No religious charter schools. For now. Justice Barrett was recused. Also: Judge finds the Trump admin violated a court order with its South Sudan deportation effort.
The rare good news these days is when expected bad news doesn't end up happening, which is what the resolution of the Oklahoma case is.
The question is how much time we have (if we do) to convert the general unease with this administration / regime into a real resistance. Because their plans are to snuff that out.
With the right wing’s potentially able to skirt the Barrett recusal - and Kacsmaryk apparently ready to make the U.S. a Christian Nationalist haven - I’m guessing the only “liberal” decision to be left alone will be Loving v. Virginia—another Thomas “gratuity”.
Would be interested in your take on what impact this will have on Murphy's and other judges' ability to do ANYTHING about these deportations without due process:
Samuel Bray suggests that, going forward, judges could just impose a trivial bond on plaintiffs, even something as small as a dollar. However, since neither Murphy or Boasberg imposed such a bond, given that the language explicitly states it applies retroactively, the courts could lose the ability to spend any of their budgets on enforcing contempt orders associated with these deportation injunctions / restraining orders.
Yes, I've been reading; I just haven't written. Not really time to write about potential things when there are too many actual things happening. I have to trust that other people are covering things that I can't cover.
Re: the South Sudan deportation flights and the Judge Murphy reaction:
"Over objections from the migrants’ counsel, Murphy ordered that deportees would remain abroad somewhere in U.S. custody and be given all of the due process remotely that they had been entitled to receive before their unlawful removals."
Now, really, how in god's name is this order to be carried out by THIS regime? And how will the court even enforce it? I mean, DHS can just simply LIE about "given all the due process..." as it has done all along in most if not all the court cases to date, and then what?
All of these unfortunates transported to third-country destinations are lost for good, and let's not deceive ourselves on that score.
I mean, obviously I think the flight should have been returned, so you're putting me in the awkward position of defending an order I disagree with. (Also, if you're going to quote from something, say what it is and provide a link, otherwise, what's the point?) That said, Murphy ordered that counsel for these people is to be guaranteed, among other protections, so that's the response, such as there is one.
I am sure the comments section here is quite frustrating but I think it keeps coming back to doubt that court orders are in fact being carried out and obeyed in this country, which is really beyond the scope of this substack. What you report (so very well on) is what form the resistance is taking in the legal system, and how the courts are responding. I think so far it's bend but don't break, and most of your readers are (I think quite reasonably) terrified of a threshold moment when it becomes unambiguously clear that the courts, and rule of law, no longer have any control over the situation. It hasn't quite happened yet, and if or when it does, it's beyond the scope of this substack, at least in its current form. Nonetheless I think there's probably a value in venting in a community space, and so thank you for providing one of those.
The administration has ALREADY begun to ignore court orders it dislikes, up to and including GOPSCROTUS orders. Separation of powers and checks and balances no longer exist nor will they return. This is the beginning of the new normal where all power is vested within the unitary executive.
This is what a majority of Americans THINK that they want because they're just too stupid to comprehend the downstream implications and dire consequences. They prefer, no, they DEMAND, simple and dumb solutions to complex and interrelated problems.
Forty years of defaming education, educators, universities, expertise, and professionals have led us directly to this moment. America was just too intellectually lazy, too stupid, too malinformed, too cognitively dissonant, and too stultifyingly stolid to remain a representative democracy and constitutional republic.
Oh well.
I guess I'll just couchrot, vape, eat Cheetos, and watch reality show reruns until the ICE Gestapo come to bash my queer head in. Murka!
counsel that is commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures
occurred within the United States prior to their deportation, including remote access where
in-person access would otherwise be available.
This is the part of the judge's order that I quoted in my OP, and my questioning how this "remote access" process can be verified, if it depends upon a dubiously credible DHS assertion. IF the deportees are already somewhere in South Sudan, how is this "remote access" going to be set up practicably?
Here is the TPM "live blog" of yesterday's hearing in Judge Murphy's court, and where I grabbed the original quote, FWIW:
Admittedly, the citations got a bit bollixed, as I first saw the "remote access" business cited in David Kurz's Morning Memo, which he summarized from his TPM live-blogging of yesterday's hearing here:
"Over objections from the migrants’ counsel, Murphy ordered that deportees would remain abroad somewhere in U.S. custody and be given all of the due process remotely that they had been entitled to receive before their unlawful removals."
My point remains about verifying upshot of remote access, IF the immigrants in question indeed receive unfettered counsel access "somewhere in US custody". Do you believe that's a given?
In regard to Chris' reporting on the Judge Brian Murphy/violation of court order/deportations to South Sudan (and all the other citations of the Trump Administration ignoring injunctions and TROs - I would like Chris to comment on this language tucked into the just passed House Reconciliation Bill - “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….” What does it mean? Is it constitutional? Etc.
Why does Trump Inc confine its deportures to terrestrial destinations? It doesn't seem to matter to any of their minions whether the deportees arrive (safely? ha!) at their designated destinations. Why not fly these heinous criminals to The Moon?
Surely a friendly billionaire pal or two could provide rocket transport?
No safe arrival guaranteed, of course. But at least the Worst of the Worst are outta here!
The rare good news these days is when expected bad news doesn't end up happening, which is what the resolution of the Oklahoma case is.
The question is how much time we have (if we do) to convert the general unease with this administration / regime into a real resistance. Because their plans are to snuff that out.
With the right wing’s potentially able to skirt the Barrett recusal - and Kacsmaryk apparently ready to make the U.S. a Christian Nationalist haven - I’m guessing the only “liberal” decision to be left alone will be Loving v. Virginia—another Thomas “gratuity”.
Would be interested in your take on what impact this will have on Murphy's and other judges' ability to do ANYTHING about these deportations without due process:
https://www.startribune.com/trumps-clash-with-the-courts-raises-prospect-of-showdown-over-separation-of-powers/601356740?utm_source=gift
https://davidpepper.substack.com/p/smoking-gun-they-want-to-break-the
This language is still in the version of the bill passed overnight that is headed to the Senate.
I haven't had time to dig into that, Holly, but I am watching.
Samuel Bray suggests that, going forward, judges could just impose a trivial bond on plaintiffs, even something as small as a dollar. However, since neither Murphy or Boasberg imposed such a bond, given that the language explicitly states it applies retroactively, the courts could lose the ability to spend any of their budgets on enforcing contempt orders associated with these deportation injunctions / restraining orders.
Yes, I've been reading; I just haven't written. Not really time to write about potential things when there are too many actual things happening. I have to trust that other people are covering things that I can't cover.
That said, it's definitely sloppy language.
Do you think that plaintiff.s with injunctions will be likely to move to modify them to have a bond requirement of $1.00?
Re: the South Sudan deportation flights and the Judge Murphy reaction:
"Over objections from the migrants’ counsel, Murphy ordered that deportees would remain abroad somewhere in U.S. custody and be given all of the due process remotely that they had been entitled to receive before their unlawful removals."
Now, really, how in god's name is this order to be carried out by THIS regime? And how will the court even enforce it? I mean, DHS can just simply LIE about "given all the due process..." as it has done all along in most if not all the court cases to date, and then what?
All of these unfortunates transported to third-country destinations are lost for good, and let's not deceive ourselves on that score.
I mean, obviously I think the flight should have been returned, so you're putting me in the awkward position of defending an order I disagree with. (Also, if you're going to quote from something, say what it is and provide a link, otherwise, what's the point?) That said, Murphy ordered that counsel for these people is to be guaranteed, among other protections, so that's the response, such as there is one.
I am sure the comments section here is quite frustrating but I think it keeps coming back to doubt that court orders are in fact being carried out and obeyed in this country, which is really beyond the scope of this substack. What you report (so very well on) is what form the resistance is taking in the legal system, and how the courts are responding. I think so far it's bend but don't break, and most of your readers are (I think quite reasonably) terrified of a threshold moment when it becomes unambiguously clear that the courts, and rule of law, no longer have any control over the situation. It hasn't quite happened yet, and if or when it does, it's beyond the scope of this substack, at least in its current form. Nonetheless I think there's probably a value in venting in a community space, and so thank you for providing one of those.
I'd quibble around the edges, but, yes, I think that makes sense.
That's the meticulousness we all appreciate and which makes your reporting invaluable! :)
The administration has ALREADY begun to ignore court orders it dislikes, up to and including GOPSCROTUS orders. Separation of powers and checks and balances no longer exist nor will they return. This is the beginning of the new normal where all power is vested within the unitary executive.
This is what a majority of Americans THINK that they want because they're just too stupid to comprehend the downstream implications and dire consequences. They prefer, no, they DEMAND, simple and dumb solutions to complex and interrelated problems.
Forty years of defaming education, educators, universities, expertise, and professionals have led us directly to this moment. America was just too intellectually lazy, too stupid, too malinformed, too cognitively dissonant, and too stultifyingly stolid to remain a representative democracy and constitutional republic.
Oh well.
I guess I'll just couchrot, vape, eat Cheetos, and watch reality show reruns until the ICE Gestapo come to bash my queer head in. Murka!
OK, fair play to you re: citation reference...here it is:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.282404/gov.uscourts.mad.282404.119.0.pdf
Second para, first page...for whatever reason, I can't copy and paste relevant quote into this email.
Huh? That's the order I shared. I'm now totally lost.
Each individual must be afforded access to
counsel that is commensurate with the access that they would have received had these procedures
occurred within the United States prior to their deportation, including remote access where
in-person access would otherwise be available.
This is the part of the judge's order that I quoted in my OP, and my questioning how this "remote access" process can be verified, if it depends upon a dubiously credible DHS assertion. IF the deportees are already somewhere in South Sudan, how is this "remote access" going to be set up practicably?
Here is the TPM "live blog" of yesterday's hearing in Judge Murphy's court, and where I grabbed the original quote, FWIW:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/live-blog/judge-threatens-dhs-with-contempt-over-migrant-removals-to-south-sudan
I am still confused. (And, I'm not sure why you quoted from TPM without linking, and then sent a link to a court order.)
That aside: If they have access to counsel, how could counsel *not* verify what's happening?
Admittedly, the citations got a bit bollixed, as I first saw the "remote access" business cited in David Kurz's Morning Memo, which he summarized from his TPM live-blogging of yesterday's hearing here:
"Over objections from the migrants’ counsel, Murphy ordered that deportees would remain abroad somewhere in U.S. custody and be given all of the due process remotely that they had been entitled to receive before their unlawful removals."
https://morningmemo.talkingpointsmemo.com/p/welcome-to-the-white-christian-nationalist
My point remains about verifying upshot of remote access, IF the immigrants in question indeed receive unfettered counsel access "somewhere in US custody". Do you believe that's a given?
In regard to Chris' reporting on the Judge Brian Murphy/violation of court order/deportations to South Sudan (and all the other citations of the Trump Administration ignoring injunctions and TROs - I would like Chris to comment on this language tucked into the just passed House Reconciliation Bill - “No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued….” What does it mean? Is it constitutional? Etc.
Why does Trump Inc confine its deportures to terrestrial destinations? It doesn't seem to matter to any of their minions whether the deportees arrive (safely? ha!) at their designated destinations. Why not fly these heinous criminals to The Moon?
Surely a friendly billionaire pal or two could provide rocket transport?
No safe arrival guaranteed, of course. But at least the Worst of the Worst are outta here!
Thank you for these timely updates. Very helpful.