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
4/ will likely say "current order now concerns "non-judiciable political question beyond authority for courts to delve into" & vacate that portion of Judge Xinis's order. Discovery may be permitted to ascertain whether El Salvador is holding Garcia based on U.S. request/payment.
5/ Frankly, though, DOJ would be wise to submit that detail in a declaration making all discovery irrelevant.
THREDETTE: I'll have more thoughts on 4th Cir. opinion denying Stay and Mandamus later, but in short, there was a lot...I mean A LOT, I agreed with in Judge Wilkerson's measured opinion. But he was fundamentally WRONG in his conclusion & his attitude of superiority. 1/
2/ Bottom line is Article III cannot force Article II to engage in diplomatic efforts EVEN if it is in private. And no only does district court mandate Trump does so, she wants full discovery about it.
3/ And Wilkinson's frame of this as a constitutional crisis of Trump's making ignores the outrageous overreach of the district court. BUT Trump Administration IMNSHO screwed up by not facing reality that SCOTUS ordered "facilitation" with "release from custody."
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Fourth Circuit denies Trump stay and denies mandamus in Garcia case. Court's opinion seeks to take a high ground but blames Trump for the constitutional crisis where lower court has far exceeded her authority. That said: As I stressed, fundamental problem is 1/
2/ that the record suggests Trump has spirited away Garcia to a foreign prison and that Garcia is held there because Trump wants him held there and is paying for it. As I've been screaming: IF Garcia is held in El Salvador prison because he is El Salvadorian gang member & not
3/ because we entered into an agreement for El Salvador to hold Garcia and pay for his detention, this case is entirely different. Then it is beyond Trump's authority to facilitate other then by Article III infringing on Article II.
🚨🚨🚨Trump Administration files its Emergency Motion for Stay of Judge Xinis's order re Garcia. Court orders Garcia's attorneys to respond by 5. 1/
2/ Fishing expedition with discovery noted.
3/ While it was a mistake to remove Garcia to El Salvador, Trump Administration makes point that it could have the withholding of removal to El Salvador formally removed. That doesn't change that it was mistake but makes this exercise seem even more ridiculous.
🚨🚨🚨Un.Frickin.Real. Attorneys in the Alien Enemies Act ask Boasberg to now enter a TRO that orders government to provide 30 days notice for removal of any class member under AEA & serve on both class member & ACLU.
2/ Attorneys claim that the Court continues to have jurisdiction...This is nutso!! SCOTUS said only habeas action and habeas requires physically in district and none of named plaintiffs are physically in this district.
3/ OMfrickingosh: ACLU is arguing it can bring a claim over propriety of notice in the D.C. District because SCOTUS explained what due process required even though the case wasn't habeas.
🧵Below is my THREAD of Boasberg's opinion of probable cause of contempt. Some global thoughts: There are two equally significant issues with Boasberg's opinion. First, a frivolous order can be ignored, he admits. 1/
2/ When it is a private party, they may not be entitled to decide "frivolous" but when we are talking an equal branch of government, the standard must differ. And here there are three huge problems, where Boasberg's order was frivolous.
3/ First, order injunctive relief for class action in this context is unheard of & frivolous. Second, there was no jurisdiction here for habeas & it was clear. And third, there was no subject matter jurisdiction under APA b/c Congress limited jurisdiction to when no other remedy.
On road & parked momentarily for a couple things so no time to do tweet thread on JudgeBoasberg’s order. But if he opens his opinion with an outright misrepresentation of what his order was, that tells me rest of substance sucks.
2/ This is factually wrong too: The boast was that they succeeded in avoiding an order preventing the removal...not that they ignored the removal order.