The Trump administration's latest request for emergency relief from the Supreme Court hides the government's deeply problematic litigation behavior behind a plausible jurisdictional objection.
Thank you for your valuable knowledge. It helps to understand the legal 'trail" a bit more. However, the basis of the entire issue is so ugly, such torturous reality, that my so-called free country is being run by fascists who delight in harming others who, like their ancestors, came here to find peace and seek prosperity. These furious, red-meat immigration enforcements are pure, political feed tossed to the racist, xenophobic voting base of the Republican party. They are also practice for future removal of people who disagree with the government. The USA will never be the same.
Thank you for providing this very helpful summary of the state of play thus far in this complex case.
I do have a sidebar question. Forgive me if you have answered it somewhere else. Is the government the only body that can make emergency appeals? Why couldn't, say Harvard, or an individual at risk of deportation, make an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court?
I hope this isn't too prosaic a metaphor, but it sure looks like the Trump administration keeps trying to work the refs. The reasons for that seem boringly obvious. I am always grateful for your contextual explanations. They provide a substrate of sanity.
That the SG's Office -- under previous administrations the crème de la crème of DOJ, itself the crème de la crème -- would make arguments that "border on spurious" speaks volumes about how far DOJ has fallen under the Trump administration and how far we are from the "presumption of regularity." It will take decades for DOJ to recover its reputation, assuming it ever does.
Thanks for the analysis. My basic position is that there should be no presumption of regularity with this Administration. Yes, sometimes, they will win, but that is the starting point. There is just a constant stage of "unclean hands." The law is not as friendly to human rights as it should be. But there is enough there to work with to provide basic protections. Any judge should start with a doubt that the Trump Administration can be trusted.
IMO, the unfortunate reality is that the final say goes to a Court which should also not be afforded any "presumption of regularity' itself. The government should absolutely be seen as taking liberties with the facts in this case, but that same behavior was glaringly evident when the Court's conservative majority ignored inconvenient facts in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Creative LLC v. Elenis, and other cases. Presuming the conservative Justices to be disciplined, impartial jurists has been demonstrated by the Justices' own decisions and behaviors to be misguided.
I would agree. In fact, Congress should also not be given any presumption of honest dealing. Look how many have already disclosed stock market profiteering in the never-ending cycle of tariff war.
That was painful, and thank you so much for taking the time to detail it all so we get a better view of what the heck is happening.
The only goalpost moving on any of these cases has been the DOJ's solely because of the Trump administration's shenanigans.
If this administration wanted to up deport folks, there are procedures they can follow. That they aren't is because of them wanting to show some kind of political strength or maybe cleverness or whatever, despite the courts. They're playing games, because the game is the goal.
Not content with turning people against knowledge and education, now they seek to turn people against justice and the rule of law. You can't maintain an iron fist of control if people are knowledgeable, educated, and there's a legal system to protect us.
Thanks so much, Steve…. This is proof positive why you are my favorite legal nerd. This post was so very helpful in explaining the essential details that were so easy otherwise to gloss over….
Thanks (to both you and Alyssa) for all the “drilling down” work necessary in this type of case.
Thanks for the following: “ … the government’s hands are far from clean—not just in general, in this case, but in precipitating much of the very harm that it now decries as irreparable.”
Thanks for the clear summation of the issues. The actual root question is WHY the government seems so opposed to giving the notices in understandable form and allowing time for the CAT hearings. What are they so scared of? Part of the answer seems to be that they have chosen such god awful third party countries (possibly the only ones that will acquiesce given the administration's insistent that everyone being deported is a violent criminal). But mostly it is trump's insistence that this all be done with unholy speed just so he can brag that he's fulfilling a campaign promise. Obviously, that promise didn't include any of the details of what the government is actually doing, so claiming that this was a "mandate" from the voters is even more hollow than the usual "mandate" blather.
Clearly no one thought in doing exit polls to ask "do you support the removal of immigrants by illegal means."
The big question is whether the Extremes are so anxious to placate trump that they will put up with being lied to by the government.
It seems both Thomas and Alito have no problems with the Trump regime lying to the Court. Is there any evidence to indicate they object to Trump regime lies?
the interesting thing is that some of the justices lie to US--that coach quietly praying on the sidelines. The dissent posted a PICTURE of where he was in midfield. Didn't change a thing. Or for that matter that corporations are "people" with free speech rights and that money = speech. "People" is a just a metaphor for corporate entities that are empowered to do SOME things people can do (like sue)--empowered by the STATES. Far as I know, no state has ever legislated that they are "people" for First Amendment purposes.
Yes, I agree. And in the Heller decision on the Second Amendment they ignore the first phrase about a well regulated militia being the reason for the right to bear arms. Clearly the appellants in Heller were not part of any well regulated militia. In modern day America the militia’s role is played by the National Guard.
Historically the militia was militarily ineffective (see battle of Bladensburg in the War of 1812). Prior to the Civil War, militias were used to put down slave rebellions and capture runaway slaves in the antebellum South. Of course the “conservative” majority ignored those words and the history.
Maybe I'm misreading, but there's a lack of clarity on one point that, if clarified, might strengthen some of your other points. Judge Murphy does not institute the 10-day minimum opportunity for raising a credible fear claim (creating the potential 25-day delay) until May 21, in ECF 118. That's *after* the government tried the South Sudan stunt with no meaningful opportunity for a credible fear interview whatsoever. (Less than 16 hrs notice, virtually none of them business hours.) It appears that the govt has *never* sought USCA1 review of *that* modification, right?
"Equitable relief, we are often told, requires those seeking it to 'come into equity with clean hands.'"
The problem is we have Supreme Court justices whose hands are anything but clean. So, this is right up their alley.
As an aside, does anyone really think Justices Alito and Thomas will read or even care about the details??? If so, there's a slightly damaged bridge I can sell you . . .
Only since Jan. 20, 2025 does a simplified summary of a case require 12 bullet points with 6 sub-bullets (No matter what she gets paid, Alyssa Negvesky does not get paid enough).
Wow! What a tempest in a crock pot! (I hope you pick up my joke there.) Thank you for this detailed run-down, Steve, of a ridiculously complex (and gov't created) procedural backstory to the present situation. I am, as usual, sharing to my followers.
Thank you for your valuable knowledge. It helps to understand the legal 'trail" a bit more. However, the basis of the entire issue is so ugly, such torturous reality, that my so-called free country is being run by fascists who delight in harming others who, like their ancestors, came here to find peace and seek prosperity. These furious, red-meat immigration enforcements are pure, political feed tossed to the racist, xenophobic voting base of the Republican party. They are also practice for future removal of people who disagree with the government. The USA will never be the same.
Thank you for providing this very helpful summary of the state of play thus far in this complex case.
I do have a sidebar question. Forgive me if you have answered it somewhere else. Is the government the only body that can make emergency appeals? Why couldn't, say Harvard, or an individual at risk of deportation, make an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court?
I hope this isn't too prosaic a metaphor, but it sure looks like the Trump administration keeps trying to work the refs. The reasons for that seem boringly obvious. I am always grateful for your contextual explanations. They provide a substrate of sanity.
That the SG's Office -- under previous administrations the crème de la crème of DOJ, itself the crème de la crème -- would make arguments that "border on spurious" speaks volumes about how far DOJ has fallen under the Trump administration and how far we are from the "presumption of regularity." It will take decades for DOJ to recover its reputation, assuming it ever does.
Thanks for the analysis. My basic position is that there should be no presumption of regularity with this Administration. Yes, sometimes, they will win, but that is the starting point. There is just a constant stage of "unclean hands." The law is not as friendly to human rights as it should be. But there is enough there to work with to provide basic protections. Any judge should start with a doubt that the Trump Administration can be trusted.
IMO, the unfortunate reality is that the final say goes to a Court which should also not be afforded any "presumption of regularity' itself. The government should absolutely be seen as taking liberties with the facts in this case, but that same behavior was glaringly evident when the Court's conservative majority ignored inconvenient facts in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, Creative LLC v. Elenis, and other cases. Presuming the conservative Justices to be disciplined, impartial jurists has been demonstrated by the Justices' own decisions and behaviors to be misguided.
I would agree. In fact, Congress should also not be given any presumption of honest dealing. Look how many have already disclosed stock market profiteering in the never-ending cycle of tariff war.
That was painful, and thank you so much for taking the time to detail it all so we get a better view of what the heck is happening.
The only goalpost moving on any of these cases has been the DOJ's solely because of the Trump administration's shenanigans.
If this administration wanted to up deport folks, there are procedures they can follow. That they aren't is because of them wanting to show some kind of political strength or maybe cleverness or whatever, despite the courts. They're playing games, because the game is the goal.
Not content with turning people against knowledge and education, now they seek to turn people against justice and the rule of law. You can't maintain an iron fist of control if people are knowledgeable, educated, and there's a legal system to protect us.
Thanks so much, Steve…. This is proof positive why you are my favorite legal nerd. This post was so very helpful in explaining the essential details that were so easy otherwise to gloss over….
Thanks for the additional post this week.
Thanks (to both you and Alyssa) for all the “drilling down” work necessary in this type of case.
Thanks for the following: “ … the government’s hands are far from clean—not just in general, in this case, but in precipitating much of the very harm that it now decries as irreparable.”
Thanks for the clear summation of the issues. The actual root question is WHY the government seems so opposed to giving the notices in understandable form and allowing time for the CAT hearings. What are they so scared of? Part of the answer seems to be that they have chosen such god awful third party countries (possibly the only ones that will acquiesce given the administration's insistent that everyone being deported is a violent criminal). But mostly it is trump's insistence that this all be done with unholy speed just so he can brag that he's fulfilling a campaign promise. Obviously, that promise didn't include any of the details of what the government is actually doing, so claiming that this was a "mandate" from the voters is even more hollow than the usual "mandate" blather.
Clearly no one thought in doing exit polls to ask "do you support the removal of immigrants by illegal means."
The big question is whether the Extremes are so anxious to placate trump that they will put up with being lied to by the government.
It seems both Thomas and Alito have no problems with the Trump regime lying to the Court. Is there any evidence to indicate they object to Trump regime lies?
the interesting thing is that some of the justices lie to US--that coach quietly praying on the sidelines. The dissent posted a PICTURE of where he was in midfield. Didn't change a thing. Or for that matter that corporations are "people" with free speech rights and that money = speech. "People" is a just a metaphor for corporate entities that are empowered to do SOME things people can do (like sue)--empowered by the STATES. Far as I know, no state has ever legislated that they are "people" for First Amendment purposes.
Yes, I agree. And in the Heller decision on the Second Amendment they ignore the first phrase about a well regulated militia being the reason for the right to bear arms. Clearly the appellants in Heller were not part of any well regulated militia. In modern day America the militia’s role is played by the National Guard.
Historically the militia was militarily ineffective (see battle of Bladensburg in the War of 1812). Prior to the Civil War, militias were used to put down slave rebellions and capture runaway slaves in the antebellum South. Of course the “conservative” majority ignored those words and the history.
Maybe I'm misreading, but there's a lack of clarity on one point that, if clarified, might strengthen some of your other points. Judge Murphy does not institute the 10-day minimum opportunity for raising a credible fear claim (creating the potential 25-day delay) until May 21, in ECF 118. That's *after* the government tried the South Sudan stunt with no meaningful opportunity for a credible fear interview whatsoever. (Less than 16 hrs notice, virtually none of them business hours.) It appears that the govt has *never* sought USCA1 review of *that* modification, right?
"Equitable relief, we are often told, requires those seeking it to 'come into equity with clean hands.'"
The problem is we have Supreme Court justices whose hands are anything but clean. So, this is right up their alley.
As an aside, does anyone really think Justices Alito and Thomas will read or even care about the details??? If so, there's a slightly damaged bridge I can sell you . . .
I'd trust them more than a justice who doesn't know what a woman is, or thinks being a wise Latina is all the qualifications necessary.
Only since Jan. 20, 2025 does a simplified summary of a case require 12 bullet points with 6 sub-bullets (No matter what she gets paid, Alyssa Negvesky does not get paid enough).
This non-lawyer very much appreciates such clear summation. And the meaning of “DVD” was clear enough in your text. Thanks, L!!
Wow! What a tempest in a crock pot! (I hope you pick up my joke there.) Thank you for this detailed run-down, Steve, of a ridiculously complex (and gov't created) procedural backstory to the present situation. I am, as usual, sharing to my followers.
𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵 “𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥” 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭𝘴—𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘋𝘏𝘚 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳.
You're certainly correct. I just wouldn't characterize a remedy that justice demands as the lesser of two "evils".
I'd call it something like the less burdensome choice of equitable, indeed necessary, remedies.
This review is detailed, concise and very helpful, Steve. Thank you!
Gvt. continues to act in bad faith. Thx for explaining details.