"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
Did then-President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry adopt a legal theory justifying President Trump taxing remittances? Yes! Look at the denial of the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama/Kerry argued that needing "leverage" in international negotiations justified executive action.
What does that mean? That means that when President Trump wants "leverage" with our neighbors, he can take Presidential action to negotiate a better deal. The Art of the Deal but based on President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's denial of the Keystone XL project!
I'm not kidding. "Leverage" and "climate change [] leadership" were the two reasons Kerry and Obama put forward to deny Keystone XL. In short, important national security goals (like controlling our border) justify Presidential action. Taxing remittances follows that logic.
Hoo boy. Judge McConnell (once one of Senator Whitehouse's largest donors) issues an impossible to comply with decision. Cheekily voting the President's post asking for guidance on how to spend money he doesn't have, he responds "find the additional funds necessary."
Another poison pill in the order: the money must flow by November 3. But any money found must be allocated under the Administrative Procedure Act. How's that timeline work? Read the full order here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Judiciary expert and law professor Rob Luther weighs in:
*HUGE* "For President Trump, however, the rules are different." Judge Oldham powerfully dissents in tonight's Alien Enemies Act case. 185 pages of opinion to say that President Trump cannot use the Act to deport Tren de Aragua members. Back to the Supreme Court this goes!
Interesting paragraph at the top of the Majority's page 38. If TdA was found to be invading or a predatory incursion, and that was "at least in part" directed by Venezuela, then the President's order would be lawful. That's a low bar to assert the authority.
Ho boy. Judge Breyer--having already been denied once by a bipartisan-appointed panel of appellate judges--purports to enjoin President Trump from using the National Guard for law enforcement purposes. I'll cover some serious questions I have below 🧵
The opening shows where the judge's concern lies: that the successful law enforcement in LA could be replicated elsewhere. Including in the Judge's own Northern District of California. (Yet the judge raises no questions about why the lawsuit is not in LA...)
The first analytical give away is explicitly relying on non-binding dicta from a different era of the Court's jurisprudence. Very dissimilar situations and to reach his result, the Judge had to reach into the annals of law. (In the case he cites the plaintiffs were dismissed)
Ninth Circuit issues opinion *denying* Birthright Citizenship to the son of a Nigerian diplomat. Opinion properly applies Wong Kim Ark to find both presence *and* jurisdiction necessary for citizenship. Judge Johnstone (Biden appointee) writes for a unanimous panel.
Here, Judge Johnstone reflects many of the arguments raised by the United States in its case. The only difference is that he is applying the same logic to one of the three categories named in Wong Kim Ark. But for that, this could have been an amicus for the Government.
Breaking: Antitrust claims against Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard survive motion to dismiss. Major effort to restrict supply of coal can proceed. Enormous win for @KenPaxtonTX, @AGIowa, a coalition of States, @AFergusonFTC and @TheJusticeDept. This is a *BIG* Deal.
Judge Kernodle (E.D. Texas) opens his opinion cleanly laying out the background of antitrust law and the allegations. Defendants own huge amounts of coal companies. And Plaintiffs allege they use that control to try to cut down on coal production. A classic violation.
Joining big organizations that commit you to unrealistic goals and coordination carries big risks. State AGs have been warning this for years. So have @WillHild and @ConsumersFirst --including whistleblowing about these organizations specifically.