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
THREAD on broad thoughts from hearing: My "gut" is that SCOTUS will follow what I call the Kavanaugh approach to nationwide injunctions and hold that there are rules & those must be followed and those rules require class certification to provide relief beyond Plaintiffs. 1/
2/ Justice Kavanaugh (echoed by several other justices) stressed that exigent circumstances purportedly justifying nationwide injunctions don't exist because courts can grant TRO/Preliminary Injunctions for putative classes (meaning class action lawsuits not yet certified).
3/ Given that reality, Justice Kavanaugh suggested the argument that we need nationwide injunctions collapses. And as he stressed couple times, there is a rule & those rules must be followed. If you listened to the argument, Justice Kavanaugh's approach came off balanced & sane.
🧵on SCOTUS Nationwide Injunction re birthright citizenship case. Couple preliminary points: The argument is NOT about the merits of the birthright citizenship case. You may hear reference to the APA or the Administrative Procedure Act. This case does NOT concern APA. 1/
2/ Justices may reference APA b/c whether nationwide injunctions are appropriate under APA is a different issue (again not before the court). You'll also hear discussion of "organizational standing". Standing means ability to "stand" before court & ask for remedy b/c YOU are hurt
3/ Organizations have "standing" to sue if at least one member has standing to sue. But to have a remedy, Trump Administration maintains CASA, the organizational plaintiff, must establish which members are actually injured (by affidavit) & injunction is limited to them.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration pounds SCOTUS in new filing asking court to lift administrative injunction entered for non-parties in the Alien Enemies Act case. h/t @gvincentamore 1/
3/ You'll recall this is case where SCOTUS entered a midnight injunction barring Trump from removing any members of a "putative class" of tDa members. "Putative class" means there was NEVER a class action lawsuit "certified"--it was a wanna-be class action.
🚨🚨🚨HUGE development in Alien Enemies Act case that SCOTUS entered a stay for an entire class that had not been certified. District judge now denies class certification. 1/
3/ This decision is first case where court denied class certification. Additionally, now that the court has denied class certification, it changes status quo of case before SCOTUS.
🚨New filing in Boasberg Alien Enemies Act case. Amazing this must be said! 1/
2/ That excerpt was from a Declaration filed by Trump Administration in support of its Response in Opposition to New Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. This Response is interesting as it is first effort by Trump Administration to explain whether it is in constructive control