Minimum Competence

This Day in Legal History: Belva Lockwood Admitted to SCOTUS

On March 3, 1879, Belva Lockwood shattered a major legal barrier by becoming the first woman admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court. A pioneering attorney and women's rights advocate, Lockwood had faced repeated obstacles in her legal career simply because of her gender. After being denied admission to the Supreme Court bar multiple times, she successfully lobbied Congress to pass a law allowing qualified female attorneys to argue cases before the nation's highest court. With President Rutherford B. Hayes signing the bill into law, Lockwood was finally sworn in, marking a historic step toward gender equality in the legal profession.

Lockwood wasted no time in making use of her hard-won status. In 1880, she became the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court, representing a Cherokee Nation land claim in United States v. Cherokee Nation. Her success paved the way for future generations of female attorneys, proving that women could handle complex legal issues at the highest levels. Beyond her legal career, Lockwood also made history as one of the first women to run for U.S. president, campaigning in 1884 and 1888. Her groundbreaking achievements challenged the deeply entrenched biases of her time and expanded opportunities for women in law and politics.

A federal judge in Seattle has extended an order blocking the Trump administration from withholding federal funding from medical providers in four Democratic-led states—Colorado, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—that offer gender-affirming care to transgender youth under 19. Judge Lauren King ruled that Trump’s executive orders were unconstitutional, as they interfered with Congress' authority to allocate federal funds and violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee by discriminating based on sex or transgender status. One of Trump’s orders, issued on his first day in office, mandated that the federal government recognize only two biologically distinct sexes and barred grant funds from supporting "gender ideology." King criticized this move, stating it aimed to erase transgender individuals from federal recognition.

A temporary restraining order was previously issued on February 14 while the judge considered a longer-term injunction. Another federal judge in Maryland has also temporarily halted Trump’s orders nationwide. The lawsuit follows a second executive order from Trump that prohibits federal funding for gender transitions for minors. More than half of U.S. states have passed laws restricting gender-affirming care, and a pending Supreme Court case involving Tennessee’s ban could set a national precedent.

US judge further blocks Trump's order curbing youth gender-affirming care | Reuters

A U.S. judge has ruled that President Donald Trump's firing of Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, was illegal, setting up a potential Supreme Court battle over presidential authority. Judge Amy Berman Jackson determined that allowing Trump to remove Dellinger would give him excessive power to pressure federal officials. The Justice Department has already filed an appeal.

Dellinger, appointed by President Biden for a five-year term, oversees whistleblower protections and ethics investigations for federal employees. Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument that keeping him in place undermines presidential authority, emphasizing that the Special Counsel’s role is designed to function independently. The case is part of Trump's broader effort to limit the autonomy of federal agencies, including the FTC and SEC. While Jackson called her ruling “extremely narrow,” the outcome could shape future limits on executive power. Meanwhile, Trump’s legal team argues that Dellinger’s continued role disrupts government operations, citing his recent intervention to prevent the firing of six federal employees.

US judge declares Trump's firing of watchdog agency head illegal | Reuters

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from transferring 10 migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, arguing that the move violates immigration law and serves no legitimate purpose. The detainees, from Venezuela, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, have final deportation orders but are not classified as high-risk criminals. The lawsuit describes harsh conditions at Guantanamo, including extreme isolation, verbal and physical abuse, and suicide attempts among detainees.

Homeland Security officials defended the transfers, claiming only the "worst of the worst" are sent there, though reports indicate some have no criminal records. A previous court order blocked the transfer of Venezuelan migrants to Guantanamo, but they were instead deported to Venezuela. The lawsuit is part of broader legal battles over Trump’s immigration policies, including efforts to end Biden-era parole programs for migrants with U.S. sponsors. Another lawsuit was also filed against Panama in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, challenging the detention of migrants there.

ACLU sues to block migrant transfers to Guantanamo, alleging 'degrading conditions' | Reuters