Margot Cleveland Profile picture
Mar 19 14 tweets 3 min read Read on X
🧵This post by @shellenberger provides an opportunity for me to hit a point I've been making the last week, but which many are still missing. For 2 months, Trump Administration has faced an avalanche of unconstitutional court orders from single federal judges. 1/
2/ More TROs & PI have issued against Trump Administration in 2 months than 4 years of Biden. And while appeals process is still ongoing for many of those, appellate courts have already stayed several orders showing my point re unconstitutionality is not spin but reality.
3/ Supreme Court stayed one judge ordering payment of $2 billion in 36 hours & told judge to be more specific; 3 appellate judges said Trump likely to prevail on firing of Special Counsel Dellinger and ruled he remain out and not reinstated.
4/ Another appellate court stayed order of 1 judge undoing Trump's DEI policies, another judge reversed his TRO & refused to grant an injunction on putting USAIDs workers on leave.
5/ MANY other injunctions will be overturned on appeal b/c lower courts lack jurisdiction to decide employment & grants or army policy. Breadth of overreach by lower court, 1 judge, district court injunctions interfering w/ Trump's Article II power cannot be overstated
6/ Yet not ONCE did Trump Administration declare "fine, then enforce your order." For every MAGA person screaming "ignore those illegal orders," the Trump Administration has NOT done that. And we are talking about clearly illegal orders that infringe on his executive power.
7/ Instead, every time Trump has worked to find way to read order so he could comply AND not pit Article II against Article III. He did that in grant cases by reading exceptions court allowed for otherwise terminating funding. And he did that in the Alien Enemies Act case too.
8/ Yes, Trump Administration did not turn planes around, but it isn't saying you can't order me to do that but that you didn't order me to do that because only the minute order is binding and it cites case law to support its point.
9/ And once the planes left US territory, Trump said the order didn't apply because the "removal" took place. Throughout entire drilling by Judge, and even Judge's requests for Trump's team to say "we just disagree," Trump didn't say that.
10/ Trump Administration said "we complied in good faith and here's why." Yes, the here's why is a very narrow reading of the order & only the minute order, but it has case law to back that. Trump is not being pedantic--he is being prudent.
11/ While Article III is going out of its way to trounce on Article II, Trump is going out of his way to show comity to Article III--even when judges don't deserve it. Judges are not just looking for a fight but have hit Trump with several sucker punches.
12/ Yet Trump...TRUMP! is refusing to engage. This cannot continue for much longer, however, as lower courts are framing injunctions more & more wildly, leaving Trump Administration little room to maneuver in way he can comply without sacrificing his Executive authority.
13/ Which is why I said in the earlier cases before SCOTUS, there attempt at "prudence," was imprudent: By letting it play out in lower courts and not putting a halt to judges clearly illegal orders, judges have been emboldened.
14/14 Appellate courts & SCOTUS must step in now & forcefully because problem is one of judiciary's making--not Trump's. And Trump should be applauded for lengths he has gone to not create constitutional crisis by crafting plausible basis by which he obeyed illegal orders.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Margot Cleveland

Margot Cleveland 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 @ProfMJCleveland

Jun 11
🚨BREAKING: Trump files a response in opposition to Newsom's Motion for a TRO re National Guard troops. 1/
3/ Great line: "There is no rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law." Image
Read 9 tweets
Jun 10
🚨I began researching this deep-dive at @FDRLST soon after @SenGrassleyIA broke news of the "Prohibited Access" functionality of Sentinel. Inspector General conducted TEN audits of Sentinel & details buried in those report blow-open scandal. 1/ Image
3/ Some key points: Sentinel has not been audited in more than a decade AND the "prohibited access" function has never been audited. Image
Read 12 tweets
Jun 8
🚨🚨🚨Garcia's attorneys are not happy and they likely have a judge willing to play along. They now want discovery to learn what Trump Administration did to facilitate Garcia's return so allow court to hold Administration in contempt. 1/
2/ Garcia's attorney's seem to think they also have a "get out of jail free card" because SCOTUS ordered Trump to treat Garcia as if he hadn't been wrongfully removed & they only discovered evidence of his crime after that. Image
3/ And they think they can now challenge what happens to Garcia AFTER the criminal case. That is not ripe, however, because it depends on the outcome of that case. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jun 6
🚨🚨🚨HUGE SCOTUS Win for Trump! 1/ Image
Image
2/ Image
3/ Actually two Trump wins with Court also reversing order that SSA can't let DOGE view records. supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
Read 5 tweets
Jun 6
WHOA! Dems sure picked a winner in Kilmar Garcia!!! 1/ Image
2/ More: Image
Image
3/ Those excerpts came from the government's request to detain Garcia pending trial, available here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Read 11 tweets
Jun 5
For those investigating or trying to under the "Prohibited Access" scandal, ICYMI below I highlight how SC John Durham defined "close hold" differently from "Prohibited Access," while IG Report indicated "close hold" to Crossfire Hurricane team meant "Prohibited Access." 1/
2/ This suggests to me that SC Durham was not told Crossfire Hurricane material had been coded Prohibited Access which limited ability of agents searching for it to see the existence of the information. NOR would you understand that from how the IG described "prohibited" or "close hold."
3/ I'd also add that from Brian Auten's deposition, it appears not everyone on Crossfire Hurricane team could view the Prohibited Access documents, raising even more questions.
Read 5 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!

:(