Most laws are interpreted under the plain meaning standard, and dictionary definitions are typically used to determine what the plain meaning of a word is.
An ever-increasing number of conservative judges are peeling off from Trump's agenda. A promising development. I think T overplayed his hand in harassing the judiciary. The black robes strike back.
I believe that you’re quite right—he’s brought his own injuries thinking that his “mandate” gave him super constitutional powers … as long as he doesn’t have to testify in court. Lies are perjury, better made at two in the morning on social media.
I'm not sure what you mean. As the Supreme Court said, and as is discussed in here, the AEA is read to include a right to notice and an actual opportunity to challenge their removal. That is due process.
I meant the Trump interpretation, which did not include these things. Notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge are clearly due process. Sorry for the confusion.
I am still not sure what you are asking. Obviously the Supreme Court ruling —again, as I note in here — required those two aspects of due process. And, as I also note, Rodriguez's ruling found that he did not need to address whether the notice being provided since the Supreme Court's order is sufficient.
Reading through his decision one gets the impression he was reluctant to come to the decision he did, but in the end, the flagrant illegality of Trump's actions had to be addressed.
Yet even now, in a new filing in the Boasberg case, even though it doesn't reflect this decision, they're still playing games. Oh, the US has no 'constructive' control over the prisoners in El Salvador.
Until a judge finally starts slamming down contempt orders against the admin, these wins are paper tigers, at best.
Why don't stories about the Tren d'argua talk about the indictment filed by the Southern District of NY against 27 members of TDA and anti-TDA? It was unsealed on April 21. 16 defendants were already in custody. 21 were in custody when the indictment was unsealed. They are using RICO. The charges are serious. If they can indictment what are described as the leaders of TDA why aren't they indicating the members of TDA they are kidnapping to be held in El Salvador without any charges or convictions? Is it because they know they don't have the facts needed to indict?
If Venezuela is at war with America how can they justify removing protected status from 700,000 Venezuelans. They are good at making sure people don't connect different policies and actions that make their lies obvious.
Thank you Chris for your timely analysis and context regarding this. Perhaps my review of this ruling was insufficient, but my takeaway was that in order for the administration to proceed with deportations of TdA members under the AEA, all it needs to do is amend the proclamation to address the deficiencies identified by Judge Rodriguez. The amended proclamation need not be factually accurate. The judge indicated there is no lawful basis for judicial review of the proclamation’s factual basis. I’m surprised your analysis, and others I have read, do not call this out. This seems like a significant limitation of the ruling.
I understand the need to speak plainly and identify exactly what the AEA says and means, but I don’t see anywhere the question of Trump invoking the AEA in secrecy so he could get ahead of the pushback with planeloads of people already in the sky. He obviously knew what he was doing was illegal. Why has no judge questioned it in that way. What he did was illegal and he knew it. Isn’t it time he is held to account?
.would like to see 'somebody' comment on the 'pros and cons' of the stoopid ('merican) system(s) of: a) electing judges, and b) the president appointing judges. both 'systems' undermine the very concept of judicial independence and both continue to mis-lead 'thepeople' into believing that judges should (are 'spozed to) DECIDE as the president or the loudest / most monied voters want them to. common-tators perpetuate the existence of these (imo) flawed systems by expressing 'surprise' or simply noting that a particular judge was appointed by president a or b or c. now we have a canadian premier 'suggesting' that judges should (apparently) always DECIDE as he wants them to. sad!
Great analysis, as I have come to expect.
Thanks, Chris, for your good work here.
I love the Trump Administration’s robust defense—two dictionary definitions. Burke’s Law at its finest.
Most laws are interpreted under the plain meaning standard, and dictionary definitions are typically used to determine what the plain meaning of a word is.
To be sure, but not as a total defense … laws and statutes trump Merriam Webster.
A judge appointed by Trump? In Texas? Up is down.
An ever-increasing number of conservative judges are peeling off from Trump's agenda. A promising development. I think T overplayed his hand in harassing the judiciary. The black robes strike back.
I believe that you’re quite right—he’s brought his own injuries thinking that his “mandate” gave him super constitutional powers … as long as he doesn’t have to testify in court. Lies are perjury, better made at two in the morning on social media.
From one rdb to another, you're spot on.
The link to the “key opinion’ is broken.
Here it is: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771/gov.uscourts.txsd.2000771.58.0_1.pdf
How is the AEA consistent with the Due Process Clause?
I'm not sure what you mean. As the Supreme Court said, and as is discussed in here, the AEA is read to include a right to notice and an actual opportunity to challenge their removal. That is due process.
I meant the Trump interpretation, which did not include these things. Notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge are clearly due process. Sorry for the confusion.
I am still not sure what you are asking. Obviously the Supreme Court ruling —again, as I note in here — required those two aspects of due process. And, as I also note, Rodriguez's ruling found that he did not need to address whether the notice being provided since the Supreme Court's order is sufficient.
I'm just whining that a US administration could believe that it could avoid any semblance of due process.
BTW, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/01/trump-supreme-court-venezuelan-migrants-protected-status/83394942007/
I know. Thanks.
Reading through his decision one gets the impression he was reluctant to come to the decision he did, but in the end, the flagrant illegality of Trump's actions had to be addressed.
Yet even now, in a new filing in the Boasberg case, even though it doesn't reflect this decision, they're still playing games. Oh, the US has no 'constructive' control over the prisoners in El Salvador.
Until a judge finally starts slamming down contempt orders against the admin, these wins are paper tigers, at best.
Why don't stories about the Tren d'argua talk about the indictment filed by the Southern District of NY against 27 members of TDA and anti-TDA? It was unsealed on April 21. 16 defendants were already in custody. 21 were in custody when the indictment was unsealed. They are using RICO. The charges are serious. If they can indictment what are described as the leaders of TDA why aren't they indicating the members of TDA they are kidnapping to be held in El Salvador without any charges or convictions? Is it because they know they don't have the facts needed to indict?
If Venezuela is at war with America how can they justify removing protected status from 700,000 Venezuelans. They are good at making sure people don't connect different policies and actions that make their lies obvious.
Thank you Chris for your timely analysis and context regarding this. Perhaps my review of this ruling was insufficient, but my takeaway was that in order for the administration to proceed with deportations of TdA members under the AEA, all it needs to do is amend the proclamation to address the deficiencies identified by Judge Rodriguez. The amended proclamation need not be factually accurate. The judge indicated there is no lawful basis for judicial review of the proclamation’s factual basis. I’m surprised your analysis, and others I have read, do not call this out. This seems like a significant limitation of the ruling.
I understand the need to speak plainly and identify exactly what the AEA says and means, but I don’t see anywhere the question of Trump invoking the AEA in secrecy so he could get ahead of the pushback with planeloads of people already in the sky. He obviously knew what he was doing was illegal. Why has no judge questioned it in that way. What he did was illegal and he knew it. Isn’t it time he is held to account?
.would like to see 'somebody' comment on the 'pros and cons' of the stoopid ('merican) system(s) of: a) electing judges, and b) the president appointing judges. both 'systems' undermine the very concept of judicial independence and both continue to mis-lead 'thepeople' into believing that judges should (are 'spozed to) DECIDE as the president or the loudest / most monied voters want them to. common-tators perpetuate the existence of these (imo) flawed systems by expressing 'surprise' or simply noting that a particular judge was appointed by president a or b or c. now we have a canadian premier 'suggesting' that judges should (apparently) always DECIDE as he wants them to. sad!