the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 against the vicious Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua which has been terrorizing cities across the country—and then the administration sent at least one planeload of members of the “Foreign Terrorist Organization” back to their country of origin.

It didn’t take long for Obama appointed Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to kneecap the effort. Not only did he issue a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of any Venezuelans, but he also ordered that the plane (or planes; it’s unclear) return the gangsters to the U.S.

The actions against the president began even before he signed the order. Mind-boggling:

Hours before the proclamation was signed, a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Forward and the ACLU of the District of Columbia, claiming it could be used to deport any Venezuelan in the country, regardless of whether they are a member of TdA.

At a hearing Saturday afternoon, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary restraining order preventing the deportation of the five Venezuelans, who had already been in federal custody for two weeks.

Two planes that may have been en route to deport illegal immigrants were ordered returned by the judge. However, it is unclear as of Saturday night if they have done so.

On its face, the administration's application for a partial stay simply asks the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of the injunctions as to birthright citizenship (rather than decide the merits of the argument at this juncture). But the application also seeks to strike at the heart of an even larger issue — the explosion of universal injunctions being issued in recent years.

The rationale is spelled out succinctly in the application's next-to-last paragraph:

There are “more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts.” DHS, 140 S. Ct. at 600-601 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere. The sooner universal injunctions are “eliminated root and branch,” “the better.” Arizona, 40 F.4th at 398 (Sutton, C.J., concurring)

If nothing else, the Trump administration is prompting a thorough examination of the separation of powers and the scope of executive authority.

Climate change alarmist Michael Mann's ill-conceived lawsuit against the online critics continued to go pear-shaped Wednesday as a federal judge sanctioned Mann and his legal counsel for acting in "bad faith." That, of course, could easily describe Mann's entire career as a climate grifter. "Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence," wrote DC Superior Court Judge Alfred Irving, Jr., (George W. Bush appointee), "That Dr. Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding."

The saga began in 2012 when Mann, bruised from the email leak that seemed to indicate his famous "hockey stick" graph was a deliberate fraud (remember "hide the decline?"), decided to go after a handful of particularly vocal critics who dubbed him the "Jerry Sandusky of climate change," a hat tip to Penn State's legendary football coach. They were the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a CEI blogger Rand Simberg, National Review, and NR contributor Mark Steyn. //

The fact that the jury awarded him only $2 in actual damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages (send a message!) supports this interpretation — The defense won on merits, and Mann won on the framing and the politics.

There was celebration on the left: Michael Mann climate scientist wins defamation case: NPR.

But it didn't last long. Last Tuesday, the trial judge, citing the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, reduced the punitive damages against Steyn to $5,000. But the hammer really fell Wednesday when the judge found that Mann and his attorney had lied about Mann's financial losses to inflate the jury verdict. //

Now Mann and his lawyer will be sanctioned.

I'd like to say that Mann lost this trial, but I'm not sure that's the case. He'll find deep-pocketed friends to pay off the money he lost. He's still employed at Penn State. Simberg and Steyn lost 13 years of their lives and have been largely sidelined from climate change debates. I have no knowledge of their finances, but I'm willing to bet they suffered a lot more than Mann. And Mann's suit has served the purpose for which it was intended. I didn't write about half of the very witty things I wanted to write about Mann because I don't have the time or money to fight off even a bullsh** lawsuit by someone with Mann's backing and resources. I'm sure others have made the same calculation.

The sanctions for lying will be mildly embarrassing to Mann, but what survives are the two judgments for defamation he won, which will serve as a precedent in the future.

I'm not one to use the term "Constitutional crisis" loosely, but if this ruling stands, I think we are at that point. Alsup's decision means federal agencies cannot legally respond to a White House directive to reduce their headcount. It also changes the legal status of probationary and term appointments to tenure rather than how they have been traditionally viewed. IANAL, but I think the ability of the American Federation of Government Employees to intervene on behalf of employees who are not represented by a bargaining unit in an employment matter is highly suspect.

On Thursday, President Trump issued an executive order that cut federal ties with the Spygate incubator and major Democrat law firm Perkins Coie. The president did so based on the firm’s partisan dishonesty, and because it openly discriminates based on sex and race.

This is a good legal basis for refusing to work with any company, and it should be extended to every legal entity in the country. Top of the list should be the American Bar Association, which also advocates for and engages in unlawful racial and sexual discrimination and is a highly partisan actor on behalf of the Democrat Party and other anti-Constitution activists.

The ABA deeply affects the U.S. lawyer pipeline and licensing system, accrediting law schools, rating judges, and weaponizing lawyer discipline. Its rabid leftism means the ABA systematically ratchets the entire U.S. legal system against the U.S. Constitution.

That’s an existential threat to the country, as most recently illustrated by the dozens of federal judges the ABA helped advance who hate our supreme law so much they rule that the elected executive cannot control the unelected executive branch. With judges like those the ABA advances, the United States will quickly discard what remnants of our constitutional order persist. //

“The ABA’s public actions grew increasingly partisan throughout the Biden presidency and now into the early days of Trump’s second term. The organization justified President Biden’s preposterous assertion that the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified; claimed that bar associations have a First Amendment right to engage in racial discrimination; and sued President Trump for slashing USAID subsidies,” Fragoso notes.

By endorsing race and sex discrimination, presidents unilaterally changing the Constitution, and forbidding elected executive control of unelected executive bureaucrats, the ABA has disqualified itself as a legal organization or any kind of legitimate player in American public life. No elected official who has made a public vow to preserve and protect the Constitution should give this anti-American pressure organization the time of day.

The White House moves have sent a chill through the world of Big Law, at a time when litigation has emerged as one of the few checks on the president.

In private conversations, partners at some of the nation’s leading firms have expressed outrage at the president’s actions. What they haven’t been willing to do is say so publicly. Back-channel efforts to persuade major law firms to sign public statements criticizing Trump’s actions thus far have foundered, in part because of retaliation fears, people familiar with the matter said. //

nothing in those orders prevents anyone from engaging either firm to defend, nor does it prevent anyone from associating with them.

The real complaint is that both firms, under Obama and Biden, had taken on the air of quasi-governmental law shops. Some of their lawyers held high-level security clearances without any need. Apparently, the US government maintained SCIFs at Perkins Coie offices, allowing easy access to highly classified intelligence. Some of their lawyers and staff held permanent passes permitting unescorted entry to some federal agencies. The orders do nothing to prevent either law firm from representing clients needing access to top secret information; they are just required to play by the same rules as every other law office in the country. Attorneys can get clearances on a case-by-case basis, they have to access top secret information in government SCIFs, and their attorneys can't meander through federal buildings without an escort and appointment.

McQuade's sniveling really rings false when one considers the concerted campaign by Democrats to disbar and socially disappear lawyers who worked for President Trump after the 2020 selection of Joe Biden to contest election results in Georgia and Arizona. //

If law firms want to be neutral parties, they must stop being political guns-for-hire. As former RedStater Bill Shipley noted, he took on January 6 defendants pro bono because major law firms would not touch these cases even though they would defend known terrorists. //

But if they want to be combatants, they have no reason to complain when they become targets. //

Mrminwnc T_Edward
a day ago
When you’re used to special treatment, equal treatment feels like discrimination.

Justin Murphy @jmrphy
The NYT this morning criticized Elon Musk's call to impeach federal judges, accusing him of violating constitutional norms. Well, I looked into the data and it's insane: We stopped impeaching federal judges, despite having more of them now than ever!

The impeachment rate now seems implausibly low.

Either federal judges have become saints, or something is suppressing impeachments.

What is the probability we'd observe zero impeachments from 2011-2024? Using the Poisson distribution, I think it's somewhere around 3-7% depending on how you do it. So it's very fishy.

What's even crazier is that there is a clear political story behind all of this.

The 1980 Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, signed by Jimmy Carter, gave judges the power to police themselves through an obfuscated multi-layer system where chief judges dismiss almost all the complaints and judicial councils choose confidential sanctions in most of the cases where they even admit wrongdoing occurred.

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Follow
I love all the press coverage tonight of CJ Roberts' order from about 10:00 pm ET.

All the usual suspects -- AP, Reuters, ABC, etc., all refer to it as a "temporary" hold on the order that the Court entered.

No. The Orders are "Stayed" pending further order of the Court.

If the CJ Roberts thought the District Judge was within his authority to order the Executive to spend specific amounts on money on specific grants/contracts on or before midnight tonight, he could have simply done nothing.

Instead he said the Admin need not comply with the Order. //

Shipwreckedcrew
@shipwreckedcrew
·
Follow
So CJ Roberts steps in around 10:00 and issues a stay on the Order to Enforce His TRO entered by Judge Amir Ali in DC -- a District Court judge for all of 90 days.

Judge Ali's TRO had commanded that the Executive

While the "merits" of the withholding might be subject to some legitimate legal debate, when a higher court -- or the Chief Justice -- steps in so abruptly there is very often a key issue that the lower court judge is simply ignoring in his haste to "do right" -- and I think that is the problem here. The District Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim or provide the relief requested -- whether the plaintiffs are entitled to it or not. Judge Ali brushed off the questions about jurisdiction in his fit of pique over what he saw as DOJ non-compliance with his Order. But there is a truism that all federal civil litigators know -- one that never occurs to legal reporter: "Jurisdiction is always at issue.". //

Has the Supreme Court finally gotten fed up with courts setting executive-branch policies? Based on last night’s intervention by Chief Justice Supreme Court John Roberts, the answer could be yes.

What the government does for anyone it must do for everyone or it must do for no one. That's what equal treatment under the law is. That's how laws against unfair discrimination, for instance, discrimination based on inherent traits like ethnicity, must apply across the board, no matter what foot that shoe is on.

On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court seemed to be leaning into a favorable ruling for an Ohio woman who claimed to have been the subject of sex discrimination from her employer - because she is straight. //

Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames. //

If we are going to have laws against arbitrary discrimination, then they must apply equally, to everyone, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, anything. It's ridiculous that this obvious principle has to be fought out to the Supreme Court level, but here we are; if the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff, this will shake up the grievance industry of discrimination claims for a good long while.

The Trump administration is targeting court interpretations that have stripped the president of full control over personnel, and policy, within federal agencies.

the Trump administration totally expects they are going to lose in court a lot. Do you know what it costs to do an executive order? A piece of paper and a Sharpie. That’s it. And they can go right back to the drawing board. One of these courts said, hey, the language was too vague. You know what that tells them? Just go draft another one. It's not like legislation where you need a bunch of people to agree on something.

[...]

They’re going to fight at every single turn. And that means appealing absolutely everything with the knowledge that they’re going to lose some of them because it costs them nothing. Executive Orders are the easiest thing to issue.

I do not see this as Trump losing over and over and over again. I think the more important bigger story is that they’re not going to stop and they’re going to keep fighting it every time, and they are going to win some of these. //

Political-Paige
4 hours ago
SCOTUS could end all this tomorrow with a sweeping (and utterly unassailable) order that these District Courts lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions against the Executive.
But the Roberts Court is so timid that it's allowing unprecedented chaos to reign across the country as activist inferior court judges strut their unearned power games.
It's appalling.

Since 2020, hundreds of Republican attorneys have faced challenges to their law licenses for making conservative arguments in court. //

Republican Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita petitioned the state Supreme Court Thursday to stop threats to his law license over his pro-life legal efforts. It’s the latest development in years of abortion litigation and advocacy involving Congress, the White House, and ongoing media coverage that began in 2022, when Indiana abortionist Caitlin Bernard disclosed she’d committed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. //

In the 2024 elections, Rokita was the largest vote-getter of all statewide candidates, winning re-election by nearly 18 points despite the charges against his law license. Rokita earned more votes than every other candidate on Indiana ballots, except for Donald Trump. Hoosier voters clearly weighed in strongly against procedural efforts to impede Rokita’s work as attorney general. //

At the time it began pursuing charges against Rokita, public records showed every Disciplinary Commission member with a record of political donations had donated to Democrat Party candidates. At the time, the board was also chaired by a Democrat prosecutor who publicly supported Wells in 2024 and has made numerous donations to other pro-abortion candidates.

During the hearing, Reyes ceased to act as an impartial factfinder and engaged in argumentation that made it very clear that she was dismissive of the idea that transgenders who are unable to deploy worldwide because of the absence of specialized medical treatment were a drag, so to speak, on readiness; //

The letter alleges many incidents but focuses on two. In one, she demanded to know the religious views of the DOJ attorney, Jason Lynch. Then, this incredible exchange happened.

"What do you think Jesus would say," Reyes proceeded to ask, about an action that revokes a transgender person's access to homeless shelters?

"Do you think he’d say ‘sounds right to me’ or ‘WTF, let them in?'"

Lynch extracted himself by saying, "The US government is not going to speculate about what Jesus would have to say about anything."

Not only was the questioning wildly inappropriate, but it also forced the government attorney to reveal his own religion and wonder how that would affect Reyes's view of his answer. //

after this display of stupidity, it is hard to believe that Reyes will not face a "motion to disqualify." Even if that motion is rejected, it will be appealed. If Reyes stays on the case and inevitably rules that transgenders are allowed in the military, the government will appeal, and Reyes's misconduct and abusive behavior will be a factor.

In 2023, the Biden administration's Department of Justice sued Elon Musk's SpaceX for discrimination, charging that the company did not hire people it wasn't legally allowed to hire.

Yes, really. That case is now being dropped; the new Trump administration's Department of Justice has filed a motion to have the case dismissed with prejudice. //

DogeDesigner @cb_doge
·
"SpaceX was told for many years that we could not hire anyone who was not a permanent resident of the U.S., or I would go to prison.

Then, a few years ago, the Biden administration decided to sue SpaceX for failing to hire asylum seekers."

2:55 AM · Jul 23, 2024. //

SupplyGuy
6 hours ago
So riddle me this: why have there been tons of prosecutors and lawyers willing to quit rather than "prosecute" or even drop cases, as required by the Trump administration, but not a darn one of them took a prinicipled stand and quit rather than pursue this obviously corrupt case?

Don't bother answering - we all know the answer - these prosecutors and lawyers are nothing more than corrupt commie-fascists.

Every ad for a government job should state "democrats need not apply" b/c they have shown that they cannot keep their political bias out of their work. //

anon-0g91 SupplyGuy
5 hours ago
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner .. You nailed the fundamental problem with the weasels. They only find their principles when Trump is involved. That is the same with all leftist jerks. They find ethics only when it suits them. The prosecutor who placed these charges needs to lose their law license for the frivolity of this case. //

anon-0g91 redstateuser
5 hours ago
This had nothing to do with America First. It had to do with Export Control laws that SpaceX had to operate under. Hiring non-US citizens would have broken the law as all the technology they deal with is export-controlled, and an Export is making that technology accessible to a foreign national without a security clearance. Non-US citizens can't get security clearances, and if the position requires one, that is just the way the law works. If you can't get a clearance, you don't get hired.

“Nauseatingly frightening”: Law firm condemns careless AI use in court. //

"As all lawyers know (or should know), it has been documented that AI sometimes invents case law, complete with fabricated citations, holdings, and even direct quotes," his letter said. "As we previously instructed you, if you use AI to identify cases for citation, every case must be independently verified."

Judge Contreras relied on a very shaky 1935 precedent called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This precedent established the, in my view, unconstitutional and un-republican plethora of "independent" boards and commissions that carry out executive functions but aren't answerable to the guy in whom the "executive Power" of the United States is "vested." Recent cases have held that any commission holding anything other than an advisory capacity must be controlled by the President; how the MSPB's role in adjudicating employment disputes will be viewed is unknown.

This case is headed to the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court. Another similar case, that of Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, is at the Supreme Court; Trump Sends Scorching Appeal of DC Court Order Reinstating Biden Appointee to the Supreme Court – RedState. In that case, Trump fired Dellinger, who had the same legal protections as MSPB judges. A judge ordered Dellinger reinstated, and the Supreme Court will get Dellinger's response to the government's objections at 2 p.m. Wednesday.

Other possible cases testing the limits of Humphrey’s Executor are the firings of 17 IGs, who, by statute, can only be fired after a 30-day notice to Congress and an explanation of the reasons, and a member of the National Labor Relations Board. //

Laocoön of Troy
10 hours ago
Remember corrupt FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page? Remember the friendly judge who they secretly met with at a party to plot their next moves against Trump? The crooked judge? Judge Rudolph Contreras (Obama appointee). Strzok referred to him affectionally as "Rudy" like they were old buds.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-page-texts-reveal-personal-relationship-between-fbi-official-and-judge-recused-from-flynn-case

Looks like the crooks from Trump's first term are trying to get the band back together.

all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. //

The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. //

If this order sticks, Trump has permanently and fundamentally changed the Executive Branch, as it has existed since 1935, in less than a month. //

bk
9 hours ago edited
Liberals: "Musk is unelected and therefore can't tell us what to do!"
Also libs: "How dare Trump interfere with tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats who have been telling us what to do for decades!"

The crux of the case brought before Chutkan is that Musk's participation in government is illegal as the US Senate has not confirmed him as a "principal officer" as required by Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 or the Constitution and Congress does not have oversight of DOGE because it exists within the Executive Office of the President. This sounds rather bizarre to me as the President has clear authority, in my view, to set up an ad hoc task force to carry out a time-limited mission and to appoint anyone he wishes to lead it. But I'm not a judge on the DC Circuit.

In these circumstances, it must be indisputable that this court acts within the bounds of its authority. Accordingly, it cannot issue a TRO, especially one as wide-ranging as Plaintiffs request, without clear evidence of imminent, irreparable harm to these Plaintiffs. The current record does not meet that standard. //

NavyVet
32 minutes ago
I am sick and tired of this "unelected official" BS. It is "unelected officials" that have been malfeasant allowing massive fraud waste and abuse. That's the way it works.

So the entire "unelected official" mantra is a smokescreen for the ignorant and stupid. That means it works on democrats and their media bootlickers, but has no credibility with the rest of us.

In fact, all it shows us is that the democrats are corrupt and stupid.

Though they lost, they got a solid dissent to work with and went to the Supreme Court.

Their arguments are that the president has absolute authority to remove officials at will and that every time the Supreme Court has heard a case similar to Dellinger's, they have agreed. //

Whatever the agency, for the President to discharge his constitutional duty to supervise those who exercise executive power on his behalf, the President can “remove the head of an agency with a single top officer” at will. Collins 594 U.S. at 256. On that basis, President Biden in 2021 fired the single head of the Social Security Administration without cause. //

!This Court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the President how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will. “Where a lower court allegedly impinges on the President’s core Article II powers, immediate appellate review should be generally available.”. //

As a general matter, the Constitution “scrupulously avoids concen-trating power in the hands of any single individual” save for the President, who is“the most democratic and politically accountable official in Government.” Id. at 223-224. Single agency heads thus must be accountable to the President through at-will removal. There are only four single agency heads upon whom Congress has sought to confer tenure protection: the Directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), the Commissioner of Social Security, and the Special Counsel here. The former three are undisputedly subject to at-will removal under Article II. This Court’s precedents foreclose any special exception for the Special Counsel.

When the charges against Adams were revealed, he was accused of big stuff...like taking airline upgrades and helping the Turkish embassy navigate NYC's byzantine building code system; see BREAKING: We Now Know the Charges Against New York Mayor Eric Adams – RedState. The charges were framed to look big time, but they were eerily reminiscent of the hit jobs done on Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, where normal activities were mutated into federal felonies by lawyers out to get a scalp.

A sea change happened when Adams defended Trump at a press conference in the last days of the election: NYC Mayor Eric Adams Breaks With Dems Over Despicable Rhetoric: Trump Not a 'Fascist,' 'This Is America' – RedState. //

There was some speculation that Trump might pardon Adams; that didn't happen, but Trump did order DOJ to dismiss the charges against him; New: Trump Justice Dept. Directs Prosecutors to Dismiss Federal Corruption Charges Against Eric Adams – RedState. That's when the fun started. //

This shootout is nowhere near over. Bondi and Bove are still surrounded by disloyal and hostile staff. The judge in NYC is bound to do something other than accept the filing; otherwise, he'll be a social pariah. Ultimately, a judge can't force the government to prosecute a case it wants to dismiss.

It is good that this first battle came this early and over a fairly trivial issue. A lot of unreliable staff have been identified and are no longer employed. The attorneys who came to work for DOJ as a government service and not as a political commissar should now feel more comfortable knowing they have the support of the DOJ leadership team.

Pam Bondi wrote to DOJ on her first day in office, “Any attorney who because of their personal political views or judgments declines to sign a brief or appear in court, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the department’s mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination, consistent with applicable law.” There is no doubt she is serious. //

Skibum
a day ago edited
If you want to know if the prosecution of Mayor Adams was political, ask yourself whether the DOJ would have prosecuted Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago under the same circumstances?

The answer is "NO"! Johnson just got caught with a closet full of bribes with more to come and DOJ prosecutors are nowhere in sight.

Adams went off the Democrat reservation when it came to illegal immigration and Johnson did not. Adams was prosecuted.