican president, the conservatives on the bench have completely reversed that philosophy. When this administration says his priorities (looting the public) are thwarted, the court says oh let it go on then.
This seriously implicates ethics for both judges and lawyers. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a code of ethics. They were supposed to be the code of ethics. They no longer are. They are just political hacks, bought and paid for.
In Arizona, a group of seven of us lawyers submitted 27 ethics complaints against lawyers who filed frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits after the 2020 election including against the then attorney general Brnovich. We were threatened with lawsuits twice. One for $50 million. Of all the cases of AZ lawyers, only one was disciplined and that was a slap on the wrist. Another was sent to a probable cause hearing, but the state Supreme Court threw it out. One that we did not file at least resulted in the attorney being forced to retire.
Many of the attorneys we filed against were not licensed in AZ and thus the Bar claimed they could not discipline those attorneys which we argued is false. If they are practicing here pro hac vice, then they are subject to our rules. But to make sure no one could use that ridiculous argument again, we petitioned for and got a rule change to say that they can be disciplined here.
Outside of AZ, two groups had better luck. Project 65 filed against Kleinhandler and Mohrman, two of ours, two-years later. Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) filed against Newman (one of ours) and Kurt Olson. LDAD has been very successful in getting some high-level attorneys disbarred like: Cheseboro, Eastmen, Clark, and Giulani. They have ongoing cases against Ensign, Epshteyn, Bove, Paxton, Bondi, Lambert, Passantino, Barr, Cohen, and Flynn. (Not a complete list)
In other states, courts or lawyers have gotten many of those same lawyers disciplined or disbarred. Kaardal was eventually disciplined in MN, Powell lost her license in TX (she of the kracken fame), Miller and Wood both resigned in GA, Ellis was suspended in CO, and the court in Michigan disciplined Powell, Wood, Newman, Haller, Johnson, and Kleinhandler – all people we had filed against here.
So if you think somebody should do something, look in the mirror. What are you doing? You are the only one you can control. You are the only one you are responsible for. You are somebody.
