Lawsuits, legal threats and retaliation

The attempt to prosecute Cassidy Hutchinson has stalled at the grand jury. Axios reports that Washington jurors declined to indict the former White House aide over her January 6 testimony. The effort followed a House Republican referral and a Justice Department investigation.

The Floris–Benavides complaint was dismissed November 2. The full account in Retribution follows the hearings and Faruqui’s ruling.

Judge McFadden deferred his decision on October 30 as DOJ sought a grand-jury indictment. The defense argues that prosecutors missed the statutory indictment deadline. The fuller account follows the hearing and the prospect of additional charges.

The administration’s third attempt to prosecute James Comey in thirteen months begins with a dispute about the way it brought the case. The October 5 criminal information charges unlawful disclosure of national-defense information and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 793. The alleged disclosure dates to October 5, 2016.

Comey’s October 16 motion says Congress required an indictment within ten years. His lawyers argue that prosecutors’ own charging statement cannot substitute for that indictment or stop the limitations clock. DOJ filed its opposition on October 23.

The defense also lays out the earlier investigations: Durham’s recommendation against prosecution in December 2018 and the closure of a Washington inquiry in February 2020. Those decisions make the revival part of a longer record of presidential pressure on a former FBI director. The new filings and Comey’s response video are linked in the full account.

The federal pursuit of suspected noncitizen voters is much wider than the lawsuits in California and Washington. Reuters identified more than 100 subpoenas involving tens of thousands of voters across at least 12 states. At least 44 were grand-jury subpoenas. Most arrived during the past three months.

The investigation draws on public records and interviews with election officials. It places a national enforcement campaign behind the individual state confrontations, as voting is already underway. Follow the demands alongside Trump’s million-dollar reward for election-fraud reports and the disputes over the quality of federal citizenship lists.

Trump’s Justice Department took its California ballot demand all the way to the Supreme Court. On November 2, the justices denied its application for an injunction pending appeal. The rejection followed Judge David Carter’s October 28 ruling and the department’s October 30 appellate setback. The emergency attempt to separate the disputed ballots had failed at every level.

A separate lawsuit filed by OCA and Common Cause challenges DHS and USCIS’s “Unlawful Voter Initiative.” The complaint describes naturalized Americans facing investigations based on outdated records and flawed matching. It seeks to stop the initiative and federal pressure to withhold valid ballots.

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered an investigation into Mary Peltola’s campaign after reporting that it helped recruit a same-name rival to incumbent Dan Sullivan. Trump had demanded Peltola’s prosecution.

The parallel federal attempt to block certification ended in dismissal on November 1. Judge Sharon Gleason found that the government lacked standing to bring the suit. The separate criminal inquiry continues.

The administration’s effort to frighten election workers into setting aside ballots has met a federal restraining order. Judge Trina Thompson barred DOJ and DHS from demanding that officials stop processing ballots solely because the federal government alleged a registered voter was ineligible.

The order also bars prosecution threats tied to those demands. Agencies must tell officials who received the letters that the threats have been enjoined, and DOJ must disclose related warrants, subpoenas and demands for election material to the court.

SEIU, AFSCME, LULAC and the NAACP brought the case. On November 2, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel paused Thompson’s order. Hours later, the court voted to rehear the dispute en banc—a larger panel of its judges—and vacated that stay. The administration lost the permission it had briefly gained to resume the challenged demands as Election Day approached.

Grand-jury subpoenas have reached Los Angeles County’s election office. DOJ has also expanded its Alaska certification lawsuit. These are further steps in the administration’s campaign to contest election procedures before the results arrive.

The California ballot appeal, the Alaska recruitment allegations and the demands for voter records now intersect across separate proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s request to stay the Venezuelan TPS ruling. The next deadline is November 6, when the Supreme Court’s existing stay expires. The immigration account follows what restoration would mean for the people stripped of protection.

Judge Myong Joun dismissed the administration’s admissions-data lawsuit against Harvard on November 2. Before taking the university to court, federal agencies had to follow a process for seeking voluntary compliance. They had not done so. The government can refile after meeting those requirements.

The demand for applicant records runs alongside the separate battle over billions in research grants. Harvard’s resistance has forced both campaigns into court.

Judge Richard Stearns struck the extra functional-impairment test from the administration’s definition of medical frailty. The ruling protects patients covered by Congress’s specified categories from that additional barrier.

Judge David Carter rejected DOJ’s California ballot request on October 28. The department appealed, then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. The justices denied that application November 2. Follow the court record

In Washington state, Secretary of State Steve Hobbs says the federal suspected-noncitizen list includes legitimate citizens and information reaching back to 1994. His office is also challenging the retention of sensitive data for ten years. The dispute follows DOJ’s unsuccessful attempt to obtain the state’s full voter list.

The cases reach election administration at its most consequential point: deciding whose vote enters the count. Trump’s new million-dollar fraud reward supplies another incentive to turn suspicion into a criminal case.