Hoo boy. Judge McConnell (once one of Senator Whitehouse's largest donors) issues an impossible to comply with decision. Cheekily voting the President's post asking for guidance on how to spend money he doesn't have, he responds "find the additional funds necessary."
Another poison pill in the order: the money must flow by November 3. But any money found must be allocated under the Administrative Procedure Act. How's that timeline work? Read the full order here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Judiciary expert and law professor Rob Luther weighs in:
Also, this seems like an order that by Monday the federal government spend more than $10 billion that it can never get back. Seems particularly odd to label this a "temporary restraining order". (It would even be *odd* to characterize it as a preliminary injunction)
Court watchers may wonder how Judge McConnell (once a major Democrat donor in Rhode Island) distinguished Trump v. CASA to justify universal relief. He addresses it in a footnote. In effect, if your ask is big enough then universal relief is necessary. Not sure that's right!
If President Trump is forced to send out SNAP benefits until the money is exhausted, I hope he starts with States that aren't suing over this and causing the mess in the first place. (Especially as Senate Democrats may join their colleagues and end the Schumer Shut Down any day.)
Senate Expert @mike_frags weighs in with a vital thread explaining what the heck Judge McConnell (once one of Senator Whitehouse's largest donors) appears to be confused about:
*HUGE* "For President Trump, however, the rules are different." Judge Oldham powerfully dissents in tonight's Alien Enemies Act case. 185 pages of opinion to say that President Trump cannot use the Act to deport Tren de Aragua members. Back to the Supreme Court this goes!
Interesting paragraph at the top of the Majority's page 38. If TdA was found to be invading or a predatory incursion, and that was "at least in part" directed by Venezuela, then the President's order would be lawful. That's a low bar to assert the authority.
Ho boy. Judge Breyer--having already been denied once by a bipartisan-appointed panel of appellate judges--purports to enjoin President Trump from using the National Guard for law enforcement purposes. I'll cover some serious questions I have below 🧵
The opening shows where the judge's concern lies: that the successful law enforcement in LA could be replicated elsewhere. Including in the Judge's own Northern District of California. (Yet the judge raises no questions about why the lawsuit is not in LA...)
The first analytical give away is explicitly relying on non-binding dicta from a different era of the Court's jurisprudence. Very dissimilar situations and to reach his result, the Judge had to reach into the annals of law. (In the case he cites the plaintiffs were dismissed)
Ninth Circuit issues opinion *denying* Birthright Citizenship to the son of a Nigerian diplomat. Opinion properly applies Wong Kim Ark to find both presence *and* jurisdiction necessary for citizenship. Judge Johnstone (Biden appointee) writes for a unanimous panel.
Here, Judge Johnstone reflects many of the arguments raised by the United States in its case. The only difference is that he is applying the same logic to one of the three categories named in Wong Kim Ark. But for that, this could have been an amicus for the Government.
Breaking: Antitrust claims against Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard survive motion to dismiss. Major effort to restrict supply of coal can proceed. Enormous win for @KenPaxtonTX, @AGIowa, a coalition of States, @AFergusonFTC and @TheJusticeDept. This is a *BIG* Deal.
Judge Kernodle (E.D. Texas) opens his opinion cleanly laying out the background of antitrust law and the allegations. Defendants own huge amounts of coal companies. And Plaintiffs allege they use that control to try to cut down on coal production. A classic violation.
Joining big organizations that commit you to unrealistic goals and coordination carries big risks. State AGs have been warning this for years. So have @WillHild and @ConsumersFirst --including whistleblowing about these organizations specifically.
Yikes! Another hallucinated opinion, this time justifying a temporary restraining order enjoining enforcement of a State law. The rush to issue orders like this undermines the judiciary. Even worse--apparently the "corrected" opinion still has a hallucinated case . . .
One law professor assessing the ruling did not conclusively determine this was an AI error. But she did feel like "Alice in Wonderland."
Apparently there is little recourse, short of an appellate court (or perhaps a judicial complaint). When attorneys have engaged in behavior like this, they have faced serious sanctions.
Wow. Judge Talwani doubles down: Injunction entered against law defunding Planned Parenthood--on First Amendment *and* Bill of Attainder grounds. Interested to see if the First Circuit has it in them to rein in what appears to me to be a likely unlawful preliminary injunction!
This is the crux of the First Amendment analysis: by cutting funding to Planned Parenthood and *affiliates*, Judge Talwani finds that there are First Amendment rights being violated. Being a part of an organization is protected--and thus funding cannot be cut? Revolutionary!
Next, the Judge lays out the rationale for why Congress defunding organizations that provide abortions is . . . an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder. As with many truly novel arguments, this immediately raised skepticism among many court watchers.