Swift progress here, after the likely $1 bail / bond was posted.
He could well be back in NYC with his family — by Monday morning. We will keep you apprised:
…Pursuant to the ruling of District Judge Farbiarz that the Petitioner be released today, and that the parties meet and confer on the release terms, there will be a telephone conference with the Undersigned at 3:30 p.m. today to address the release terms.
That will include the manner and logistics by which the Petitioner will surrender his passport and any other travel documents to the Government as a precondition of release. The parties will dial 855-244-8681 and enter XXX2-026-XXXX to join the conference.
So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Hammer on 6/20/2025….
Suck it, Noem. Man… do I ever dislike these goon tactics. The idea that Homeland Security “brown-shirting” is the new norm… is disgusting. Out.
All as expected — he must be freed, right now. Per NPR reporting from inside the courtroom: “…During a phone hearing on Friday, Judge Michael Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court for New Jersey said that the government’s attempt to continue to detain Khalil was “highly, highly, highly unusual.” Farbiarz recently ruled that Khalil’s arrest and detention over his pro-Palestinian activism at Columbia University was likely unconstitutional….” Yup. End update.
Waking very late — after a late night flight out of the high mountains… smile.
And I am just catching up on lots of things, so I won’t live blog it, but Mr. Khalil will likely make bail this evening. See below:
…As to the Petitioner’s June 16 bail filing, at ECF 308, the briefing became fully submitted this afternoon, June 18.
The Court will conduct oral argument on the motion on June 20 at noon.
The argument will be conducted by phone. Court staff will be in touch with the parties today as to logistics. As is in every case, members of the public can listen in should they wish to by going to the Court’s [https://www.njd.uscourts.gov/khalil-v-joyce-25-1963] website; clicking on menu in the upper left hand corner; going from there to case information; and then following the instructions.
So Ordered by Judge Michael E. Farbiarz on 6/18/2025….
More posts soon — as the fresh cherries, piping hot coffee and a banana kick in. Grin.
Bill Otis makes the highly-dubious claim (quoting a Wash. Examiner political hack) that most of America “likes” Trump’s putative deployment of federal troops — into civilian life — on numerous city street-corners, with M-4 automatic rifles, and gas masks… Me? I doubt the basic premise.
But even IF that is accurate… that — and a pair of quarters — will get you a [bad] small cup of bitter, rancid… coffee. Nothing more. Not troops, to be certain.
See — how this works, boys… is the Congress must pass laws, absent a national invasion, to roll uninvited federal troops.
There was a status conference — with updated status reports, from all sides in this litigation — on June 10, 2025.
Without making any of the required on record findings, Chief Judge Moses has made the whole she-bang… attorneys’ eyes only. [Wow — that is likely because what IS happening… will embarrass MAGA Gov. Abbott, down there.] But clearly, the litigation is not being tossed, on Tangerine say-so. There are private plaintiffs, continuing in their own names — after being… lacerated or worse — on the savage barrier. Here’s the bit we CAN see… but I may need to send in an on record filing (something like the green text, below) — to Judge Moses, directly, explaining that even in dusty West Texas… “we the people” have the presumptive right to observe what our courts are doing… in our name.
…IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for DOCKET CALL / STATUS CONFERENCE in Courtroom 1, on the 2nd floor, U.S. Courthouse, 111 E. Broadway, Del Rio, TX, on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 at 11:00 AM.
All parties and counsel must appear at this hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2025….
[Addressed to USDC Chief Judge Moses, USDC WDTX]
…My [entirely pro bono] clients recognize that the court has myriad other demands on its time and limited staffing resources, but absent a documented showing of unreasonable administrative burdens (and a two page order, published at the same moment, makes it plain that this is no administrative burden!), the public’s right to contemporaneous access to judicial records cannot be overcome. See, e.g., Courthouse News Serv. v. Planet, No. CV 11-08083 SJO (FFMx), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105197, at *62 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2016) (“to the extent Planet might argue that such a practice would have been cost-prohibitive or unduly labor intensive, she has not quantified the cost… nor has she detailed the additional labor that would have been required)….
Absent such evidence, the Court cannot ‘articulate facts demonstrating an administrative burden sufficient to deny access.’”) (citation omitted), aff’ in part rev’d in part, 947 F.3d 581, 597 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that “Ventura County’s no-access-before-process policy bears no real relationship to the County’s legitimate administrative concerns about… efficient court administration”); see also United States v. Valenti, 987 F.2d 708, 715 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding unconstitutional the district court’s maintenance of a dual-docketing system, where certain docket entries were visible only to the parties, and expressly rejecting the argument that unsealing would bind the court to a “formal procedure that is unduly burdensome”).
Specifically, a status / scheduling order in this matter has entered by the court just now (ECF Doc. No. 135, 06/10/2025) but remains entirely invisible to the public. Of course, while redactions for trade or governmental secrets (and sensitive, personally identifying information) would be normal, there has been no such effort made, on the part of the court. It seems court staff sua sponte designated ECF Document No. 135 “attorneys’ eyes” only.
Based on my review of the ECF record in this matter, it would seem no public court order — whether in writing or issued orally from your bench — has set forth the findings required by the First Amendment, prior to the removal of this judicial document from the record. See, e.g., Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990).
However, rather than waste more of the court’s resources and time, I have chosen (as a non-party member of the public, and at this point, non-intervenor) to simply write to you directly, and copy counsel for both sides on this. I am hopeful the lawyers will prepare and file a redacted version, as required by long-standing, uncontroverted black letter First Amendment law (which applies, even — perhaps surprisingly to you — in the Western District of Texas).
To be clear, this need not (and perhaps should not) require my filing as an intervenor, in your courtroom — to be placed on any public docket, as it sensibly ought to be resolved without need for appearances in the record, on my clients’ behalf….
Please prepare and publish a redacted version of Document No. 135, before Monday, June 23, 2025. Kind regards…. /s/
Again, for the slow-learners (Ahem. Kristi “The Dolt” Noem, et al.): the great writ of habeas corpus cuts through all other proceedings, and allows for the release of the body of anyone wrongfully-detained, anywhere on US soil. [That’s why they were rushing to get him offshore.]
The ACLU lawyers for Mr. Khalil asked three days ago, now. . . what time — after 9:30 am this morning in Jena, they could swing by to pick him up — at the private prison gates. [That’s when the order to release him becomes effective.] Noem’s lawyers went silent for two days, this week.
…The government cites no statute or case law for this extraordinary proposition, the practical effect of which would be that for some unspecified period of time after detention — seemingly however long the government chooses to take in transporting a detainee between states or between facilities — a detainee would be unable to file a habeas petition at all, anywhere. Such a rule finds no support in the law and is contrary to longstanding tradition. See 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *131; Paul D. Halliday, Habeas Corpus: From England to Empire 161 (2012 edition) (“By exploring hundreds of cases across many decades, we can gain a sense of practices and principles, if not rules, that constituted a jurisprudence of normalcy. At the center of this jurisprudence stood the idea that the court might inspect imprisonment orders made at any time, anywhere, by any authority.”); see also Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 739–46….
At oral argument before this Court, the government first stated that it does not know who Öztürk’s immediate custodian was while she was in transit at approximately 10:01pm and then took the novel position that Öztürk’s immediate custodian at that time was the warden of the Vermont facility to which she had not yet arrived. The government cited no authority for this contention, and it is at odds with the straightforward rule set out in Padilla that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is “’the person with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court.” 542 U.S. at 435 (quotation marks omitted). As the Supreme Court instructed in Padilla, “the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held,” id. (emphasis added), not the person who will at some unspecified future time have the ability to produce the prisoner’s body….
Now, the Noem-ites (this morning, finally!) say (comically, if a man’s life and liberty weren’t being foreclosed!) that a separate admin. law proceeding lets them keep Mr. Khalil in custody — perhaps forever. Without any charge under any criminal statute.
We cannot let our own local calamities — here in the US — blind us to the unfolding crisis (which is now very much a haunting echo, of the narrative of our initial inattention — to Ebola, in 2014 — in Sierra Leone). This one is called… Mpox. [And, this is an appropriate Friday the Thirteeth post, indeed.]
It seems a more communicable Mpox variant, called G.1, has mutated from the earlier strains, and is spreading largely unchecked in communities throughout central Africa.
…A dangerous mpox outbreak is unfolding in Sierra Leone. In just the first week of May, cases rose by 61%, and suspected cases surged by 71%. Roughly half of all confirmed mpox cases in Africa now come from this small West African nation. The virus is moving widely, across geographies, genders, and age groups.
And the virus is changing.
Genomic analysis has revealed a fast-moving new variant of mpox — called G.1 — that likely emerged in late November. At first it circulated silently but has since taken hold and quickly began sustained human-to-human transmission. Cases have been doubling every two weeks. Estimates suggest more than 11,000 people in Sierra Leone may already be infected….
This is how outbreaks become epidemics, and mpox, as a pandemic, could be brutal….
Sierra Leone has been here before, at the epicenter of a disease outbreak while the world looked away. In 2014, Ebola swept through the West African region. A single mutation supercharged its spread just as it reached Sierra Leone. Tens of thousands died. Health systems collapsed. The global cost soared into the billions. The lesson? Delay is deadly….
I’ll be in the skies tomorrow, at US protest time — but let them be vast, into the millions of bodies — and mightily vocal, and of course peace filled. But let the people chant… [Call:] “Show me what democracy looks like! — [Response:] THIS is what democracy looks like!”
Well… his premise… accurately stated… is self refuting.
She’s a United States government employee on our taxpayer dime — holding a press conference — no less, in a public setting. Any United States citizen or US Senator may show up and question her about both her policies and her methods. He may also question her about her fitness for the job.
On that score, she is plainly lacking.
She has no right to foreclose anything, but her prepared remarks when the California Senator arrived — to ask pointed questions. [Welcome to the free expression zone that is… America, Ms. Noem.]
This too will be a fireworks show, tonight, Eastern time — and the opinion is here. but it will probably Trump appealed his complete loss; and the Ninth will hear it June 17. be tomorrow or later So, it will be after June 23 by the time we will see the published Ninth Circuit opinions.
UPDATED @ 11 PM EDT — As I guessed, no ruling from the bench; and after an hour of argument… he ruled six hours later. Earlier, this was entered: “…Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Charles R. Breyer: Motion Hearing held on 6/12/2025 – Re [8] First Ex Parte Application Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by State of California, Gavin Newsom. Motion taken under submission. The Court will issue an order. (Total Time in Court: 1 Hour and 9 Minutes)….”
So we may have to wait a day or two to know. End, updated portion.
Tangerine 2.0 claims, but does not substantiate (in any controlling law text or Constitutional provision), the right to rule as a de facto military junta. He will be set straight. He cannot roll uninvited into LA. Period. Here’s 20 pages of California’s latest, and a bit of it:
. . .President Trump and his fellow Defendants advance a breathtaking vision of unlimited, unreviewable executive power. As they see things, 10 U.S.C. § 12406 allows the President to federalize a State’s national guard and send armed soldiers onto American streets whenever the President perceives “opposition” to federal authority or “[d]isobedience of a legal command,” Opp. 14; the President may do so without “consent or input” from the Governor of that State, id. at 17; the statutory requirement that orders “shall be issued through the governor[]” may be satisfied by the federal Secretary of Defense stamping those words on the face of the order, id.; and any invocation of the Section 12406 authority is “unreviewable” by an Article III court — regardless of the circumstances, id. at 10.
What is more, Defendants insist that “the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply” to federalized guard units once the President has unilaterally invoked Section 12406 in this way… [That is plainly… error.]
As explained in the motion and this reply, the State is likely to succeed on its claims that Defendants lack authority to use the National Guard and Marine Corps units in this way. The tailored relief requested by the State is necessary to avoid further escalation of an already tense and perilous situation….
[Tangerine 2.0] Defendants do not contend that the circumstances on June 7 or June 9 amounted to an invasion or “danger of invasion by a foreign nation.” 10 U.S.C. § 12406(1). And their arguments about the remaining predicates of Section 12406 are unpersuasive. . . .
[And, in any event, as has been true for decades prior,] they may use federal troops and officers to protect federal facilities, and personnel at those facilities, while this litigation proceeds….
Do stay tuned. Excellent — just… excellent. Onward.
Swift progress here, after the likely $1 bail / bond was posted. 
Powerline Lies... 