***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

184,772 Views | 2200 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by flown-the-coop
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:50p, 4/4/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:09a, 4/5/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:19a, 4/5/25

Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:23a, 4/5/25
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:51a, 4/5/25
Fun fact: I know Pete Marocco. Very smart dude.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Ag with kids
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 12:56a, 4/5/25
will25u said:
Why do we actually have a POTUS?

Apparently we just need the legislative branch and judicial branch to run the country.

And all the executive branch offices can just be run by the judicial branch....
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 1:01a, 4/5/25
This is just an extension of what they did with prosecuting Trump for the last four years. If Trump didn't break any laws, just change the laws. If he didn't commit any crimes, fabricate them. If there's no evidence, make some up. If you have no legislative or executive power, obstruct with the judiciary. Of course this has never been done before, and it's not a proper use of the judiciary, but democrats no longer care.

They call this "checks and balances," though the judiciary was not created to be a check on the electorate. Democrats don't care.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:02a, 4/5/25

Pretty absurd, indeed. And he sex-trafficked women, fwiw.

Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:41a, 4/5/25
Appeal filed (in the 4th circuit).

Another oncologist with an ankle bracelet caught smuggling in a fellow illegal alien;

Another American killed by an illegal alien, who 'failed to appear' in court previously:

Ali Bradley is a good follow, imho.
Reply Quote
techno-ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 11:32a, 4/5/25
I enjoy reading these filings. Someone has a sense of humor but keeps it in legalese and ostensibly serious at the same time.

"We don't have control over El Salvador…"
Trump will fix it.
Reply Quote
2 edits
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:13a, 4/6/25
Thread

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:14a, 4/6/25
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 4:23a, 4/6/25
Yeah it sounds to me like that judge is just begging to be slapped by higher authority;
Quote:
The legal analysis in the original Injunction is just horrendous -- he completely misapplies Trump v. Hawaii.

He fails to appreciate that the Refugee statute authorizes POTUS to set a maximum number of allowable refugees, with no minimum number required. So the minimum number can be 0 -- which is what Trump did for the rest of this fiscal year.

But, as you noted, and as I wrote about earlier today in my Substack, the position he took yesterday with regard to a requirement that the Administration continue funding the Refugee NGOs not being covered by the Ninth Circuit stay is just asinine -- and a blatant mischaracterization.

The Motion for Emergency Stay filed by the Gov't dealt specifically with the funding provision in the Prelim. Injunction. That is covered at pages 14-17 of the motion.

Here is the specific language from the Ninth Circuit Order "Granting in Part and Denying In Part the Stay":

"The motion is denied to the extent the district court's preliminary injunction order applies to individuals who were conditionally approved for refugee status by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services before January 20, 2025....
In all other respects, the district court's February 28, 2025 preliminary injunction order is stayed. See Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. 667, 684 (2018)."

There is simply no way to read this Order and come away thinking that the part of his Injunction directing the Administration to pay the NGOs was not subject to the Stay.
What else does "In all other respects" mean??

If he earnestly believes that, he needs to be impeached for incompetence.

Opinion:

Jamal N Whitehead is going to…lose, badly. Biden judge who made it out of judiciary 11-9, the second time. Collins Graham and Murkowsky were the 3 nominally GOP senators who voted for him.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 5:40a, 4/6/25
will25u said:

This behavior is just not defendable.

Is there a vehicle other than impeachment for congress to reprimand this judge?

IMO, this is worthy of impeachment, but I could see where some don't want to break that dam with this specific case.

Can Congress censure a judge? Or something like it? Maybe the house can just pass a resolution condemning this behavior?

It would be nice for congress to show just a little bit of teeth here. But, I'm not holding my breath.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 5:57a, 4/6/25
Does someone have an opinion on this Commonwealth case that addresses the NIH indirect costs injunction.

It floors me that the judiciary thinks it is OK for them to stick their noses into this. I want to read the type of pretzel logic it took to justify that.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 6:02a, 4/6/25
Okay, I have changed my mind.

Congress needs to start bringing articles of impeachment citing article III separation of powers. This is just not anywhere close to Okay anymore.

If nothing else, it might get SCOTUS to get off their butt.
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 6:22a, 4/6/25
BusterAg said:
Does someone have an opinion on this Commonwealth case that addresses the NIH indirect costs injunction.

It floors me that the judiciary thinks it is OK for them to stick their noses into this. I want to read the type of pretzel logic it took to justify that.
An opinion? I think 15% is a bit extreme as many times these grants go through sub-contractors etc. and it's a pretty low figure. Ultimately, I'm not surprised this one is held up. I say that mainly because any time the government acts to retroactively change something (that they pay for) it's tough for it to not face legal scrutiny.

And look, clinical trials are both important and very expensive (as well as time consuming). We all lament when drugs/treatments take forever to be approved, but this is not the 'low hanging fruit' to go after.
Quote:
IMPACT: As of February 10, 2025, 22 states have already challenged the Notice, filing suit to block NIH action on this policy. The suit argues, among other things, that the Notice violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and that "HHS cannot retroactively alter existing grant agreements." According to the complaint, the Notice will result in "layoffs, suspensions of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory closures." Those in the academic community have also made their opposition to the Notice known.

If the courts allow NIH to proceed with implementation of the Notice, contractors and subgrantees that support IHEs in the performance of grants from providing equipment and suppliers to facility services could see dramatic effects under their subawards and anticipated follow-on awards if grantees no longer have the budget to pay agreed-upon rates and exercise change or termination rights. A federal district court in Massachusetts issued a TRO on February 10, preventing NIH from implementing the cap in the 22 states represented in the lawsuit pending a hearing on February 21. Following the initial TRO, the judge extended the temporary pause nationwide.

According to a study from Education Reform Now, conducted since the Notice was issued on February 7, states with significant research institutions stand to lose substantial funding because of the cap. Some states are facing reductions of hundreds of millions of dollars because of the cap, such as Texas, which faces a reduction of over $310 million.
Of panoply of cases against Trump's administration, this one ranks down in the bottom quintile of my concerns, fwiw.
Reply Quote
BusterAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 7:06a, 4/6/25
Thanks for the links. Helpful.

An opinion that a 15% rate is very low is zero justification that the court has any business ruling on this.

An opinion that the White House is directly violating the law relating to the process of setting the levels of indirect costs as stated in statute created by a law passed by congress is a very different argument.

It seems that the latter is fairly likely here, and sets this case apart from the judicial activism we are seeing.

I still haven't dove into an opinion yet, so I reserve the right to reconsider my position, but, if these articles are accurate, Trump probably went about this in the wrong way, and the plaintiffs are likely correct.

Basically, Mea Culpa based on better information.
Reply Quote
1 edit
whatthehey78
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:27p, 4/6/25
Yeah...I read some of the above...so...in layman's terms...who's winning?
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to whatthehey78 • 5:28a, 4/7/25
Who is winning what cases? It's tough to really say there is a scoreboard advantage as the bulk of these are still early in litigation.

Some of the cases that get the most 'noise' online in terms of coverage will wind up being Trump wins eventually (such as 'Maryland man' MS13 member), but in the bigger scheme I'd say Trump is ahead in the legal battles about closing down policies/agencies like USAID, and firing people who thought they couldn't be touched because they'd been appointed for 'terms' though there are some fights still going on in district courtrooms.

Some of the judges like Jamal Whitehead out in Seattle etc. just look silly/stupid and are getting/will get smacked by their bosses. SCOTUS taking the side that court of claims vs. district court folks for jurisdiction is very good, but we will see what they do about other cases such as firings, and birthright citizenship.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:30a, 4/7/25
Reply Quote
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:32a, 4/7/25
More judges only concerned with politics, not the law.
Reply Quote
Aggie Jurist
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:50a, 4/7/25
Judge Rao's dissent does a very nice job of laying out the problems with the District and en banc Court of Appeals' opinions. The partisanship of today's federal judiciary is an abject embarrassment.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:18a, 4/7/25
Activist judges are trying to neuter Trump. But if they had their way, they would neuter all future Presidents.

We would see our republic come undone by the Judiciary if the SCOTUS were majority Activist Democrat judges, just to "get Trump".


Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:24a, 4/7/25

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:26a, 4/7/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:33a, 4/7/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:59a, 4/7/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:18a, 4/7/25



Reply Quote
1 edit
We fixed the keg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 12:00p, 4/7/25
Aggie Jurist said:
Judge Rao's dissent does a very nice job of laying out the problems with the District and en banc Court of Appeals' opinions. The partisanship of today's federal judiciary is an abject embarrassment.
I liked this part


Quote:
In its rush to vacate the panel's stay and get Harris and Wilcox back to work, the en banc majority essentially ignores this question and assumes Harris and Wilcox may be restored to their offices through a judicially imposed fiction
ETA this one as well


Quote:
The government is likely to succeed on its remedial challenge because the injunctive relief concocted by the district court is wholly unprecedented and transgresses historical limits on our equitable authority.
Reply Quote
1 edit
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:04p, 4/7/25
Explainer on what is happening with the 2 employees that Trump fired and the judge(s) reinstated them.

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:16p, 4/7/25
The rest:
Quote:
1. In the District Court both officials won on Summary Judgment, and part of the decisions by the two judges was that they should be reinstated to their positions for the remainder of their terms.

2. Trump Admin. filed "Motion for Stay" on the order they be reinstated. That is NOT the same as an outcome "on the merits." One aspect of the question whether to grant the stay is whether the party asking for it -- DOJ -- is likely to prevail on the merits once they are heard.

3. The 3 judge panel granted the Stay by a 2-1 vote, and wrote "statements" -- not opinions -- on why they voted as they did. These include a discussion of the "likelihood of prevailing on the merits." But those are not merits decisions -- they are just an indication by each judge, based on what was in the motion and opposition, as to which side they think has the better of the argument. DOJ has appealed, but the briefs on the appeal -- "Merits Briefs" -- have not been filed yet.

4. Today the full court -- 11 judges -- voted to lift the stay -- meaning the District Court decision, including reinstatement, is back in force. This is still not a "Merits Decision." It is a vote by the full 11 judges that says the 3 judge panel was wrong to grant the stay until after the Merits Decision is reached.

5. At the same time, the full Court denied motions for en banc review of the Stay order, and denied immediate en banc consideration of the "Merits Decision" -- i.e., skipping the 3 judge panel and going straight to the full 11 judges at the start.

6. DOJ is likely to ask SOTUS to issue a Stay itself with regard to reinstatement. Four Justices have already said reinstatement is not the correct remedy. The question is whether there is a 5th vote.

7. If SCOTUS issues a Stay, then the case will go back to the Appeals Court. The Merits briefs will be filed and there may or may not be an oral argument on the full merits briefing. Depending on the decision, there MIGHT be another call for en banc review of the Merits Decision.

8. This will almost certainly shake-out with SCOTUS putting the matter on its fall calendar sometime this summer.
These procedural issues are causing me a headache. What a mess.
Reply Quote
MagnumLoad
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:16p, 4/7/25
We have returned to early Israel. Judges are running the country, unless the president is a democrat.
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:23p, 4/7/25
MS-13 criminal stayed.

Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:32p, 4/7/25
Guess C.J. Roberts' testicles descended finally.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.