NEWS: Stan Woodward, appearing late to a sentencing in a Jan. 6 case, says he was delayed because special counsel Smith team started asking his client (believed to be Trump aid Will Russell) questions that infringe on executive privilege.
Judge MCFADDEN, who ordered Woodward to explain his belated appearance, said he absolved the attorney of anything improper and was upset with prosecutors who had assured him they would not let the grand jury matter interfere with the sentences set for 2pm today
“Talking about obstructions of official proceedings,” McFadden said sharply. “The government has not acted as I required.”
NOTABLE: Woodward was reluctant to reveal this in open court. McFadden asked him if that was due to grand jury secrecy rules. And Woodward said yes.
McFadden then said he would absolve Woodward of any secrecy requirements so he could explain his belated appearance.
MORE: McFadden has sent a court officer to summon special counsel prosecutors from the grand jury room to his court. (h/t @ryanjreilly)
Lot of bewildered people in this building at the moment.
BTW, this is all happening during the sentencing of Freddie KLEIN, a former state department official who spent a long time in the Lower West Terrace tunnel on Jan. 6.
UPDATE: Thomas WINDOM, prosecutor on Smith’s team, is heading to McFadden’s courtroom.
ANOTHER UPDATE: McFadden is calmly reading his lengthy verdict for Klein and a codefendant while Smith’s prosecutors wait in the front row.
Two tweets above incorrectly described McFadden’s proceeding as a “sentencing.” It’s actually a verdict in a bench trial that occurred last week.
IT’S OVER: Judge McFadden called up Windom for a sealed 6-7 minute bench conference. Windom talked a lot, McFadden talked a lot. Then Windom and one other official left and returned to the grand jury room.
NEW: Bizarre moment at the courthouse today when an irate Judge McFadden ordered special counsel Smith’s prosecutors to leave the grand jury and come into his courtroom to explain why they made Stan Woodward 25 minutes late to a Jan. 6 verdict.
NEWS: The Trump administration has activated a secretive and never-before-used legal process to quickly deport foreign nationals deemed to be “alien terrorists” or their immediate family members.
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court has existed but lain dormant since 1996 until Wednesday, when acting AG Blanche certified a classified submission to the court.
The judge asked for a "more thoughtful" submission by July 22.
Like the FISA court, the ATRC's 5 judges are selected by Chief Justice Roberts.
Judge Boasberg noted the court's existence last year when DHS sought to summarily deport 130 Venezuelan nationals Trump labeled "terrorists" under the Alien Enemies Act. politico.com/news/2026/07/1…
NEW: We've published a massively upgraded table of more than 15,000 rulings in ICE detention cases issued by judges amid President Trump's enforcement surge
Now you can sort by district, by judge, by substance, etc. — and click through to read the rulings politico.com/news/2026/05/1…
The bottom line: The federal judges have ruled more than 13,300 times — the overwhelming majority of the 15,100 rulings — that ICE had detained people in violation of the law or their due process rights.
ALSO NEW: Our latest anaylsis shows that despite the 5th Circuit's Feb. 6 ruling in favor of ICE's mandatory detention policy, judges there have overwhelmingly continued to reject detentions as a violation of detainees' due process rights.
At issue are hundreds of cases in which people have been ordered deported — sometimes after serious criminal offenses ranging form murder to rape to drug trafficking, but whose home countries won't accept them, or who have won protections from torture/persecution. politico.com/news/2026/04/1…
These people have served their criminal sentences but were released — sometimes years, and even decades ago — after ICE was unable to deport them.
The Trump administation has been re-detaining them and claiming to have restarted or reinvigorated deportation efforts, but courts have routinely found this to be predicated on "hope" rather than concrete progress. politico.com/news/2026/04/1…
Judge Kea Riggs, a Trump-appointed judge from Arizona, has ordered ICE provide a bond hearing a man in the United States for 25 years with no criminal record, who is the father of two US citizen kids, one of whom needs a heart transplant. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
We also have what appears to be the first and only ruling so far on the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy in the Northern District of West Virginia. John Bailey, a George W. Bush appointed judge, ordered the release of a man from Georgia. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
'UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY': Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointeee from NY, absolutely thrashes DHS' treatment of a man who came to the US. at age 9 and deemed an abuse/neglect victim, has no criminal record and became a college grad.
NEW: Four federal judges have formed a firewall against ICE in West Virginia — and say they’ll punish state and federal officials if they continue detaining people in ways the court has ruled illegal and unconstitutional.
For weeks, Judges Joseph Goodwin (Clinton), Robert Chambers (Clinton), Thomas Johnston (GWB) and Irene Berger (Obama) have been ordering the release of dozens of detainees ICE and its WV partners have picked up since Jan 1. But they’re not stopping there
They are calling out violations of court orders, sloppy paperwork in detention cases, the destruction of families, the erosion of civil liberties and a climate of fear wrought by masked agents operating on WV’s roadways. Contempt is next, they say. politico.com/news/2026/03/0…
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has struck down President Trump's tariff authority, saying his claim of emergency authority to issue sweeping tariffs to America's trading partners was unlawful. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
Roberts, writing for the majority, says Trump's claim of an emergency to issue unbounded tariffs on whoever he feels like flies in the face of decades of law and practice. supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…
Gorsuch, in his concurrence, worries that granting a president sweeping new powers based on vague delegations from Congress would risk "permanent accretion of power in the hands of one man." supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf…