Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Dec 1, 2021 7 tweets 2 min read Read on X
For those listening to oral argument. Justice Breyer's focus on Casey and stare decisis is the core of my argument in spectator.org/casey-roe-supr…
2/ Casey's stare decisis analysis provides the EXACT analysis that demands Roe & Casey be overturned. Here are the new facts we can "now see."
3/ Here is what we know about science.
4/ That whole "minority of doctors" is complete and utter bullsh!t. Looking for brief.
5/
6/
7/ Key takeaway:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Margot Cleveland

Margot Cleveland Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfMJCleveland

Mar 9
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: OMgosh....Dellinger's attorneys file ridiculous Motion to Dismiss as Moot Dellinger's lawsuit in desperate attempt to have court decision's vacated (as precursor to having D.C. Appellate Decision vacated). 1/
2/ Here's Motion which Government rightly opposed. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Correction: This was filed in the Court of Appeals which makes it even worse!! This appeal isn't "moot" because Dellinger doesn't want to fight any more.
Read 8 tweets
Mar 7
You gotta love it: Plaintiffs submits to court statement of how much is owed for work performed & notes that, oh, yeah, well we also sought an advance. And then further says we can't tell you how much yet because of logistical issues--after complaining Trump didn't immediately 1/ Image
2/ pay. Also note this is basically evidence of invoices for $1.5 million supposedly due & yet district court initially ordered Trump Administration to within 24 hours pay $2 BILLION in grants/contracts.
3/ This again highlights issue w/ these various cases: Courts were entering TROs without delving into whether Plaintiffs established an actual violation to them regarding their grant/contract, etc. and without being specific of who must be paid & how much.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 7
🧵I'm reposting this with a little thread to explain because it really is important to understand what is going on here. As backdrop: Dellinger was the Special Counsel whom Trump fired. A district court ordered him reinstated temporarily 1/
2/ The district court then entered final judgment declaring Dellinger WAS Special Counsel & couldn't be fired by Trump unless Trump jumped through statutory hopes. Trump then sought stay of order meaning wanted Dellinger to be considered fired during his appeal.
3/ On Wednesday, Court of Appeals entered the stay, saying Dellinger was considered fired for purposes of appeal, noting Government established high burden to get that stay meaning Government likely to win. Court of Appeals entered stay & said decision w/ reasons to come later.
Read 7 tweets
Mar 6
🚨Hearing to start in about 10. I'll be live posting. There are two issues before court today: 1) Plaintiffs' motion to enforce the TRO; and 2) Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. If Court is wise, he will start with preliminary injunction b/c those arguments 1/
2/ will establish Judge lacks authority to enter an order to enforce the TRO that Judge had previously entered, namely an order directing government to pay the grants. Judge would also be wise to focus solely on grants to these Plaintiffs b/c SCOTUS doesn't like nationwide relief
3/ & when you are talking about paying specific grants, nationwide relief for non-plaintiffs makes even less sense. Court's only plausible "injunctive" remedy that seems feasible is order not to enter "blanket" terminations.
Read 25 tweets
Mar 6
🚨BREAKING: Joint Status Report filed that should detail where Trump Administration is on grants/contracts it was ordered under TRO to pay (unless it legally didn't have too). 1/
3/ Plaintiffs in short say Trump Administration is not paying and needs to be ordered to process payments like Biden Administration did. Trump Admin. responds that they had no control & we are processing. Key is here though: Image
Image
Read 6 tweets
Mar 6
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Court enters preliminary injunction barring freezing/termination etc. of federal grants/contracts. 1/ Image
Image
3/ This is case where judge had to walk back his order because Trump Administration was canceling pursuant to legal authority. That is still permitted. What Court appears to have done instead of noting that, though, injunctive language is bar the "categorical" freeze, etc.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(