*HUGE* Win for President Trump in the challenge to Chicago's law enforcement surge. This is a stunning rebuke of the district court, explaining that the order is necessary to stop futute courts from following. The district judge is chastened by the appeals judges for overstepping
Equally important is another court has joined in to explain the problems with district court judges entering so-called "putative" class actions. The Seventh Circuit recognizes the problems and orders courts to stop, under the Trump v. CASA decision.
"Recall that the plaintiffs asked the district court for an order voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice pursuant to Rules 23(e) and 41(a). That ruling would bind the whole class, which is why the district court held a hearing and had
the parties notify the class...
...as Rule 23 requires. No class members or lead plaintiffs objected to dismissing this case with prejudice. Nor did anyone request an opt-out." Huge recognition of this problem in putative class actions.
Judge Easterbrook dissents. He would merely dismiss the appeal. But even he acknowledges serious concern with the district court's behavior here.
Huge win for @TheJusticeDept and Federal Programs specifically that had to manage what the Seventh Circuit has recognized as an unreasonable court that failed to follow the federal rules.
Justice Jackson gave a speech on April 13 highly critical of both President Trump and the Supreme Court. Some of her remarks relate to ongoing cases. For example, she is highly critical of President Trump ending Temporary Protected Status. That case will be argued this month.
While later in the speech she explains that she prefers the phrase "emergency docket", she uses @WilliamBaude's "Shadow Docket" in her introduction to her speech criticizing the Court and the President. She's speaking at @YaleLawSch, a top-3 law school (tied with @UChicagoLaw)
She addresses her three primary problems with how the Supreme Court deals with interim docket cases. First, she says that their approach is corrosive. She complains if the Supreme Court explains likelihood of success on the merits that doesn't allow lower courts to proceed.
🔥🔥"As is crystal clear to anyone willing to look, this meritless appeal was about one thing: more time in the United States. And the case’s tortured history confirms that our court delivered...more time." So concludes Judge VanDyke, joined by Judge Tung, concurring.
"A rational observer might wonder how an alien—who conceded his removability in 2015 and whose application for immigration relief was ruled meritless in 2015 and then again in 2016—could possibly still be in the United States pursuing a meritless claim...a full decade later." 👀
A straightforward published denial of an immigration claim, joined by a fiery concurrence calling out the Ninth Circuit's own immigration law practices. Read it here: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
*HUGE* Win for victims of terrorism today. 11 Years after entry of judgment, the $655m verdict against the Palestinian Liberation Organization may be enforced. The case is a procedural mess but serves as an example of Congressional action leading to results. Time to collect!
Come for the "W" against terrorists by the good guys. Stay for the extended discussion of whether the Second Circuit should recall its mandate from a 2016 appellate decision. Talk about in the Appellate weeds/nerdery
Can President Trump end *Temporary* Protected Status for Somalians on March 17? No says Judge Burroughs (Obama, D. Mass). Why? Ending TPS would be a big deal with big implications. No discussion of the preliminary injunction or stay factors. Just a presumption against regularity.
Equally irregular, in my opinion, is the lack of citation to either of the *Two* U.S. Supreme Court cases allowing TPS for other countries to end. One would think those Supreme Court stays allowing action would counsel against an administrative stay here.
Also, why is this styled as an administrative stay rather than a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction? Make it even less likely for the First Circuit to take an appeal? The Supreme Court has two pending requests from @TheJusticeDept on this. They should take it
"This is a case about swinging dicks. The Christian owners of Olympus Spa—a traditional Korean, women-only, nude spa—understandably don’t want them in their spa." Judge VanDyke's thermonuclear dissental. The panel raised eyebrows for mandating a women's spa serve a male patron
Judge Murguia (joined by many Judges, including Trump-appointed Miller) and Judge Owens (joined by Trump-appointed Forrest) call out Judge VanDyke's dissent--too harsh. I've never seen opinions like this. Straight out of Mean Girls. On Wednesdays they write (nice) pink opinions?
In another dissent, Judge Tung notes, Washington law "can disregard a small-business owner’s Christian beliefs and force her family-run Korean spa to allow a nude man (who claims to be a woman) into an intimate space reserved for its female patrons." Strong words indeed.
Do State and Federal judges have an obligation to try to follow Supreme Court emergency orders in good faith? 175 judges say no, endorsing the ongoing resistance by district courts to orders the Supreme Court has *already said* are binding. Odd to join such a partisan brief!
These 175 judges apparently believe the only binding part of a judicial opinion is its reasoning, not its ultimate judgment. I do not think that is the best read of longstanding case law--much less the Supreme Court's recent admonition in Boyle.
The judges analogize the published emergency orders, which are *all* binding on *all* courts in the United States, to unpublished orders issued by Courts of Appeals. I am not sure that works.