We respond…
He is so lost that he now thinks Tangerine 2.0 should be free to build largely unaccountable prisons on Florida swampland.
And send people Trump often claims (without proof) have no papers, there.
John supports US torture prisons — for what might amount to… jaywalkers.
Charming.
Yesterday in Nashville, Team Tangerine/Noem argued that it may decide (on its own) to move Mr. Abrego Garcia “out of Tennessee” (likely because they didn’t draw a ruby red / Tangerine judge by lot, down there).
Quite correctly, the ACLU lawyers pointed out that Noem ginned up this criminal proceeding only after her “tatoos theory” turned out to be… a photoshop job / falsified evidence.
To blunt that additional abuse (diabolically called “diesel therapy” in the corrections industry — of just driving detainees to god-forsaken locales to make it harder for counsel to help them), the lawyers filed an emergency motion saying the government must either prosecute the purported criminal matter where it alone chose to bring it — i.e., in Nashville — or it must do so in Maryland, where his All Writs Act civil case is pending, along the lines of a Habeas release, befor Judge Xinis. This motion should be granted:
…When his custody in the Tennessee criminal case ends, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia should return here, to the District of Maryland, where his civil litigation began and remains. The Government has stated that once Abrego Garcia is released from criminal custody, it will take him into immigration custody and again try to remove him to El Salvador, where it illegally removed him over three months ago. Plaintiffs therefore move under the All Writs Act and the Court’s inherent equitable authority for an order directing the Government to (1) return Abrego Garcia to the District of Maryland immediately upon his release from confinement in the criminal proceedings ongoing in the Middle District of Tennessee, see United States v. Abrego Garcia, No. 3:25-cr-00115 (M.D. Tenn.), and (2) refrain from removing Abrego Garcia from the continental United States or transferring him outside this District (other than to travel to Tennessee to participate in the criminal proceedings) absent further order of this Court….
The last time the Government detained Abrego Garcia for removal, it transferred him “to detention facilities in Louisiana and La Villa, Texas” and then illegally removed him. ECF No. 31 at 4. In other high-profile immigration cases in recent months, the Government has engaged in a similar “pattern” of moving immigration detainees “to Louisiana or Texas” in an apparent “attempt at forum shopping.” Suri v. Trump, 2025 WL 1310745, at *13 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2025) (collecting cases). It is therefore likely that the Government will attempt to hold Abrego Garcia in immigration custody in a jurisdiction other than the District of Maryland, from where it will again seek to remove him to El Salvador. To preserve and protect this Court’s jurisdiction and proceedings, and to prevent frustration of the prior orders to treat this case as if Abrego Garcia had not been unlawfully removed, the Court should order the Government to return Abrego Garcia to the District of Maryland once his criminal custody ceases….
Mr. Abrego Garcia clearly has the very best team of lawyers I’ve ever seen on an immigration matter. They have the whole of the federal government plethora of agencies… pinned now. And in two courts. Woot! Onward!
नमस्ते
This is a barn-burner. Do read all eight pages — and we will link the US Justice Dept. reply when filed, tomorrow — right here.
As we said, the able USDC Judge is asking for these two briefs, to inform whether he may be released for constitutional violations, despite some stupid ICE administrative rules — which ought not control over violations of the Fourteenth Amendment. And that is what this case is really about: willful, repeat violations of his constitutional rights, at the hands of a malignant government structure. Here it is in full — and a bit:
…In March, the Executive Branch—specifically the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) — unlawfully arrested and renditioned Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (“Mr. Abrego”) to a notorious Salvadoran prison where he was certain to be tortured. A court had previously ruled, however, that Mr. Abrego could not be deported to El Salvador. A lawyer working for the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), defending DHS, confessed error, only to be fired for his candor to the court. On April 10, the Supreme Court then ruled in plain language that the Executive Branch had acted unlawfully and ordered it to facilitate Mr. Abrego’s return….
Instead of complying with that order, the government pivoted, delaying Mr. Abrego’s return and working through Joint Task Force Vulcan, including its DOJ and DHS partners, to concoct this criminal case. DOJ and DHS promised extraordinary benefits to undocumented people who had committed crimes to provide evidence, however unreliable, in support of this case. In short order, DHS, working hand in glove with DOJ, retrieved Mr. Abrego from El Salvador to stand trial in this District. This Court evaluated the government’s evidence, such as it is, and found it to be unreliable and certainly insufficient to warrant pretrial detention. ECF 43. Judge Crenshaw agreed that the government was unlikely to show success on the merits of its motion for revocation. ECF 55. The Executive Branch, acting through the DOJ and Task Force Vulcan, now claims to be powerless to ensure that DHS will cooperate with any efforts to protect Mr. Abrego’s rights during the pendency of this case. Such claims strain credulity….
As Judge Crenshaw held yesterday, “the Executive Branch” — not DOJ or DHS in isolation, but the government as a whole — “is in control of where [Mr. Abrego] awaits trial in this case” and “whether to hold him for pending deportation proceedings or not.” ECF 55 at 1. We agree.
As the government’s conduct in this case makes plain, DOJ has the power to coordinate with DHS to ensure that (1) Mr. Abrego is not deported while these charges are pending and (2) he is housed in a facility that allows him to adequately prepare for trial in this case. We welcome the Court’s order that the DOJ — including the Acting United States Attorney in this District, as well as the Directors and Deputy Director of Task Force Vulcan — make “best efforts” to effectuate both of those goals….
At bottom, the government’s claim that it cannot control where Mr. Abrego is detained or whether he is removed from the United States is based on a convenient fiction. DOJ and DHS are part of a single Executive Branch….
Where, as here, DOJ and DHS have acted in concert since this case’s inception, proclaiming with one voice that Mr. Abrego “will never go free on American soil”, the government cannot credibly claim that DOJ is powerless to coordinate with DHS to ensure that Mr. Abrego’s case proceeds without jeopardizing his constitutional rights and the fair administration of justice….
Very well-argued, on paper — just as it was argued yesterday — in open court in Music City. Onward — to tomorrow’s filing. Out.
नमस्ते
The Noemites/government will answer that brief by noon tomorrow. [And… back in the City of Big Shoulders, as of 11 PM last night.]
A steamy day of hearings [and an excellent late lunch of Jerk-glazed rare salmon on a bed of wilted spinach and whole grain rice (at of all the surprising places, Jimmy Buffett’s “Margaritaville”)!], in Nashville, resulted in no release, yet. But we shall see.
And yes, I chatted at length with Rep. Justin Jones (D, Nashville). He is an excellent public servant — for the people who mostly lack voices. Or are often… ignored.
After those briefs are in, this will be the schedule:
…The Court will hold an evidentiary hearing on the Government’s Motion for Revocation (Doc. No.45) on July 16, 2025 at 1:00 p.m. No later than noon on July 14, 2025, the parties shall file a witness list and exhibit list for the hearing.
The witness list shall include a one to two sentence statement of the anticipated testimony. All anticipated exhibits shall be provided to chambers by 9:00 a.m. on July 15, 2025….
Onward, resolutely.
नमस्ते
Well, I admit I never thought I’d live to see the day when the sitting President of the United States would very deliberately blurt out, in full throat — and during what was obviously a press opportunity “can you FUCKING understand that?!” in answer to a question about Israel v. Iran — and the poorly adhered to “cease fire”.
But Trump did, this morning as he was boarding Marine 1 — to head on, to NATO meetings.
Ahem. It is well known that as dementia advances, so too will irrationally, aggressive, and combative behaviors. It often manifests in obscenities that in earlier times the patient would never have uttered.
All of this Hinderaker wishes to brush off/defend by saying “Trump says what he thinks.”
In saying so, John admits far too much: he admits that Trump is increasingly agitated, senile, and utterly inappropriate — for polite society.
Not a great look for the supposed leader of the free world.
And the strangest thing of all, is that this is the very near the most minor of the character flaws that Trump increasingly exhibits here in mid-2025.
Out.
Here’s the rundown — entered earlier tonight.
On a jet by mid-morning tomorrow… will be quiet until 2 pm Central. The deets:
…25-3727 [Newsom v. Trump, et al.] ORDER FILED.
Mark J. BENNETT, Eric D. MILLER, Jennifer SUNG.
The briefing schedule for this appeal will proceed as follows: appellants’ opening brief is due July 22, 2025, and appellees’ answering brief is due August 19, 2025.
The optional reply may be filed within 21 days of service of the answering brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1.
[Entered: 06/24/2025 12:33 PM]…
Now you know.
नमस्ते
Onward — around the nation, the rule of law is winning out. Slowly… haltingly… but it is winning out.
Trump’s time with National Guard boots on the City Streets of LA… is now nearly at an end. See this, just entered (in full text):
…On Monday, both parties responded to the Court’s request for briefing as to its continued jurisdiction. See Pl. Supp. Br. (dkt. 94); Def. Supp. Br. (dkt. 95). Plaintiffs’ brief included a request for leave to take “expedited, limited discovery as to their claim that [Trump] Defendants have acted ultra vires of the [Posse Comitatus Act] and as to the permissible scope and duration of the federalization of the National Guard under Section 12406.” See Pl. Supp. Br. at 7. Plaintiffs propose that they propound discovery by June 26, meet and confer with Defendants shortly thereafter, receive responses and conduct depositions by July 11, and file supplemental briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction on July 15. Id. at 9.
Defendants object to the discovery request, arguing that “Defendants have had no opportunity to respond and would be prejudiced if the request were granted without any substantive response from Defendants.” Objection (dkt. 97) at 1. Good cause appearing therefor, the Court DIRECTS Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery request by Wednesday, June 25, at 9:00 A.M.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 24, 2025….
The less than 15 hour deadline tells you how serious the threat to ordered liberty is — in the eyes of the excellent USDC Judge, in SF. Onward.
नमस्ते
This is a towering 44 pager. It reiterates America’s commitment to academic freedom — in the face of would-be autocrats.
Thank you Judge Burroughs. Do read it all — but here’s a bit:
…[Team Tangerine 2.0’s] reading of the record is so selective as to border on absurd. Between the April 11 Letter and the Proclamation, there were very few days where the Administration did not attack Harvard in some form or another, including six Truth Social posts from the President himself, [Am. Compl. ¶¶ 122, 123, 132, 147, 182, 183];12 several actual or threatened grant and funding freezes, [id. ¶¶ 120, 127, 134, 148, 182]; several iterations of the Administration’s attempts to limit Harvard’s ability to host international students and visitors. . . . Secretary Noem sent a records request about SEVP that stated that “[f]ailure to comply with this Records Request will be treated as a voluntary withdrawal”), 158 (May 22 SEVP Revocation Letter), 188 (May 28 SEVP NOIW), 195–201 (State Department pilot vetting program targeting Harvard visitors)]; other investigation initiations, [id. ¶ 133 (investigation into Harvard’s employment practices)]; and numerous other statements by President Trump and other officials in the Administration, as detailed supra. Defendants’ countervailing argument that these assaults cannot constitute retaliation as they came from different parties and are therefore not attributable to any one source is equally puzzling, because that fact only serves to reinforce that the Administration has made a full court press against Harvard on many different fronts….
[T]he [undisputed] timeline here leaves little room for doubt regarding the causal connection and supports Harvard’s contention that the Proclamation was intended both to punish Harvard and, separately, to be an end run around this Court’s prior TRO and subsequent preliminary injunction proceedings. Harvard filed its initial complaint and TRO motion on May 23, 2025. [ECF Nos. 1, 4]. The President criticized Harvard on Truth Social several times, including a reference to the litigation, on May 26. [Am. Comp. ¶¶ 182–83]. The parties had a status conference on May 27. [ECF No. 32]. DHS issued its official NOIW to Harvard on May 28. [ECF No. 49]. That same day, the President convened government officials from “nearly a dozen agencies” to brainstorm additional actions the Administration could take against Harvard. [ECF No. 54-3 at 4]. The next day, May 29, at the hearing on Harvard’s preliminary injunction, the parties agreed to submit a joint proposed injunction against the SEVP Revocation Letter pending the NOIW proceedings. [ECF Nos. 50, 52]. The Proclamation was issued on June 4, one week after the brainstorming session and the evening before the parties’ joint preliminary injunction proposal on the SEVP issue was due to be filed….
“One of the most egregious types of First Amendment violations is viewpoint-based discrimination…. Government actors may not discriminate against speakers based on viewpoint.” Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1279–80 (11th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Nor may they “single[] out a subset of messages for disfavor based on the views expressed,” Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 248 (2017) (Kennedy, J., concurring), or “punish[]… organizations and their members merely because of their political beliefs and utterances,” Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 143 (1951) (Black, J., concurring)….
As Vullo makes clear, President Trump and his advisers are free to make statements like these criticizing Harvard for its perceived political viewpoints. “What [they] cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 188. And the evidence suggests they were doing precisely that, including with regard to the Proclamation….
Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
Now you know. Onward, to the morning — and southerly climes. Smile.
नमस्ते
Updated: Well after midnight in the US, Bibi is said to have agreed to stop shelling targets in Iran. Damn.
This was nearly 12 hours after Tangerine 2.0 claimed it was a signed deal. What a sadly prevaricating… clown. Here’s a bit, from some earlier New York Times (Maggie Haberman stenography):
…President Trump did not give many details about the deal. Israel did not immediately comment, and Iran, which said it had agreed to the halt, sent a new wave of missiles, killing at least four people….
The [purported] announcement, made minutes after 6 p.m. Eastern time, caught even some of Mr. Trump’s own top administration officials by surprise. Israel has not yet confirmed the cease-fire, and within three hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement, there were fresh attacks from Israel against Iran, raising questions about whether all parties had agreed to it.
Mr. Trump had help in [lying about] a cease-fire from Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump’s special envoy, who had been leading the efforts over the last two months for a deal to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, the official said….
[By Tuesday mid-morning, Trump] warned Israel that further attacks would be a “major violation”….
Geez — what a putz. Out.
नमस्ते
When the Supremes get this matter on the merits, they will have to grapple with the Eighth Amendment — which applies to all people on US soil — and its absolute prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.
To force (at greater US expense) people to the other side of the planet — to places where both torture and starvation are common, and almost none of them speak a single word of the native language. . . certainly seems designed primarily to “punish” — and punish with cruel effect. [It is also unusual, in that no prior preznit, in the last ten or so, has ever done this.]
And so, the Wise Latina Justice, Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson have it right, in dissent:
…In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there.
Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel. An attentive District Court’s timely intervention only narrowly prevented a third set of unlawful removals to Libya. Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion….
[Morevoer,] noncitizens facing removal of any sort are entitled under international and domestic law to raise a claim under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Article 3 of the Convention prohibits returning any person “to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”
The United States is a party to the Convention, and in 1998 Congress passed the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act to implement its commands. The Act provides that “[i]t shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.” §2242(a), 112 Stat. 2681–822, codified as note to 8 U. S. C. §1231. It also directs the Executive to “prescribe regulations to implement” the Convention. §2242(b), 112 Stat. 2681–822. Those regulations provide, among other things, that “[a] removal order… shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3.” 28 CFR §200.1 (2024)….
D A M N A T I O N. This court shames itself, and the rule of law tonight.
नमस्ते
Powerline Lies... 