• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shock and Law

NLRB and MSPB firings:


En Banc panel reinstates fired Board members (7-4, Per Curiam):

"ORDERED that the motions for en banc reconsideration and vacatur be granted
and the government’s motions for a stay pending appeal be denied.
....
We hereby vacate the March 28, 2025 order staying the district courts’ final
judgments and permanent injunctions in these cases. In light of the precedent in
Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener concerning multimember adjudicatory bodies, the
government’s motions for a stay pending appeal are denied. The government has not demonstrated the requisite “strong showing that [it] is likely succeed on the merits” of these two appeals. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). The government likewise has not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits of its claim that there is no available remedy for Harris or Wilcox, or that allowing the district court's injunctions to remain in place pending appeal is impermissible. See Panel Order Granting Stay at 41-46 (Millett, J., dissenting). Nor has it demonstrated irreparable injury because the claimed intrusion on presidential power only exists if Humphrey’s Executor and Wiener are overturned. See Wiener, 357 U.S. at 356 (“[N]o such power” to remove a predominantly adjudicatory board official “is given to the President directly by the Constitution[.]”); Humphrey’s Executor, 295 U.S. at 629.

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the request for a 7-day stay be denied."

BEFORE: Srinivasan*, Chief Judge, and Henderson**, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins,
Katsas**, Rao**, Walker**, Childs, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges. Circuit Judges Henderson, Katsas, Rao, and Walker dissent. [Katsas, Rao and Walker are Trump appointees, which highlights the ideological split on the Circuit Court]

Note: this involves an appeal from a final ruling and permanent injunction, but this decision involves a motion for a stay of that order pending appeal.
 
Last edited:
Case 1:25-cv-02886
G.F.F. v. Trump

CLASS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CLASS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
This didn't age well. LOL
 
Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX
KILMAR ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA

ORDER
For the reasons discussed during today’s status conference, the Court finds that the
Defendants have failed to comply with this Court’s Order at ECF No. 51.
Click to expand...

 
California complaint RE: Tariffs

STATE OF CALIFORNIA and GAVIN NEWSOM, et al. ,v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.

Looks pretty persuasive to me. There is a wrinkle, though, in the CR that was passed to keep the government open. Now we know why it was put there.
 
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al.
4th Circuit ORDER
"WILKINSON, Circuit Judge, with whom KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, join:
Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is
requesting is both extraordinary and premature. While we fully respect the Executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine
district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision.

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country
in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody
that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government
is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the
government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia
was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?"
....
The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from
custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. “Facilitate”
is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 (“[T]he Government should be prepared to
share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the
government would have it, to a narrow term of art."

A dandy piece of writing, frankly, and not susceptible to misinterpretation.
 
Here's a background piece on the Tariff question, published two weeks ago.

Are Tariffs an Emergency Power?

The Trump administration’s sweeping tariff regime presents a problematic invocation of IEEPA and other authorities.
www.lawfaremedia.org
 
Birthright Citizenship.

While I prefer to refer to original documents and orders, this article does a great job of elucidating the accurate legal background of the case.

Birthright Citizenship and DOJ’s Misuse of History in Its Appellate Briefs​

Birthright Citizenship and the DOJ’s Misuse of History in its Briefs

Although the DOJ's briefs in birthright citizen cases might initially seem well-supported, a close look reveals that it is grasping at straws.
www.justsecurity.org

This will become relevant to later discussion of the subject.
 
Student First Amendment cases:

Vermont judge orders release of a Palestinian man arrested at his US citizenship interview (CNN)​

(I'll post opinion when I find it)

"Burlington, VermontAP —
A judge on Wednesday ordered the release of a Palestinian man who led protests against the war in Gaza as a student at Columbia University and was arrested by immigration officials during an interview about finalizing his U.S. citizenship.

U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford in Burlington, Vermont, issued his ruling following a hearing on Mohsen Mahdawi, a legal permanent resident for 10 years, who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on April 14. He has been held at the Northwest State Correctional Facility in St. Albans.
....
According to court documents, his notice to appear in immigration court says he is removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act because Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined his presence and activities “would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”

The government argues that Mahdawi’s detention is a “constitutionally valid aspect of the deportation process” and that district courts are barred from hearing challenges to how and when such proceedings are begun.

“District courts play no role in that process. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims, which are all, at bottom, challenges to removal proceedings,” wrote Michael Drescher, Vermont’s acting U.S. attorney."

The Judge didn't buy that specious argument.
 
Alien Enemies Act:

A Trump-appointed judge in the Southern District of Texas, Fernando Rodriguez, Jr., has held that the Trump administration may not use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of Tren de Aragua. Judge Rodriguez relied on the plain language of the statute in reaching his decision and wrote that the historical record makes it clear that this is a law intended for use during wartime. He is the first federal judge to hold that Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act exceeds the scope of what the law authorizes a president to do.
 
Institute of Museum and Library Services (this was not on my radar):

Judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from dismantling library services agency​

"WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge agreed to temporarily block the Trump administration from taking any more steps to dismantle an agency that funds and promotes libraries across the U.S.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled Thursday that plaintiffs who sued to preserve the Institute of Museum and Library Services are likely to show that the Republican administration doesn't have the legal authority to unilaterally shutter the agency, which Congress created."

I suspect there will be similar Orders regarding the attack on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting/NPR/PBS.
 
Do you believe if Congress declared war on another nation that a federal district judge could overturn it if she disagreed with their reason? Why or why not?
 
EO against law firms:

"A federal judge ruled on Friday that an executive order President Trump signed in March targeting the law firm Perkins Coie was unconstitutional and directed the government not to enforce its terms, which had threatened to upend the firm’s business.

The ruling was the first time a court had stepped in to permanently bar Mr. Trump from trying to punish a law firm he opposes politically.

Skipping a trial and moving directly to a final ruling, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that attempts to bring the firm to heel under the threat of retaliation amounted to unlawful coercion, and imperiled its lawyers’ ability to freely practice law."
 
VOA, Radio Free network:

After a victory on Friday, a deeply partisan decision by a split Appellate panel upended the District Court decision.

"Voice of America staffers were preparing to go back to work this week after winning a court victory against the Trump administration. Now, that seems unlikely.
The broadcaster has been effectively shut down since the Trump administration issued a March executive order dismantling the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA and doles out federal funding to other groups tasked with promoting democracy and countering propaganda overseas, including Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

After nearly every affected network sued, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted a preliminary injunction against the White House on April 22, saying that the executive order was arbitrary and probably exceeded the president’s authority.

That seemed like good news for VOA. Michael Abramowitz, the agency’s director and one of the plaintiffs in litigation against the government, told staff in an email Friday night that USAGM was restoring access to employee accounts and preparing to bring staff back to the office next week in a “phased return.”
....
"The decision to stay was made by two Trump-appointed judges, Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas.

A third judge, Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, said in her dissent that Voice of America and other media organizations fighting Trump’s order face “severe and irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.”

It's hard to consider the decision by the two Trump appointees as "legitimate" as it ignores virtually every legal precedent in such a situation. Don't be fooled, this is as arbitrary and blatantly dishonest as two partisans can make it. *

As Judge Pillard points out, “The purpose of a stay pending appeal is to maintain the status quo until a case can be fully adjudicated on its merits,” she added. “This stay does the opposite, silencing Voice of America for the foreseeable future and eliminating Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks’ ability to see this case through to the end.”
______
*This final paragraph is particularly disingenuous:

"Public Interest. Plaintiffs allege that USAGM’s implementation of the Executive Order has violated numerous statutory requirements. At this stage of the litigation, the government has raised jurisdictional, not merits, defenses. Of course, we recognize that the public has an interest in the Executive Branch’s compliance with congressional mandates. League of Women Voters of the U.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 12(D.C. Cir. 2016). By the same token, however, the public has an interest in the Judicial Branch’s respect for the jurisdictional boundaries laid down by Congress. Because personnel and grant disputes directly concern the public fisc, Congress has limited the resolution of these potentially costly claims to specialized tribunals such as the MSPB and the CFC. We must respect those boundaries no less than the substantive and appropriations provisions governing the operation of USAGM."

These Judges are obviously aware that the gutting of the MSPB has rendered any such effort impossible.

"On April 9, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts granted an emergency stay allowing for the termination of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) chair Cathy Harris while her lawsuit challenging her termination works its way through the courts. This means that the MSPB, the quasi-judicial agency which oversees retaliation cases for federal employee whistleblowers, is once again without a quorum needed to issue decisions." Itself an abuse of judicial process to achieve a political result.

MSPB Again Without Quorum as Chief Justice Temporarily Allows Firing of Chair to Stand

On April 9, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts granted an emergency stay allowing for the termination of Merit Systems
whistleblowersblog.org
 
Last edited:

Detained Tufts student must be transferred to Vermont, appeals court rules​

Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish citizen, has been held in an ICE detention facility in Louisiana since late March.


The decision:


"We conclude that the government has failed to meet its burden to justify such a stay.

First, the government has failed to show that it is likely to succeed on the
merits of its appeal. The District of Vermont is likely the proper venue to
adjudicate Öztürk’s habeas petition because, at the time she filed, she was
physically in Vermont and her immediate custodian was unknown. Furthermore,
we conclude that the government is unlikely to prevail on its arguments that
various jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) on which the government relies deprive the district court of jurisdiction
over Öztürk’s challenge to her detention.

Second, the government has failed to show irreparable injury absent a stay
of the transfer order. Contrary to its arguments, the transfer order does not
prevent it from effectuating any duly enacted law. If the government were to
prevail on this appeal, Öztürk would return to immigration custody in Louisiana.
And in the interim, Öztürk’s immigration removal proceedings will continue in
Louisiana.

Finally, the balance of the equities disfavors a stay. Öztürk’s interest in
participating in her scheduled habeas proceedings in person outweighs the
government’s purported administrative and logistical costs.

For these reasons, the government’s motion for a stay is DENIED, the
government’s request for a writ of mandamus is also DENIED, and the
administrative stay entered by this Court is hereby VACATED. The government
is hereby ORDERED to comply with the district court’s transfer order within one
week of the date of this opinion. Accordingly, the district court’s April 18, 2025
Order is hereby amended as follows: “To support the Court’s resolution of these
issues, the Court orders that Ms. Öztürk be physically transferred to ICE custody
within the District of Vermont no later than May 14, 2025.”
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
Do you believe if Congress declared war on another nation that a federal district judge could overturn it if she disagreed with their reason? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
This is a "no trolling" zone.




Please refer to the documentation, available here:

Article III

www.law.cornell.edu
 
Deportation cases:

GFF v. Trump.

GFF-v-Trump-Order

www.documentcloud.org

"The Court grants Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction against removal. This Opinion gives the reasons. It discusses the whole of the AEA, and shows that the Presidential Proclamation, in mandating removal without due process, contradicts the AEA. The Opinion goes on to discuss the requirements of notice and hearing under both the AEA and the Constitution. And it concludes that since Respondents have not demonstrated the existence of a “war,” “invasion” or “predatory incursion,” the AEA was not validly invoked by the Presidential Proclamation."
 
trouble13 said:
Your dodging because you know it is a clear violation of the separation of powers that these judges are committing but you don't want to acknowledge it
Click to expand...
No, because it is NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.

"Like the "Just the Trump Legal Issues" thread, this is not intended to be a partisan playground, but a forum to post decisions, motions and comment on the substance." It's in the OP.
 

Federal judge orders release of Mankato student arrested by ICE

Mohammed Hoque has been jailed for more than a month since his arrest by federal immigration agents.
www.startribune.com

I'm looking for the order. It may not be published.

“The record contains sufficiently clear evidence of viewpoint-based targeting for (Hoque’s) exercise of protected speech on a matter of public concern,” the judge wrote in his order, adding that the arrest “aligns with the publicly stated executive policy of targeting social media users who express support for Palestinian human rights and criticize violence in Gaza, as Petitioner had done.”

Although he has been released (on bond) his case continues.

"In his release order, Blackwell chided the government for changing charges against Hoque, apparently to keep him in custody. The lack of clarity has only supported Hoque’s claims that he was targeted for his speech, not any illegal activity, Blackwell wrote.

The judge said, “the Government cited different reasons at different times for its actions,” first citing “failure to maintain status and foreign policy,” then criminal records.

“The Government also refers to requests and communications without providing the requests or communications themselves,” Blackwell wrote. “In the face of public evidence of a practice of targeting speech, these omissions are glaring and fail to rebut the evidence that the Government was motivated to arrest and detain Petitioner because he had spoken publicly about Palestine.”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…