Of course the people here have a clear right to see what Rubio / Noem / Miller / Trump are doing in their names… especially when it is as brazenly unlawful as this is/was.

Here is the text of Judge Xinis’ fine order. Next, I’ll read the unsealed Rubio stuff, and post on it — in the morning:

…ORDER directing that the Clerk unseal the Declaration of Secretary of State Marco Rubio; directing that the Government supplement the Declaration of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and provide to Plaintiffs an updated privilege log by 5/23/2025; granting [116] & [117] Plaintiffs’ request for leave to take 3 additional depositions; Defendants must complete supplemental production of discovery on a rolling basis, but by no later than 5/30/2025. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 5/16/2025….

Now you know. And, at practically every turn (on a cumulative record of something like 108 to 3), Trump (a losing loser!) has been rebuffed and/or rebuked — for trying to trample on the laws of our nation, our treaty commitments, or the Constitution itself.

नमस्ते

There will be other matters discussed — but this is the headline event: we should shortly see exactly HOW MUCH effort Noem / Rubio / Trump actually made, and/or is still making — to secure the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia, from the El Salvador hellhole prison.

Here (as a refresher) is that letter, from the press’s lawyers, and a bit:

…[I]n the weeks since [Mr. Abrego Garcia was abducted by the DHS / ICE], the case has already been before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit (twice), the President has discussed it during a nationally televised interview and on social media, and members of Congress have traveled internationally to meet Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia and investigate the conditions of his detention. The case raises profound questions of separation of powers, civil liberties, and foreign relations. Such a case requires maximum transparency so that “the public [can] participate in and serve as a check upon” their government. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct., 457 U.S. 596, 606 (1982)….

Two weeks ago, however, the parties began filing submissions in this matter under seal — seemingly without requesting or receiving permission from the Court to do so. First, the parties jointly filed a sealed request for a conference with the Court (ECF No. 98). Then, the government filed a sealed motion (ECF No. 101), and Plaintiffs filed a sealed response (ECF No. 102). Finally, last week, the government filed another sealed motion (ECF No. 104), which was denied “[f]or the reasons stated on the record during today’s proceeding” (ECF No. 106), despite no hearing being noticed on the docket or appearing on the Court’s calendar. Moreover, while releasing a hearing transcript after the fact is not an adequate substitute for contemporaneous access, the Press Movants have been told that no public transcript of the hearing is even available.

The docket also skips over one entry (ECF No. 105) entirely, without any indication of what is missing or why. Not a single sealing motion or sealing order appears in the public record….

This unexplained sealing of court records is especially concerning in such a closely watched case, because “[p]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980). The Press Movants therefore request that the Court grant their limited request to intervene and promptly unseal these records….

[Condor predicts] she will unseal — perhaps with redactions, but maybe even by the end of this 1 pm Eastern time hearing. We will let you know, right here. She’s a great judge. Onward.

नमस्ते