Category: Uncategorized

Here’s The Full 44 Page Well-Reasoned Harvard Prelim. Inj. Opinion — A Gem, By USDC Judge Burroughs… Just Published.

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

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

[U, X3] Desperate To Stop Attacks On US Bases, Trump Announced A Non-Existent “Cease Fire”.

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

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

This Supremes Decision Was Clearly… Error. So Jackson, Kagan And Sotomayor Said So. They Are Absolutely… Right.

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

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

What A… Novel Idea?! Noem / Miller / Rubio Must Follow The Clear, Well-Settled Federal Law — On Student Visas — At Harvard, And Nationwide.

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

On Friday night, the able USDC Judge Burroughs, in Boston, ordered Tangerine 2.0 forces to report by this afternoon, on all the action items they’d undertaken to comply with the preliminary injunction entered against violating federal law, when revoking (or not issuing) various student visas.

Here’s that report — from these jokers. Do read it all, but here’s a bit:

…Defendants have drafted guidance since the Court entered the preliminary injunction on June 20, 2025. ECF 73. This guidance informs employees and supervisors responsible for SEVP certifications, SEVIS access, Exchange Visitor Program designation, and F and J visas of the preliminary injunction and to comply with its terms. Defendants have also made clear that any future revocations of Harvard’s SEVP certification, SEVIS access, or Exchange Visitor Program designation must be done through the regulatory procedures under C.F.R. §§ 214.3 and 214.4 or in 22 C.F.R. Part 62.

In particular, the Department of State is issuing additional guidance today to all consulates, embassies, field offices, and others with responsibility for F and J visas that determinations that a visa holder has failed to maintain nonimmigrant status or decisions to take any adverse action with respect to a visa applicant or holder cannot be based on the May 22, 2025 revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification or Exchange Visitor Program designation.

The Department of Homeland Security’s relevant components (ICE, CBP, and USCIS) have issued guidance to their employees, including at field offices and ports of entry, to ensure no one is removed, has adverse visa determination, or is denied admission based on the revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification and Exchange Visitor Program designation. DHS is currently reviewing Harvard’s SEVP compliance through the procedures in 8 C.F.R. §§ 214.3 and 214.4….

Onward — bit by bit — the rule of law is… going to prevail, over the rule of small handed men.

नमस्ते

[U] Mr. Abrego Garcia’s Counsel Explains Why Noem / Miller / Rubio Are “Premature” — In Seeking A Stay Of The Bail Hearing Wed., In Nashville…

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

Whew — it has been a busy day, down in Nashville’s federal courthouse.

And Mr. Abrego Garcia’s arguments are marching him nearer and nearer — to bail, and a trip home to Maryland. As it should be for any non-violent civil defendant. And the immigration matter is undoubtedly… a civil one. Here’s the latest from his able counsel, just filed an hour ago — and a bit of it:

…Because the government’s knee-jerk motions are premature and its motion to stay fails even to grapple with the four-factor test for determining whether a stay of release is appropriate, the motion to stay should be denied and the Court should set a briefing schedule on the government’s motion for revocation.

First, the government’s motions are premature, because there is not yet a release order to stay or revoke. No conditions of release have yet been set, and it is therefore impossible to consider whether any as yet unimposed conditions are insufficient to reasonably assure Mr. Abrego’s appearance and the safety of the community under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e). As a result, despite its conclusory statements to the contrary, see ECF 45 at 1; ECF 46 at 3 & n.1, the government’s motions are not yet ripe for the Court’s review.

Second, even assuming Judge Holmes’s opinion could be stayed, the government does not even purport to apply the correct test for determining whether such a stay is proper. The government appears to take the position that if it disputes the Court’s view of the evidence, then it is entitled to a stay. But the Bail Reform Act contains no automatic stay provision. United States v. Abass, No. 25 Cr. 79, 2025 WL 1096795, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 11, 2025); see also United States v. Pavon-Andino, No. 25 Cr. 66, 2025 WL 446143, at *4 (D. Colo. Feb. 10, 2025) (“The government’s request [to stay an order of release] was without a legal basis, citing only to the general legal principle that the government may appeal this Court’s decision to the district court under 18 U.S.C. § 3145.”). Because a stay is “an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review,” it is not granted “as a matter of right.” Kentucky v. Biden, 23 F.4th 585, 593 (6th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, courts apply the traditional four-factor balancing test to determine whether a stay of a release order is appropriate: “(1) whether the petitioner ‘has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits’; (2) whether the petitioner ‘will be irreparably injured absent a stay’; (3) whether issuance of a stay will ‘substantially injure’ other interested parties; and (4) ‘where the public interest lies.’”

United States v. Fox, No. 17-3673, 2017 WL 11546291, at *1 (6th Cir. July 5, 2017) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009)); see also United States v. You, No. 20-5390, 2020 WL 3867419, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 22, 2020). Applying the correct test, the government’s arguments fail….

Updated: here on the night before this hearing, the AUSA has weighed in. It appears solely for a complete record.

Now you know — again. Onward, resolutely — to Wed. aft., in Music City. Grin.

नमस्ते

Gov. Newsom Has Advised The Ninth Cir. That Noem / Miller / Rubio Have Tried To Offer (Error-Riddled) “Evidence” For The First Time On Appeal. Yikes. These Guys…

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

I guess when you know you’re gonna’ lose, anyway — why not make a political farce of the appeal? I think that is about all that is going on here, in Trump’s appeal of a complete loss at the trial court level. To Trump, this is all just more (bad) theater.

So, he throws inflammatory declarations, at the wall, willy-nilly — on appeal, for the first time — in the (vain) hope that the Ninth Circuit will not notice that the declarations violate essentially every rule of federal civil procedure — and appellate procedure. What a pack of malign morons. Here’s the State of California’s correct, terse and cogent reply — and a bit:

…In an addendum attached to defendants’ reply in support of their motion for a stay pending appeal, defendants submitted two new declarations, both executed on June 15 and never filed in the district court below. See C.A. Dkt. 23.1 at SA1-12. Defendants later filed a letter (C.A. Dkt. 26.1) acknowledging that one of those declarations contained multiple factual errors and attaching a corrected declaration, executed on June 16.

To the extent this Court is inclined to consider the new evidence submitted by defendants for the first time on appeal, the State respectfully points the Court to its own supplemental declaration on related issues, submitted in the regular course in support of the State’s pending motion for a preliminary injunction below, see D. Ct. Dkt. 77-3….

Onward — hiding from the steam bath outside… heading back to Tokyo (myself) — and other cooler climes by mid-September, but Idaho and two other stops in Europe before then, it seems — this summer! Grin….

नमस्ते

First Significant USDC Ruling, Down In Nashville: The Govt. Cannot Meet Its Burden Of Proof — To Keep Detaining Mr. Abrego Garcia; Govt. Appealed Already. YAWN

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

The Bail Reform Act plainly applies to Mr. Abrego Garcia. As the able USDC Judge just ruled overnight, he cannot be detained unless the government can prove one of several categories apply to his case. None of them do. So he is to appear this Wed. in court, where the judge may well hold that federal statutory commands about due process — and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment itself… “trump” (hah!) any admin. law argument Miller and Noem and Rubio are making. We shall see.

In any event, here is the 51 page overnight opinion (which the Noemites have already appealed). And here is the order for the next hearing — in Music City, on this Wednesday:

…For the reasons discussed in the memorandum opinion entered separately, the United States’ motion for detention (Docket No. 8) is DENIED. A hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. (CDT) in Courtroom 3D, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse, 719 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, to review conditions of release and otherwise address any necessary issues.

The United States Marshal is DIRECTED to produce the defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia for this hearing.

It is SO ORDERED….

[And from the overnight opinion, at pages 23-25, now:]

…[T]he Court finds that the origination of the roster and the circumstances surrounding its creation are so remote and attenuated from Special Agent Joseph’s testimony that it cannot be given the conclusive weight for which it is offered by the government. The exhibit on which the government relies is a photograph taken by THP Trooper Foster, not by Special Agent Joseph — first layer of hearsay – of a document prepared at the request of THP Trooper Foster — second layer of hearsay — by the occupants of the vehicle driven by Abrego – third layer of hearsay. While the body camera footage — which is itself hearsay — includes the passing around of a piece of paper among the vehicle occupants at the direction of a THP trooper on the scene, the detail of the roster is visible only briefly in the body camera footage. A still shot of the roster detail from the body camera footage was also admitted as a government exhibit….

Additionally, defense counsel argued at the detention hearing that the 7 in the written birth year of 2007 appears to have been modified from a 1. That is not entirely without foundation, as there does appear to be some overwriting of the 7. Further, there is a question about whether the 7, even if not edited, is a number seven (7) or a number one (1). If a number one (1), then the individual with that birth date was born in 2001, not 2007. The number one (1) and the number seven (7) are among the letters, symbols, and numbers sometimes described as visually ambiguous characters because they can be indistinguishable in many types of print and especially in handwriting. See, e.g., Leslie Proctor, Misidentification of Alphanumeric Symbols, Patient Safety & Quality Healthcare (Inst. for Safe Med. Prac.) (Aug. 11, 2014) (collecting references). . . . A careful review of the entire roster reveals that another birthdate, 04 April 1998 or 1999, includes a handwritten 1 that also resembles a 7. If the individual was born in 2001, rather than 2007, he was not a minor at the time of the November 30, 2022 traffic stop….

Yes. Sanity is making a come-back. Grin. Stay cool….

नमस्ते

[U] Should Tariffs Actually Come To Pharma, Merck Intends To “Shift” To “US For US” Manufacturing…

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

I thought it worth noting that (for multinational but US-based pharma companies), should tariffs actually appear, in substantial percentages, these companies will be well positioned to offset any tariff effect with supply chain rearrangements, as well as being in a position to report significant US corporate level tax credits.

The use of repatriation strategies may very well largely offset any near term selling-price inflation these US pharmaceutical companies might face as a result of any Tangerine 2.0 tariffs. Having long ago set up tax advantaged repatriation structures, these companies are well positioned to ride out any material tariffs imposed.

Here’s a bit from the last earnings conference call — on that topic:

…Geoff Meacham (Citi analyst): Asked how Merck plans to offset tariff headwinds….

Rob Davis | Merck | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Yeah. No, Geoff, I appreciate the question. And obviously, Caroline spoke to the tariffs that we’ve included in our [guidance] (corrected by company after the call) so far, the $200 million. And just to be clear, that relates to the existing tariffs that have been announced largely between China and the US, and to a lesser extent, Canada and Mexico. I think you’re really referring to the potential for further sector-specific tariffs that could come and what we’re doing.

And in that regard, we’ve been very focused, and I tried to highlight this in the script, we’ve actually had started to change and rebalance our supply chain strategy, going back — actually beginning with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, where we started moving more towards being able to have US for US, Europe for Europe, and Asia for Asia. And we’ve been in the process of doing that. That was a big part of where we announced that we’ve spent $12 billion since that time to date. And then we expect to spend an additional $9 billion-plus. And I expect, frankly, that number is going to grow going forward. So we have already been in the process of changing our supply chain. But what we’ve done specifically, in the near term, we have, I think, done a good job of managing our inventory.

So as you look at 2025, we’re well-positioned with inventory to be able to mitigate anything we could see in the short term. And then in the medium to long term, we’ve already started to identify where we can either reposition our own manufacturing, so change the priorities of existing plants; bring on external manufacturing, in some cases, to bridge gaps; and then finally, to build internal manufacturing long term so that we have that in our base going forward.

So really, as I look at it, short term, I think we’re in a good shape. Medium and long term, we’re taking the steps to position ourselves. And that really is our main efforts. We are not using and do not really see price as a lever for tariffs just given there’s always limitations in what you can do there. So for us, it’s more about how do we optimize our supply chain. But again, a lot of what we’re doing now, frankly, we were already underway in. So in many ways, we are aligned with what the administration is wanting to do and feel that we are in a position to be able to do that quite effectively….

Now you know. But as I’ve long said — in the end, Tangerine will largely exempt pharma all-together. That’s how lobbying works. Onward now, into a scorcher in the steel and glass canyons… Grin!

नमस्ते

Ignoring This “Wag The Dog” — In Iran — Let’s Discuss New Clinical Guidelines, For Mpox Arrest/Abatement — From WHO, World-Wide…

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

This is a crazy time — in US foreign “policy”: it seems bombs are nearly our first line of “persuasion”. That is both idiotic, and very dangerous — to the major cities of the United States (for retaliation, by/with smaller Iranian sponsored terror cell groups). But I won’t dwell on it… this is what MAGA voted for: Chaos. They’ve gotten it. They may sing a different tune if terror attacks now come to US soil. God forbid, but that would be a logical progression — from Tangerine’s unhinged inability to parse world affairs.

[I will hope for the best, for the people of Israel, as well — but they too may see mass casualty events, due to Bibi’s war-mongering ways. They are far more “reachable” by Iran, than we are. And I say that with close relatives living in Israel, to this day.]

Ahem. Enough of that. Now — back to power alley stuff: here are the newly released guidelines in full (as a 93 page PDF) — and a bit from the WHO presser:

…Since the 2022 global outbreak of Mpox, caused by the monkeypox virus (MPXV), the epidemiological landscape has continued to evolve. While the initial outbreaks centered on clade IIb in non-endemic countries, 2024 has seen a resurgence of Mpox in parts of Africa, particularly clade I variants, and concerning cross-border transmissions. In August 2024, WHO declared a second Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in response to the rising epidemic risk posed by MPXV.

The WHO Mpox clinical and infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines newly published in June 2025, provide critical evidence-based recommendations for frontline responders and health and care workers globally. These include improved recommendations on supportive care, home-based management, protective measures for healthcare workers, and special considerations for populations with HIV, breastfeeding infants, and those at risk of complications.

Up-to-date clinical guidelines from WHO help healthcare providers to deliver safe and effective care, rooted in the best evidence and applicable across diverse health systems. Recommendations aim to prevent mpox transmission, improve outcomes, and reduce disease complications. They focus on protecting patients and frontline workers — especially in low-resource and high-burden settings — and address increasing challenges such as co-infections, care of vulnerable populations, and provision of care at home where appropriate….

Now you know. And perhaps most surprisingly, in the last week, Tulsi Gabbard has been the sole voice of sanity — inside Trump-world. That’s how we may confidently assess that this is all… way off the rails. Damn.

नमस्ते

Power Alley: Current Mpox Clade 1b Global Outbreak Report, From The Smart People At USCDC and CIDRAP

~ condor ~ Leave a comment

While I was off-grid, a new situation report was issued by the US CDC on mpox clades 1 & 2. The most dangerous strain of course is clade 1 — 1b, specifically.

And so it is high time to update the laundry list of places that have seen cases, in this 2024-2025 outbreak. It truly dots the globe now. Here’s that related CDC report in full, and a bit:

…As of June 17, 2025, countries reporting travel-associated cases of clade I mpox since January 1, 2024, include Angola, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Zimbabwe….

[Inside the US, there] have been four reported cases of clade I mpox in the United States in people who had recently traveled to affected areas in Central and Eastern Africa. The four cases are separate events and are not linked; no additional spread of mpox has been reported. [Those states and dates are as follows:]

California, November 2024

Georgia, January 2025

New Hampshire, February 2025

New York, February 2025

Massachusetts, June 2025….

Now you know. Onward to a scorcher here today, and yet — dinner with friends, outdoors in a cool rural grove — tonight. Grin.

नमस्ते