Breaking: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship.
— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) April 17, 2025
- Abraham Lincoln
Breaking: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship.
— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) April 17, 2025
🚨BREAKING Lawfare News
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) April 17, 2025
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has stayed an injunction from District Court Judge Chutkan who said the Administration couldn’t claw back unspent wasteful funds from Citibank where Joe hid them on the way out
Chutkan was judge on the Jack Smith DC case pic.twitter.com/XrOsRoccLr
When?will25u said:Breaking: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship.
— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) April 17, 2025
LINKQuote:
Thursday's order defers a ruling on the applications until after the newly scheduled oral arguments on May 15 meaning Trump's plan will remain blocked, for now.
Not yet mentioned anywhere that I can see in the analysis of the Supreme Court's remand of the Abrego Garcia case is any reference to the following:
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 17, 2025
"For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of…
Their own fault for inviting this kind of stuff to continue with the rulings so far instead of vigorously stomping on the judges indulging this kind of crap.Stat Monitor Repairman said:
Supreme court justices gonna be hating life. Trump is gonna ruin their entire summer.
aggiehawg said:When?will25u said:Breaking: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship.
— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) April 17, 2025
Seems to me that something like this would be an appropriate response:will25u said:Not yet mentioned anywhere that I can see in the analysis of the Supreme Court's remand of the Abrego Garcia case is any reference to the following:
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 17, 2025
"For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of…
LAWFARE ALERT 🚨
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) April 17, 2025
SCOTUS will consider ending nationwide injunctions by single Federal District Judges
“The court will hear oral arguments for the case at 10 a.m. on May 15, which is about two weeks after the court normally stops hearing oral arguments ahead of its recess” pic.twitter.com/wVJ7iSzGaF
will25u said:LAWFARE ALERT 🚨
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) April 17, 2025
SCOTUS will consider ending nationwide injunctions by single Federal District Judges
“The court will hear oral arguments for the case at 10 a.m. on May 15, which is about two weeks after the court normally stops hearing oral arguments ahead of its recess” pic.twitter.com/wVJ7iSzGaF
ACB and Roberts are going to be tough...I think Barrett will rule correctly but who knows about Roberts. Hopefully he's lazy and thinks this will clear their dockets of nonsense for a while.Ag87H2O said:will25u said:LAWFARE ALERT 🚨
— Phil Holloway ✈️ (@PhilHollowayEsq) April 17, 2025
SCOTUS will consider ending nationwide injunctions by single Federal District Judges
“The court will hear oral arguments for the case at 10 a.m. on May 15, which is about two weeks after the court normally stops hearing oral arguments ahead of its recess” pic.twitter.com/wVJ7iSzGaF
This is a big one. It's the one Judge Thomas has been asking/waiting for. Hopefully the rabid leftist judges have finally given him what he needs to convince a majority of the court to put a halt to it.
2/ 4th Cir. recently granted stay in a similar case but judge claims "it's different" pic.twitter.com/xDHdBAlf9I
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
4/4 Trump Administration will seek stay soon and likely get it because it is claims that matter not so-called "uniqueness" of social security.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
THREADETTE: I'm seeing lots of folks commenting re SCOTUS hearing argument on birthright citizenship case to consider issue of nationwide injunction. That is an excellent development BUT as this footnote from Trump Administration notes, issue re nationwide relief is limited. 1/ pic.twitter.com/PKMOhuGpC1
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
3/3 And as the excerpt footnote explains, THAT issue is not before the Court. Further, the problem with the nationwide injunctions under APA is not nationwide injunctions under APA, but that the APA claims alleged are frivolous.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
2/2 The level of micro-management going on is crazy. https://t.co/kxZvpA7qPO
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
This is SO well said--and really encapsulates how f*cking batshit crazy Boasberg's contempt order is. pic.twitter.com/O1XCQ2I05C
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 18, 2025
nortex97 said:
Amy Berman Jackson is barely even capable of being called a judge, more like a fraud in a robe.
Back to Boasberg's threatening bs:This is SO well said--and really encapsulates how f*cking batshit crazy Boasberg's contempt order is. pic.twitter.com/O1XCQ2I05C
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 18, 2025
flown-the-coop said:
We are in DC hoping to crash the Easter Egg Roll on Monday. Let me know sign suggestions for an impromptu court protest and I will see if we can squeeze it in after we place a wreath at BLM plaza.
These judges are simply out of control. Abolish the judiciary.
LINKQuote:
To understand the procedural mechanics, Rule 42 does allow a federal judge to initiate criminal contempt proceedings and, if the Department of Justice declines to prosecute, to appoint a private attorney to do so. This occurred most notably in the controversial case of Steven Donziger, an environmental lawyer found in contempt after refusing to comply with court orders. The U.S. Attorney's Office declined to prosecute, prompting the presiding judge to appoint private counsel. Though challenged as unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause, the Second Circuit upheld the process, and the Supreme Court declined review.
Fine. The machinery exists. But what is legal is not always just, and what is possible is not always permissible in a constitutional order. Boasberg, who would preside over his own contempt proceeding after appointing his own prosecutor to target executive branch officials, embodies precisely the kind of self-referential, self-aggrandizing judicial authority the Framers warned against. The Founders knew from bitter colonial experience that a judge who acts as both adjudicator and instigator is no judge at all.
💣Declaration just filed by Trump Administration destroys claims that they ignored injunction & shows they engaged in individualized assessment & exposed huge waste! If district court does ANYTHING but deny motion, she will have gone from micro-managing to literally running.… https://t.co/ZmmOg83W8T
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
2/ Here's docket in DC Circuit. https://t.co/7iZAbngOmh
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
5/ Those same reasons should have prompted Judge Boasberg to avoid confrontation. But his little girl & his wife got trashed. And a foreign leader & our President & Secretary of State celebrated outrunning his injunction. So he is hellbent on having confrontation.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
2/ District court has said "facilitate" means what it means in dictionary and you must "facilitate" Garcia's return to U.S. under that meaning & submit to discovery to tell us what you have done. DOJ's position is "no, you must tell us precisely what you want us to do first."
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
4/ Now, I fully "get" why DOJ is drawing that line & demanding Court specify what it is ordering DOJ to do because if Court says what it is telling DOJ to do, it will be clear it is overstepping into Article II's authority. BUT
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration files appeal from lower court's order that Trump couldn't terminate parole of Haitians, etc. that Biden granted on his way out the door. pic.twitter.com/PguMqLNSCO
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
2/ District court entered injunction prohibiting firings in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau & appellate court entered partial stay of injunction, to allow Trump to fire people except as necessary to carry out statutory duties.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
4/ Plaintiffs submit mangers working in CFPB saying no one asked us and we don't think there's enough staffing. So Court at hearing to enforce her injunction (to extent it wasn't stayed) ENJOINS all firings. For the love of our constitution, JUDGE, YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS!
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
6/6 Full order: https://t.co/mbSjLXtCw5
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
ACLU asks J. Hendrix for an ex parte TRO. He makes them inform the acting US Atty. He then promptly denies the TRO after briefing. ACLU then leaves J. Hendrix a late night VM urging different relief; he tells them to file a motion. They do—on Good Friday—setting a deadline for…
— Mike Fragoso (@mike_frags) April 19, 2025
2/2 That's what he should have done 3 weeks ago.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
🚨Ninth Circuit panel (Clinton, Obama, Biden) denies Trump Administration stay of injunction re transgender military members. In other words, court's order that Trump can't kick out/keep out trans remains in force & trans remain in military. pic.twitter.com/ABSVx5kPaI
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
2/2 D.C. Circuit appears to have month-long (3 or 4 weeks? long) motions panels so same judges show granted administrative stay in Boasberg contempt case & granted stay in other Trump cases likely to here too. pic.twitter.com/Xe7UzMfHVz
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 19, 2025
4/4 District court just doesn't believe Trump Administration's assessment of what resources are needed to fulfill statutory duties...but that's not it's call!
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 19, 2025
JUST IN: A federal judge has ruled the Trump administration’s policy eliminating nonbinary option for passport holders is likely an equal protection violation — but provides relief for only six plaintiffs, not nationwide. https://t.co/k73xpBwDJm pic.twitter.com/8si5wlDhaw
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 18, 2025