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
The press (legacy and new) and the investing public seem to have no idea what the Obama Administration launched in the Consolidated Audit Trail and what current SEC is currently doing--computer searches of OUR private data without any basis! @NCLAlegal 1/
2/ I'm frankly shocked that more civil libertarians aren't screaming about this! And now SEC is trying to delay Plaintiffs' day in court! Details here: nclalegal.org/feds-are-steal…
I'm working on a piece tomorrow to counter all the spin on the courts refusing to issue arrest warrant against Don Lemon in first instance as somehow vindicating him. BUT I think it merits stressing WHY DOJ sought arrest warrant that way first. 1/
2/2 DOJ feared there would be widespread copycat assaults in places of worship the following weekend unless it moved quickly to show public such behavior was illegal and would be prosecuted.
THREAD: Yesterday @EdWhelanEPPC defended Judge Schlitz for not recusing in ICE cases even though he is publicly listed as a donor to Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. @HarmeetKDhillon called him out. 1/
2/ Ed quoted from a section of the Compendium § 4.2-3(g)), a federal appellate judge shared with him that stated: “A judge may contribute financially to legal service associations that provide counsel for the poor. A judge need not recuse merely because lawyers who accept appointments by such associations are also counsel of record in cases before that judge.”
3/ @HarmeetKDhillon correctly pointed out that language is out-of-context & cherry picked & ignores other canons. Before explaining, let me provide some background so you can judge the analysis. For at least 6 (possibly 8) years, my federal appellate judge tasked me as sole
2/ Jordan lays out at high level all efforts to "get Trump" that has been going on for 10 years. Beginning with Clinton and Steele dossier, and Comey, and impeachment one, impeachment two, Bragg, and Fani Willis.
3/ Jordan notes how Smith brought on same people who ran raid at Mar-a-Lago and Jan. 7. And how Smith ignore procedures, gagged Trump, filed a 165 motion 33 days before the election.