Trump “picked the wrong judge,” dealt BLOCKBUSTER ruling by FURIOUS judge

This is Democracy Watch, Mark. We have. some major news here. You and I have. spoken at length about the voter rolls, the fact that the federal government, Trump's administration, is trying to. gain access to the voter rolls, which. includes information like social. security numbers, for example. You're. litigating this in 23 different states, plus Washington, D.C. We now have a. major update in court at the hands of. federal judge that might throw a wrench. in the entirety of Trump's plans. Can. you explain what just happened in court? Yeah, this is a blockbuster ruling out. of a federal district court in Oregon. You know, as you point out, these. lawsuits have been filed uh all.

throughout the country uh in 24 states, including Washington, D.C. My law firm. and I, we are fighting them in all of. those jurisdictions. And one of those. cases was filed uh in Oregon. And boy, did Donald Trump's D.O.J. pick the wrong. federal judge to wind up in front of. Because this judge didn't just rule. against the Department of Justice. He. hauled everyone into a special hearing. about how the Minnesota letter. Remember. this? The letter that Pam Bondi sent to.

the governor of Minnesota on the day of. the tragic shooting of Alex Preddy to. try to leverage that shooting to gain. access to Minnesota's voter file. Well, the judge, you know, found out about. this and was so incensed he wanted a. hearing, he wanted briefing on it. And. now he has issued his ruling. And he. cites that letter in really an. earth-shattering decision that says, "Quote, the presumption of regularity. that has been previously extended to the. plaintiff that it could be taken at its. word with little doubt about its. intentions and stated purpose no longer.

holds. When plaintiff in this case. conveys assurances that any private and. sensitive data will remain private and. used only for a declared and limited. purpose, it must be thoroughly. scrutinized and squared with its open. and public statements to the contrary.". What that means is that the presumption. of regularity, which is the biggest. weapon that the Department of Justice. have in almost every case. This means. when when they walk into federal. courthouses, judges assume that if you.

are from the Department of Justice, you. are on the up and up, and what you tell. them is true, and if you tell them you. have a good reason for something, you. do. This federal judge is saying that. presumption's gone. That the Department of Justice can no. longer be taken at its word. That it can. no longer assume that in these cases, that when it says it wants these data. for legitimate reasons, that in fact it. wants them for legitimate rather than. illegitimate reasons. And though this is. only the decision of one federal judge. in Oregon, this has the potential to. blow open these cases around the.

country. And Brian, even more than that, you know, maybe this courage by this. judge, this realistic, you know, no. rose-colored glasses uh view by this. judge, will actually affect the way. federal judges in other kinds of cases. where the Department of Justice is. relying on judges to take them at their. word, will will affect those judges as. well. And that's exactly the point I. want to dig into here, because you and I. have spoken for months and months and. months about the presumption of.

regularity, this idea that these judges. will automatically confer goodwill onto. the Department of Justice because the. federal government, one would assume, after decades of them acting in good. faith in court, that that that that when. they come into court, they're telling. the truth. And kind of watching. everything happen at the hands of this. DOJ and this administration, watching. the extent to which they will lie with. abandon, and wondering when we will get. to a point where judges no longer offer. them that goodwill. And so my question. here is is about the impact that this.

will have on other judges. Like, does. there come a point where, you know, there is kind of a global acceptance. that the presumption of regularity. should no longer be given to this DOJ? Is it the kind of thing where it's truly. just one courtroom, you know, one one judge in one courtroom makes. this decision and it has no bearing. whatsoever on other judges. How does it. work and could we get to a point where, you know, all judges kind of do agree. that presumption of regularity should no.

longer be given to the DOJ? Look, I think the way these things. happen, the way the law develops, the. way legal theories develop and the way. in which courts view issues is by one. judge going first and then others. following. And so the reason why this is. such a big deal is because as you say. there are 24 cases that deal with basic. same issue and the fact that one of the. first judges to rule in these cases. found that the presumption of regularity. has been has been rebutted and should no. longer be in effect means that other.

judges considering these same kinds of. cases will read that opinion say, well, you know what? He made some sense there. and maybe I'll follow that. that lead that he has he has led. I'll. follow that breadcrumb. And the problem. for the Department of Justice and the. good news for everyone standing up for. the rule of law against this. administration, whether it's in these. cases or others, is that once you start. to get a number of judges saying it in. these cases, then you'll start to get. judges in other kinds of cases saying, well, look, you know, there are six, seven judges, eight, 10 judges who are.

saying presumption of regularity has. been destroyed in this area, like maybe. we'll now apply that to that my area and. before you know it, one thing leads to. another and momentum builds and that's. the reason why I think the Department of. Justice is going to be freaked out. beyond words about this judge's decision. and I expect we will see appeals. I. think we'll see in you know, the kinds. of inappropriate and sharp statements. that this Department of Justice makes. I. think that there is a total freak out. going on right now in the in the halls.

of Washington D.C. by what what has been. unleashed by Pam Bondi's letter to the. governor of Minnesota. You know, you. were angered by it, I was angered by it, it caused outrage. through the political halls and through. ordinary citizens And now here it is, a. federal judge picking it up and taking. that outrage, putting it in a legal. legal wrapper in a particular case. But. let's see if that spreads like wildfire. because that could be one of the biggest.

blows to this Department of Justice as. it moves forward over the next 3 years. Well, so Mark, my my question here is. going to be. it's your firm that's litigating these. cases again in 24 different. jurisdictions. And so you have you have. agency here. Are you going to be able to. go to other judges and say look what. this judge in Oregon just said. And so. if that judge wasn't willing to confer. the presumption of regularity onto the. Trump administration, you shouldn't. either. And so I want to know if you're. going to be doing that in some of these. other cases where that litigation is.

happening. But first, um a quick note. for everybody watching. Mark and his team are the front lines of. this stuff. They are what's standing. between the federal government, the. Trump administration gaining access to. your private voter data including social. security numbers. It is just them. standing between Trump getting that info. and that info staying at the state level. where it belongs. So a small step that. we can all take to support the. invaluable work that Mark and his team. are doing in the courts is to subscribe. to Democracy Docket. That's the news. outlet Mark founded to focus on. everything voting elections. I use it on. a daily basis. I use it to. prep for this video right here. So.

again, if you're not yet subscribed, I'm. going to put that link right here on the. screen and also in the post description. of this video. Please go ahead and. subscribe. >> Yeah, you can absolutely count on it. that every one of these judges in these. other cases is going to know about this. opinion. And if Pam Bondi has any. question, she could subscribe to. Democracy Docket and she can read all. those files cuz one of the things. Democracy Docket does is it post court. filings. So yeah, the judges in these. other cases are going to be made aware. of it by us. or in some instances by by the states. that are also involved in some of this.

litigation. But you can be sure we're. going to make sure that every judge. knows in these cases. And I would. encourage lawyers, like I said, in other. areas where this presumption is posing. such a big challenge. You know, Brian, I. go all the way back to a video that you. and I did uh a a while ago and I I hope. that people uh maybe take this chance to. go back and watch it uh. and it involved the presumption of. regularity and it involved the some of. the earliest deployments uh in uh Los. Angeles. uh of the National Guard. And as you. recall, you know, Gavin Newsom sued and.

and said there there is no emergency. here. Like there is no there is no. insurrection, there's no emergency, there's no you know, there's nothing out. of control and he wound up losing some. of the early skirmishes in that case. because the judges were saying, "Well, we're kind of bound by whatever the. administration says the facts are." And. you know, and and that's an example of. the presumption of regularity, you know, taking the legal all of these fancy.

legal words aside. It means that, you. know, if Donald Trump tomorrow, which he. has not yet, but if tomorrow he invokes. the Insurrection Act, he's going to say. his Department of Justice will say, "Well, if Donald Trump says there's an. insurrection, you know, you your honor. have to sort of defer to that. You have. to assume that the federal government. knows more than you do about whether. there's an insurrection in some Home. Depot parking lot someplace." And. once that starts to break down, once the. the government no longer gets the. benefit of the doubt as you and I argued.

like like I said going back all the way. to the Los Angeles situation, they. should the judges should have been. looking behind that then. Like they. should not have been giving this. presumption of regularity. I think this. doctrine has to be scrapped in its. entirety to be honest with you. It. shouldn't just be one-off cases. This. this this uh time in history, it is too. dangerous to give Donald Trump's. Department of Justice or any of his. agency lawyers a presumption of good. faith and that they somehow are speaking. on behalf of the American people in a. dispassionate and neutral way. But um. but that but that that that Los Angeles.

thing is a good example of how much. damage this kind of doctrine did in the. past and why I welcome what's happening. now with this Oregon judge. Mark, for. posterity here, and and I had alluded to. the fact that, you know, your law firm. is litigating these cases, you are. what's standing between, you know, private voter data, including social. security numbers, getting to the federal. government and staying at the state. level. Why is this important? Can you. Can you offer up some indication for. people who don't really understand that. they just hear, "Okay, the the federal.

government's trying to get the voter. rolls." Like, I I don't really know what. that means. It's It's It's opaque, purposefully so. Why is it so. significant, um that this information. stay at the state level and not be. exposed to the Trump administration? Yeah, if you have any doubt if the Trump. administration agrees with me that this. is the most important fight right now. for free and fair elections, consider. the fact that they I brought, as as. Brian said, 24 cases uh in uh in states. all around the country. That's the. dedication of a lot of resources. And. also consider the fact that when Alex. Padilla was killed, the one of only.

three demands that were made of the. governor of Minnesota to for the. Department of Justice to restore the. rule of law was the turning over of. these voter files. So, so the reason why. this is so important is because if the. Department of Justice wants to engage in. mass voter suppression, if they want to. kick people off the rolls at scale, I. don't mean a person here, a person. there, I don't mean six people who they. say died or, you know, were erroneously. registered. I mean at scale, like. hundreds of thousands at a time. If they. want to do that, they need the voter. rolls. Why? Because they don't know who.

the people are to kick off the rolls, right? Like, you can't disenfranchise. people unless you know who they are, by. name, by address, by date of birth, by. social security number or partial social. security number, by party registration, right? All of this information at very. granular, individual level, they need to. be able to accomplish the kinds of. things that they have pretty much said. out loud that they're going to try to. accomplish, right? Donald Trump saying, "I want to take over elections." He's. not taking it over to make sure that the. lines are shorter. Uh you know, Steve. Bannon saying, "You know, let's let's.

have ICE surround uh the poles. They're. not surrounding the poles to make sure. the snow is cleared, right? They're. This is all being done with a purpose in. mind and this is this is going to be. like I said, perhaps the biggest legal. fight of a year in which we're going to. have a lot of big legal fights. And. again, that underscores the importance. of the work that you and your team are. doing right now standing in between the. Trump administration getting what they. want from these voter rolls at the state. level. So a small step again we can all. take is to subscribe to Democracy. Docket. I'm going to put that link right.

here on the screen also in the post. description of this video and of course. if you want to see more episodes of. Democracy Watch, that link's on the. screen as well. I'm Brian Tyler Cohen. I'm Marc Elias. This is Democracy Watch. >> [music].