Welcome back to Trump Watch! It took Mitch McConnell about 30 seconds after the end of the impeachment trial to start filing cloture on judicial nominees. You love to see it. Tell me what I missed while I was glued to C-SPAN at [email protected], and follow along on Twitter at @jacq_thomsen for all my non-impeachment content.

A crowd rallies on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court to denounce President Donald Trump's travel ban executive order, on January 30, 2017. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

What You Missed While Congress Was Busy Impeaching

The legal news never stops, and it certainly wasn't going to go on hiatus just because the Senate was holding an impeachment trial. Feel like you've missed some big court news while the president went on trial? Here's a look at some of the headlines that may have fallen off your radar during impeachment.

Fourth Circuit Weighs Trump Travel Ban Case

A panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last week heard arguments over the constitutionality of Trump's ban on travelers from several Muslim-majority countries, nearly three years after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ban in a 5-4 decision.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang last year found that a set of lawsuits, including one from the International Refugee Assistance Project, raised new constitutional issues and could move forward, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the ban.

The Justice Department has asked the appellate court to toss the litigation in light of the Supreme Court's previous decision. The groups behind the lawsuits argue that the current enforcement of the ban was not covered by the justices' opinion.

Adding some new focus to the matter is Trump's recently announced expansion of the ban. DOJ lawyers argued in a letter to the court that the new version of the ban is further evidence the restrictions are not "motivated solely by anti-Muslim animus as opposed to legitimate national-security and foreign-policy objectives."

Arizona Court Reverses Convictions of Volunteers Who Left Supplies for Migrants in Desert

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez last week threw out the convictions of four members of the Unitarian Universalist Church who were found to have violated restrictions at a wildlife refuge by leaving food and water for migrants in a part of the Arizona desert where people have frequently died.

Attorneys for the four volunteers—Natalie Hoffman, Oona Holcomb, Madeline Huse and Zaachila Orozco-McCormick—argued they were shielded from prosecution under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as they were acting in the furtherance of their faith at the time.

Márquez agreed, writing: "Given Defendants' professed beliefs, the concentration of human remains on the [refuge], and the risk of death in that area, it follows that providing aid on the [refuge] was necessary for Defendants to meaningfully exercise their beliefs."

On the legal team for the church members were O'Melveny & Myers' Ephraim McDowell and Jonathan Hacker, as well as Arizona-based attorneys Anne Chapman with Mitchell Stein Carey Chapman; Christopher Dupont with Trautman Dupont; and Louis Fidel with Piccarreta & Davis.

Maryland Judge Blocks Trump Executive Order on Refugee Resettlement

U.S. District Judge Peter Messite issued a preliminary injunction on Jan. 15 in Maryland federal court that temporarily blocks state and local officials from preventing refugees from being resettled in their jurisdictions under a new executive order from Trump.

The Trump order required the officials to agree to having refugees placed in their states, towns or cities before resettlements happen, and GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced shortly after that his state would not accept any refugees. But Messite sided with refugee settlement agencies challenging the order and granted their preliminary injunction.

"Giving states and local governments the power to consent to the resettlement of refugees—which is to say veto power to determine whether refugees will be received in their midst—flies in the face of clear Congressional intent," the judge wrote.

Dem AGs Sue Over New Trump SNAP Rules

D.C., New York City and 14 states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 16 over a Trump administration change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that prevents states from seeking waivers from the program's work requirement for adults.

"The waivers that the rule curtails are critical to ensuring access to food for low-income people who live in areas with limited employment opportunities," the lawsuit reads, alleging that as many as 850,000 Americans could lose their access to "much-needed nutritional assistance."

The case is now before U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl Howell. She has consolidated it with another lawsuit challenging the rule from the D.C. nonprofit Bread for the City and two D.C. residents who receive SNAP assistance.

Groups Sue Over Trump Deportation Policy

A coalition of groups filed a lawsuit in D.C. District Court on Jan. 15 challenging the Trump administration's policy that allows asylum-seekers to be deported to Guatemala and potentially other Central American countries. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan is presiding over the case.

The complaint from the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, and Human Rights First, challenges the "safe third country" agreements with Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador that allows migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. to be sent to those countries.

The lawsuit alleges the policies "unlawfully slam our nation's doors on people fleeing horrific violence and other forms of persecution by denying them the right to apply for asylum in the United States and shipping them to dangerous countries where there is virtually no chance they will find refuge."

A Look Ahead

2/8: The Democrats running in the 2020 presidential race will speak at the first presidential forum focused on the judiciary this campaign season. "Our Rights, Our Courts" will be held in New Hampshire on Saturday, and is sponsored by local civic leaders as well as NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Demand Justice Initiative and the Center for Reproductive Rights. The event starts at 8 a.m., and I'm told a livestream will be available—and if that doesn't sound like a fun way to spend your Saturday, keep an eye out for our coverage.

2/10: Federal prosecutors and Roger Stone's attorneys are set to file their recommendations for Stone's sentence by Monday. Stone, who was found guilty by a jury in November of all seven counts of lying to Congress, impeding a congressional investigation and witness tampering, is facing up to 50 years in prison. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has asked both parties to address whether Stone violated the gag order placed on his case, including during his trial.

2/11: The Senate Judiciary Committee gets back into the swing of things with a nominations hearing at 10 a.m. No word yet on which judicial nominees will be considered at the hearing; Trump announced four more judicial picks on Tuesday, for seats in Illinois and Pennsylvania.

2/13: The House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the courts will hold a hearing titled "Protecting Federal Judiciary Employees from Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Other Workplace Misconduct." The hearing starts at 8:30 a.m.; you can find a livestream here.

What We're Reading

>> Senate Republicans Just Acquitted Trump in the Impeachment Trial. This Is How We Got Here: "The Senate voted largely along party lines Wednesday to acquit President Donald Trump on articles of impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, closing the book on the months-long impeachment inquiry that has dominated both chambers of Congress. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, broke with Republicans to vote to convict Trump for abuse of power, making him the first senator to ever vote to convict a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. However, he voted to acquit the president on the obstruction article." [National Law Journal]

>> Impeachment Is Almost Over. Here Are the Dozens of Lawyers Who Got Involved: "Lawyers from Big Law found themselves sitting in the House basement's secure facilities as their clients served as witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, and some repeated the performance during the public hearings with the House Intelligence Committee. Others were hired to work behind the scenes with lawmakers building the case for impeachment, offering constitutional and legal expertise. Some of those attorneys found themselves in a starring role during the House hearings, questioning witnesses." [National Law Journal]

>> Judge Permanently Blocks Another Trump Immigration Policy: "The validity of nationwide injunctions has never been addressed squarely by the Supreme Court, but some of its members seem itching to do so. In a concurring opinion last month, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas railed against the nationwide orders, saying they were 'sowing chaos.' But [U.S. District Court Judge Loretta] Biggs defended emphatically the propriety of the directives, particularly in immigration-related cases and cases where the plaintiffs have interests across the U.S. 'A geographically piecemeal injunction would … be insufficient to remedy their injuries,' she wrote, adding, 'An injunction which does not extend beyond the named plaintiffs to reach similarly situated individuals could result in the uneven application of immigration policy.'" [Politico]

>> Judge Elizabeth Branch, in a Dissent, Says Citizens Can't Sue States to Enforce Voting Rights Act: "A federal appeals judge nominated by President Donald Trump had a sharp dissent this week challenging the right of individuals and organizations to sue state governments over Voting Rights Act violations. The majority opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit said Judge Elizabeth 'Lisa' Branch's dissent would upend more than 50 years of civil rights litigation by private litigants who sue state governments over discriminatory election practices." [Daily Report]

>> 'Democracy Is Messy': Ex-Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Examines Election Snafus, Trump Twitter: "In a high-ranking role like deputy AG, Rosenstein said, he understood it would be impossible to avoid negative reports and criticism. He said it's wise to avoid watching too much TV or reading comments on Twitter. Caruso then read an audience question about whether President Donald Trump's Twitter account is a threat to the country. 'I don't think it's a danger to the country,' Rosenstein said. 'I do think it's a challenge.' He added that he has a Twitter account, but he doesn't use it much and definitely doesn't use it to 'attack people.'" [New York Law Journal]

>> Michael Bloomberg Spent $700K on Venable, Campaign Disclosure Shows: "Michael R. Bloomberg, the multibillionaire businessman drawing on his personal fortune to bankroll a Democratic bid for the presidency, paid the law firm Venable nearly $700,000 in the final months of 2019 as he made a late entry into the race. Bloomberg, who served from 2002 to 2013 as mayor of New York City, also hired Willkie Farr & Gallagher, spending $75,000 on 'legal consulting,' according to his campaign financial disclosure, his first since entering the race for the White House." [National Law Journal]

>> Justice Clarence Thomas Questions Proposal to Bar Judges From Membership in Ideological Groups: "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned a proposed ethics rule that would discourage federal judges from belonging to the conservative Federalist Society and its liberal counterpart, the American Constitution Society…. 'And now I think they're about to silence the Federalist Society. So I guess I can't come back,' Justice Thomas quipped Friday at Federalist Society convention at Walt Disney World. 'Some of us are fighting back,' responded U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, a former Thomas law clerk who interviewed his former boss before the audience." [Wall Street Journal]

Thanks for reading Trump Watch! We'll be back next week.