Margot Cleveland

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump win in case involving his firing of executive officials. Lawyer version thread to be followed by layman's thread. 1/

2/ Opinion here of DC Court of Appeals decision in consolidated appeals of Harris and Wilcox. Trump fired Harris from Merit Protections Review Board and Wilcox from NLRB. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41813/gov.uscourts.cadc.41813.01208724995.0.pdf

3/ WHOA! I did NOT see this coming. Rather, I predicted the Court would grant the stay because court's couldn't order reinstatement and punting issue if statutes limiting Trump's firing ability violated Humphrey's. BUT that might be Walker's only view...still reading. 

5/ So, Judge Walker's opinion is a treatise on the president's power to fire executive officials. I'm not going to summarize other than to say he think SCOTUS has gutted Humphrey's Executor but that it is for SCOTUS to overrule &amp; him to apply narrowing &amp; under that Trump wins.

6/ Judge Henderson says she agrees with Walker but it is a closer question BUT for stay purposes she agrees stay is appropriate because on at this stage we don't expand Humphrey's when SCOTUS has only narrowed &amp; when irreparable harm is too Trump. 

7/7 Walker's veritable treatise tees up Humphrey's Executor for SCOTUS nicely or will do so soon when the decision on merit's is entered. Until then, Harris &amp; Wilcox... 

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: First of several likely SCOTUS filings by Trump Administration this week, here seeking stay of order by federal court to reinstate terminate probationary officers. 

2/ Full docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a904.html

4/ I'm going to call this the "bathroom-stall theory of standing." 

6/ Trump Administration trying to make Roberts and Barrett realize that prudence DEMANDS action. 

7/ On substantive of injunction, 2 main issues:
a) alleged violation has been rectified; and 
b) court lacks jurisdiction over employee issue. 

8/8 And YET Trump is obeying these lawless orders and to much harm to Executive Branch practically as well as theorectically. 

9/ Trump noting how court is overseeing onboarding!!! 

10/ As I explained last week, 9th Circuit's denial of stay teed issue up for SCOTUS. 

🧵This post by @shellenberger provides an opportunity for me to hit a point I've been making the last week, but which many are still missing. For 2 months, Trump Administration has faced an avalanche of unconstitutional court orders from single federal judges. 1/

2/ More TROs &amp; PI have issued against Trump Administration in 2 months than 4 years of Biden. And while appeals process is still ongoing for many of those, appellate courts have already stayed several orders showing my point re unconstitutionality is not spin but reality.

3/ Supreme Court stayed one judge ordering payment of $2 billion in 36 hours &amp; told judge to be more specific; 3 appellate judges said Trump likely to prevail on firing of  Special Counsel Dellinger and ruled he remain out and not reinstated.

4/ Another appellate court stayed order of 1 judge undoing Trump's DEI policies, another judge reversed his TRO &amp; refused to grant an injunction on putting USAIDs workers on leave.

5/ MANY other injunctions will be overturned on appeal b/c lower courts lack jurisdiction to decide employment &amp; grants or army policy. Breadth of overreach by  lower court, 1 judge, district court injunctions interfering w/ Trump's Article II power cannot be overstated

6/ Yet not ONCE did Trump Administration declare "fine, then enforce your order." For every MAGA person screaming "ignore those illegal orders," the Trump Administration has NOT done that. And we are talking about clearly illegal orders that infringe on his executive power.

7/ Instead, every time Trump has worked to find way to read order so he could comply AND not pit Article II against Article III. He did that in grant cases by reading exceptions court allowed for otherwise terminating funding. And he did that in the Alien Enemies Act case too.

8/ Yes, Trump Administration did not turn planes around, but it isn't saying you can't order me to do that but that you didn't order me to do that because only the minute order is binding and it cites case law to support its point.

9/ And once the planes left US territory, Trump said the order didn't apply because the "removal" took place. Throughout entire drilling by Judge, and even Judge's requests for Trump's team to say "we just disagree," Trump didn't say that.

10/ Trump Administration said "we complied in good faith and here's why." Yes, the here's why is a very narrow reading of the order &amp; only the minute order, but it has case law to back that.  Trump is not being pedantic--he is being prudent.

11/ While Article III is going out of its way to trounce on Article II, Trump is going out of his way to show comity to Article III--even when judges don't deserve it. Judges are not just looking for a fight but have hit Trump with several sucker punches.

12/ Yet Trump...TRUMP! is refusing to engage. This cannot continue for much longer, however, as lower courts are framing injunctions more &amp; more wildly,  leaving Trump Administration little room to maneuver in way he can comply without sacrificing his Executive authority.

13/ Which is why I said in the earlier cases before SCOTUS, there attempt at "prudence," was imprudent: By letting it play out in lower courts and not putting a halt to judges clearly illegal orders, judges have been emboldened.

14/14 Appellate courts &amp; SCOTUS must step in now &amp; forcefully because problem is one of judiciary's  making--not Trump's. And Trump should be applauded for lengths he has gone to not create constitutional crisis by crafting plausible basis by which he obeyed illegal orders.

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Trump Administration tells Judge in Alien Enemies Act case it will provide him no more information re the flights etc. and is exercising the State's Secret doctrine. 1/ 

2/ Key to Trump's argument is this point: Given Trump hasn't contested they landed and were deplaned after order issued there is no need for court to know any other details. 

4/ Trump Administration reminds judge of important of not creating constitutional crisis with his orders. Will Judge take heed? 

5/ Full filing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.0.pdf

6/ Rubio's declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.2.pdf

7/ Bondi's declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.2.pdf

8/8 Noem's declaration.
Your move Judge. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.56.3.pdf

🚨🚨🚨Tenth Circuit side-steps clear problems with lower court's Temporary Restraining Order that bars  Trump Administration for removing aliens under Alien Enemies Act. Fundamental issue with TRO is that named plaintiffs are NOT subject to Proclamation or removal under AEA. 1/

2/ But Tenth Circuit ignores merits &amp; instead says no irreparable harm absent the stay BECAUSE Supreme Court has already stayed removals under AEA so no realistic probably Trump Administration could remove any members of class before May 6, 2025.

3/ BUT if SCOTUS removed stay tomorrow, Trump Administration could remove those who had not yet sought habeas relief, so that rationale is suspect. Tenth Circuit clearly figured no harm so no need to wade into issue.

4/ That might be true if SCOTUS had barred removal for definitive time, but it didn't. And interfering with President's handling of terrorist invaders is irreparable harm, so Court should have looked at merits &amp; on merits plaintiffs can't win because they aren't subject to AEA.

5/5 Failure of appellate courts to check lower courts, here on standing and certification of class action, is emboldening them. 10th Circuit should have halted case now. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca10.90040/gov.uscourts.ca10.90040.31.0_2.pdf

🔥🔥🔥WHOA...I just now am seeing Judge Hendrix's scathing order chastising the ACLU for its effort to engage in ex parte communications with the Court. 1/

2/ Full order here. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.402915/gov.uscourts.txnd.402915.47.0.pdf

3/ Court begins by saying ex parte communications are a no-no, with some limits... 

4/ But ACLU lawyer's voicemail didn't meet that narrow exception AND court already said you need to explain why you don't need to notify government. 

5/ Here's transcript. Note how ACLU spins what government said about removals: It spoke ONLY of not removing two petitioners &amp; Court in denying TRO noted that two petitioners couldn't seek relief on  behalf of others, where petitioners didn't need relief.  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.402915/gov.uscourts.txnd.402915.47.1.pdf 