4/ Trump Admin. hits numerous deficiencies: a) ACLU filed application on behalf of clients "does not represent," using "class action" procedure that is not available for habeas claims, and using individuals who deny membership in tDa--which is not others in supposed class.
5/ Interestingly, Trump says SCOTUS order limits removal of tDa members on other other grounds & notes that those held in Texas are removable on other grounds. It is unclear if orders of removal have already been obtain or Trump just means they can get those.
6/ I hadn't read SCOTUS as limiting removal on other basis but it technically is that broad because the proposed class says
"were, are, or will be subject to" proclamation & all tDa members are "subject to proclamation," but could still be removed a different way.
7/ And SCOTUS order says Trump can't remove any member of putative (wanna-be) class and doesn't say don't remove for that reason!
8/ As I noted earlier in another thread, the district court said it was prepared to enter a decision on Plaintiff's request for a class TRO when ACLU filed appeals. Will SCOTUS step off and allow district court to enter its decision?
9/ This was the fundamental flaw with SCOTUS entering it's order:
10/ And again, point I made earlier:
11/11 SCOTUS has created another mess because it is clear it shouldn't have entered its order because: a) no class certified; b) no class can be certified; and c) "norms" would be to allow lower court to rule. BUT if SCOTUS vacates order, Trump will likely immediately deport.
• • •
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.