🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: On Sunday, @NCLAlegal on behalf of its clients, @FDRLST and @realDailyWire sent letter to Attorney General Bondi in response to President Trump's EO on censorship and Secretary Rubio's recent announcement of closing new censorship HUB is State Department. 1/
2/ The letter applauded the President's change in policy and efforts undertaken to protect First Amendment rights but noted ongoing concerns.
3/ As we explained, Secretary Rubio's recent announcement of shuttering of the new censorship hub actually validates our concerns that bureaucrats continued stealth efforts to target domestic speech in excess of their foreign remit.
4/ The letter also detailed numerous examples of GEC AND State Department exceeding Congressional remit to manage foreign affairs and re GEC fight only foreign disinformation. Some details could not be shared publicly, however, because of protective order.
5/ And other details we don't know b/c contractor who ran the "Disinfo Cloud" platform for State didn't maintain emails & b/c we had limited discovery and State Department with held more than thousand documents (in whole/part) based on claimed deliberative process privilege.
6/ Particularly challenging was uncovering details of State Department's coordination with other countries & foreign NGA's re Americans' speech:
7/ Also significant was uncovering of "media literacy" grants funded by the State Department--and NOT GEC, which targeted domestic media outlets. Again, we only received a scratch of discovery on these issues. AND Secretary Rubio's disbanding of Hub doesn't address those efforts
8/ As the letter to AG Bondi then stresses, the harm is ongoing in several ways and to halt the harm in totality and prevent it from restarting, a consent decree is need--to protect our clients and all Americans!
9/9 If you study the "asks" they are common sense and things every American would think our State Department is already doing (or not doing, as the case may be). Sadly, we learned the hard way that was not the case.
10/10 Things are changing, but there are still issues that need resolving and Americans need assurances that the misconduct will end completely--and will not be restarted by bureaucrats or another administration!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨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
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Federal district court enters first merits ruling on Alien Enemies Act habeas case. On question of class certification: Court punts on whether class cert. under Rule 23 is available & considers if All Writs Act provides analog, i.e. another way to do a class. 1/
2/ Court holds "yes," so treating it as a class action which allows ACLU to represent all terrorists Trump seeks to remove under Alien Enemies act whether they ask to challenge removal or not!
3/ Note: This remains limited to the jurisdiction of the d.ct. though, so ACLU still seems to need to file "class actions" in all 94 districts...well it would need to if SCOTUS hadn't entered a stay in a non-case with non-plaintiffs already!
🚨Folks, I'm seeing A LOT of what I believe is misreporting regarding an order entered yesterday by Judge Thurston. Her ACTUAL order appears to be consistent with federal law: 1/
2/ So she is NOT saying they can't arrest without a warrant and it should be easy to prove "flight risk" on an individual basis...in fact that's precisely what ICE requires, which prompted Trump Administration to argue case was moot.
3/ So bottom line the ACTUAL order is merely what law requires & policy states, although the "comply with law" injunctions are disfavored. And entering an injunction requiring following of a policy NOT constitutionally required is problematic. That policy concerns documentation
🚨Judge just entered clarifying order in case of 2 year old American. Judge's clarification provides helpful context: In short, Judge sees factual dispute concerning whether mom wanted to take 2 year old or not & that is the Court's concern. 1/
2/ (Sorry got pulled away): Judge's comments & order make much more sense now AND if a legitimate habeas case, Judge seeking to make factual determination would be appropriate, although mom's letter has not been called into question by any of evidence.
3/ Problem though is this is not legitimate habeas case because Plaintiff lacks authority to act on behalf of child because there is no evidence dad has any authority to act on behalf of the child. Under Louisiana law, mom has all parental rights if dad & mom weren't married.
🔥My thoughts below were stream of conscious but after processing, I think it is a huge "discovery" I noted: In short, attorney originally referred to father of 2 year old as husband of mother but in court documents only called him "partner." 1/
2/ Under Louisiana law, if parents are NOT married at time of birth, then mother has all custodial and parental rights. Dad has to prove fatherhood (here proven by birth certificate) AND then obtain legal custodial/parental rights via court proceedings.
3/ So, if they weren't married as seems likely given court documents did not refer to him as husband, it seems very unlikely dad had any legal parental or custodial rights to 2 year old which would mean he couldn't give them to a Provisional Custodian.
Few additional points: Mother was in "custody" but ICE wasn't holding custody of 2 year old, but rather allowed mother to keep her 2 year old with her in the hotel in which was staying pending deportation. 1/
"2/ Second, the father is never referred to as the "husband" in the court filings and instead is referred to as the mother's "partner." That matters because LA statute speaks of either parent having "parental authority" during marriage.
3/ Now, I haven't researched scenario of non-marriage parental authority in LA, but ICE knows mom has parental authority. And nothing provided to ICE indicated dad had any parental authority & as such couldn't transfer it to 3d party.