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

190,929 Views | 2244 Replies | Last: 27 min ago by Dirty_Mike&the_boys
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:00p, 3/14/25
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
10:12p, 3/14/25

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 • 11:07p, 3/14/25
will25u said:
Thread.
This is kind of funny.

Basically, Trump team says that they were following the judges injunction before it was even ordered, so the White House doesn't think they need to appeal at this time. They can just go about their business.

Really funny, because the injunction order was designed to comply with the appeal ruling, but still force Trump to spend the money. Team Trump says they can follow the injunction and not spend the money.

It's like the judge is not as smart as his superiors or something.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:05a, 3/15/25
Quote:
An appeals court on Friday lifted a block on President Donald Trump's executive orders ending federal support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
A panel of three judges ruled the orders can be enforced during a pending lawsuit, reversing a nationwide injunction from U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore, the Associated Press reported.
Two of the judges on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the orders "could raise concerns" about First Amendment rights, but found Abelson's "sweeping block went too far," according to the report.
Quote:
Abelson, a Biden nominee, previously ruled the orders violated the First Amendment right to free speech and were unconstitutionally "vague," as they did not define DEI.

The ruling followed a lawsuit filed by the City of Baltimore, the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, which alleged the executive orders were presidential overreach and anti-free speech.
Quote:
Trump's orders directed federal agencies to terminate all "equity-related" grants or contracts, and required federal contractors to certify that they don't promote DEI.

The administration argued in court that the ban only affected DEI programs violating federal civil rights laws.
LINK

At least one Circuit Court Panel is not looney tunes.
Reply Quote
Prosperdick
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 9:11a, 3/15/25
Im Gipper said:
LOL, the last category is entitled "spite".
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:49p, 3/15/25
New one.

Quote:
A federal judge on Saturday preemptively blocked the Trump administration's reported efforts to quickly deport five Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798.

The move from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg came just a few hours after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a motion against President Trump's reported plan to invoke the AEA to accelerate the removal of undocumented immigrants from the U.S.
Quote:
The civil rights group, representing five individuals in immigration custody, asked the federal judge to block the use of the law, although Trump himself has yet to invoke it.

The federal judge granted the restraining order on Saturday, ruling that the administration can't remove the five plaintiffs for two weeks so the judge can first hold a hearing on their challenge.

A remote hearing has been scheduled for 5 p.m. Saturday where the ACLU will ask the judge to broaden the order to everyone potentially affected by the AEA.
LINK
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05p, 3/15/25
Preemptive? We are really going there?

I thought our system of justice relief upon actual harm?
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
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 • 1:14p, 3/15/25
will25u said:
Preemptive? We are really going there?

I thought our system of justice relief upon actual harm?


A TRO is to stop the actual harm from happening.

But a TRO based an executive order than has not been issued yet? Now that's a new one!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 1:17p, 3/15/25
Im Gipper said:
will25u said:
Preemptive? We are really going there?

I thought our system of justice relief upon actual harm?


A TRO is to stop the actual harm from happening.

But a TRO based an executive order than has not been issued yet? Now that's a new one!
"Yeah but Judge, he might do this. Stop him!"
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:19p, 3/15/25
Appeal filed!


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1 edit
jacketman03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 2:03p, 3/15/25
Im Gipper said:
will25u said:
Preemptive? We are really going there?

I thought our system of justice relief upon actual harm?


A TRO is to stop the actual harm from happening.

But a TRO based an executive order than has not been issued yet? Now that's a new one!




From the petition, the 5 guys are all claiming that they have been moved from various locations to the El Valle Detention Center and told they're being sent back tonight or tomorrow. They are also all currently in pending removal proceedings, so it appears the harm is that it sure looks like they're being removed without a hearing, hence the TRO

Edit: I messed up the quote function
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:10p, 3/15/25
Trump had to appeal quickly. From my link above.

Quote:
A remote hearing has been scheduled for 5 p.m. Saturday where the ACLU will ask the judge to broaden the order to everyone potentially affected by the AEA.
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 jacketman03 • 2:28p, 3/15/25
**** 'em.

Boasberg is another black-robed tyrant. He was involved in granting illegal FISA warrants to spy on Americans.
Reply Quote
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:54p, 3/15/25
Turn planes around? WOW. Just. WOW


I'm Gipper
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 Im Gipper • 9:41p, 3/15/25
Boasberg is an *******.
Reply Quote
Secolobo
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:40p, 3/15/25
Great read.

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:10a, 3/16/25
Reply Quote
Stat Monitor Repairman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:54a, 3/16/25
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 • 6:35a, 3/16/25
will25u said:
There are some options. From your tweet:
Quote:
The reflexive response of the law to the use of a statute only employed 3 times in 230 years, and not once since 1948, is to hit the pause button and say "Let's think this thru."

I think the deportees hold a losing hand. Judge Boasberg has some difficult questions to deal with and neither side has provided a legal briefing. Many questions were asked today and there were not a lot of answers.

The TRO is for 14 days or until he decides the legal questions. Briefing is going to happen this week. There is a question to be answered whether the case should be in DC or Texas.

The main Supreme Court case from 1948 was a 5-4 decision favoring the President. It has a lot of great language. I don't see today's SCOTUS reversing that decision. That's why I think Pres. Trump will win in the end, and be in an even stronger position.
Some context of legal history I'd forgotten about:
ETA: tweet quoted some profanity;

Quote:
During the first Bush administration, they were dealing with an influx of Haitian boat people. Something like 90,000 of them (seems quaint now). Well, a judge in Brooklyn (I think) kept enjoining the Coast Guard as it picked up Haitians and sent them home. AG Barr went straight to the Supreme Court three times to stop him. When asked by General Scowcroft what the plan was if SCOTUS didn't bail them out, Barr explained that it was, essentially, to invade the territorial waters of Haiti and blockade the island. You can't get enjoined for violating international law!

The Court did step in, though, and went so far as to divest the court of jurisdiction in order to stop the shenanigans. Which is a long way of saying: (1) these situations can escalate quickly, (2) they're not unique to Donald Trump, and (3) there's a tried and true solution.
Trump may be deemed 'literally Hitler' by the American communists today, but before that George W bush was given this moniker, for those too young to recall the hysteria around his presidency.
Reply Quote
1 edit
FireAg
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 • 7:21a, 3/16/25
The Left always trots out the Nazi crap…they believe it is a tried and true scare tactic…

Back in 2012, they compared Nikki Haley to Eva Braun, and they compared Paul Ryan to Joseph Goebbels…

Hell, Madonna once compared John McCaim to Hitler…

Funny thing is…especially in the last decade or so…the only side actually taking stances that are directly comparable to things that the National Socialists propagated in the 1930s has been…The Left…

In truly narcissistic fashion, the Left have become masters at projecting their own sins onto others and trying to convince people it's the others that are Nazi-like, when in reality, it's actually the Left…

Look no further than the championing and defending of Hamas and Islamic terrorist organizations by political leaders and media in the US while persecuting Jews in this country at the same time…

Look at all of the USAID dollars that have been given to jihadists to help fund their activities…

These activities are damn near identical to what Goebbels and Hitler did in the 1930s…
Reply Quote
GenericAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:34a, 3/16/25
Why would we want any gang members from other countries to be in the US?

Why wouldn't we deport every single one today?


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 GenericAggie • 7:36a, 3/16/25
Well, you have to feel your way through the issue to imagine how a Democrat works. They may be a gang intending to cure cancer some day, for instance.
Reply Quote
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:50a, 3/16/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:25p, 3/16/25
Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:40p, 3/16/25
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, 3/17/25
May be some fireworks this afternoon.

Reply Quote
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:08p, 3/17/25
Read the two posts by Ship in this tweet. Ship is being levelheaded and giving the Judge the benefit of the doubt.

I still think the Judge is a partisan hack.

Reply Quote
LMCane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:10p, 3/17/25
hearing that some additional Hamas terrorists in the USA (I think California) are suing Trump and the DOJ about their loss of rights.

will find more details
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:14p, 3/17/25
More:
Quote:
There are specific comments about the five named Plaintiffs having been subject of the TRO issued Saturday morning so if they are on the planes they needed to be brought back.

The question of whether others subject to the Proclamation invoking the AEA was also discussed. The Court stated that if the flights had already landed and the deportees were turned over to a foreign government, then he would have no jurisdiction to order their return. This suggests the judge thought he had jurisdiction so long as they were still "controlled" by US Govt agents, even if outside US territory. I'm not so sure he's corret.

So, whether to extend the TRO to cover everyone who was being subjected to AEA deportation was discussed during the sealed hearing. When the parties came back onto the public record, the Court then turned to the class certification issue, which was the only basis upon which he could extend the TRO beyond the five plaintiffs named in the complaint filed that morning.
Reply Quote
GenericAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 1:21p, 3/17/25
aggiehawg said:
More:
Quote:
There are specific comments about the five named Plaintiffs having been subject of the TRO issued Saturday morning so if they are on the planes they needed to be brought back.

The question of whether others subject to the Proclamation invoking the AEA was also discussed. The Court stated that if the flights had already landed and the deportees were turned over to a foreign government, then he would have no jurisdiction to order their return. This suggests the judge thought he had jurisdiction so long as they were still "controlled" by US Govt agents, even if outside US territory. I'm not so sure he's corret.

So, whether to extend the TRO to cover everyone who was being subjected to AEA deportation was discussed during the sealed hearing. When the parties came back onto the public record, the Court then turned to the class certification issue, which was the only basis upon which he could extend the TRO beyond the five plaintiffs named in the complaint filed that morning.


Interesting theory. What are your thoughts on "in control" versus in/outside of US territory?
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to GenericAggie • 1:29p, 3/17/25
Quote:
Interesting theory. What are your thoughts on "in control" versus in/outside of US territory?
To me, this harkens back to enemy combatants in Guantanamo. The reason they were not brought back onto US soil was precisely to avoid the due process issues. No one argued that they were not under US control while in Guantanamo that I recall. And if they did, were not successful.

But that kind of begs the question of whether this particular court ever had jurisdiction? Those habeas claims changed the equation since the specified plaintiffs were in Texas.
Reply Quote
jacketman03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 1:40p, 3/17/25
aggiehawg said:
Quote:
Interesting theory. What are your thoughts on "in control" versus in/outside of US territory?
To me, this harkens back to enemy combatants in Guantanamo. The reason they were not brought back onto US soil was precisely to avoid the due process issues. No one argued that they were not under US control while in Guantanamo that I recall. And if they did, were not successful.

But that kind of begs the question of whether this particular court ever had jurisdiction? Those habeas claims changed the equation since the specified plaintiffs were in Texas.


It seems to me that Boumediene v. Bush is pretty directly on point that being in US control while outside of the US is enough to give a district court jurisdiction, but I'm likewise a bit unclear of if this court has jurisdiction or not.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to jacketman03 • 1:43p, 3/17/25
Thanks for that clarification.
Reply Quote
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:31p, 3/17/25
DOJ Motion to Vacate hearing scheduled for today.

LINK
Reply Quote
GenericAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 7:35p, 3/17/25
aggiehawg said:
DOJ Motion to Vacate hearing scheduled for today.

LINK


Do you follow anyone on X or YouTube that offers a summary of these cases and the explanation of potential outcomes?
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.