The lawsuits challenge the Trump administration's military deployment efforts and harsh treatment of protesters and journalists. More hearings are set for later this week.
Thank you, Chris, for your post. It is much appreciated. The district and state courts are the last bastion protecting the rule of law. Judge Ellis got it exactly right: “Transparency and faith in the rule of law” are critical to protecting the rights under our Constitution.
Hmm, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth - both appreciators of fine YOUNG women - open a war in two fronts—blue cities and the federal courts. Expect the cities to be invaded … and the courts to be ignored.
Clair here 💕There is a lot of “ legal hanky panky” going on with Trump and his legal team apparently in the drivers seat .. as gehad set up situations that he has labeled Insurrection which gives him unlimited power to combat ..
It’s November 1938 Germany behavior. The Kristallnacht .. is it too late to stop?..yes!
Just recall the electorate voted two times for Trump for President.. and 40!% still support his actions.
The courts, particularly the Supreme Court is his Kangaroo Court.. it’s in his pouch. The Robert’s Court will go down in history as the worst court in the history of this country..
I don’t know why they even bother to meet.. the results are all “ behind the door decisions “.,. Knock ,Knock who’s there… it’s The Donald with your decisions.
More District Court overreach. More than that, for a district court judge to compare her situation, guarded by Federal Marshals if need be, and doing her job in a courtroom where cameras and social media are not permitted, with the doxxing that can be done to ICE agents something to the full visibility of social media, and without any protection whatsoever, is flat-out cynical
The fact that that first sentence is your comment when there were no TROs issued today — and where both judges appeared to bend over backwards to give DOJ a chance to make its best case and get its best possible answers and responses from its clients — tells me a lot.
The feeling is entirely mutual. You reported an extenso and in an approving manner, the oral argument in the comments of the Court, particularly the obnoxiously disingenuous comments about doxing with respect to ICE agents. You probably assume I'm some sort of Trump loyalist. You're dead wrong. But like it or not, this bozo was elected President of the United States, and the basic call on the propriety of the use of the National Guard is his, not some highly politicized District Court judge. The principle of judicial abstention is pretty important here.
Has it occurred to you that this sort of litigation could have been brought against the National Guard deployment in Little Rock in 1957 and Mississippi in 1963? Shocked? The situations are alike in that important Federal interests - in the earlier cases civil rights, in this case effective enforcement of immigration law - are in the president's judgment not receiving effective support from local law enforcement. That's that's not a judgment a local District Court is in a position to countermand.
I think you're going to discover when the cases in which the Supreme Court intervened this summer are fully litigated that it is not nearly as loyal to Trump as you continually proclaim. What was going on was an attempt to rein in maverick district courts. These are two more that are almost certain to see the ruling set aside in the interim, as is likely the case with Portland
Pretty much the same patronizing response that I expected. But whether it's a Constitutional right that's the federal interest (civil rights), or a federal statutory interest (immigration enforcement), if local authorities refuse to provide essential support, deployment of the National Guard is appropriate.
I don't like people who speculate about my inner thoughts, and I try to avoid it with others. But I'm fairly sure you are not familiar with the actual language of the deployment orders. They do not parrot Trump's blathering, blustering, sophomoric ranting tweets. They are far more circumsribed, prohibiting the Guard from doing basic law enforcement (are you aware of that?), and limiting the function to supporting ICE in its basic statutory mission - support it's not getting from local police. (I am speaking of the California authorization, but have no reason to believe that Portland and Chicago are any different.) That determination is basic executive stuff, and not judicial.
District courts should stay out of this arena, as they have in the past with National Guard deployments. The fact that it's Trump does not change the legal tradition.
First, your equating judges who apply the law to the current white nationalist legion of ICE thugs who stamp on the constitutional rights of citizens and immigrants is, well, iniquitous, to say the least.
Second, neither Judge Salas nor her son nor her husband were "guarded by Federal Marshalls" when Roy Den Hollander, "a self-proclaimed anti-feminist lawyer" went to her home posing as a delivery man and killed her only son and critically injured her husband. To my knowledge, Federal Marshalls do not provide 24/7 protection unless there is a credible threat. And even if they did, since the Federal Marshall Service is a department under the orders of a corrupt DOJ, I wouldn't trust a Federal Marshall to hold my coffee.
As for your claim that "you're going to discover when the cases in which the Supreme Court intervened this summer are fully litigated that it is not nearly as loyal to Trump as you continually proclaim", I hope you're right. But if the radical majority follows its MO and stays the Oregon and pending Illinois TRO/injunctions via the Shadow Docket, your conclusion will be moot: there will be military on the streets of every major blue state city by the time the matter finally reaches the Court. If they think they can put the demonic genie back in the bottle, well, one look at Authoritarian history tells a very different story.
It's not all that radical - out of control district court judges have been an issue for at least a decade. And it's anything but a monolith.
What is radical is the litigation strategy the Democratic party has adopted, which is unprecedented. You might not like the present schemata that immigration law, but it is the duly enacted law of the land, which the Congress has not seen fit to reform. The ICE does no more than enforce it, as the ATF does with violations of those statutes. They are no more thugs than any other peace officers
The local police and State (I think) in Little Rock and Mississippi were the problem or part it. Thats why the national guard was brought in. Two in comparable set of circumstances. The local police were punishing the protesters peaceful gatherings . Not protecting them and their rights to assemble.
We don't even have a clue to who these agents are. They are masked, sometimes not in uniform, and without badges. Give me one example of doxxing an ICE agent. Bah!
I don't think the Nazis had to worry about vigilantes attacking their dependents, with the full approval of too many members of the public.
In any case, these guys are regular peace officers, and subject to the various laws and constraints of the federal government. Bystanders might not know who they are, but the detainees do, if it comes to whether legal action is appropriate.
Judges are protected by third parties, in most cases armed only with sidearms and perhaps wearing some light protection under their uniforms.
ICE and its cohorts are protected with their very own assault armament and military ballistic vests, armored vehicles,and helicopters . They also mass and attack unarmed protestors in phalanxes like packs of street dogs.
There's absolutely no comparison between these two scenarios except by those trying to hawk false equivalences.
And of course those protections apply to wives, sweethearts and minor children - a fairly obvious distinction. Since I don't believe you're that stupid, I can only assume you are in bad faith.
ICE doesn’t deserve any special privileges, such as masks, not generally extended to law enforcement. And if they weren’t abusing their power and violating people’s rights they wouldn’t have to worry about being recorded and potentially identified. Cause and effect…
Sure it does. The legacy media has managed to demonize these guys, even though they're ordinary peace officers. Regular beat patrol guys don't have to worry about people tracking down their loved ones. But that's just what will happen, and has has happened, to ICE officers.
They’re not being harassed because they’re masked and anonymous. Duh. Comey is not being doxed by mobs of vigilantes. He’s subject to judicial process which will take its course.
The prosecution is interesting. It doubtless is vindictive, and that will be a factor. However, Comey’s activities were extremely suspect. He actually should have been indicted four years ago. But that’s not the way we do things these days.
So we have the interesting phenomenon of a good case being brought for the wrong reasons.
Curious whether there’s a single example of any of Trumps goons, from Homan to Bovino to some guy behind a mask, being physically threatened, swatted, etc., much less injured in body or property. That includes family members.
Right at the moment, I understand two young women have been indicted in Southern California, after following a couple of ice agents home, and attempting to post personal information on social media. If you search on YouTube or x, you'll find other instances.
Deflecting because you don't know. And "I understand" is not "This happened and here's the link to the police report". Typical of you people. All bluster and bullshit.
Thanks, but I wouldn't post on a site like this if I didn't expect that sort of reaction. The hope is it every once in awhile someone will get beyond the invective to investigate the reality of what's taking place. The irony is that I'm quite pro immigration - immigrants have far more respect for the idealistic tradition of this nation than Harvard graduates - but not to the extent I want to see some of the more valuable traditions of the nation trashed in the services of a blind, automatic reaction to Trump. We are very much in the realm of policy here, which you change by winning elections, not by getting sympathetic local judges to rule in your favor.
Somehow, this gives me hope. I continue to resist. I am hopeful that the judiciary hold fast to their oaths to the constitution.
Thank you, Chris, for your post. It is much appreciated. The district and state courts are the last bastion protecting the rule of law. Judge Ellis got it exactly right: “Transparency and faith in the rule of law” are critical to protecting the rights under our Constitution.
Hmm, Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth - both appreciators of fine YOUNG women - open a war in two fronts—blue cities and the federal courts. Expect the cities to be invaded … and the courts to be ignored.
Yes. Those two don’t really GAF about either consent or rule of law.
Apparently saying “No” is just an accepted part of romance to these manly boyz.
Excellent update and recap, Chris! Thank you.
Thank you-I had missed this yesterday in the flurry of activity!
Clair here 💕There is a lot of “ legal hanky panky” going on with Trump and his legal team apparently in the drivers seat .. as gehad set up situations that he has labeled Insurrection which gives him unlimited power to combat ..
It’s November 1938 Germany behavior. The Kristallnacht .. is it too late to stop?..yes!
Just recall the electorate voted two times for Trump for President.. and 40!% still support his actions.
The courts, particularly the Supreme Court is his Kangaroo Court.. it’s in his pouch. The Robert’s Court will go down in history as the worst court in the history of this country..
I don’t know why they even bother to meet.. the results are all “ behind the door decisions “.,. Knock ,Knock who’s there… it’s The Donald with your decisions.
yes the shadow docket is alive and well ☹️
ML and good luck 💕Clair
More District Court overreach. More than that, for a district court judge to compare her situation, guarded by Federal Marshals if need be, and doing her job in a courtroom where cameras and social media are not permitted, with the doxxing that can be done to ICE agents something to the full visibility of social media, and without any protection whatsoever, is flat-out cynical
The fact that that first sentence is your comment when there were no TROs issued today — and where both judges appeared to bend over backwards to give DOJ a chance to make its best case and get its best possible answers and responses from its clients — tells me a lot.
The feeling is entirely mutual. You reported an extenso and in an approving manner, the oral argument in the comments of the Court, particularly the obnoxiously disingenuous comments about doxing with respect to ICE agents. You probably assume I'm some sort of Trump loyalist. You're dead wrong. But like it or not, this bozo was elected President of the United States, and the basic call on the propriety of the use of the National Guard is his, not some highly politicized District Court judge. The principle of judicial abstention is pretty important here.
Has it occurred to you that this sort of litigation could have been brought against the National Guard deployment in Little Rock in 1957 and Mississippi in 1963? Shocked? The situations are alike in that important Federal interests - in the earlier cases civil rights, in this case effective enforcement of immigration law - are in the president's judgment not receiving effective support from local law enforcement. That's that's not a judgment a local District Court is in a position to countermand.
I think you're going to discover when the cases in which the Supreme Court intervened this summer are fully litigated that it is not nearly as loyal to Trump as you continually proclaim. What was going on was an attempt to rein in maverick district courts. These are two more that are almost certain to see the ruling set aside in the interim, as is likely the case with Portland
OK, Frank.
Pretty much the same patronizing response that I expected. But whether it's a Constitutional right that's the federal interest (civil rights), or a federal statutory interest (immigration enforcement), if local authorities refuse to provide essential support, deployment of the National Guard is appropriate.
I don't like people who speculate about my inner thoughts, and I try to avoid it with others. But I'm fairly sure you are not familiar with the actual language of the deployment orders. They do not parrot Trump's blathering, blustering, sophomoric ranting tweets. They are far more circumsribed, prohibiting the Guard from doing basic law enforcement (are you aware of that?), and limiting the function to supporting ICE in its basic statutory mission - support it's not getting from local police. (I am speaking of the California authorization, but have no reason to believe that Portland and Chicago are any different.) That determination is basic executive stuff, and not judicial.
District courts should stay out of this arena, as they have in the past with National Guard deployments. The fact that it's Trump does not change the legal tradition.
First, your equating judges who apply the law to the current white nationalist legion of ICE thugs who stamp on the constitutional rights of citizens and immigrants is, well, iniquitous, to say the least.
Second, neither Judge Salas nor her son nor her husband were "guarded by Federal Marshalls" when Roy Den Hollander, "a self-proclaimed anti-feminist lawyer" went to her home posing as a delivery man and killed her only son and critically injured her husband. To my knowledge, Federal Marshalls do not provide 24/7 protection unless there is a credible threat. And even if they did, since the Federal Marshall Service is a department under the orders of a corrupt DOJ, I wouldn't trust a Federal Marshall to hold my coffee.
As for your claim that "you're going to discover when the cases in which the Supreme Court intervened this summer are fully litigated that it is not nearly as loyal to Trump as you continually proclaim", I hope you're right. But if the radical majority follows its MO and stays the Oregon and pending Illinois TRO/injunctions via the Shadow Docket, your conclusion will be moot: there will be military on the streets of every major blue state city by the time the matter finally reaches the Court. If they think they can put the demonic genie back in the bottle, well, one look at Authoritarian history tells a very different story.
It's not all that radical - out of control district court judges have been an issue for at least a decade. And it's anything but a monolith.
What is radical is the litigation strategy the Democratic party has adopted, which is unprecedented. You might not like the present schemata that immigration law, but it is the duly enacted law of the land, which the Congress has not seen fit to reform. The ICE does no more than enforce it, as the ATF does with violations of those statutes. They are no more thugs than any other peace officers
The local police and State (I think) in Little Rock and Mississippi were the problem or part it. Thats why the national guard was brought in. Two in comparable set of circumstances. The local police were punishing the protesters peaceful gatherings . Not protecting them and their rights to assemble.
Wow, what a mouthful! Preprepared?
Nope. I'm just very articulate.
We don't even have a clue to who these agents are. They are masked, sometimes not in uniform, and without badges. Give me one example of doxxing an ICE agent. Bah!
They're all appropriately identified on the reports and filings made to the court. They aren't anonymous
Then why do they wear masks?
So that idiots with phone cameras can't record them, ID them and make the lives of their wives and children hell. Are you living on this planet?
Not even the Nazis wore masks.
I don't think the Nazis had to worry about vigilantes attacking their dependents, with the full approval of too many members of the public.
In any case, these guys are regular peace officers, and subject to the various laws and constraints of the federal government. Bystanders might not know who they are, but the detainees do, if it comes to whether legal action is appropriate.
Asking for example. Do you have one? Waiting.
I mentioned my source in my comment. I was hoping some One else could or would verify. Or provide info to the contrary?
Yes, never mind trampling all over the U.S. Constitution.
Judges are protected by third parties, in most cases armed only with sidearms and perhaps wearing some light protection under their uniforms.
ICE and its cohorts are protected with their very own assault armament and military ballistic vests, armored vehicles,and helicopters . They also mass and attack unarmed protestors in phalanxes like packs of street dogs.
There's absolutely no comparison between these two scenarios except by those trying to hawk false equivalences.
And of course those protections apply to wives, sweethearts and minor children - a fairly obvious distinction. Since I don't believe you're that stupid, I can only assume you are in bad faith.
ICE doesn’t deserve any special privileges, such as masks, not generally extended to law enforcement. And if they weren’t abusing their power and violating people’s rights they wouldn’t have to worry about being recorded and potentially identified. Cause and effect…
Sure it does. The legacy media has managed to demonize these guys, even though they're ordinary peace officers. Regular beat patrol guys don't have to worry about people tracking down their loved ones. But that's just what will happen, and has has happened, to ICE officers.
If it has happened, tell us where we can find the facts of the incident.
Can you provide confirmation of ICE family members being harassed. Oh and isn’t the POTUS doing a little harassing himself? Comey comes to mind.
They’re not being harassed because they’re masked and anonymous. Duh. Comey is not being doxed by mobs of vigilantes. He’s subject to judicial process which will take its course.
The prosecution is interesting. It doubtless is vindictive, and that will be a factor. However, Comey’s activities were extremely suspect. He actually should have been indicted four years ago. But that’s not the way we do things these days.
So we have the interesting phenomenon of a good case being brought for the wrong reasons.
They have their guns.
Curious whether there’s a single example of any of Trumps goons, from Homan to Bovino to some guy behind a mask, being physically threatened, swatted, etc., much less injured in body or property. That includes family members.
Right at the moment, I understand two young women have been indicted in Southern California, after following a couple of ice agents home, and attempting to post personal information on social media. If you search on YouTube or x, you'll find other instances.
It's your job to cite these details, not ours to seek them out.
Wrong. It's everybody's job to find out what's going on in the world. I don't run a subscription blog.
Deflecting because you don't know. And "I understand" is not "This happened and here's the link to the police report". Typical of you people. All bluster and bullshit.
Frank, sorry you're receiving this type of abuse, it is unnecessary.
Thanks, but I wouldn't post on a site like this if I didn't expect that sort of reaction. The hope is it every once in awhile someone will get beyond the invective to investigate the reality of what's taking place. The irony is that I'm quite pro immigration - immigrants have far more respect for the idealistic tradition of this nation than Harvard graduates - but not to the extent I want to see some of the more valuable traditions of the nation trashed in the services of a blind, automatic reaction to Trump. We are very much in the realm of policy here, which you change by winning elections, not by getting sympathetic local judges to rule in your favor.
😡😡😡
The federal marshals cannot guard judges from these actions. There not nearly enough of them. And everything they do can be accessed publicly.
They at least provide some protection. Dependence of ICE officers would have none at all. Do yourself Justice.