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
🚨🚨ACLU files reply in SCOTUS re Alien Enemies Act and asks SCOTUS for an advisory opinion in response to an application for which there has been no lower court decision and with no plaintiff. Un. Rea.
2/ Oh, and then asks SCOTUS to take case without any decision.
3/ This is false: DOJ expressly stated it gave notices in native language if they didn't speak English.
🚨🚨🚨Justice Alito's dissenting statement in Alien Enemies Act case dropped late yesterday or early this morning. After detailing how SCOTUS ignored controlling law, he closed with profound point: "Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law." 1/
3/ Justice Alito's closing paragraph concisely chastised not merely SCOTUS but lower courts for doing what Left has been screaming that Trump is supposedly doing...ignoring the law
🚨District court judge in the case that ACLU double-leap-frogged to SCOTUS entered an order detailing the timing of everything. This order makes even more striking SCOTUS decision to toss "norms" to the wayside. 1/
3/ Ironically, Plaintiffs aren't getting any action by district court now b/c by seeking 5th Cir.'s involvement district court canceled deadlines, but then 5th Cir. denied as premature. Of course, ACLU doesn't care b/c it got SCOTUS to issue stay even though class not certified.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Late last night SCOTUS directed Trump not to remove any aliens under Alien Enemies Act based on a "putative class" meaning there is NO certified class action yet. So much for norms! 1/
2/ What makes SCOTUS' decision even more "norm" breaking is that it acted before allowing 5th Cir. to act and 5th Cir. actually dismissed appeal & request as "premature" because it is "a court of review" and district court needs a chance to rule.
3/ Also key is what 5th Cir. said....this is about "named petitioners"--a class was never certified so why in the world is a court entering an order related to a non-existent plaintiff?
2/ Judge: I have another concerns with my ability to act on plaintiffs' TRO I think I need to first to find out what is happening in court and on the ground. What's happening legally?
ACLU: Sought emergency relief in both 5th Circuit & SCOTUS given urgent circumstance.
Judge: Are you seeking same relief there as here?
ACLU: Yes. No removal for 30 days...or without more notice. We believe on way to airport. Appears more being transport. All being moved out of north district of Texas. (Got nationawide TRO in southern TRO). Northern District Court b/c 2 named plaintiff not being removed. Notice in English said you were being removed and could make a phone call. Our position is that whatever SCOTUS meant that what they did can't possibly this little notice.
3/ DOJ: Sought TRO in n.d. in Texas, and 5th & SCOTUS: TRO in other districts, such as CO/NY. Certainly quite of number of these cases.
Judge: Now what's going on on the ground. Do you agree what notice they were given? 24 hours notice in English?
DOJ: Told in language they could understand and not in English. No flights tonight. No plans for flights tomorrow. "People I talked to..."
Judge: What is government's position on whether a detainee merely needs to check a box to say he has to file versus or has to get to court?
DOJ: They can say they want to challenge within a certain time (similar to expedited removal) & then have time to file habeas (minimum 24 hours) and then won't be removed while habeas pending. Not removed then. Many habeas have been filed.
2/ District court entered injunction prohibiting firings in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & appellate court entered partial stay of injunction, to allow Trump to fire people except as necessary to carry out statutory duties.
3/ Trump had legal team assess what staffing was needed to carry out mandated statutory duties and RIFed everyone else. AND submitted a sworn statement saying say.storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…