13 Comments
User's avatar
Shelley Powers's avatar

As I noted in Bluesky, Henderson was a law prof schooling fairly idiotic first year law students in her writing. It was brilliant.

So was Reyes, esp with

'When the U.S. Department of Justice engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge. This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented. '

Expand full comment
Joeff's avatar

I feel like Henderson is on every DC Circuit panel i encounter. She’s as old as the hills. I wonder if there’s been any scholarly examination of her influence?

Expand full comment
Shelley Powers's avatar

I hesitate to quote Wikipedia, but it does have a listing of some of her more important decisions. Let's say that there was reason to be concerned about how she would rule on this case, but her response was a pleasant surprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_L._Henderson

Expand full comment
Karen Scofield's avatar

A lot to unpack here, Chris, Excellent reporting and insight. Thank you, and will reStack ASAP 💯👍🇺🇸💙🙏🇺🇦💔

Expand full comment
Sanjoy Mahajan's avatar

The government also has just filed its opposition in the Ozturk case. However, as part of an immigration case, the filing itself is not available electronically. My guess is that their argument will be “ha, ha, too late!” Or more elaborately: She was already in Louisiana when the judge issued the order to keep her in Mass., so the court lost jurisdiction.

Expand full comment
Christina Wilson Remlin's avatar

Shouldn’t jurisdiction be established at the time of the filing not the time of the decision?

Expand full comment
Sanjoy Mahajan's avatar

She might also have been in Louisiana at the time of the filing. They probably got her out of state immediately, knowing that a court challenge was coming.

Expand full comment
Tom's avatar

I believe that would be a new rule, imprisoning jurisdiction and — potentially — allowing this particular administration to move cases wherever it wants them. even more readily than it is trying to do now.

Expand full comment
Larry Erickson's avatar

This really reminds me of the old (and probably still used) police tactic of repeatedly moving a prisoner from one jail to another to keep their lawyer from finding them. There was even a slang term for it which I can't remember now.

Expand full comment
Christina Wilson Remlin's avatar

Thanks all.

Expand full comment
sixmorecharacters's avatar

"[Q]uick appeal and stay request from the Justice Department" is right. 23 minutes from your update re: entry of the Memorandum Opinion (9:30 p.m. at Seattle, WA) and the update regarding the filing of the notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. It proves that Trump's people can move fast when they want to. They just have the desire to do so, I guess.

Expand full comment
MissNumbersNinja's avatar

"Essentially: Don’t listen to Alito; he lost." - ROFLMAO!!!!

I was thinking the other day that Alito & Thomas seems to never want to restraint government at all and under his view they the judiciary might as well fold up the tent and go home. But, seeing the commentary on this case reminded me there are two exceptions to that: guns and religion.

Expand full comment
Michelle Bloomrose's avatar

Chris, thanks so much for covering this important legal story. It means a lot to me. 👊🏳️‍⚧️💥

Expand full comment