The Able USDC Judge Tigar Re-Affirms — In East Bay V — That More Of Trump’s 2025 Black Sharpie Orders… Are “Arbitrary And Capricious”

This was actually published about two week ago, but I’ve been off dousing other bonfires… smile. It is welcome vindication of what regular readers here well know: Tangerine 2.0 has no clue about the limits to his powers, via the US Constitution. Most of all, Congress must act — to do the things he pretends to do, by Black Sharpie scribbles — as to immigration policies. [One of dozens of my prior backgrounders, from across the last seven years, here.]

[And significantly, this Northen California class litigation now has the implied backing (of the last term rulings at the Supremes)… on why faith based doctors’ groups in Texas do not have standing to impose nationwide bans on the abortion pill by mail-order. Conversley, the organizations resisting lawless attempts to curtail lawful immigration pathways… do have standing to challenge the Black Sharpie scribbles.]

Do go read it all — but here’s a bit of it — it is clearly correctly decided:

…Plaintiffs are legal services organizations challenging a rule imposing a rebuttable presumption of asylum ineligibility for individuals who do not utilize certain “lawful pathways.” Two events relevant to this case occurred while it was on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. First, the Supreme Court decided Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024), which addressed organizational standing. Second, the Trump Administration took a series of executive actions foreclosing certain “lawful pathways” and otherwise restricting asylum. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for this Court to reconsider its prior order granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs, in light of both intervening changes. Before the Court is the parties’ supplemental briefing addressing these issues.

The Court’s prior summary judgment order is hereby modified to reflect (1) that Alliance does not undermine Plaintiffs’ Article III standing and (2) that the termination of lawful pathways underscores the rule’s unlawfulness, as set forth below. The Court therefore reaffirms its prior order….

Now you know — onward, grinning.

नमस्ते