Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

🧵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/

https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1912596457489682641

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.

4/ While Boasberg frames habeas as mere "venue" it isn't. SCOTUS has framed as jurisdiction. BUT more than that, there was no subject matter jurisdiction under APA because Congress did not waive sovereign immunity under APA where another remedy existed.

5/ On merits of "willful" violation: The order barred "removal" only. Trump Administration read that literally to bar "removal" from U.S. only and they were already "removed" from U.S. when written order dropped AND case law is clear that written order controls.

6/ That Trump tried to "outrun" injunction and abide by plain meaning shows that Trump Administration was willfully trying to NOT violate order. Bottom line is Boasberg is pissed outran injunction. You can tell that from language throughout.

7/ That and Judge is pissed his daughter (and wife's) leftist work has been raised. But Judge Boasberg brought this upon himself by allowing case to continue in wrong jurisdiction & under APA.

8/ Now, while I don't shed any tears for tDa members, SCOTUS has now made clear what due process is required, which means that Trump Administration did deny some of them due process. BUT that does not justify contempt.

9/ And as I've said for weeks: Notwithstanding the flood of unconstitutional orders entered by Article III overstepping Article II, Trump Administration has obeyed those injunctions--to the letter. He should be applauded for doing so.

10/ Instead, Judge Boasberg seeks to hold Article II in contempt for obeying the letter of his injunction--an injunction later vacated. That deserves condemnation.

11/11 Said otherwise: Scores of Article III judges have entered unconstitutional orders restraining Article II. Article II has been forced to sit back and take it and has no "counter-punch" available. And now Article III wants to blindside the President for not taking a dive.