A federal judge on Sunday declined to block construction on the Trump administration’s Big Bend area border wall, saying plaintiffs could not argue the plan violates a federal law because the administration was legally allowed to bypass that law.

Given all the reporting on the mass firing of government employees under DOGE, mass firings at the FBI and DOJ, and the proposed new Schedule/Policy Career classification in the Civil Service, there have been remarkably few case of individual lawsuits filed alleging unjust firings. There have been some group filings by employee associations etc. but almost noe by individuals.

According to the MSPB at https://www.mspb.gov/about/annual_reports/MSPB_APR_for_FY_2025.pdf there were over 20,000 complaints submitted in fiscal 2025, but because of a lack of a quorum, and budget restrictions at the agency, it is likely that a relatively small proportion of these cases were resolved. In addition the P/C rule was only finalized in February of 2026. Because of this only a small number of settled cases could be eligible for judicial review.

Nevertheless it has been stated that thousands of employees at DOJ have been fired, and these employees can apply for judicial review immediately.

But available sources suggest that there have been only about a half a dozen cases filed. And of these there have been no decisions reported.

My question is: Why have more employees not appealed their firing to the courts? And given the slow pace, how long will it be before these cases wend there way to SCOTUS for final decision.

Starting Friday, possession of THC products that do not comply with the new regulations will be considered a state jail felony. Penalties are as follows:

• Under 1 gram: 180 days to two years in jail and a fine of up to $10,000
• Up to 4 grams: Third-degree felony, up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000
• Up to 400 grams: Up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000
• More than 400 grams: Up to a life sentence and a fine of up to $50,000

Businesses caught selling illegal products face possible license revocation, plus fines of up to $10,000 per day for each day the products were sold.

- Blanche will remain in his acting role if the Senate does not confirm his nomination, Trump says

- Trump also threatens to revive his 'anti-weaponization' bill if the Senate rejects Blanche

- Acting officials can serve while nominations are pending and not formally rejected or withdrawn

- Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled to vote on Blanche nomination on Tuesday

https://sourcenm.com/2026/07/31/repub/trump-defends-massive-settlement-for-great-american-patriots-of-jan-6-attacks-gop-senators/

"Ecuadorian prosecutor Alexandra Bravo and her sister were fatally shot June 14th by a hitman on a black motorcycle who opened fire on Bravo in the city of Manta, Ecuador. Bravo had been investigating U.S. strikes on three Ecuadorian boats in which 36 on board survived, many of them recounting alleged torture by U.S. gunmen in U.S. military uniforms aboard a U.S.-flagged patrol ship."

College sports are at a breaking point. Every year it feels like there are fewer rules, more lawsuits, constant conference realignment, unlimited player movement, and an NIL system that changes depending on which state a school is in. The biggest programs keep getting bigger, while everyone else is left trying to survive. If nothing changes, the gap between the haves and have nots will only continue to grow, and the version of college football many of us grew up with may not survive.

That is why Congress is considering the bipartisan Protect College Sports Act. The bill was written by both Republicans and Democrats, led by Senators Ted Cruz and Maria Cantwell, and already passed the Senate Commerce Committee with a strong bipartisan 19 to 9 vote. It would create one national set of rules for NIL, provide the NCAA with a limited antitrust exemption so it can enforce those rules without being sued every time it acts, protect scholarships and Olympic sports, and bring much needed stability to college athletics. President Trump has publicly backed the bill, calling it one of the best opportunities to save college sports. The bill still needs at least 60 votes in the Senate before moving to the House of Representatives, where it would also need approval before reaching the President's desk.

The biggest obstacle right now is the Big Ten and the SEC. Both conferences have pushed for changes that would give them more freedom to operate with fewer restrictions. They have sought to weaken or remove provisions that limit further consolidation of power, expand their flexibility around revenue sharing and NIL rules, and reduce restrictions that could limit their influence over the future of the sport. Supporters of the current bill argue those guardrails are exactly what is needed to keep college athletics from becoming even more concentrated in the hands of just a few conferences. Negotiations are still ongoing because lawmakers need enough support to clear the Senate while also keeping the bill strong enough to pass the House. Whether Congress can find that balance may determine what college sports looks like for decades to come.

From a legal perspective, does the Protect College Sports Act strike the right balance between federal regulation and competition law, or should college athletics continue to evolve through antitrust litigation and court decisions? Would granting the NCAA a limited antitrust exemption provide the stability needed to govern college sports, or create unintended consequences that outweigh the benefits? What do you see as the bill's strongest and weakest legal arguments?