All News PipeLine #2: Presidential Memorandum To The TVA Board Ordering Reduction Of Executive Compensation & 13 New Lawsuits

March 12, 2026

Presidential Memorandum To The TVA Board Ordering Reduction Of Executive Compensation & 13 New Lawsuits

By S.E. Gunn, PhD - All News Pipeline

On March 11, 2026, President Trump issued a Memorandum for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Board of Directors ordering them to implement reasonable compensation limits for all TVA employees.

The accompanying Fact Sheet President Donald J. Trump Promotes Fiscal Responsibility in Compensation Practices at the Tennessee Valley Authority explains that some employees at the TVA were receiving compensation in excess of $1M (including salary, bonuses, incentives, benefits, and other remuneration).

President Trump has issued this memorandum to end excessive executive pay which far exceeds salaries paid elsewhere in the Federal government. For example, the President is paid $400k annually and the highest paid governor in the nation earns around $2354k.

As a reminder, the TVA is a wholly owned corporate agency of the Federal government and must, therefore, use public resources responsibility. It is the stance of the Trump Administration that million plus dollar compensation packages are not safeguarding taxpayer funds and that every dollar spent on compensation is a dollar that is not spent doing the job the TVA has been tasked to do for the people.

The TVA is the largest public power provider in the nation. It provides power to counties in 6 states (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, and Kentucky) in addition to the entirety of the State of Tennessee. It is also the 6th largest power generation facility in the nation.

According to Wikipedia, TVA does not receive taxpayer funding and operates much like a for-profit company. It was created by Congress in 1933 (USC Title 16, Chapter 12A) as part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. The TVA was charged with providing navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, regional planning, and economic development to the Tennessee Valley.

USC 16 § 831b - Officers and employees; wages of laborers and mechanics; application of employees’ compensation provisions requires laborers and mechanics to be paid prevailing rates of wages as determined by the Secretary of Labor. However, there does not seem to be any section that provides for maximum (or even minimum) compensation for executive staff.

The Presidential Memorandum to the TVA Board authorizes the minimum compensation for members of the board (with 6 of 10 positions filled and 2 of those set to expire May 18, 2026) and proposes to limit compensation to executives to be commensurate with other Federal government positions (rather than to public sector executive positions).

I suspect that two things will happen with this order. First, the executives receiving compensation in excess of $500k will look for positions commensurate with their current rate of pay. The other will be those same executives filing a class action lawsuit against the Trump Administration for cutting their compensation.

President Trump's Presidential Actions published in the Federal Register (FR) to date:

244 Executive Orders
130 Proclamations
111 Presidential Orders, Memoranda, Determinations, Permits, and Notices

On March 11, 2026, the FR published EO 14390 Combating Cybercrime, Fraud, and Predatory Schemes Against American Citizens signed March 6, 2026 (discussed in my March 10, 2026 ANP Article).

Due to the globalists war on truth, ANP must depend on reader donations (link) to keep the website active. Anything ANP readers can do to help is greatly appreciated (link).

LAWFARE lawsuit tracker to date:

233 active cases
22 suits filed by the Trump Administration
17 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
1 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
8 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
9 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
6 criminal prosecutions by the DOJ:

Representative McIver,
former FBI Director James Comey, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
former National Security Advisor John Bolton,
(illegal alien) Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ordered released 12/11/2025;
New York AG Letitia A James, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
Congressional candidate Katherine Abughazaleh

Since February 19, 2025, 13 new lawsuits have been filed against the Trump Administration:

A new lawsuit Fresno v. Noem docket # 3:26-cv-01535 filed in District Court, N.D. California on February 20, 2026 about Federal Grant Conditioning where a coalition of cities in California sued the Trump administration over conditions placed on federal grants that require cities to follow certain executive branch policies. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

A declaration that the DHS Grant Conditions are unconstitutional, are not authorized by statute, violate the APA, and are otherwise unlawful;
A declaration that Defendants’ attachment or incorporation of the DHS Grant Conditions to Plaintiffs’ funding is unconstitutional, is not authorized by statute, violates the APA, and is otherwise unlawful;
A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining DHS Defendants from imposing or enforcing the DHS Grant Conditions or any materially similar terms or conditions to any DHS funds received by or awarded to Plaintiffs, directly or indirectly;
A declaration that the FEMA Grant Conditions are unconstitutional, are not authorized by statute, violate the APA, and are otherwise unlawful;
A declaration that Defendants’ attachment or incorporation of the FEMA Grant Conditions to Plaintiffs’ funding is unconstitutional, is not authorized by statute, violates the APA, and is otherwise unlawful;
A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining FEMA Defendants from imposing or enforcing the DHS Grant Conditions or any materially similar terms or conditions to any DHS funds received by or awarded to Plaintiffs, directly or indirectly;
A declaration that the DOI Grant Conditions are unconstitutional, are not authorized by statute, violate the APA, and are otherwise unlawful;
A declaration that Defendants’ attachment or incorporation of the DOI Grant Conditions to Plaintiffs’ funding is unconstitutional, is not authorized by statute, violates the APA, and is otherwise unlawful;
A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining DOI from imposing or enforcing the DOI Grant Conditions or any materially similar terms or conditions to any DOI funds received by or awarded to Plaintiffs, directly or indirectly;
A declaration that the DOJ Grant Conditions are unconstitutional, are not authorized by statute, violate the APA, and are otherwise unlawful;
A declaration that Defendants’ attachment or incorporation of the DOJ Grant Conditions to Plaintiffs’ funding is unconstitutional, is not authorized by statute, violates the APA, and is otherwise unlawful;
A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining DOJ from imposing or enforcing the DOJ Grant Conditions or any materially similar terms or conditions to any DOJ funds received by or awarded to Plaintiffs, directly or indirectly;
An order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 705 that postpones the effective date or any action by any Defendants to adopt, issue, or enforce the challenged Grant Conditions pending conclusion of this litigation; declares the challenged Grant Conditions void and unenforceable with respect to any application, award, agreement or other document executed by Plaintiffs; and declares that the DEI Conditions require compliance with the statutes cited therein as those statutes have been enacted by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary.
An order under 5 U.S.C. § 706 holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating all actions taken by Defendants to: adopt, issue, or implement the challenged Grant Conditions; require, attach, incorporate, implement, or enforce the challenged Grant Conditions at any stage of the grant process, including but not limited to any grant application or grant agreement or subagreement; construe the DEI Conditions to require anything other than compliance with the statutes cited in the DEI Conditions as they have been enacted by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary.
Orders preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from retaliating against any Plaintiff for participating in this lawsuit or taking any adverse action based on any Plaintiffs’ participation in this lawsuit, including but not limited to reducing the amount of a grant award to that Plaintiff or to any state agency through which Plaintiff may receive grant funding; refusing to issue, process, sign, or approve grant applications, grant agreements, or subgrant agreements; and refusing to issue, process, sign, or approve any notice or request for payment, or reducing the amount of such approval or payment;
Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees; and
Grant any other further relief that the Court deems fit and proper.

Congress makes laws; but, Congress makes those laws so broad that it is up to the departments and agencies to create rules, policies, and regulations to bring specification to the law. Congress SHOULD be the ones bring specification; however, if they were to do so, they would probably not be re-elected because many of the rules, policies, and regulations that bring specification to the law Congress makes is not popular with the general public. It seems as though it is the DEI aspect of the Trump Administration's policies with which these cities (Fresno, Santa Clara, Redwood City, Santa Cruz, Beaverton, Corvallis, Hillsboro, Stockton, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara) are taking issue. For some reason, they seem to think that hiring based on DEI is better than hiring on MERIT. Seems to me they are willing to hire substandard people to fill positions rather than selecting those people who meet or exceed requirements necessary to successfully complete the duties of the position for which they are being hired.

A new lawsuit United States v. New Jersey docket # 3:26-cv-01770 filed in District Court, D. New Jersey on February 23, 2026 about Challenge to State Law where the Trump administration challenged New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill's executive order which prevents federal immigration officer from using non-public areas of state owned property as operation bases to enforce civil immigration law. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the challenged Executive Order violates the Supremacy Clause and is therefore invalid;
That this Court issue a permanent injunction that prohibits Defendants as well as their successors, agents, and employees, from enforcing or implementing the challenged Executive Order;
That this Court award the United States its costs and fees in this action; and
That this Court award any other relief it deems just and proper.

States are supposed to follow Federal law, whether or not they agree with the law. There are ways to challenge laws that the states do not agree with as specified in the US Constitution. And, each state has multiple representatives in both houses of Congress, so they can work with their representatives to make changes in the law. Simply declaring that they will not follow a law they do not agree with is absurd and needs to have appropriate consequences. This includes all 'sanctuary' areas because they, too, are violating Federal law.

A new lawsuit Aceituno v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security docket # 3:26-cv-00146 filed in District Court, W.D. North Carolina on February 24, 2026 about Warrantless Immigration Arrests where U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants residing in North Carolina sued the Trump administration over immigration enforcement actions in North Carolina which resulted in plaintiffs being detained without a warrant. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Certify the Warrantless Arrests Class, Removability Subclass, and Escape Risk Subclass as described above, and appoint Mr. Aceituno, Mr. Cuenca, Mr. Arguera Lopez, Mr. Godinez, and Mr. Napoles as class representatives;
Appoint the undersigned counsel as class counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g);
Declare unlawful Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a valid pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of noncitizens as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C);
Declare unlawful Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a valid pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C);
Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a valid pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is in the United States in violation of law or regulation regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of noncitizens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii);
Vacate and set aside Defendants’ policy and practice of making warrantless immigration arrests without a valid pre-arrest, individualized determination of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii);
Issue permanent injunctive relief preventing Defendants from engaging in the conduct described above;
Order Defendants, their subordinates, agents, employees, and all others acting in concert with them to expunge, at a time and in a manner agreed upon with Plaintiffs, all records collected and maintained about Plaintiffs and class members from their unlawful arrests, including any derivative information;
Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorney’s fees; and
Issue any and all other such relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Sanctuary states could stop a lot of this if they would just allow ICE to pick up illegal aliens from local jails. Then, the chances that people would be questioned about their citizenship status would be less likely to happen. But, since sanctuary states will not allow ICE to pick up criminal illegal aliens from local jails, ICE must then use their best judgement when selecting people to pursue. In addition, as we can see from shows like COPS and reports in our local newspapers, law enforcement cannot tell who plans to bolt when approached until it's too late. So, law enforcement, especially ICE working in sanctuary areas, need to assume the person they are approaching will bolt. In addition, one can assume that foreigners living in sanctuary areas are likely to be living in the US illegally by virtue of the fact that they are in a sanctuary jurisdiction. And one more thing, states should NOT be allowed to violate Federal law - and all areas that call themselves 'sanctuaries' are violating Federal law. Those areas should have federal funds withheld until such time as they enforce Federal law.

A new lawsuit Colorado v. United States docket # 1:26-cv-00315 filed in United States Court of Federal Claims on February 25, 2026 about Counterterrorism Grant Cancellations where a coalition of states challenged the Trump administration's cancellation of Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention grants, which funded local violence prevention and counterterrorism efforts. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Awarding money damages to Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined at trial;
Awarding Plaintiffs interest and their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorney’s fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Sanctuary states (Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Hawaii, Michigan, and Rhode Island) are upset because grants for them to target violence and prevent terrorism have been cancelled? Since those states do not comply with Immigration Law (i.e., turn over illegal aliens to ICE), I have to wonder what they've been doing with the money since many terrorists are in our country illegally and therefore, if those states discovered an illegal alien terrorist, they would not turn them over to ICE anyway. So, status quo. Terrorist gets to stay and go on terrorizing due to the policies of those states while the state receives monies to identify said terrorist but then ignore taking any kind of action to remove said terrorist from their state because of their sanctuary policies. In addition, these states are also "soft on crime" having revolving doors within their 'justice' system. Criminals are arrested, then prosecutors reduce the charges, and judges let them back out on the streets with little to no consequences for their criminal actions. I think the Trump Administration is right in pulling the funds that are not working to end terrorism and targeted violence.

A new lawsuit L.C. v. Trump docket # 1:26-cv-00688 filed in District Court, District of Columbia on February 25, 2026 about Specially Designated National Designation where Massimiliano Cali sued the Trump administration over the designation of her wide Francesca Albanese as a Specially Designated National due to her position as the “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967" which she was appointed to by the UNHRC. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Enter a judgment declaring that EO 14203 violates the First Amendment on its face;
Enter a judgment declaring that the designation of Francesca under EO 14203 violates the First Amendment;
Enter a judgment declaring that the designation of Francesca under EO 14203 violates the Fourth Amendment;
Enter a judgment declaring that the designation of Francesca under EO 14203 violates the Fifth Amendment;
Enter a judgment declaring that EO 14203 violates 50 U.S.C. § 1702(b);
Enter a judgment declaring that EO 14203 violates 50 U.S.C. § 1701(b) because the threat the ICC poses to “protected persons” is not a “new” “unusual and extraordinary threat” within the meaning of 50 U.S.C. § 1701(b), and is precluded by more specific Congressional legislation;
Enter a judgment setting aside all agency actions taken under EO 14203 as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right; in excess of statutory authority and limitations; and taken without observance of procedure required by law;
Enter a judgment ordering Defendants to remove Francesca from designation as an SDN;
Enter a judgment enjoining Defendants from commencing or authorizing any prosecution of Max, Francesca, or L.C. under EO 14203 or IEEPA;
Enter a judgment enjoining Defendants from commencing or authorizing any civil enforcement proceeding against Max, Francesca, or L.C. under EO 14203 or IEEPA;
Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and
Order other such relief as this Court deems proper.

This suit puts much emphasis on how the parents "own a home," "lived in the US," "raised a child in the US," "participated in community groups," and "developed professional and academic relationships" while also stating the parents are actually Italian citizens. Since they are NOT US Citizens, they fall under Immigration Law - NOT the US Constitution and Bill of Rights as are afforded to US Citizens. This is also a great example of how a claim of US citizenship should be given simply because the child was born in the US. Both parents, in this case, are Italian citizens. As such, their children should also be considered Italian citizens. In addition, why are foreign nationals allowed to buy property/homes in the US without being citizens of the US?

A new lawsuit Jean A. v. Noem docket # 3:26-cv-30031 filed in District Court, D. Massachusetts on February 27, 2026 about Arrest and Detention of Refugees where lawfully present refugees sued the Department of Homeland Security over a new policy from the Trump administration that subjects individuals admitted to the U.S. as refugees under the INA to arrest and detention. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Declare that the Refugee Rescission Memo and Refugee Detention Memo are contrary to law, regulation, and the Constitution, and also arbitrary and capricious.
Temporarily restrain, preliminarily enjoin and/or stay the Refugee Rescission Memo, Refugee Detention Memo, and Refugee Detention Policy pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a) and (b) and/or 5 U.S.C. § 705 during the pendency of this suit;
Permanently enjoin the Refugee Rescission Memo, Refugee Detention Memo, and Refugee Detention Policy;
Enter an order vacating and setting aside the Refugee Rescission Memo and the Refugee Detention Memo pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706;
Certify the Class and appoint Named Plaintiffs as class representatives and appoint undersigned counsel as class counsel;
Award Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees and costs for this action; and
Award such other and further relief that the Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.

I, like many others, wonder why it is the US that must accept refugees and that we are not allowed to vet them, follow up with them, and insure that they are actually refugees. In addition, once the conditions change in their homeland, said refugees are no longer refugees from a 'bad' regime and can return home. I thought that the UN decreed that refugees had to stop in the first country they enter after leaving their homeland, especially if they speak the same language. Instead, these 'refugees' travel all the way to the US border to enter the US (many of them illegally) with their claims of prosecutions in their home country which cannot be adequately verified. Frankly, there should be no law that says we must accept all refugees (and use taxpayer dollars to house, clothe, feed, educate, and care for them medically).

A new lawsuit Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services docket # 1:26-cv-00132 filed in District Court, D. Rhode Island on March 5, 2026 about New Immigration Policies where a coalition of nonprofits sued the Trump administration over four newly enacted policies by USCIS which have halted all adjurations of asylum requests and immigration benefit and started a reconsideration of its past decisions granting immigration benefits. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Stay the Challenged Policies under 5 U.S.C. § 705 to preserve the status quo for the pendency of this litigation;
Preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing or relying on the Challenged Policies;
Hold unlawful, vacate, and set aside the Challenged Policies under 5 U.S.C. § 706;
Permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing or relying on the Challenged Policies;
Declare that the Challenged Policies are unlawful under the APA and the Constitution;
Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs;
Grant such other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

Of course, the radical judge who gets this case will side with the plaintiffs and the defendants will have to appeal. Policies change all the time for various reasons. New bills are submitted to change policies. New executive orders, memorandums, or other Presidential Documents are enacted to change policies. If these people who are filing these kinds of lawsuits over policy changes were watching what Congress is doing to our US Citizens with changes made to laws, and what government agencies are doing to US Citizens with implementing rules, regulations, and policies supposedly based on the laws constitutionally enacted, we'd be a lot better off. These people are protecting illegal aliens instead of US Citizens and that is unacceptable. Unfortunately, the activist judges are doing much the same.

A new lawsuit Zhaocheng Tan v. Donald Trump docket # 26-1047 filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on March 5, 2026 about Trump/TikTok Deal where the Public Integrity Project sued the Trump administration over the proposed deal that would allow the app to be purchased by allies of the president. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Declare that the extensions, failure to investigate, and approval of the illegal TikTok sale are contrary to law.
Direct the Attorney General to conduct investigations into violations of the law, as required by statute.
Award attorneys’ fees and costs.
Award any such other relief as in law or equity may pertain.

It may be that the Autopen signed this bill into law which would make the law invalid from the start since it was not actually signed by Joe Biden. That said, President Trump's choices were see TikTok shut down or extend the timeframe for its sale. With the millions of TikTok users demanding the continued use of TikTok, President Trump chose to side with the users. President Trump is surrounded by tech people from major corporations. Much of what he has been putting into place requires input from those major tech corporations. Just because a few of them decided to buy into TikTok does not make the sale illegal. Of course, the activist judges in the DC circuit court system will side with the petitioners and the government will have to appeal. Which makes me wonder what stake Zhaocheng Anthony Tan and Garrett Reid have in this issue.

A new lawsuit The Lawfare Institute v. Department of State docket # 1:26-cv-00798 filed in District Court, District of Columbia on March 6, 2026 about FOIA Suit on Case-Zablocki Act where the Lawfare Institute filed a freedom of information act request with the Department of State over the department's refusal to post text and authority information for several significant agreements on foreign policy issues for the Trump administration as required under the Case-Zablocki Act. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Declare unlawful, vacate, and set aside Defendants’ decision not to operate and maintain the international agreements websites required by the amended Case Act, including Defendants’ refusal and failure to post agreement text and accompanying legal authority information;
Order Defendants to post all overdue agreement text and accompanying legal authority information within five business days, and to timely post all covered agreement text and accompanying legal authority information on a forward-going basis within 120 days of the agreement’s effective date;
Award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
Grant such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

FOIAs are a very important part of government transparency and allows citizens to keep track of what their government is doing. Unless the requested materials are classified, government should act with alacrity to produce the requested documents. If the materials are classified, the requester should be notified immediately.

A new lawsuit Coalition for Independent Technology Research v. Rubio docket # 1:26-cv-00815 filed in District Court, District of Columbia on March 9, 2026 about "Censorship" Policy where the Coalition for Independent Technology Research sued the Trump administration over the new policy which targets noncitizens who conduct misinformation and disinformation research or promote certain content moderation policies. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Declare that the Censorship Policy violates the First and Fifth Amendments.
Declare that the Censorship Policy violates the APA, set aside the Policy, and set aside any foreign policy determinations concerning CITR’s members.
Declare that Defendants’ use of threats to subject CITR members to visa denial, visa revocation, detention, and deportation to unconstitutionally suppress their speech based on its content and viewpoint violates the First Amendment, and enjoin
Defendants from continuing to make those threats.
Enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Censorship Policy.
To the extent Defendants rely on the foreign policy provisions as the basis for carrying out the Censorship Policy, declare that the provisions violate the First and Fifth Amendments as applied, and enjoin Defendants from applying them.
Award CITR reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action.
Grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Non-citizens follow Immigration Law. Citizens follow US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Laws established through Constitutional procedures.

A new lawsuit African Communities Together v. Noem docket # 1:26-cv-11201 filed in District Court, D. Massachusetts on March 9, 2026 about TPS Cancellation where non-profit organizations sued the Department of Homeland Security over the cancellation of the termination of Somalia’s temporary protected status designation. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

Declare that the Defendants’ periodic review and resulting termination of Somalia’s TPS designation is unlawful under the APA and unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment;
Declare that the decision to provide only 60 days’ notice before the termination of TPS for Somalia takes effect is unlawful under the APA;
Stay and/or postpone the termination of TPS for Somalia from taking effect or being put into effect, ahead of its March 17, 2026, effective date;
Set aside or otherwise vacate the termination of TPS for Somalia as beyond Defendants’ authority and/or unlawful under the APA;
Under the Fifth Amendment, enjoin and restrain all Defendants, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other persons who are in active concert or participation with any of them, from enforcing the termination of Somalia’s TPS designation; and order Defendants to take all steps necessary to ensure that the TPS designation for Somalia remains in full force and effect unless and until it lawfully expires or is lawfully terminated;
Award Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and any other applicable statute or regulation; and
Award such other and further relief that the Court may deem just, equitable, and proper.

I feel like I am repeating myself here when I say the 'T' in 'TPS' stands for TEMPORARY which means it can be ended at any time. Just because they do not like that the TPS was ended does not give them the right to sue over it! And temporary indicates a "short time" not years.

A new lawsuit Anthropic PBC v. U.S. Department of War docket # 3:26-cv-01996 filed in District Court, N.D. California on March 9, 2026 about Anthopic Listed as Supply Chain Risk where Anthropic sued the Trump administration over the Pentagon listing it as a supply chain risk. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

As to the Secretarial Order:

Declares the Secretarial Order, and the implementing Secretarial Letter, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A);
Declares the Secretarial Order, and the implementing Secretarial Letter, contrary to constitutional right under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B);
Declares the Secretarial Order, and the implementing Secretarial Letter, in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C);
Sets aside and vacates the Secretarial Order, and the implementing Secretarial Letter, in its entirety under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2);
Stays the effective date of the Secretarial Order, and the implementing Secretarial Letter, under 5 U.S.C. § 705 until the conclusion of judicial proceedings in this action.

As to the Presidential Directive:

Declares that the Presidential Directive exceeds the President’s authority and violates the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As to all of the Challenged Actions:

Permanently enjoins Defendants and all their officers, employees, and agents from implementing, applying, or enforcing the Challenged Actions;
Directs Defendants and their agents, employees, and all persons acting under their direction or control to rescind any and all guidance, directives, or communications that have issued relating to the implementation or enforcement of the Challenged Actions, including the Secretarial Letter;
Directs Defendants and their agents, employees, and all persons acting under their direction or control to immediately issue guidance to their officers, staff, employees, contractors, and agents to disregard the Challenged Actions and any implementing directives;
Awards Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as appropriate; and
Grants such further and other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

I am sure Hegseth has a fully detailed explanation (with examples) of why this company was listed as a supply chain risk. The company will discover those reasons when everyone else does - in court, on the public record.

A new lawsuit Maryland v. Lyons docket # 1:26-cv-01024 filed in District Court, D. Maryland on March 10, 2026 about Immigration Detention Conditions where the state of Maryland sued the Trump administration over the immigration detention conditions in the George H. Fallon Federal Building in Baltimore, Maryland. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

declare that Defendant ICE’s February 25, 2026 denial of OAG’s January 30, 2026 request for documents is contrary to law and/or arbitrary and capricious, or, in the alternative, that Defendant ICE’s response has been unreasonably delayed;
set aside ICE’s denial of OAG’s request for documents;
order DHS and ICE to produce the documents requested;
enjoin Defendants DHS and ICE from relying on any bases this Court rejects in any future reconsideration of Plaintiff’s request for documents and any supplemental requests for documents for its Hold Room Investigation without additional explanation;
award Plaintiff their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
grant such other relief as the Court may deem proper

It's a jail (aka detention facility), people, not a country club! Conditions are supposed to be unpleasant to hopefully deter repeating the crime that got them put in the jail in the first place!

For more articles by SE Gunn, click here.

ANP Fundraiser:

‘Dangerous, Derogatory, Harmful, Unreliable!’

Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.

So if you like stories like this, please consider donating to ANP.

All contributions are greatly appreciated and will absolutely be used to keep us in this fight for the future of America.

Thank you and God Bless from Susan here on Earth and Stefan from up above.

PLEASE HELP KEEP ANP ALIVE BY DONATING USING ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS.

One time donations or monthly, via Paypal or Credit Card: