3/ Here is what Trump Administration did and what lower courts order via injunctions:
4/ Court of Appeals decision is based on fundamental issue of "jurisdiction." This conclusion should have wide-spread ramifications because many of challenges to Trump Administration are about employment decisions which CONGRESS said are NOT for district courts to decide.
5/ The Court of Appeals decision is also significant because it addresses the "wholesale" "dismantling" argument being presented in several cases (such as USAID cases). The Administrative Procedures Act is NOT for such claims either & Congress did not waive such immunity!
6/ Additionally, Court of Appeals held that district court lacked jurisdiction to restore grants because Congress gave that authority to Court of Claims:
7/ Court of Appeals also notes how SCOTUS decision compels that result...which it DOES and yet district court ignored SCOTUS.
8/ Decision stressed why claims about grants must got to Court of Claims.
9/ Court of Appeals adds that Plaintiffs can't avoid Court of Claims by framing as non-APA claims:
10/ Court of Appeals again highlights that with no bond the harm to government is irreparable. Also noted that Voice of America isn't being shuttered.
11/ Court of Appeals also notes Judiciary Branch must follow the law too!
12/ In sum, this opinion is a HUGE win for Trump because it establishes 3 key principles that apply to many of the other cases being brought against Trump Administration: a) no jurisdiction over firings; b) no jurisdiction over grant terminations;
13/ c) you can't get around Congress limiting district court jurisdiction by creative pleading of claims under other theories; d) with no bond harm to government will outweigh other harm; e) public has interest in Article III obey Article I.
14/14 Final thought: It is next to impossible to reconcile opinion here with same panels refusal to clarify stay in other case involving USAID and grants from legal perspective. Practically: Judge Katas in other case figured decision on merits would be soon enough so no harm.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Federal judge enters final judgment against Trump Administration in lawsuit challenging termination of grants, etc. Check out this "judicious" footnote: 1/
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump scores another SCOTUS victory in Birthright Citizenship Case (NOT ON MERITS) but on whether a universal injunction is permitted. HUGELY significant in every case with universal injunctions. 1/ Reading now. Analysis to follow
2/ SCOTUS punts on whether universal relief is necessary in the lawsuit brought by state given the difficulty in providing the states full relief, leaving that to lower court. This punt though doesn't change significance of case before here & in every other case against Trump.
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Judge Breyer wades in again re Trump's federalizing of California National Guard in case Newsom brought.
2/ Judge rejects Trump's argument that there cannot be a Posse Comitatus claim given 9th Cir. ruling that Trump could federalize national guard. Judge rejects Trump's request to transfer case to L.A. arguing public interest is to keep with him since he's already up on case.
3/ Court grants expedited discovery on issues related to what troops are doing for purpose of Posse Comitatus claim. So rulings all in favor of Newsom and kicking merits on Posse Comitatus out a month until discovery ends.
🚨SCOTUS delivered Trump another victory earlier today while I was shopping with DS. This case concerned the removal of illegal aliens ordered removed to third countries, with SCOTUS staying injunction barring such removal. 1/
2/ Dissent again rests on not liking what Trump did and ignoring numerous jurisdictional issues. supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf…
3/ Beyond resolving issue of aliens in limbo in South Sudan, SCOTUS decision gives Trump & DHS ability to push more forcefully for voluntarily removals.
🚨LIVE COVERAGE here of Preliminary Injunction hearing before Judge Breyer on Newsom's lawsuit to commander National Guard from Trump. Trump Administration had requested stay of proceedings pending 9th Cir. decision but Breyer refused. 1/
2/ Breyer claimed facts on ground and changes would be relevant to PI hearing. Watch for him to sidestep 9th Cir. slap down by framing changes on ground as so substantial that no matter how much deference Trump gets he couldn't federalize troops.
3/ Hearing was suppose to start at 10 PT. Hasn't started yet. Here's link as DH has me picking up a plumbing part so I might not be able to cover depending on when it starts. (At least it's at an old hardware store which has new old stock--which I love--not Lowe/Home Depot.