Thread by @TalKopan

Potentially big: Judge Sabraw sounds inclined to agree with ACLU that *all* separated families must be identified, even those separated before his court ruling. Said it seemed “arbitrary” to exclude those released before June. Potentially thousands would have to be identified 1/

He is taking the request for consideration, saying he’ll issue an order on the request "as quickly as i can,” understanding "the enormity” of it. 2/

Sabraw called the IF report “a very significant event” that “appears to be 100% factual,” so the ACLU couldn’t have known that more families needed to be ID'd when the lawsuit ordered reunifications.
“Once they acted, it turns out this may only be the top of the iceberg.” 3/

“The very fundamental premise of the lawsuit was there was an unlawful separation practice instituted by this administration,” Sabraw said. In “an allegation of wrong on this scale, one of the most fundamental obligations of law is to determine the scope of the wrong.” 4/

DOJ attorney Scott Stewart argued it was too much to shift the case now, and the appropriate thing would be a new lawsuit. He said having to reunify all of those families after the government already went “above and beyond” was a “dramatic” shift. 5/

“I understand the appeal with (ACLU’s Lee) Gelernt's pitch that he wants an accounting ... but it’s simply not what he’s after. That’s the alluring step 1 and then once that foot is in the door it’s gojng to be expensive invasive requirements on the government," he said. 6/

Gelernt argued: “A case always takes into account further developments and I think this is one, (the further developments were) a bombshell no one could have anticipated.” 7/

Sabraw asked Stewart: “You do agree that class certification and definition of the class is a moving target?”
Reiterated that what matters first is the “overarching wrong,” and that remedy is “secondary.”
Then he said he would consider the debate and issue a ruling ASAP. 8/8

/3.5 — this should say *IG* not if, sigh.