First, the facts. Obama sued Portland and they settled immediately, agreeing to policies both sides wanted the same day. This reads hilariously given the unjustifiable attempt to issue sanctions or discipline due to lack of adversity in Florida in the anti-Weaponizarioj case 
Here is a thread on a different district judge in Massachusetts also entering an order pausing TPS for South Sudan. The First Circuit, if asked, should likely consider mandamus and reassignment.
Styling the decision as an administrative stay (instead of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction) should be grounds for mandamus. The First Circuit should not brook this active resistance to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"In short, the majority rips an irreparable hole in the INA’s jurisdiction-channeling scheme...Each such suit will grind removal proceedings to a halt, invite a district court to take control of them, and require the government to prove the alien’s removability a second time." 🔥 
AAP is on the verge of losing a momentous, precedential, en banc decision in the moderate Seventh Circuit. So they are trying to dismiss their case. What's the reason? They claim that they are a "non-profit entity with related budget constraints." Is that plausible? 
Big win too for the originally dissenting Judge Wilson. Read the order here: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
First, it makes sense why the attorneys here might be on edge. Not that long ago, the 5-2 Democrat Pennsylvania Supreme Court told Krasner to stop trying to free murderers. And he ordered the Attorney General to get involved. One attorney was on that case
Chief Judge Brennan concurs. He explains that while the case before the court leaves much open for future litigation, he will provide some analysis to guide lower courts on issues, with a special focus on the spending clause. 
Reminiscent of a classic rejoinder by President Clinton, the answer here apparently is determined by what the meaning of "the" is. Very interesting phenomenon here, where the district judge thinks the more obvious or plainer meaning is one I think is the worse one. Interesting! 
While not quite a circuit split, the case conflicts with the reasoning of a Seventh Circuit case. (Query whether this is actually a clean split.) The Seventh thought psychic harm *could* qualify, so the restitution in that case was not plain error 
(Quick aside, on seeing the opinion line up. This line up includes 9 total opinions, a majority and 8 separate writings.) "Say less." 
About 72 pages into a decision about certain post-conviction review rights under the Hawaii constitution, the Hawaii Supreme Court shifts its attention to Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court. It starts by accusing the Supremes of "not honoring" the Civil Rights era / 1954 
Judge Garcia (Biden) dissents. He would deny the stay. He believes even neutral treatment of journalists in a manner different from what was offered before may be First Amendment retaliation. 
@WSJ @AGIowa @ChuckGrassley What is the FJC? It's a school for judges. And because the FJC has so much influence on how judges get exposed to certain issues and practices, the "FJC wields real power." That's why @LeaderJohnThune wants to ensure accountability in this important role. 
The Court begins with its view of why there was adversity in the case United States v. Windsor. That is notable because it was an obvious test-case: President Obama admitted DOMA was unconstitutional and refused to dismiss it in Court. Distinguishing here seems tough. 
@SenatorBanks And this builds on President Trump's declaration that the border crisis is an invasion. Intrigued to see where this goes. Read the article by @ccreitzpolitics here: foxnews.com/politics/trump…
@DAGToddBlanche @josh_hammer "The easy answer for Blanche, if all he cares about is political advancement, is to simply sign the consent decree and then blame the system when it is promptly undone by the courts and used as leverage to gum up the FDA review process... 
This is weird! Usually a State's Attorney General represents the State in appellate courts. Presumably here, the difference is due to the Attorney General realizing this quixotic vendetta that the Supreme Court has rejected multiple times is a loser. 
Judge Boasberg agrees with @FTC in that his earlier order was to quash a CID. This separate enforcement proceeding is not that CID. Therefore, his injunction is not being violated. 
The original panel opinion split on the Due Process clause. 71 total pages between the majority and dissent. Very interesting dispute. 
