The Supreme Court bypassed normal appellate procedure to halt President Trump's deportation of more illegal aliens.
There a lot of misinformation floating around about judicial rulings, the Alien Enemies Act, and immigration law.
Let's clear a few things up.🧵
There a lot of misinformation floating around about judicial rulings, the Alien Enemies Act, and immigration law.
Let's clear a few things up.🧵
On Apr. 7, SCOTUS held: 1. Judge Boasberg had no jurisdiction over the Tren de Aragua deportations under the Alien Enemies Act; 2. Those TdA thugs must seek relief under "habeas" where they are confined (Texas).
This takes the AEA cases from DC to TX.
This takes the AEA cases from DC to TX.
https://x.com/Eric_Schmitt/status/1909582377707352450
Last Wednesday, the ACLU filed, in NDTX before Judge Wes Hendrix, a habeas petition and a motion for an ex parte TRO, asking the court to enjoin the Trump Admin's deportation of TdA members confined in NDTX without giving the Trump Admin notice or opportunity to respond.
Judge Hendrix denied that TRO motion on Maundy Thursday explaining that it would decide in due course the petitioners' claims. Judge Hendrix also instructed that any party opposing a TRO would have 24 hours to respond to a motion.
Unhappy with that result, the ACLU left a voicemail on Judge Hendrix phone requesting to speak to the Judge about the substance of the proceeding, an improper ex parte communication.
On Good Friday, the ACLU filed another ex parte emergency motion for a TRO against the removal of TdA members to El Salvador while their habeas claims were pending.
A few hours later, they filed for an emergency status conference, trying to force a decision only hours later.
A few hours later, they filed for an emergency status conference, trying to force a decision only hours later.
As part of the "emergency" nature of the claim, the ACLU (highly irregularly) imposed a 42 minute deadline on Judge Hendrix to grant its motion.
If the plaintiff imposed deadline was not met, the ACLU would appeal the lack of a ruling as a "constructive" denial of the motion.
If the plaintiff imposed deadline was not met, the ACLU would appeal the lack of a ruling as a "constructive" denial of the motion.
Before Hendrix could issue an order, the ACLU filed an appeal to the Fifth Cir. and SCOTUS, freezing NDTX's jurisdiction.
The Fifth Cir, said it had no juris. because Judge Hendrix had neither granted nor denied the motion, there was nothing to review.
The Fifth Cir, said it had no juris. because Judge Hendrix had neither granted nor denied the motion, there was nothing to review.
https://x.com/mike_frags/status/1913387105213890619
In an order with not opinion, SCOTUS, directed the Government not to remove any TdA members confined in NDTX marked for deportation under the AEA until there is more action from the Court.
https://x.com/MZHemingway/status/1914317250581999837
The worst part of the unreasoned order: SCOTUS enjoin the President acting under his core Article II powers to remove enemies of a foreign invading force. That is a first in American history and a grave threat to our separation of powers.
https://x.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1913604347142742395
That leads us to Today, when Judge Hendrix issues a scathing opinion to the ACLU lawyer for his prohibited ex parte communications on Apr. 17, violating the federal code of conduct. Did the ACLU do this with other judges? With Boasberg?
https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1914504252971528208
What's next? As for the TRO, the Trump Admin has responded to the ACLU's emergency injunction app. pending at SCOTUS. It will resolve in the coming days and the Trump admin will likely win.
And the ex parte comms? The Trump admin will respond and, likely, ask for sanctions.
And the ex parte comms? The Trump admin will respond and, likely, ask for sanctions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
