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

Apr 18
🚨Judge Boasberg set an emergency hearing for 6:15 p.m., so starting momentarily. I'll have your color commentary. 1/
2/ Judge: I have another concerns with my ability to act on plaintiffs' TRO I think I need to first to find out what is happening in court and on the ground. What's happening legally?
ACLU: Sought emergency relief in both 5th Circuit & SCOTUS given urgent circumstance.
Judge: Are you seeking same relief there as here?
ACLU: Yes. No removal for 30 days...or without more notice. We believe on way to airport. Appears more being transport. All being moved out of north district of Texas. (Got nationawide TRO in southern TRO). Northern District Court b/c 2 named plaintiff not being removed. Notice in English said you were being removed and could make a phone call. Our position is that whatever SCOTUS meant that what they did can't possibly this little notice.
3/ DOJ: Sought TRO in n.d. in Texas, and 5th & SCOTUS: TRO in other districts, such as CO/NY. Certainly quite of number of these cases.
Judge: Now what's going on on the ground. Do you agree what notice they were given? 24 hours notice in English?
DOJ: Told in language they could understand and not in English. No flights tonight. No plans for flights tomorrow. "People I talked to..."
Judge: What is government's position on whether a detainee merely needs to check a box to say he has to file versus or has to get to court?
DOJ: They can say they want to challenge within a certain time (similar to expedited removal) & then have time to file habeas (minimum 24 hours) and then won't be removed while habeas pending. Not removed then. Many habeas have been filed.
Read 11 tweets
Apr 18
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING. I. Can't. Even. 1/ Image
2/ District court entered injunction prohibiting firings in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & appellate court entered partial stay of injunction, to allow Trump to fire people except as necessary to carry out statutory duties.
3/ Trump had legal team assess what staffing was needed to carry out mandated statutory duties and RIFed everyone else. AND submitted a sworn statement saying say.storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Read 6 tweets
Apr 18
🧵on Garcia (MS-13 El Salvadorian gang member): DOJ has staked out it's position--all it will do to facilitate Garcia's return to US is to, if Garcia presents at a port of entry, to take him into custody in U.S. 1/ Image
2/ District court has said "facilitate" means what it means in dictionary and you must "facilitate" Garcia's return to U.S. under that meaning & submit to discovery to tell us what you have done. DOJ's position is "no, you must tell us precisely what you want us to do first."
3/ DOJ sought a stay making this point & that forcing Executive to "facilitate" beyond removing domestic barriers for Garcia to enter U.S. infringes on Article II. 4th Circuit denied stay.
Read 17 tweets
Apr 18
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Admin. seeks emergency stay/mandamus of Judge Boasberg's order re contempt in Alien Enemies Act. 1/
2/ Here's docket in DC Circuit. courtlistener.com/docket/6990525…
3/ Here's Motion. Comments to follow. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Read 13 tweets
Apr 18
🔥This excerpt from the Gang Field Interview Sheet re Garcia includes two additional key facts: Per experts in gangs, "MS-13 gang members are only allowed to hang around other members or prospects for the gang." 1/ Image
2/So Garcia being with other gang members held more significance than happenstance. BUT more importantly, "confidential source" of "past proven and reliable source" not only knew Garcia's rank & moniker BUT didn't claim to know anything about 4th person. Image
3/3 That negates idea that confidential source was merely telling cops what they wanted to hear.
Read 5 tweets
Apr 18
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another crazy injunction barring Trump Administration officials from accessing social security data for purposes of improving system & finding fraud. Social Security numbers, names, addresses, are key to cross checking for fraud. 1/ Image
Image
2/ 4th Cir. recently granted stay in a similar case but judge claims "it's different" Image
Read 4 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!

:(