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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I must be the stupidest person in the world. Having no idea what ANY OF THIS MEANS. D.V.D. ??? Division of Viral Diseases? I can’t find once where ANY of this is explained to us simpleton tax payers of the US. Congratulations for saying nothing with so many words & something that resembles LEGAL SPEAK and confusing the hell out of me, apparently the SIMPLE FOLK. No wonder no one’s paying attention and allowing the shit to hit the fan. They don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
You can't expect to come into this discussion at a midpoint and then demand that the author explain it all from the beginning.
I have long encouraged people I know to become knowledgeable about legal cases because so much of what happens in them impacts all of us. But this does require taking the time to obtain this knowledge.
For instance, clicking through one of the first links shows that the court case is against D.V.D., initials used to protect the person, and forming the court case title.
Clearly, someone who is "1st Female USAF SAC 1CEVG (B52 & B1 Bomber Crew Training & Evaluation) Only Woman at Nevada Det12 for 2 Years. 1986-88 Hardware Specialist on STS26 Shuttle Discovery Return to Flight GeoSynchronous TDRS3 Satellite" is not stupid. Instead, they are educated, trained & highly skilled, serving our country in one of our most successful endeavors. Thank you for your service.
Instead it sounds to me you are frustrated that you understand little of this newsletter; my guess is because you were not trained in the law. Join the club - I, as well as others who have said as much in the comments, are not either. Often enough I get frustrated trying to understand Steve's explanation or point. I am regularly grateful he doesn't publish every day, otherwise I think my head would explode.
No one's gonna save us, CJ; we each have work to do. The Constitution gives us rights and We The People are obligated to do our part to protect and safeguard them, especially on behalf of those whose rights are being threatened or withheld. That's why I keep reading about what the Supreme Court is doing & hope you will, too. Because this kind of "paying attention" is the first step in NOT "allowing the shit to hit the fan."
You're being unfair. If you want to read technical documents, you have to invest some time in learning the technical jargon, and you can't skim. A lawyer could skim this in 30 seconds, probably. I can't. I have to read it slowly. The only advantage I have is having read other legal technical summaries like this and knowing some of the buzzwords.
For instance, I don't know why there are both injunctions and restraining orders. I don't know why injunctions can be preliminary but restraining orders can be temporary. Near as I can tell, it makes no difference to a layman like me.
There has been some noise recently about temporary restraining orders being appealable but not preliminary injunctions, or vice versa, and again, it's just one of those things you have to either look up or make a guess from context.
It doesn't matter what D.V.D. means; it is a party to the case. Don't concentrate on what you don't understand; read it through, get the gist, and read it again, several times. That's what I do, and if any pass doesn't increase my understanding, I give up.
I think Steve Vladeck generally does an excellent job explaining technical legal issues to a lay audience (that includes me). I found this piece more technical than most of his others, perhaps because the case itself hinges on technical points, so I only skimmed it. I've sometimes used the comments section to ask for clarifications of things I didn't understand, and I've sometimes received very helpful replies. Perhaps with patience and some online searches for definitions of legal terms, these articles will become clearer to you.
Vladeck writes largely for legal professionals -- people who have taken the time to study and learn the law. Clearly that is above your head or outside your arena of interest.
Sorry, reposted because there was an autocorrect error:
It's someone's name. It's a case where the plaintiffs were sent to a third country (South Sudan) rather than their home country and they were allowed to sue with their initials. The post does say that and notes they were allowed to sue "pseudo-anonymously" (using their initials).
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
"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!!
Thank you. I do appreciate your ability and willingness to put this in terms I can understand
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.
I must be the stupidest person in the world. Having no idea what ANY OF THIS MEANS. D.V.D. ??? Division of Viral Diseases? I can’t find once where ANY of this is explained to us simpleton tax payers of the US. Congratulations for saying nothing with so many words & something that resembles LEGAL SPEAK and confusing the hell out of me, apparently the SIMPLE FOLK. No wonder no one’s paying attention and allowing the shit to hit the fan. They don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
You can't expect to come into this discussion at a midpoint and then demand that the author explain it all from the beginning.
I have long encouraged people I know to become knowledgeable about legal cases because so much of what happens in them impacts all of us. But this does require taking the time to obtain this knowledge.
For instance, clicking through one of the first links shows that the court case is against D.V.D., initials used to protect the person, and forming the court case title.
Clearly, someone who is "1st Female USAF SAC 1CEVG (B52 & B1 Bomber Crew Training & Evaluation) Only Woman at Nevada Det12 for 2 Years. 1986-88 Hardware Specialist on STS26 Shuttle Discovery Return to Flight GeoSynchronous TDRS3 Satellite" is not stupid. Instead, they are educated, trained & highly skilled, serving our country in one of our most successful endeavors. Thank you for your service.
Instead it sounds to me you are frustrated that you understand little of this newsletter; my guess is because you were not trained in the law. Join the club - I, as well as others who have said as much in the comments, are not either. Often enough I get frustrated trying to understand Steve's explanation or point. I am regularly grateful he doesn't publish every day, otherwise I think my head would explode.
No one's gonna save us, CJ; we each have work to do. The Constitution gives us rights and We The People are obligated to do our part to protect and safeguard them, especially on behalf of those whose rights are being threatened or withheld. That's why I keep reading about what the Supreme Court is doing & hope you will, too. Because this kind of "paying attention" is the first step in NOT "allowing the shit to hit the fan."
You're being unfair. If you want to read technical documents, you have to invest some time in learning the technical jargon, and you can't skim. A lawyer could skim this in 30 seconds, probably. I can't. I have to read it slowly. The only advantage I have is having read other legal technical summaries like this and knowing some of the buzzwords.
For instance, I don't know why there are both injunctions and restraining orders. I don't know why injunctions can be preliminary but restraining orders can be temporary. Near as I can tell, it makes no difference to a layman like me.
There has been some noise recently about temporary restraining orders being appealable but not preliminary injunctions, or vice versa, and again, it's just one of those things you have to either look up or make a guess from context.
It doesn't matter what D.V.D. means; it is a party to the case. Don't concentrate on what you don't understand; read it through, get the gist, and read it again, several times. That's what I do, and if any pass doesn't increase my understanding, I give up.
I think Steve Vladeck generally does an excellent job explaining technical legal issues to a lay audience (that includes me). I found this piece more technical than most of his others, perhaps because the case itself hinges on technical points, so I only skimmed it. I've sometimes used the comments section to ask for clarifications of things I didn't understand, and I've sometimes received very helpful replies. Perhaps with patience and some online searches for definitions of legal terms, these articles will become clearer to you.
Vladeck writes largely for legal professionals -- people who have taken the time to study and learn the law. Clearly that is above your head or outside your arena of interest.
Sorry, reposted because there was an autocorrect error:
It's someone's name. It's a case where the plaintiffs were sent to a third country (South Sudan) rather than their home country and they were allowed to sue with their initials. The post does say that and notes they were allowed to sue "pseudo-anonymously" (using their initials).