Big win for President Trump in the normally hostile Fourth Circuit. Can district courts enjoin President Trump's efforts to stop paying environmental and agricultural grants? Unanimously "No." Judge Rushing (Trump) wrote for a panel including Biden-appointed Judge Heytens!
*HUGE* finding that suits over ending grants must be redirected to the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. That means that the federal district judges who keep entering injunctions in Maryland and Virginia lack jurisdiction.
Another *VITAL* point. Plaintiffs keep suing in federal courts because they want injunctions to force President Trump to pay the grants. But the Fourth Circuit astutely notes that lack of availability of injunctive relief does not defeat exclusive jurisdiction in the CFC
A final word to the wise from the Fourth Circuit: Matryoshka dolls of nesting injunctions cannot defeat appellate review. The Fourth Circuit also removes a later-entered injunction that was a belt-and-suspenders relief for Plaintiffs
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Chief Judge Diaz (4th Circuit, Obama) just issued a judicial misconduct complaint resolving allegations against (allegedly) Judge Griggsby (D. Maryland, Biden). Some of the conduct is eye-popping. Including the threat to never *again* hire a so-called "diversity candidate[]"
According to the specific allegations, the judge "browbeat[]" her clerks and yelled at another clerk for using a bathroom. Apparently *two* clerks resigned. That is almost unheard of.
In fairness, the Chief Judge found some of the complaints were hyperbole. The Chief did not believe the district judge ordered a clerk to eat lunch standing up--nor that she meant to order a clerk to drive 4 hours round trip to move boxes from one office to another.
🔥HOT OFF THE PRESSES! Federal Second Circuit Judge Menashi writes: "[T]he government presented credible legal authorities to support its view that the qualifying language of the Citizenship Clause—'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'—reflects...
requirements of parental allegiance and legal domicile in the United States and thereby excludes the children of illegal aliens and temporary visitors from automatic entitlement to citizenship by birth without the need for naturalization." In a symposium in @HarvardJLPP
As scholars and friends of the Court have been writing for months--including an amicus brief filed at the U.S. Supreme Court by @AGIowa and @AGTennessee--the practice of who gets birthright citizenship may not reflect the history.
🚨🚨ENORMOUS Immigration win for President Trump. The Fifth Circuit, the first federal court to address President Trump's expedited removal efforts, sides with the administration. Illegal aliens may be detained and removed! Judge Jones, joined by Duncan. Judge Douglas dissents.
Read the full opinion, argued *yesterday* here:
This will help slow down or stop the attempt by immigration lawyers and activists to clog the courts.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
It is worth noting that several brave district judges, including Judges Pacold (N.D. Ill.) and Judge Divine (E.D.M.O.) came to this result, while many others did not.
Can President Trump deploy the National Guard in DC? Unanimous opinion by Judge Miller (Obama) joined by Judges Katsas and Rao (Trump) says "Yes." Huge win for the President. Judge Rao writes separately to question whether DC can sue at all. She thinks probably not.
If interested, I raised some of the issues put forth by Judge Rao (joined by Katsas) in a thread. It is not clear that DC AG can sue the federal government at all.
Everyone agrees that a child born to US citizens in the United States is an American citizen. A child born to Canadian parents in Canada is not. But determining what the Constitution mandates regarding Birthright Citizenship is a tough question. 24 States weighed in on the limits
(Everything on this thread is pulled from the excellent brief filed by @AGTennessee and @AGIowa , and which I had the privilege of working on. So if there's some kind of implicit bias in explaining one's own brief, consider it disclosed!) ((Quotes adjusted for character limit))
Some table setting: "Contra plaintiffs’ thin historical arguments, contemporaneous sources instead support what common sense suggests: Conferring United States citizenship requires a more meaningful connection than mere presence by happenstance or illegality."
Did then-President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry adopt a legal theory justifying President Trump taxing remittances? Yes! Look at the denial of the Keystone XL pipeline. Obama/Kerry argued that needing "leverage" in international negotiations justified executive action.
What does that mean? That means that when President Trump wants "leverage" with our neighbors, he can take Presidential action to negotiate a better deal. The Art of the Deal but based on President Obama's and Secretary Kerry's denial of the Keystone XL project!
I'm not kidding. "Leverage" and "climate change [] leadership" were the two reasons Kerry and Obama put forward to deny Keystone XL. In short, important national security goals (like controlling our border) justify Presidential action. Taxing remittances follows that logic.