Judge Cannon’s order today not only postpones many trial deadlines in USA v Trump (MaL)—one by >17 weeks—but suggests she may allow an unprecedented approach to a CIPA issue that may force govt to bring an interlocutory appeal ...
... The coming dispute involves Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) § 4, which permits the govt to turn over classified docs in discovery in a summarized or redacted form so the defense doesn’t see national defense secrets irrelevant to the case ...
/2
... CIPA provides that the way to do this is for the govt to show the docs & proposed redactions to the judge in a sealed ex parte procedure (defense not present) & for defense to simultaneously outline its defense theories to judge, also ex parte (govt not present). ...
/3
... Judge then decides if redactions are fair. Trump wants new rules for him. He wants his lawyers to see the secret documents and to be able to argue in an adversarial proceeding that the redactions aren’t fair. He tried same thing in DC case. ...
/4
... In DC, Judge Chutkan denied Trump’s request, noting (below) that such a procedure was unprecedented and would defeat purpose of statute. But based on the new schedule Cannon has ordered, it looks like she may grant Trump’s same request in M-a-L case. ...
/5
... Why do I say that? Her original schedule (below) followed normal procedure. It called for the govt & Trump to submit simultaneous Section 4 filings—both ex parte—on 10/4. It then scheduled a hearing (presumably sealed) for one week later, 10/17, to resolve disputes. .../6
... New schedule is completely different. Govt is to file its § 4 motion on 12/4. That same day, Trump now files a motion “contesting the ex parte nature” of the process. (Cannon forgets to provide a date for govt to respond to that motion.) ...
/7
... *Then* >7 weeks later, on 1/23, Trump files “a defense challenge to § 4 motions.” This can only be possible if Cannon has granted Trump’s motion to discard ex parte procedures & proceed adversarially. (Again, she forgets to provide a date for govt to respond.)...
/8
... Cannon then calls for a 2-day hearing on the govt’s § 4 motions for 2/15-2/16. Hard to imagine a 2-day hearing that isn’t adversarial.
If Cannon grants adversarial approach to § 4, govt may have to appeal, further blowing any notion of pre-election trial.
/9-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If you read the precedents Abrego Garcia is citing in seeking release from detention, you begin to realize the unreported horrors Trump's DHS/ICE is quietly committing throughout the country. Take Zavvar v Scott, for instance. ... 1/7 law.justia.com/cases/federal/…
Reza Zavvar, 52, came to the US from Iran when he was 12 (so 40 yrs ago). He was granted asylum & permanent residence. Then, in the 1990s, when he was in his 20s, he had 2 misdemeanor convictions for possession of pot. ...
/2
In 2004, because of those, the GWBush Adm got an order of removal against him, but removal to Iran was withheld because of threats to his life or freedom there. He was then allowed to live & work in MD without incident *for nearly 18 years.* ...
/3
Judge Immergut (my new favorite judge) issued her 31-page opinion, barring federalization of 200 National Guard troops in Portland, <48 hrs after entering the case. It’s a model of restrained but powerful prose & reasoning. Read it yourself ... 1/3 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Without hyperventilating, she lays out in ¶ 1 the huge stakes here. The case is about "3 of the most fundamental principles in our constitutional democracy": * federalism; * the relationship between the military & domestic law enforcement; * and judicial review. ...
/2
Her ruling is also a model for how a judge can use Trump’s unhinged words (“war-ravaged Portland”) against him without going off the rails him- or herself. E.g., “The president’s own statements [show] that his determination was not ‘conceived in good faith.’”
/3-end
Given that @DowJones is not seeking a merger that @BrendanCarrFCC can block, Trump’s suit against the @WSJ (re the Epstein Birthday book note) seems destined for swift dismissal + assessment of attys fees. ... 1/6 storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Yesterday, @WSJ moved to dismiss on 3 seemingly iron-clad grounds: The article is (1) true; (2) not defamatory; & (3) lacks any whiff of “actual malice.” It’s true in that it only describes a note “bearing Trump’s name” & includes his denials in the subhead & in 3 ¶s of text.
/2
It's not defamatory because a bawdy note to a friend—even one later convicted of crimes—is not defamatory. In 2002, Trump admitted his 15-yr friendship with “terrific guy” Jeffrey Epstein, and in 2016 he admitted the Access Hollywood tape was just his “locker-room banter.” ...
/3
Last night, in the Ghana pass-thru case, Judge Chutkan found that the govt’s actions appeared to be part of a “pattern & widespread effort to evade [its] legal obligations by doing indirectly what it cannot do directly.” But she denied relief due to likely lack of jurisdiction ...
1/4
She noted that immigration judges have found that the 5 plaintiffs face “persecution, torture, or death” if returned to their home countries, as one already has been. US officials allegedly told plaintiffs on planes to Ghana that they would ultimately be sent to home countries.
/2
Chutkan noted that “this case is not an outlier,” listing 6 other examples of suspicious or abusive govt conduct. She says the deal with Ghana appears to be “hasty & unwritten” & suggests that the govt knew all along what it was doing. ...
/3
Judge Chutkan just finished a phone conference hearing in D.A. v. Noem. Plaintiffs allege the govt is sending African aliens to Ghana knowing Ghana will forward them to home countries where US courts have barred govt from sending them directly ... 1/5 courtlistener.com/docket/7132371…
... due to reasonable fear of torture or persecution. Judge Chutkan fears she lacks jurisdiction—4 plaintiffs are already in Ghana & one has already been forwarded to Gambia—or that she should transfer the case to Judge Murphy in Boston as part of the DVD class action on 3d country removals. ...
/2
The @ACLU 's Lee Gelernt argued that DVD challenges general procedures whereas DA's claim is narrow: Ghana gave the US diplomatic assurances that it would not forward aliens to countries where they face persecution/torture, yet it's doing exactly that with US acquiescence/connivance. ...
/3
At 2pm there will be a preliminary injunction hearing in the Guatemalan children case (LGML v. Noem). I hope to live-blog here for @lawfare , as will colleague @AnnaBower on another platform. For bracing & thorough background, see Anna's piece here:
/1 lawfaremedia.org/article/the-ju…
If you recall, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan entered a temporary restraining order 8/31, barring the removals— govt calls them "reunifications"—of Guatemalan children ages 10-17. Govt has admitted intent to deport 327 children, with the first 76 booked for departure at 10:45am ET on 8/31. ...
/2
... Judge Sooknanan was just covering the emergency docket that day—it was Sunday Labor Day weekend—so now the case has been randomly assigned to Judge Tim Kelly, who must decide whether to extend the TROs into a preliminary injunction & whether to certify a class. ...
/3