THREADETTE: Just tonight I caught another nuance I missed in SCOTUS's Garcia order--something Trump Administration is hitting hard. SCOTUS didn't say clarify what "effectuate" means! SCOTUS said "clarify" "directive." 1/
2/ Now, Judge Xinis is reading "directive" as "effectuate," but Trump Administration has better argument that "directive" is the injunction because the entire injunction should be giving due regard to Trump's Article II authority over foreign affairs.
3/ And because the Court said "the rest of the order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand." What requires clarification? THE ORDER. Not the word "effectuate," although meaning of that term is unclear.
4/ SCOTUS, however, also said what was "okay": facilitate release from custody in El Salvador AND "ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
5/ Judge Xinis didn't bother clarifying order: All she did was delete "effectuate" from order and said SCOTUS had affirmed her order--which is blatantly false. Now Trump Administration makes an argument that's off too.
6/ Trump argues facilitate doesn't mean interfering in El Salvador's affairs but means "remov[ing] any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here." Now that is true, but SCOTUS said "facilitate release from custody" NOT facilitate return to US
7/ So we have to consider what SCOTUS meant by facilitate in that context. Trump canceling prison contract for Garcia & thus not paying for El Salvador to detain him, would be "facilitating" his release from custody. And that, a pure contractual move, arguably wouldn't interfere
8/ in foreign affairs or involving meddling in Trump's diplomacy. BUT now that we know that Garcia is being "detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador," there can be no "facilitation" of release from custody w/o interfering in foreign affairs.
9/9 So watch tomorrow and Tuesday for the debate over what was to be "clarified": what "effectuate" meant or what the "order" required. The better reading of SCOTUS opinion was it mean clarify entire injunction.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨Judge Xinis issues two orders in Garcia (El Salvadorian case). Many thoughts: First, Judge provides footnote with many things government did to "facilitate" return to U.S. BUT that Article II decides to do those things is different than Article III mandating it. 1/
2/ Court continues to assume Garcia is held in El Salvador because we requested it and we are paying for it. DOJ needs to clarify that is NOT the case or if it is case, they'd be wise to immediately tell El Salvador are prior request is rescinded & no longer paying for it.
3/ Here is newspaper article Judge Xinis cited but this suggest that deal was only for tDa members. Also, since AP said it had a memo re deal, I'd think they'd release it if it concerned El Salvadorians. apnews.com/article/trump-…
So assuming the accuracy of this thread, Judge Xinis will enter order defining "facilitate" and order Trump Administration to "facilitate" within that meaning and will further order Trump Administration to comply with discovery. 1/
2/ Trump Administration will immediately appeal "facilitate" order because Judge Xinis will require Trump to engage in diplomatic conversations which she lacks authority to do & will seek mandamus to bar discovery of irrelevant information.
3/ Trump Administration will seek stay. Court of Appeals will likely deny stay & back to SCOTUS we go. Assuming Judge Xinis is clear on in order that she is ordering President to engage in certain conversations then SCOTUS
THREAD: New filing in Garcia case. As I noted before, Trump’s argument re facilitate was misplaced because SCOTUS said facility release from custody. Garcia’s attorney hits that hard. 1/
3/ but as I also stressed, the problem now for Garcia
Is that Garcia is being held based on El Salvador’s authority the Trump administration filed a declaration saying that
3/ Trump Administration begins noting that Court invited the Motion Garcia filed for "additional relief," and that the relief sought seeks to micromanage diplomatic relations...It does.
🚨🚨🚨Two new filings in Garcia case (El Salvadorian improperly removed to El Salvador). First, Garcia's attorneys followed district court's lead to file a Motion for Supplemental relief. That Motion asks Court to enter an order requiring 3 things: 1/
2/ Full Motion here. Motion opens by saying that because Trump said if SCOTUS ordered him to bring someone back he would, but that ignores reality that Trump doesn't control El Salvador. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Specifics of what Garcia requests go to my earlier THREAD that the improper removal isn't an olly olly oxen free. The wrongful removal does not entitle Garcia to parole in U.S.