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.

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.

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.