Yesterday (on a Sunday!), the “government” finally got around to filing its opposition to Friday’s TRO. It has already lost. Noem and her minions are. . . enjoined. Just as we said.

But… just for a complete record — I’ll link it. But I will not quote it. I did already (on Friday night) quote the TRO (issued from the bench, by the ever-capable USDC Judge Xinis in Maryland). It is already in force — and here is what those moving papers say:

…Unlawful detention inflicts irreparable harm. Miranda v. Garland, 34 F.4th 338, 365 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that the erroneous deprivation of an alien’s liberty, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury”); Mata Velasquez v. Kurzdorfer, 794 F. Supp. 3d 128, 154 (W.D.N.Y. 2025) (“[T]here is no question that unlawful detention causes irreparable harm.”). Petitioner will thus suffer irreparable harm if he is unlawfully detained….

The balance of harms and public interest decisively favor injunctive relief. There is no equitable or public interest in detaining individuals without legal authority. And there is “no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful [government] action.” Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 25-cv-1411, 2025 WL 1249608, at *62 (4th Cir. Apr. 30, 2025) (citations omitted). Conversely, both the equities and the public interest favor ensuring government agencies comply with court orders and respect fundamental liberty interests.

Because “habeas corpus is, at its core, an equitable remedy,” a district court has “substantial discretion to appropriately redress any violation of an order granting habeas corpus relief.” Wolfe v. Clarke, 718 F.3d 277, 285 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 319 (1995)). Here, that equitable authority supports entry of a temporary restraining order preventing Respondents from circumventing yesterday’s release order through re-detention on the same unlawful grounds….

Onward, resolutely. He will remain free — certainly until mid-January, and the final hearings in Tennessee.

नमस्ते

Yawn. No surprise. The able USDC Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland agrees that we don’t run star chambers, where fake ICE employees claiming to be “judges” may completely re-write, and then “enter” orders on six year old cases, to make someone lawfully here… immediately removable — without any notice, or opportunity to be heard in opposition (violating due process).

That is antithetical to our system of ordered liberty. But it is just… Thursday, to the Noemites, and Tangeriners 2.0. Here’s the order, and a bit:

…See 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(1)(A) (“when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days.”). Respondents also have detained Abrego Garcia for the six-month presumptive period articulated in Zadvydas, when conservatively considering the time spent in ICE detention since 2019, combined with the time spent in detention in El Salvador, and in ICE custody after securing his release in the Tennessee Criminal Matter. Nor had Respondents done anything to secure Abrego Garcia’s third-country removal between 2019 and August 2025. Cf. Zavvar v. Scott, Civ. No. TDC-25-2104, 2025 WL 2592543 at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2025). Thus, for the reasons previously articulated in ECF No. 110 and in this Order, Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further Zadvydas claim….

[T]he public retains keen interest in ensuring that government agencies comply with court orders, especially those necessary to protect individual liberties. In this respect, the Court reminds Respondents that … [f]or the public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration….

Onward, resolutely — to a matinee later today, of the “Nutcracker on Ice” — little kids’ edition! Wind-chills are now between minus 14 and minus 25… so, “on ice” — quite literally!

नमस्ते