Many pundits and apoplectic Lawfare leftists are noting a set of four recent Supreme Court rulings favorable to the Trump administration.
The most recent ruling [pdf here] said nonprofit groups lacked legal standing to bring lawsuits challenging the firings of probationary workers at the departments of Defense, Treasury, Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs. As a consequence, the accompanying Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is defeated.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court also ruled -generally favorable- to the Trump administration [pdf here] on the issue of Venezuelans in the United States labeled by President Donald Trump as “alien enemies.” The justices ruled (5-4) to vacate a lower judge’s order that imposed a block on all deportations under Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
However, the court ruled to remove the TRO under auspices of the wrong venue for challenge; saying the deportees must challenge their status in the district court where jurisdiction of detainment takes place.
That split court ruling follows on the heels of Chief Justice John Roberts issuing an administrative order indefinitely lifting a lower court injunction [pdf here] that demanded the return of previously deported Abrego Garcia set by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis.
In short, the Supreme Court, at least a narrow majority therein, appears to be knocking down the process of federal judge shopping to issue nationwide restraining orders against the Trump administration. Twitter account Unseen1 has a solid and brief outline of what the court appears to be doing:
“The big win for Trump in the scotus today was not the resumption of deportations under the AEA (alien enemies act) (but that was big also). The major win was the court narrowing the federal district judges’ jurisdiction They once again narrowed the ability of the APA (administrative procedure act) which is the main law the vast majority of these unconditional judicial rulings have been made under.
The left is using the APA like Macgyver used bubble gum to get them out of sticky situations. Without the APA, they can’t judge shop as much. They can’t make class action lawsuits that have national injunctions attached.
In short, the scotus with this order, along with the one last week, is narrowing the use of the APA to reign in the lower federal district courts. There are already judicial remedies for almost all of these cases that do not involve a hand-picked federal district court needing to issue a national injunction or TRO.
Grants and contracts should be brought in federal claims court.
Immigration issues should be brought as habeas cases, and most can be held in front of immigration judges.
Government firings should be brought in front of the merit systems protection board.
The left doesn’t want to follow proper procedures for a host of reasons, like added costs, unfriendly judges could set precedent, extra work, time, etc. So, they invented the APA macgyver option. Hence, about 50 TROs/injunctions later, the scotus is smacking this practice down and telling them that this effort will not result in favorable opinions for them.
In short, the scotus is telling the federal district courts not to draw outside the lines regardless of the merits of the case because they will be denied on jurisdiction grounds if they reach the high court.” [link]
However, as noted by The American Thinker: {…} “The real problem is that the Supreme Court emphasized that every person named as an “alien enemy” under the AEA is entitled to judicial review. This is insane because it means that the judiciary will, once again, take unto itself the power to control foreign policy.
While this standard currently applies to the 18-20 million ordinary illegals that Biden let in (something no legislator or judge ever contemplated when immigration laws were passed or reviewed), it cannot possibly apply to the AEA, which is a question of foreign policy solely under the executive’s purview. (Sadly, though, Bondi’s DOJ actually gave the Supremes this opening, so part of the responsibility for this ludicrous holding is on her.) (more)
Judicial Coup of activist District Court Judges.
Collect the Criminal Intelligence of this Judicial Coup
then Arrest & Prosecute the activist District Court Judges.
Ad rem, I reported this character to you when I recognized his single word moderation post made at 1009 on the Japan post on Tuesday, he slipped in with the single word, “great,” so I’m not sure how this character, now dubbed Spam, got through moderation when we were just told that comment wouldn’t have met standards and was obviously recognized as part of a pattern of trickery that none would fall for again.
I have not heard back regarding my message on this topic yesterday, nor on the several messages sent weeks ago on this very topic, there appears to be a blockage in the system somewhere.
I hope all this can be resolved and the miscreants addressed effectively, us noticers are trying to help.
Blessings,
Maquis
Ad rem, I reported this character to you when I recognized his single word moderation post made at 1009 on the Japan post on Tuesday, he slipped in with the single word, “great,” so I’m not sure how this character, now dubbed Spam, got through moderation when we were just told that comment wouldn’t have met standards and was obviously recognized as part of a pattern of trickery that none would fall for again.
I have not heard back regarding my message on this topic yesterday, nor on the several messages sent weeks ago on this very topic, there appears to be a blockage in the system somewhere.
I hope all this can be resolved and the miscreants addressed effectively, us noticers are trying to help.
Blessings,
Maquis
I have flagged this comment and others like it.
President Trump must protect Article II Powers and Authority
of the United States Constitution.
Do not acknowledge the lawlessness of this Judicial Coup
of activist District Court Judges. Tell them to “go pound sand”.
Even after these wins to The Trump Administration, I still find SCOTUS to b corrupt and partisan, which is why I believe these latest rulings are not abt handing The President justifiable wins, but to stop the intense sunlight being cast on Boasberg, his brother’s NGO connections and especially Roberts. His relationship w Eisen, Boasberg and the leftist judges tied to The Inns of Court calls into question his adherence to their Code of Conduct…
Illegal alien criminals have 0 rights under the law, so why did SCOTUS insert the caveat abt “habeas”???
They should have 0 rights to Any taxpayer money.
You didn’t read the American Thinker article that Sundance cited – Bondi’s DOJ unfortunately handed them that angle.
GB, i actually did and disagree… there are always multiple angles
Habeas corpus was handed down from British common law, saying you can’t retroactively change the penalty of a crime as you did not allow the threat of law to have its deterrent effect so the perp could willingly choose to violate the law, knowing the consequences. It was ramroded through in J6 cases as people were held without trial in solitary confinement for attending a peaceful protest, if any had known that they were going to invoke outrageous terrorism charges, they would have not gone within miles of there. However, we don’t apply habeas to criminal illegal alien gangs. The laws on the books regarding deportation being the penalty for crossing the border illegally was still on the books when they came here. Whether they are wanted as terrorists and end up in jail in el Salvador is their own problem. Trump can appoint a few hundred immigration judges who can quickly look at evidence and get them on the plane in 30 minutes or less. Face tattoos are pretty concrete evidence of gang affiliation and they don’t have a US passport to prove citizenship for Biden left them “undocumented.”
Habeas will NOT apply to anyone crossing border tomorrow, so this will be a major deterrent going forward.
“the great writ”…the term literally means “you have the body”.
I agree with your answers. it was an unforced error that HB would be presented in the ways that it was in this case, but we should not be shocked that it did, given HB has been jogged around the block for decades and has given undesirable space for dubious arguments in courts and by courts.
some basic history: a former president, conseled by legal experts and strategists, made the “unpreceddented” decision to deny alleged terrorist entry into the US by detaining them in gitmo. their “crimes” were unique, yet unproven. But it was a bold move to remove these alleged terrorists from US jurisdiction and thus prevent HB arguments. They would remain in gitmo, away from US courts and jurisdictions, and no us court judge could effect the detention or prevail or deny or make any decisions as to the so called rights of these persons who were locked up in a military prison, offshore. There were many legal arguments about the correctness and legal correctness of these decisions, but in the end, what clearly happened is that the actions did what they set out to accomplish: prevent ANY courts from interferring with the EXECUTIVE decision on how to deal with alleged criminals, who were not and could never become US citizens..
with this in mind…is there really any difference in how THIS PRESIDENT has handled similar decisions? these are known and qualified cartel terrorists. they made their way into the US by illegal means. They have never attempted to reform or to gain legal status. Removing them under the aliens act and sending them to an offshore prison well away from US jurisdiction isn’t an afront to HB. It simple prevents these criminals from legally having those protections. Protections that should never extend to known cartel criminals and terrorists…even IF simply alleged. It’s the Presidents’ prerogative….as much as most people really do not fully understand, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES IN FACT HAVE KING LIKE POWERS. And they are plenary and immutable. Challenges to these powers are sure to continue to happen however, because the goal of corruptors *including the high black robe court* is to dilute and direct the power of the office of the president.
I think this is what motivated scotus to decide the way that it did. They want to continue to have the power to influence presidential decisions. but also knowing there is nothing they could do if a president simply decides to defund the courts, or congress to impeach rogue judges. So it was a vote not of legal conscience, but of simply survival. they don’t want to hoist their sorry asses on a petard over some hardened cartel terrorists. that would be quite stupid. they know this. boasTURD gets to continue to be a pain in the ass, so it’s really a step back to preserve black robes like him to do the dirty work.
God Bless America
I used to be a regular reader of theirs. Although they produce a lot of quality articles, several years back like many sites they locked their comments section behind a paywall. In my opinion being able to comment and discuss topics with other readers is half the fun, and without it the experience is greatly diminished.
Yes, which is why I don’t comment there, but do read many of their articles. I find I rarely agree 100% with their author’s opinions and conclusions, but I often find unique perspectives and ideas that are useful to consider in drawing my own conclusions.
Corrupt, like you said.
Eisen had had his security clearence revoked. Can Roberts still share anything with him?
Then as Blanche upthread wrote, she should step down.
Can she be removed? If so then she should be.
Every time they give in to evil they give evil more power over them. Expose the people who are threatening you and if you truly believe your family is in danger, then resign.
I usually assume (yeah, I know) their families have been threatened. Or the bribe was big enough. Anyone with numerous children at home has no business at her position. Just because she’s smart doesn’t mean she isn’t a dumb@$$.
She’s just another Charmin! Good for a wipe! Too bad it’s for unlimited wipes!
She lives in my mother’s neighborhood in northern Virginia. I remember news coverage of the mobs the left assembled at our neighborhood elementary school and marched to ABC’s house to illegally picket and threaten her–whom nobody prosecuted.
There are usually multiple unmarked black suburbans in that part of the neighborhood.
At a glance, on the public opinion front, these SCOTUS rulings imo give PDJT some cover to mostly ignore the handful of activist judges, and move full steam ahead….Let the Dems try to unring the bell if they ever get power again. And considering the millions of fraudulent ballots/votes they’ve been relying on to steal elections, deporting millions of illegals & removing them from voter rolls, would strike a knockout punch to Dems for the foreseeable future.
I agree with Andrea Witburg at American Thinker, the author of the article cited by Sundance above.
She states that this is a “Pyrrhic victory” in her opening paragraph, and at her conclusion that the SCOTUS decision was a “bad decision.”
Without reading her short article I would be inclined to disagree and poo-poo her pessimism.
But after reading the article, which I implore every Treeper to pause and go do, I have to say that, unfortunately, she is correct.
SCOTUS could have given Trump a more solid victory that precluded further problems in this area. But unfortunately Bondi’s DOJ focused on the wrong issue and gave the justices an excuse to avoid the better decision that would have locked in the President’s authority in these circumstances. This decision leaves a gaping door open o the Democrats to exploit.
Question – how does a federal district judge become the “chief” judge – is it some type of appointment; or is that person elected by the other judges in the district?
And if there are multiple courts in any one district, is there a chief judge for each court (that is, chief over multiple judges in that court)? Or is that person chief judge over the entire district, or perhaps even circuit?
Finally, assuming the chief judge has special duties, can those responsibilities be politicized?
One example might be the lottery system of assigning cases ( obviously abused these days) – but am simply curious about the inner machinery of how the courts function.
Thanks!
you have legitimate questions.
the answers are not clear at all…and made unclear intentionally.
no one really knows how the sausage is made in the supreme court. we understand how members are nominated and then confirmed, but we do not totally understand who makes the decision about seniority, chain of command.
for example: justice roberts is chief justice. one of those responsibilities is to be the president of the foreign intelligence surveillance court (FISC). We assume his position as chief justice automatically tasks him with that role, but how is that oversight actually accomplished and by whom? We can’t possibly assume he just drives over each day and reviews the FISA applications personally. So how is that done? who is responsible for doing that work and keeping him advised? furthermore, what is his authority to refuse judges on the FISC or to remove those who have obviously failed to keep prosecutors who lied to get warrants? why isn’t the president of the FISC interested in referring charges to prosecutors who lied before the FISC? we simply don’t know the answers to those questions, because they are intentionally obscured…no one talks about it.
similarly, we do not really understand how some cases make it to SCOTUS for ruling while others do not. and to be more precise, why certain arguments are allowed and other arguments not even entertained. And this is really the problem I have with the so called black robes.
why would it take a small number of fisherman in New England to file suit against paying berthing and insurance costs for federal fishing enforcement officers and THAT be the case to consider the Chevron deference doctrine?
think about it. is that really the case upon which such an obvious flaws in the administrative state should be decided?
what happened in all the in-between years when multiple suits for over regulation well outside the bounds of the reading of law were ignored by SCOTUS?
see the problem?
it’s the selective decision making to take a case, or to simple ignore cases..
and lastly, we have this illogical, unreasonable application of “standing” as a means to deny even hearing cases…which is quite frustrating. AG Texas would file a suit against another state for violating it’s own election laws (drop boxes, voting extensions beyond the legal deadlines, delegating authority and power to persons not named in the state constitution, and violating state laws wrt to voting identification verifications…and also private companies producing “official” pre-filled voting ballots, mailing them and then also collecting them and delivering them…all violations of state laws on the books. So AG Paxton sues. He is basically arguing…when another state violates its own laws, while other remain within the law, those violators achieve an unfair advantage in the NATIONAL ELECTION. SCOTUS would rule in one single sentence AG PAXTON DOES NOT HAVE STANDING.
Justice Thomas would write the dissent in similar succint terms: INEXPLICABLE>
how could the black robes come to the conclusion that AG PAXTON and the nearly dozen other State AG who co-signed do not have standing? when they clearly described the offense, the harm, and how it would be unreconcilable with no other method for remedy?
so what really IS the purpose of scotus?
it certainly is not about law, justice and fairness.
it’s a political arm. and a very dangerous one. that same dangerous arm that decided that 90 MILLION LITTLE HUMAN BEINGS DEFENSELESS ARE NOT REALLY ALIVE AND CAN BE MURDERED AND NO ONE WILL GO TO PRISON OVER IT.
(unless you kill a pregnant woman carrying a baby…then it’s different…you see, it’s different right? /s…it is NOT DIFFERENT!)
this is how the black robes operate. it’s a complete failure.
God Bless America
OMG I never connected the dots the way you just did. Everything you wrote makes so much sense. Thank you very much for that illuminating comment.
I have wondered about all those cases not heard on the merits but denied on standing—WHY? Just as you wrote, it is not some legitimate legal theory, it is a political decision.
Now that we know that CJ Roberts is good buddies with Norm Eisen, maybe we can connect the dots with things he may or may not have done against Trump in the FISA court, Sheldon Snook working in his office, Mary McCord and Norm Eisen working with CJ Roberts (behind the scenes) to use the system of justice in the United States to damage and destroy our system of justice with lawfare FOR POLITICAL REASONS.
I still think Roberts is trying to hold onto his position by giving Trump at least some of what he wants, because Chief Justice John Roberts SHOULD RESIGN. Everyone now knows he is tainted. This is what CJ Roberts is trying to keep the lid on.
I guarantee you the Left has extreme, career-ending dirt on our most powerful enemy from within, Traitor John Roberts, including a banker’s box full of what used to be called 8 x 10 color glossies. And, shut my mouth, it also turns out he’s BFF with most of his controllers. Go figure.
Together with the angry, whacked-out persons of estrogen on the court, they scare the beJesus out of me.
The Supreme Court is now just another political interest group with only two members who demonstrably remember its assigned role. They could have shut this judicial insurrection down at its inception, with judges clearly operating without jurisdiction and in defiance of established precedent. Roberts’ need for “percolation” is just the public rationalization of a soul-less and biased jurist no longer fit for the job. He and Amy are just two more black robes, partisan activists. Roberts is not compromised, he is corrupt. And Sister Amy is what she has always been – a bad Trump pick, endorsed by the Turtle (which should have been a glaring red flag).
Trump will go down in history as the President who actually tried to return the country to the ones for whom it was founded – the American populace. That’s what tariffs are all about. But a contribution to this country’s health just as important will come when he finally pushes the judiciary back into the place the founders intended – as the weakest of the three branches whose only purpose is to call balls and strikes among competing parties, not as partisan black robes with god complexes.
J
Congressman or senators have election cycles but no term limit.
Federal judges have life-time appointment.
Only POTUS has term limit.
There is only lopsided unbalance between the Executive branch and legislative/judicial branches.
The legislative and judicial branches are like kings who ruled our constitutional republic.
The IRONY, Judge Boasberg…if Trump was up to no good based on the timing of those flights to El Salvador, what were YOU up to snatching that third immigration case from the emergency judge when it hit the docket Saturday morning?
https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportations-el-salvador-justice-contempt-6085e64a04b5d6455f368175af83e724
https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportations-el-salvador-justice-contempt-6085e64a04b5d6455f368175af83e724
The problem is the rest of the world doesn’t want America First, and it seems most of Congress is on board with that philosophy. They try to present themselves in a way that makes them look like they are trying to help Americans, but nothing ever changes… this is by design. What we need is a Congress full of Trumps. All we can hope for is the Dems to lose their minds so bad they start jumping from high rises. Here is the big difference that just popped into my head. When Dems lose all hope they will off themselves, when real Americans lose all hope, THEY WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH!
Ultimately the profession that profits the most from all of this is LAWYERS. As usual .
Why isn’t Trump having these Obamagistrates wiretapped? We all know damn well that Boasberg has Obama, Schumer, Schiff and Pelosi on speed dial.
‘The real problem is that the Supreme Court emphasized that every person named as an “alien enemy” under the AEA is entitled to judicial review … it means that the judiciary will, once again, take unto itself the power to control foreign policy … (Sadly, though, Bondi’s DOJ actually gave the Supremes this opening, so part of the responsibility for this ludicrous holding is on her.)
Bondi is either smart evil and let such a thing happen on purpose, or she’s a lightweight that can’t get her house in order.
Usually she at least gets her hair right, but recently I noticed it was tousled and in need of a color adjust at her brassy roots. Could be a clue for the latter. Or it could be a clue she’s stressed after being called into the boss’ office for the former.
Either way, she’s like a bad penny anywhere she goes, an accident waiting to happen.