Law Office of Greg Whitten

03/20/2025

Everyone has heard in movies or tv shows the term "circumstantial evidence". Here is a great depiction of exactly what that means!

03/20/2025

A significant percentage of our practice is in representing clients with a narcissistic Ex or soon-to-be Ex. Here is a short, but insightful, video which addresses how to respond to the narcissistic person. The points made are consistent with what we tell our clients, but I'm going to use this video in the future as well. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/12KLHYoq7xa/

03/05/2025

How Significant Is the Recent Supreme Court Ruling That Requires the Trump Administration to Release Federal Funds for USAID?

Here is the lead of an article from “The Hill”:

“The Supreme Court in a 5-4 emergency ruling Wednesday refused to halt a judge’s decision ordering the Trump administration to immediately release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments owed under existing contracts.”

Here is my quick analysis.

On February 13, 2025 the D.C. US District Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the government from enforcing the directives pausing disbursements of foreign aid development funds. In other words, the effect of the TRO was to require the foreign aid funds to be disbursed.

This was followed up on February 25, 2025, with an additional order from the District Court for the “Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements – those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the TRO by . . . February 26, 2025.” This Supreme Court decision is on the Motion to Vacate the February 25, 2025 order, NOT the February 13, 2025 TRO.

What does this mean? Is this a big or small win for USAID? A big or small loss for the Trump Administration? Something else?

I think it is a little bit of all-of-the-above.

It’s a small win / loss:

It’s a small win for those opposed to the Administration’s efforts and a small loss for the Administration. For those who oppose the general / near across-the-board freezing of USAID disbursements, the immediate (and possibly long term) effect of this is NOT particularly significant Why? By the very words of the Supreme Court, this order applies ONLY to funds owed for work completed prior to February 13, 2025. It does NOT order the continued funding for work not yet performed. Accordingly, this ruling does NOT strike at the heart of what the people who oppose these actions by the Administration are most concerned about: the freezing / cancelling of USAID Disbursements in the future (February 13, 2025, and thereafter).

It is a potentially big win / loss:

The case as it was presented to the Supreme Court is in its infancy and only deals with the Motion to Vacate the February 25, 2025, order. There will soon be a Preliminary Injunction hearing (I believe the PI will be granted), followed by an appeal of that PI, then a couple of years of litigation, then more appeals all the way back to SCOTUS.

Who knows what the Supremes will do then. However, upholding the District Court’s TRO means that they believe that the Plaintiffs are ultimately “likely to succeed on the merits of the case” (that is an element for the granting of a TRO). That is a big signal – big like the Bat-Signal over Gotham – as to what 5 members of the Supreme Court will likely do in the future. Hence, this potentially signals a future big win for the Plaintiffs and a big loss for the Administration.

Although, . . . .

It was quite clever what the trial judge did in granting the TRO and its subsequent order to disburse the funds by the end of February 26, 2025.

First, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a TRO is NOT reviewable on appeal. By issuing the TRO with the affirmative order to release the funds by end of February 26, the court issued a nationwide, un-appealable order, by which the Judicial Branch orders the Executive Branch to disburse money it contends should not be disbursed for various legal reasons. (Does anyone else see the potential for a Separation of Powers issue?)

Second, with the court-imposed deadline of February 26, 2025, by the time SCOTUS could review the order, the deadline would have (and did) already pass. Essentially, the trial court issued an order requiring disbursement of 2 billion dollars, and doing so in a way to preclude judicial review (a complaint raised in the Dissent).

What happens next?

The Supreme Court instructed the District Court to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” In short order there will be the evidentiary Preliminary Injunction hearing (I expect the TRO will be turned into a Preliminary Injunction). Then, the appeals resume.

The case is entitled Department of State, et al. v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, et al. and the above-described order can be accessed here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/relatingtoorders/24 .

Opinions may be written by Justices to comment on the summary disposition of cases by orders, e.g., if a Justice wants to dissent from the denial of certiorari or concur in that denial. Any opinions written during October Term 2024 (October 7, 2024, through October 5, 2025), will be posted here on t...

02/15/2025

You never know what is going through a juror’s mind!

02/06/2025

Update to the Birthright Citizenship Executive Order Case(s)

There have been more Executive Orders signed by President Trump which have diverted some of the attention away from the Executive Order entitled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (i.e., the EO which ends “birthright citizenship” for certain categories of persons.

You will recall that the EO states there would be no birthright citizenship for a child born to a mother who is “unlawfully present” or “lawfully present but temporary”, and whose father is not a US citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Two weeks ago, a judge in Washington (a Ronald Reagan appointee) called it “blatantly unconstitutional”, issued a nationwide Temporary Restraining Order against implementation, and scheduled the case for hearing on whether to extend the TRO into a Preliminary Injunction (which would typically stay in effect through final trial or until an appellate court ordered otherwise).

That Preliminary Injunction hearing occurred today, and in less than 20 minutes the court granted a nationwide Preliminary Injunction against implementation of the EO.

As a preliminary matter we should understand the legal grounds on which a trial court can grant a Preliminary Injunction (these are essentially the same grounds as apply in a divorce, custody, or other civil case in our Texas courts). The basic requirements for a Movant to get a Preliminary Injunction include establishing that:


(1) the Movant is likely to succeed on the merits at final trial;

(2) irreparable harm is likely to occur unless the preliminary injunction is granted;

(3) the balance of equities tips in favor of the movants; and

(4) the preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

Here, the trial court completely rejected the Government’s tortuous arguments that the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause in the 14th Amendment somehow means something other than what its plainly states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The Government’s argument goes something like this:

A person here illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because her permanent domicile is not here (after all, she is subject to deportation), and her allegiance is to another country (because she is a citizen of another country).

Respectfully, this is hogwash. “Jurisdiction” is a legal term and concept that goes way back to when we turned Boston Harbor into a lightly caffeinated body of water. As has been a truism in the law since before our country was founded, a government has “jurisdiction” over all the land and persons within its geographic borders except persons with diplomatic immunity. The last time I checked, undocumented migrants are certainly subject to our laws, can be arrested, hauled into our courts, prosecuted, fined, imprisoned, deported, etc.


The Government makes additional arguments in favor of what it wants “jurisdiction” to mean, including that a person has to be permanently domiciled here and not owe allegiance to any other country for her child to enjoy citizenship at birth. (Interestingly, no variation of the word domicile or allegiance is anywhere in the 14th Amendment).

Some of the court’s most clearly stated reasoning to reject grafting new words, meanings, and requirements onto what is a simple sentence which uses simple words that conveyed (and still convey) a simple meaning when they were written, is the following:

"In interpreting the text of the Constitution, courts are “guided by the principle that ‘[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning."

In other words, you shouldn’t have to be a creative lawyer to understand the Constitution.

This principle of Constitutional interpretation was stated as recently as by the “conservative” Supreme Court in 2008, and back to another Supreme Court decision in 1931.

The trial court also notes that the Government’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause contravenes long-standing Supreme Court precedent going back to 1898.

The full analysis by the trial judge is deeper than my brief summary, but it is still a quick and easy read (the entire Order is only 13 pages) and can be accessed here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943/gov.uscourts.wawd.343943.114.0_1.pdf

I have no doubt that this decision will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the United States Supreme Court (along with other cases on this issue, including one in Massachusetts which also granted an injunction against the EO).


While many of my friends, acquaintances, and colleagues disagree with me on this (those on the “right” and on the “left”), I predict that the United States Supreme Court will strike this EO down in a 9-0 or 8-1 decision. This is just too easy of a call for it to not go at least 8-1. (If I’m wrong, feel free to heckle me).

Now, my more “unvarnished” opinions (if you disagree, don’t hate me as these opinions are . . . “just opinions” of this attorney):

We have an immigration and border crisis. We may disagree about the extent, cause, proper solutions, who is at fault, etc., but I think virtually everyone in the country agrees we have a real problem.

A real problem deserves a real solution, not a “head fake” to cause cheers, jeers, or panic. This EO is just that, and has as much chance of “fixing” (all or part) of the immigration / border problems as I have in qualifying for the Olympics in Speed Skating. And anything proposed as a solution which has no chance of being implemented because of its blatant unconstitutionality is a waste of time, paper, ink, hopes, expectations, and political capital.

Even worse, this EO has caused absolute panic in some of our most vulnerable communities among our most vulnerable neighbors. Perhaps one isn’t bothered by that because “those” people “shouldn’t be here anyway and it serves them right”. . .

But does it really “serve them right”?

If I am correct and this EO is never going to be implemented because of its unconstitutionality, why try (and succeed) to cause abject terror to people who went through abject hell to get here for a better life?

Should “they” be deported? Should there be exceptions? Should there be a path to citizenship? Should there be ____? Those are questions that need to be debated, and whatever the result, so be it, as long as it is a legal and constitutional result.

But as voters and as a country how should we feel about ourselves if the only real purpose of this EO that can actually be accomplished is to cause the highest levels of worry, stress, anxiety, and fear to people? That, from the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world, I believe is immoral.


Aren’t we or at least shouldn’t we be better than this?

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. The Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs' motions for a nationwide preliminary injunction (Dkt. Nos. 63, 74 ) and ENJOINS enforcement or implementation of the Order on a nationwide basis. (KMP) (Entered: 02/06/2025)

01/31/2025

Many people have to deal with narcissistic people in their lives - typically a spouse or co-parent (we certainly deal with a lot in our divorce and child custody practice). Here is a short TikTok video I saw that I think is helpful in understanding narcissistic people. It identifies what the narcissistic person wants and how to respond (at least how to respond much of the time).

What do you think?

75.5K likes, 1689 comments. “Add this post to your favourites so you can come back to it any time you’re not sure how to respond to the nonsense the narcissist is spewing at you.”

01/23/2025

Developments in the “Birthright Citizenship” Executive Order Issue:

The first District Court challenge to the "Birthright Citizenship" Executive Order occurred today. The trial judge granted Petitioners (Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, Washington) a 14 day temporary restraining order against the U.S. This effectively prevents implementation of the EO for the next 14 days, at which time a full evidentiary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order will be made into a temporary injunction.

For a District Court judge to issue a TRO blocking an Executive Order is a big deal, and communicates that she expects Petitioners to prevail on the merits at a final hearing.

Judge Coughenour, a Ronald Reagan appointee, began the hearing by grilling the administration’s attorneys, saying the order “boggles the mind.” He went on to say: “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order, ". Further, he stated that he’s been on the bench for more than four decades, and he couldn’t remember seeing another case where the action challenged was so clearly unconstitutional.

The only legal argument I've seen in support of the EO requires one to accept that the phrase:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Actually means:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and HERE LEGALLY, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." [the all caps are my own for emphasis].

This argument equally boggles my mind.

It also ironic to me that it is people who are "strict constructionists" in interpreting the Constitutions are the ones who are saying "an apple isn't an apple, it's really an orange". [that isn't a criticism of strict constructionists of the Constitution, as I am largely in the camp as well].

The term "jurisdiction" is not new and novel. It was well known to our founding fathers (and prior thereto, to our mates in Jolly Old England). As I've stated before: the only persons who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and it's Courts are persons with diplomatic immunity (and the last time I checked diplomatic immunity wasn't handed out w***y nilly to undocumented immigrants).

I don't mean to "bash" persons who have a contrary analysis and/or opinion to mine (I'm friends with a lot of them). However, since this is such an important topic with wide-ranging implications, I consider it important to speak out. At a minimum, you might get some context and analysis that is absent in a 15 second soundbite on the news.

We have a crisis at our borders and an immigration system that needs lots of work. I wish our politicians would work on actual measures to address these issues as opposed to "feed the base" measures which spend political capital for no long-term benefit to fixing the problems.

01/21/2025

IS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP GOING TO CHANGE?

"Birthright citizenship" is in the news again with President Trump's recent Executive Order. Whether "birthright citizenship" is good or bad, is largely opinion based on one's values. What I want to look at here is:

What Is “Birthright Citizenship” and Can a President or Congress Change It?

“Birthright citizenship” means that if a person is born in the United States, then that person is a citizen of the United States. It comes from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that

"all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Seems straightforward, right? If you are a “person” (and presumably all reading this so qualify) “born” in the United States (check your birth certificate or ask your parents if you are not sure), and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, then you are a citizen.

This part of the 14th Amendment was included to assure that children (born here) of former slaves (born elsewhere) are United States citizens. (Only a decade before the 14th was passed the United States Supreme Court held that persons of African descent could not be citizens.)

For a number of years “birth right citizenship” has been argued to exacerbate illegal immigration by being a “draw” for immigrants to cross our borders illegally to give birth here, so that the child is automatically a U.S. citizen. This may then allow or speed up the immigration process for the parent(s) and/or other family members to immigrate here. This is pejoratively referred to as having an “anchor baby”.

Does this actually happen?

Probably so, at least some, but that is not the point of this post. Rather, the point is to ask and answer the question:

Can “birthright citizenship” be ended by Executive Order of the President or by a statute passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President?

In my opinion, the answer is clear and easy: No.

To end “birthright citizenship” would require an Amendment to the Constitution. Because “birthright citizenship” has its origin in the Constitution, neither an Executive Order, nor a Statute, purporting to end birthright citizenship, would have any legal effect (though it may take some time for it to come up for review in the Supreme Court).

At this point you may be thinking:

"Wait, you skipped over the 'subject to the jurisdiction' language, isn’t that the 'hook' to make this legal?"

Again, no. Anyone who wants to end “birthright citizenship” should not look to the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause for help.
The only persons in the United States that are not subject to its jurisdiction are diplomats from other countries (and their families) because they have “diplomatic immunity”. Everyone else here is subject to our laws and courts, including illegal immigrants.

Further, whether “birthright citizenship” is a cause of immigration problems and/or should be eliminated is merely a theoretical question unless and until the process for amending the Constitution is initiated (which will not happen in earnest because there are not 2/3rds of the House and Senate that will vote for such a change, and even if there were there are not 3/4s of the States that would approve the amendment).

Bottom line: If you want 'birthright citizenship" terminated to help address an immigration problem, then you need to look elsewhere because neither an Executive Order nor a Statute is going to do it..

01/21/2025

Is Trump Changing Tax Rules So that the Parent Paying Child Support Gets the Tax Benefits / Deductions?

A rumor exploded on social media that Trump said (some say already signed an Executive Order) that women who receive child support would no longer be able to claim the child as a dependent on their taxes and would not receive a federal child tax credit.
One post I saw says this:

“Trump just tweeted, if you put your baby father on child support, you can’t claim income taxes. . . .. If he paying child support, you can’t claim the kids, only he can.”

Did Trump say this? No. Trump did not say, tweet, or sign an Executive Order as to this. However, the rumors pose other questions, such as: Could the President do this?

Yes, it "could happen". However, whether it "could happen" is a very low bar since almost everything falls in the "could happen" universe.

Who can “claim” the children on a tax return is a matter of IRS Regulations, so for this to happen would require a radical change in existing IRS Regulations. The IRS is part of the Executive Branch and the President is the Chief Executive. However, the process to change Rules is lengthy (and includes public notice and comment periods).

What is the Likelihood of this Happening? – To quote my father when I asked him long ago what were my chances of getting a raise in my allowance? His response? “Slim to none.”

If you currently receive child support, this is not something to worry about. If you currently pay child support, this is not something that will happen to save you money on your taxes.

12/25/2024

Merry Christmas to all! We hope you enjoy a little light “merry Christmas” story:

The Night Before Christmas (Legal Style)

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g., stockings, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick aka St. Nicholas aka Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive at sometime thereafter.
The minor residents, i.e., the children, of the aforementioned House were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e., dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts, and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort, and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the parts of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g., kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e., the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause, and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter "the Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be, and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction, and guidance to the approximately eight reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donner, and Blitzen (hereinafter "the Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional co-conspirator named "Rudolph" may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle, and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys, and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be to***co in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stockings of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose, and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer, and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim: "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!" Or words to that effect.

12/04/2024

We received a great result from the Dallas Court of Appeals yesterday. Following a jury trial that we won in early 2023, the opposing party appealed and we handled the appeal for our client. The Court of Appeals issued it's order yesterday in which it affirmed the trial court in full. In other words, we won for our client in a jury trial and we won for our client at the Court of Appeals!

10/31/2024