🧵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.
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.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Another Trump win on appeal with D.C. Circuit vacating preliminary injunction. Order isn't loading yet so details to follow. 1/
2/ Here's what the case is about:
3/ And this isn't one of the cases where things were stayed, meaning this decision now frees the Trump Administration to get back to work. The court had originally stayed a portion of the injunction, allowing Trump to fire folks but then Plaintiffs claimed Trump didn't make individualized assessment so Court of Appeals decided it wasn't going to get into that morass and just said Trump can't fire anyone (it shouldn't have and I believe one of the judge's dissented on that cop out).
2/ So as background this is the consolidated (joined) cases involving USAID where the district court originally ordered payment of millions within like 36 hours and Justice Roberts granted an administrative stay and then said basically redo so it is feasible.
3/ The judge sorta redid and Trump has been complying, i.e., there was no stay in place so this is a WIN. Trump has also sought dismissal which should be granted based on this decision. AND the plaintiffs sought to enforce AND to depose to enforce so the ruling will 86 that!
THREADETTE: ⬇️is my play-by-play of 9th Cir. decision. Top-line: Loss to Trump AND horrible opinion b/c law is clear that "reasonable suspicion" depends on totality of circumstances & yet court prevents ICE from considering totality of circumstances. 1/
2/ District court had actually allowed for that by including "expected as permitted by law," which the 9th Cir. struck. 9th Cir. THEN, after saying ICE could consider other circumstances, actually altered injunction's language of "presence at a particular location"
3/ THIS is what 9th Cir. said was enjoined: that "whether that be a random location . . . or a location selected 'because past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize or seek work at these locations, . . ." That ADDED a limitation of a circumstance ICE CAN consider in totality of the circumstances.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: 9th Cir. denies Trump Administration stay regarding district court's efforts to micromanage ICE "except as to a single clause" but that single clause is what allowed ICE to do it's job! Still reading so clarity to follow. 1/
2/ As I noted before one of the problems with the court's injunction is that you can't enjoin a situation where the situation depends on all of the facts and circumstances, for instance, if a voluntary encounter which needs no reasonable suspicion.
3/ On that point: That is exactly what the training is. You can see from this language the specific details needed to know whether there is or isn't reasonable suspicion.