Dilan Esper Profile picture
Feb 29, 2024 30 tweets 5 min read Read on X
This "the courts are slow-walking Trump's immunity claim" narrative (for the most part coming from non-lawyers who don't understand anything about the system) is truly pissing me off. So here's the real story. 1/
President Trump was indicted last August. Notably that's the biggest slow walk of all- an August 2023 indictment for a January 2021 alleged crime, and 10 months after Jack Smith was appointed. But Smith is a saint among men and "on our team", so he cannot be criticized. 2/
President Trump's motion to dismiss was filed on September 29, less than TWO MONTHS after the case commenced. Judge Chutkan, who, again, gets no criticism because she's on the right "team", decided it on December 1, a two month delay. 3/
Nonetheless, to be clear, Judge Chutkan deserves no criticism for this. Two months from filing to decision on a motion to dismiss in federal court is VERY FAST. Usually you are looking at six months or more. This case was expedited. 4/
Donald Trump had a right, under law, to appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeals and to stay the trial court proceedings while he did it. You may not like this rule, but it applies to ANYONE raising an immunity defense, not just Donald Trump. 5/
President Trump took his appeal and the court concluded briefing in JUST ONE MONTH, and then held oral argument on January 9 and decided the case February 6. This is LIGHTNING FAST. Most CoA cases take about a year to a year and half between commencement and conclusion. 6/
Further, the DC Circuit itself broke a norm to speed up the case further, and NOBODY criticized it for breaking this norm. It's a technical issue, but the "mandate" is the date on which a court of appeals judgment goes into effect. 7/
In a normal case, you get 15 days to petition the court to rehear the case (in case some error was made) or to suggest that the full court, rather than a 3 judge panel, hear the case, and then the decision takes effect 7 days after that. 8/
The DC Circuit panel took those 22 days away from President Trump. It did so even though we have no idea if the full DC Circuit actually might have wanted to hear the case. Doesn't matter, the panel said, we won't let you. The decision takes effect immediately. 9/
So President Trump was forced to file immediately for US Supreme Court review. Even here, his time was cut. Normally you get 3 months to file a petition to the Supreme Court. The DC Circuit gave President Trump A WEEK. Again, enormous speed. 10/
President Trump filed his application for SCOTUS to take the case on February 12. SCOTUS decided within just SIXTEEN DAYS to grant the application.

And then SCOTUS set a HIGHLY expedited briefing schedule. 11/
Normally, a case that is taken by the Supreme Court on February 28 will be briefed through the spring and summer, heard in October when the new term starts, and decided the following January or so. 12/
But SCOTUS held all briefing will be done by APRIL and it will be orally argued the week of 4/22. That sets this up for decision in early May. A motion that was filed in September goes through all three levels of the federal court system and gets decided by May. That's FAST! 13/
Want to know what regular order looks like? Well, Judge Chutkan takes 6 months to rule on the motion to dismiss, and rules on it the last week of March 2024. The DC Circuit appeal takes a year and is decided in March 2025. Throw on another month for the en banc denial. 14/
Trump petitions for certiorari in Spring 2025 and his petition is granted and the case is briefed in the summer and early fall and is argued in November 2025. It is decided in March 2026. That's what regular order is. This case has been expedited by ALMOST 2 YEARS TOTAL. 15/
And if you want to argue that a 5/24 decision is still too late, well, SCOTUS only controls the last 3 months of that delay. The rest of it? Blame the liberal Judge Chutkan and DC Circuit and ESPECIALLY the DOJ, who DIDN'T BRING THIS CASE FOR 2 1/2 YEARS! 16/
Seriously the court system took almost 2 years off a case that DOJ took 2 1/2 years to bring. The Supreme Court itself took 8 months off of the case. And we're blaming the Supreme Court? This is utterly wrong. 17/
The reality is once the DOJ decided it would take 2 1/2 years to bring January 6 charges, this goose was cooked. And that is the case even though the federal courts, including SCOTUS, tried to pull it out of the oven quicker at the end. End/
@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein 2. SCOTUS taking the case in December would have been extraordinary. SCOTUS rarely jumps in before a Court of Appeals has acted, and Jack Smith's argument that they should have was actually a lot weaker than Trump's immunity argument. It was never happening.
@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein 3. Sat for weeks? They decided the cert petition 16 days after receiving it, which again is lightning fast by SCOTUS standards.
@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein (It allowed Justice Jackson to sit on the affirmative action case.)

Also at least 6 cert before judgment cases were grant vacate and remand cases where court corrected some procedural error, not merits cases.
@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein As far as I know this would have been only the 5th case of its kind to jump the Court of Appeals in the last 20 years or so had they granted cert before judgment.
@MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein (But perhaps you know more about appellate practice than I do. :) )
@SirCanuckles TBC I don't think that. I think 2 months is fine.
@InquisitiveUrsa See also the immigration judges issue which slows up asylum processing. We just don't have enough judicial officers at multiple points in the system.
@mo_sabet @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein It's at the point where I've answered most of the talking points. :)
@mo_sabet @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein And I'm not saying you do this but there's a "they do this all the time" sort of talking point being thrown around and no, even now, they really don't do it all the time. It's very rare.
@reedtcampbell Whereas here, this is not a discovery issue or grinding ongoing investigations to a halt. It's just a legal issue about whether there can be a trial.
@Trillest110 @Perl_of_Wisdom @ChiCyph80 @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein There's a reason Finley Peter Dunne's joke about SCOTUS following the election returns has so much bite. You don't want courts thinking about this shit, let alone trying to influence the results of elections (which of course is the real goal here).
@Trillest110 @Perl_of_Wisdom @ChiCyph80 @MarkGattozzi @ARozenshtein I definitely want the official rule to be "the election is legally irrelevant".

• • •

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

Keep Current with Dilan Esper

Dilan Esper 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 @dilanesper

Sep 8
BTW, this whole thing with Bivens shows you why hard core originalism, with no regard for pragmatism, is such a bad judicial philosophy.

There's no text in the Constitution prohibiting a Bivens remedy. Both sides of the debate are making up the law on this.
The originalists are just saying there's this implied rule against courts implying causes of action, because that's part of the Article I "legislative" power. It's all by implication, not clear in the text, and yet the Court's conservatives treat this as some unbreakable rule.
And along comes the Trump administration basically ordering federal law enforcement to violate all sorts of laws knowing they can't be sued because the Court's originalists refuse to imply a cause of action for violations of the Constitution.
Read 6 tweets
Sep 8
This morning is probably the first day many people will learn that for almost 50 years, going back to US v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), SCOTUS has allowed racial profiling by immigration officers.

It was shameful then, and it is shameful it is still good law.
Michael Kinsley used to say the scandal in Washington isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. I actually think this morning's order is rightly decided under the controlling precedents.

The problem is those precedents.
One of them is not totally terrible-- Los Angeles v. Lyons said if you can't prove the police will use excessive force again against you, you are limited to damages for excessive force rather than an injunction. The problem is IN 2025 YOU CAN'T GET DAMAGES AGAINST A FEDERAL AGENT
Read 7 tweets
Sep 7
This isn't actually intersectionality (an overused term) because it's not due to the intersection of identities, but I think the conclusion is somewhat right if the reasoning is wrong.

What has happened is the American left has celebrated anarchy/rulebreaking since the 1960's
A lot of traditional socialist ideas were based on the notion of COMMUNITARIANISM-- that we were in this together, we had obligations to each other, we needed to build a high trust society.

In contrast, the right was more INDIVIDUALISTIC. Think about, e.g., gun rights rhetoric.
But in the 1960's, the New Left happened. At it was centered not around the notion of building a benevolent government creating a network of mutual obligations (LBJ was DOING that-- he signed Medicare and expanded AFDC!).

Rather, it was about rejecting the rules.
Read 15 tweets
Sep 6
Folks, some of the reactions to my thread on shooting the innocent North Korean fisherman seem to be based on a misconception that the only thing that matters is the safety of US spies.

But that's completely antithetical to hundreds of years of customary law on espionage.
When a country sends spies into another country, they are unlawful combatants. Indeed, they are almost the paradigm of what an unlawful combatant is. They are violating the host nation's sovereignty. They are not wearing identifiable insignia. They are often committing sabotage.
This true of spies from Russia and China who come to America, and it is true of spies we send out to do covert operations in other countries. Spying happens, it's inevitable, it's a part of foreign relations... and everyone understands it is illegal.
Read 14 tweets
Sep 5
A reader asked Matt Yglesias this morning "why did the outsider nerds in DOGE fail while the outsider nerds in baseball succeeded?".

Matt gave a good answer about the backgrounds of the baseball nerds, but there's something about the whole "Moneyball" story that's a bit toxic.
The Moneyball story is essentially that baseball managers and front offices had made bad decisions for years, and some baseball fans who were also brilliant statisticians came in with their disruptive paradigm and turned out to be right about all this stuff the insiders got wrong
It's a compelling story. And it's somewhat true. For instance, baseball managers bunted too much, especially with one out. They played for 1 run too often when they needed 3. They left some starting pitchers in who were likely to lose their stuff in later innings. All true.
Read 18 tweets
Sep 2
This deserves a thread.

Imagine if on September 12, 2001, Osama Bin Laden announced that if we don't go into Afghanistan to get the perpetrators, he would sign a binding pledge not to attack America again.

Should Bush have taken that offer?
Or imagine if on December 8, 1941, Emperor Hirohito announces that Japan will ensure the safety of the US' Pacific territories if we agree to take no action in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Should FDR accept?
The basic notion here is the Palestinian Cause thinks that Hamas should have been given a free attack. Kill over 1,000 Israelis, commit mass rape and kidnapping, and Israel just does nothing in response and agrees to a hostage deal.

That doesn't work.
Read 8 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!

:(