4/ Bottom line, Judge Henderson did not consider whether district court had jurisdiction over case and she assumed they could bring APA claims, but as Judge Walker points out both points are flowed.
5/ So while I find Judge Henderson's opinion calm and methodical, she doesn't address two issues she needs to before finding likelihood of success on the merits, ie., can you bring an APA claim & or must this case be brought in Texas.
6/6 Henderson did not enter final decision on either, but this is a definite loss to Trump
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump asks SCOTUS to intervene in Alien Enemies Act case & Justice Roberts requests response.
2/ The brief is excellent and includes extensive analysis, but the bottom line is simple: Judge Boesberg LACKED jurisdiction. That's all that matters & Judge Henderson ignored that flaw.
3/ As I explained soon after the D.C. Circuit issued its decision denying a stay of the injunction barring Trump Administration from removing tDa members, that was Henderson's fatal flaw in her reasoning.
🚨Yesterday I posted the below thread about the First Circuit (appellate court) that allowed a lower court to tell Trump he had to keep paying grants and couldn't freeze them or cancel them. I suggested the injunction really had no "bite" because it was limited to blanket decisions. 1/
2/ Well a little bit ago the Trump Administration filed a brief in the lower court. The plaintiffs had claimed Trump was violating the injunctions because FEMA wasn't paying grants. Not so, Trump countered: They are reviewing and paying the grants, not freezing them.
3/ In fact, Trump Administration cites First Circuit's decision to argue it complied with the injunction because it a) wasn't a freeze; b) its action in reviewing the requires for payment under FEMA grants was NOT based on Trump's OMB directive but agencies own authority.
3/ Judge: Notes some questions raised about this judge being given this case by random assignment. He then details how random assignment happens. Basically he's just saying I was randomly assigned this case.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: D.C. Court of Appeals tells Dellinger okay, you want to play that game, fine, we'll dismiss the lower court WITH prejudice, but NOT our opinions. 1/
2/ While I believe the better approach would have been for Court of Appeals to say there are rules on how to dismiss a case and asking Court of Appeals to do so isn't it, end result was same because Court of Appeals didn't vacate appellate decisions which was Dellinger's ploy.
3/ Instead it dismissed case WITH prejudice meaning Dellinger can't try to refile AND it vacated injunction entered below which was still in place but stayed AND it left binding precedent of Court of Appeals in tact. So, really a WIN for Trump, or rather a BIG L for Dellinger.
🚨🚨🚨Another loss for Trump this one in First Circuit with court denying stay of lower court order. Details of underlying case and order below. This one Trump should appeal. 1/
3/ A few thoughts: This language from Court of Appeals suggests the injunction has no "bite" because Trump can terminate grants for reasons other than prohibited OMB.
🧵Some more thoughts on decision denying stay that I discussed broadly below. Judge Henderson made a fatal flaw: She concluded government wasn't likely to succeed on appeal ONLY by assuming Plaintiffs could bring an APA claim. They cannot. 1/
2/ As Judge Walker properly notes, APA ONLY provides for review when "no other adequate remedy in a court," and here as Plaintiffs admitted, they could have sued in habeas. SO, bottom line is Plaintiffs aren't likely to prevail on APA claims.
3/ Judge Henderson completely ignore that problem, and instead, again, presumed such a claim. Why? My gut is because she a) questioned whether Alien Enemies Act applies to tDa and b) because she saw the harm as soooo irreparable.