You’ve likely read many of the powerful passages from Judge Chutkan’s ruling yesterday holding that Trump enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for his acts as president. I’ll just draw attn to one more. ...
1/7bit.ly/3sZl559
To underscore the need to fulfill “our constitutional promise of equal justice under the law,” Chutkan highlights George Washington’s Farewell Address. “His decision to voluntarily leave office after two terms marked an extraordinary divergence ...”
/2
“from nearly every world leader who had preceded him, ushering in the sacred American tradition of peacefully transitioning Presidential power—a tradition that stood unbroken until January 6, 2021.” ...
/3
... Chutkan then quotes Washington’s famous “sober warning: ‘All obstructions to the execution of the laws’ ... are destructive of this fundamental principle.” (That’s what this indictment charges in a nutshell.) “Such obstructions would prove ‘fatal’ to the Republic, as ...
/4
‘cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of govt, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.’ ” ...
/5
... If anyone’s missed the point, Chutkan then spells it out: “In this case, Defendant is charged with attempting to usurp the reins of government as Washington forewarned.” She seals the point with a line from Justice Felix Frankfurter:...
/6
... “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.”
/7-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
In weekend filing, govt admitted its shocking timeline for deporting Guatemalan children, ages 10-17. Just before midnight on Saturday, Labor Day Weekend, it told caregivers to have children prepared for departure within 2 hrs (4 if in foster care). ... 1/8
... That meant packing:
•a 40-pound suitcase
•30-day supply of prescriptions/medications
•2 sack lunches (nut-free) ... 2/8
... At 1:12 a.m. ET, govt notified the caregiver’s legal service providers that children would be put on planes at 10:45 a.m. that same day to be “reunified” with their parents or legal guardians in Guatemala. ... 3/8
On Thurs (while I was on vacation), @ACLU
sought full DC Circuit review of the splintered panel decision that would vacate the Judge Boasberg order that found probable cause to believe DOJ attys committed criminal contempt in the JGG case. ...
1/5storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
... Recall that on 8/8 all 3 panelists agreed that Boasberg’s order was not appealable, yet 2 Trump appointees, on different theories, voted to grant mandamus. @ACLU says the outcome “would have dire consequences for the Judiciary’s ability to enforce its orders.” ...
/2
... .@aclu says it wants to ensure parties can’t evade even answering questions about their possible defiance of court orders. Here, DOJ attys “chose to ignore the order & then retroactively manufacture ambiguity”—“a remarkable step for any litigant, much less the DOJ" ... /3
On Friday, in a 34-page unanimous ruling, the 1st Circuit denied govt a stay of Judge Young’s July 2 order declaring NIH’s cancellation of 100s of research contracts as “breathtakingly arbitrary & capricious.” Some interesting things...
If you recall, Judge Young found that DOGE had “force-fed” the cancellations to NIH, drafting cancellation letters, which no NIH scientist reviewed & which the NIH director approved “within [2] minutes”. ...
/2
DOGE’s template cancellation letter left blanks to be filled from a “reason-for-termination menu,” listing topics like “DEI,” “China,” “Transgender Issues,” “Climate Change.” Use of the menu was “mandatory.” ...
/3
A thread about DOJ’s astoundingly misleading responses to the 27-page Reuveni letter (since backed by 150pp of corroborating texts/emails) alleging conduct approaching contempt in 3 cases: JGG, Abrego, DVD.
Let’s examine @DAGToddBlanche’s & @AGPamBondi’s responses. ...
1/9
Reuveni’s letter says 5 others (but not Blanche) were at the 3/14/25 meeting where Bove allegedly said they “would need to consider” telling courts “fuck you.” In Blanche's denial, he claims he was present for whole meeting—but it appears he wasn’t. ...
/2
“I was at the meeting,” Blanche writes. But Blanche only poked his head in & left, Reuveni told NYT. Tellingly, Bove testified to Senate *not* that Blanche was present, but that Blanche *said* he was present. ...
/3