"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
Wow. Judge Talwani doubles down: Injunction entered against law defunding Planned Parenthood--on First Amendment *and* Bill of Attainder grounds. Interested to see if the First Circuit has it in them to rein in what appears to me to be a likely unlawful preliminary injunction!
This is the crux of the First Amendment analysis: by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and *affiliates*, Judge Talwani finds that there are First Amendment rights being violated. Being a part of an organization is protected--and thus funding cannot be cut? Revolutionary!
Next, the Judge lays out the rationale for why Congress defunding organizations that provide abortions is . . . an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. As with many truly novel arguments, this immediately raised skepticism among many court watchers.
The district court in Massachusetts enjoined Congress from cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. Abandoning it's earlier Bill of Attainder theory, the Court finds that Congress passing a law defunding PP violates their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. I'm skeptical!
Let's look first at the First Amendment claim. Basically: PP & affiliates lobbies and engages in advocacy. Cutting their funding impedes that. So Congress may not cut. By that logic, Congress may not cut funding to *any* organization, esp. if it discourages affiliates
Next, let's look at Equal Protection. Because the Court finds that the PP affiliation is expressive, cutting the funding is subject to...strict scrutiny? On my quick read this section went over my head. Not really sure why this is an EPC rather than another (odd) 1A claim
Must Chief Judge Boasberg recuse? One reason for recusal is the appearance of impropriety. Given the public reporting on the Judge's specific concerns about President Trump I think it has to be addressed. Even if the Judge can be neutral, the appearance here is 👀
Yikes -- pretty bad timing by Judge Boasberg. It is a real shame that judges are not extending to President Trump the same grace as extended to any other President. Especially given his zealous commitment to the rule of law and norms
For those who are interested, I was called out for succumbing to silly concerns, and posted a response here: . Happy to share good-faith criticisms as always!
HUGE National Security win for President Trump. Secretary of Defense is able to withdraw from President Biden administration's last minute attempt to avoid death penalty for September 11 attackers. Long opinion by Judges Millett and Rao, concur/dissent in part by Judge Wilkins
It cannot be that every Presidential policy and every law must survive review by every district court to go into effect. That is precisely the "imperial judiciary" Justice Barrett warned against. Here we are again. One judge issued a same-day TRO--no defense allowed.
"Maintain the status quo" cannot always trump the political branches exercising their Constitutional aurhority
The TRO was filed this morning. It is 60-pages long. It involves a long and complicated law enacted by Congress and signed by the President less than one business day ago. Yet the Court purports to order the federal government to pay money? Very aggressive in the wake of CASA!