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
For those investigating or trying to under the "Prohibited Access" scandal, ICYMI below I highlight how SC John Durham defined "close hold" differently from "Prohibited Access," while IG Report indicated "close hold" to Crossfire Hurricane team meant "Prohibited Access." 1/
2/ This suggests to me that SC Durham was not told Crossfire Hurricane material had been coded Prohibited Access which limited ability of agents searching for it to see the existence of the information. NOR would you understand that from how the IG described "prohibited" or "close hold."
3/ I'd also add that from Brian Auten's deposition, it appears not everyone on Crossfire Hurricane team could view the Prohibited Access documents, raising even more questions.
🚨THREADETTE: Yesterday, I emailed the attorney of record, Niels Frenzen @MigrantsAtSea, a media inquiry concerning his client Susanna Dvortsin, who petitioned as Next of Friend of wife & children of terrorist who set Jews on fire & obtained an ex parte order barring their removal from Colorado. 1/
2/ I asked two basic questions but received no response. I should add a third: What good faith basis did he have that there was jurisdiction to file a habeas case in a district court in an immigration case?
3/ Here's the order & the point re jurisdiction. Lawyers have an obligation not to file knowingly frivolous claims and I am hard pressed to understand what possible good faith basis there was to file a habeas case in the district court.
3/ And here's the injunction court entered. He showed more restraint this time by asking DOJ how they will facilitate allowing aliens to seek habeas relief. Doesn't mean he hasn't overstepped (more on that), but at least he didn't say put them on an airplane now. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
3/ Hey @FBIDirectorKash @dbongino and @EagleEdMartin here are some basic questions Americans need answers to ASAP to understand if the breadth and depth of the Prohibited Access scandal. thefederalist.com/2025/06/04/the…