"If you want to enjoin us, enjoin us." Those were the words of Joshua Schopf, a trial attorney in the Justice Department's Civil Division, after a federal judge said she would require the government to provide advance notice before releasing state citizenship lists or activating a portal that gives state election officials access to the lists.
Schopf was defending the administration against a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center challenging the creation and release of those lists. The lists, which are the subject of multiple lawsuits, are almost certain to be riddled with errors. They are a core part of Trump's plan to weaponize data to threaten election officials and disenfranchise voters.
Lawyers do not typically invite federal judges to rule against their clients. And DOJ lawyers are usually among the most straightforward in how they respond to court orders.
So, at first blush, the DOJ lawyer's invitation to grant the relief sought by the privacy group seemed out of place. The judge seemed somewhat taken aback.
But in this instance, the lawyer representing Todd Blanche's DOJ was being intentionally provocative. He appeared to be trying to bait the judge into issuing an injunction, which the DOJ could immediately appeal.
The judge refused to take the bait. "I'm not doing anything to enjoin you," she replied.
This exchange, prompted by a routine request from a federal judge to be kept abreast of developments that could affect the case before her, is a microcosm of what it is like to litigate voting and election cases against the current DOJ.
Civility and respect for judges have been replaced by bravado and not-so-subtle challenges to the courts' authority. Lurking in every case is the question of whether the Trump administration will obey the rulings that go against it.
.png?upscale=true&height=50&upscale=true&name=Bluesky_Logo-grey%20(2).png){kind=logo}
