🧵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.
4/ But what about other legal claims? Well several deal with immigration issues and case law is clear that you can't go to a federal district court FIRST and when you do it's habeas. What about "due process" and "ultra vires"? Well, those also "sound" in habeas & Henderson
5/5 never addressed if you could sue for such claims. At this point, Trump Administration should file a Motion to Dismiss the claims and turn the table on Plaintiffs.
6/ Also, given the 1-1-1 decision and Judge Henderson's (misplaced) assumption re the APA claims being valid and that the order really doesn't have much direct impact currently, I don't think Trump Administration seeks to appeal now but instead files Motion to Dismiss arguing
7/ Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for various violations: APA claims fail because alternative remedy; various immigration claims fail because they need to seek withholding of removal/asylum from INS & then habeas; due process fails b/c due process available through habeas/
8/8 and because it sounds in habeas; ultra vires fails because no common law ultra vires where you can bring habeas. Bottom line all claims but habeas fail and dismissal required. If court denies then Trump could seek to appeal interlocutorily along with PI.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨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.
🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration file brief in response to Judge's order it "show cause" why it didn't violate Court order re the Alien Enemies Act removals of terrorists. 1/
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration tells Judge in Alien Enemies Act case it will provide him no more information re the flights etc. and is exercising the State's Secret doctrine. 1/
2/ Key to Trump's argument is this point: Given Trump hasn't contested they landed and were deplaned after order issued there is no need for court to know any other details.
UPDATE: So I finished listening to entire hearing and my initial "gut" remains: Walker is 100% no jurisdiction because this must be brought in habeas. Judge Wilett is 100% jurisdiction and upholding TRO. Henderson will be swing vote. 1/
2/ My gut is Henderson will find Walker's argument was more convincing because it was based on controlling precedent of LoBue & Wilett was based on emotional. LoBue is controlling & no jurisdiction. Walker can overcome Wilett's worst-case concerns by
3/ Saying it will enter administrative stay for 5 days to allow for appeal or habeas to be filed in Texas. NOTE: This will not end contempt issue as you can have contempt of an order that is void.
🚨...jumping in:
DOJ: Says it is habeas is "jurisdictional" and not "venue." Goes to "authority" of court not steering where appropriate.
ACLU: Jumps into conversation--district court has not said anything yet about whether to bring people back. Very concerned his order has been violated and has not made decision if violated much less whether ordered back so that is not before court.
Claims gov't is admitting must be ability to contest whether you fall within proclamation is "how". D.Ct. has said he wants to figure out how that works. Neither gov't or us had answer. BUT easy ground to affirm, because there is "no process."
Gov't saying "you can have process" that's illusory because paper said they have no process.
Judge Walker: Could you have done everything in Texas D.Ct. that you did in this court. Perhaps, but law is clear you don't need to bring in habeas because you aren't seeking release. You could have filed exact same complaint that you filed here in district court. Government is agreeing each Plaintiff COULD have gone before habeas in district court in Texas.
ACLU: We could have filed a class habeas but we weren't looking to just get 5 individuals. If gov't is saying we could do this for each individual, we couldn't because we didn't know. We filed at 2 a.m., 5 a.m. enjoined re the 5 a.m. Absent a class TRO we would have had more in prison.
Judge Walker: Everything that happened a Southern District Court of Texas could have done.
ACLU: Yes.
Judge Walker: That tees up the dispute. Gov't says it a) must be habeas; and b) where detainee is, which is Texas.
ACLU: Common ground now that there must be process. We're talking to people to El Salvador one of worse prisons. Government provided zero ability to provide habeas.
Judge: Everyone who is detained can bring a habeas petition.
ACLU: Only because of TRO by judge Boasman.
2/ Judge Walker: Does it have to be brought by habeas. Hard to get around LoBue.
ACLU: That was extradition. Say it is different.
3/ ACLU: Many, many, many other cases say they aren't seeking release.
Me: But LoBue seems ONLY cases addressing precise issue of not seeking release. Here's my earlier thread on LoBue saying I saw it as dispositive.