WOW! Trump GETS HUMILIATED as GOP VOTES AGAINST Budget
by Ben Meiselas
MeidasTouch
May 16, 2025
MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on the breaking news as Donald Trump and MAGA Mike’s budget just got voted down by Republicans in the House Budget Committee.
Transcript
This is an unmititigated disaster for
Magga Mike Johnson folks and we've been
predicting it here at the Midas Touch
Network donald Trump's quote big
beautiful budget end quote was just
voted down by members of the GOP in the
budget committee yep the GOP members
shot down Trump's budget they said it
was going to increase the deficit by
trillions of dollars and get this there
is even more opposition to Trump's bill
in the Senate than in the House but this
bill has been derailed in the budget
committee magic Johnson yesterday was
saying "Nope it's on track things are
going great." Here on the Midas Touch
Network we were saying "Nope." Remember
what we reported earlier this morning as
well we said that bill ain't going to
make it out of the budget committee and
here's the moment where the House Budget
Committee failed to advance the GOP Tax
and Spending Bill
16-21 there were four no votes then
there was a fifth vote that was made by
someone in order to reintroduce this
perhaps in the future let me show you
what went down let's play the clip
the clerk shall report mr chair on the
vote there were 16 eyes's and 21 nos
well the nose have it the committee
stands in recess subject to the call of
the chair i want to thank everybody for
their time and patience and um Godspeed
and safe travels so here's what was
going down in real time you had MAGA
Republican Congress member Norman a no
vote maga Republican Congress member
Chip Roy a no vote maga Republican
Congress member Breachen a no vote maga
Republican Congress member Clyde a no
vote and then MAGA Republican Congress
member Lloyd Smucker changed his vote to
a no likely in order to try to I guess
bring this back up but the House budgets
vote on that reconciliation bill has
failed maga Mike humiliated by MAGA
Republicans a major Friday disaster for
Donald Trump now we got wind of this as
well when we saw Ralph Norman MAGA
Republican and others kind of walking
with a smile on their face earlier today
they kind of indicated what was about to
go down we thought this was going to
happen but Magic was lying and saying it
wasn't here's what MAGA Republican Ralph
Norman was doing earlier in the day when
he was walking there and he's like "Not
going to tell you what I'm going to do."
Here play this clip
are you'll be up there will you guys
advance the agenda today
we'll be in the room what's this
conversation
with with Gil back they
With Gil back they can lose both of you
do you think the market will get started
today
hey guys
what's going on
now you'll recall yesterday Magamike
Johnson was surprise surprise lying by
the way this guy is the worst speaker of
the house ever we'll see if he's going
to lose his job now soon i think Magga
Mike is indeed on the chopping blocks
but yesterday Magamike says this big
beautiful bill it's all going to plan
yes we have some issues around salt
right the uh the state and local tax
deduction but that's not even the issue
that ended up crushing it it was the
people it was right-wing MAGAS on the
budget committee who said this was
adding trillions of dollars to the
deficit so they even got haven't got to
the salt issue and they haven't even got
to the Senate where there's more
opposition here's what Magga Mike was
saying yesterday play this clip very
brief cuz discussions are ongoing but we
had a a good sampling of the conference
in in my conference room here for the
last couple of hours we had the Salt
Caucus the leadership of the Salt Caucus
five or six of those members and then we
had a sampling of others we had the
chairman of the Republican Study
Committee chairman of the Freedom Caucus
um another sampling of members who are
from committees of jurisdiction
including Ways and Means and it was a
very thoughtful discussion i'm sure
you'll talk to many of them individually
but I think everyone will say it was
productive and that we are moving the
ball forward everyone has known that the
the salt issue is one of the big ones
that we have to resolve it's one of the
the key pieces of this equation to sort
of meet the equil equilibrium point that
everybody can be satisfied with not
everybody's going to be delighted with
every provision in a bill this large but
everyone can be satisfied and we're very
very close to that so I've committed to
work throughout the weekend on it um
others are as well and we and I'm I'm I
am convinced that we'll be able to
adjust the dials so to speak so that we
can come to an agreement that will that
will meet the criteria that everybody
has and that we can move this thing
forward we are still on path to pass
this bill next week to have it on the
floor that's always been the plan and um
and I don't see anything that would
impede that right now now as I mentioned
there's even more resistance to this
horrible atrocious tax bill that by its
own very terms raises the debt ceiling
by almost $5 trillion there's more
opposition in the Senate to this than
even in the House of Representatives so
this thing still has to this thing has
to go to the Senate and senators have
said this is dead on arrival even if you
pass this thing which it didn't even get
out of the budget committee they said
"We ain't we ain't passing this thing."
You This is why I like to show you the
receipts i don't want to buy media
narratives let's just listen to what the
people are saying right here's MAGA
Republican Ron Johnson from Wisconsin
here's what he's got to say about this
play this clip acceptable can you see
yourself voting for this big beautiful
bill at all not Not in the current
structure no i I'm I refuse to vote for
something that's going to actually
increase the
deficits exacerbate the problem from the
current situation again we we shouldn't
even be talking about this right now we
should have been doing all the work like
I say multi-step process we'd already
have the border funding we'd have
defense we'd have $850 billion of real
savings banked already plus we could
have extended current tax law taken tax
increase off the table we could have had
all that done but unfortunately
decisions were made to do one big
beautiful bill it's not beautiful i'm
sorry it's not a big beautiful bill
that's called rhetoric there's one thing
there's one thing he's a no vote then
you've got MAGA Republican uh Senator
Ran Paul from Kentucky he's a no vote so
Senator Johnson Senator Paul here play
this clip senator what do you need to
see in this bill to be on board
the problem is is it's asking
conservatives like myself to raise the
debt ceiling $5 trillion that's a that's
historic no one's ever raised the debt
ceiling that much it will be a record
for Congress to raise the debt $5
trillion but also it indicates that this
year the de the deficit will be over two
trillion but it means they're
anticipating close to three trillion for
the next year it's really a slap in the
face at those of us who are excited
about Elon Musk and Doge and all the
cuts where are the cuts if the cuts are
real why are we going to borrow five
trillion so what I proposed was this i
put forward a proposal we voted on it to
raise the debt ceiling for 3 months why
because I think we should vote on the
debt ceiling every 3 or 4 months to see
if they're doing their job if they
promise us cuts in spending not just the
administration I'm talking about
congressional leaders as well if the if
the promises are real I'll vote to raise
it every three months, and ultimately what you got is
these MAGA Republicans who also want to
cut Medicaid by the way the MAGA
Republicans who voted to block this bill
in the budget committee who derailed
this thing in the budget committee
they're also the people who want
Medicaid cut like a lot of them they
these are the people so their view is
that if you their view is you have to
cut Medicaid or else you're going to
balloon the deficit so how are they even
ever going to solve this i mean take a
look this is MAGA Republican Buddy
Carter talking about ending Medicaid
play this clip we're trying to get on
Medicaid and yet we've got some able
bodies who who really should not be on
there or should be able to to go to
another insurance um product that would
help them to have health insurance and
yes we all agree that we want to try to
make sure everybody has access to health
care but at the same time not on the
program that was intended for the most
vulnerable in our society yeah oh look I
mean I'm sure there's a fair amount of
waste to be cut as well and this was
yesterday as well when you had MAGA
Republican Jason Smith go on Will Kaine
show here's what they had to say let's
play this clip one of the debates your
colleagues are having as well is over
Medicaid cuts and are they steep enough
or are they too steep there seems to be
a little bit of divide like that on the
right congressman Roy was on our program
yesterday and he said whether or not
it's salt or whether or not it's
Medicaid cuts it's not enough and he
reflects some other voices out there
like some senators that he'll have to go
through eventually as well like Ron
Johnson this is what they had to say
there's a lot of overlap there for the
big blue states that are taking a lot of
Medicaid money for all of these
able-bodied people i think we need those
reforms so if they want their salt
increase maybe they should come work
with us on Medicaid i think that Scott
Besson is right but let's be very clear
all we're talking about to Ron John's
point Ron Senator Ron Johnson is $150
billion a year in savings in this bill
out of a $7 trillion spend for your
government chairman is there enough is
it enough deficit reduction to get the
votes that you're going to need to pass
the House and the Senate you know
failure is not an option Will because if
we're not able to pass this bill what's
even worse is that there's zero spending
cuts and what's even worse is that all
the IRA credits are intact that would
happen if we're not able to pass this
bill if we pass what the House has
projected to pass and that's 1 point let
me say when we pass what the House has
projected to pass the $1.5 trillion
worth of cuts would be 300% more than
what's ever been cut by any Congress in
the history of America but we could do
better i totally agree but it's all
about balancing and we can't lose more
than three people so we just have to
thread that needle but if we can't pass
this bill there's going to be zero in
cuts that's what I would I would let my
my colleagues know and folks even Josh
Holly mega Republican Josh Holly from
Missouri even he was basically saying
look one of the big problems about this
tax bill is it cuts Medicaid and he's
like I I can't pay you have to give at
le I don't want to give Holly credit for
much but at least he says here we can
cut Medicaid and he admits that Trump's
bill is going to cut Medicaid um that
and this bill is what failed to pass in
the House today play this clip do you
agree with the speaker is his bill not a
cut to Medicaid
well the right thing to do is not to cut
Medicaid so I'm glad to hear him say
that manu ought to be just a basic
foundational principle it is wrong to
cut health care for the working poor and
that's what we're talking about here
with Medicaid my state is a Medicaid
expansion state over 20% of Missurrians
including hundreds of thousands of
children are on Medicaid and mono
they're not on Medicaid because they
want to be they're on Medicaid because
they cannot afford health insurance in
the private market these are working
people and their children who need
healthare and it's just wrong to go and
cut their health care when they're
trying to make ends meet trying to help
their kids trying to make sure that
they're able to provide for their
families so I hope that the House GOP
and the Senate GOP will get the message
here by the way President Trump has said
the same thing no Medicaid benefit cuts
so and last point I want to make too one
of the other very there's so much
nefarious things about about this tax
bill it also cuts like 40% of uh uh
homeowners assistance as well to
low-income people it's going to make so
millions of people homeless it's going
to take away health care for millions of
people but here's HUD Secretary Scott
Turner here's what he's got to say about
it too and and and he's talking about
you know I I mean under this budget I
mean literally it th 40% of all rental
assistance uh out the drain homeowners
out the drain i mean Donald Trump's
whole platform the fraud was lower costs
make housing more affordable and of
course he's a fraud he's a felon trump
he's a sexual abuser he's a fraud he's a
liar he's a criminal anyway here play
this clip there should be new
qualifications to receive the welfare
benefits you write "Able-bodied adults
receiving benefits must work participate
in job training or volunteer in their
communities at least 20 hours a week."
So tell us about that is that a way to
significantly cut back how can the
administration enforce those policies to
reshape the welfare system
well Maria I think it's a paradigm shift
uh you know as well as I do work
restores dignity work brings pride you
know and our welfare system deviated
from what it was intended to be uh from
its origin it was intended for the most
vulnerable to the most needy in our
country but now we've created uh welfare
as a lifestyle in our country and you
know America is not a welfare state
america is a country of opportunity and
a country of entrepreneurship and so
this will help us to encourage
able-bodied people in America that are
receiving government subsidies to work
you know there was a study that came out
almost
50% of households that are receiving HUD
funds almost 50% not one person in that
household is working and that has to
change that culture that paradigm has to
change at HUD this is common sense
compassion we want to help people and
invigorate and encourage people to work
able-bodied people to work we're not
talking about the elderly we're not
talking about those that are disabled
able-bodied able-minded people that are
receiving HUD funding should go to work
to restore dignity maria Maria you get
up early in the morning and you work you
serve and so we want to give other
people and encourage others the same
opportunity and so this is a great step
forward working with our colleagues uh
at agriculture and also health and human
services and Dr oz to to be kind of a
catalyst to change the trajectory of the
lives of people in our country i think
it's a great point that you make
Secretary because work is empowering
well there you have it folks we're going
to keep you updated but these are some
major developments will Magga Mike
Johnson now lose his job this bill has
blown up in the budget committee of wow
wow wow a big morning
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 17, 2025 4:46 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 17, 2025 5:26 am
Trump in TROUBLE as Amy Coney Barrett SNAPS at Supreme Court
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
May 16, 2025
What just happened with the US Supreme Court oral argument and why is Justice Amy Coney Barrett so upset and does that even matter? Join a special cross over edition of Strict Scrutiny with Leah Litman and Legal AF with Popok and Alex Aronson as we take on what we can’t believe we just saw at the Supreme Court.
Transcript
Welcome to a special postal argument
edition of court accountability action
meets legal AF meets strict scrutiny
We've got Leah Litman here Professor
Litman here back We just did a great
interview with her yesterday This I love
these crossovers Leah where strict
scrutiny and legal AF and court
accountability all kind of get together
talking to the talking to our
overlapping audiences about really
important things This was the It's hard
to believe with 13 or so emergency
applications but this was the first and
last probably for the term unless they
take something up on an emergency for
oral argument Um oral argument of this
term about a Trump policy And even
though we framed it and a lot of the
news media ran with it as the birthright
citizenship will the beating heart of
birthright citizenship be ripped out of
the Constitution or will the Supreme
Court stop it i don't know if that's
what that was all about But the issue
that was up on that appeal and that oral
argument was about something else about
whether federal judges are going to have
in their tool bag the ability to use
nationwide injunctions just the way
they've done for the last 70 or 100
years just the way they did during the
Biden and Clinton and Obama
administrations to be able to make a
ruling to block a policy that's
unconstitutional or statutory violation
until it makes its way or as the phrase
of the day yesterday till it percolates
ates its way from appellet court up to
thei well we're going to fall over here
until we get to the United States
Supreme Court for them to make an
ultimate ruling which is the law of the
land as interpreted by the Supreme Court
What I wanted to know from you two
constitutional scholars who who are
deeply invested in this what did we just
watch during this 2 and 1 half hour oral
argument led by John Sauer He's getting
increasingly difficult to listen to for
many reasons John Sauer for the
government as the as the solicitor
general Donald Trump's former criminal
appellet lawyer and then a couple of
advocates one from uh the the New Jersey
uh solicitor general who by the way 10
years out of law school Terrific I think
he's he is an amazing advocate I looked
him up like 20 you're 2014 from Harvard
Holy cow uh and then uh Miss Corkran uh
uh uh who's runs institutes under
Georgetown uh related to these kind of
things as well Let's start with Leah
who's who by the way not to leave out
anything that's that's not important who
has a timely new book that we we have
our editions up here called Lawless
We'll put it up on the screen too You
got to buy if you people ask me pop we
want to read to get ready for your legal
AF law school classes what's on your
what's on the summer reading list
Lawless and it's and it and it will help
you decipher what you just watched at
the oral argument but I want Leah and
Alex to talk about it right now Leah
Yeah So it will definitely give you a
sense for how the court enables the
Republican party's lawlessness as well
as their lawless racial grievances
against the 14th amendment But first
thank you so much for having me again I
also love these crossovers because part
of what gives me hope when everything
feels really bleak is there are more
smart people now focusing on the courts
and trying to talk to people about the
courts which I truly believe
is an important step for how we get out
of this fuster cluck Um but on the oral
argument itself you know so much was
wild about those 2 and 1/2 hours I was
listening to it on a plane to DCA and I
didn't know if I was shouting because I
was scared about landing in DCA or if it
was because of some of the things the
justices and Jud Sauer were saying So
one of the things that struck me is even
though I assume the court took this case
because they don't like nationwide
injunctions they picked the worst case
for deciding against nationwide
injunctions And it doesn't seem like
they are going to absolutely prohibit
them And so that leaves me with this
sense that did they just take the case
to give the Trump administration a
partial wind and allow them to implement
the policy for some time by telling the
lower courts you got to do a doover and
don't issue nationwide injunctions in
other cases That was one really weird
aspect of the argument for me And then
the other was I mean I'm sure we'll come
back to this but the Republican
appointees were really showing up and
showing out
Yeah Alex why don't you take it from
there yeah Leah I was I want to get into
that a little bit more because I think
what we're seeing in this case is an
attempt at resolution of some escalating
clashes between executive power and
judicial power in response to mostly
lower court orders standing up to
overreach by the Trump administration
We've seen uh attacks on
judges attempts to try to get them
impeached claims that this is a judicial
coup It feels to me that they're using
this case as almost a feeling out
grounds for resolution and maybe a
tamping down of of some of the
temperature on that perhaps And and this
is maybe where you're getting to the
partial win for Trump here by
disempowering these lower court judges
from their ability to impose nationwide
relief while retaining for themselves
the ability to work with the Trump
administration to kind of get there in a
way that everybody can live with from
from their kind of collective
perspective How do you see that playing
out and and what would that look like in
in in a case like this if if indeed the
the Supreme Court majority narrows the
ability of these lower court judges to
impose nationwide injunctions how would
that play out we saw some real concerns
being expressed by some of the justices
like Kagan and Jackson about what they
described as a potential catch me if you
can regime here Yeah So I think they are
going to do a few things One is they're
going to narrow the set of cases where
lower courts can issue nationwide
injunctions and basically arrogate to
themselves and themselves alone the
power to resolve these questions on a
nationwide basis and block a policy on a
nationwide basis I think they will also
probably insert you know here's an
additional procedural hurdle you lower
courts have to clear or an additional
set of factors you have to consider
before doing anything approximating a
nationwide injunction And I think what
that's going to do in the interim in
this case is just chaos and cruelty
because the administration took this
position that when a lower court so
let's imagine a trial court in Texas
says this executive order is illegal and
this child is a citizen the
administration is taking the position
that they have to do based on
that ruling as to any other individual
So every other baby that's a term of art
by the way for our audience that's a
legal term of art You you are you are
now qualified to use it after the
constitutional debates you can see in
that is is the correlary
Yeah you know um well I I'll just move
on But anyways so you know John Sour was
taking the position that yeah a lower
court a district court a court of
appeals they might say something but we
administration are not obligated to
follow the reasoning of that decision
outside of the specific plaintiff or
plaintiffs who brought the case And a
troubling part of that to me is the
Supreme Court justices just seemed fine
with that Maybe like only Justice
Barrett of the Republican appointees was
troubled by this suggestion And Alex I
think that's exactly your point which is
the lower courts are standing up to
Donald Trump They're taking a lot of
heat for doing so And it seemed to me
like the Republican justices were fine
throwing them under the bus and
basically saying "Yeah the
administration doesn't have to listen to
what you guys say just us." Yeah I ju
just just to jump in there
the the the different you did it well in
the Substack piece that we we we
published on Legal AF I thought there
were a lot of different things going on
up on that on that bench that had I say
little to do with the argument but they
were out in the open Right you've got
the group which also matches well with
the alt-right of the court that is in
favor of the unitary president that
worked in the executive branch You got
Kavanagh says out loud well you know he
wants to get a lot accomplished All
these executive orders are really great
they're really great unless they color
outside the lines and violate the
constitution or his obligation to uh
administer the law to be the executive
of the law set by Congress as opposed to
make new law with executive orders You
had that battle going on right you had
the other battle going on which is that
small that other subset which is that
same group led by Gorsuch that doesn't
believe in universal cosmic injunctions
at all Um and that's where you had
Clarence Thomas lead off the whole thing
I used to I like I like the old version
of Clarence Thomas when he didn't talk
for 15 years Now he leads off oral
arguments Let's talk about a bill of
please I'm like "Oh here we go." All
right So look for for those that are are
watching at home um you know the defend
the democracy home game there is already
a vehicle through rule 23 of the rules
of federal of civil procedure to allow
for class action I get a lot of comments
I'm sure you do too in your podcast
about PPA I want to bring a class action
against Elon Musk and the government Yes
And there is a mechanism for collective
or class action where people can get
together who have similar harms who can
join together and then certify a class
and then and then seek redress Yes
absolutely But this government has
opposed every effort to use class action
in lie of a nationwide injunction See
Boseberg I was surprised the advocates
didn't bring up Boseberg because when
Booseberg in the JG case about the 250
um uh Venezuelans who were sent to El
Salvador in the middle of the night over
his ruling he said "You know what i'm
going to do it I'm not going to do a
nationwide injunction I'm going to do a
class action certification of this group
impacted by the proclamation of Donald
Trump and I'm going to add an order to
it an injunction to it That's what I'm
going to do." Oh no You can't certify
the class You see that's the rub They
never want you to be able to bring this
up to the United States Supreme Court I
mean one of the one of the um it came up
from you'll tell me which justice I
can't remember One of them said maybe it
was Kagan Why would you ever or so to
why would you ever right why would you
ever bring this case to the United
States Supreme Court wouldn't you just
leave it where it is what would be your
incentive to ever bring it to us so yeah
we had a lot of that going on where
they're talking to each other A lot of
my audience because we had about 80,000
people that watched it with us they were
saying "Oh she's mad at the advocate."
They're not They're talking to each
other They're trying to get the advocate
to make their point for them And when
they throw them a softball and they miss
even if it's on their side of the
argument they get a little frustrated No
no that's not my point Here's my point
And let me let me make it for you since
I'm since I'm not getting it out of you
So talk about the the why class actions
don't work which is where a lot of them
were going as an out Um and and then
we'll talk about what we think is going
to happen to the nationwide injunction
after this ruling Do you want to talk
about that Alex or do you want me to oh
no You should do it You should You're
you're the
real on you So Justice Kagan I think
this is the moment where she basically
pants to the solicitor general because
the solicitor general is saying "Well
okay solution here They just need to
bring this as a class action and
therefore they can get the kind of
relief they want." And the real problem
is courts are effectively ordering
classwide relief without making the
determination that a case can and should
proceed as a class action And Justice
Kagan asks Sim "Well okay are you saying
you would be okay with classwide
litigation here?" and he says "Well no I
would oppose that." And he tried to draw
these insane distinctions between
different groups of children in the
proposed class He would say "Well we
would want to treat separately the
children of unauthorized migrants from
the children of people who are lawfully
but temporarily here First have you
heard of subclasses second not a
relevant distinction Third just get out
of here." So they would oppose class
actions which would mean it would be
happening on an individual by individual
basis and every baby every baby needs to
bring the the government's position is
every baby needs a lawyer now which okay
um that's something but I think we
should make clear how that chaos might
play out given what the Trump
administration is doing They are
deporting babies They are deporting US
citizen babies So if the Supreme Court
sends this case back down to the lower
courts and there isn't a nationwide
order in effect blocking it I am very
concerned that they will move
aggressively and quickly and without
sufficient process to try to deport some
it's not deportations cuz they're US
citizens but expel some baby US citizens
to other countries And their position is
also that no court can then get them
back right because they have where where
are those three kids out of Texas and
it's completely unclear what what their
recourse would be right it seems quite
clearly to me from that argument that
sour the justice department they're
they're content to lose these cases on
an individualized basis they know
they'll be able to stop class actions
you know if if people are able to you
know if mostly poor people are able to
muster the resources to individually sue
some of them might be able to obtain
classwide relief but that's probably
going to be exceptional and then even
beyond on that they were reluctant Sauer
was really reluctant to commit to
respecting circuit presidents Even the
the the rulings of federal circuit
courts he was reluctant And that was in
response to Amy Coney Barrett I mean
when you've lost Barrett on an issue
like well why do you care if it's class
action or it's federal if it's universal
injunction it gets here apparently the
same Why do you care he Look I'll say
one thing about John Sour He was not at
his best yesterday I What does his best
even look like well I've said the longer
he's solicit advocating a couple of
cases before the United States Supreme
Court where they're already ready to
rule for you That's one thing But being
the solicitor general where you have to
show up every you know and argue 30 or
40 of these or whatever it's going to be
I knew he was going to wear thin on this
even on the Republicans because his I
mean look I I've done oral advocacy
before the sup not Supreme Court but
other appellet courts and you're you're
making your notes for rebuttal right and
you're trying to figure out in an hour
and a half where you've been hurt two or
three places and your very short
rebuttal He stood up and started talking
about slavery again He thought he was
hurt on slavery
maybe a sign your argument isn't going
so well if you're losing on the issue of
slavery right like that's your lead for
your rebuttal So and then so let's turn
it to Amy Coney Barrett because you and
I Leah talked about it in the pregame
show so to speak in the interview about
how to filter your lawless book and your
paradigm here the filter here about Amy
Coney Barrett So what did you make of
how and she spoke a lot yeah her
position taking or at least the
questions she was asking and her getting
you very um uh impatient with John Sour
like that that didn't answer the
question for Sotomayor Let's get back to
it What did you make of that is that
just performative is that just Kabuki
theater or is can we read something from
her performance i think some of her
performances during oral argument are
you know performative both sidesism Um I
think she did that in some of the cases
about Texas SB8 the bounty hunter law
that shut down abortion access in that
state Here however I read her to be
sounding real concern about some of the
administration's positions In particular
as we were just talking about their
position that they wouldn't actually
treat circuit precedent or district
precedent as governing other cases and
other parties who weren't plaintiffs in
the case because again that world is
just chaos when you're talking about all
of these children particularly if there
isn't a certified class action At one
point I think after the SG repeated
"Yeah I'm saying maybe we wouldn't
follow circuit precedent," she just said
"Really really?" Like he said "I mean
did I miss this or did did I
misinterpret or misar this?" At one
point he said to her she said "Well if
the second circuit and you're in the
second circuit which covers New York and
other states if you're in the Second
Circuit and the Second Circuit rules in
the Second Circuit you're not going to
abide by Second Circuit President."
Didn't he say there could be an opport
there could be a possibility he would
not abide by it oh yeah He reserved the
option to not apply second circuit
precedent in the second circuit as to
other individuals there like doctrine
president What's that don't know her Um
and you know Justice Barrett I think was
also concerned about this idea that's
related which is whether lower court
rulings can offer relief or benefits to
nonparties you know individuals not in
the litigation And there I think she was
echoing a point that Justice Katanji
Brown Jackson had made which is it's
insane to think that lower court rulings
cannot incidentally benefit parties who
aren't before the court Because as
Justice Jackson said look if you tell
the government to stop illegally guess
who that benefits literally everyone in
the country And no one's ever thought
that it's improper for a court to award
what's called facial relief where you
basically prevent them from applying the
statute to any case or anyone And yet
the federal government seemed to want to
ask the Supreme Court to cut back on
that too So I read her concerns honestly
as pretty genuine I just I don't know
where the fifth vote comes from to
fullon deny Donald Trump's stay
application
Leah I have a question for you I'm I'm
I'm just trying to been work this out
because this is all against the backdrop
of this constitutional clash that we've
seen We've seen statements from JD Vance
uh indicating that if the the Supreme
Court stands in the way of what Trump is
trying to do they will defy the Supreme
Court's orders We've seen that mindset
from Russell vote who has quietly now
taken over Doge who who possesses this
postconstitutional vision for the
American future that very much entails
monarchical power in the hands of
somebody like Trump On the one hand Sour
seemed very clearly to be trying to
mitigate concerns from the court that
this administration was going to just
outright defy it the Supreme Court But
as we just discussed they were
indicating that they wouldn't
necessarily respect circuitwide
president from say the second circuit
What what what distinction is there
there i mean the argument about the
lower courts is that there's no article
3 jurisdiction to impose that type of uh
relief beyond the scope of just the
parties in the case But what's the
difference between the Supreme Court and
the lower courts when it concerns a
question like article 3 jurisdiction to
to to provide that type of relief uh
there isn't one Um but the Supreme Court
is 6 to3 supermajority Republican with
three Trump appointees So obviously that
court is better and bigger Um but
apparently that's not even satisfying to
Donald Trump Like he didn't think the
oral argument yesterday went well enough
cuz he posted on True Social earlier
this morning and that's what I was just
pulling up This the Supreme Court is
being played by the radical left losers
who have no support The public hates
them and their only hope is the
intimidation of the court itself So you
know Did anybody find the new New Jersey
attorney general solicitor general to be
intimidating in his his argument he was
so nice and willing to answer the
justice's questions Um well don't stay
in the buckets Stay in the buckets No I
don't I know you want to go to one but
let's stay in three My audience was like
"Can we kick the bucket can we Enough
with the buckets?" Seriously Seriously
No Um but Alex I think that that's
exactly right like there isn't a
difference You know if we're talking
about what does federal law authorize
the justices to do what do the civil
rules authorize the justices to do they
authorize the same things as they do for
the lower courts So there isn't a real
distinction And again I just worry that
the justices are going to be okay giving
the Trump administration permission to
be lawless and ignore lower court
rulings when they're against them and
they're fine because that will preserve
their own authority And it mirrors in
some respects a really troubling line a
moving goalpost that some Democratic
politicians have been pushing which is
the real constitutional crisis is when
the administration defies the Supreme
Court but not the lower courts And that
is just wrong Yeah On the on the So
let's talk about counting to five Let's
let's you know we're playing snooker
here Let's slide for now Amy Coney
Barrett over with Brown Jackson Kagan
and Stoayor Now I got four and for those
the short hand for our audience is
whoever counts to five gets five votes
That that that's the opinion right
that's the the law of the land So let's
focus on Roberts Um his his sole comment
was can I hear the answer other than
that he he said very little
substantively Um but he's got a court
that is
under the existential threat to the
court is the existential threat to our
constitutional republic and he knows it
So what does he do here does he try to
as he always does try to give everybody
a win so there it's yes you can use
injunctions nationwide but under these
very limited circumstances Um and on the
birthright citizenship it's a no to the
Trump administration He knows what
happened when he gave immunity to Donald
Trump Is he now going to give him the
ability to uh to thumb his nose at lower
federal courts i don't think he is going
to give a straightup no to Donald Trump
You know he was as you were saying
cutting off Justice Sonia Sotomayor And
the rest of his time I heard basically
saying well if we say no nationwide
injunctions in the lower courts or we
send this one back down no big deal will
be able to fix it in some time He noted
we can act quickly Look what we did in
the Tik Tok case in 30 days And so he
just seemed to be playing down and
minimizing the cit citizenless babies at
the airport seem to be fine with him
Right He just seemed to be playing down
the implications of not giving a direct
no to the Trump administration That's
true I agree with you He well we could
do things pretty quickly when we want to
but the problem is you never want to
except when it's like you know that last
1:00 in the morning decision to ground
the planes back to Venezuela to El
Salvador Um so if they if we can't count
on Roberts exactly Alito's done cooked
Kavanaaugh cooked Gorsuch cooked and
baked in Thomas
Oh yeah Okay Cooked So yeah it's going
to come down to it's going to come down
to Roberts It's gonna be another
Robert's written opinion maybe And I
think he will do the split the baby
thing where he says maybe it would be
possible sometimes but lower courts got
to you know try again Yeah And go back
and do a quick class certification And
then I I think about the advocates they
they didn't really talk much about
what's happened in the real world in the
courts as much as I thought they would I
thought that was a missed opportunity to
say "Look we just tried the class action
route They didn't like that They didn't
like the nationwide injunction route The
reality is they don't want a quick or
any review by the United States Supreme
Court while they do everything below And
this administration's time is up Exactly
Exactly That's what we're watching And
you know I think if the court can keep
it in these abstract you know
non-tangible non-realworld harm contexts
it's going to be happy to let this stuff
proceed We've seen it in other contexts
right this is this is how Republican
gerrymandering in the states was was
green lit right they said "Oh just in
this instance we happen to not have
supreme authority to decide every
question of law and policy This is you
know this is a political question that
we can't decide." I think we're seeing a
similar dynamic here where they're
trying to keep their fingerprints off
what they know is a deeply toxic um
damaging agenda that they are
effectively going to allow to proceed
Alex Arensson Court Accountability
Action Professor Leia Litman Strict
Scrutiny and a brand new book We'll put
it up on the screen Lawless This is your
summer reading How the Supreme Court
runs on conservative grievance fringe
theories and bad vibes Only great vibes
here Leah whenever you join us on Legal
AF You have a open We have an open door
policy for you Anytime you want to join
us I'm happy to have you It would be
really fun for our audience as well
Thank you for being here Well thank you
That's very kind Until our next Leah Hot
take Michael Popac signing off I'm
Michael Popac and I got some big news
for our audience Most of you know me as
the co-founder of Midas Touches Legal AF
and the Legal AF YouTube channel or as a
35-year national trial lawyer Now
building on what we started together on
Legal AF I've launched a new law firm
the Popo Firm dedicated to obtaining
justice through compassionate and
zealous legal representation At the Popo
Firm we are focused on obtaining justice
for those who have been injured or
damaged by a lifealtering event by
securing the highest dollar recoveries
I've been tirelessly fighting for
justice for the last 35 years So my own
law firm organically building on my
legal AF work just feels right And I've
handpicked a team of top tier trial
fighters and settlement experts
throughout all 50 states known as Big
Auto injury attorneys who have the
knowhow to beat heartless insurance
companies corporations government
entities and their attorneys Big Autos
attorneys working with my firm are rock
stars in their respective states and
collectively responsible for billions of
dollars in recoveries So if you or a
loved one have been on the wrong side of
a catastrophic auto motor vehicle ride
share or truck accident suffered a
personal injury or been the victim of
medical malpractice employment
harassment or discrimination or suffered
a violation of your civil and
constitutional rights then contact the
Pope Firm today at 1877 Popac AF or by
visiting my website at
www.thepopfirm.com and fill out a free
case evaluation form And if we determine
that you have a case and you sign with
us we don't get paid unless you do The
Popo firm fighting for your justice
every step of the way.
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
May 16, 2025
What just happened with the US Supreme Court oral argument and why is Justice Amy Coney Barrett so upset and does that even matter? Join a special cross over edition of Strict Scrutiny with Leah Litman and Legal AF with Popok and Alex Aronson as we take on what we can’t believe we just saw at the Supreme Court.
Transcript
Welcome to a special postal argument
edition of court accountability action
meets legal AF meets strict scrutiny
We've got Leah Litman here Professor
Litman here back We just did a great
interview with her yesterday This I love
these crossovers Leah where strict
scrutiny and legal AF and court
accountability all kind of get together
talking to the talking to our
overlapping audiences about really
important things This was the It's hard
to believe with 13 or so emergency
applications but this was the first and
last probably for the term unless they
take something up on an emergency for
oral argument Um oral argument of this
term about a Trump policy And even
though we framed it and a lot of the
news media ran with it as the birthright
citizenship will the beating heart of
birthright citizenship be ripped out of
the Constitution or will the Supreme
Court stop it i don't know if that's
what that was all about But the issue
that was up on that appeal and that oral
argument was about something else about
whether federal judges are going to have
in their tool bag the ability to use
nationwide injunctions just the way
they've done for the last 70 or 100
years just the way they did during the
Biden and Clinton and Obama
administrations to be able to make a
ruling to block a policy that's
unconstitutional or statutory violation
until it makes its way or as the phrase
of the day yesterday till it percolates
ates its way from appellet court up to
thei well we're going to fall over here
until we get to the United States
Supreme Court for them to make an
ultimate ruling which is the law of the
land as interpreted by the Supreme Court
What I wanted to know from you two
constitutional scholars who who are
deeply invested in this what did we just
watch during this 2 and 1 half hour oral
argument led by John Sauer He's getting
increasingly difficult to listen to for
many reasons John Sauer for the
government as the as the solicitor
general Donald Trump's former criminal
appellet lawyer and then a couple of
advocates one from uh the the New Jersey
uh solicitor general who by the way 10
years out of law school Terrific I think
he's he is an amazing advocate I looked
him up like 20 you're 2014 from Harvard
Holy cow uh and then uh Miss Corkran uh
uh uh who's runs institutes under
Georgetown uh related to these kind of
things as well Let's start with Leah
who's who by the way not to leave out
anything that's that's not important who
has a timely new book that we we have
our editions up here called Lawless
We'll put it up on the screen too You
got to buy if you people ask me pop we
want to read to get ready for your legal
AF law school classes what's on your
what's on the summer reading list
Lawless and it's and it and it will help
you decipher what you just watched at
the oral argument but I want Leah and
Alex to talk about it right now Leah
Yeah So it will definitely give you a
sense for how the court enables the
Republican party's lawlessness as well
as their lawless racial grievances
against the 14th amendment But first
thank you so much for having me again I
also love these crossovers because part
of what gives me hope when everything
feels really bleak is there are more
smart people now focusing on the courts
and trying to talk to people about the
courts which I truly believe
is an important step for how we get out
of this fuster cluck Um but on the oral
argument itself you know so much was
wild about those 2 and 1/2 hours I was
listening to it on a plane to DCA and I
didn't know if I was shouting because I
was scared about landing in DCA or if it
was because of some of the things the
justices and Jud Sauer were saying So
one of the things that struck me is even
though I assume the court took this case
because they don't like nationwide
injunctions they picked the worst case
for deciding against nationwide
injunctions And it doesn't seem like
they are going to absolutely prohibit
them And so that leaves me with this
sense that did they just take the case
to give the Trump administration a
partial wind and allow them to implement
the policy for some time by telling the
lower courts you got to do a doover and
don't issue nationwide injunctions in
other cases That was one really weird
aspect of the argument for me And then
the other was I mean I'm sure we'll come
back to this but the Republican
appointees were really showing up and
showing out
Yeah Alex why don't you take it from
there yeah Leah I was I want to get into
that a little bit more because I think
what we're seeing in this case is an
attempt at resolution of some escalating
clashes between executive power and
judicial power in response to mostly
lower court orders standing up to
overreach by the Trump administration
We've seen uh attacks on
judges attempts to try to get them
impeached claims that this is a judicial
coup It feels to me that they're using
this case as almost a feeling out
grounds for resolution and maybe a
tamping down of of some of the
temperature on that perhaps And and this
is maybe where you're getting to the
partial win for Trump here by
disempowering these lower court judges
from their ability to impose nationwide
relief while retaining for themselves
the ability to work with the Trump
administration to kind of get there in a
way that everybody can live with from
from their kind of collective
perspective How do you see that playing
out and and what would that look like in
in in a case like this if if indeed the
the Supreme Court majority narrows the
ability of these lower court judges to
impose nationwide injunctions how would
that play out we saw some real concerns
being expressed by some of the justices
like Kagan and Jackson about what they
described as a potential catch me if you
can regime here Yeah So I think they are
going to do a few things One is they're
going to narrow the set of cases where
lower courts can issue nationwide
injunctions and basically arrogate to
themselves and themselves alone the
power to resolve these questions on a
nationwide basis and block a policy on a
nationwide basis I think they will also
probably insert you know here's an
additional procedural hurdle you lower
courts have to clear or an additional
set of factors you have to consider
before doing anything approximating a
nationwide injunction And I think what
that's going to do in the interim in
this case is just chaos and cruelty
because the administration took this
position that when a lower court so
let's imagine a trial court in Texas
says this executive order is illegal and
this child is a citizen the
administration is taking the position
that they have to do based on
that ruling as to any other individual
So every other baby that's a term of art
by the way for our audience that's a
legal term of art You you are you are
now qualified to use it after the
constitutional debates you can see in
that is is the correlary
Yeah you know um well I I'll just move
on But anyways so you know John Sour was
taking the position that yeah a lower
court a district court a court of
appeals they might say something but we
administration are not obligated to
follow the reasoning of that decision
outside of the specific plaintiff or
plaintiffs who brought the case And a
troubling part of that to me is the
Supreme Court justices just seemed fine
with that Maybe like only Justice
Barrett of the Republican appointees was
troubled by this suggestion And Alex I
think that's exactly your point which is
the lower courts are standing up to
Donald Trump They're taking a lot of
heat for doing so And it seemed to me
like the Republican justices were fine
throwing them under the bus and
basically saying "Yeah the
administration doesn't have to listen to
what you guys say just us." Yeah I ju
just just to jump in there
the the the different you did it well in
the Substack piece that we we we
published on Legal AF I thought there
were a lot of different things going on
up on that on that bench that had I say
little to do with the argument but they
were out in the open Right you've got
the group which also matches well with
the alt-right of the court that is in
favor of the unitary president that
worked in the executive branch You got
Kavanagh says out loud well you know he
wants to get a lot accomplished All
these executive orders are really great
they're really great unless they color
outside the lines and violate the
constitution or his obligation to uh
administer the law to be the executive
of the law set by Congress as opposed to
make new law with executive orders You
had that battle going on right you had
the other battle going on which is that
small that other subset which is that
same group led by Gorsuch that doesn't
believe in universal cosmic injunctions
at all Um and that's where you had
Clarence Thomas lead off the whole thing
I used to I like I like the old version
of Clarence Thomas when he didn't talk
for 15 years Now he leads off oral
arguments Let's talk about a bill of
please I'm like "Oh here we go." All
right So look for for those that are are
watching at home um you know the defend
the democracy home game there is already
a vehicle through rule 23 of the rules
of federal of civil procedure to allow
for class action I get a lot of comments
I'm sure you do too in your podcast
about PPA I want to bring a class action
against Elon Musk and the government Yes
And there is a mechanism for collective
or class action where people can get
together who have similar harms who can
join together and then certify a class
and then and then seek redress Yes
absolutely But this government has
opposed every effort to use class action
in lie of a nationwide injunction See
Boseberg I was surprised the advocates
didn't bring up Boseberg because when
Booseberg in the JG case about the 250
um uh Venezuelans who were sent to El
Salvador in the middle of the night over
his ruling he said "You know what i'm
going to do it I'm not going to do a
nationwide injunction I'm going to do a
class action certification of this group
impacted by the proclamation of Donald
Trump and I'm going to add an order to
it an injunction to it That's what I'm
going to do." Oh no You can't certify
the class You see that's the rub They
never want you to be able to bring this
up to the United States Supreme Court I
mean one of the one of the um it came up
from you'll tell me which justice I
can't remember One of them said maybe it
was Kagan Why would you ever or so to
why would you ever right why would you
ever bring this case to the United
States Supreme Court wouldn't you just
leave it where it is what would be your
incentive to ever bring it to us so yeah
we had a lot of that going on where
they're talking to each other A lot of
my audience because we had about 80,000
people that watched it with us they were
saying "Oh she's mad at the advocate."
They're not They're talking to each
other They're trying to get the advocate
to make their point for them And when
they throw them a softball and they miss
even if it's on their side of the
argument they get a little frustrated No
no that's not my point Here's my point
And let me let me make it for you since
I'm since I'm not getting it out of you
So talk about the the why class actions
don't work which is where a lot of them
were going as an out Um and and then
we'll talk about what we think is going
to happen to the nationwide injunction
after this ruling Do you want to talk
about that Alex or do you want me to oh
no You should do it You should You're
you're the
real on you So Justice Kagan I think
this is the moment where she basically
pants to the solicitor general because
the solicitor general is saying "Well
okay solution here They just need to
bring this as a class action and
therefore they can get the kind of
relief they want." And the real problem
is courts are effectively ordering
classwide relief without making the
determination that a case can and should
proceed as a class action And Justice
Kagan asks Sim "Well okay are you saying
you would be okay with classwide
litigation here?" and he says "Well no I
would oppose that." And he tried to draw
these insane distinctions between
different groups of children in the
proposed class He would say "Well we
would want to treat separately the
children of unauthorized migrants from
the children of people who are lawfully
but temporarily here First have you
heard of subclasses second not a
relevant distinction Third just get out
of here." So they would oppose class
actions which would mean it would be
happening on an individual by individual
basis and every baby every baby needs to
bring the the government's position is
every baby needs a lawyer now which okay
um that's something but I think we
should make clear how that chaos might
play out given what the Trump
administration is doing They are
deporting babies They are deporting US
citizen babies So if the Supreme Court
sends this case back down to the lower
courts and there isn't a nationwide
order in effect blocking it I am very
concerned that they will move
aggressively and quickly and without
sufficient process to try to deport some
it's not deportations cuz they're US
citizens but expel some baby US citizens
to other countries And their position is
also that no court can then get them
back right because they have where where
are those three kids out of Texas and
it's completely unclear what what their
recourse would be right it seems quite
clearly to me from that argument that
sour the justice department they're
they're content to lose these cases on
an individualized basis they know
they'll be able to stop class actions
you know if if people are able to you
know if mostly poor people are able to
muster the resources to individually sue
some of them might be able to obtain
classwide relief but that's probably
going to be exceptional and then even
beyond on that they were reluctant Sauer
was really reluctant to commit to
respecting circuit presidents Even the
the the rulings of federal circuit
courts he was reluctant And that was in
response to Amy Coney Barrett I mean
when you've lost Barrett on an issue
like well why do you care if it's class
action or it's federal if it's universal
injunction it gets here apparently the
same Why do you care he Look I'll say
one thing about John Sour He was not at
his best yesterday I What does his best
even look like well I've said the longer
he's solicit advocating a couple of
cases before the United States Supreme
Court where they're already ready to
rule for you That's one thing But being
the solicitor general where you have to
show up every you know and argue 30 or
40 of these or whatever it's going to be
I knew he was going to wear thin on this
even on the Republicans because his I
mean look I I've done oral advocacy
before the sup not Supreme Court but
other appellet courts and you're you're
making your notes for rebuttal right and
you're trying to figure out in an hour
and a half where you've been hurt two or
three places and your very short
rebuttal He stood up and started talking
about slavery again He thought he was
hurt on slavery
maybe a sign your argument isn't going
so well if you're losing on the issue of
slavery right like that's your lead for
your rebuttal So and then so let's turn
it to Amy Coney Barrett because you and
I Leah talked about it in the pregame
show so to speak in the interview about
how to filter your lawless book and your
paradigm here the filter here about Amy
Coney Barrett So what did you make of
how and she spoke a lot yeah her
position taking or at least the
questions she was asking and her getting
you very um uh impatient with John Sour
like that that didn't answer the
question for Sotomayor Let's get back to
it What did you make of that is that
just performative is that just Kabuki
theater or is can we read something from
her performance i think some of her
performances during oral argument are
you know performative both sidesism Um I
think she did that in some of the cases
about Texas SB8 the bounty hunter law
that shut down abortion access in that
state Here however I read her to be
sounding real concern about some of the
administration's positions In particular
as we were just talking about their
position that they wouldn't actually
treat circuit precedent or district
precedent as governing other cases and
other parties who weren't plaintiffs in
the case because again that world is
just chaos when you're talking about all
of these children particularly if there
isn't a certified class action At one
point I think after the SG repeated
"Yeah I'm saying maybe we wouldn't
follow circuit precedent," she just said
"Really really?" Like he said "I mean
did I miss this or did did I
misinterpret or misar this?" At one
point he said to her she said "Well if
the second circuit and you're in the
second circuit which covers New York and
other states if you're in the Second
Circuit and the Second Circuit rules in
the Second Circuit you're not going to
abide by Second Circuit President."
Didn't he say there could be an opport
there could be a possibility he would
not abide by it oh yeah He reserved the
option to not apply second circuit
precedent in the second circuit as to
other individuals there like doctrine
president What's that don't know her Um
and you know Justice Barrett I think was
also concerned about this idea that's
related which is whether lower court
rulings can offer relief or benefits to
nonparties you know individuals not in
the litigation And there I think she was
echoing a point that Justice Katanji
Brown Jackson had made which is it's
insane to think that lower court rulings
cannot incidentally benefit parties who
aren't before the court Because as
Justice Jackson said look if you tell
the government to stop illegally guess
who that benefits literally everyone in
the country And no one's ever thought
that it's improper for a court to award
what's called facial relief where you
basically prevent them from applying the
statute to any case or anyone And yet
the federal government seemed to want to
ask the Supreme Court to cut back on
that too So I read her concerns honestly
as pretty genuine I just I don't know
where the fifth vote comes from to
fullon deny Donald Trump's stay
application
Leah I have a question for you I'm I'm
I'm just trying to been work this out
because this is all against the backdrop
of this constitutional clash that we've
seen We've seen statements from JD Vance
uh indicating that if the the Supreme
Court stands in the way of what Trump is
trying to do they will defy the Supreme
Court's orders We've seen that mindset
from Russell vote who has quietly now
taken over Doge who who possesses this
postconstitutional vision for the
American future that very much entails
monarchical power in the hands of
somebody like Trump On the one hand Sour
seemed very clearly to be trying to
mitigate concerns from the court that
this administration was going to just
outright defy it the Supreme Court But
as we just discussed they were
indicating that they wouldn't
necessarily respect circuitwide
president from say the second circuit
What what what distinction is there
there i mean the argument about the
lower courts is that there's no article
3 jurisdiction to impose that type of uh
relief beyond the scope of just the
parties in the case But what's the
difference between the Supreme Court and
the lower courts when it concerns a
question like article 3 jurisdiction to
to to provide that type of relief uh
there isn't one Um but the Supreme Court
is 6 to3 supermajority Republican with
three Trump appointees So obviously that
court is better and bigger Um but
apparently that's not even satisfying to
Donald Trump Like he didn't think the
oral argument yesterday went well enough
cuz he posted on True Social earlier
this morning and that's what I was just
pulling up This the Supreme Court is
being played by the radical left losers
who have no support The public hates
them and their only hope is the
intimidation of the court itself So you
know Did anybody find the new New Jersey
attorney general solicitor general to be
intimidating in his his argument he was
so nice and willing to answer the
justice's questions Um well don't stay
in the buckets Stay in the buckets No I
don't I know you want to go to one but
let's stay in three My audience was like
"Can we kick the bucket can we Enough
with the buckets?" Seriously Seriously
No Um but Alex I think that that's
exactly right like there isn't a
difference You know if we're talking
about what does federal law authorize
the justices to do what do the civil
rules authorize the justices to do they
authorize the same things as they do for
the lower courts So there isn't a real
distinction And again I just worry that
the justices are going to be okay giving
the Trump administration permission to
be lawless and ignore lower court
rulings when they're against them and
they're fine because that will preserve
their own authority And it mirrors in
some respects a really troubling line a
moving goalpost that some Democratic
politicians have been pushing which is
the real constitutional crisis is when
the administration defies the Supreme
Court but not the lower courts And that
is just wrong Yeah On the on the So
let's talk about counting to five Let's
let's you know we're playing snooker
here Let's slide for now Amy Coney
Barrett over with Brown Jackson Kagan
and Stoayor Now I got four and for those
the short hand for our audience is
whoever counts to five gets five votes
That that that's the opinion right
that's the the law of the land So let's
focus on Roberts Um his his sole comment
was can I hear the answer other than
that he he said very little
substantively Um but he's got a court
that is
under the existential threat to the
court is the existential threat to our
constitutional republic and he knows it
So what does he do here does he try to
as he always does try to give everybody
a win so there it's yes you can use
injunctions nationwide but under these
very limited circumstances Um and on the
birthright citizenship it's a no to the
Trump administration He knows what
happened when he gave immunity to Donald
Trump Is he now going to give him the
ability to uh to thumb his nose at lower
federal courts i don't think he is going
to give a straightup no to Donald Trump
You know he was as you were saying
cutting off Justice Sonia Sotomayor And
the rest of his time I heard basically
saying well if we say no nationwide
injunctions in the lower courts or we
send this one back down no big deal will
be able to fix it in some time He noted
we can act quickly Look what we did in
the Tik Tok case in 30 days And so he
just seemed to be playing down and
minimizing the cit citizenless babies at
the airport seem to be fine with him
Right He just seemed to be playing down
the implications of not giving a direct
no to the Trump administration That's
true I agree with you He well we could
do things pretty quickly when we want to
but the problem is you never want to
except when it's like you know that last
1:00 in the morning decision to ground
the planes back to Venezuela to El
Salvador Um so if they if we can't count
on Roberts exactly Alito's done cooked
Kavanaaugh cooked Gorsuch cooked and
baked in Thomas
Oh yeah Okay Cooked So yeah it's going
to come down to it's going to come down
to Roberts It's gonna be another
Robert's written opinion maybe And I
think he will do the split the baby
thing where he says maybe it would be
possible sometimes but lower courts got
to you know try again Yeah And go back
and do a quick class certification And
then I I think about the advocates they
they didn't really talk much about
what's happened in the real world in the
courts as much as I thought they would I
thought that was a missed opportunity to
say "Look we just tried the class action
route They didn't like that They didn't
like the nationwide injunction route The
reality is they don't want a quick or
any review by the United States Supreme
Court while they do everything below And
this administration's time is up Exactly
Exactly That's what we're watching And
you know I think if the court can keep
it in these abstract you know
non-tangible non-realworld harm contexts
it's going to be happy to let this stuff
proceed We've seen it in other contexts
right this is this is how Republican
gerrymandering in the states was was
green lit right they said "Oh just in
this instance we happen to not have
supreme authority to decide every
question of law and policy This is you
know this is a political question that
we can't decide." I think we're seeing a
similar dynamic here where they're
trying to keep their fingerprints off
what they know is a deeply toxic um
damaging agenda that they are
effectively going to allow to proceed
Alex Arensson Court Accountability
Action Professor Leia Litman Strict
Scrutiny and a brand new book We'll put
it up on the screen Lawless This is your
summer reading How the Supreme Court
runs on conservative grievance fringe
theories and bad vibes Only great vibes
here Leah whenever you join us on Legal
AF You have a open We have an open door
policy for you Anytime you want to join
us I'm happy to have you It would be
really fun for our audience as well
Thank you for being here Well thank you
That's very kind Until our next Leah Hot
take Michael Popac signing off I'm
Michael Popac and I got some big news
for our audience Most of you know me as
the co-founder of Midas Touches Legal AF
and the Legal AF YouTube channel or as a
35-year national trial lawyer Now
building on what we started together on
Legal AF I've launched a new law firm
the Popo Firm dedicated to obtaining
justice through compassionate and
zealous legal representation At the Popo
Firm we are focused on obtaining justice
for those who have been injured or
damaged by a lifealtering event by
securing the highest dollar recoveries
I've been tirelessly fighting for
justice for the last 35 years So my own
law firm organically building on my
legal AF work just feels right And I've
handpicked a team of top tier trial
fighters and settlement experts
throughout all 50 states known as Big
Auto injury attorneys who have the
knowhow to beat heartless insurance
companies corporations government
entities and their attorneys Big Autos
attorneys working with my firm are rock
stars in their respective states and
collectively responsible for billions of
dollars in recoveries So if you or a
loved one have been on the wrong side of
a catastrophic auto motor vehicle ride
share or truck accident suffered a
personal injury or been the victim of
medical malpractice employment
harassment or discrimination or suffered
a violation of your civil and
constitutional rights then contact the
Pope Firm today at 1877 Popac AF or by
visiting my website at
www.thepopfirm.com and fill out a free
case evaluation form And if we determine
that you have a case and you sign with
us we don't get paid unless you do The
Popo firm fighting for your justice
every step of the way.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 17, 2025 5:44 am
BREAKING: Supreme Court deals blockbuster LOSS to Trump
by Brian Tyler Cohen
May 16, 2025
The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner
Legal Breakdown episode 527: @GlennKirschner2 discusses the Supreme Court issuing a BLOCKBUSTER rebuke of Trump
Transcript
You're watching the legal breakdown
glenn we've got some breaking news here
as far as the Supreme Court is concerned
we have another unexpected rebuke of the
Trump administration in a 7-2 ruling by
this far-right Supreme Court can you
explain what just happened yeah Brian
here's the big takeaway the blockbuster
headline there's a pattern emerging
where it seems like seven of the nine
Supreme Court justices actually care
about the constitutional rights of
people and are showing that they're
willing to force the Trump
administration to comply with those
constitutional rights and that is
something that I don't think any of us
could take for granted because what we
just saw was a 7 to2 Supreme Court
opinion where seven of the justices said
"No we are going to keep an injunction
in place so that no immigrants no aliens
regardless of their status or lack of
status may be deported by the Trump
administration until they get their full
due process rights and importantly until
they get to litigate whether the Trump
administration is even entitled to
deport them at all under the Alien
Enemies Act so this is something of a
constitutional twofur for the people
that the Trump administration has been
trying to round up and hurry out of the
country before these folks could assert
their constitutional and statutory
rights in court so this is a really big
win and most importantly from this old
prosecutor's perspective it it is
showing that a pattern is emerging of
seven justices because there were only
two who still were willing to say we
don't give a rat's ass that's not
exactly how they put it in their descent
we don't care one wit about the due
process constitutional rights of these
immigrants nor do we care if Donald
Trump should be able to claim that we're
being invaded basically a military
incursion into the United States by the
country of Venezuela we don't care about
any of it who were those two justices
not hard to figure out it was Justice
Alito it was Justice Thomas but here's
the thing Brian the the majority opinion
which was unsigned but it was joined by
the seven justices in the majority
actually said quote we do not find the
disscent in other words we do not find
Alito and Thomas's disscent or their
reasoning persuasive so go ahead and put
that in your robe and take it back to
chambers with you Alito and Thomas Glenn
to what extent did the Trump
administration's defiance of the
previous Supreme Court ruling on this
similar topic the topic of you know the
illegal deportation of Kilmorego Garcia
and their their refusal to comply uh to
what extent do you think that factored
into this decision you know it did make
an appearance because the the majority
opinion is about eight pages and they do
reference how it sure seems like even
when there were some injunctions in
place and even when the Trump
administration assured federal judges
"No no no no we don't intend to deport
anybody anytime soon." There was an
instance where they actually put a bunch
of Venezuelan immigrants on a bus took
them out of a detention center and
headed out to the airport and you know
in the dead of night the Supreme Court
had to put a stop to that and what we
know is those buses turned around after
they passed the airport exit this was
down in Texas and returned those
immigrants to the detention facility so
you can't really take the Trump
administration at his word at its word
but here is one of my favorite aspects
of this ruling the majority opinion they
actually say and let me quote from it
they say the government said meaning the
Trump administration said it's quote
unported in error to a prison in El
Salvador that's ago Garcia this means
the detainees interests are particularly
weighty and you know the beauty of that
Brian I think everybody recognizes that
the Trump administration is lying when
they say they can't possibly provide for
the return of anybody that they deport
to El Salvador even though Donald Trump
in I think a press conference said "Of
course I can work with President Buchi
and get immigrants returned." But the
position they took in court is nope it
can't be done so the Supreme Court used
that lie and threw it back in the Trump
administration's face and said "Well if
you're representing that you can't
possibly bring anybody back who you
admit you wrongfully deported then guess
what every immigrant's interests are
heightened are very weighty." So I love
when they use a DOJ lie against the DOJ
and the Trump administration glenn do
you think it's fair to say that that the
Trump administration's efforts here have
backfired because I mean I I don't think
it's any any secret that this is a very
far-right Supreme Court who would
probably pay Trump a hell of a lot of
difference um you know if he didn't rock
the boat to the extent that he has if he
didn't defy their their rulings or try
to take such an extrajudicial approach
to all of this he he really could have
just coasted along i mean these are
people who will create out of whole
cloth provisions of the Constitution to
protect him that don't exist while
ignoring provisions of the Constitution
that do exist again in order to protect
him and so his decision to take this
like hostile aggressive posture
forward-leaning posture against the
Supreme Court that was already in his
pocket do you think that that this was
really just him overplaying his hand
yeah I think it hurt him in the long run
and it's a great question but here's the
thing if Donald Trump had taken his time
and let his DOJ officials sort of
methodically work through the issues in
court about for example whether we're
being invaded by Venezuela such that
Donald Trump should even be allowed
legally to invoke the Alien Enemies Act
of
1798 if they methodically work that
through uh the the federal courts I have
a feeling most federal judges would um
reach the conclusion that no we're not
under attack by Venezuela so of course
you cannot invoke the Alien Enemies Act
secondarily if Donald Trump had given
all of these immigrants their due
process rights notice and opportunity to
be heard because they he denied the
Trump administration denied those
constitutional rights to whole planefuls
of immigrants that are now unfortunately
being detained in a prison in El
Salvador if he had taken his time and
worked it through the courts guess what
he probably would not have been
permitted to deport anyone so he would
have succeeded in exactly nothing so
what he did is he got the public
relations benefit of you know the
American people being now told over and
over again oh my gosh there are all of
these immigrants who have been deported
and we've come to learn
unconstitutionally so and isn't that the
message that the Trump administration
wants to send not only to the immigrant
population but to all Americans because
anybody will you know anybody runs the
risk of being deported if Donald Trump
gets away with it in the first instance
against um immigrants so no I actually
think this was the calculation by Trump
and if he had done it more methodically
and in accordance with the rule of law
and the constitution he probably would
have accomplished exactly nothing that
he wanted to accomplish is there any
atmospheric consequence for Trump as it
relates to the Supreme Court by by again
taking this hostile forward-leaning um
posture against the justices here could
this have some impact in other rulings
if they see that they're dealing with a
president who has previously defied them
as it relates to other matters i think
the answer is absolutely yes and I base
that on now repeated rulings from the
Supreme Court 1 190 and then two rulings
on this very issue 7-2 what does that
tell us it tell tells us that Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney
Barrett and Justice Cor Gorsuch all
three of whom are typically reliably
right conservative justices they are it
looks like perhaps losing their patience
and no longer prepared to indulge Donald
Trump in close calls not that I'm
suggesting these constitutional
violations are close calls i don't
believe they are but it feels like that
Trump has galvanized a whole block of
Supreme Court justices who might
otherwise have been willing to be a
little bit more open to his you know
minor constitutional diances well they
also don't want to give a free pass to
the Thomas' and Alito here who see this
stuff that is so egregious so far right
so again illegal unconstitutional
extrajudicial that that even Brett
Kavanaaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and and
John Roberts are are see and Neil
Gorsuch are seeing this stuff and saying
"No I can't sign my name onto this
stuff." People who Donald Trump himself
appointed and so what does it say that
we've got people like like Thomas and
Alto who are still legislating really in
a way that's no different from if Jim
Jordan or Marjorie Taylor Green or Trump
himself were on the bench yeah what it
says is you know we should have learned
our lesson when the Alitos and the
Thomas' of this sad chapter in our
nation's history sort of flagrantly and
even gleefully violated financial
disclosure laws by concealing um you
know incredible inkind contributions is
how I view them from Republican
billionaire oligarchs so you know we
should have learned our lesson then and
by learning our lesson DOJ should have
initiated investigations the uh Congress
should have in um initiated at least an
impeachment inquiry to see whether
articles of impeachment were appropriate
we did none of it so now we are stuck
with the Thomas' and the Altos but
there's one other thing I want to give
honorable mention to what I perceive as
a bit of an FU to Steven Miller because
not long ago in recent weeks Steven
Miller said and I'm going to paraphrase
here "These immigrants don't have due
process rights under the Constitution."
Remember he was pedalling that a couple
of weeks ago here is what the Supreme
Court seven justice majority said about
that um the fifth amendment entitles
aliens to due process of law i call that
the FU Stephven Miller passage from this
new Supreme Court opinion perfectly put
well we will of course stay on top of
any more updates that we get as far as
what the Trump administration is going
to do again we're in a situation where
similar to the nine nothing ruling uh
that demanded the release of Kilargo
Garcia the Trump administration now has
the decision whether they want to comply
or defy the Supreme Court and we'll know
in short order whether they opt to do
that as it relates to these other
accused uh migrants who the Trump
administration obviously is going to
fall over itself to try and and deport
um so we will stay on top of this for
those who are watching right now if
you'd like to follow along please make
sure to subscribe the links to both of
our channels are right here on the
screen it's the best way to support our
work and the best way to support
independent media more broadly i'm Brian
Tyler Cohen and I'm Glenn Kirschner you're
watching the Legal Breakdown
by Brian Tyler Cohen
May 16, 2025
The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner
Legal Breakdown episode 527: @GlennKirschner2 discusses the Supreme Court issuing a BLOCKBUSTER rebuke of Trump
Transcript
You're watching the legal breakdown
glenn we've got some breaking news here
as far as the Supreme Court is concerned
we have another unexpected rebuke of the
Trump administration in a 7-2 ruling by
this far-right Supreme Court can you
explain what just happened yeah Brian
here's the big takeaway the blockbuster
headline there's a pattern emerging
where it seems like seven of the nine
Supreme Court justices actually care
about the constitutional rights of
people and are showing that they're
willing to force the Trump
administration to comply with those
constitutional rights and that is
something that I don't think any of us
could take for granted because what we
just saw was a 7 to2 Supreme Court
opinion where seven of the justices said
"No we are going to keep an injunction
in place so that no immigrants no aliens
regardless of their status or lack of
status may be deported by the Trump
administration until they get their full
due process rights and importantly until
they get to litigate whether the Trump
administration is even entitled to
deport them at all under the Alien
Enemies Act so this is something of a
constitutional twofur for the people
that the Trump administration has been
trying to round up and hurry out of the
country before these folks could assert
their constitutional and statutory
rights in court so this is a really big
win and most importantly from this old
prosecutor's perspective it it is
showing that a pattern is emerging of
seven justices because there were only
two who still were willing to say we
don't give a rat's ass that's not
exactly how they put it in their descent
we don't care one wit about the due
process constitutional rights of these
immigrants nor do we care if Donald
Trump should be able to claim that we're
being invaded basically a military
incursion into the United States by the
country of Venezuela we don't care about
any of it who were those two justices
not hard to figure out it was Justice
Alito it was Justice Thomas but here's
the thing Brian the the majority opinion
which was unsigned but it was joined by
the seven justices in the majority
actually said quote we do not find the
disscent in other words we do not find
Alito and Thomas's disscent or their
reasoning persuasive so go ahead and put
that in your robe and take it back to
chambers with you Alito and Thomas Glenn
to what extent did the Trump
administration's defiance of the
previous Supreme Court ruling on this
similar topic the topic of you know the
illegal deportation of Kilmorego Garcia
and their their refusal to comply uh to
what extent do you think that factored
into this decision you know it did make
an appearance because the the majority
opinion is about eight pages and they do
reference how it sure seems like even
when there were some injunctions in
place and even when the Trump
administration assured federal judges
"No no no no we don't intend to deport
anybody anytime soon." There was an
instance where they actually put a bunch
of Venezuelan immigrants on a bus took
them out of a detention center and
headed out to the airport and you know
in the dead of night the Supreme Court
had to put a stop to that and what we
know is those buses turned around after
they passed the airport exit this was
down in Texas and returned those
immigrants to the detention facility so
you can't really take the Trump
administration at his word at its word
but here is one of my favorite aspects
of this ruling the majority opinion they
actually say and let me quote from it
they say the government said meaning the
Trump administration said it's quote
unported in error to a prison in El
Salvador that's ago Garcia this means
the detainees interests are particularly
weighty and you know the beauty of that
Brian I think everybody recognizes that
the Trump administration is lying when
they say they can't possibly provide for
the return of anybody that they deport
to El Salvador even though Donald Trump
in I think a press conference said "Of
course I can work with President Buchi
and get immigrants returned." But the
position they took in court is nope it
can't be done so the Supreme Court used
that lie and threw it back in the Trump
administration's face and said "Well if
you're representing that you can't
possibly bring anybody back who you
admit you wrongfully deported then guess
what every immigrant's interests are
heightened are very weighty." So I love
when they use a DOJ lie against the DOJ
and the Trump administration glenn do
you think it's fair to say that that the
Trump administration's efforts here have
backfired because I mean I I don't think
it's any any secret that this is a very
far-right Supreme Court who would
probably pay Trump a hell of a lot of
difference um you know if he didn't rock
the boat to the extent that he has if he
didn't defy their their rulings or try
to take such an extrajudicial approach
to all of this he he really could have
just coasted along i mean these are
people who will create out of whole
cloth provisions of the Constitution to
protect him that don't exist while
ignoring provisions of the Constitution
that do exist again in order to protect
him and so his decision to take this
like hostile aggressive posture
forward-leaning posture against the
Supreme Court that was already in his
pocket do you think that that this was
really just him overplaying his hand
yeah I think it hurt him in the long run
and it's a great question but here's the
thing if Donald Trump had taken his time
and let his DOJ officials sort of
methodically work through the issues in
court about for example whether we're
being invaded by Venezuela such that
Donald Trump should even be allowed
legally to invoke the Alien Enemies Act
of
1798 if they methodically work that
through uh the the federal courts I have
a feeling most federal judges would um
reach the conclusion that no we're not
under attack by Venezuela so of course
you cannot invoke the Alien Enemies Act
secondarily if Donald Trump had given
all of these immigrants their due
process rights notice and opportunity to
be heard because they he denied the
Trump administration denied those
constitutional rights to whole planefuls
of immigrants that are now unfortunately
being detained in a prison in El
Salvador if he had taken his time and
worked it through the courts guess what
he probably would not have been
permitted to deport anyone so he would
have succeeded in exactly nothing so
what he did is he got the public
relations benefit of you know the
American people being now told over and
over again oh my gosh there are all of
these immigrants who have been deported
and we've come to learn
unconstitutionally so and isn't that the
message that the Trump administration
wants to send not only to the immigrant
population but to all Americans because
anybody will you know anybody runs the
risk of being deported if Donald Trump
gets away with it in the first instance
against um immigrants so no I actually
think this was the calculation by Trump
and if he had done it more methodically
and in accordance with the rule of law
and the constitution he probably would
have accomplished exactly nothing that
he wanted to accomplish is there any
atmospheric consequence for Trump as it
relates to the Supreme Court by by again
taking this hostile forward-leaning um
posture against the justices here could
this have some impact in other rulings
if they see that they're dealing with a
president who has previously defied them
as it relates to other matters i think
the answer is absolutely yes and I base
that on now repeated rulings from the
Supreme Court 1 190 and then two rulings
on this very issue 7-2 what does that
tell us it tell tells us that Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney
Barrett and Justice Cor Gorsuch all
three of whom are typically reliably
right conservative justices they are it
looks like perhaps losing their patience
and no longer prepared to indulge Donald
Trump in close calls not that I'm
suggesting these constitutional
violations are close calls i don't
believe they are but it feels like that
Trump has galvanized a whole block of
Supreme Court justices who might
otherwise have been willing to be a
little bit more open to his you know
minor constitutional diances well they
also don't want to give a free pass to
the Thomas' and Alito here who see this
stuff that is so egregious so far right
so again illegal unconstitutional
extrajudicial that that even Brett
Kavanaaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and and
John Roberts are are see and Neil
Gorsuch are seeing this stuff and saying
"No I can't sign my name onto this
stuff." People who Donald Trump himself
appointed and so what does it say that
we've got people like like Thomas and
Alto who are still legislating really in
a way that's no different from if Jim
Jordan or Marjorie Taylor Green or Trump
himself were on the bench yeah what it
says is you know we should have learned
our lesson when the Alitos and the
Thomas' of this sad chapter in our
nation's history sort of flagrantly and
even gleefully violated financial
disclosure laws by concealing um you
know incredible inkind contributions is
how I view them from Republican
billionaire oligarchs so you know we
should have learned our lesson then and
by learning our lesson DOJ should have
initiated investigations the uh Congress
should have in um initiated at least an
impeachment inquiry to see whether
articles of impeachment were appropriate
we did none of it so now we are stuck
with the Thomas' and the Altos but
there's one other thing I want to give
honorable mention to what I perceive as
a bit of an FU to Steven Miller because
not long ago in recent weeks Steven
Miller said and I'm going to paraphrase
here "These immigrants don't have due
process rights under the Constitution."
Remember he was pedalling that a couple
of weeks ago here is what the Supreme
Court seven justice majority said about
that um the fifth amendment entitles
aliens to due process of law i call that
the FU Stephven Miller passage from this
new Supreme Court opinion perfectly put
well we will of course stay on top of
any more updates that we get as far as
what the Trump administration is going
to do again we're in a situation where
similar to the nine nothing ruling uh
that demanded the release of Kilargo
Garcia the Trump administration now has
the decision whether they want to comply
or defy the Supreme Court and we'll know
in short order whether they opt to do
that as it relates to these other
accused uh migrants who the Trump
administration obviously is going to
fall over itself to try and and deport
um so we will stay on top of this for
those who are watching right now if
you'd like to follow along please make
sure to subscribe the links to both of
our channels are right here on the
screen it's the best way to support our
work and the best way to support
independent media more broadly i'm Brian
Tyler Cohen and I'm Glenn Kirschner you're
watching the Legal Breakdown
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 17, 2025 11:43 pm
Anti-Supreme Court Posts
by Donald Trump
May 16, 2025
by Donald Trump
May 16, 2025
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump . 7h
The Supreme Court must come to the RESCUE OF AMERICA.US Mike Davis US
@mrddmia . 9h
Let's get this straight:
Obama can drone strikes Americans.
But Trump can't repel foreign terrorists.
Biden can import over 10 million illegal aliens.
But Trump can't send them home without years of court process.
The American people never agreed to this.
Not at our founding.
Not after the Civil War.
Not anytime since then.
Certainly not in the last election.
The Supreme Court is heading down a perilous path.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Supreme Court has just ruled that the worst murderers, drug dealers, gang members, and even those who are mentally insane, who came into our Country illegally, are not allowed to be forced out without going through a long, protracted, and expensive Legal Process, one that will take, possibly, many years for each person, and one that will allow these people to commit many crimes before they even see the inside of a Courthouse. The result of this decision will let more CRIMINALS pour into our Country, doing great harm to our cherished American public. It will also encourage other criminals to illegally enter our Country, wreaking havoc and bedlam wherever they go. The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do. Sleepy Joe Biden allowed MILLIONS of Criminal Aliens to come into our Country without any “PROCESS” but, in order to get them out of our Country, we have to go through a long and extended PROCESS. In any event, thank you to Justice Alito and Justice Thomas for attempting to protect our Country. This is a bad and dangerous day for America!
May 16, 2025, 3:59 PM
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump . 1d
THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sun May 18, 2025 12:37 am
Supreme Court DOUBLES DOWN on Trump DECISION
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
May 17, 2025 The Intersection with Popok
In breaking news, the US Supreme Court--in a bid to preserve its own jurisdiction over the issue -- has re-affirmed its decision from last month to ground Trump's planes ferrying people without due process to foreign jails until the Supreme Court can ultimately decide in the future whether his use of the Alien Enemies Act is constitutional, Popok reports
Transcript
No surprise here The United States
Supreme Court 7 to2 has grounded the
planes for the Trump administration They
are not going to be able to use the
Alien Enemies Act to deport people
whether with due process or not to
foreign prisons until the United States
Supreme Court says so until they get it
back to them in the next several months
to make an ultimate decision about
whether the Alien Enemies Act has been
properly used by Donald Trump Or is it a
wag the dog a phony creation of a war to
put Donald Trump on war footing to
proclaim war where none exists where we
don't have predatory incursion by enemy
combatants That is a decision for the
United States Supreme Court because the
Supreme Court 7-2 says it is And they
are tired You can tell from the 7-2
decision I'm going to read to you from
They are tired of Donald Trump
stampeding them into making decisions by
sending people in the middle of the
night to prisons and then arguing we
can't get him back We can't get ago
Garcia back We can't get the others back
We have no ability and you have no
jurisdiction to tell us to do that They
don't want to hear that ever again Now
there was one descent There was two
descents of course Thomas and Alito
There was one concurrence that was very
interesting but for all the wrong
reasons from Justice Kavanaaugh I'm
going to break it all down for you right
here on Legal AF
headline for now Even though they
haven't made a substantive ruling on
whether the Alien Enemies Act was
properly used the Supreme Court 7-2 is
not going to allow Donald Trump to use
it for the time being No more reporting
about planes leaving in the middle of
the night No more although there's still
accidental deportations happening all
the time with this administration but
that is going to be in violation of this
Supreme Court injunction This was an
injunction hearing not on the merits of
the case And that's an interesting but
important distinction I'm going to talk
about on this particular hottake The
Supreme Court was operating basically as
a lower level court here as a lower
level appellet court and not as their
Supreme Court And they don't like doing
that They think the fifth circuit court
of appeals should have done its job They
think the trials court judge should have
done his job and they should have all
issued injunctions and they should have
stopped the planes And when they didn't
this is why we got a 1:00 a.m in the
morning four weeks ago ruling by the
United States Supreme Court on an
emergency basis This now keeps the
injunction in place longer Same 7-2 Same
arguments by Alto and Thomas Oh we don't
have jurisdiction because oh because uh
you know they they jumped the gun The uh
the plaintiffs they they move too
quickly You know they they wanted the
courts to move quicker than they can and
and uh what was the rush and the
majority reminded the descent that what
the rush was that Donald Trump was
rushing people onto planes in the middle
of the night and refused to commit to
not flying them to Venez to El Salvador
during the pendency of the court
proceedings And that's all the Supreme
Court wants and that's all that they've
ruled for now You are not Trump
administration to continue to fly planes
to foreign uh black ops prisons and and
ferret people and ferry people away from
their due process rights until we have a
chance to get our hearts and minds and
arms around the substance of the
decision the merits of the decision
about whether you're supposed to be
using the Alien Enemies Act if it's been
properly triggered or not They made they
made sure they said and I'm going to
read to It's a very short opinion but
I'll read it to you They made sure they
said "We're not making the ruling on the
Alien Enemies enemies act now but you're
also not going to force our hand to do
that earlier than we want to by
continuing to fly these planes." And so
they said "Here's so here's the takeaway
Here's the key the key takeaway points
for the decision The injunction grounds
the planes Donald Trump cannot use the
Alien Enemies Act to deport people that
way until the Supreme Court makes its
ultimate ruling which won't be in the
next couple of days It's going to be
sometime in the next term that starts in
the first week of October While the
while they are uh sending it back to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that sits
over Texas it actually resides in New
Orleans for the fifth circuit to do its
job They actually said "You did not do
your job fifth circuit you were supposed
to grant that injunction and not force
us to do it at 1:00 in the morning How
embarrassing And so they've sent it with
instructions back to the fifth
circuit to do full briefing do oral
argument and don't kick the case because
you say there's no jurisdiction because
let's talk about this chicken egg
chicken
problem The federal trial judge in Texas
was slowooting this Well we'll get
around to it one day I I believe the
Trump administration isn't going to fly
planes even though there's no order in
place And the ACLU was apoplelectic They
said "Are you kidding me we have
evidence from inside that they're on the
planes right now." Which the Supreme
Court cited by the way in their opinion
So they ran to the Fifth Circuit and the
Fifth Circuit Oh you came here too soon
You know this is like Goldilocks Too hot
too cold not right Oh you showed up too
quick You should have given the trial
court judge more time no jurisdiction
They said "What?" They ran to the
Supreme Court US Supreme Court and they
got their injunction there And the And
the Supreme Court looked down and said
"What is going on below why do we have
to enter the injunction?" But they have
So now it's been sent to the fifth
circuit with instructions Take on the
substantive issue on the merits of Alien
Enemies Act Get it briefed Get an oral
argument Issue your opinion so we can we
can decide whether we're going to take
it up here We know they're going to take
it at the US Supreme Court but they want
it to percolate as that word came up
recently percolate at the lower level
courts before it gets the Supreme Court
which is the the ultimate arbiter on
these
issues That's what's happened Now the
only thing that is a little bit hinky a
little bit weird but not weird is
Kavanaaugh Kavanagh said "I agree with
the injunction 7 to2 I'm in favor I'm on
that side but I want the case right now
I think we should grant the rid of Sir
Shirari to bring the appeal up right now
Forget about the fifth circuit Bring it
to us right now and we'll make the
ultimate ruling Now some people might
think oh that's good He wants to get to
the heart of the matter quicker Yeah but
he is a pro-Trump pro-executive branch
guy So if he wants this decision to be
made quicker he's already in the bag to
rule in favor of Donald Trump and to and
to against the wishes of four different
federal judges which he cites four
different federal judges Helerstein
Sweeney Rodriguez in Texas Colorado New
York and also in Maryland He's saying
"Let me I'll I'll do it." He's going to
side with Donald Trump He's going to
find the Alien Enemies Act was properly
invoked We can't question it They are
foreign terrorist organizations that
trend to Ara the the narco the narot
terrorist gang criminal gang because
Donald Trump says it is You know he he
conjured up this war footing We know
it's a phony wag the dog but you know uh
Kavanagh is gonna buy it and so are
three others So he's gonna have four
votes and he's like "Let's get here
quick Let's get here quick." Let me read
to you about how the things that
indicate to me that the Supreme Court is
not happy that they had to intervene but
they had no choice On page two they go
through um the what happened between the
18th and 19th of
April Um evidence now on the record this
on page two Although not all before us
on the 18th of April when they issued
the temporary restraining order
emergency at 1:00 in the morning
suggests that the government had in fact
taken steps on the afternoon of April 18
towards removing the detainees under the
Alien Enemies Act including transporting
them from their detention facility to an
airport and later returning them to the
facility Had the detainees been removed
from the United States to the custody of
a foreign sovereign on April 19 the
government may have argued as it has
previously argued that no US court had
jurisdiction to order relief In other
words we didn't know it but we were a
lot closer to having a major problem
than we thought when we even entered the
injunction because Donald Trump had
already loaded the planes They were in
their upright locked positions if you
know what I mean the the trade table was
up for these uh for these deta uh
detainees The fifth circuit now they're
going to chastise the fifth circuit on
page two over to three The fifth circuit
dismissed the detainees appeal for lack
of jurisdiction and denied their motion
for injunction pending appeal as
premature on the grounds that that the
detainees gave the district court only
42 minutes We now conrue the application
as a writ of Sir Shirari from the
decision of the fifth The fifth aired on
page three in dismissing the detainees
appeal for the lack of jurisdiction
Appellet courts have jurisdiction to
review interlocatory orders that have
the practical effect of refusing an
injunction Here the district court's
inaction the trial court's level
inaction not for 42 minutes but for 14
hours and 28 minutes had the practical
effect of refusing an injunction to
detaineees facing an imminent threat of
severe irreparable harm being sent to El
Salvador and having this administration
say they can't get him back We vacate
the judgment of the of the court of
appeals And then they talk about the
fifth amendment
rights
Um and they also say that the 24 hours
before removal without giving the
detainees any information about how to
exercise due process rights surely does
not pass muster as an appropriate fifth
amendment due process
uh requirement See Donald Trump's all
hot and bothered right he almost cried
in a recent posting Well the Supreme
Court's not going to let me deport
criminals unless I give them hearings
and that's going to take years They're
in favor of criminals being released
into the wild No No All of these people
will remain in detention Even Abrao
Garcia if he gets sent back from El
Salvador will end up in US detention
They just stay there under US
supervision and administration until
they get before a federal judge and the
United States Supreme Court ultimately
rules That's all we want That's all
that's required
commanded by the US Constitution for
which Donald Trump swore an oath of
allegiance And so for him to cry I have
to give them due process Yes How many
times this is like idiot and chief How
many times does the Supreme Court have
to tell you you have to give them a
hearing and proper notice and you has to
comport with their understanding of
constitutional due process yes If you
want to get them out this is the way to
get them out through a process And to be
clear I'll I'll gladly wave at them
leaving on the airplane if it is proven
through a process with due process over
with a federal judge administrating it
that they are members of trend to Iraq
or they've committed crimes or whatever
the other rationale is
Now they go out of their way on the
bottom of page four over to five to say
"To be clear we decide today only that
the detainees are entitled to more
notice than they were given on April
18th and we grant temporary injunctive
relief to preserve our jurisdiction
while the question of what notice is due
is adjudicated We did not on April 19th
which is the 1:00 a.m decision nor today
address the underlying merits of the
party's claims regarding the legality of
removals under the AEA We recognize the
significance of the government's
national security interest as well as
the necessity that s such interest be
pursued in a manner consistent with the
constitution So we want the lower courts
to address this
expeditiously We already have several
rulings against Donald Trump He's he's
running four rulings against him only
one in favor of him in the proper use of
the Alien Enemies Act It's getting teed
up but they want it to come from the
fifth circuit from the second circuit
from the fourth circuit combine them
come up to the United States Supreme
Court So we'll be talking about this
case in
October Um
Aloh jumps off sides but he did the same
thing in the 7-2 decision against him in
a month ago at 1 a.m in the same case
Jurisdiction he's all about jurisdiction
I cannot agree with the decision of the
of my brethren because there's no
jurisdiction here because this should
have been left with the fifth circuit
and who cares totally ignoring who cares
if they get sent to El Salvador or it
gets sent sorry to Venice Yeah To El
Salvador Who cares about due process see
this the seven out of the nine are like
we need to preserve our own jurisdiction
in order to ensure that due process is
given to Alto and to Thomas Who
cares we'll we'll fix that problem later
Maybe those three or 500 or a thousand
won't have any rights but you know
that's that's just who that you're just
quibbling quibbling over human beings
here So listen we're going to continue
to follow it all Next step is it goes
back to the fifth circuit I'll let you
know who the sup the fifth circuit panel
is the three judge panel because that
matters I'm sure because it leans all
the way to the right It's going to be
something in favor of Donald Trump and
the use of the Alien Enemies Act and and
whether due process was properly given
Then it's going to end up at the Supreme
Court sometime in October And it's going
to be a fight You got four I'm sure Alto
Thomas Gorsuch and Kavanagh who are
going to rule for Donald Trump That the
Alien Enemies Act is properly invoked
That the Trenda Iraq criminal gang is
foreign terrorist organization We had a
predatory incursion nobody knew about
and they can all be sent out but with
due process I'm sure there's four votes
for that The question is is there what
is Roberts and what is Amy Con Barrett
going to do and we'll continue to follow
it right here on Legal AF Thanks for
being here Hit the subscribe button Come
over to Legal AF the Substack where we
have posted this very opinion for you to
read in the flesh under Scotus AF So
until come over there and subscribe as
well Till my next reporting I'm Michael
Pop Can't get your fill of legal AF me
neither That's why we formed the Legal
AF Substack Every time we mention
something in a hottake whether it's a
court filing or a oral argument come
over to the Substack You'll find the
court filing and the oral argument there
including a daily roundup that I do
called wait for it Morning AF
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
May 17, 2025 The Intersection with Popok
In breaking news, the US Supreme Court--in a bid to preserve its own jurisdiction over the issue -- has re-affirmed its decision from last month to ground Trump's planes ferrying people without due process to foreign jails until the Supreme Court can ultimately decide in the future whether his use of the Alien Enemies Act is constitutional, Popok reports
Transcript
No surprise here The United States
Supreme Court 7 to2 has grounded the
planes for the Trump administration They
are not going to be able to use the
Alien Enemies Act to deport people
whether with due process or not to
foreign prisons until the United States
Supreme Court says so until they get it
back to them in the next several months
to make an ultimate decision about
whether the Alien Enemies Act has been
properly used by Donald Trump Or is it a
wag the dog a phony creation of a war to
put Donald Trump on war footing to
proclaim war where none exists where we
don't have predatory incursion by enemy
combatants That is a decision for the
United States Supreme Court because the
Supreme Court 7-2 says it is And they
are tired You can tell from the 7-2
decision I'm going to read to you from
They are tired of Donald Trump
stampeding them into making decisions by
sending people in the middle of the
night to prisons and then arguing we
can't get him back We can't get ago
Garcia back We can't get the others back
We have no ability and you have no
jurisdiction to tell us to do that They
don't want to hear that ever again Now
there was one descent There was two
descents of course Thomas and Alito
There was one concurrence that was very
interesting but for all the wrong
reasons from Justice Kavanaaugh I'm
going to break it all down for you right
here on Legal AF
headline for now Even though they
haven't made a substantive ruling on
whether the Alien Enemies Act was
properly used the Supreme Court 7-2 is
not going to allow Donald Trump to use
it for the time being No more reporting
about planes leaving in the middle of
the night No more although there's still
accidental deportations happening all
the time with this administration but
that is going to be in violation of this
Supreme Court injunction This was an
injunction hearing not on the merits of
the case And that's an interesting but
important distinction I'm going to talk
about on this particular hottake The
Supreme Court was operating basically as
a lower level court here as a lower
level appellet court and not as their
Supreme Court And they don't like doing
that They think the fifth circuit court
of appeals should have done its job They
think the trials court judge should have
done his job and they should have all
issued injunctions and they should have
stopped the planes And when they didn't
this is why we got a 1:00 a.m in the
morning four weeks ago ruling by the
United States Supreme Court on an
emergency basis This now keeps the
injunction in place longer Same 7-2 Same
arguments by Alto and Thomas Oh we don't
have jurisdiction because oh because uh
you know they they jumped the gun The uh
the plaintiffs they they move too
quickly You know they they wanted the
courts to move quicker than they can and
and uh what was the rush and the
majority reminded the descent that what
the rush was that Donald Trump was
rushing people onto planes in the middle
of the night and refused to commit to
not flying them to Venez to El Salvador
during the pendency of the court
proceedings And that's all the Supreme
Court wants and that's all that they've
ruled for now You are not Trump
administration to continue to fly planes
to foreign uh black ops prisons and and
ferret people and ferry people away from
their due process rights until we have a
chance to get our hearts and minds and
arms around the substance of the
decision the merits of the decision
about whether you're supposed to be
using the Alien Enemies Act if it's been
properly triggered or not They made they
made sure they said and I'm going to
read to It's a very short opinion but
I'll read it to you They made sure they
said "We're not making the ruling on the
Alien Enemies enemies act now but you're
also not going to force our hand to do
that earlier than we want to by
continuing to fly these planes." And so
they said "Here's so here's the takeaway
Here's the key the key takeaway points
for the decision The injunction grounds
the planes Donald Trump cannot use the
Alien Enemies Act to deport people that
way until the Supreme Court makes its
ultimate ruling which won't be in the
next couple of days It's going to be
sometime in the next term that starts in
the first week of October While the
while they are uh sending it back to the
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that sits
over Texas it actually resides in New
Orleans for the fifth circuit to do its
job They actually said "You did not do
your job fifth circuit you were supposed
to grant that injunction and not force
us to do it at 1:00 in the morning How
embarrassing And so they've sent it with
instructions back to the fifth
circuit to do full briefing do oral
argument and don't kick the case because
you say there's no jurisdiction because
let's talk about this chicken egg
chicken
problem The federal trial judge in Texas
was slowooting this Well we'll get
around to it one day I I believe the
Trump administration isn't going to fly
planes even though there's no order in
place And the ACLU was apoplelectic They
said "Are you kidding me we have
evidence from inside that they're on the
planes right now." Which the Supreme
Court cited by the way in their opinion
So they ran to the Fifth Circuit and the
Fifth Circuit Oh you came here too soon
You know this is like Goldilocks Too hot
too cold not right Oh you showed up too
quick You should have given the trial
court judge more time no jurisdiction
They said "What?" They ran to the
Supreme Court US Supreme Court and they
got their injunction there And the And
the Supreme Court looked down and said
"What is going on below why do we have
to enter the injunction?" But they have
So now it's been sent to the fifth
circuit with instructions Take on the
substantive issue on the merits of Alien
Enemies Act Get it briefed Get an oral
argument Issue your opinion so we can we
can decide whether we're going to take
it up here We know they're going to take
it at the US Supreme Court but they want
it to percolate as that word came up
recently percolate at the lower level
courts before it gets the Supreme Court
which is the the ultimate arbiter on
these
issues That's what's happened Now the
only thing that is a little bit hinky a
little bit weird but not weird is
Kavanaaugh Kavanagh said "I agree with
the injunction 7 to2 I'm in favor I'm on
that side but I want the case right now
I think we should grant the rid of Sir
Shirari to bring the appeal up right now
Forget about the fifth circuit Bring it
to us right now and we'll make the
ultimate ruling Now some people might
think oh that's good He wants to get to
the heart of the matter quicker Yeah but
he is a pro-Trump pro-executive branch
guy So if he wants this decision to be
made quicker he's already in the bag to
rule in favor of Donald Trump and to and
to against the wishes of four different
federal judges which he cites four
different federal judges Helerstein
Sweeney Rodriguez in Texas Colorado New
York and also in Maryland He's saying
"Let me I'll I'll do it." He's going to
side with Donald Trump He's going to
find the Alien Enemies Act was properly
invoked We can't question it They are
foreign terrorist organizations that
trend to Ara the the narco the narot
terrorist gang criminal gang because
Donald Trump says it is You know he he
conjured up this war footing We know
it's a phony wag the dog but you know uh
Kavanagh is gonna buy it and so are
three others So he's gonna have four
votes and he's like "Let's get here
quick Let's get here quick." Let me read
to you about how the things that
indicate to me that the Supreme Court is
not happy that they had to intervene but
they had no choice On page two they go
through um the what happened between the
18th and 19th of
April Um evidence now on the record this
on page two Although not all before us
on the 18th of April when they issued
the temporary restraining order
emergency at 1:00 in the morning
suggests that the government had in fact
taken steps on the afternoon of April 18
towards removing the detainees under the
Alien Enemies Act including transporting
them from their detention facility to an
airport and later returning them to the
facility Had the detainees been removed
from the United States to the custody of
a foreign sovereign on April 19 the
government may have argued as it has
previously argued that no US court had
jurisdiction to order relief In other
words we didn't know it but we were a
lot closer to having a major problem
than we thought when we even entered the
injunction because Donald Trump had
already loaded the planes They were in
their upright locked positions if you
know what I mean the the trade table was
up for these uh for these deta uh
detainees The fifth circuit now they're
going to chastise the fifth circuit on
page two over to three The fifth circuit
dismissed the detainees appeal for lack
of jurisdiction and denied their motion
for injunction pending appeal as
premature on the grounds that that the
detainees gave the district court only
42 minutes We now conrue the application
as a writ of Sir Shirari from the
decision of the fifth The fifth aired on
page three in dismissing the detainees
appeal for the lack of jurisdiction
Appellet courts have jurisdiction to
review interlocatory orders that have
the practical effect of refusing an
injunction Here the district court's
inaction the trial court's level
inaction not for 42 minutes but for 14
hours and 28 minutes had the practical
effect of refusing an injunction to
detaineees facing an imminent threat of
severe irreparable harm being sent to El
Salvador and having this administration
say they can't get him back We vacate
the judgment of the of the court of
appeals And then they talk about the
fifth amendment
rights
Um and they also say that the 24 hours
before removal without giving the
detainees any information about how to
exercise due process rights surely does
not pass muster as an appropriate fifth
amendment due process
uh requirement See Donald Trump's all
hot and bothered right he almost cried
in a recent posting Well the Supreme
Court's not going to let me deport
criminals unless I give them hearings
and that's going to take years They're
in favor of criminals being released
into the wild No No All of these people
will remain in detention Even Abrao
Garcia if he gets sent back from El
Salvador will end up in US detention
They just stay there under US
supervision and administration until
they get before a federal judge and the
United States Supreme Court ultimately
rules That's all we want That's all
that's required
commanded by the US Constitution for
which Donald Trump swore an oath of
allegiance And so for him to cry I have
to give them due process Yes How many
times this is like idiot and chief How
many times does the Supreme Court have
to tell you you have to give them a
hearing and proper notice and you has to
comport with their understanding of
constitutional due process yes If you
want to get them out this is the way to
get them out through a process And to be
clear I'll I'll gladly wave at them
leaving on the airplane if it is proven
through a process with due process over
with a federal judge administrating it
that they are members of trend to Iraq
or they've committed crimes or whatever
the other rationale is
Now they go out of their way on the
bottom of page four over to five to say
"To be clear we decide today only that
the detainees are entitled to more
notice than they were given on April
18th and we grant temporary injunctive
relief to preserve our jurisdiction
while the question of what notice is due
is adjudicated We did not on April 19th
which is the 1:00 a.m decision nor today
address the underlying merits of the
party's claims regarding the legality of
removals under the AEA We recognize the
significance of the government's
national security interest as well as
the necessity that s such interest be
pursued in a manner consistent with the
constitution So we want the lower courts
to address this
expeditiously We already have several
rulings against Donald Trump He's he's
running four rulings against him only
one in favor of him in the proper use of
the Alien Enemies Act It's getting teed
up but they want it to come from the
fifth circuit from the second circuit
from the fourth circuit combine them
come up to the United States Supreme
Court So we'll be talking about this
case in
October Um
Aloh jumps off sides but he did the same
thing in the 7-2 decision against him in
a month ago at 1 a.m in the same case
Jurisdiction he's all about jurisdiction
I cannot agree with the decision of the
of my brethren because there's no
jurisdiction here because this should
have been left with the fifth circuit
and who cares totally ignoring who cares
if they get sent to El Salvador or it
gets sent sorry to Venice Yeah To El
Salvador Who cares about due process see
this the seven out of the nine are like
we need to preserve our own jurisdiction
in order to ensure that due process is
given to Alto and to Thomas Who
cares we'll we'll fix that problem later
Maybe those three or 500 or a thousand
won't have any rights but you know
that's that's just who that you're just
quibbling quibbling over human beings
here So listen we're going to continue
to follow it all Next step is it goes
back to the fifth circuit I'll let you
know who the sup the fifth circuit panel
is the three judge panel because that
matters I'm sure because it leans all
the way to the right It's going to be
something in favor of Donald Trump and
the use of the Alien Enemies Act and and
whether due process was properly given
Then it's going to end up at the Supreme
Court sometime in October And it's going
to be a fight You got four I'm sure Alto
Thomas Gorsuch and Kavanagh who are
going to rule for Donald Trump That the
Alien Enemies Act is properly invoked
That the Trenda Iraq criminal gang is
foreign terrorist organization We had a
predatory incursion nobody knew about
and they can all be sent out but with
due process I'm sure there's four votes
for that The question is is there what
is Roberts and what is Amy Con Barrett
going to do and we'll continue to follow
it right here on Legal AF Thanks for
being here Hit the subscribe button Come
over to Legal AF the Substack where we
have posted this very opinion for you to
read in the flesh under Scotus AF So
until come over there and subscribe as
well Till my next reporting I'm Michael
Pop Can't get your fill of legal AF me
neither That's why we formed the Legal
AF Substack Every time we mention
something in a hottake whether it's a
court filing or a oral argument come
over to the Substack You'll find the
court filing and the oral argument there
including a daily roundup that I do
called wait for it Morning AF
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sun May 18, 2025 1:01 am
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... a1007.html
No. 24A1007
Title: A.A.R.P., et al., Applicants v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: April 18, 2025
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Numbers: (25-10534)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_g2bh.pdf
Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
PER CURIAM.
The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants are two detainees identified as members of TdA and a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas. All of the alleged TdA members in the putative class are currently being held in U. S. detention facilities. In the application before the Court, the detainees seek injunctive relief against summary removal under the AEA.
I
On April 17, 2025, the District Court denied the detainees’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against summary removal under the AEA. No. 25−cv−59, ECF Doc. 27. The detainees allege that, hours later, putative class members were served notices of AEA removal and told that they would be removed “tonight or tomorrow.” ECF Doc. 30, p. 1. On April 18 at 12:34 a.m. central time, the detainees moved for an emergency TRO. See ibid. At 12:48 p.m., the detainees moved for a ruling on that motion or a status conference by 1:30 p.m. ECF Doc. 34. At 3:02 p.m., they appealed “the constructive denia[l]” of the emergency TRO to the Fifth Circuit. ECF Doc. 36, p. 1. The detainees also applied to this Court for a temporary injunction.
We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees’ allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25−cv−766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day “would be consistent with” its due process obligations, and it “reserve[d] the right” to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that “tomorrow . . . starts at 12:01 a.m.”). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA—including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a−5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11−20.
At 12:52 a.m. eastern time (11:52 p.m. central time), we ordered the Government—in light of all these circumstances—“not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees” in order to preserve our jurisdiction to consider the application. 604 U. S. ___ (2025). We invited the Government to respond to that application after the Fifth Circuit ruled. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for injunction pending appeal as premature, on the ground that the detainees “gave the [district] court only 42 minutes to act.” No. 25−10534, ECF Doc. 14, p. 2. We now construe the application as a petition for writ of certiorari from the decision of the Fifth Circuit. See Reply 15. We grant the petition as well as the application for injunction pending further proceedings, vacate the judgment of the Fifth Circuit, and remand for further proceedings.
II
The Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders that have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction.” Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of “serious, perhaps irreparable,” consequences may have the effect of refusing an injunction. 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3924.1, pp. 174, 180−181 (3d ed. 2012) (quoting Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, 181 (1955)). Here the District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
“[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings.” Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 259 (1978). We have long held that “no person shall be” removed from the United States “without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.” The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101 (1903). Due process requires notice that is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties” and that “afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950). Accordingly, in J. G. G., this Court explained—with all nine Justices agreeing—that “AEA detainees must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief ” before removal. 604 U. S., at ____ (slip op., at 3). In order to “actually seek habeas relief,” a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.
The Government does not contest before this Court the applicants’ description of the notice afforded to AEA detainees in the Northern District of Texas, nor the assertion that the Government was poised to carry out removals imminently. The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador, see Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25−cv−951 (D Md.), ECF Docs. 74, 77, where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention, see Application for Injunction 11. The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster. But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose.
To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18, and we grant temporary injunctive relief to preserve our jurisdiction while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated. See post, at 13 (ALITO, J., dissenting). We did not on April 19—and do not now—address the underlying merits of the parties’ claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA. We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.
III
The dissent disputes both the Court’s jurisdiction and the availability of classwide relief. We do not find its reasoning persuasive.
First, we reject the dissent’s characterization of the events that transpired on April 18, which lead it to question our jurisdiction. District courts should approach requests for preliminary relief with care and consideration, see post, at 3−4 (ALITO, J., dissenting), but exigent circumstances may impose practical constraints. Preliminary relief is “customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.” Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (slip op., at 6) (quoting University of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390, 395 (1981)). The purpose of such relief is “merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties” pending further proceedings. Lackey, 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (quoting Camenisch, 451 U. S., at 395).
In this case, the record before the District Court, although limited, indicated that removals of putative class members were likely imminent. Contra, post, at 4−6 (ALITO, J., dissenting). The detainees attached four declarations to their emergency motion for a TRO. In one, for example, an attorney relayed a detainee’s report that immigration officers “had informed them that they will be deported either today or tomorrow.” ECF Doc. 30−1. In a second, a nonprofit director described conversations with family members of detainees and linked to a video of detainees holding notices of removal as evidence that detainees “were being removed.” ECF Doc. 30−2.
Importantly, the relevant question for purposes of our jurisdiction is whether, at the time this Court was called upon to intervene, the District Court’s inaction had the effect of refusing an injunction. In their application to this Court, the detainees represented that “[m]any individuals [had] already been loaded on to buses, presumably headed to the airport.” Application for Injunction 1. Shortly thereafter, the Government represented on the record in federal court that it reserved the right to remove detainees after midnight. We had the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve our jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). Now that the Fifth Circuit has ruled, our certiorari jurisdiction also supports review in the ordinary course.
Finally, this Court may properly issue temporary injunctive relief to the putative class in order to preserve our jurisdiction pending appeal.* Named applicants A. A. R. P and W. M. M. assert that they are at imminent risk of being classified as alien enemies and removed from the United States, but the record does not indicate that they have received any formal notice of removal under the AEA. See ECF Doc. 38, pp. 5−6. The named applicants, along with putative class members, are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice prior to any removal, in order to pursue appropriate relief. Although the putative class members may ultimately take different steps to protect their own interests in response to such notice, the notice to which they are entitled is the same. And because courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class, see 2 W. Rubenstein, New-berg & Rubenstein on Class Actions §4:30 (6th ed. 2022 and Supp. 2024), we need not decide whether a class should be certified as to the detainees’ due process claims in order to temporarily enjoin the Government from removing putative class members while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated.
We recognize that the Government “has agreed to forgo removing the named petitioners pursuant to the AEA while their habeas proceedings are pending.” Opposition to Emergency Application 11. But we reject the proposition that a class-action defendant may defeat class treatment, if it is otherwise proper, by promising as a matter of grace to treat named plaintiffs differently. Cf. FBI v. Fikre, 601 U. S. 234, 241 (2024) (explaining that voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not moot a claim). And we are skeptical of the self-defeating notion that the right to the notice necessary to “actually seek habeas relief,” J. G. G., 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3), must itself be vindicated through individual habeas petitions, somehow by plaintiffs who have not received notice.
* * *
The application for an injunction pending further proceedings is granted. The motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix under seal is also granted. Additionally, applicants suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Fifth Circuit. In resolving the detainees’ appeal, the Fifth Circuit should address (1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs’ underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025,Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal. The Government is enjoined from removing the named plaintiffs or putative class members in this action under the AEA pending order by the Fifth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
The Government may remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities.
It is so ordered.
——————
Notes:
*We note that the District Court recently denied class certification as to the detainees’ underlying habeas claims challenging the validity of removal under the AEA. See ECF Doc. 67. By its own terms, the District Court’s order is “automatically vacated” by our order granting a writ of certiorari. Id., at 2. And in any event, the District Court’s order primarily addressed the detainees’ ability to challenge the validity of AEA removal on a classwide basis. The application before this Court seeks only to vindicate notice rights on a classwide basis. To the extent the District Court’s order addressed due process, see post, at 12 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (citing ECF Doc. 67, pp. 29−31, 33, 38−39), the District Court’s concerns as to the propriety of classwide relief focused on considerations downstream of the initial notice necessary for detainees to raise any substantive claims against AEA removal, see ECF Doc. 67, pp. 29−31, 33, 38−39.
***********
Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1007
A. A. R. P., ET AL. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 16, 2025]
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
I understand and agree with the Court’s decision to grant a temporary injunction. The injunction simply ensures that the Judiciary can decide whether these Venezuelan detainees may be lawfully removed under the Alien Enemies Act before they are in fact removed. The underlying legal questions that the courts may need to decide before the removals occur include: (i) whether the Alien Enemies Act (as distinct from the ordinary removal process under the Immigration and Nationality Act) authorizes removal of these detainees and (ii) if so, what notice is due before removal. Several Federal District Courts have already issued conflicting rulings on the underlying legal issues. Compare A. S. R. v. Trump, No. 3:25–cv–113 (WD Pa., May 13, 2025), with G. F. F. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–2886 (SDNY, May 6, 2025), D. B. U. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–1163 (D Colo., May 6, 2025), and J. A. V. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–72 (SD Tex., May 1, 2025).
The Executive Branch and the detainees agree about the urgency and importance of those legal questions: The Executive Branch has represented that this case is important for America’s national security and that it is “critical to remove TdA members subject to the Proclamation quickly.” Application To Vacate Orders in Trump v. J. G. G., No. 24A931 (Mar. 28, 2025), p. 37; see Opposition to Emergency Application 3, 5. For their part, the detainees have explicitly requested that the Court move fast and grant certiorari before judgment. See Reply 4.
The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court. At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.
*****************
Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
ALITO, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1007
A. A. R. P., ET AL. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 16, 2025]
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.
I cannot join the decision of the Court. First and most important, we lack jurisdiction and therefore have no authority to issue any relief. Second, even if we had such authority, the applicants have not satisfied the requirements for the issuance of injunctive relief pending appellate review. Third, granting certiorari before any decision on the merits has been made by either the District Court or the Court of Appeals is unwarranted.
I
A
“Jurisdiction is power to declare the law,” and “[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). So in order for us to do anything in this matter, “we must assure ourselves that we have jurisdiction.” Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. 579, 594 (2018).
The Court’s theory of jurisdiction, as I understand it, is as follows. Under 28 U. S. C. §1254, we have jurisdiction to review a “case” that is properly before one of the federal courts of appeals. This case was properly before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit because the two habeas petitioners, A. A. R. P. and W. M. M., took an appeal from a District Court order that refused to issue “an injunction.” 2 A. A. R. P. v. TRUMP ALITO, J., dissenting §1292(a)(1). Although the District Court never actually issued such an order or said that it would do so, the District Court constructively denied injunctive relief by failing to act under circumstances where prompt intervention was urgently needed. See ante, at 3.
This theory rests on a mischaracterization of what happened in the District Court. I do not dispute that a district court’s failure to act expeditiously may, in some circumstances, have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction” and thus entitle a party to take an interlocutory appeal. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981); see also §1292(a)(1). But that principle does not apply here where (a) the District Court had no good reason to think that either A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. was in imminent danger of removal, (b) the record at that time contained only sketchy evidence about any imminent threat to members of the class of alien detainees they sought to have certified, (c) the court took the entirely reasonable position that it would wait for the Government to respond to the applicants’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) before acting, (d) the court set a very short deadline for the filing of the Government’s response, and (e) the court was working diligently on the difficult issues presented by the applicants’ request for relief for themselves and the members of the putative class.
The Court asserts that the District Court failed to act “for 14 hours and 28 minutes,” ante, at 3, but that is misleading. Here is what actually happened. On the evening of April17, lawyers for A. A. R. P. and W. M. M. made a phone call in which they demanded “to talk to the Judge immediately . . . and have the Judge issue an order.” Order in No. 1:25– cv–59 (ND Tex., Apr. 21, 2025), ECF Doc. 47–1, p. 2. As the District Court has since correctly noted, judges are generally not permitted to consider such ex parte communications. See ECF Doc. 47, at 1–2 (citing Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, Canon 3(A)(4)); see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1). So the judge issued an electronic order admonishing the attorneys and stating that “[t]o the extent either party seeks emergency relief, it may file a motion to do so. If an emergency motion is filed, the opposing party shall have 24 hours to file a response.” ECF Doc. 29.
Thus, when the attorneys for A. A. R. P. and W. M. M. filed their renewed motion for a TRO at 12:34 a.m. on April18, they were fully aware that the District Court intended to give the Government 24 hours to file a response. But in that motion, the attorneys said nothing about a plan to appeal if the District Court elected to wait for that response.
It was not until their 12:48 p.m. emergency motion for an immediate status conference that the attorneys suddenly informed the court that they would file an appeal if the District Court did not act within 42 minutes, i.e., by 1:30 p.m. No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., Apr. 18, 2025), ECF Doc. 34, p. 2. The attorneys then filed their appeal at 3:02 p.m., just 133 minutes after they put the District Court on notice that they would seek appellate relief. Reply 10. Whether or not the actions taken by applicants’ attorneys are thought to be justified under the circumstances, delivering such an ultimatum to a district court judge (“Act on my motion on a complex matter within 42 or 133 minutes or I’ll file an appeal and divest you of jurisdiction”) represented a very stark departure from what is usually regarded as acceptable practice.
Faced with applicants’ extraordinary demand, the District Court proceeded in an entirely reasonable manner. The Court characterizes the District Court’s behavior during the period in question as “inaction,” ante, at 3, but in my judgment, that is unfair. Rather, as the judge has noted, he “was working with utmost diligence to resolve [the] important and complicated issues [presented by the motion] as quickly as possible.” ECF Doc. 41, p. 4. The judge explained that he had not yet ruled because he could not “shirk [his] responsibility to decide . . . complicated issues of law without at least some opportunity to review the pleadings and attachments and to get thoughtful responses from the parties.” Id., at 5. And the judge “was prepared to issue an order” “as soon as practicable after the government filed its response shortly after midnight, if not sooner.” Id., at 4.
We should commend this careful approach, not criticize it. In the past few months alone, we have vacated or stayed district court orders that granted temporary injunctive relief without adequate consideration of the relevant issues. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam); Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam). But in this case, a District Court judge is deemed to have constructively denied an injunction by failing to act within the space of a little over two hours on an application that required consideration of important and difficult questions and that was supported by factual submissions that, as I will explain below, were very weak.
Under these circumstances, I cannot agree that the District Court’s failure to act amounted to a constructive denial of the applicants’ request for relief.
B
As I mentioned, the factual support provided to the District Court was weak. The Court claims that the facts presented to the District Court on April 18 showed that there was an emergency entailing a high risk of “serious, perhaps irreparable, consequences.” Ante, at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). But it is important not to conflate the information that was in the record on April 18 with the new information that was presented to this Court several days later.
The record that was before the District Court on April 18 (which is the same record that was before us at midnight on that date) included no concrete evidence that any removals were so imminent that a ruling had to be made immediately. The applicants’ factual support consisted of six sworn declarations and a photograph that the applicants asserted was an image of a notice of removal. See App. to Application 32–37, 56–65. But neither the declarations nor the photograph showed “extreme urgency.” Ante, at 3.
The declarations certainly did not show that action was urgently needed to protect A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. The Government had represented in District Court that it would not remove either of those men—the only parties who were indisputably before the court—while their habeas petitions were pending. Order in No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., Apr. 17,2025), ECF Doc. 27, p. 1. And the two declarations concerning those individuals included no allegations about imminent removal. App. to Application 32–37. Indeed, the declarations concerning them were signed on April 15, prior to the Government’s representation that they would not be removed while their habeas petitions were pending. As a result, the declarations were outdated and provided no support for the claim that either A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. was threatened with removal on April 18 or 19.1
The remaining evidence in the record at that time concerned only the unnamed members of the as-yet uncertified class. And of the four declarations concerning those individuals, only one said anything about when removal might happen. In that declaration, a lawyer swore that she spoke on the phone with an unidentified Venezuelan man who said that “ICE had informed them that they will be deported either today or tomorrow to Venezuela.” Id., at 56. In other words, the most specific piece of evidence in the record was a double-hearsay statement that cannot be traced back to any specific government official. Outside of that, none of the remaining declarations said anything about imminent removal. They merely stated that certain aliens were receiving deportation notices, but it was not claimed that these notices specified when removal might occur. See id., at 57–58 (Brané decl.); id., at 59–60 (Collins decl.); id., at 61 (Siegel decl.). And the image of a document labeled “Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal Under the Alien Enemies Act,” which the applicants termed a removal notice, likewise said nothing about the time of removal. See id., at 64–65. Other than these declarations, the court was left with unsupported attorney assertions in the application itself.
Ignoring these deficiencies in the record before the District Court, the Court relies on information that was not in the District Court record, namely, (a) statements made by a Government attorney in a hearing in another case that was held in Washington, D. C., during the evening on April 18, well after applicants filed their appeal and (b) evidence that we received several days later. See ante, at 2. But in evaluating whether the District Court effectively refused to issue injunctive relief, we must consider the facts as they were known to that court at the time in question.2
For these reasons, I agree with the unanimous Court of Appeals panel that the District Court did not constructively deny an application for an injunction. As the panel stated, there was no reason to doubt the “diligence and ability” of the District Court to act appropriately under the circumstances. Order in No. 25–10534 (CA5, Apr. 18, 2025), ECF Doc. 14–1, p. 2. And his “failure to issue the requested ruling” within the extraordinarily short period specified by the applicants cannot reasonably be viewed as “an effective denial of injunctive relief.” Id., at 4 (Ramirez, J., concurring).
II
Even if the District Court had denied the applicants’ motion, there would be no ground for reversal because the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for emergency injunctive relief, one of which is a showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). And here, in order to obtain what the application sought (and what the Court now provides)—i.e., relief for the members of the class that applicants asked to have certified—applicants had to show that they were likely to establish that class relief is available in a habeas proceeding and, if such relief is available, that the standard requirements for class certification could likely be met.3
In my judgment, applicants were not likely to prevail on either of those issues.
A
1
First, it is doubtful that class relief may be obtained in a habeas proceeding. We have never so held, and it is highly questionable whether it is permitted. Although habeas proceedings are classified as civil, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply only “to the extent that the practice in [habeas] proceedings . . . previously conformed to the practice in civil actions.” Rule 81(a)(4)(B); see also Rule 1. And in accordance with Rule 81, we have acknowledged that some Federal Rules are inapplicable in habeas.
In Harris v. Nelson, 394 U. S. 286 (1969), for example, we held that Rule 33—concerning interrogatories—does not apply in habeas proceedings because it has no analogue in historical habeas practice and is a poor fit in a habeas proceeding. Id., at 292–298. Among other things, we noted that the prevalence of fact-finding in habeas proceedings was a relatively recent development, and that the specific scope of Rule 33 was “ill-suited to the special problems and character of [habeas] proceedings.” Id., at 296.
There are similar reasons to believe that Rule 23, which authorizes class actions, is not applicable in habeas. Neither courts nor commentators have found historical support for the practice. One commentator, writing in 1968, noted that “no case has been found in which anything resembling a class action was used in habeas corpus.” Note, Multiparty Federal Habeas Corpus, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1482, 1493 (1968). Two years later, another commentator observed that “[c]lass actions for habeas corpus relief have rarely been attempted, perhaps because Rule 81(a)(2) [now Rule 81(a)(4)] seems to bar the application of the civil class action rule to habeas proceedings.” Developments in the Law—Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1170 (1970) (footnotes omitted). Indeed, there appears to be some historical debate over whether even joinder was permitted in habeas practice. Compare Note, 81 Harv. L. Rev., at 1494 (“The issue of joinder was not explicitly ruled upon in any of these cases, and no case has been found which expressly sanctions the procedure”), with Developments in the Law—Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev., at 1169 (arguing that “the rules on joinder and consolidation apply under even the most restrictive interpretation of Rule 81,” but citing contrary dicta found in at least one case (footnotes omitted)).
2
Despite this lack of historical support, some lower courts have held that our decision in Harris sometimes permits procedures that resemble those used in a class action. As noted, Harris held that Rule 33, which concerns interrogatories, does not apply in habeas, but the Court also observed that habeas courts “may fashion appropriate modes of procedure, by analogy to existing rules or otherwise in conformity with judicial usage,” when such modes of procedure are necessary to “the habeas corpus jurisdiction and the duty to exercise it.” 394 U. S., at 299. On this ground, Harris held that a habeas court may use its authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651, to fashion a procedure resembling an interrogatory to the extent that such an instrument is “needed” by the court to “perform [its] duty” to “summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 394 U. S., at 299– 300 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on this discussion in Harris, the Second Circuit held that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not itself apply in habeas, “a multi-party proceeding similar to” a Rule 23 class action is sometimes allowed. United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F. 2d 1115, 1125 (CA2 1974). And it concluded that this procedure was appropriate in “the unusual circumstances” present in the case at hand. Ibid.; see also Bijeol v. Benson, 513 F. 2d 965, 968 (CA7 1975).
This reading of Harris is highly questionable. Where a particular rule does not apply in habeas, a court cannot circumvent that limitation by simply saying that it is importing the same feature under a different rubric. Harris concluded that something like an interrogatory was allowed because it was needed under the circumstances to help the habeas court carry out a duty clearly imposed by law, that is, to “‘determine the facts’” that are material to the claim made by the petitioner who was before the court. 394 U. S., at 299 (quoting 28 U. S. C. §2243).
The situation here is different. No provision of law imposes on a habeas court the duty to determine facts or decide legal issues regarding parties who are not before the court. And as a general matter, the class action device is uniquely “ill-suited” for habeas proceedings, id., at 296, which often turn on individualized and fact-specific determinations regarding the confinement of a specific prisoner.
B
Even if something resembling a class action could be used in a habeas proceeding, it is very questionable whether the requirements for class certification could be met in this case. Rule 23(a)(3) provides that named plaintiffs may sue as representatives of a class “only if,” among other things, “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” And when a court certifies a class, the court is supposed to define the precise “claims” that will be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. See Rule 23(c)(1)(B). That ensures that the only claims that are adjudicated in a class action are those that the class brings in common and those for which the named plaintiffs are “typical” representatives of the class. See General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318, 330 (1980) (“The typicality requirement is said to limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff ’s claims”).
Here, however, the main interim relief sought on behalf of the putative class—adequate notice of plans for removal under the AEA and an opportunity to contest such removal in court, see Application 17–18; Reply 5–7—is not needed by either A. A. R. P. or W. M. M., who already have a pending habeas proceeding and a promise that they will not be removed until that proceeding concludes. For this reason, their situation differs critically from that of many of the putative class members since they have no personal stake in how the court resolves the question of interim relief for the putative class members.
The Court responds to this problem by suggesting that a class action defendant may not “defeat class treatment, if it is otherwise proper, by promising as a matter of grace to treat named plaintiffs differently.” Ante, at 7 (emphasis added). But the Court provides no analysis suggesting that class certification here is “otherwise proper,” and instead asserts that it can ignore the question of class certification at this preliminary stage. Ibid. And, in any event, the record does not suggest that the Government is treating the named plaintiffs differently “as a matter of grace.” Ibid. Rather, it is doing so pursuant to its general policy against removing AEA detainees when they have a pending habeas petition. See Opposition to Emergency Application 2 (“the government has agreed not to remove pursuant [to] the AEA those AEA detainees who do file habeas claims”).
C
We have told district courts that they may certify a class only after conducting a “‘rigorous analysis’” of the question. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U. S. 338, 351 (2011) (quoting General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, 161 (1982)). On April 18, the District Court had no time to engage in such analysis, and as a result, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in failing to conclude that applicants’ were likely to prevail on their class-action arguments. Cf. University of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390, 393–394 (1981).
The District Court has since had time to conduct the “rigorous analysis” that our precedents require, and has concluded that class certification would be improper here. Order in No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., May 9, 2025), ECF Doc. 67.That development makes the relief issued by the Court today all the more extraordinary. Purporting to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the Court issues “preliminary relief ” to a putative class that the District Court has explicitly refused to certify, and it does so without providing any substantive analysis suggesting that the District Court’s analysis of the class certification issue was incorrect.
Instead of substantively engaging with the District Court’s order, the Court asserts that the order makes no difference because it “primarily addressed the detainees’ ability to challenge the validity of AEA removal on a class-wide basis,” whereas “[t]he application before this Court seeks only to vindicate notice rights.” Ante, at 6, n. *. But the District Court’s order did address the notice question. In addition to explaining why the applicants cannot pursue their final merits claims as a class action, the order explains at length why the applicants’ claims regarding notice rights also cannot proceed on a class basis. ECF Doc. 67, at 29– 31, 33, 38–39. Among other things, the District Court observed that “due process is by its very nature individualized,” id., at 33, a proposition plainly supported by our precedents. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. 281, 314 (2018) (“Due process is flexible, we have stressed repeatedly, and it calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).
In any event, the District Court also offered several general reasons why class relief would be inappropriate here, and these apply equally to the applicants’ claims regarding notice rights. See ECF Doc. 67, at 35–36, 39–45. The Court today issues temporary relief without engaging with any of that analysis. And, what’s more, it asks the Fifth Circuit to finally adjudicate the notice rights of members of the putative class without asking that court to do its own analysis regarding whether class certification as to those claims would be appropriate. Ante, at 8. Clearly, the Court would prefer to ignore the important step of class certification and skip directly to the adjudication of the class members’ rights. The Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut.
III
Instead of merely ruling on the application that is before us—which asks for emergency relief pending appeal—the Court takes the unusual step of granting certiorari before judgment, summarily vacating the judgment below dismissing the applicants’ appeal, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals with directions regarding the issues that court should address. From the Court’s order, it is not entirely clear whether the Court has silently decided issues that go beyond the question of interim relief. (I certainly hope that it has not.) But if it has done so, today’s order is doubly extraordinary. Granting certiorari before a court of appeals has entered a judgment is a sharp departure from usual practice, but here neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court has decided any merits questions.
We have said more times than I care to remember that “we are a court of review, not first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). Even on the Court’s 14 A. A. R. P. v. TRUMP ALITO, J., dissenting reading of what happened below, all that the District Court and the Court of Appeals decided was that the applicants were not entitled to temporary injunctive relief. If the Court has gone beyond that question, it has blazed a new trail. It has plucked a case from a district court and decided important issues in the first instance. To my eyes, that looks far too much like an expansion of our original jurisdiction. I must therefore respectfully dissent.
——————
Notes:
1 The Government “unequivocally” told the District Court that it did not “ ‘presently expect to remove A.A.R.P. or W.M.M. under the [Alien Enemies Act (AEA)] until after the pending habeas petition is resolved,’ ” and that it would “ ‘update’ ” the District Court if that changed. ECF Doc. 27, at 1. And in their application for relief before this Court, the applicants did not assert that A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. in particular were at risk of being removed. To the contrary, the applicants represented that they had contacted the Government and were told that “the two named Applicants had not been given [removal] notices.” Application 5, n. 3. The Government later confirmed in its filings before this Court that it “has agreed not to remove pursuant [to] the AEA those AEA detainees who do file habeas claims,” including the named applicants. Opposition to Emergency Application 2.
2 Moreover, it appears to me that the Court overstates what the Government attorney actually said during the April 18 hearing. The attorney represented that it was “definitive” that “there are no flights tonight,” and that “the people [he] spoke to were not aware of any plans for flights tomorrow.” Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, ECF Doc. 93, p. 15. Although the attorney also said that the Department of Homeland Security “reserve[d] the right to remove people tomorrow,” he repeated numerous times that no flights were planned for April 19. Id., at 26; see also id., at 9, 15, 29–30. The attorney’s statements showed that there was a possibility of future injury but not that such an injury was certainly impending. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, USA, 568 U. S. 398, 410 (2013).
3 The Court asserts that “courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class” without “decid[ing] whether a class should be certified.” Ante, at 7. In support of that proposition, the Court cites to no precedent of this Court. Instead, it cites to a treatise that provides no substantive reasoning in support of the proposition. See ibid. (citing 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions §4:30 (6th ed. 2022 and Supp. 2024).
Even if the Court were correct, its position would not justify its decision to entirely sidestep the issue of certification. A court considering whether to issue preliminary injunctive relief must consider whether the movant is likely to succeed on the merits. And to consider whether a request for classwide relief is likely to succeed on the merits, a court must at least consider whether class certification is likely.
No. 24A1007
Title: A.A.R.P., et al., Applicants v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: April 18, 2025
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Numbers: (25-10534)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 7_g2bh.pdf
Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
PER CURIAM.
The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants are two detainees identified as members of TdA and a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas. All of the alleged TdA members in the putative class are currently being held in U. S. detention facilities. In the application before the Court, the detainees seek injunctive relief against summary removal under the AEA.
I
On April 17, 2025, the District Court denied the detainees’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against summary removal under the AEA. No. 25−cv−59, ECF Doc. 27. The detainees allege that, hours later, putative class members were served notices of AEA removal and told that they would be removed “tonight or tomorrow.” ECF Doc. 30, p. 1. On April 18 at 12:34 a.m. central time, the detainees moved for an emergency TRO. See ibid. At 12:48 p.m., the detainees moved for a ruling on that motion or a status conference by 1:30 p.m. ECF Doc. 34. At 3:02 p.m., they appealed “the constructive denia[l]” of the emergency TRO to the Fifth Circuit. ECF Doc. 36, p. 1. The detainees also applied to this Court for a temporary injunction.
We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees’ allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25−cv−766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day “would be consistent with” its due process obligations, and it “reserve[d] the right” to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that “tomorrow . . . starts at 12:01 a.m.”). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA—including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a−5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11−20.
At 12:52 a.m. eastern time (11:52 p.m. central time), we ordered the Government—in light of all these circumstances—“not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees” in order to preserve our jurisdiction to consider the application. 604 U. S. ___ (2025). We invited the Government to respond to that application after the Fifth Circuit ruled. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for injunction pending appeal as premature, on the ground that the detainees “gave the [district] court only 42 minutes to act.” No. 25−10534, ECF Doc. 14, p. 2. We now construe the application as a petition for writ of certiorari from the decision of the Fifth Circuit. See Reply 15. We grant the petition as well as the application for injunction pending further proceedings, vacate the judgment of the Fifth Circuit, and remand for further proceedings.
II
The Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders that have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction.” Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of “serious, perhaps irreparable,” consequences may have the effect of refusing an injunction. 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3924.1, pp. 174, 180−181 (3d ed. 2012) (quoting Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, 181 (1955)). Here the District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
“[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings.” Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 259 (1978). We have long held that “no person shall be” removed from the United States “without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.” The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101 (1903). Due process requires notice that is “reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties” and that “afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950). Accordingly, in J. G. G., this Court explained—with all nine Justices agreeing—that “AEA detainees must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief ” before removal. 604 U. S., at ____ (slip op., at 3). In order to “actually seek habeas relief,” a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.
The Government does not contest before this Court the applicants’ description of the notice afforded to AEA detainees in the Northern District of Texas, nor the assertion that the Government was poised to carry out removals imminently. The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador, see Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25−cv−951 (D Md.), ECF Docs. 74, 77, where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention, see Application for Injunction 11. The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster. But it is not optimal for this Court, far removed from the circumstances on the ground, to determine in the first instance the precise process necessary to satisfy the Constitution in this case. We remand the case to the Fifth Circuit for that purpose.
To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given on April 18, and we grant temporary injunctive relief to preserve our jurisdiction while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated. See post, at 13 (ALITO, J., dissenting). We did not on April 19—and do not now—address the underlying merits of the parties’ claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA. We recognize the significance of the Government’s national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In light of the foregoing, lower courts should address AEA cases expeditiously.
III
The dissent disputes both the Court’s jurisdiction and the availability of classwide relief. We do not find its reasoning persuasive.
First, we reject the dissent’s characterization of the events that transpired on April 18, which lead it to question our jurisdiction. District courts should approach requests for preliminary relief with care and consideration, see post, at 3−4 (ALITO, J., dissenting), but exigent circumstances may impose practical constraints. Preliminary relief is “customarily granted on the basis of procedures that are less formal and evidence that is less complete than in a trial on the merits.” Lackey v. Stinnie, 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (slip op., at 6) (quoting University of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390, 395 (1981)). The purpose of such relief is “merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties” pending further proceedings. Lackey, 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6) (quoting Camenisch, 451 U. S., at 395).
In this case, the record before the District Court, although limited, indicated that removals of putative class members were likely imminent. Contra, post, at 4−6 (ALITO, J., dissenting). The detainees attached four declarations to their emergency motion for a TRO. In one, for example, an attorney relayed a detainee’s report that immigration officers “had informed them that they will be deported either today or tomorrow.” ECF Doc. 30−1. In a second, a nonprofit director described conversations with family members of detainees and linked to a video of detainees holding notices of removal as evidence that detainees “were being removed.” ECF Doc. 30−2.
Importantly, the relevant question for purposes of our jurisdiction is whether, at the time this Court was called upon to intervene, the District Court’s inaction had the effect of refusing an injunction. In their application to this Court, the detainees represented that “[m]any individuals [had] already been loaded on to buses, presumably headed to the airport.” Application for Injunction 1. Shortly thereafter, the Government represented on the record in federal court that it reserved the right to remove detainees after midnight. We had the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicants and to preserve our jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U. S. C. §1651(a). Now that the Fifth Circuit has ruled, our certiorari jurisdiction also supports review in the ordinary course.
Finally, this Court may properly issue temporary injunctive relief to the putative class in order to preserve our jurisdiction pending appeal.* Named applicants A. A. R. P and W. M. M. assert that they are at imminent risk of being classified as alien enemies and removed from the United States, but the record does not indicate that they have received any formal notice of removal under the AEA. See ECF Doc. 38, pp. 5−6. The named applicants, along with putative class members, are entitled to constitutionally adequate notice prior to any removal, in order to pursue appropriate relief. Although the putative class members may ultimately take different steps to protect their own interests in response to such notice, the notice to which they are entitled is the same. And because courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class, see 2 W. Rubenstein, New-berg & Rubenstein on Class Actions §4:30 (6th ed. 2022 and Supp. 2024), we need not decide whether a class should be certified as to the detainees’ due process claims in order to temporarily enjoin the Government from removing putative class members while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated.
We recognize that the Government “has agreed to forgo removing the named petitioners pursuant to the AEA while their habeas proceedings are pending.” Opposition to Emergency Application 11. But we reject the proposition that a class-action defendant may defeat class treatment, if it is otherwise proper, by promising as a matter of grace to treat named plaintiffs differently. Cf. FBI v. Fikre, 601 U. S. 234, 241 (2024) (explaining that voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not moot a claim). And we are skeptical of the self-defeating notion that the right to the notice necessary to “actually seek habeas relief,” J. G. G., 604 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3), must itself be vindicated through individual habeas petitions, somehow by plaintiffs who have not received notice.
* * *
The application for an injunction pending further proceedings is granted. The motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix under seal is also granted. Additionally, applicants suggested this Court treat the application as a petition for a writ of certiorari; doing so, the petition is granted. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded to the Fifth Circuit. In resolving the detainees’ appeal, the Fifth Circuit should address (1) all the normal preliminary injunction factors, including likelihood of success on the merits, as to the named plaintiffs’ underlying habeas claims that the AEA does not authorize their removal pursuant to the President’s March 14, 2025,Proclamation, and (2) the issue of what notice is due, as to the putative class’s due process claims against summary removal. The Government is enjoined from removing the named plaintiffs or putative class members in this action under the AEA pending order by the Fifth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
The Government may remove the named plaintiffs or putative class members under other lawful authorities.
It is so ordered.
——————
Notes:
*We note that the District Court recently denied class certification as to the detainees’ underlying habeas claims challenging the validity of removal under the AEA. See ECF Doc. 67. By its own terms, the District Court’s order is “automatically vacated” by our order granting a writ of certiorari. Id., at 2. And in any event, the District Court’s order primarily addressed the detainees’ ability to challenge the validity of AEA removal on a classwide basis. The application before this Court seeks only to vindicate notice rights on a classwide basis. To the extent the District Court’s order addressed due process, see post, at 12 (ALITO, J., dissenting) (citing ECF Doc. 67, pp. 29−31, 33, 38−39), the District Court’s concerns as to the propriety of classwide relief focused on considerations downstream of the initial notice necessary for detainees to raise any substantive claims against AEA removal, see ECF Doc. 67, pp. 29−31, 33, 38−39.
***********
Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1007
A. A. R. P., ET AL. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 16, 2025]
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring.
I understand and agree with the Court’s decision to grant a temporary injunction. The injunction simply ensures that the Judiciary can decide whether these Venezuelan detainees may be lawfully removed under the Alien Enemies Act before they are in fact removed. The underlying legal questions that the courts may need to decide before the removals occur include: (i) whether the Alien Enemies Act (as distinct from the ordinary removal process under the Immigration and Nationality Act) authorizes removal of these detainees and (ii) if so, what notice is due before removal. Several Federal District Courts have already issued conflicting rulings on the underlying legal issues. Compare A. S. R. v. Trump, No. 3:25–cv–113 (WD Pa., May 13, 2025), with G. F. F. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–2886 (SDNY, May 6, 2025), D. B. U. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–1163 (D Colo., May 6, 2025), and J. A. V. v. Trump, No. 1:25–cv–72 (SD Tex., May 1, 2025).
The Executive Branch and the detainees agree about the urgency and importance of those legal questions: The Executive Branch has represented that this case is important for America’s national security and that it is “critical to remove TdA members subject to the Proclamation quickly.” Application To Vacate Orders in Trump v. J. G. G., No. 24A931 (Mar. 28, 2025), p. 37; see Opposition to Emergency Application 3, 5. For their part, the detainees have explicitly requested that the Court move fast and grant certiorari before judgment. See Reply 4.
The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court. At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.
*****************
Cite as: 605 U. S. ____ (2025)
ALITO, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1007
A. A. R. P., ET AL. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 16, 2025]
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting.
I cannot join the decision of the Court. First and most important, we lack jurisdiction and therefore have no authority to issue any relief. Second, even if we had such authority, the applicants have not satisfied the requirements for the issuance of injunctive relief pending appellate review. Third, granting certiorari before any decision on the merits has been made by either the District Court or the Court of Appeals is unwarranted.
I
A
“Jurisdiction is power to declare the law,” and “[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all.” Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869). So in order for us to do anything in this matter, “we must assure ourselves that we have jurisdiction.” Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. 579, 594 (2018).
The Court’s theory of jurisdiction, as I understand it, is as follows. Under 28 U. S. C. §1254, we have jurisdiction to review a “case” that is properly before one of the federal courts of appeals. This case was properly before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit because the two habeas petitioners, A. A. R. P. and W. M. M., took an appeal from a District Court order that refused to issue “an injunction.” 2 A. A. R. P. v. TRUMP ALITO, J., dissenting §1292(a)(1). Although the District Court never actually issued such an order or said that it would do so, the District Court constructively denied injunctive relief by failing to act under circumstances where prompt intervention was urgently needed. See ante, at 3.
This theory rests on a mischaracterization of what happened in the District Court. I do not dispute that a district court’s failure to act expeditiously may, in some circumstances, have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction” and thus entitle a party to take an interlocutory appeal. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981); see also §1292(a)(1). But that principle does not apply here where (a) the District Court had no good reason to think that either A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. was in imminent danger of removal, (b) the record at that time contained only sketchy evidence about any imminent threat to members of the class of alien detainees they sought to have certified, (c) the court took the entirely reasonable position that it would wait for the Government to respond to the applicants’ request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) before acting, (d) the court set a very short deadline for the filing of the Government’s response, and (e) the court was working diligently on the difficult issues presented by the applicants’ request for relief for themselves and the members of the putative class.
The Court asserts that the District Court failed to act “for 14 hours and 28 minutes,” ante, at 3, but that is misleading. Here is what actually happened. On the evening of April17, lawyers for A. A. R. P. and W. M. M. made a phone call in which they demanded “to talk to the Judge immediately . . . and have the Judge issue an order.” Order in No. 1:25– cv–59 (ND Tex., Apr. 21, 2025), ECF Doc. 47–1, p. 2. As the District Court has since correctly noted, judges are generally not permitted to consider such ex parte communications. See ECF Doc. 47, at 1–2 (citing Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, Canon 3(A)(4)); see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1). So the judge issued an electronic order admonishing the attorneys and stating that “[t]o the extent either party seeks emergency relief, it may file a motion to do so. If an emergency motion is filed, the opposing party shall have 24 hours to file a response.” ECF Doc. 29.
Thus, when the attorneys for A. A. R. P. and W. M. M. filed their renewed motion for a TRO at 12:34 a.m. on April18, they were fully aware that the District Court intended to give the Government 24 hours to file a response. But in that motion, the attorneys said nothing about a plan to appeal if the District Court elected to wait for that response.
It was not until their 12:48 p.m. emergency motion for an immediate status conference that the attorneys suddenly informed the court that they would file an appeal if the District Court did not act within 42 minutes, i.e., by 1:30 p.m. No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., Apr. 18, 2025), ECF Doc. 34, p. 2. The attorneys then filed their appeal at 3:02 p.m., just 133 minutes after they put the District Court on notice that they would seek appellate relief. Reply 10. Whether or not the actions taken by applicants’ attorneys are thought to be justified under the circumstances, delivering such an ultimatum to a district court judge (“Act on my motion on a complex matter within 42 or 133 minutes or I’ll file an appeal and divest you of jurisdiction”) represented a very stark departure from what is usually regarded as acceptable practice.
Faced with applicants’ extraordinary demand, the District Court proceeded in an entirely reasonable manner. The Court characterizes the District Court’s behavior during the period in question as “inaction,” ante, at 3, but in my judgment, that is unfair. Rather, as the judge has noted, he “was working with utmost diligence to resolve [the] important and complicated issues [presented by the motion] as quickly as possible.” ECF Doc. 41, p. 4. The judge explained that he had not yet ruled because he could not “shirk [his] responsibility to decide . . . complicated issues of law without at least some opportunity to review the pleadings and attachments and to get thoughtful responses from the parties.” Id., at 5. And the judge “was prepared to issue an order” “as soon as practicable after the government filed its response shortly after midnight, if not sooner.” Id., at 4.
We should commend this careful approach, not criticize it. In the past few months alone, we have vacated or stayed district court orders that granted temporary injunctive relief without adequate consideration of the relevant issues. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam); Department of Education v. California, 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam). But in this case, a District Court judge is deemed to have constructively denied an injunction by failing to act within the space of a little over two hours on an application that required consideration of important and difficult questions and that was supported by factual submissions that, as I will explain below, were very weak.
Under these circumstances, I cannot agree that the District Court’s failure to act amounted to a constructive denial of the applicants’ request for relief.
B
As I mentioned, the factual support provided to the District Court was weak. The Court claims that the facts presented to the District Court on April 18 showed that there was an emergency entailing a high risk of “serious, perhaps irreparable, consequences.” Ante, at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). But it is important not to conflate the information that was in the record on April 18 with the new information that was presented to this Court several days later.
The record that was before the District Court on April 18 (which is the same record that was before us at midnight on that date) included no concrete evidence that any removals were so imminent that a ruling had to be made immediately. The applicants’ factual support consisted of six sworn declarations and a photograph that the applicants asserted was an image of a notice of removal. See App. to Application 32–37, 56–65. But neither the declarations nor the photograph showed “extreme urgency.” Ante, at 3.
The declarations certainly did not show that action was urgently needed to protect A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. The Government had represented in District Court that it would not remove either of those men—the only parties who were indisputably before the court—while their habeas petitions were pending. Order in No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., Apr. 17,2025), ECF Doc. 27, p. 1. And the two declarations concerning those individuals included no allegations about imminent removal. App. to Application 32–37. Indeed, the declarations concerning them were signed on April 15, prior to the Government’s representation that they would not be removed while their habeas petitions were pending. As a result, the declarations were outdated and provided no support for the claim that either A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. was threatened with removal on April 18 or 19.1
The remaining evidence in the record at that time concerned only the unnamed members of the as-yet uncertified class. And of the four declarations concerning those individuals, only one said anything about when removal might happen. In that declaration, a lawyer swore that she spoke on the phone with an unidentified Venezuelan man who said that “ICE had informed them that they will be deported either today or tomorrow to Venezuela.” Id., at 56. In other words, the most specific piece of evidence in the record was a double-hearsay statement that cannot be traced back to any specific government official. Outside of that, none of the remaining declarations said anything about imminent removal. They merely stated that certain aliens were receiving deportation notices, but it was not claimed that these notices specified when removal might occur. See id., at 57–58 (Brané decl.); id., at 59–60 (Collins decl.); id., at 61 (Siegel decl.). And the image of a document labeled “Notice and Warrant of Apprehension and Removal Under the Alien Enemies Act,” which the applicants termed a removal notice, likewise said nothing about the time of removal. See id., at 64–65. Other than these declarations, the court was left with unsupported attorney assertions in the application itself.
Ignoring these deficiencies in the record before the District Court, the Court relies on information that was not in the District Court record, namely, (a) statements made by a Government attorney in a hearing in another case that was held in Washington, D. C., during the evening on April 18, well after applicants filed their appeal and (b) evidence that we received several days later. See ante, at 2. But in evaluating whether the District Court effectively refused to issue injunctive relief, we must consider the facts as they were known to that court at the time in question.2
For these reasons, I agree with the unanimous Court of Appeals panel that the District Court did not constructively deny an application for an injunction. As the panel stated, there was no reason to doubt the “diligence and ability” of the District Court to act appropriately under the circumstances. Order in No. 25–10534 (CA5, Apr. 18, 2025), ECF Doc. 14–1, p. 2. And his “failure to issue the requested ruling” within the extraordinarily short period specified by the applicants cannot reasonably be viewed as “an effective denial of injunctive relief.” Id., at 4 (Ramirez, J., concurring).
II
Even if the District Court had denied the applicants’ motion, there would be no ground for reversal because the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for emergency injunctive relief, one of which is a showing of likelihood of success on the merits. Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 434 (2009). And here, in order to obtain what the application sought (and what the Court now provides)—i.e., relief for the members of the class that applicants asked to have certified—applicants had to show that they were likely to establish that class relief is available in a habeas proceeding and, if such relief is available, that the standard requirements for class certification could likely be met.3
In my judgment, applicants were not likely to prevail on either of those issues.
A
1
First, it is doubtful that class relief may be obtained in a habeas proceeding. We have never so held, and it is highly questionable whether it is permitted. Although habeas proceedings are classified as civil, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply only “to the extent that the practice in [habeas] proceedings . . . previously conformed to the practice in civil actions.” Rule 81(a)(4)(B); see also Rule 1. And in accordance with Rule 81, we have acknowledged that some Federal Rules are inapplicable in habeas.
In Harris v. Nelson, 394 U. S. 286 (1969), for example, we held that Rule 33—concerning interrogatories—does not apply in habeas proceedings because it has no analogue in historical habeas practice and is a poor fit in a habeas proceeding. Id., at 292–298. Among other things, we noted that the prevalence of fact-finding in habeas proceedings was a relatively recent development, and that the specific scope of Rule 33 was “ill-suited to the special problems and character of [habeas] proceedings.” Id., at 296.
There are similar reasons to believe that Rule 23, which authorizes class actions, is not applicable in habeas. Neither courts nor commentators have found historical support for the practice. One commentator, writing in 1968, noted that “no case has been found in which anything resembling a class action was used in habeas corpus.” Note, Multiparty Federal Habeas Corpus, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 1482, 1493 (1968). Two years later, another commentator observed that “[c]lass actions for habeas corpus relief have rarely been attempted, perhaps because Rule 81(a)(2) [now Rule 81(a)(4)] seems to bar the application of the civil class action rule to habeas proceedings.” Developments in the Law—Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1170 (1970) (footnotes omitted). Indeed, there appears to be some historical debate over whether even joinder was permitted in habeas practice. Compare Note, 81 Harv. L. Rev., at 1494 (“The issue of joinder was not explicitly ruled upon in any of these cases, and no case has been found which expressly sanctions the procedure”), with Developments in the Law—Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev., at 1169 (arguing that “the rules on joinder and consolidation apply under even the most restrictive interpretation of Rule 81,” but citing contrary dicta found in at least one case (footnotes omitted)).
2
Despite this lack of historical support, some lower courts have held that our decision in Harris sometimes permits procedures that resemble those used in a class action. As noted, Harris held that Rule 33, which concerns interrogatories, does not apply in habeas, but the Court also observed that habeas courts “may fashion appropriate modes of procedure, by analogy to existing rules or otherwise in conformity with judicial usage,” when such modes of procedure are necessary to “the habeas corpus jurisdiction and the duty to exercise it.” 394 U. S., at 299. On this ground, Harris held that a habeas court may use its authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. §1651, to fashion a procedure resembling an interrogatory to the extent that such an instrument is “needed” by the court to “perform [its] duty” to “summarily hear and determine the facts, and dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” 394 U. S., at 299– 300 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on this discussion in Harris, the Second Circuit held that while Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 does not itself apply in habeas, “a multi-party proceeding similar to” a Rule 23 class action is sometimes allowed. United States ex rel. Sero v. Preiser, 506 F. 2d 1115, 1125 (CA2 1974). And it concluded that this procedure was appropriate in “the unusual circumstances” present in the case at hand. Ibid.; see also Bijeol v. Benson, 513 F. 2d 965, 968 (CA7 1975).
This reading of Harris is highly questionable. Where a particular rule does not apply in habeas, a court cannot circumvent that limitation by simply saying that it is importing the same feature under a different rubric. Harris concluded that something like an interrogatory was allowed because it was needed under the circumstances to help the habeas court carry out a duty clearly imposed by law, that is, to “‘determine the facts’” that are material to the claim made by the petitioner who was before the court. 394 U. S., at 299 (quoting 28 U. S. C. §2243).
The situation here is different. No provision of law imposes on a habeas court the duty to determine facts or decide legal issues regarding parties who are not before the court. And as a general matter, the class action device is uniquely “ill-suited” for habeas proceedings, id., at 296, which often turn on individualized and fact-specific determinations regarding the confinement of a specific prisoner.
B
Even if something resembling a class action could be used in a habeas proceeding, it is very questionable whether the requirements for class certification could be met in this case. Rule 23(a)(3) provides that named plaintiffs may sue as representatives of a class “only if,” among other things, “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” And when a court certifies a class, the court is supposed to define the precise “claims” that will be adjudicated on a class-wide basis. See Rule 23(c)(1)(B). That ensures that the only claims that are adjudicated in a class action are those that the class brings in common and those for which the named plaintiffs are “typical” representatives of the class. See General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318, 330 (1980) (“The typicality requirement is said to limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff ’s claims”).
Here, however, the main interim relief sought on behalf of the putative class—adequate notice of plans for removal under the AEA and an opportunity to contest such removal in court, see Application 17–18; Reply 5–7—is not needed by either A. A. R. P. or W. M. M., who already have a pending habeas proceeding and a promise that they will not be removed until that proceeding concludes. For this reason, their situation differs critically from that of many of the putative class members since they have no personal stake in how the court resolves the question of interim relief for the putative class members.
The Court responds to this problem by suggesting that a class action defendant may not “defeat class treatment, if it is otherwise proper, by promising as a matter of grace to treat named plaintiffs differently.” Ante, at 7 (emphasis added). But the Court provides no analysis suggesting that class certification here is “otherwise proper,” and instead asserts that it can ignore the question of class certification at this preliminary stage. Ibid. And, in any event, the record does not suggest that the Government is treating the named plaintiffs differently “as a matter of grace.” Ibid. Rather, it is doing so pursuant to its general policy against removing AEA detainees when they have a pending habeas petition. See Opposition to Emergency Application 2 (“the government has agreed not to remove pursuant [to] the AEA those AEA detainees who do file habeas claims”).
C
We have told district courts that they may certify a class only after conducting a “‘rigorous analysis’” of the question. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U. S. 338, 351 (2011) (quoting General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, 161 (1982)). On April 18, the District Court had no time to engage in such analysis, and as a result, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in failing to conclude that applicants’ were likely to prevail on their class-action arguments. Cf. University of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390, 393–394 (1981).
The District Court has since had time to conduct the “rigorous analysis” that our precedents require, and has concluded that class certification would be improper here. Order in No. 1:25–cv–59 (ND Tex., May 9, 2025), ECF Doc. 67.That development makes the relief issued by the Court today all the more extraordinary. Purporting to exercise its appellate jurisdiction, the Court issues “preliminary relief ” to a putative class that the District Court has explicitly refused to certify, and it does so without providing any substantive analysis suggesting that the District Court’s analysis of the class certification issue was incorrect.
Instead of substantively engaging with the District Court’s order, the Court asserts that the order makes no difference because it “primarily addressed the detainees’ ability to challenge the validity of AEA removal on a class-wide basis,” whereas “[t]he application before this Court seeks only to vindicate notice rights.” Ante, at 6, n. *. But the District Court’s order did address the notice question. In addition to explaining why the applicants cannot pursue their final merits claims as a class action, the order explains at length why the applicants’ claims regarding notice rights also cannot proceed on a class basis. ECF Doc. 67, at 29– 31, 33, 38–39. Among other things, the District Court observed that “due process is by its very nature individualized,” id., at 33, a proposition plainly supported by our precedents. See Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U. S. 281, 314 (2018) (“Due process is flexible, we have stressed repeatedly, and it calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)).
In any event, the District Court also offered several general reasons why class relief would be inappropriate here, and these apply equally to the applicants’ claims regarding notice rights. See ECF Doc. 67, at 35–36, 39–45. The Court today issues temporary relief without engaging with any of that analysis. And, what’s more, it asks the Fifth Circuit to finally adjudicate the notice rights of members of the putative class without asking that court to do its own analysis regarding whether class certification as to those claims would be appropriate. Ante, at 8. Clearly, the Court would prefer to ignore the important step of class certification and skip directly to the adjudication of the class members’ rights. The Federal Rules do not permit such a shortcut.
III
Instead of merely ruling on the application that is before us—which asks for emergency relief pending appeal—the Court takes the unusual step of granting certiorari before judgment, summarily vacating the judgment below dismissing the applicants’ appeal, and remanding the case to the Court of Appeals with directions regarding the issues that court should address. From the Court’s order, it is not entirely clear whether the Court has silently decided issues that go beyond the question of interim relief. (I certainly hope that it has not.) But if it has done so, today’s order is doubly extraordinary. Granting certiorari before a court of appeals has entered a judgment is a sharp departure from usual practice, but here neither the Court of Appeals nor the District Court has decided any merits questions.
We have said more times than I care to remember that “we are a court of review, not first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). Even on the Court’s 14 A. A. R. P. v. TRUMP ALITO, J., dissenting reading of what happened below, all that the District Court and the Court of Appeals decided was that the applicants were not entitled to temporary injunctive relief. If the Court has gone beyond that question, it has blazed a new trail. It has plucked a case from a district court and decided important issues in the first instance. To my eyes, that looks far too much like an expansion of our original jurisdiction. I must therefore respectfully dissent.
——————
Notes:
1 The Government “unequivocally” told the District Court that it did not “ ‘presently expect to remove A.A.R.P. or W.M.M. under the [Alien Enemies Act (AEA)] until after the pending habeas petition is resolved,’ ” and that it would “ ‘update’ ” the District Court if that changed. ECF Doc. 27, at 1. And in their application for relief before this Court, the applicants did not assert that A. A. R. P. or W. M. M. in particular were at risk of being removed. To the contrary, the applicants represented that they had contacted the Government and were told that “the two named Applicants had not been given [removal] notices.” Application 5, n. 3. The Government later confirmed in its filings before this Court that it “has agreed not to remove pursuant [to] the AEA those AEA detainees who do file habeas claims,” including the named applicants. Opposition to Emergency Application 2.
2 Moreover, it appears to me that the Court overstates what the Government attorney actually said during the April 18 hearing. The attorney represented that it was “definitive” that “there are no flights tonight,” and that “the people [he] spoke to were not aware of any plans for flights tomorrow.” Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, ECF Doc. 93, p. 15. Although the attorney also said that the Department of Homeland Security “reserve[d] the right to remove people tomorrow,” he repeated numerous times that no flights were planned for April 19. Id., at 26; see also id., at 9, 15, 29–30. The attorney’s statements showed that there was a possibility of future injury but not that such an injury was certainly impending. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, USA, 568 U. S. 398, 410 (2013).
3 The Court asserts that “courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class” without “decid[ing] whether a class should be certified.” Ante, at 7. In support of that proposition, the Court cites to no precedent of this Court. Instead, it cites to a treatise that provides no substantive reasoning in support of the proposition. See ibid. (citing 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions §4:30 (6th ed. 2022 and Supp. 2024).
Even if the Court were correct, its position would not justify its decision to entirely sidestep the issue of certification. A court considering whether to issue preliminary injunctive relief must consider whether the movant is likely to succeed on the merits. And to consider whether a request for classwide relief is likely to succeed on the merits, a court must at least consider whether class certification is likely.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon May 19, 2025 6:36 am
Trump Threatens ABC ‘SleazeBags’ Over Qatari Plane Coverage: The president is taking aim at ABC over its coverage of the $400 million jet Qatar is giving him.
Jack Revell
Night Reporter
Daily Beast
Updated May 18 2025 10:59AM EDT
Published May 18 2025 2:25AM EDT
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-thr ... -coverage/
President Donald Trump is threatening legal action against ABC News—again—over a report that has become late-night fodder and social media satire across the country: the apparent $400 million “free plane” souvenir he picked up on his recent trip to Qatar.
“I give these SleazeBags fair warning!” Trump posted to Truth Social on Saturday night, directing his late-night fury at Disney CEO Bob Iger, who oversees ABC News. “Why doesn’t Chairman Bob Iger do something about ABC Fake News, especially since I just won $16,000,000 based on the Fake and Defamatory reporting of Liddle’ George Slopadopolus.”
The outburst referenced a recent defamation lawsuit Trump pursued against ABC over host George Stephanopoulos’ reporting on Trump’s sexual assault accuser, E. Jean Carroll. ABC settled in December for $15 million.
In a warning shot fired at the national news organization, Trump appears to resent the characterization of the Qatari “free plane” gift as some sort of personal favor.
“Everyone, including their lawyers, has been told that ABC must not say that Qatar is giving ME a FREE Boeing 747 Airplane, because they are not,” Trump wrote. “This highly respected country is donating the plane to the United States Air Force/ Defense Department, AND NOT TO ME.”
Trump has recently returned from his Middle Eastern jaunt where he was greeted with fawning adoration and lavish treatment by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Since then, he has posted multiple travel ad-style videos to his social media accounts, singing the praises of these nations—all of which have dubious human rights records.
“The wonderful country of Qatar, after agreeing to invest more than 1.4 Trillion Dollars in the United States of America, deserves much better than Misleading (Fake!) News,” he continued.
The supposed “free plane” has become a running joke on late-night talk shows this week, with Bill Maher joining in the fun by describing it as “Allah Force One” on Friday. Stephen Colbert suggested Trump went around Saudi Arabia with a bag, asking if they could top the “bribe” Qatar dropped in it.
Trump took offense at an ABC reporter’s question about the plane during the week, turning to golfing terminology to explain why the reporter should be grateful for a “free putt.”
“I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’ But it was, I thought it was a great gesture.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that ABC settled with Trump in the defamation suit against George Stephanopoulos.
Jack Revell
Night Reporter
Daily Beast
Updated May 18 2025 10:59AM EDT
Published May 18 2025 2:25AM EDT
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-thr ... -coverage/
President Donald Trump is threatening legal action against ABC News—again—over a report that has become late-night fodder and social media satire across the country: the apparent $400 million “free plane” souvenir he picked up on his recent trip to Qatar.
“I give these SleazeBags fair warning!” Trump posted to Truth Social on Saturday night, directing his late-night fury at Disney CEO Bob Iger, who oversees ABC News. “Why doesn’t Chairman Bob Iger do something about ABC Fake News, especially since I just won $16,000,000 based on the Fake and Defamatory reporting of Liddle’ George Slopadopolus.”
The outburst referenced a recent defamation lawsuit Trump pursued against ABC over host George Stephanopoulos’ reporting on Trump’s sexual assault accuser, E. Jean Carroll. ABC settled in December for $15 million.
In a warning shot fired at the national news organization, Trump appears to resent the characterization of the Qatari “free plane” gift as some sort of personal favor.
[x]
Trump Posts on X
@trump_repost
Why doesn't Chairman Bob Iger do something about ABC Fake News, especially since I just won $16,000,000 based on the Fake and Defamatory reporting of Liddle' George Slopadopolus. He was given warnings, but just couldn't be restrained by "management." Now I see they are at it again, and I again give these SleazeBags fair warning! The wonderful country of Qatar, after agreeing to invest more than 1.4 Trillion Dollars in the United States of America, deserves much better than Misleading (Fake!) News. Everyone, including their lawyers, has been told that ABC must not say that Qatar is giving ME a FREE Boeing 747 Airplane, because they are not. Instead, and as Fake News ABC fully knows and understands, this highly respected country is donating the plane to the United States Air Force/ Defense Department, AND NOT TO ME. By so doing, they are saving our country, and the American Taxpayer, hundreds of millions of dollars. ABC Fake News is one of the WORST
8:32 PM · May 17, 2025
“Everyone, including their lawyers, has been told that ABC must not say that Qatar is giving ME a FREE Boeing 747 Airplane, because they are not,” Trump wrote. “This highly respected country is donating the plane to the United States Air Force/ Defense Department, AND NOT TO ME.”
Trump has recently returned from his Middle Eastern jaunt where he was greeted with fawning adoration and lavish treatment by Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Since then, he has posted multiple travel ad-style videos to his social media accounts, singing the praises of these nations—all of which have dubious human rights records.
“The wonderful country of Qatar, after agreeing to invest more than 1.4 Trillion Dollars in the United States of America, deserves much better than Misleading (Fake!) News,” he continued.
The supposed “free plane” has become a running joke on late-night talk shows this week, with Bill Maher joining in the fun by describing it as “Allah Force One” on Friday. Stephen Colbert suggested Trump went around Saudi Arabia with a bag, asking if they could top the “bribe” Qatar dropped in it.
Trump took offense at an ABC reporter’s question about the plane during the week, turning to golfing terminology to explain why the reporter should be grateful for a “free putt.”
“I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person and say, ‘No, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’ But it was, I thought it was a great gesture.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that ABC settled with Trump in the defamation suit against George Stephanopoulos.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon May 19, 2025 6:52 am
Murphy On Trump’s Middle East Trip: This Is A National Security Disaster And A Moral Abomination.
Senator Chris Murphy
May 13, 2025 UNITED STATES CAPITOL
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to deliver a blistering condemnation of President Trump’s foreign policy corruption, highlighting his use of the office to enrich himself while putting U.S. national security at risk. Murphy called out Trump’s brazen willingness to accept luxury gifts and bribes from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, blasting the president for openly prioritizing his own profits over the well-being of American families and calling for bipartisan action to confront these abuses of power.
Transcript
THROUGH A FUTURE DEFENSE
CAPABILITIES FROM THE SAUDI SIDE
HIS ROYAL
WE
DISPENSE OF THE QUORUM CALL AND
I BE RECOGNIZED.
PROMISE --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. MURPHY: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
USUALLY PUBLIC CORRUPTION
HAPPENS IN SECRET.
THE POLITICIANS THAT DO IT, THEY
KNOW IT'S WRONG TO ACCEPT MONEY
IN EXCHANGE FOR FAVORABLE
GOVERNMENT TREATMENT, AND SO
THEY HIDE IT UNTIL THEY'RE FOUND
OUT.
A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE WOULD BE
LOUISIANA GOVERNOR EDWIN EDWARDS
WHO IN THE 1990'S WAS QUIETLY
TAKING BRIBES FOR RIVERBOAT
CASINOS.
IN THE LATE 1990'S HE WAS
CONVICTED OF EXTORTION,
RACKETEERING, MONEY LAUNDERING.
THE WAY IN WHICH HE WAS DOING IT
WAS LIKE OUT OF A MOVIE.
IN ONE INSTANCE A BUSINESSMAN
HANDED THE GOVERNOR A SUITCASE
FULL OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS
TOTALS $400,000 IN ORDER TO GET
A SIX-ZERO COMMISSION RULING IN
FAVOR OF THIS CASINO.
EVENTUALLY, AS WITH MOST CORRUPT
OFFICIALS WHO ARE TAKING MONEY
PRIVATELY, EDWARDS WAS
DISCOVERED, HE WAS DISGRACED,
AND HE WENT TO JAIL.
AS WE SPEAK, OUR PRESIDENT,
DONALD TRUMP, IS GOING TO THE
MIDDLE EAST ON A PUBLIC
CORRUPTION TOUR.
HE'S NO LESS CORRUPT THAN EDWIN
EDWARDS OF LOUISIANA.
IN FACT, HE'S WAY MORE CORRUPT.
EDWIN EDWARDS TOOK $400,000,
WHILE IN THE MIDDLE EAST DONALD
TRUMP WILL CEMENT DEALS TOTALING
IN THE BILLIONS IN EXCHANGE
FOREIGN POLICY FAVORABLE
TREATMENT BY THE U.S. FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THESE GULF
COUNTRIES.
THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS THAT
DONALD TRUMP ISN'T HIDING IT
LIKE OTHER CORRUPT OFFICIALS
ARE.
HE'S NOT ASHAMED.
HE'S NOT DOING IT IN SECRET.
HIS CORRUPTION IS WILDLY PUBLIC
AND HIS HOPE IS THAT BY DOING IT
PUBLICLY, HE CAN CON THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO THINKING
IT'S NOT CORRUPTION BECAUSE HE'S
NOT HIDING IT BUT HE'S NO
DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER PUBLIC
OFFICIAL WHO DOES IT IN PRIVATE
P OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT
TRUMP'S CORRUPTION, FOREIGN
POLICY CORRUPTION IS SO MUCH
BIGGER IN SCOPE AND THE IMPACT
IT HAS ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAN ANYTHING A CORRUPT MAYOR OR
A CORRUPT GOVERNOR MAY HAVE
DONE.
TRUMP'S FIRST MAJOR FOREIGN
TRIP -- AND HE JUST LANDED -- IS
TO SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR AND UAE,
NOT BECAUSE THESE ARE OUR MOST
IMPORTANT ALLIES IN THE WORLD,
NOT BECAUSE THESE ARE THE MOST
IMPORTANT COUNTRIES IN THE
WORLD, NOT BECAUSE HE'S GOING
THERE TO TALK ABOUT MAKING THE
MIDDLE EAST MORE SAFE AND MORE
SECURE.
NO.
HIS FIRST TRIP IS TO THESE THREE
COUNTRIES BECAUSE THESE ARE THE
THREE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE AGREED
TO PAY DONALD TRUMP MONEY.
DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO COLLECT
TRIBUTE, AND IT'S ALL JUST OUT
IN THE OPEN.
FRANKLY, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO SEE
THIS COMING.
RECENT FORMER PRESIDENTS,
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, HAVE
ALWAYS SERIOUSLY AND STUDIOUSLY
AVOIDED EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF A
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
PRESIDENT BUSH PLACED HIS ASSETS
INTO A BLIND TRUST WHERE
INVESTMENT DECISIONS WERE MADE
WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR INPUT.
BOTH BIDEN AND OBAMA DIVESTED
ALL THEIR ASSETS EXCEPT FOR CASH
AND MUTUAL FUNDS.
THEY DIDN'T ENTER INTO ANY NEW
BUSINESS VENTURES WHILE IN THE
WHITE HOUSE.
IN CONTRAST, TRUMP HAS REFUSED
TO ABIDE BY THESE STANDARD
ETHICS RULES.
HIS FAMILY RUNS HIS BUSINESS BUT
NOBODY HONEST POLYBELIEVES THE
KIDS ARE IN CHARGE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS STILL CALLING
THE SHOTS.
HIS INTERESTS ARE NOT IN A BLIND
TRUST.
HE'S MADE NO PLEDGE THAT HE
WON'T DO NEW DEALS, EVEN WITH
FOREIGN ENTITIES, WHILE HE'S IN
OFFICE.
IN FACT, HE IS DOING DEALS
SEEMINGLY EVERY SINGLE WEEK.
HE'S OPEN FOR BUSINESS, AND
EVERY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT KNOWS
IT.
IN FACT, IT APPEARS THAT RIGHT
NOW THE GULF STATES ARE TRYING
TO OUTDO EACH OTHER TO UP THE
PRICE OF BUYING AN AMERICAN
PRESIDENT.
AND BECAUSE TRUMP IS GREEDY AND
HE'S INSECURE, HE WANTS TO FIT
IN WITH THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS,
HE IS TRAVELING TO THE REGION
WITH HIS HAT OUT FOR FURTHER
SOLICITATIONS.
SO LET'S ASK WHAT IS THE GO RATE
RIGHT NOW FOR A GULF COUNTRY --
WHAT IS THE GOING RATE FOR A
GULF COUNTRY TO BUY ACCESS TO
DONALD TRUMP TO GET FAVORABLE
TREATMENT FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT?
FOR QATAR, WE RECENTLY FOUND OUT
IT'S A $400 MILLION LUXURY
PLANE.
THIS PLANE HAS BEEN CONFIGURED
FOR ROYAL USE.
IT'S NOT A GIFT TO THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S A PERSONAL GIFT TO THE
PRESIDENT.
THE TERMS OF THE ARRANGEMENT
APPARENTLY INCLUDE A STIPULATION
THAT AFTER TRUMP LEAVES OFFICE,
IT WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO TRUMP,
TO HIS PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY,
WHICH MEANS TRUMP GETS THE
SO-CALLED FLOATING PALACE FOR
HIMSELF.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE
THIS BEFORE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT GIFTING A
$400 MILLION LUXURY PLANE TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THIS IS SPELLED OUT AS BLATANTLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS.
THEY WROTE INTO THE CONSTITUTION
A SPECIFIC CLAUSE CALLED THE
EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE WHICH
PROHIBITS FEDERAL OFFICEHOLDERS
FROM ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM ANY
KING, PRINCE, OR FOREIGN STATE
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS.
LIKE HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD IT
BE?
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IT'S ILLEGAL.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS KNEW IT WAS
EVIL TO HAVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ACCEPTING OF EXPENSIVE
GIFTS FROM A FOREIGN NATION WHO
IN EXCHANGE WANT FAVORS FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
DONALD TRUMP'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE
LUXURY PLANE FROM A FOREIGN
MONARCH IS BASICALLY THE
CORRUPTION THAT OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS WERE SEEKING TO PREVENT.
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL HE'S GETTING
FROM QATAR.
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION RECENTLY
SIGNED A $5.5 BILLION GOLF
COURSE AND REAL ESTATE DEAL WITH
DAR GLOBAL AND QATAR EDR,
ESTABLISHED BY A WEALTH FUND.
$5.5 BILLION.
WHILE TRUMP'S IN OFFICE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNTHINKABLE
FOR ANY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT TO
ENTER INTO A $5.5 BILLION
BUSINESS DEAL WITH ANYBODY,
NEVER MIND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
WHILE THEY ARE IN OFFICE.
AND IT STILL SHOULD BE
UNTHINKABLE.
QATAR IS A U.S. ALLY.
IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ALLY, BUT
THEY ARE A COMPLICATED COUNTRY.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LIKE QATAR
SHOULD NOT HAVE A $5 BILLION
GIFT HANGING OVER THE HEAD OF A
U.S. PRESIDENT AND NOT GIFTING
HIM A $400 MILLION PLANE.
THAT SHOULD KIND OF GO WITHOUT
SAYING.
FOR SAUDI ARABIA THE PRICE IS
ALSO IN THE BILLIONS.
SOON AFTER LEAVING THE WHITE
HOUSE IN TRUMP'S FIRST TERM, HIS
SON-IN-LAW, JARED KUSHNER,
KRAEPTED A PRIVATE -- CREATED A
PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM AND GOT A
$200 BILLION INVESTMENT FROM
SAUDI ARABIA.
THE BOARD OF THE SAUDI SOVEREIGN
WEALTH FUND QUESTIONED WHETHER
THIS WAS SMART TO INVEST THAT
MUCH MONEY IN A TOTALLY UNPROVEN
FUND, BUT THE SAUDI CROWN PRINCE
HIMSELF OVERRULED THE BOARD,
UNDOUBTEDLY SEEING THE POLITICAL
ADVANTAGE OF INVESTING DIRECTLY
WITH THE TRUMP FAMILY.
THIS WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.
THE TRUMP FAMILY HAS PUT THINGS
INTO OVERDRIVE DURING THE SECOND
TERM.
WITHIN HIS FIRST THREE WEEKS OF
OFFICE, TRUMP CONVENED A MEETING
AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THE HEAD
OF THE SAUDI SOVEREIGN WEALTH
FUND NOT
TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF STATE, BUT
TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL BETWEEN THE
PGA AND THE SAUDI-BACKED LIV
GOLF TOUR.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY?
TO TRY TO BRING PGA TOURNAMENTS
BACK TO TRUMP GOLF COURSES,
CONVENED A MEETING IN THE WHITE
HOUSE WITH THE SAUDIS IN ORDER
TO ENRICH HIMSELF.
IN ADDITION TO THE $5 BILLION
QATARI REAL ESTATE DEAL, THE
TRUMP ORGANIZATION IS ALSO
PARTNERING WITH A SAUDI FIRM ON
A $1 BILLION TRUMP-BRANDED HOTEL
AND TOWER IN DUBAI.
THE PROPERTY'S WEBSITE -- THIS
IS, LIKE, UNBELIEVABLE -- THE
PROPERTY'S WEBSITE, THIS IS A
TRUMP-FINANCED PROPERTY, ALONG
WITH A SAUDI INVESTMENT FUND,
OFFERS FREE TEN-YEAR GOLDEN
VISAS TO THE UNITED STATES,
HINTING AT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
INVESTORS IN TRUMP'S PROPERTY TO
BUY RESIDENCY IN THE UNITED
STATES AND A PATHWAY TO
CITIZENSHIP.
FOR THE UAE, THE PRICE IS
SOMEWHERE NORTH OF $2 BILLION.
LAST WEEK, ERIC TRUMP AND WORLD
LIBERTY FINANCIAL COFOUNDER ZACH
WH
WHITTCOFF SPOKE IN DUBEE ON A --
IN DUBAI AT A CONFERENCE.
IT'S SO FANTASTIC AND
BONE-CHILLING HOW TRANSPARENT
THESE GUYS ARE IN THEIR USE OF
PUBLIC POSITIONS TO ENRICH
THEMSELVES.
I'M GOING TO TELL THE STORY OF
TRUMP'S STABLECOIN AND THE
CORRUPTION WITH THE EMIRATIES,
BUT LET'S PAUSE FOR A SECOND AND
CONSIDER THAT ARE THE TRUMP
FAMILY COULD HAVE PARTNERED WITH
ANYBODY IN THE WORLD ON THEIR
NEW CRYPTO VENTURE, WORLD
LIBERTY FINANCIAL, BUT OF ALL
THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD TO
PARTNER WITH ON THIS NEW CRYPTO
VENTURE THEY CHOSE THE SON OF
TRUMP'S MIDDLE EAST ENVOY.
TRUMP'S MIDDLE EAST ENVOY, THE
GUY MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS ON
U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
JUST TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR TO
THE GULF COUNTRIES THAT WHEN
THEY DEAL WITH WORLD LIBERTY
FINANCIAL, TRUMP'S CRYPTO
VENTURE, THEY ARE DEALING
DIRECTLY WITH THE PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING U.S.
POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
IT'S JUST STUNNING.
LITERALLY, THE SONS OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THE SONS OF THE
MIDDLE EAST ENVOY RUNNING A
CRYPTO VENTURE, AND THEN GOING
DIRECTLY INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IN
ORDER TO FIND THEIR FIRST
INVESTMENT.
GUESS WHAT -- MIRACLE, THEY
FOUND IT.
MGX, AN INVESTMENT FIRM BACKED
BY THE EMIRATI GOVERNMENT AT
THIS CONFERENCE, ANNOUNCED THAT
THEY HAD LOOKED AT ALL OF CRYPTO
COMPANIES IN THE WORLD THAT THEY
CAN PARTNER WITH TO INVEST $2
BILLION IN THE CRYPTO EXCHANGE,
AND THEY SELECTED, WAIT, DRUM
ROLL, THE COMPANY RUN BY THE
SONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE U.S.
MIDDLE EAST ENVOY.
$2 BILLION.
NOW, WORLD LIBERTY'S ROLE IN
THIS TRANSACTION IS NOT THAT
COMPLICATED.
IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO A BANK.
MGX, THIS EMIRATI FIRM, DEPOSITS
$2 BILLION WITH THE FIRM.
IN RETURN, RECEIVES THE
STABLECOIN TO BE USED ON THESE
CRYPTO EXCHANGES.
THE FIRM HOLDS ON TO THESE
DOLLARS, INVESTS THEM, AND KEEPS
THE PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES.
SO, THE TRUMP-WITKOFF COMPANY
GETS BASICALLY A GIFT OF
CAPITAL.
IF THEY JUST USE THAT $2 BILLION
TO INVEST IN TREASURY BONDS, IT
WOULD PROFIT AROUND $85 MILLION
A YEAR FROM THESE INVESTMENTS
ALONE.
AND THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY TO
TRUMP, JUST DIRECTLY TO TRUMP.
IT'S LITERALLY NOT
COMPLICATED --
EMIRATIS, WORLD LIBERTY
FINANCIAL, DONALD TRUMP.
THIS ISN'T 1990'S LOUISIANA.
NOBODY IS HIDING IT.
ON WORLD LIBERTY'S WEBSITE, THEY
SAY, AN ENTITY AFFILIATED WITH
DONALD J. TRUMP OWNS 60% OF THE
EQUITY IN THE COMPANY.
AND BECAUSE OF THIS DEAL, TRUMP
AND WITKOFF CAN FURTHER
CAPITALIZE, BECAUSE TRUMP'S
STABLECOIN JUST BECAME THE FIFTH
MOST VALUABLE STABLECOIN IN THE
WORLD, BECAUSE OF THE EMIRATI
INVES
INVESTMENTS.
IF THE PLANE AND THE REAL ESTATE
DEALS AND THE PRIVATE EQUITY
FUND INVESTMENT AND THE
STABLECOIN WEREN'T ENOUGH FOR
YOU, TRUMP HAS FOUND ONE LAST
WAY FOR GULF MONEY TO FLOW
SEAMLESSLY INTO HIS POCKED, THE
TRUMP MEME COIN.
TRUMPS GETS A HUGE PAYMENT WHEN
HE RELEASES THE COINS, WHICH
HAVE NO UNDERLYING VALUE OTHER
THAN THE DEMAND PEOPLE HAVE FOR
TRUMP'S COIN, AND THEN EACH TIME
A TRUMP COIN IS BOUGHT OR SOLD,
A SMALL FEE IS ROUTED DIRECTLY
TO THE COMPANY OWNED BY TRUMP.
ACCORDING TO ONE ANALYSIS,
NEARLY $325 MILLION IN FEES HAVE
BEEN ACCRUED SINCE THE COIN WAS
LAUNCHED IN JARNL.
JUST -- IN JANUARY.
JUST THREE, FOUR, FOUR AND A
HALF MONTHS, $325 MILLION WORTH
OF FEES.
TRUMP HIDES THE BUYERS OF THE
COIN.
IN THIS WAY, THE MEME COULD I BE
IS -- THE MEME COIN IS A LITTLE
LIKE LOUISIANA CORRUPTION, BUT
WE KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THE
BUYERS AREN'T AMERICANS WHO WANT
TO HELP TRUMP MAKE THIS NATION
GREAT AGAIN.
THE MAJORITY OF THE BUYERS OF
TRUMP COIN ARE SUPERRICH
FOREIGNERS, PRINCES, OLIGARCHS,
AUTHORITARIANS, BUYING THE COIN
TO GET IN GOOD WITH TRUMP OR
SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE.
NOW, ONE GREAT THING ABOUT
BUYING THE COIN IS THAT YOU GET
ACCESS TO TRUMP AND THE WHITE
HOUSE.
AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT HIDING THIS.
TWO WEEKS AGO, TRUMP ANNOUNCED
THAT HE WOULD HOST A PRIVATE
DINNER AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH
SEATS RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR
THE TOP 220 TRUMP COIN HOLDERS.
IN TWO DAYS SINCE THE
ANNOUNCEMENT, TRUMP'S COMPANY
MADE $900,000 IN FEES, BECAUSE
EVERYBODY, MOSTLY FOREIGNERS,
MANY PROBABLY IN THE GULF, WERE
BUYING UP THE COIN AS QUICKLY AS
THEY COULD IN ORDER TO GET ONE
OF THESE SEATS.
IF A MAYOR OF A SMALL TOWN WAS
SELLING MEETINGS AT CITY HALL
FOR A THOUSAND BUCKS, HE WOULD
BE RUN OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL.
BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DONALD
TRUMP IS DOING, IN THE
MIDDLE EAST AND ALL OVER THE
WORLD, AS FOREIGN BUYERS LINE UP
TO BUY THE MEME COIN, GUARANTEED
PRIVATE ACCESS TO DONALD TRUMP
AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP.
NOW, THE OBVIOUS QUESTION FOR
THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IS WHAT
DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME.
SOMEBODY LIVING IN NEW BRITAIN,
CONNECTICUT, MIGHT THINK IT'S
KIND OF GROSS TRUMP IS LINING
HIS POCKETS AS PRESIDENT.
THEY WANT TO KNOW, HOW DOES THIS
AFFECT ME?
WELL, THE MOST SIMPLE WAY IS
THAT IF THE GUY YOU ELECTED TO
PROTECT US AND MAKE OUR LIVES
BETTER IS SPENDING MOST OF HIS
TIME ALTERNATING BETWEEN GOLF
AND CUTTING DEALS FOR HIMSELF,
HE'S NOT PROTECTING YOU.
HE'S NOT SPENDING ANY TIME
TRYING TO LOWER COSTS OR DEFEAT
ENEMIES.
CORRUPTION CAN BE A FULL-TIME
JOB FOR DONALD TRUMP, THAT'S A
LOUSY DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
WHEN OUR FOREIGN POLICY IS FOR
SALE, WE ARE LESS SAFE.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE
RELATIVE TO THE TRIP THAT DONALD
TRUMP IS ON RIGHT NOW.
THESE COUNTRIES AREN'T PADDING
DONALD TRUMP'S POCKETS BECAUSE
THEY LIKE HIM.
THEY'RE PAYING HIM IN ORDER TO
GET THINGS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, FROM THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT HAVING TO
MAKE ANY ACTUAL POLICY
CONCESSIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT
THE U.S. PEOPLE.
BEFORE ANYBODY COULD BEGIN TO
PROCESS THE BRAZEN CORRUPTION OF
THE UAE TRUMP-WITKOFF CRYPTO
KEEL, REPORTS -- CRYPTO DEAL,
REPORTS VERY QUICKLY EMERGED
THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
WAS CONSIDERING CHANGING
REGULATIONS TO MAKE IT EASIER
FOR THE COUNTRY OF UAE TO PRFRP
HIGHLY ADVANCED
SEMICONDUCTORS -- TO PURCHASE
HIGHLY ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTORS
FROM U.S. MANUFACTURERS.
THIS WAS A HUGE PRIORITY OF THE
EMIRATIS.
BUT THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THE
UAE FOR A REASON.
THE UAE HAS A VERY TROUBLING AND
VERY CLOSE SECURITY RELATIONSHIP
WITH CHINA, AND SO THE REASON
WHY WE DIDN'T ALLOW U.S.
COMPANIES TO SELL SEMICONDUCTORS
DIRECTLY TO THE UAE IS WE
BELIEVE IT WOULD VERY EASILY
BECOME A CON DUITY TO CHINA --
CONDUIT FOR CHINA GETTING THEIR
HANDS ON THESE SEMICONDUCTORS
AND LEAPFROG THE UNITED STATES
IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVANCED A.I.
BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, ONCE THE
CASH PAYMENT TO TRUMP THROUGH
THE CRYPTO VENTURE WAS
ANNOUNCED, TRUMP SIGNALED HE WAS
WILLING TO THROW OUR SECURITY
CONCERNS OUT THE WINDOW AND
TRANSFER THIS SENSITIVE
TECHNOLOGY TO THE UAE, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S LIKELY CHINA WILL
GET THEIR HANDS ON THIS
TECHNOLOGY, ALLOWING CHINA TO
PUT THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO
LEAPFROG US IN THE RACE FOR
ADVANCED A.I.
OF THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT THAT'S
WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WE MIGHT HAND A.I. LEADERSHIP TO
CHINA, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PRICE
OF TRUMP GETTING PAID.
AND AS LONG AS HE GETS PAID, HE
DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON REGULAR AMERICANS.
THE WHITE HOUSE IS OPEN FOR
BUSINESS, AND THE TRUMP FAMILY
IS PROUDLY ADVERTISING TO THE
WORLD WHERE TO SEND THE CHECK.
THEY AREN'T TRYING TO HIDE IT.
A $400 MILLION LUXURY PLANE
GIFTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, RIGHT AS HE IS
GOING OVER TO NEGOTIATE
POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE SECURITY
ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE GULF
COUNTRIES.
EVERY AMERICAN, EVERY
REPUBLICAN, EVERY SUPPOSED
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVOCATE IN
THE SENATE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED BY
THIS.
WE CAN LOOK THE OTHER WAY OR WE
CAN JOIN TOGETHER, REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS, TO STAND UP FOR
THIS COUNTRY AND DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT.
I'VE JOINED WITH SENATORS SCHATZ
AND COONS AND BOOKER TO
INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION
CONDEMNING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PL
PLANE.
IT'S A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE
EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.
WE CAN STAND TOGETHER AS A
SENATE TO VOTE FOR THAT
RESOLUTION.
I INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO MAKE
IT ILLEGAL FOR PRESIDENTS OR
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS TO PROFIT OFF
CRYPTO COINS WHILE THEY HOLD
FEDERAL OFFICE.
WE CAN JOIN TOGETHER IN THAT
EFFORT.
I WILL PERSONALLY SEEK TO BLOCK
ANY ARMS SALE THAT IS ANNOUNCED
AS PART OF THIS TRIP, WITH A
COUNTRY THAT IS PERSONALLY
INVESTING IN DONALD TRUMP AND
HIS FAMILY.
I WILL FORCE A FULL SENATE
DEBATE AND A VOTE ON THESE
SALES.
FOREIGN LEADERS NEED TO KNOW
THERE WILL BE A PRICE FOR
PARTICIPATING IN THE CORRUPTION
OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY.
THIS LEVEL OF CORRUPTION IS SO
GROSS THAT EVEN TRUMP'S MOST
H
HARDENS MAGA SYCOPHANTS ARE
TURNING AGAINST HIM.
I DIDN'T THINK I'D SEE THE DAY,
BUT PEOPLE LIKE BEN SHAPIRO AND
LAURA LOOMER, WHO FAWN OVER
TRUMP, CAN'T BELIEVE HE IS SO
CRASS AS TO THINK IT'S OKAY TO
ACCEPT PLANES AS A GIFT IN
EXCHANGE FOR U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY CONCESSIONS.
THIS ISN'T AMERICA FIRST.
THIS IS NOT WHAT HE PROMISED THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THIS IS TRUMP FIRST.
HE IS WILL TO PUT -- HE IS
WILLING TO PUT OUR NATION'S
SECURITY AT RISK, TAKE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BRIBES, JUST SO
HE CAN FLY HIMSELF AND HIS
MAR-A-LAGO GOLF BUDDIES AROUND
THE WORLD IN GOLD-PLATED LUXURY
PLANES GIFFTED TO HIM BY FOREIG
GOVERNMENTS.
ALL AT THE SAME TIME HE TELLS
AMERICANS THEY SHOULD BE OKAY
BUYING FEWER SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR
THEIR KIDS OR FEWER BIRTHDAY
PRESENTS FOR THEIR
GRANDCHILDREN, BECAUSE HE'S
DRIVING PRICES UP FOR
NONBILLIONAIRES IN THIS COUNTRY.
ALL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HE'S
KICKING 13 MILLION PEOPLE OFF OF
THEIR HEALTH CARE.
TRUMP LINES HIS POCKETS, HE
CORRUPTS OUR FOREIGN POLICY TO
ENRICH HIMSELF, WHILE DRIVING UP
PRICES AND STEALING HEALTH CARE
FROM AVERAGE AMERICANS.
IT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY
DISASTER, AND IT'S A MORAL
ABOMINATION
Senator Chris Murphy
May 13, 2025 UNITED STATES CAPITOL
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday spoke on the U.S. Senate floor to deliver a blistering condemnation of President Trump’s foreign policy corruption, highlighting his use of the office to enrich himself while putting U.S. national security at risk. Murphy called out Trump’s brazen willingness to accept luxury gifts and bribes from foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, blasting the president for openly prioritizing his own profits over the well-being of American families and calling for bipartisan action to confront these abuses of power.
Transcript
THROUGH A FUTURE DEFENSE
CAPABILITIES FROM THE SAUDI SIDE
HIS ROYAL
WE
DISPENSE OF THE QUORUM CALL AND
I BE RECOGNIZED.
PROMISE --
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. MURPHY: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
USUALLY PUBLIC CORRUPTION
HAPPENS IN SECRET.
THE POLITICIANS THAT DO IT, THEY
KNOW IT'S WRONG TO ACCEPT MONEY
IN EXCHANGE FOR FAVORABLE
GOVERNMENT TREATMENT, AND SO
THEY HIDE IT UNTIL THEY'RE FOUND
OUT.
A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE WOULD BE
LOUISIANA GOVERNOR EDWIN EDWARDS
WHO IN THE 1990'S WAS QUIETLY
TAKING BRIBES FOR RIVERBOAT
CASINOS.
IN THE LATE 1990'S HE WAS
CONVICTED OF EXTORTION,
RACKETEERING, MONEY LAUNDERING.
THE WAY IN WHICH HE WAS DOING IT
WAS LIKE OUT OF A MOVIE.
IN ONE INSTANCE A BUSINESSMAN
HANDED THE GOVERNOR A SUITCASE
FULL OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLAR BILLS
TOTALS $400,000 IN ORDER TO GET
A SIX-ZERO COMMISSION RULING IN
FAVOR OF THIS CASINO.
EVENTUALLY, AS WITH MOST CORRUPT
OFFICIALS WHO ARE TAKING MONEY
PRIVATELY, EDWARDS WAS
DISCOVERED, HE WAS DISGRACED,
AND HE WENT TO JAIL.
AS WE SPEAK, OUR PRESIDENT,
DONALD TRUMP, IS GOING TO THE
MIDDLE EAST ON A PUBLIC
CORRUPTION TOUR.
HE'S NO LESS CORRUPT THAN EDWIN
EDWARDS OF LOUISIANA.
IN FACT, HE'S WAY MORE CORRUPT.
EDWIN EDWARDS TOOK $400,000,
WHILE IN THE MIDDLE EAST DONALD
TRUMP WILL CEMENT DEALS TOTALING
IN THE BILLIONS IN EXCHANGE
FOREIGN POLICY FAVORABLE
TREATMENT BY THE U.S. FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THESE GULF
COUNTRIES.
THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS THAT
DONALD TRUMP ISN'T HIDING IT
LIKE OTHER CORRUPT OFFICIALS
ARE.
HE'S NOT ASHAMED.
HE'S NOT DOING IT IN SECRET.
HIS CORRUPTION IS WILDLY PUBLIC
AND HIS HOPE IS THAT BY DOING IT
PUBLICLY, HE CAN CON THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE INTO THINKING
IT'S NOT CORRUPTION BECAUSE HE'S
NOT HIDING IT BUT HE'S NO
DIFFERENT FROM ANY OTHER PUBLIC
OFFICIAL WHO DOES IT IN PRIVATE
P OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT
TRUMP'S CORRUPTION, FOREIGN
POLICY CORRUPTION IS SO MUCH
BIGGER IN SCOPE AND THE IMPACT
IT HAS ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
THAN ANYTHING A CORRUPT MAYOR OR
A CORRUPT GOVERNOR MAY HAVE
DONE.
TRUMP'S FIRST MAJOR FOREIGN
TRIP -- AND HE JUST LANDED -- IS
TO SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR AND UAE,
NOT BECAUSE THESE ARE OUR MOST
IMPORTANT ALLIES IN THE WORLD,
NOT BECAUSE THESE ARE THE MOST
IMPORTANT COUNTRIES IN THE
WORLD, NOT BECAUSE HE'S GOING
THERE TO TALK ABOUT MAKING THE
MIDDLE EAST MORE SAFE AND MORE
SECURE.
NO.
HIS FIRST TRIP IS TO THESE THREE
COUNTRIES BECAUSE THESE ARE THE
THREE COUNTRIES THAT HAVE AGREED
TO PAY DONALD TRUMP MONEY.
DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO COLLECT
TRIBUTE, AND IT'S ALL JUST OUT
IN THE OPEN.
FRANKLY, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO SEE
THIS COMING.
RECENT FORMER PRESIDENTS,
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, HAVE
ALWAYS SERIOUSLY AND STUDIOUSLY
AVOIDED EVEN THE APPEARANCE OF A
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
PRESIDENT BUSH PLACED HIS ASSETS
INTO A BLIND TRUST WHERE
INVESTMENT DECISIONS WERE MADE
WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR INPUT.
BOTH BIDEN AND OBAMA DIVESTED
ALL THEIR ASSETS EXCEPT FOR CASH
AND MUTUAL FUNDS.
THEY DIDN'T ENTER INTO ANY NEW
BUSINESS VENTURES WHILE IN THE
WHITE HOUSE.
IN CONTRAST, TRUMP HAS REFUSED
TO ABIDE BY THESE STANDARD
ETHICS RULES.
HIS FAMILY RUNS HIS BUSINESS BUT
NOBODY HONEST POLYBELIEVES THE
KIDS ARE IN CHARGE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS STILL CALLING
THE SHOTS.
HIS INTERESTS ARE NOT IN A BLIND
TRUST.
HE'S MADE NO PLEDGE THAT HE
WON'T DO NEW DEALS, EVEN WITH
FOREIGN ENTITIES, WHILE HE'S IN
OFFICE.
IN FACT, HE IS DOING DEALS
SEEMINGLY EVERY SINGLE WEEK.
HE'S OPEN FOR BUSINESS, AND
EVERY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT KNOWS
IT.
IN FACT, IT APPEARS THAT RIGHT
NOW THE GULF STATES ARE TRYING
TO OUTDO EACH OTHER TO UP THE
PRICE OF BUYING AN AMERICAN
PRESIDENT.
AND BECAUSE TRUMP IS GREEDY AND
HE'S INSECURE, HE WANTS TO FIT
IN WITH THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS,
HE IS TRAVELING TO THE REGION
WITH HIS HAT OUT FOR FURTHER
SOLICITATIONS.
SO LET'S ASK WHAT IS THE GO RATE
RIGHT NOW FOR A GULF COUNTRY --
WHAT IS THE GOING RATE FOR A
GULF COUNTRY TO BUY ACCESS TO
DONALD TRUMP TO GET FAVORABLE
TREATMENT FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT?
FOR QATAR, WE RECENTLY FOUND OUT
IT'S A $400 MILLION LUXURY
PLANE.
THIS PLANE HAS BEEN CONFIGURED
FOR ROYAL USE.
IT'S NOT A GIFT TO THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S A PERSONAL GIFT TO THE
PRESIDENT.
THE TERMS OF THE ARRANGEMENT
APPARENTLY INCLUDE A STIPULATION
THAT AFTER TRUMP LEAVES OFFICE,
IT WILL BE TRANSFERRED TO TRUMP,
TO HIS PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY,
WHICH MEANS TRUMP GETS THE
SO-CALLED FLOATING PALACE FOR
HIMSELF.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.
WE'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE
THIS BEFORE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT GIFTING A
$400 MILLION LUXURY PLANE TO THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
THIS IS SPELLED OUT AS BLATANTLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS.
THEY WROTE INTO THE CONSTITUTION
A SPECIFIC CLAUSE CALLED THE
EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE WHICH
PROHIBITS FEDERAL OFFICEHOLDERS
FROM ACCEPTING GIFTS FROM ANY
KING, PRINCE, OR FOREIGN STATE
WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF CONGRESS.
LIKE HOW MUCH CLEARER COULD IT
BE?
IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IT'S ILLEGAL.
THE FOUNDING FATHERS KNEW IT WAS
EVIL TO HAVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES ACCEPTING OF EXPENSIVE
GIFTS FROM A FOREIGN NATION WHO
IN EXCHANGE WANT FAVORS FROM THE
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
DONALD TRUMP'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE
LUXURY PLANE FROM A FOREIGN
MONARCH IS BASICALLY THE
CORRUPTION THAT OUR FOUNDING
FATHERS WERE SEEKING TO PREVENT.
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL HE'S GETTING
FROM QATAR.
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION RECENTLY
SIGNED A $5.5 BILLION GOLF
COURSE AND REAL ESTATE DEAL WITH
DAR GLOBAL AND QATAR EDR,
ESTABLISHED BY A WEALTH FUND.
$5.5 BILLION.
WHILE TRUMP'S IN OFFICE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNTHINKABLE
FOR ANY PREVIOUS PRESIDENT TO
ENTER INTO A $5.5 BILLION
BUSINESS DEAL WITH ANYBODY,
NEVER MIND A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT,
WHILE THEY ARE IN OFFICE.
AND IT STILL SHOULD BE
UNTHINKABLE.
QATAR IS A U.S. ALLY.
IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ALLY, BUT
THEY ARE A COMPLICATED COUNTRY.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS.
A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT LIKE QATAR
SHOULD NOT HAVE A $5 BILLION
GIFT HANGING OVER THE HEAD OF A
U.S. PRESIDENT AND NOT GIFTING
HIM A $400 MILLION PLANE.
THAT SHOULD KIND OF GO WITHOUT
SAYING.
FOR SAUDI ARABIA THE PRICE IS
ALSO IN THE BILLIONS.
SOON AFTER LEAVING THE WHITE
HOUSE IN TRUMP'S FIRST TERM, HIS
SON-IN-LAW, JARED KUSHNER,
KRAEPTED A PRIVATE -- CREATED A
PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM AND GOT A
$200 BILLION INVESTMENT FROM
SAUDI ARABIA.
THE BOARD OF THE SAUDI SOVEREIGN
WEALTH FUND QUESTIONED WHETHER
THIS WAS SMART TO INVEST THAT
MUCH MONEY IN A TOTALLY UNPROVEN
FUND, BUT THE SAUDI CROWN PRINCE
HIMSELF OVERRULED THE BOARD,
UNDOUBTEDLY SEEING THE POLITICAL
ADVANTAGE OF INVESTING DIRECTLY
WITH THE TRUMP FAMILY.
THIS WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.
THE TRUMP FAMILY HAS PUT THINGS
INTO OVERDRIVE DURING THE SECOND
TERM.
WITHIN HIS FIRST THREE WEEKS OF
OFFICE, TRUMP CONVENED A MEETING
AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH THE HEAD
OF THE SAUDI SOVEREIGN WEALTH
FUND NOT
TO DISCUSS MATTERS OF STATE, BUT
TO NEGOTIATE A DEAL BETWEEN THE
PGA AND THE SAUDI-BACKED LIV
GOLF TOUR.
YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY?
TO TRY TO BRING PGA TOURNAMENTS
BACK TO TRUMP GOLF COURSES,
CONVENED A MEETING IN THE WHITE
HOUSE WITH THE SAUDIS IN ORDER
TO ENRICH HIMSELF.
IN ADDITION TO THE $5 BILLION
QATARI REAL ESTATE DEAL, THE
TRUMP ORGANIZATION IS ALSO
PARTNERING WITH A SAUDI FIRM ON
A $1 BILLION TRUMP-BRANDED HOTEL
AND TOWER IN DUBAI.
THE PROPERTY'S WEBSITE -- THIS
IS, LIKE, UNBELIEVABLE -- THE
PROPERTY'S WEBSITE, THIS IS A
TRUMP-FINANCED PROPERTY, ALONG
WITH A SAUDI INVESTMENT FUND,
OFFERS FREE TEN-YEAR GOLDEN
VISAS TO THE UNITED STATES,
HINTING AT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR
INVESTORS IN TRUMP'S PROPERTY TO
BUY RESIDENCY IN THE UNITED
STATES AND A PATHWAY TO
CITIZENSHIP.
FOR THE UAE, THE PRICE IS
SOMEWHERE NORTH OF $2 BILLION.
LAST WEEK, ERIC TRUMP AND WORLD
LIBERTY FINANCIAL COFOUNDER ZACH
WH
WHITTCOFF SPOKE IN DUBEE ON A --
IN DUBAI AT A CONFERENCE.
IT'S SO FANTASTIC AND
BONE-CHILLING HOW TRANSPARENT
THESE GUYS ARE IN THEIR USE OF
PUBLIC POSITIONS TO ENRICH
THEMSELVES.
I'M GOING TO TELL THE STORY OF
TRUMP'S STABLECOIN AND THE
CORRUPTION WITH THE EMIRATIES,
BUT LET'S PAUSE FOR A SECOND AND
CONSIDER THAT ARE THE TRUMP
FAMILY COULD HAVE PARTNERED WITH
ANYBODY IN THE WORLD ON THEIR
NEW CRYPTO VENTURE, WORLD
LIBERTY FINANCIAL, BUT OF ALL
THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD TO
PARTNER WITH ON THIS NEW CRYPTO
VENTURE THEY CHOSE THE SON OF
TRUMP'S MIDDLE EAST ENVOY.
TRUMP'S MIDDLE EAST ENVOY, THE
GUY MAKING ALL THE DECISIONS ON
U.S. POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
JUST TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR TO
THE GULF COUNTRIES THAT WHEN
THEY DEAL WITH WORLD LIBERTY
FINANCIAL, TRUMP'S CRYPTO
VENTURE, THEY ARE DEALING
DIRECTLY WITH THE PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING U.S.
POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
IT'S JUST STUNNING.
LITERALLY, THE SONS OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THE SONS OF THE
MIDDLE EAST ENVOY RUNNING A
CRYPTO VENTURE, AND THEN GOING
DIRECTLY INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IN
ORDER TO FIND THEIR FIRST
INVESTMENT.
GUESS WHAT -- MIRACLE, THEY
FOUND IT.
MGX, AN INVESTMENT FIRM BACKED
BY THE EMIRATI GOVERNMENT AT
THIS CONFERENCE, ANNOUNCED THAT
THEY HAD LOOKED AT ALL OF CRYPTO
COMPANIES IN THE WORLD THAT THEY
CAN PARTNER WITH TO INVEST $2
BILLION IN THE CRYPTO EXCHANGE,
AND THEY SELECTED, WAIT, DRUM
ROLL, THE COMPANY RUN BY THE
SONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND THE U.S.
MIDDLE EAST ENVOY.
$2 BILLION.
NOW, WORLD LIBERTY'S ROLE IN
THIS TRANSACTION IS NOT THAT
COMPLICATED.
IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO A BANK.
MGX, THIS EMIRATI FIRM, DEPOSITS
$2 BILLION WITH THE FIRM.
IN RETURN, RECEIVES THE
STABLECOIN TO BE USED ON THESE
CRYPTO EXCHANGES.
THE FIRM HOLDS ON TO THESE
DOLLARS, INVESTS THEM, AND KEEPS
THE PROFITS FOR THEMSELVES.
SO, THE TRUMP-WITKOFF COMPANY
GETS BASICALLY A GIFT OF
CAPITAL.
IF THEY JUST USE THAT $2 BILLION
TO INVEST IN TREASURY BONDS, IT
WOULD PROFIT AROUND $85 MILLION
A YEAR FROM THESE INVESTMENTS
ALONE.
AND THE MONEY GOES DIRECTLY TO
TRUMP, JUST DIRECTLY TO TRUMP.
IT'S LITERALLY NOT
COMPLICATED --
EMIRATIS, WORLD LIBERTY
FINANCIAL, DONALD TRUMP.
THIS ISN'T 1990'S LOUISIANA.
NOBODY IS HIDING IT.
ON WORLD LIBERTY'S WEBSITE, THEY
SAY, AN ENTITY AFFILIATED WITH
DONALD J. TRUMP OWNS 60% OF THE
EQUITY IN THE COMPANY.
AND BECAUSE OF THIS DEAL, TRUMP
AND WITKOFF CAN FURTHER
CAPITALIZE, BECAUSE TRUMP'S
STABLECOIN JUST BECAME THE FIFTH
MOST VALUABLE STABLECOIN IN THE
WORLD, BECAUSE OF THE EMIRATI
INVES
INVESTMENTS.
IF THE PLANE AND THE REAL ESTATE
DEALS AND THE PRIVATE EQUITY
FUND INVESTMENT AND THE
STABLECOIN WEREN'T ENOUGH FOR
YOU, TRUMP HAS FOUND ONE LAST
WAY FOR GULF MONEY TO FLOW
SEAMLESSLY INTO HIS POCKED, THE
TRUMP MEME COIN.
TRUMPS GETS A HUGE PAYMENT WHEN
HE RELEASES THE COINS, WHICH
HAVE NO UNDERLYING VALUE OTHER
THAN THE DEMAND PEOPLE HAVE FOR
TRUMP'S COIN, AND THEN EACH TIME
A TRUMP COIN IS BOUGHT OR SOLD,
A SMALL FEE IS ROUTED DIRECTLY
TO THE COMPANY OWNED BY TRUMP.
ACCORDING TO ONE ANALYSIS,
NEARLY $325 MILLION IN FEES HAVE
BEEN ACCRUED SINCE THE COIN WAS
LAUNCHED IN JARNL.
JUST -- IN JANUARY.
JUST THREE, FOUR, FOUR AND A
HALF MONTHS, $325 MILLION WORTH
OF FEES.
TRUMP HIDES THE BUYERS OF THE
COIN.
IN THIS WAY, THE MEME COULD I BE
IS -- THE MEME COIN IS A LITTLE
LIKE LOUISIANA CORRUPTION, BUT
WE KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THE
BUYERS AREN'T AMERICANS WHO WANT
TO HELP TRUMP MAKE THIS NATION
GREAT AGAIN.
THE MAJORITY OF THE BUYERS OF
TRUMP COIN ARE SUPERRICH
FOREIGNERS, PRINCES, OLIGARCHS,
AUTHORITARIANS, BUYING THE COIN
TO GET IN GOOD WITH TRUMP OR
SOMETHING IN EXCHANGE.
NOW, ONE GREAT THING ABOUT
BUYING THE COIN IS THAT YOU GET
ACCESS TO TRUMP AND THE WHITE
HOUSE.
AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT HIDING THIS.
TWO WEEKS AGO, TRUMP ANNOUNCED
THAT HE WOULD HOST A PRIVATE
DINNER AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH
SEATS RESERVED EXCLUSIVELY FOR
THE TOP 220 TRUMP COIN HOLDERS.
IN TWO DAYS SINCE THE
ANNOUNCEMENT, TRUMP'S COMPANY
MADE $900,000 IN FEES, BECAUSE
EVERYBODY, MOSTLY FOREIGNERS,
MANY PROBABLY IN THE GULF, WERE
BUYING UP THE COIN AS QUICKLY AS
THEY COULD IN ORDER TO GET ONE
OF THESE SEATS.
IF A MAYOR OF A SMALL TOWN WAS
SELLING MEETINGS AT CITY HALL
FOR A THOUSAND BUCKS, HE WOULD
BE RUN OUT OF TOWN ON A RAIL.
BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DONALD
TRUMP IS DOING, IN THE
MIDDLE EAST AND ALL OVER THE
WORLD, AS FOREIGN BUYERS LINE UP
TO BUY THE MEME COIN, GUARANTEED
PRIVATE ACCESS TO DONALD TRUMP
AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP.
NOW, THE OBVIOUS QUESTION FOR
THE AVERAGE AMERICAN IS WHAT
DOES THIS MEAN FOR ME.
SOMEBODY LIVING IN NEW BRITAIN,
CONNECTICUT, MIGHT THINK IT'S
KIND OF GROSS TRUMP IS LINING
HIS POCKETS AS PRESIDENT.
THEY WANT TO KNOW, HOW DOES THIS
AFFECT ME?
WELL, THE MOST SIMPLE WAY IS
THAT IF THE GUY YOU ELECTED TO
PROTECT US AND MAKE OUR LIVES
BETTER IS SPENDING MOST OF HIS
TIME ALTERNATING BETWEEN GOLF
AND CUTTING DEALS FOR HIMSELF,
HE'S NOT PROTECTING YOU.
HE'S NOT SPENDING ANY TIME
TRYING TO LOWER COSTS OR DEFEAT
ENEMIES.
CORRUPTION CAN BE A FULL-TIME
JOB FOR DONALD TRUMP, THAT'S A
LOUSY DEAL FOR THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
WHEN OUR FOREIGN POLICY IS FOR
SALE, WE ARE LESS SAFE.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE
RELATIVE TO THE TRIP THAT DONALD
TRUMP IS ON RIGHT NOW.
THESE COUNTRIES AREN'T PADDING
DONALD TRUMP'S POCKETS BECAUSE
THEY LIKE HIM.
THEY'RE PAYING HIM IN ORDER TO
GET THINGS FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, FROM THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT, WITHOUT HAVING TO
MAKE ANY ACTUAL POLICY
CONCESSIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT
THE U.S. PEOPLE.
BEFORE ANYBODY COULD BEGIN TO
PROCESS THE BRAZEN CORRUPTION OF
THE UAE TRUMP-WITKOFF CRYPTO
KEEL, REPORTS -- CRYPTO DEAL,
REPORTS VERY QUICKLY EMERGED
THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
WAS CONSIDERING CHANGING
REGULATIONS TO MAKE IT EASIER
FOR THE COUNTRY OF UAE TO PRFRP
HIGHLY ADVANCED
SEMICONDUCTORS -- TO PURCHASE
HIGHLY ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTORS
FROM U.S. MANUFACTURERS.
THIS WAS A HUGE PRIORITY OF THE
EMIRATIS.
BUT THE RESTRICTIONS ARE ON THE
UAE FOR A REASON.
THE UAE HAS A VERY TROUBLING AND
VERY CLOSE SECURITY RELATIONSHIP
WITH CHINA, AND SO THE REASON
WHY WE DIDN'T ALLOW U.S.
COMPANIES TO SELL SEMICONDUCTORS
DIRECTLY TO THE UAE IS WE
BELIEVE IT WOULD VERY EASILY
BECOME A CON DUITY TO CHINA --
CONDUIT FOR CHINA GETTING THEIR
HANDS ON THESE SEMICONDUCTORS
AND LEAPFROG THE UNITED STATES
IN THE BUSINESS OF ADVANCED A.I.
BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, ONCE THE
CASH PAYMENT TO TRUMP THROUGH
THE CRYPTO VENTURE WAS
ANNOUNCED, TRUMP SIGNALED HE WAS
WILLING TO THROW OUR SECURITY
CONCERNS OUT THE WINDOW AND
TRANSFER THIS SENSITIVE
TECHNOLOGY TO THE UAE, EVEN
THOUGH IT'S LIKELY CHINA WILL
GET THEIR HANDS ON THIS
TECHNOLOGY, ALLOWING CHINA TO
PUT THEMSELVES IN A POSITION TO
LEAPFROG US IN THE RACE FOR
ADVANCED A.I.
OF THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BUT THAT'S
WHAT'S HAPPENING.
WE MIGHT HAND A.I. LEADERSHIP TO
CHINA, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PRICE
OF TRUMP GETTING PAID.
AND AS LONG AS HE GETS PAID, HE
DOESN'T SEEM TO CARE ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON REGULAR AMERICANS.
THE WHITE HOUSE IS OPEN FOR
BUSINESS, AND THE TRUMP FAMILY
IS PROUDLY ADVERTISING TO THE
WORLD WHERE TO SEND THE CHECK.
THEY AREN'T TRYING TO HIDE IT.
A $400 MILLION LUXURY PLANE
GIFTED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES, RIGHT AS HE IS
GOING OVER TO NEGOTIATE
POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE SECURITY
ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE GULF
COUNTRIES.
EVERY AMERICAN, EVERY
REPUBLICAN, EVERY SUPPOSED
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVOCATE IN
THE SENATE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED BY
THIS.
WE CAN LOOK THE OTHER WAY OR WE
CAN JOIN TOGETHER, REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS, TO STAND UP FOR
THIS COUNTRY AND DO SOMETHING
ABOUT IT.
I'VE JOINED WITH SENATORS SCHATZ
AND COONS AND BOOKER TO
INTRODUCE A RESOLUTION
CONDEMNING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PL
PLANE.
IT'S A BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE
EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.
WE CAN STAND TOGETHER AS A
SENATE TO VOTE FOR THAT
RESOLUTION.
I INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO MAKE
IT ILLEGAL FOR PRESIDENTS OR
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THEIR
FAMILY MEMBERS TO PROFIT OFF
CRYPTO COINS WHILE THEY HOLD
FEDERAL OFFICE.
WE CAN JOIN TOGETHER IN THAT
EFFORT.
I WILL PERSONALLY SEEK TO BLOCK
ANY ARMS SALE THAT IS ANNOUNCED
AS PART OF THIS TRIP, WITH A
COUNTRY THAT IS PERSONALLY
INVESTING IN DONALD TRUMP AND
HIS FAMILY.
I WILL FORCE A FULL SENATE
DEBATE AND A VOTE ON THESE
SALES.
FOREIGN LEADERS NEED TO KNOW
THERE WILL BE A PRICE FOR
PARTICIPATING IN THE CORRUPTION
OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY.
THIS LEVEL OF CORRUPTION IS SO
GROSS THAT EVEN TRUMP'S MOST
H
HARDENS MAGA SYCOPHANTS ARE
TURNING AGAINST HIM.
I DIDN'T THINK I'D SEE THE DAY,
BUT PEOPLE LIKE BEN SHAPIRO AND
LAURA LOOMER, WHO FAWN OVER
TRUMP, CAN'T BELIEVE HE IS SO
CRASS AS TO THINK IT'S OKAY TO
ACCEPT PLANES AS A GIFT IN
EXCHANGE FOR U.S. NATIONAL
SECURITY CONCESSIONS.
THIS ISN'T AMERICA FIRST.
THIS IS NOT WHAT HE PROMISED THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THIS IS TRUMP FIRST.
HE IS WILL TO PUT -- HE IS
WILLING TO PUT OUR NATION'S
SECURITY AT RISK, TAKE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BRIBES, JUST SO
HE CAN FLY HIMSELF AND HIS
MAR-A-LAGO GOLF BUDDIES AROUND
THE WORLD IN GOLD-PLATED LUXURY
PLANES GIFFTED TO HIM BY FOREIG
GOVERNMENTS.
ALL AT THE SAME TIME HE TELLS
AMERICANS THEY SHOULD BE OKAY
BUYING FEWER SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR
THEIR KIDS OR FEWER BIRTHDAY
PRESENTS FOR THEIR
GRANDCHILDREN, BECAUSE HE'S
DRIVING PRICES UP FOR
NONBILLIONAIRES IN THIS COUNTRY.
ALL WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HE'S
KICKING 13 MILLION PEOPLE OFF OF
THEIR HEALTH CARE.
TRUMP LINES HIS POCKETS, HE
CORRUPTS OUR FOREIGN POLICY TO
ENRICH HIMSELF, WHILE DRIVING UP
PRICES AND STEALING HEALTH CARE
FROM AVERAGE AMERICANS.
IT'S A NATIONAL SECURITY
DISASTER, AND IT'S A MORAL
ABOMINATION
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue May 20, 2025 3:24 am
Judge [Beryl Howell] in USIP Case Delivers Trump/Musk/DOGE CRUSHING REBUKE of their Lawlessness & Abuse of Power
by Glenn Kirschner
May 19, 2025
District of Columbia Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell just issued a 102-page legal opinion and ruling, announcing that Trump/Musk/DOGE's takeover and decimation of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) was "unlawful" and "null and void."
This video reviews what the Trump administration did to USIP - an independent, non-profit organization - and discusses the new reporting on this important legal development and Judge Howell's new opinion and order.
Transcript
So friends DC Federal District Court
Judge Beryl Howell just struck a
devastating blow against the overreach
the abuse of power and the lawlessness
of Trump, Musk, and
Doge let's talk about that because
justice matters
[Music]
hey all Glenn Kirschner here so friends in
March of
2025 not long after he took office
Donald Trump together with Elon Musk and
Doge
commandeered unlawfully seized an
independent nonprofit organization the
US Institute of Peace and it was just
one week ago that I interviewed four
USIP employees who were wrongfully
terminated horrifically barred from
re-entering their own workplace and who
had their health insurance canceled with
just 24 hours notice some of them to
their extreme medical detriment well now
Judge Beryl Howell not only put a stop to
what Trump Musk and Doge did and
continue to do to USIP but Judge Howell
ordered it reversed so I want to start
today with just three short paragraphs
that describe what Trump Musk and Doge
did to USIP the extreme harm and cruelty
they inflicted on the employees and then
we'll turn to today's point of light
beacon of light as bright as the sun
itself Judge Howell's opinion and the
new reporting about that opinion but
let's start with those three short
paragraphs this comes from a website
called
friendsofusip.org what happened to
USIP over the last two weeks of March
the so-called Department of Government
Efficiency Doge illegally took over the
US Institute of Peace USIP and began
brazenly dismantling the
organization through a concerted
campaign of coercion deception and force
doge first fired the institute's board
of directors and president and seized
USIP's privately-owned building
doge then took over the institute's
computer systems preventing employees
from accessing critical communications
platforms sensitive documents relating
to their work and even their own
employee records
Nate Kavanaugh, a 28-year-old Doge
employee with no foreign policy
experience, was appointed president of
USIP by a Rump board of
directors. That is stated in context; on
the website it says Rump. I don't know if
that's a typo, or just an appropriate
synonym for Donald Trump
my editorial
edition then transferred ownership of
USIP's $500 million privately-owned
building to the US General Services
Administration for free friends to this
old
prosecutor that feels a lot like theft
of a building to the tune of $500
million on Friday March 28 Doge fired
over 95% of the institute's domestic
employees via email in the dead of night
these employees were provided no
severance pay and told that their health
insurance would expire in one business
day doa's actions have left terminated
USIP staff at risk of severe health
consequences from an unreasonable and
inhumane recision of insurance while the
situation is dire for domestic employees
USIP's overseas staff are left with
immense uncertainty stranded in active
conflict zones with no support staff in
the US to help navigate the complex and
dangerous challenges they face and now
friends the point of light here's the
new reporting about Judge Barl Howell's
ruling in the USIP case
headline judge deems Doge takeover of US
Institute of Peace null and
void and that article begins a federal
judge on Monday ruled that the
Department of Government Efficiencies
Doe's takeover of the US Institute of
Peace was unlawful deeming it null and
void us District Judge Barl Howell found
that President Trump and his
subordinates used brute force to take
over USIP's headquarters and dissemble
the Independent Institute despite
warnings that it did not fall within the
executive branch the judge invalidated
the removal of USIP board members and
its president meaning they retain their
positions and the individuals installed
by Doge must be removed and Judge Howell
nullified the transfer of USIP's
headquarters to the General Services
Administration returning control to the
USIP any USIP financial assets
transferred to the GSA were also deemed
void the judge also barred Doge and
other Trump administration officials
named in the suit from further trespass
on USIP's property or within its systems
quote "The president's efforts here to
take over an organization outside of
those bounds contrary to statute
established by Congress and by acts of
force and threat using local and federal
law enforcement officers represents a
gross usurpation of power and a way of
conducting government affairs that's
unnecessarily traumatized the committed
leadership and employees of USI ip who
deserve better the judge wrote in a
102page
opinion okay friends now can I invite
you to sit back get comfortable while I
read you the entire 102 page no I'm not
going to do that to you but what I will
do is I'll put a link to the Hill
article in the description of this video
and the Hill article has a link to Judge
Howell's opinion if you want to spend a
good bit of time reading through a
102page opinion um I'll warn you it is
dense it's somewhat complicated at times
but it's important boy is it
important because federal judges
continuing to push back on the horrific
cruelty and abject
lawlessness of the Trump
administration like
justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
********************************
Judge deems DOGE takeover of US Institute of Peace ‘null and void’
by Ella Lee
The Hill
05/19/25 1:52 PM ET
A federal judge on Monday ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) was unlawful, deeming it “null and void.”
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found that President Trump and his subordinates used “brute force” to take over USIP’s headquarters and dissemble the independent institute, despite warnings that it did not fall within the executive branch.
The judge invalidated the removal of USIP board members and its president, meaning they retain their positions and the individuals installed by DOGE must be removed, and nullified the transfer of USIP’s headquarters to the General Services Administration (GSA), returning control to the USIP. Any USIP financial assets transferred to the GSA were also deemed void.
She also barred DOGE and other Trump administration officials named in the suit from further “trespass” on USIP’s property or within its systems.
“The President’s efforts here to take over an organization outside of those bounds, contrary to statute established by Congress and by acts of force and threat using local and federal law enforcement officers, represented a gross usurpation of power and a way of conducting government affairs that unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better,” the judge wrote in a 102-page opinion.
The independent institute and several removed board members sued DOGE and the other Trump officials in March, claiming they sought to unlawfully dismantle the institute and block it from completing the peace promotion work tasked to it by Congress.
Institute lawyer Andrew Goldfarb said at the time that DOGE moved at “lightning speed” and sought to reduce the organization, which was established to help resolve and prevent violent conflicts, “essentially to rubble.”
In March, the Trump administration fired much of USIP’s board and installed Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official, as its new president. Then, DOGE took over its headquarters.
In court papers, the institute and fired board members said DOGE first sought to enter the building with two FBI agents, but when they weren’t let in, agents showed up at the private residence of the institute’s chief of security to attempt to gain access. The institute’s outside counsel was also threatened with criminal investigation over the refusal.
Days later, three sets of law enforcement — D.C. Metropolitan Police, Department of State police and the FBI — showed up to help DOGE get into the building, they said. An official from a private security firm once contracted by USIP provided a key to access the building despite that contract having been revoked, aligning with DOGE under the apparent threat of losing its other government security contracts.
Howell called Congress’s restrictions on the president’s removal power of USIP board members “squarely constitutional,” making the removals and replacements completed by DOGE at the direction of Trump’s executive order undertaken by “illegitimately-installed leaders who lacked legal authority to take these actions.”
The judge noted that “no court before” has addressed exactly where USIP falls within the constitutional structure. The answer to that question could have implications for whether Trump’s removal power extends to the independent institute. She determined the institute must be considered part of the federal government but does not exercise “governmental, let alone executive” power.
USIP said in a statement that its board, management and staff look forward to restarting its programs to promote and facilitate peaceful conflict resolution around the world.
“Today’s ruling allows USIP to continue that work,” the statement read.
The institute was one of several small agencies targeted by the Trump administration. The Inter-American Foundation and U.S. African Development Foundation, which were also mentioned in a Feb. 19 executive order to downsize the bureaucracy, have also sued.
This story was updated at 4:50 p.m.
by Glenn Kirschner
May 19, 2025
District of Columbia Federal District Court Judge Beryl Howell just issued a 102-page legal opinion and ruling, announcing that Trump/Musk/DOGE's takeover and decimation of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) was "unlawful" and "null and void."
This video reviews what the Trump administration did to USIP - an independent, non-profit organization - and discusses the new reporting on this important legal development and Judge Howell's new opinion and order.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... v-jackson/
UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE v. JACKSON (1:25-cv-00804)
District Court, District of Columbia
Last Updated: May 19, 2025, 2:10 p.m.
Assigned To: Beryl Alaine Howell
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 40.0_2.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE,
et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KENNETH JACKSON, in his official capacity, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 25-cv-804 (BAH)
Judge Beryl A. Howell
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Transcript
So friends DC Federal District Court
Judge Beryl Howell just struck a
devastating blow against the overreach
the abuse of power and the lawlessness
of Trump, Musk, and
Doge let's talk about that because
justice matters
[Music]
hey all Glenn Kirschner here so friends in
March of
2025 not long after he took office
Donald Trump together with Elon Musk and
Doge
commandeered unlawfully seized an
independent nonprofit organization the
US Institute of Peace and it was just
one week ago that I interviewed four
USIP employees who were wrongfully
terminated horrifically barred from
re-entering their own workplace and who
had their health insurance canceled with
just 24 hours notice some of them to
their extreme medical detriment well now
Judge Beryl Howell not only put a stop to
what Trump Musk and Doge did and
continue to do to USIP but Judge Howell
ordered it reversed so I want to start
today with just three short paragraphs
that describe what Trump Musk and Doge
did to USIP the extreme harm and cruelty
they inflicted on the employees and then
we'll turn to today's point of light
beacon of light as bright as the sun
itself Judge Howell's opinion and the
new reporting about that opinion but
let's start with those three short
paragraphs this comes from a website
called
friendsofusip.org what happened to
USIP over the last two weeks of March
the so-called Department of Government
Efficiency Doge illegally took over the
US Institute of Peace USIP and began
brazenly dismantling the
organization through a concerted
campaign of coercion deception and force
doge first fired the institute's board
of directors and president and seized
USIP's privately-owned building
doge then took over the institute's
computer systems preventing employees
from accessing critical communications
platforms sensitive documents relating
to their work and even their own
employee records
Nate Kavanaugh, a 28-year-old Doge
employee with no foreign policy
experience, was appointed president of
USIP by a Rump board of
directors. That is stated in context; on
the website it says Rump. I don't know if
that's a typo, or just an appropriate
synonym for Donald Trump
my editorial
edition then transferred ownership of
USIP's $500 million privately-owned
building to the US General Services
Administration for free friends to this
old
prosecutor that feels a lot like theft
of a building to the tune of $500
million on Friday March 28 Doge fired
over 95% of the institute's domestic
employees via email in the dead of night
these employees were provided no
severance pay and told that their health
insurance would expire in one business
day doa's actions have left terminated
USIP staff at risk of severe health
consequences from an unreasonable and
inhumane recision of insurance while the
situation is dire for domestic employees
USIP's overseas staff are left with
immense uncertainty stranded in active
conflict zones with no support staff in
the US to help navigate the complex and
dangerous challenges they face and now
friends the point of light here's the
new reporting about Judge Barl Howell's
ruling in the USIP case
headline judge deems Doge takeover of US
Institute of Peace null and
void and that article begins a federal
judge on Monday ruled that the
Department of Government Efficiencies
Doe's takeover of the US Institute of
Peace was unlawful deeming it null and
void us District Judge Barl Howell found
that President Trump and his
subordinates used brute force to take
over USIP's headquarters and dissemble
the Independent Institute despite
warnings that it did not fall within the
executive branch the judge invalidated
the removal of USIP board members and
its president meaning they retain their
positions and the individuals installed
by Doge must be removed and Judge Howell
nullified the transfer of USIP's
headquarters to the General Services
Administration returning control to the
USIP any USIP financial assets
transferred to the GSA were also deemed
void the judge also barred Doge and
other Trump administration officials
named in the suit from further trespass
on USIP's property or within its systems
quote "The president's efforts here to
take over an organization outside of
those bounds contrary to statute
established by Congress and by acts of
force and threat using local and federal
law enforcement officers represents a
gross usurpation of power and a way of
conducting government affairs that's
unnecessarily traumatized the committed
leadership and employees of USI ip who
deserve better the judge wrote in a
102page
opinion okay friends now can I invite
you to sit back get comfortable while I
read you the entire 102 page no I'm not
going to do that to you but what I will
do is I'll put a link to the Hill
article in the description of this video
and the Hill article has a link to Judge
Howell's opinion if you want to spend a
good bit of time reading through a
102page opinion um I'll warn you it is
dense it's somewhat complicated at times
but it's important boy is it
important because federal judges
continuing to push back on the horrific
cruelty and abject
lawlessness of the Trump
administration like
justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
[Music]
********************************
Judge deems DOGE takeover of US Institute of Peace ‘null and void’
by Ella Lee
The Hill
05/19/25 1:52 PM ET
A federal judge on Monday ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) was unlawful, deeming it “null and void.”
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found that President Trump and his subordinates used “brute force” to take over USIP’s headquarters and dissemble the independent institute, despite warnings that it did not fall within the executive branch.
The judge invalidated the removal of USIP board members and its president, meaning they retain their positions and the individuals installed by DOGE must be removed, and nullified the transfer of USIP’s headquarters to the General Services Administration (GSA), returning control to the USIP. Any USIP financial assets transferred to the GSA were also deemed void.
She also barred DOGE and other Trump administration officials named in the suit from further “trespass” on USIP’s property or within its systems.
“The President’s efforts here to take over an organization outside of those bounds, contrary to statute established by Congress and by acts of force and threat using local and federal law enforcement officers, represented a gross usurpation of power and a way of conducting government affairs that unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better,” the judge wrote in a 102-page opinion.
The independent institute and several removed board members sued DOGE and the other Trump officials in March, claiming they sought to unlawfully dismantle the institute and block it from completing the peace promotion work tasked to it by Congress.
Institute lawyer Andrew Goldfarb said at the time that DOGE moved at “lightning speed” and sought to reduce the organization, which was established to help resolve and prevent violent conflicts, “essentially to rubble.”
In March, the Trump administration fired much of USIP’s board and installed Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official, as its new president. Then, DOGE took over its headquarters.
In court papers, the institute and fired board members said DOGE first sought to enter the building with two FBI agents, but when they weren’t let in, agents showed up at the private residence of the institute’s chief of security to attempt to gain access. The institute’s outside counsel was also threatened with criminal investigation over the refusal.
Days later, three sets of law enforcement — D.C. Metropolitan Police, Department of State police and the FBI — showed up to help DOGE get into the building, they said. An official from a private security firm once contracted by USIP provided a key to access the building despite that contract having been revoked, aligning with DOGE under the apparent threat of losing its other government security contracts.
Howell called Congress’s restrictions on the president’s removal power of USIP board members “squarely constitutional,” making the removals and replacements completed by DOGE at the direction of Trump’s executive order undertaken by “illegitimately-installed leaders who lacked legal authority to take these actions.”
The judge noted that “no court before” has addressed exactly where USIP falls within the constitutional structure. The answer to that question could have implications for whether Trump’s removal power extends to the independent institute. She determined the institute must be considered part of the federal government but does not exercise “governmental, let alone executive” power.
USIP said in a statement that its board, management and staff look forward to restarting its programs to promote and facilitate peaceful conflict resolution around the world.
“Today’s ruling allows USIP to continue that work,” the statement read.
The institute was one of several small agencies targeted by the Trump administration. The Inter-American Foundation and U.S. African Development Foundation, which were also mentioned in a Feb. 19 executive order to downsize the bureaucracy, have also sued.
This story was updated at 4:50 p.m.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue May 20, 2025 3:30 am
DOJ charges congresswoman with assault in incident at ICE facility, drops case against Newark mayor
by Hannah Rabinowitz and Holmes Lybrand
CNN
Updated 10:58 PM EDT, Mon May 19, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics ... ras-baraka
Congresswoman Rep. LaMonica McIver demands the release of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after his arrest while protesting outside an ICE detention prison, Friday, May 9, 2025, in Newark, N.J. Angelina Katsanis/AP
The Department of Justice charged Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver with assaulting federal law enforcement during a chaotic melee that erupted outside of an ICE detention facility in her home state of New Jersey, acting US Attorney Alina Habba said Monday.
Prosecutors will, however, drop the federal trespassing charge against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested during the confrontation, Habba said in a news release.
The scuffle outside the detention facility as protesters, lawmakers and Homeland Security officers pushed against each other, thrust the political battle between the administration and Democratic lawmakers over President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policy agenda into a new stage – charging a federal lawmaker with criminal wrongdoing.
“No one is above the law — politicians or otherwise,” Habba said, accusing McIver of assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement. “It is the job of this office to uphold justice impartially, regardless of who you are [ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A BLACK PERSON].”
McIver said in a statement that the charges against her “are purely political-they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight.”
The DOJ and McIver had attempted to negotiate a plea deal that would have averted charges, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Habba said in her statement Monday that McIver “declined” the department’s attempts to “come to a resolution.”
It is unclear whether the Justice Department will charge the two other members of Congress who were with McIver at the detention facility, Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Robert Menendez Jr.
The incident, which took place on May 9, began as the three members of Congress visited the ICE detention facility in Newark, which they claimed was not up to date on necessary permits.
Once the visit at the facility concluded, Baraka tried to join lawmakers and went inside the gate to the facility. Baraka complied with federal agents who told him to leave but was arrested as soon as he left the facility’s fenced-in area.
McIver and other protesters surrounded Baraka as federal agents forced their way through the group to make the arrest. Habba said Monday that she is dropping the charge against Baraka “for the sake of moving forward” and said she invited the mayor to visit the detention center with her.
“I am glad that the U.S. Attorney has agreed that this case should be dismissed,” Baraka said in a statement, saying he would look for areas of possible cooperation on issues with Habba, while vowing to continue to push the ICE facility to ensure compliance with city regulations.
Later Monday, the mayor told CNN’s Abby Phillip that he believed McIver will be vindicated in court.
“I didn’t see any of those things happen,” Baraka said on “NewsNight” of the assault allegations. “So I think that the congresswoman will be vindicated.”
Video taken during the scrum appears to show McIver using her body to push past federal agents and get to Baraka as he was being taken away in handcuffs. It also shows McIver using her arms to push agents.
DHS officials including Secretary Kristi Noem have alleged McIver assaulted law enforcement, with the secretary saying on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the lawmakers’ behavior was “lawlessness” and “beneath this body.”
McIver previously rejected allegations that she assaulted the federal officers, telling CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday that “I honestly do not know how to body slam anyone, and there’s no video that supports me body slamming anyone.”
Paul Fishman, an attorney for McIver, said the charges were an attempt to shift blame for the clash from immigration officers.
“As a member of Congress, she has the right and responsibility to see how ICE is treating detainees,” Fishman said. “Rather than facilitating that inspection, ICE agents chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos.”
House Democratic leadership quickly condemned the prosecution of McIver as “extreme, morally bankrupt” and lacking “any basis in law or fact.”
“The proceeding initiated by the so-called U.S. Attorney in New Jersey is a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our ability to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and several other members of the caucus’ leadership said in a statement. “Everyone responsible for this illegitimate abuse of power is going to be held accountable for their actions.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN’s Piper Hudspeth Blackburn contributed to this report.
by Hannah Rabinowitz and Holmes Lybrand
CNN
Updated 10:58 PM EDT, Mon May 19, 2025
https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/19/politics ... ras-baraka
Congresswoman Rep. LaMonica McIver demands the release of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka after his arrest while protesting outside an ICE detention prison, Friday, May 9, 2025, in Newark, N.J. Angelina Katsanis/AP
The Department of Justice charged Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver with assaulting federal law enforcement during a chaotic melee that erupted outside of an ICE detention facility in her home state of New Jersey, acting US Attorney Alina Habba said Monday.
Prosecutors will, however, drop the federal trespassing charge against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested during the confrontation, Habba said in a news release.
The scuffle outside the detention facility as protesters, lawmakers and Homeland Security officers pushed against each other, thrust the political battle between the administration and Democratic lawmakers over President Donald Trump’s hardline immigration policy agenda into a new stage – charging a federal lawmaker with criminal wrongdoing.
“No one is above the law — politicians or otherwise,” Habba said, accusing McIver of assaulting, impeding and interfering with law enforcement. “It is the job of this office to uphold justice impartially, regardless of who you are [ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A BLACK PERSON].”
McIver said in a statement that the charges against her “are purely political-they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight.”
The DOJ and McIver had attempted to negotiate a plea deal that would have averted charges, sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Habba said in her statement Monday that McIver “declined” the department’s attempts to “come to a resolution.”
It is unclear whether the Justice Department will charge the two other members of Congress who were with McIver at the detention facility, Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Robert Menendez Jr.
The incident, which took place on May 9, began as the three members of Congress visited the ICE detention facility in Newark, which they claimed was not up to date on necessary permits.
Once the visit at the facility concluded, Baraka tried to join lawmakers and went inside the gate to the facility. Baraka complied with federal agents who told him to leave but was arrested as soon as he left the facility’s fenced-in area.
McIver and other protesters surrounded Baraka as federal agents forced their way through the group to make the arrest. Habba said Monday that she is dropping the charge against Baraka “for the sake of moving forward” and said she invited the mayor to visit the detention center with her.
“I am glad that the U.S. Attorney has agreed that this case should be dismissed,” Baraka said in a statement, saying he would look for areas of possible cooperation on issues with Habba, while vowing to continue to push the ICE facility to ensure compliance with city regulations.
Later Monday, the mayor told CNN’s Abby Phillip that he believed McIver will be vindicated in court.
“I didn’t see any of those things happen,” Baraka said on “NewsNight” of the assault allegations. “So I think that the congresswoman will be vindicated.”
Video taken during the scrum appears to show McIver using her body to push past federal agents and get to Baraka as he was being taken away in handcuffs. It also shows McIver using her arms to push agents.
DHS officials including Secretary Kristi Noem have alleged McIver assaulted law enforcement, with the secretary saying on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the lawmakers’ behavior was “lawlessness” and “beneath this body.”
McIver previously rejected allegations that she assaulted the federal officers, telling CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” Sunday that “I honestly do not know how to body slam anyone, and there’s no video that supports me body slamming anyone.”
Paul Fishman, an attorney for McIver, said the charges were an attempt to shift blame for the clash from immigration officers.
“As a member of Congress, she has the right and responsibility to see how ICE is treating detainees,” Fishman said. “Rather than facilitating that inspection, ICE agents chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos.”
House Democratic leadership quickly condemned the prosecution of McIver as “extreme, morally bankrupt” and lacking “any basis in law or fact.”
“The proceeding initiated by the so-called U.S. Attorney in New Jersey is a blatant attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate Congress and interfere with our ability to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and several other members of the caucus’ leadership said in a statement. “Everyone responsible for this illegitimate abuse of power is going to be held accountable for their actions.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
CNN’s Piper Hudspeth Blackburn contributed to this report.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37499
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests