Lead Story

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has defended its decision to subpoena 13 leading US law firms, arguing that the move is necessary to safeguard the confidentiality of legal advice provided to President Donald Trump, even as it deepens an already contentious dispute with the American Bar Association (ABA).

According to the DOJ, the subpoenas seek information about communications between the firms and Boris Epshteyn, President Trump’s personal lawyer, reinforcing the department’s argument that the ABA should obtain any relevant information from its own member firms rather than compel testimony from one of the President’s closest advisers.

E.Jean Carroll has received nearly $5.63 million from US President Donald Trump after a jury in 2023 found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer, according to court records.

Despite Trump's objections, the money was released to Carroll's law firm on Monday, five days after US District Judge Lewis Kaplan authorised the disbursement from a court-supervised account.

The payment represents the original $5 million civil damages award, together with accrued interest.

It is the first time Trump has been required to pay Carroll. Over the past seven years, she has secured civil judgments totalling $88.3 million against the President after he repeatedly denied her allegation that he sexually assaulted her in a dressing room at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan around 1996.

Trump has consistently dismissed Carroll's allegations as a hoax, denied knowing her, claimed she fabricated the assault to promote her memoir, and described the legal proceedings as an example of "weaponisation" and "lawfare". Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Trump's appeal against the $5 million verdict, allowing the judgment to stand.

Responding on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Trump's legal team repeated a statement issued after Judge Kaplan's ruling, saying: "The American people stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the witch hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll hoaxes."

Trump Warned of 'Irreparable Harm'

Last week, Trump's lawyer asked a federal appeals court to halt the release of the funds, arguing that the President would suffer "irreparable harm" if Carroll followed through on her stated intention to donate the money, as it would likely be impossible to recover the funds should Trump ultimately succeed on appeal.

The lawyer also argued that Carroll's assurance that she would instead place the money in an interest-bearing retirement account did not eliminate that risk, as she could still choose to dispose of the funds later.

The 2023 jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages over statements Trump made in 2022 denying her allegations. While jurors found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, they did not conclude that he had committed rape under the legal standard applied in the case.

A US judge on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump improperly used a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to secure personal benefits from the government he leads, preventing the terms of a controversial settlement agreement from taking legal effect.

Miami-based US District Judge Kathleen Williams delivered a scathing assessment of Trump's personal legal team and lawyers representing his administration, finding that the parties were not genuinely opposed to one another, as required in civil litigation. She referred Trump's lawyer in the case, Alejandro Brito, along with senior Justice Department officials who approved the settlement, to state bar authorities to determine whether their conduct breached legal ethics rules.

In her 56-page ruling, Williams concluded that lawyers representing both Trump and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and IRS had misused the legal process to provide legitimacy to actions designed to benefit the President and his allies.

"This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute," Williams wrote. Instead, she said, it was an attempt to "provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law."

Google has secured the dismissal of a consumer lawsuit accusing the technology giant of allowing its artificial intelligence platform, Gemini, to track users' communications without their knowledge or consent.

US District Judge Noel Wise, sitting in San Jose, ruled that the two Google users who filed the proposed class action last year had failed to demonstrate that Gemini had caused them any actual harm.

Judge Wise said the plaintiffs' claims that Gemini could potentially be used to track user data were insufficient to sustain the lawsuit.

"Most importantly, plaintiffs have not alleged that their own data has been impacted by Gemini tracking," the judge said in her ruling.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint and refile the case.

Google and the plaintiffs' lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Google has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

The lawsuit alleged that Google violated users' privacy by enabling Gemini to track communications by default rather than requiring users to opt in. The complaint claimed that Google was using Gemini "to access and exploit" users' emails and other personal records.

"Google's deceptive and outrageous conduct violates its users' reasonable expectations of privacy," the lawsuit alleged.

In seeking dismissal, Google argued that the plaintiffs had failed to identify any specific instance in which their communications had been accessed or misused.

Uber Technologies Inc. has introduced new contractual requirements aimed at discouraging lawsuits backed by third-party litigation funders by requiring customers and drivers who sue the company to disclose details of any such funding arrangements.

The requirement, included in contracts for drivers and within the Uber app's legal terms for customers, could make it more difficult for consumers and workers to secure external financial backing for claims against the company, according to Maria Glover, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Law at Georgetown University.

"No rational funder is going to inject themselves into a case where they have to disclose basically their due diligence and their work product," Glover said. Company executives, she added, "want to cut off the avenues to going after them." Uber did not respond to requests for comment.

The move highlights the extent of corporate opposition to the rapidly expanding litigation funding industry, in which investors finance lawsuits in exchange for a share of any financial recovery. Uber and several other companies have supported efforts in Congress and state legislatures to restrict or prohibit the practice, arguing that it encourages excessive litigation.

In a letter sent to lawmakers last year, Uber and more than 50 other companies and organisations said proposed US legislation to tax profits from litigation investments "will help curb abusive lawsuits and level the playing field for American companies". The proposed legislation, however, has stalled in Congress.

Bloomberg Law obtained a copy of Uber's agreement with its drivers through court documents. The corresponding requirement for riders is available to registered users in the legal terms and conditions section of the Uber app.

The contractual language for drivers and riders is identical. It requires anyone bringing legal proceedings against Uber to disclose the identity of any litigation funder providing financial support for the claim. Claimants must also provide Uber with copies of any litigation funding agreements, and the requirement extends to any appointed arbitrator.

The agreement further states that users and drivers bringing claims against Uber waive attorney-client privilege and confidentiality protections for documents shared between themselves, their legal representatives and the litigation funder.

The language "is just an attempt to slow down claims being filed and actually adjudicated," said Shannon Liss-Riordan, a partner at labour law firm Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who has represented Uber drivers in previous cases but does not use litigation funding. "They try to make it as hard as possible for anyone to go forward with their claims."

Uber is "sending a very strong message" through the new provisions, Glover said. "When you're talking about wage and hour workers and/or sexual assault, that's pretty egregious."

Litigation Challenges

Uber continues to face thousands of lawsuits from passengers alleging sexual assault. In February, the company lost its first federal bellwether trial and was ordered to pay an $8.5 million jury award after a 19-year-old woman claimed she was raped by her driver in Arizona.

In June, Uber's board members and senior executives were sued over allegations that they failed to devote sufficient resources to customer safety and fostered a culture of regulatory non-compliance.

Democratic candidates contesting the US midterm elections are increasingly calling for major reforms to the Supreme Court, adopting more ambitious positions than many of the lawmakers they hope to replace. The shift reflects growing frustration among progressives over the direction of the conservative-dominated court and its recent landmark decisions, Bloomberg Law reported.

Colin Allred, who is seeking to return to Congress by contesting Texas’ 33rd Congressional District, said the court had “sacrificed its legitimacy” and that lawmakers must respond accordingly.

Writing in a May Substack post, Allred said he had previously resisted proposals to reform the Supreme Court but changed his position after the court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in April. He now supports expanding the number of justices and introducing fixed term limits.

Chris Rabb, the Democratic nominee for a congressional district in Philadelphia, has also backed expanding the court following the voting rights ruling.

“It’s time to pack the court and establish term limits to reclaim our judiciary,” Rabb wrote in a social media post.

In Michigan, Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has proposed replacing lifetime appointments with renewable 10-year terms for Supreme Court justices. His campaign describes the court as a “major impediment to democracy”.

His primary rivals, Representative Haley Stevens and State Senator Mallory McMorrow, who suspended her campaign this week, also supported various forms of judicial reform. Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton, who is expected to become the state’s newest senator following her March primary victory, has similarly endorsed reform proposals.

Progressives have become increasingly critical of the court after a series of rulings that they argue weakened voting rights, curtailed abortion protections and overturned long-standing precedents limiting executive power.

Although calls for reform intensified after the court’s most significant decisions this year, it remains uncertain whether Democrats would be able to pass legislation expanding the court or introducing a binding judicial ethics code, even if they regain control of Congress.

“That sense of urgency has been missing,” said former Representative Mondaire Jones, who sponsored legislation in 2021 to expand the Supreme Court.

Growing support among Democratic leaders

There are signs that support for reform is spreading within the Democratic Party as the Supreme Court has shifted further to the right.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who could become Speaker if Democrats regain control of the House, said during the American Progress Ideas Festival in May that “all options are on the table”. His predecessor, Nancy Pelosi, had previously dismissed proposals to expand the court.

Support for reform is also extending beyond the party’s progressive wing. In New York’s 10th Congressional District, both Representative Daniel Goldman and his successful primary challenger, Brad Lander, support expanding the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Democratic Senate candidates James Talarico in Texas and Josh Turek in Iowa have advocated ending lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, although neither has endorsed increasing the number of seats on the bench.

Public opinion appears more favourable towards term limits than court expansion. A June poll by Marquette University found broad support for fixed terms for Supreme Court justices, with 79 per cent of respondents backing the proposal.

That level of public support has prompted some reform advocates to argue that term limits should be the starting point for any changes. The proposal has previously attracted bipartisan backing, with Republicans including Senator Ted Cruz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio having supported term limits in the past.

In 2015, following landmark Supreme Court decisions upholding same-sex marriage and tax subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, Cruz proposed a constitutional amendment requiring justices to face a national retention election every eight years.

However, Republican support for reform has largely faded as the court's 6–3 conservative majority has advanced several long-standing conservative legal priorities. Cruz now supports maintaining the court at its current size of nine justices.

Conservative groups argue that Democratic proposals to expand the court are intended to pressure the judiciary. Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network and a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, said calls for court-packing were designed to "undermine and intimidate" Supreme Court justices.

Expansion versus term limits

Democrats remain divided over how extensive Supreme Court reform should be.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who could become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee if Democrats regain control, introduced legislation in 2023 proposing staggered 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices. Asked about expanding the court, Whitehouse said his focus remained on his term-limits proposal.

Some progressive organisations argue that term limits alone would not adequately reduce the influence of the court’s current conservative majority and could face constitutional challenges.

Josh Orton, president of Demand Justice, which supports expanding the court, questioned whether the current Supreme Court would uphold legislation introducing term limits if its own authority were affected.

In the House of Representatives, Representative Jamie Raskin, who is expected to chair the Judiciary Committee under a Democratic majority, has also expressed support for expanding the court.

Even if Democrats regain control of Congress, however, they are unlikely to secure the supermajority required to overcome legislative obstacles such as the Senate filibuster.

Tré Easton, a former aide to Senator John Fetterman and now with the Democratic think tank Searchlight Institute, said proposals such as court expansion remain highly polarising and that Democrats would need to be realistic about what they could achieve legislatively.

A debate likely to continue

Many Democrats believe any significant restructuring of the Supreme Court would ultimately depend on the support of a future Democratic president.

Potential contenders for the 2028 presidential election, including Senator Ruben Gallego, Representative Ro Khanna and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, have all expressed support for expanding the court and introducing term limits.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also joined calls for what he described as "radical reform" following the court's closely divided ruling rejecting former President Donald Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship.

Former Congressman Mondaire Jones said Supreme Court reform should not become the defining issue of the midterm elections but acknowledged that it would almost certainly dominate the Democratic presidential primary in 2028.

President Joe Biden showed little enthusiasm for overhauling the court during his administration. He established a bipartisan commission to examine possible reforms, but it produced no policy recommendations and concluded that expanding the Supreme Court remained a deeply divisive issue.

Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who served on the commission and supports expanding the court, said meaningful reform had become unavoidable despite concerns that it could provoke institutional conflict.

Harvard Law School professor Nikolas Bowie argued that the most significant reform would not necessarily involve changing the composition of the court but rather redefining the constitutional balance of power.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing growing scrutiny over its approach to merger enforcement, as senior officials increasingly favour negotiated settlements over court challenges, according to a report by Bloomberg Law.

The latest test of this approach involves aerospace manufacturer TransDigm Group Inc.’s proposed $960 million acquisition of Stellant Systems Inc., a deal that has raised concerns among antitrust officials and defence authorities.

Staff at the DOJ’s Antitrust Division have prepared a lawsuit seeking to block the transaction, according to people familiar with the matter. However, senior department officials, including Stanley Woodward, the DOJ’s third-ranking official who oversees antitrust matters, have not approved the legal action.

Instead, DOJ officials are currently engaged in settlement discussions with the companies, reflecting the Trump administration’s preference for negotiated outcomes rather than prolonged litigation, the report said.

The proposed acquisition has drawn attention because both companies are leading US manufacturers of specialised radar components used by the US Navy and Air Force. Defence officials have expressed concerns that the merger could leave the military dependent on a single supplier and potentially increase the cost of critical defence parts.

The TransDigm-Stellant transaction is the latest merger that the Antitrust Division has recommended challenging but requires approval from Woodward before the department can proceed with a lawsuit.

According to Bloomberg Law, Woodward has previously declined to approve at least two other merger challenges recommended by antitrust staff.

The situation remains fluid, with a decision on whether to file a lawsuit expected in the coming days, people familiar with the matter said.

TransDigm and Stellant did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Pentagon said it does not comment on active or potential merger reviews.

The DOJ said in a statement that Woodward supports merger enforcement, including litigation, when appropriate, and that multiple factors are considered before deciding on enforcement action.

Concerns Over TransDigm Acquisition

TransDigm is one of the most active acquirers in the aerospace sector. If the Stellant acquisition proceeds, along with a previous 2024 transaction, the company would control a significant share of the market for high-powered microwave tubes used in military and space applications, including electronic warfare, radar and satellite communications.

The company is also a key supplier of parts for Pentagon aircraft and helicopters. It has previously faced criticism over pricing practices involving military contracts.

A 2021 report by the US Department of Defense Inspector General found that the Pentagon had overpaid TransDigm by at least $21 million for certain spare parts between 2017 and 2019. The Pentagon later said it lacked the authority to recover the money.

TransDigm’s then-chief executive officer Kevin Stein said at the time that the company had not violated federal acquisition laws or regulations in relation to its pricing.

Shift in DOJ Merger Policy

Woodward oversees a broad range of the DOJ’s civil enforcement work, including antitrust matters. Bloomberg Law reported that he has taken a more active role in the Antitrust Division’s operations compared with previous administrations.

During internal discussions on antitrust matters, Woodward has questioned the need for extensive merger reviews and reportedly suggested that blocking transactions could raise concerns relating to companies’ constitutional due process rights.

Under US antitrust laws, the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review transactions valued above $134 million to determine whether they could harm competition.

Woodward recently assumed day-to-day control of the Antitrust Division after acting antitrust chief Omeed Assefi went on parental leave and decided not to return. The White House is also moving to nominate telecommunications lawyer Adam Candeub, general counsel at the Federal Communications Commission, as the next permanent antitrust chief, Bloomberg has reported.

The current administration’s approach represents a significant change from the Biden administration, during which the DOJ and FTC frequently challenged major mergers in court and largely avoided settlements.

Since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the DOJ has filed only one lawsuit seeking to block a merger while reaching settlements in more than a dozen cases. The FTC, however, has continued pursuing merger challenges, filing lawsuits against three deals and securing mixed results.

Bloomberg Law reported that Woodward believes clear violations of antitrust laws are relatively rare and that the department should focus on completing merger reviews quickly while using settlements to address competition concerns.

The policy shift has also coincided with the departure of several senior litigators and officials from the Antitrust Division. Tensions between Woodward and former Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Gail Slater reportedly contributed to her unexpected departure earlier this year.

Previous Merger Challenges Rejected

Bloomberg Law reported that Woodward recently rejected a recommendation by antitrust lawyers to challenge the merger between automotive diagnostic companies Repairify Inc. and Opus IVS.

DOJ lawyers had raised concerns that the deal could increase costs for repair businesses and consumers by reducing competition in the market for diagnostic tools and software used to service advanced driver assistance systems.

Woodward reportedly declined to approve a lawsuit, citing concerns that the department could be wrong about the transaction’s competitive impact. The companies completed the deal on July 2.

In another case, Woodward rejected a recommendation to challenge the merger between RedSail Technologies LLC and Micro Merchant Systems Inc., two major providers of pharmacy management software.

Corporate legal leaders say artificial intelligence (AI) will empower rather than replace in-house lawyers, despite growing concerns about automation across the legal profession, Bloomberg Law reported.


General counsel and chief legal officers say AI is helping legal teams manage mounting workloads by taking over routine tasks, allowing lawyers to focus on more complex, high-value matters that require human judgment.

"First and foremost, it means people spend less time working evenings and weekends," said Timothy Fraser, Chief Legal Officer at Toshiba Americas Group, which has introduced AI-powered research tools and uses the technology for document summarisation, analysis and trial preparation. "Secondly, it allows them to devote more of their time and attention to complex, high-risk matters where they can deliver real value to the business."

A recent Deloitte survey of 120 legal department leaders found that nearly three-quarters expect the size of their legal teams to remain broadly unchanged as AI becomes more widely adopted.

Their optimism contrasts with broader concerns about AI-driven job losses and the widespread belief that legal work is particularly well suited to automation. At legal technology conferences, one phrase has become increasingly common: "AI won't take your job, but someone who knows how to use AI will."

Even so, legal leaders acknowledge that AI could eventually reshape staffing. Deloitte's survey found that 20 per cent of respondents expect their legal departments to shrink as AI adoption increases, up from 10 per cent in the firm's 2024 survey.

Most, however, believe any impact will be gradual rather than immediate. Some legal executives told Bloomberg Law that AI may slow recruitment in the near term, while more significant employment effects could emerge over the next decade.

According to Eli Wald, a professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, AI's ability to automate legal work does not automatically mean it will eliminate legal jobs.

"If AI reduces the time human lawyers need to complete tasks, it can replace lawyers in some circumstances," Wald said. "But if demand for legal services remains strong, AI may simply enable lawyers to handle more work rather than replace them."

Legal AI's Promise and Risks

Professional services are widely regarded as among the sectors most likely to be transformed by AI, with legal services standing out because much of the work is procedural, repetitive and heavily dependent on language—making it well suited to large language models.

Investment trends reflect that confidence. AI-focused legal technology companies such as Harvey and Legora are reportedly generating stronger revenues than AI firms serving sectors such as real estate, finance and accounting.

However, the same characteristics that make legal work suitable for AI also fuel anxiety within the profession.

A March report by the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University warned that AI's productivity gains could ultimately threaten employment.

"AI's productivity promise is a displacement pipeline," the report said. "The more AI helps you do your job, the more expendable you can become."

The report identified legal professionals, alongside finance professionals, teachers and accountants, as among those facing significant long-term employment risks.

Nevertheless, it remains unclear which legal roles are most vulnerable. Many in-house lawyers believe they are better protected than their counterparts in private practice because corporate legal teams do not bill by the hour and are often chronically understaffed.

Heavy Workloads Remain

Corporate legal leaders insist there is simply too much work for AI to eliminate the need for lawyers.

"The volume is overwhelming, regardless of the size of our department," said Matthew Geekie, General Counsel at Graybar Electric, which has incorporated AI into its contract management processes.

"We're all under the same pressure. I understand why younger lawyers worry about being marginalised by generative AI, but I don't share that concern. The workload isn't going away."

Broader trends within the legal profession support that view. Increasing amounts of legal work have shifted from external law firms to in-house legal departments in recent years, with corporate legal teams growing faster than private practice.

Many in-house lawyers also believe they are better positioned to benefit from AI because their success is measured by efficiency rather than billable hours.

"Do we really think AI is going to make in-house lawyers less busy?" Wald said. "I doubt it."

Hiring May Slow Rather Than Jobs Disappear

Rather than triggering widespread redundancies, legal leaders expect AI to reduce the pace of hiring.

Tam Pham, Managing Director on the in-house counsel recruiting team at Major, Lindsey & Africa, said there are already signs that recruitment for more junior legal roles is beginning to slow.

At some of the companies adopting AI most aggressively — particularly in the technology sector — senior executives are asking legal departments to justify every new hire.

"I'm hearing general counsel say that if they want to recruit someone, they now need to demonstrate that their AI tools cannot perform the work that person would do," Pham said.

Although some companies have linked large-scale redundancies to AI adoption, analysts argue that such announcements often mask broader cost-cutting measures.

Fraser believes AI is unlikely to become a significant employment issue in the short to medium term.

"I don't see this as a jobs issue in the short to medium term," he said. "It may simply allow us to delay or defer adding headcount."

Jolie Siegel, General Counsel at Odyssey Therapeutics, echoed that view. While her company is assessing specialist legal AI platforms alongside general-purpose models developed by OpenAI and Anthropic, she believes human expertise remains indispensable.

She expects lawyers to continue reviewing AI-generated work, applying legal judgment and making strategic decisions.

"What may happen is not necessarily a reduction in roles today," Siegel said. "Instead, organisations may be able to postpone hiring because a smaller team can achieve greater efficiency with AI."

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed 64 civil denaturalisation cases so far during President Donald Trump’s second term. Legal advocacy group Democracy Forward places the number even higher at 69, including 33 in June alone, based on its own analysis.

The surge reflects coordinated efforts by the DOJ’s Civil Division, US Attorneys’ Offices and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand the rarely used process of denaturalisation — a measure historically reserved for serious offences such as war crimes, threats to national security and violent crimes.

The administration aims to file at least 250 cases by October, according to a DOJ spokesperson. US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) spokesman Zach Kahler said the agency, part of DHS, is working with the DOJ to “aggressively pursue and recommend denaturalisation” of anyone who obtained citizenship through fraud.

However, former DOJ and DHS lawyers say the current pace may be difficult to sustain, pointing out that federal law limits denaturalisation to conduct that casts doubt on an individual’s “good moral character” at the time they were naturalised.

Combined with mounting immigration-related caseloads for DOJ lawyers, this makes it unlikely that the denaturalisation campaign will affect a significant share of the estimated 24 million naturalised citizens living in the US, former government attorneys said.

“It’s going to be very difficult to meet those goals, especially if the government wants to bring only strong cases, which require substantial work,” said George Fishman, a former DHS deputy general counsel.

While most of the cases filed so far align with priorities pursued under previous administrations, some involve allegations and convictions linked to money laundering and financial fraud, raising concerns among immigration rights advocates about the scope of future targets.

Trump administration officials have pledged a broad approach to investigating fraud among naturalised citizens, making it a formal priority in a 2025 Civil Division memo.

Enforcement Priorities

The government has filed more denaturalisation cases this year than in any single year of Trump’s first term, and at a faster pace than the average of 11 cases a year recorded between 1990 and 2017. Many of those targeted recently have been US citizens for decades, with some naturalised as far back as 1978.

This suggests the administration is exercising broader discretion over who can face denaturalisation, said Ramya Reddy.

Under federal immigration law, naturalised citizens can lose their citizenship for “concealment” or “wilful misrepresentation” of a “material fact” that would otherwise have prevented them from being granted citizenship. There is no statute of limitations on such cases.

Of the cases filed during Trump’s second term, at least nine have resulted in denaturalisation rulings, according to Democracy Forward’s analysis. One is currently under appeal. Many involve individuals who committed crimes before becoming citizens and were later convicted.

“The government is most likely to focus on the low-hanging fruit — people with serious convictions, recent offences or other easily identifiable issues that make them straightforward enforcement targets,” said Nancy Canter.

Legal and Practical Constraints

Former government lawyers say decades of legal precedent on citizenship rights, combined with limited resources at federal agencies, will restrict how far the Trump administration can push its denaturalisation agenda.

The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly ruled that naturalised citizens must be treated in law the same as those born in the US, said Margy O’Herron.

In 1967, the court ruled that the government could not forcibly strip citizenship without consent, except where it had been “unlawfully procured”. In 2017, it further ruled that minor misrepresentations by citizenship applicants could not serve as grounds for denaturalisation.

Resource shortages at both the DOJ and DHS are another obstacle, said David McConnell.

That office has reportedly lost nearly a third of its attorneys since January 2025, while US Attorneys’ Offices have seen a wave of departures by career lawyers. These exits come as both the immigration litigation office and federal prosecutors face a record number of constitutional challenges brought by detained immigrants.

Fears Over Future Expansion

Despite these limitations, immigration advocates fear the DOJ could begin filing more cases based on conduct that occurred after an individual became a US citizen.

At least two cases filed this year involve individuals accused of supporting designated terrorist organisations after naturalisation. These cases rely on a provision allowing denaturalisation for anyone who becomes affiliated with a terrorist group, the Communist Party or a totalitarian party within five years of gaining citizenship.

The limited case law surrounding post-naturalisation conduct has fuelled concerns that the Trump administration may attempt to broaden its legal strategy, creating what advocates say could amount to a distinction between naturalised and US-born Americans.

Elizabeth Taufa said such a move could fundamentally alter how citizenship protections are interpreted.

Fishman said the government stands a better chance of succeeding in cases involving misrepresentation or actions taken before naturalisation, but noted there is “no particular bar” to using post-naturalisation conduct as evidence of a person’s character at the time they became a citizen.

Meanwhile, Eric Schmitt has introduced legislation that would allow the government to denaturalise individuals convicted of aggravated felonies or other serious offences up to 10 years after naturalisation.

The bill has yet to advance in the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority.