"I am stunned." The Supreme Court 5-4 ruled that a sole judge can order billions of dollars out the door--unrecoverable. Justice Alito's shock is appropriate. SCOTUS's unwillingness to police the judicial resistance is worrying--hopefully this is resolved on the merits, soon.
Link to the full opinion, here:
Voting to let the TRO remain in place was: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jacksonsupremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, continues. He accuses the Supreme Court of failing to live up to its supervisory responsibility over the federal court system
The dissent's conclusion strikes a somber tone. Given this opinion, I think it is fair to say that there will be exacting scrutiny on the next universal injunction that makes its way to SCOTUS
The majority relies on weasel words. "The present application does not challenge the Gov'ts obligation to follow that order." Not so, despite what it implies. The deadline passed--but what is to be done now? The majority has taken this big mess and magnified it. Truly stunning.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Do State and Federal judges have an obligation to try to follow Supreme Court emergency orders in good faith? 175 judges say no, endorsing the ongoing resistance by district courts to orders the Supreme Court has *already said* are binding. Odd to join such a partisan brief!
These 175 judges apparently believe the only binding part of a judicial opinion is its reasoning, not its ultimate judgment. I do not think that is the best read of longstanding case law--much less the Supreme Court's recent admonition in Boyle.
The judges analogize the published emergency orders, which are *all* binding on *all* courts in the United States, to unpublished orders issued by Courts of Appeals. I am not sure that works.
*HUGE* Win for President Trump in the challenge to Chicago's law enforcement surge. This is a stunning rebuke of the district court, explaining that the order is necessary to stop futute courts from following. The district judge is chastened by the appeals judges for overstepping
Equally important is another court has joined in to explain the problems with district court judges entering so-called "putative" class actions. The Seventh Circuit recognizes the problems and orders courts to stop, under the Trump v. CASA decision.
"Recall that the plaintiffs asked the district court for an order voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to Rules 23(e) and 41(a). That ruling would bind the whole class, which is why the district court held a hearing and had
the parties notify the class...
*BIG* Immigration win for President Trump. Ninth Circuit holds that President Trump's executive order regarding refugees is lawful. Judge Bybee writes that it is and vacates most of the preliminary injunction. One year in, President Trump is able to run the executive branch
How big is this win? "We recognize the enormous practical implications of this decision. There are over one hundred thousand vetted and conditionally approved refugees...But such a result is one potential consequence of Congress’s sweeping grant of power to the President...”
Read the full opinion here. I plan on separately covering the *extremely important* Judge Lee dissent in part: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
Can Seattle ban apps like @Uber and @Instacart from deactivating gig workers' accounts? Judge Clifton says yes, the ordinance is neither unconstitutionally vague nor violates the First Amendment. Judge Bennett dissents and would instead remand on commercial speech
Judge Bennett is concerned that the district court erred in failing to consider the First Amendment/commercial speech issue at the outset. And that initial failure, Judge Bennett dissents, infected the rest of the analysis. He would ask the district court to reassess.
Interestingly, the majority opinion confines most of its countering to the dissent to a couple (extremely long) footnotes.
I wouldn't be shocked if this got some Supreme Court attention.
🔥🔥"First, Judge Jones’s important dissent details the troubling series of actions by the district court. I join her call to arms on the need for appellate courts to police insubordination in the district courts." Judge Ho dissental calling out district court shenanigans
"I...forcefully rebuke the district court’s gamesmanship that avoided the requirements of federal law. For two years, the state of Louisiana has been held hostage to serial...injunctive decrees, but it has been unable to obtain appellate review." Judge Jones, dissental
The liberal judges concur in the denial of rehearing--and rebuke the rebukers. Some of the judges sometimes use harsh language. Judge Wilson also respects the denial, on issue preservation grounds.
Chief Judge Diaz (4th Circuit, Obama) just issued a judicial misconduct complaint resolving allegations against (allegedly) Judge Griggsby (D. Maryland, Biden). Some of the conduct is eye-popping. Including the threat to never *again* hire a so-called "diversity candidate[]"
According to the specific allegations, the judge "browbeat[]" her clerks and yelled at another clerk for using a bathroom. Apparently *two* clerks resigned. That is almost unheard of.
In fairness, the Chief Judge found some of the complaints were hyperbole. The Chief did not believe the district judge ordered a clerk to eat lunch standing up--nor that she meant to order a clerk to drive 4 hours round trip to move boxes from one office to another.