aggiehawg said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

He's inviting counsel to violate Rule 11.

---

I honestly cannot follow any of his so-called "logic."

Ten to fifteen years ago, most of these cases would have been summarily dismissed for obvious lack of jurisdiction. Frankly, I'm appalled at how far off of the reservation these judges keep going.

---

Particularly when they threw out all the 2020 election cases for "standing," before and after the election. They have completely corrupted the judicial system.

Seems like Trump has been more right than wrong in his EOs, and Activist judges keep making fools of themselves.

7-2 for stay. Jackson/Sotomayer

🚨 BREAKING: The Supreme Court just sided with Trump, overturning an activist judge's order requiring the rehiring of "probationary employees" at 6 federal agencies - POLITICO

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 8, 2025

Looks like scotus just vacated order to rehire fired federal employees.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

He's inviting counsel to violate Rule 11.

---

He looks like he is groping around in the dark desperately seeking somebody to give him a basis by which he can keep the case tied up in his court instead of admitting defeat.

Quote:

---

Looks like scotus just vacated order to rehire fired federal employees.

---

Yeah - and strangely also commented on standing - another quasi-advisory opinion. Strange times.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

Looks like scotus just vacated order to rehire fired federal employees.

---

Yeah - and strangely also commented on standing - another quasi-advisory opinion. Strange times.

---

For the first time, I kind of wish SCOTUS could do advisory opinions without having to wait for the appropriate case to make its way up to them. It is so late in the term, they probably won't actually finally decide anything until next term. So binding precedent to make most of these phony injunction cases go away won't happen anytime soon. Unfortunately.

Could this be the start of SCOTUS finally shutting down the nonsense?

FireAg said:

---

Could this be the start of SCOTUS finally shutting down the nonsense?

---

Wish I could be that optimistic. Just have to wait and see.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

FireAg said:
Could this be the start of SCOTUS finally shutting down the nonsense?

---

Wish I could be that optimistic. Just have to wait and see.

---

They've been so schizophrenic, who knows?

2/ DC Circuit granted stay. https://t.co/pY5E4atKIw

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025

2/ https://t.co/mmfH4bldHx

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025

Good thread to read about the back side of choosing judges an set record straight from someone who actually worked for judges and how everything operates.

Also Ship has been stating the same for weeks now I think.

2/ While I wasn't at the district court level, my judge was in same building as small district court with those judges across hall or on first floor with clerks office & I also worked with scores of lawyers who came from clerking with district court.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025

I have been saying from the start that it was idiotic to claim there is something nefarious behind Boasberg taking over this case based on a call at 7:30 am on a Saturday.

Margot -- with two plus decades working for a Circuit Court judge -- knows exactly why that was not… https://t.co/wYK5MdQECf

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 8, 2025

This seems like a big deal!

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 apability of the APA…

— unseen1 (@unseen1_unseen) April 8, 2025

Quote:

---

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 apability of the APA (admnistrative 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.

Goverment 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.

---

It is a big deal. DC federal courts handle the vast majority of admin law cases. So by using (improperly) the APA, they can get venue in the friendly DC federal courts.

But venue is not the same as jurisdiction of a court to hear a specific matter. And it is jurisdiction that should be the court's, any court, first consideration. And after that, venue questions, not the other way around.

IANAL, but this is my understand, and it could be 100% false. Someone can let me know.

I think about 50% of the cases that have been brought are APA cases. Which is essentially a last resort shot to get something heard before a district judge in most of these cases.

Also, APA can only be brought if an AGENCY HEAD is making a determination. Don't know exactly a good example, but if Rubio made some determination then if there were no other jurisdiction to seek relief they could use APA.

President Trump signing an EO is NOT an agency head. So it shouldn't even apply anyway. Much less when there are other jurisdictions that are supposed to preside over different cases like stated in the tweet above.

A big example of that is when Trens Gangster lawyers filed habeas as well as APA. The judge essentially said...
"Are you sure you want to file habeas? I will not be able to hear APA if you are still perusing habeas. When in face habeas is the vehicle the Trens gangsters had to use. And ONLY Habeas under Alien Enemies Act.

Also, it is kind of common sense...

US Citizen has full rights under the constitution.
Illegal Alien has less rights, but still has a lot of rights.
Terrorists have the smallest amount of rights and are limited in what they can ask for.

The MS-13 Terrorist Garcia who was "accidently" sent to the prison in El Salvador had final deportation order, so could be deported at any time. Only limitation was being deported to El Salvador because or some fear of being in harm if he went back there.

But after Trump declared MS-13 a Terrorist Org. he could be deported to anywhere. BECAUSE HE IS A TERRORIST.

I hope I got most if not all of that right.

LOL.

Sonia Sotomayor could be the dumbest person on Earth. Her dissent is a cut and paste of the ACLU lawsuit including claims the president "secretly" signed the Alien Enemies Act proclamation to begin deportations that day.

And this is batsh*t crazy: pic.twitter.com/1FlRqMy5ko

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

Wonder if her clerks did that and she didn't catch it? Meaning she hadn't read the briefing materials either?

Houston Lee said:

---

This seems like a big deal!

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 apability of the APA…

— unseen1 (@unseen1_unseen) April 8, 2025

Quote:

---

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 apability of the APA (admnistrative 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.

Goverment 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.

---

---

It stands for the American Psychiatric Association too.

aggiehawg said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

He's inviting counsel to violate Rule 11.

---

I honestly cannot follow any of his so-called "logic."

Ten to fifteen years ago, most of these cases would have been summarily dismissed for obvious lack of jurisdiction. Frankly, I'm appalled at how far off of the reservation these judges keep going.

---

TDS is a heck of a drug.

Especially for a federal judge.

Interesting...Court of Appeals just entered order in Enemy Aliens Act. My "gut" is they saw Boasberg's order for briefing & decided to step in. And this is normal process: It goes from SCOTUS back to Court of Appeals which then sends back to District Court. 1/ pic.twitter.com/WyKCyn0fIx

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025

3/3 Boasberg I'd wager is still going to try to get his show cause decision, i.e., probable cause to find government violates court order out before case is dismissed.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025

McFadden, known liberal appointed by Trump, grants a preliminary injunction against the White House for banning the AP from the White House, Air Force One, and other limited spaces.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25889254-ap277682/

Clown world. Trump's worst judicial nominee?

BREAKING: U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden has ordered the Trump administration to restore press access to the AP. pic.twitter.com/iGIarXigUB

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 8, 2025

HTownAg98 said:

---

McFadden, known liberal appointed by Trump, grants a preliminary injunction against the White House for banning the AP from the White House, Air Force One, and other limited spaces.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25889254-ap277682/

---

Oh no, an injunction that'll get overturn

Not likely. Read the opinion.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Not likely. Read the opinion.

---

It's also the least consequential TDS decision imaginable. What is he going to do next, require Trump call on them at least 5 percent of the time?

nortex97 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Not likely. Read the opinion.

---

It's also the least consequential TDS decision imaginable. What is he going to do next, require Trump call on them at least 5 percent of the time?

---

So you didn't read the opinion then. McFadden addressed that.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly
expressing their own views.
No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalistsbe it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhereit cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Not likely. Read the opinion.

---

It's also the least consequential TDS decision imaginable. What is he going to do next, require Trump call on them at least 5 percent of the time?

---

So you didn't read the opinion then. McFadden addressed that.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly
expressing their own views.
No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalistsbe it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhereit cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.

---

---

I can't wait to get my white house press credentials next time there is a dem president. Since they can't turn anybody away, we should pack all the spaces with conservatives and sue if they turn us away, claiming it is because of viewpoint discrimination.

this will certainly be overturned on appeal

nowhere in the constitution does it say all press outlets must have access to the white press room

You really don't know how the press gets access in limited spaces, do you. Read the background in the opinion, it explains how this was traditionally done.

Exactly. This is the new standard bearer for a pedantic tantrum masquerading as a judicial opinion.

Of all the important/big things going on in the world today, this ranks up there with that playboy reporter idiot who got tossed back in '45's press pool and lost his **** (Acosta's buddy). No clue if that clown is still even alive.

Bottom line, is that if this is the case/story the leftists are feting on a given day/week, Trump is clearly winning.

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

this will certainly be overturned on appeal

nowhere in the constitution does it say all press outlets must have access to the white press room

---

Name five justices on SCOTUS that would overturn this. I'll give you Alito and Thomas. Name the other three.

It certainly doesn't say that all press outlets get access to the White House press room, but that's not what they sued over.
I'll encourage you to read the opinion. It's not written in hard to comprehend legalese.

HTownAg98 said:

---

You really don't know how the press gets access in limited spaces, do you. Read the background in the opinion, it explains how this was traditionally done.

---

Key word. How is that binding on future Presidents? Biden banned press outlets, as did Obama. OTOH, traditionally the WH didn't have podcasters row wherein alternative podcasters were invited to conduct mini interviews with senior WH staff and Cabinet officials. But Trump is doing that. Is that also subject to a court ordered ban?

Not arguing about the narrow scope in the AP decision here but just a hypothetical to consider.

HTownAg98 said:

---

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

this will certainly be overturned on appeal

nowhere in the constitution does it say all press outlets must have access to the white press room

---

Name five justices on SCOTUS that would overturn this. I'll give you Alito and Thomas. Name the other three.

It certainly doesn't say that all press outlets get access to the White House press room, but that's not what they sued over.
I'll encourage you to read the opinion. It's not written in hard to comprehend legalese.

---

so you admit it's not a granted right in the constitution thanks.

It's irrelevant. That's not why they sued. They sued because Trump got big mad that the AP wouldn't call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and banned them from certain spaces. That's viewpoint discrimination and that's not allowed.

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

You really don't know how the press gets access in limited spaces, do you. Read the background in the opinion, it explains how this was traditionally done.

---

Key word. How is that binding on future Presidents? Biden banned press outlets, as did Obama. OTOH, traditionally the WH didn't have podcasters row wherein alternative podcasters were invited to conduct mini interviews with senior WH staff and Cabinet officials. But Trump is doing that. Is that also subject to a court ordered ban?

Not arguing about the narrow scope in the AP decision here but just a hypothetical to consider.

---

No, it would not be subject to a court ordered ban. They're free to invite whoever they want to podcaster's row, do walk-and-talks with whoever they please, and any other thing they do to invite new media into the fold. They just can't ban an entity that says mean things about Trump.

HTownAg98 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Not likely. Read the opinion.

---

It's also the least consequential TDS decision imaginable. What is he going to do next, require Trump call on them at least 5 percent of the time?

---

So you didn't read the opinion then. McFadden addressed that.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly
expressing their own views.
No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalistsbe it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhereit cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less.

---

---

Trump: We're now going to assign the journalists allowed alphabetically...starting with the letter B.