There is a hearing this morning in the lawsuit challenging the Trump admin's attempted exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the census.
I will be covering it live at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time for @CourthouseNews.
To clarify, the Trump administration's attempted exclusion of undocumented immigrants relates to the numbers used for reapportioning seats in Congress, not the census in general.
The hearing is about to begin in five minutes.
On the line now:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Oestericher (SDNY)
Elena Goldstein, for NYAG
ACLU's Dale Ho, for New York Immigration Coalition
This morning's hearing was originally slated to happen next week, until @hansilowang broke the news that the Trump admin wanted to cut door-knocking a month short.
The fast-tracked census count led to an expedited hearing.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who previously found the citizenship question illegal, is presiding over this new challenge over the census.
He joins the line and we are about to begin.
Also on the line:
* Matthew Colangelo from NYAG.
* Assistant U.S. Attorney Allison Rovner from SDNY
Clarifying earlier tweet:
* Jeffrey Oestericher is SDNY's chief of the civil division, not a line assistant.
Judge Furman says there is a question about whether the record from the first census case (citizenship question) can be adopted for this one (counting undocumented immigrants for apportionment).
"I don't think we have to address that question now," Furman says, deferring the question to a later date.
Matthew Colangelo, for the NYAG, says that he believes the record from the first case might bear on the question of irreparable injury in their injunction request.
Furman: There is another question as to whether a three-judge panel is required for this case.
Calling it a "close question," Colangelo agrees that a three-judge panel is necessary.
ACLU's Dale Ho concurs.
AUSA Allison Rovner hedges and wants time to research and submit a letter.
Matthew Colangelo from NYAG: "Time is of the essence and delayed review would cause extremely serious harm."
Immediately after the president certifies the census count for reapportionment in January, states are supposed to begin the process of redistricting, Colangelo says.
There is also a six-week window between when the certified count is transmitted to the states, Colangelo notes.
Redistricting follows the transmission.
Judge Furman asked about whether the period between this process and the midterm elections would mitigate any harm.
Colangelo noted that armed service members would be receiving absentee ballots well before that election.
Judge Furman notes that a "popular misconception" of Trump's memo is that it excludes undocumented immigrants from the *count.*
The memo is about excluding them from apportionment.
Judge Furman asks how that distinction affects the plaintiffs' theory of harm.
Colangelo responds that the memo is likely to have the affect of chilling undocumented immigrants from participating in the follow-up operations of the census.
Colangelo adds that the change has "penetrated immigrant communities," where they have a "high degree of awareness" of Trump's memo.
This change will confirm the immigrants' views that they "cannot trust the federal government," Colangelo argues.
Judge Furman presses AUSA Allison Rovner on the position that the "census is almost over."
"Isn't that a problem of the president's own making?" Furman asks, calling it "rich to rely on the fact that he waited" to deny relief to the plaintiffs.
Rovner replies that she brought up that the census is almost over to suggest that any relief would be limited.
Judge Furman asks about the states' position of "ongoing, immediate harm" to the count by Trump's memo.
Rovner characterizes that as a new theory. The judge disagrees.
Furman tells Rovner that "I'm a little puzzled by" her claim that she did not understand the states' theory, when it is spelled out in the complaint.
Judge Furman says that he will adopt the faster schedule proposed by the plaintiffs.
New complaint by today.
Government opposition by Aug. 17.
Plaintiffs reply by Aug. 24.
Judge Furman: "I recognize that this schedule may be more welcome to some than others."
But he adds that the president's decision to announce the memo when he did required a fast-track.
"Given the timing of that decision, it is what is," Furman says.
Trump's lawyers filed a motion to vacate his 34 felony convictions and dismiss his New York indictment.
In the wake of SCOTUS's immunity ruling, they argue that certain testimony and evidence shouldn't have been introduced at trial, like the categories shown here.
DA Bragg's deadline to respond to Trump's arguments is July 24.
A few thoughts on this:
Trump's lawyers are not just challenging his convictions, based on the alleged use of "official-acts evidence."
Since prosecutors brought some of this evidence to the grand jury, they want his indictment thrown out too.
Trump's lawyers agree that he isn't immune from prosecution in his N.Y. case, but they argued before trial that prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to use evidence tied to his official acts.
On Friday, Trump's lawyer argued that ex-AG Bill Barr only appointed Senate-confirmed US Attorneys as special counsel.
Jack Smith just contradicted that in a supplemental briefing showing three of Barr's special counsel picks from 1991 and 1992.
In the same briefing, Smith provided a list of statutes that appear to use "officials" to include inferior officers who don't require the advice and consent of the Senate.
It's quite long, and it rebuts Team Trump's claim that "officials" means something else.
Judge Cannon invited prosecutors to file this brief backing up their arguments defending the special counsel's constitutional authority at the end of Friday's proceedings.
After a Manhattan judge delivers his instructions, a jury of Trump's peers will begin a historic process: deliberations to determine whether to convict a former U.S. president of felonies.
As always, I will be reporting live from the courtroom. 🧵
Trump has entered the courtroom, followed by his entourage.
The daily photography session has begun.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has appeared only occasionally, is not in the courtroom this morning.
"All rise."
The jury is entering, and some appear more dressed up than usual — ready to work.
Justice Merchan tells them that he will now instruct them on the law.
Before lunch, Justice Merchan dressed down Trump's lawyer for his "outrageous" comment about prosecutors trying to put his client in prison.
He'll instruct the jury that potential punishment should factor into decision.
Separate thread. 🧵
Before the prosecution's summation begins, Assistant DA Susan Hoffinger note there's another reason that Blanche also should have been on notice earlier.
The judge precluded the defense from discussing potential punishment in a pre-trial ruling. nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/pre…
Blanche has no objection to the curative instruction that prosecutors drafted.
I'm connecting the two threads, for defense and prosecution summations, here.