Lawyers for Good Government Responds to D.C. Circuit Granting En Banc Review in Green Bank Litigation

WASHINGTON — Jillian Blanchard, Vice President of Climate Change & Environmental Justice at Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG), issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granting en banc review in litigation challenging the termination of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $20 billion Congressionally authorized clean energy and climate resilience program:

““The D.C. Circuit’s decision to grant en banc review is a major inflection point in the fight for affordable energy, climate resilience, and the rule of law. For months, the administration has tried to dismiss these funds as waste while families across the country are paying record electricity bills and struggling to keep the lights on. ”

“The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund was designed to deliver cheaper, homegrown energy, backup power, and real resilience where it’s needed most — lowering costs for everyday people and strengthening communities before disaster strikes. This funding was built to keep energy bills down for Americans who are already stretched thin and to build critical markets to support these projects.

“Full-court review is relatively rare, and the fact that the court expressly cited L4GG’s amicus brief on behalf of 40 Members of Congress underscores how serious the constitutional and statutory issues are here. Nearly $20 billion lawfully appropriated by Congress is at stake, and this case will determine whether an administration can simply override Congress’s spending decisions by fiat, eroding a basic principle of our democracy.”

# # #

Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) coordinates large-scale pro bono programs and issue advocacy efforts to protect human rights, defend the environment, and ensure equal justice under the law, and has a network of 125,000+ lawyers to assist in its efforts. lawyersforgoodgovernment.org.

Do Human Rights Extend to Transgender Americans?

Written by: Allison Chapman, Civil Rights & Health Equity Project Fellow

–––

At Lawyers for Good Government, we aim to help this country do better by all of its residents – and part of doing that is exposing the ways we are falling short for its most vulnerable groups. From our inception, we have focused our attention on the people that our country’s policies and protections leave out, from immigrants to students of color to abortion-seekers. As our Civil Rights and Health Equity Project Fellow Allison Chapman explains below, transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans are the latest group of people to be excised from our nation’s framework of protections. Freedom of movement is a foundational human right, protected under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As we close out this year’s International Human Rights Day, please be sure to read Allison’s urgent piece on how that right is being curtailed  for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people and share our fact sheet on the current status of rapidly-changing federal policy surrounding our necessary travel documents.

 – Khadijah M. Silver, Supervising Attorney, Civil Rights

–––

Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are the latest in a long list of marginalized people who have had harm inflicted upon them by the federal government. Throughout history, the United States government has “Othered” people it has deemed as abnormal and deviant in contrast to the normative as a way to assert power and control. In their book, The Coercive Power of the Law: Vulnerable Bodies and Boundaries of Perception, authors Riley Clare Valantine & L4GG Civil Rights & Health Equity Legal Fellow Zane McNeill describe normative bodies as “white, cisgender, heterosexual, masculine, and able-bodied among other significant identities.” While the courts have generally recognized that they have a duty to balance the equities to protect vulnerable people groups, as Justice Jackson states in her dissent in Orr v. Trump–the Supreme Court has abdicated this duty.

On January 20th, 2025 mere hours after being sworn in as the 47th President, Trump signed an executive order instructing all federal agencies to use a trans-exclusionary definition of “sex” – defining sex as only male or female and unchangeable. Two days later, the U.S. Department of State issued a new policy prohibiting anyone from getting passports with gender markers that did not align with their sex presumed at birth. This led to transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people being sent passports with incorrect gender markers, the government outright denying passport applications, and in some cases, holding applications and supporting documents preventing folks from traveling.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit challenging this policy on February 2nd, 2025. This led to the district court to block the implementation of this policy for the plaintiffs by issuing a preliminary injunction (PI) on April 18th, 2025. This was later expanded to apply to all people affected by this policy by the District Court through a class certification on June 17th, 2025. This allowed transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people to once again obtain accurate passports. With the class certification and preliminary injunction in place, people rushed to apply for passports knowing their window of opportunity could be limited due to an appeal by the  government.

On September 4th, 2025, the first circuit court of appeals upheld the preliminary injunction, finding that the lower court properly found that the plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed by the policy if it were to take effect, and that the government failed to sufficiently demonstrate that the balance of harms and equities weighed in its favor.

This decision was also appealed to the Supreme Court through the emergency “shadow” docket–which is intended for urgent procedural issues and has been increasingly abused by this administration as a get out of jail free card. On November 6th, 2025, to the dismay of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people the Supreme Court issued a stay on the preliminary injunction–reversing the lower courts block on implementation of the policy on the preliminary injunction.

This ruling immediately caused panic, fear, and confusion to spread across the entire transgender community due to a sworn statement made in a declaration in the District Court case. In this declaration, Ryan Dooley, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Passport Services of the U.S. Department of State stated that “[i]n developing new administrative processes for compliance with the Court Order, the Department preserved the ability to track passport applications by members of the PI Class for later replacement should the Court Order be vacated by a higher court.” This left many in the transgender, nonbinary, and intersex communities concerned that the government could revoke the passports they obtained under the preliminary injunction–between June 17th and November 6th.

While the ACLU has recently asked the government to clarify their intentions now that the Supreme Court has ruled, at time of writing the government has not responded. To add to the confusion, the U.S. Department of State changed their Frequently Asked Questions multiple times waffling back and forth with language suggesting that they could seek to revoke any passport with a X gender marker. This leaves transgender passport holders in limbo with worries their passports could be invalidated while they are traveling over the upcoming holidays. 

This also violates our obligations under international human rights law and United States court precedent. The freedom of movement of American citizens within and outside the U.S. is traditional and supported by Supreme Court decisions. In Kent v. Dulles, the Court said:

[t]he right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.”

Referencing this decision, in United States v. Laub, the court underscored its commitment to the principle, saying “the right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law.” The court's repeated commitment to this principle cannot end simply because it’s inconvenient or falls contrary to the president’s political agenda.

This fundamental right is enshrined in internal human rights law due to the significant, irreparable harm caused by the restriction of movement. Valentine & McNeill argue that “once rights-bearing creatures no longer have rights, or have those rights challenged, what is being challenged is our very personhood.” The refusal to issue an accurate passport to a transgender, nonbinary, or intersex person not only erodes the fundamental right to movement enjoyed by all passport holders–but is an attack that is embodied and carried by all whose rights have been contested. 

This trauma is especially apparent in the transgender and nonbinary community–as they have become more visible so have the attacks on their rights. “For the entirety of the trans community, it really has become a matter of survival, and that survival has been incredibly difficult,” Alejendra Caraballo, a transgender activist and civil rights attorney, said in an interview with PBS New Hour. After years of attacks on their personhood and the difficulty to simply survive, transgender people are beginning to flee the United States. While the number leaving the United States is unknown, within the United States an estimated 130,000 to 260,000 transgender people have already relocated due to anti-transgender legislation within their state. 

Despite our government’s rejection of personhood, it is critical that transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people obtain access to identity documents that allow them to travel regardless–as fleeing may become a necessity for many. Please read and share our fact sheet with those affected or those who represent those who are affected by this ruling. At Lawyers for Good Government, we have created a fact sheet to provide clarity regarding this complicated issue. We encourage you to share this fact sheet with your colleagues and friends. We additionally provide the Policy Resource Hub for Transgender Rights with information regarding the current laws affecting transgender and nonbinary rights in all 56 states and territories, with updates daily. Additionally, lawyers can volunteer with us to help defend the rights of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people along with defending the rule of law.

How Attorneys Can Help Combat Pregnancy Criminalization

Written by Zane McNeill, Civil Rights & Health Equity Legal Fellow 

A South Carolina bill that would have created one of the nation’s most extreme abortion bans has failed to advance in the state Senate. If passed, the bill would have outlawed nearly all abortion care, removed exceptions for rape, incest, and fatal fetal anomalies, and imposed prison sentences of up to 30 years on anyone who obtains or assists with an abortion, including the pregnant person. Although abortion-rights advocates rightfully celebrated the blocking of SB 323, legal scholars point out that pregnant people in the state already face scrutiny and even criminalization for pregnancy loss, despite the fact that abortion itself is not formally criminalized. “[W]e know that the people of South Carolina have long been subjected to criminalization related to their pregnancy or pregnancy outcome,” the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) wrote in its written testimony opposing SB 323.

In fact, just before the bill’s hearing, a 20-year-old woman was charged with attempted murder for allegedly attempting to terminate her pregnancy. Her arrest is just the most recent incident in the long history of South Carolina engaging in pregnancy criminalization, a term for when a pregnant person is arrested for pregnancy-related reasons, or has bail, sentencing, or probation conditions made stricter because they become pregnant after being charged with an unrelated offense. The state was an early adopter of policies prosecuting people who tested positive for drugs while seeking prenatal care or giving birth, a practice that disproportionately targets Black women. Additionally, well before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, more than 100 women in South Carolina had already faced criminal charges related to conduct during pregnancy or their pregnancy outcomes. 

While South Carolina currently ranks as the third most aggressive state in prosecuting pregnant people, with prosecutors initiating 62 cases in the state from 2022-2024, pregnancy criminalization is an issue nationwide. According to the reproductive advocacy group Pregnancy Justice, in the first two years after Dobbs, prosecutors in 16 states brought at least 412 cases against pregnant people for actions connected to pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or childbirth. 

After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, scholars and advocates warned that police might use period-tracking apps and other digital tools to surveil and criminalize pregnant people. While this certainly remains a concern, research shows that arrests and prosecutions usually start with tips from people the pregnant person trusts—family members, friends, social workers, or healthcare providers. 

In fact, 39% of cases involving investigations or arrests for self-managed abortions, or assisting someone with one, were initiated by healthcare provider reports. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) strongly opposes pregnancy criminalization and has released a statement reminding clinicians that they “have an obligation to both understand the legal environment in which they practice and how laws in various states affect care and to protect patient autonomy and confidentiality and the integrity of the patient-clinician relationship.”

Many such incidents stem from misunderstandings about mandatory reporting requirements and how reporting may violate state and federal privacy laws that are designed to protect patient autonomy, confidentiality, and the integrity of the patient–clinician relationship. Thus, ACOG has called on “[p]rofessional and legal advocacy organizations [to] work to make resources available to health care professionals to help them navigate these complexities.”

While the delay of SB 323 offers only temporary relief and does not erase South Carolina’s history of criminalizing pregnancy, legal advocacy groups are meeting this call by working to push back against the broader national trend of punishing pregnancy. At Lawyers for Good Government, we support providers by publishing a biweekly reproductive-news digest and update a hub with every state’s abortion laws daily. We also work with healthcare systems to help them better understand how to provide care in restrictive states while still staying legally safe. Individual attorneys also have a role to play in combating pregnancy criminalization–prosecutors can refuse to misuse criminal statutes to prosecute pregnancy loss, defense attorneys can defend clients against cases of pregnancy criminalization, and every lawyer can volunteer their time and expertise to safeguard reproductive freedom. 

FEMA Whistleblowers Reinstated

FEMA retaliated against employees who signed a letter of dissent, the Katrina Declaration;  after whistleblower complaints were filed, the reprisals ended 

WASHINGTON—Today, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) employees who  were illegally terminated or placed on administrative leave for exercising their First  Amendment and whistleblower rights returned to work. On August 25, 2025, the  employees sent a dissent letter to Congress -- The FEMA Katrina Declaration -- protesting  gross waste and mismanagement, abuses of authority, dangers to public health and  safety, and violations of laws, rules and regulations by Agency management.  

The next day, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put the public signers on  indefinite administrative leave, ordered them to cease all work and not contact anyone at  FEMA and DHS. FEMA’s Office of Professional Responsibility then began retaliatory  investigations of the public signers. The employees acknowledged they had in fact signed  the Declaration following which the Agency terminated an employee on the sole charge  that signing the declaration was “Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Employee.” According to  the Specification supporting the charge, the Declaration: 

[I]ncluded multiple disparaging comments and allegations directed at the Federal  Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the  current Administration, and its members, which undermined the Agency’s goals  and mission. 

During this time, the public signers filed whistleblower complaints with the U.S. Office of  Special Counsel (OSC). They were assisted by Government Accountability Project, in  partnership with Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) and Stand Up for Science (SUFS),  and pro bono counsel Brandy Mai (brandy@bmailawyer.com), Andrew D. Rotstein  (andrew.d.rotstein@gmail.com) and Joshua R. Cohen and Ellen R. Kramer  (jcohen@crklaw.com). 

Today, the employees returned to work after FEMA ceased retaliating. According to FEMA  management:

Although the [Report oof Investigation] substantiated the employee’s involvement  with the so-called Katrina Declaration, FEMA’s legal counsel has advised that the  employee’s actions are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act (5 U.S.C.  § 2302(b)(8)) and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These protections  ensure that employees can disclose information related to misconduct, abuse, or  violations of law without fear of retaliation, provided the disclosure is made in good  faith and aligns with statutory protections. As a result, my recommendation is that  this matter be closed with no disciplinary action. 

David Z. Seide, Senior Counsel at Government Accountability Project, said: 

FEMA did the right thing. This case is important precedent. It reaffirms what should  be obvious: it is unlawful to retaliate against federal employees who exercise their  free speech and whistleblower rights by publicly dissenting against agency policies,  especially those that place lives in danger. 

Amy Powell, Litigation Director of Lawyers for Good Government, said: 

Lawyers for Good Government and our volunteers are proud to stand with the FEMA  whistleblowers. All of our clients who were placed on administrative leave have now  been fully reinstated, but reinstatement is just the first step. These public servants  fulfilled their legal and moral obligation by exposing serious threats to public safety,  and future whistleblowers deserve protection, not punishment. We urge both FEMA  and Congress to take their warnings seriously and begin the critical work of reform,  ensuring accountability for the failures they exposed. 

Colette Delawalla, Founder and Executive Director of Stand Up for Science, said: 

Our team at Stand Up for Science is pleased to see all Katrina Declaration signers  reinstated. We are proud of these public servants for speaking up and continue to  rally behind all who desire to use their First Amendment rights and whistleblower protections to call attention to the harms this Administration’s policies are causing  for the American public.

We share the following statement from the Katrina  Declaration Signers:  

We’re thrilled that our coworkers have been reinstated and are back to  serving the American people. These actions reaffirm what we’ve said all  along: these employees did nothing wrong. Their retaliation was part of a  broader pattern that also targeted employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, The United States Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of  Health. We call for every one of those workers be reinstated immediately. 

The retaliation was a wasteful and costly political stunt, and the concerns we  raised in the Katrina Declaration remain unresolved. Programs are still  stalled, funding remains frozen, and our ability to respond to disasters  continues to be weakened. As we work toward real solutions, it’s critical that  leaders listen to the people who know this work best, the experts and  professionals who understand what it takes to build a stronger FEMA. We  urge Congress to advance the FEMA Act now so the agency can restore stability, uphold its legal obligations, and protect communities effectively.  The work ahead is significant, and we will continue to stand up and speak out  for disaster survivors everywhere. 

L4GG Launches Court of Federal Claims Clinic to Support Organizations Harmed by Unlawful EPA Grant Terminations

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) today announced the launch of a new Court of Federal Claims (COFC) Clinic designed to support nonprofits, Tribes, local governments, and community organizations whose environmental and climate justice grants were unlawfully terminated by federal agencies this year. The Clinic is launching in partnership with the Environmental Protection Network (EPN), to help onboard grantees seeking assistance.

While grantees’ continue to assert constitutional claims that would restore funding nationwide, hundreds of communities have been left in limbo. Recent court decisions have pushed grantees toward the slower, more burdensome Court of Federal Claims, where each organization must file individually, secure legal counsel, and shoulder costs that many cannot afford.

““This entire process is designed to make people walk away, but L4GG’s Court of Federal Claims Clinic aims to stop this strategy of divide and exhaust from succeeding. If the government breaks a binding grant agreement, the law still provides a remedy, and we are here to help grantees pursue it.”

”Forcing hundreds of under-resourced organizations into one-by-one lawsuits is not justice. These communities were promised and constitutionally obligated funding by Congress to protect themselves from pollution, storms, and public health threats. Our clinic ensures they won’t be abandoned or bullied into submission just because the administration wants these programs to disappear.””

— Jillian Blanchard, Vice President of Climate Change & Environmental Justice at L4GG.

The COFC Clinic offers two forms of  support:

• Remote Pro Bono Clinic: L4GG and volunteer attorneys will help terminated grantees prepare their claims for filing, including reviewing documents, assessing damages, developing legal strategy, and drafting complaints.

• Coordinated Pro Bono/Low Bono Representation in COFC: L4GG will match grantees with trained attorneys prepared to litigate COFC cases, ensuring organizations receive high-quality representation without draining limited budgets already strained by termination of their grants.

Under the administration’s approach, grantees cannot seek reinstatement of their programs in the Court of Federal Claims. COFC provides monetary damages only, creating an enormous barrier to justice, forcing communities to absorb the cost and time to litigate individually, and pressuring smaller organizations to give up entirely. L4GG’s COFC Clinic ensures they have the tools, representation, and support needed to fight back. 

Hundreds of organizations across the country continue to confront flooding, wildfire risk, toxic air pollution, failing infrastructure, and rising energy costs—problems their grants were designed to address. Many have already experienced direct harm, including layoffs, lost contracts, stalled community projects, and worsening climate impacts.

If you are interested in learning more about L4GG’s COFC Clinic, or potentially talking with any of the more than 50 communities that have already signed up for assistance, we’d be happy to help arrange an interview.

# # #

Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) is a nonprofit organization that harnesses the power of 125,000 lawyers, law students, and advocates in the fight for justice. We identify where lawyers can make the greatest impact and mobilize them to defend democracy and the rule of law, protect civil and human rights, and advance environmental justice through coordinated legal action and advocacy efforts that create meaningful change for all Americans.

Launching Project Corazon’s Next Chapter: Standing with Immigrant Communities This Giving Tuesday

Written by Estuardo Cifuentes, Project Corazon Program Manager

You’ve seen the headlines and watched the videos – every day, immigrants are facing new attacks from ICE and the Trump administration. People who are torn from their families in raids on schools, homes, worksites, and even courthouses are being swept into detention centers. And they’re made to navigate the legal system – and face deportation – alone.

I have lived this system’s injustices firsthand. When I first crossed into the US to seek asylum, I spent days in a detention center before being sent back to Mexico for over 18 months, and it was only through the legal support of Project Corazon that I was finally able to secure asylum. My experience has given me the conviction to fight so that others do not have to endure the same conditions.

Over 60,000 immigrants are now in detention centers, but the administration isn’t stopping there. They’re aiming to reach 100,000 by December 31. That’s 40,000 more people in squalid conditions, deprived of basic due process, and without access to legal representation.

Threats like these are why we at L4GG founded Project Corazon. Since 2018, we’ve been bridging the justice gap for immigrant communities. From setting up systems to provide remote representation in Credible Fear Interviews for detained asylum seekers to building pro bono legal clinics from the ground up in Matamoros, Mexico, we have a proven track record of delivering for immigrant rights. But we’re up against our biggest challenges yet, and now is the time to fight back. 

This Giving Tuesday, we’re raising the funding needed to launch Project Corazon’s next chapter: the Detention Bridge Project. This two-stage approach will overcome gaps in detention center transparency and legal representation by:

• Building the first public database of detention center procedures—eliminating hundreds of wasted hours for volunteer attorney

• Deploying volunteer lawyers to underserved facilities providing advocacy declarations, DHS complaints, and parole requests

• Serving hundreds of detained immigrants annually who would otherwise face deportation alone

The human impact of these attacks on immigrant communities can’t be reduced to numbers. Behind every figure is a life, a loved one, a family – a story like mine.

Tomorrow is Giving Tuesday—and it matters. We'll be sharing exactly how the Detention Bridge Project will make a difference and how you can be part of this critical work. Donate here if you're ready to act now, or watch for our message tomorrow to learn more about what's at stake and how your support will help us ensure no asylum seeker has to face detention alone.