🚨🚨🚨Listening to D.C. Circuit oral argument in NTEU v. Vought re stay. 1/
2/ Judges Pillard, Katsas, and Rao:
Judge Katsas says how do we great stay? Is it a scope question?
Yes:
DOJ: Not shutting down an agency is the appropriate injunction. Clause 4: Bars closing down injunction or email. Deals with the Consumer Financial Protection Board operations.
3/ Argument is focusing on whether "scope" was injunction.
DOJ: Court tried to shift burden to us. No problem with allowing employees to do statutory work. But injunction goes to far. Key parts are 2, 3, 4, and 7.
Other parts it's inappropriate to have judicial supervision where no violation.
🚨🚨Two of the aliens who sued Trump Administration before to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act were apparently brought back to New York for detention & thus filed a habeas case there. Strangely docketing is in an older case w/ habeas petition sealed. 1/
2/ ACLU has its petition here. The complaint is a "putative class action" lawsuit, in other words putative = "a wanna be" class action suit.aclu.org/cases/g-f-f-v-…
3/ Given each case will involve multiple issues that are unique to each Plaintiff, a court will have a hard time justifying certification but Plaintiffs' goal is to get everyone's name and this might work.
Click & read this press release (link to follow). 1/
2/ Of note: Trump is now charging illegal entry criminally. As Homan has long explained, it IS illegal to cross into U.S. Also, note the traffickers are coaching illegals on what to say to get asylum. Also, if you don't think border was mess, there are hundreds being charge
3/ with illegal re-entry, i.e. they've been deported once and then reentered. The deterrent effect should be huge because it means you illegally enter you are going to jail & then you will be deported & once deported you don't get another change.
🚨Another million illegals will soon be on their way back home as IRS & DHS have established protocol for DHS obtaining addresses for illegals under criminal investigation, including failure to depart. NOTE: These are ONLY those who have already had an order of removal entered.1/
2/Litigation to stop "sharing" of information have been unsuccessful because agreement complies with federal law which allows sharing for criminal investigations. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Note: Next stage will be opening criminal investigations against individuals for fraudulent use of social security numbers or illegal entry to find other aliens who have yet to be ordered removed.
🧵Today's SCOTUS decision re stay and discussion of standing will reverberate in lower courts. For instance, very similar case in D.C. where judge entered injunction in case brought by multiple states requiring Trump to reinstate probationary employees. 1/
2/ Sorry, that was D.Ct. in Maryland. Yesterday district court denied a stay.
3/ Fourth Circuit currently has pending Motion to Stay the lower court's order that probationary employees be "reinstated." Plaintiffs (blue states) filed brief opposing stay yesterday. Reply by Trump due today & it will highlight SCOTUS decision to say stay required.
So, in thinking more about Alien Enemies Act holding, strategically, here's what Trump should do:
a) Move to dismiss case in D.C.
b) When refiled in Texas agree to enter consent decree it will not remove 4 (or 5?) named plaintiffs pursuant to Alien Enemies Act, mooting case.
c) ACLU will object but if Trump agrees to order not to remove them under Alien Enemies Act, Plaintiffs' claims would be moot since it couldn't be "reoccurring" for these plaintiffs.
d) Oppose any class action: Class action is not appropriate b/c every alien's case different.
e) Moving forward if it would be faster to remove under Alien Enemies Act, provide notice and remove those who don't file habeas after time for filing. If someone files then enter consent decree you won't remove via Alien Enemies Act and process under normal procedures.