Trump Administration in Full-on Contempt Defying Supreme Court Order to Bring Abrego-Garcia Back From El Salvador. The Constitutional Crisis is About to Go Into Full Display Mode.
Trump REJECTS Supreme Court in NEW Filing…CONTEMPT?!!
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Apr 14, 2025 Legal AF Podcast
The Trump Administration has declared war on the Constitution and the Supreme Court over the return from an El Salvador jail of the illegally removed and deported Armando Abrego Garcia. New court filings have told a Federal Judge whose order was affirmed by the Supreme Court 9-0 that it has no duty to take any steps to discuss with El Salvador his return, and the Federal courts can’t make him. Michael Popok looks at Trump’s new filings and explains how this will likely play out in the federal courts as the Constitutional confrontation the Supreme Court dreaded is now here.
Transcript
[Michael Popok] We got some breaking news on day 30 of
Armando Abrego Garcia's illegal
detention in El Salvador And we've got
the filings now by the Trump
administration late Sunday night in
which they completely ignore and openly
defy a 90 Supreme Court ruling and a
federal judge's directives concerning uh
their facilitating the return of Abrago
Garcia and to report the steps that they
are taking They are hiding behind
purported quote unquote sensitive
foreign policy negotiations with
President Blly who arrives today from El
Salvador to meet with President Trump
But in doing so they have violated the
court's order and that of the Supreme
Court I'm going to break it down for you
right here The only way I know how
telling the truth on the Midas Touch
Network Let's go to what was required to
be filed There were two pieces of paper
required to be filed and both of them f
fall woefully short of what is commanded
by the United States Supreme Court The
first is an update report 5:00 every day
of where is Abrao Garcia and what steps
are being taken and will be taken to
secure and facilitate his release from
El Salvador's jail How did he get there
through an illegal act uh overriding a a
judge's order of protection to prevent
him from being deported to El Salvador
or removed to El Salvador That's just
what the United States did completely
flouting that order All courts that have
looked at this Judge Zenis three judges
of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
nine judges of the United States Supreme
Court have said and have credited the
government with confessing that they
violated the law in violating that order
and Mr Abrego Garcia's constitutional
rights That is a fact That is third that
is 13 judges having looked at the issue
and come away with the same conclusion
including at the highest level that
happened Now um he was the he was
removed along with those um those uh
enemy combatants purported by Donald
Trump pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act
But Mr Rogo Garcia was not removed
pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act He's
being housed in a storage unit a maximum
security prison uh in El Salvador under
an agreement a contract between the
government of El Salvador and the United
States in which El Salvador gets $6
million to fill an empty
jail Um of course the United States has
the ability through its contractual and
diplomatic relationships to get Mr
Abrego Garcia back not on day 30 but on
day two day five died day 10 But they
won't and they're doubling down on it
Now they have filed let's talk about the
two pieces of paper they filed One I
told you about a declaration from
somebody who's allegedly in the know
about Mr Abrego Garcia's whereabouts but
again woefully deficient does not
provide uh the the court or therefore
the public with any information about
what's being worked on If they if they
thought it was that sensitive they could
ask to have it sealed They're not even
doing that In their response to a motion
filed on Saturday by Abrago Garcia's
lawyers as invited by the judge a motion
for contempt and other remedies they
basically tell the judge in a misread a
complete and whole misreading of the
Supreme Court decision that she does not
have the power to order them to do
anything in in their uh connectivity or
communications with El Salvador She has
no power to tell them what diplomacy to
use what foreign policy to use what back
channels to use if they're using any And
they're not going to tell her what they
are either Even though again that's the
order of the United States Supreme Court
They are in contempt of court I'm
waiting to see probably later today
early tomorrow I'll come right back here
on the Midas Touch Network and report on
it The order that the judge imposes she
may wait until Tuesday's hearing She has
a hearing already on the book scheduled
for Tuesday with the parties But let me
read to you from the things that matter
so far These two new filings by the
Trump administration And I have in my
hot little hand something which they
ignore which is the United States
Supreme Court decision And I'm going to
tell you where they're wrong First of
all they filed a new declaration by a
new guy This guy is the second person
allegedly with knowledge who's giving
the judge information She ordered that
every day at 5:00 she wants an update as
to the current physical location and
custodial status of ago Garcia Where is
he who's got him two what steps if any
defendants have taken to facilitate his
immediate return and what additional
steps they plan to take every day Now
again if any of this is really
confidential and sensitive they could
file a motion to have it filed under
seal The judge would take it under seal
it wouldn't be on the public docket and
she would she would review it in what we
call an inc camera review only for the
judge They didn't do that because we
nobody believes them when they say
they're really working on something
Here's what Evan Katz the assistant
director for the removal division
Homeland Security and ICE had to say for
himself First of all you can tell this
was written by a lawyer for him It does
a lot of argument about the case trying
to relitigate the case Now look Donald
Trump made the decision to put this on a
fast track with an emergency application
to the United States Supreme Court
before a full record was prepared or
oral argument And now he's trying to
supplement He doesn't like the result
cuz he lost that one So now he's trying
to supplement the record with new
argument And I don't think he should be
putting argument in the mouth of this
particular fact witness But this is
their call and it's and it's just very
obvious when you read it He says on page
two I am aware that after this court's
preliminary injunction uh the government
sought a stay that Chief Justice Roberts
issued an administrative stay and that
on March 10th the Supreme Court held
that the deadline in the challenged
order is no longer effective and that
aspects of this court's injunction
needed to be clarified before they be
they could become effective That's
that's a misreading of the Supreme Court
decision I'll tell you why in a moment
Um he then tries to relitigate what
happened in
2019 in which Garcia obtained a order of
protection and and to prevent him from
being removed to El Salvador that was
violated by the Trump administration Uh
they say on page seven I understand that
he should not have been removed to El
Salvador because the immigration judge
had also granted ago Garcia withholding
of removal to El Salvador However I also
understand that Abrao Garcia is no
longer eligible for withholding of
removal because of his membership at
MS-13 which is a designated foreign
terrorist organization Well that's
that's evidence that you need to put on
sir in front of a judge not just throw
it you know into a declaration Uh and
and they're not providing any more
updates. So they are
violating the second status report
They're not telling the court what
they've done to try to get him out if
anything and they're not telling her
what they're going to do That violates
the Supreme Court ruling and and her
ruling Here's what the Supreme Court had
to say To be
clear
um the application is granted in part
and denied in part to the extent the
government's emergency application is
effectively granted in part because the
deadline in the challenged order is no
longer effective Three weeks ago she
said by close of business on Monday 3
weeks ago Monday Argo Garcia needed to
be returned Then they went into the
world of the appellet the appellet world
They got a stay Monday came and went So
effectively they got the relief they
wanted because they didn't have to
comply by Monday That doesn't talk about
any future deadlines It doesn't mean she
can't enter other deadlines to manage
the case Doesn't mean she can't enter
other orders to manage the case which is
how they're interpreting it Um they go
on to say that the rest of the district
court's order the preliminary injunction
requiring the Trump administration to
facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia
with all necessary steps and to um uh
all of that in the interest of due
process and constitutional justice is
all appropriate In fact here's what they
say They say the rest of the district
court's order remains in effect but
requires one clarification on remand by
the judge The order properly requires
the government to facilitate ago
Garcia's release from custody and to
ensure that his case is handled as it
would have been handled had it not had
he not improperly been sent to El
Salvador The intended scope of the term
effectuate she had used the word
effectuate in her order They say that's
a little unclear and may exceed the
district court's authority The district
court should clarify its directive with
due regard for the difference owed to
the executive branch Okay She clarified
her directive She took out the word
effectuate She said "You are to
facilitate with all necessary steps and
you are to report back to me by um every
day at 5:00 as to what steps you've
taken and what steps you're going to
take which is completely appropriate
because the Supreme Court said to
her that um for its part the this is the
Supreme Court 90 The government should
be prepared to share what it can
concerning the steps it has taken and
the prospect of further steps." They're
not answering that question That's the
problem with this declaration this
affidavit by cats And then in their
motion for additional relief they
distort the Supreme Court ruling even
more They say that on page two the court
instructed that any indirective must
give due regard for the difference owed
to the executive branch That's not what
it says It says that particular
directive about effectuate needed to be
clarified so that it may not run a foul
of the powers of the executive branch
She clarified it It doesn't say all
directives need to be need to comport Um
and it certainly didn't say what they
say on the top of page three that any
directive should should only concern a
Brao Garcia's release from custody Later
on on page three they they then redefine
facilitate to mean only domestic
obstacles meaning we can only tell you
what we're doing on our end We can't
breach the sovereign status of El
Salvador and tell you what we're doing
with them That's foreign affairs and uh
and you have no jurisdiction over them
for them to tell you So we're only going
to tell you domestic But even under
their own paper they filed in opposition
to the motion of contempt they're not
even complying with the with the Supreme
Court order because their own
declaration doesn't say what domestic
steps they're taking So how do you
reconcile that drew Enson the lawyer
that filed this for the Department of
Justice You know your own affidavit
doesn't comply with what you said she's
entitled to
know So they're not but they're only
going to tell her domestic obstacles
although they're not even telling her
that And then um then they then they
kind of dangle this Trump is meeting
with B Kelly on Monday because now it's
public of course but that's foreign
sovereign power stuff and that's only
for the president and you can't order
him because that would violate the
separation of powers You can't compel
any diplomacy You can't compel any
incursion upon the sovereignty of
another as another nation They say on
page four Now listen to this very
interesting language It's almost like
they're suggesting that they're in talks
with B Kelly but they can't tell us
about it But if that were true you'd
have to do it in the form of a sealed
filing and let the judge know about it
uh in camera Okay but they're not even
doing that They say on page five it is
now public information that the
president of El Salvador Nah Bkelli is
currently in the United States and will
be meeting with Trump on Monday
Defendants will continue to share
updates as appropriate Any further
intrusion into this sensitive process
what sensitive process and any directive
from the court to take action against
the nation of El Salvador would be
inconsistent with the care council by
the Supreme Court What sensitive process
you're in talks with Balli to return him
Well then you should be able to tell the
judge that or at least tell her that in
private And if you're not in talks with
him what sensitive process are you
talking about and she's not ordering to
be clear at the end of this hottake The
judge in the Supreme Court is not
ordering that that the judge has the
power to direct foreign affairs or
diplomatic diplomacy you know or or how
they interact It's that they are to
facilitate They are to do whatever is
necessary make whatever phone calls are
necessary in order to get him back into
this country to bring him home I don't
know if we're going to get a ruling from
the judge today We're certainly going to
have a hearing on Tuesday about the
about all things related to contempt in
these filings I'm sure she'll wait
another day and see what happens perhaps
with the Monday meeting and see what's
reported to her on Tuesday before she
makes her ultimate call And the watchful
eyes of the United States Supreme Court
90 you know they're keeping an eye I
assume on what's happening and don't
necessarily like the record that's being
uh uh created by the Trump
administration till my next reporting on
Legal AF
********************************
Trump has DISASTER Public Event DEFYING SCOTUS
Brett Meiselas
MeidasTouch
Apr 14, 2025
MeidasTouch host Brett Meiselas reports on a disastrous Oval Office meeting between Donald Trump and El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, which took place as Trump openly defied a Supreme Court order requiring him to facilitate the return of a man "mistakenly" deported to a prison camp in El Salvador.
Transcript
[Brett Meiselas] Donald Trump just held a disastrous
meeting in the Oval Office with El
Salvador's autocratic president Naib
Boulli i am not being hyperbolic when I
say that this was one of the single most
shameful meetings to ever take place in
the Oval Office in American history
trump spread Russian propaganda said
he'll be defying a ruling from the
Supreme Court and said he's looking into
sending American citizens to
concentration camps in El Salvador what
we are witnessing right now is a
fullblown constitutional crisis and we
must not avert our eyes to the reality
unfolding in the United States of
America my name is Brett Meellis with
the Mitus Touch Network remember to
subscribe to our YouTube channel we are
on the way to 5 million subscribers so
Trump gave Blly a very warm greeting as
he entered the White House i got to say
the difference between the respect that
Trump shows to autocrats compared to our
allies like Ukrainian President Silinski
for example is striking and by the way B
Kelly did not wear a suit but that did
not seem to bother Trump in his
administration this time as Midas Touch
editor-in chief Ron Philipsky said quote
"What a contrast between how our allies
get treated versus little dictators like
B Kelly not a word about him not wearing
a suit either as he petitions the US to
expand his country's mercenary penal
colony by sending him more money." In
this moment Caitlyn Collins asked Trump
if he plans to ask to return Kilara Bgo
Garcia that's the man the Trump
administration admitted to sending to an
El Salvadorian prison camp by quote
mistake trump attacked the press and
then Attorney General Pam Bondi lied
about Abrego Garcia's past and
immigration status as a reminder he was
here legally and said that it's up to El
Salvador if they want to return him to
the United States watch this
let's hear the question from this very
low-rated anchor.
[Kaitlan Collins] Do you plan to ask President to help
return the man who your administration
says was mistakenly deported, the man who
was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
[Trump] Well let me ask Pam. Would you
answer that question?
[Pam Bondi] Sure President.
First and foremost, he was illegally in
our country, he had been illegally in our
country, and in
2019, two courts, an immigration court and
an appellate immigration court, ruled that
he was a member of MS13 and he was
illegally in our country. Right now it
was a paperwork, it was additional
paperwork had needed to be done. That's
up to El Salvador if they want to return
him. That's not up to us. The Supreme
Court ruled president that if, as El
Salvador wants to return him, this
is international matters, foreign affairs.
If they wanted to return him, we would
facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
[Brett Meiselas] So
then the El Salvadoran president said
that he doesn't have the power to return
a Abrego Garcia to the United States
either.
[Pres. Bukele] How can I smuggle a terrorist
into the United Statesd? I don't have
the power to return him to the United
States. You can release him inside, yeah,
but I'm not releasing. I mean, we're not
very fond of releasing terrorists into
our country. You just turned the murder
capital of the world into the safest
country of the Western Hemisphere, and
you want us to go back into the
releasing criminals so we can go back to
being the murder capital of the world? No,
that's not going to happen. That's
well, they'd love to have a criminal, you
know, released
into -- That's a fascination, they would
love it. So suddenly all these people who
like to consider themselves so powerful,
all of a sudden they are just powerless
to do anything here.
[Brett Meiselas] You see what's going
on here, and did you notice by the way
what he said quote "We're not very fond
of releasing terrorists listen if they
can call a wrongly deported innocent man
a terrorist and send him to a foreign
goolog then nobody is safe." Caitlyn
Collins then asked Trump about his own
comments that he said the other day that
he would listen to the Supreme Court.
Trump naturally insulted her. Watch this.
[Kaitlan Collins] Mr president, you said
that if the Supreme Court said someone
needed to be returned that you would
abide by that. You said that on Air Force
One just a few days ago.
[Trump] And they said
that to answer, "facilitated". Why don't you
just say "Isn't it wonderful that we're
keeping criminals out of our country. Why
can't you just say that? Why do you go
over and over. And that's why nobody
watches you anymore. You know you have no
credibility. Please go ahead.
Brett Meiselas] Then
Steven Miller and Trump said that the
Supreme Court's ruling was actually a
unanimous ruling in favor of the Trump
administration. This is one of the most
heinous, bald-faced lies that we have
witnessed yet.
[Trump] I promise you, if he was your
neighbor, you would move right away.
To what was the ruling in the
Supreme Court? Steve? Was it nine to
nothing?
[Stephen Miller] Yes, it was a 9-0 in our favor, in
our favor, against the district court
ruling, saying that no district court has
the power to compel the foreign policy
function of the United States. As Pam
said, the ruling solely stated that if
this individual at El Salvador's sole
discretion was sent back to our country,
that we could deport him a second time.
Well no version of this legally ends up
with him ever living here, because he is
a citizen of El Salvador. That is the
president of El Salvador. Your questions
about it per the court can only be
directed to him.
[Brett Meiselas] So that is of course the
opposite of what happened. That is
utterly Orwellian, and anti-American. The
Supreme Court ruled unanimously that
Trump must facilitate the return of
Abrego Garcia. There was no gray area.
Here the court wrote, quote "The rest of
the district court's order remains in
effect, but requires clarification on
remand. The order properly requires the
government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's
release from custody in El Salvador, and
to ensure that his case is handled, as it
would have been had he not been
improperly sent to El Salvador.
[Brett Meiselas] Even Miller then called it, quote "arrogant", for
the press to ask about Abrego Garcia, and
lied about the Supreme Court ruling some
more. Watch this.
[Trump] Steve -- wait a minute. Can
you just also respond to that question,
because you know, it's asked by CNN, and
they always ask it with a slant, uh,
because they're totally slanted, because
they don't know what's happening. That's
why nobody's watching them. But would you
answer that question also?
[Steven Miller] Yes gladly so
as Pam mentioned there's an illegal
alien from El Salvador so with respect
to you he's a citizen of El Salvador so
it's very arrogant even for American
media to suggest that we would even tell
El Salvador how to handle their own
citizens as a starting point as two
immigration courts found that he was a
member of MS-13 when President Trump
declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist
organization that meant that he was no
longer eligible under federal law which
I'm sure you know you're very familiar
with the INA that he was no longer
eligible for any form of immigration
relief in the United States so he had a
deportation order that was valid which
meant that under our law he's not even
allowed to be present in the United
States and had to be returned because of
the foreign terrorist designation this
issue was then by a district court judge
completely inverted and a district court
judge tried to tell the administration
that they had to kidnap a citizen of El
Salvador and fly him back here that
issue was raised to the Supreme Court
and the Supreme Court said the district
court order was unlawful and its main
components were reversed 90 unanimously
stating clearly that neither secretary
of state nor the president could be
compelled by anybody to forcibly
retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from
El Salvador who again is a member of
MS-13 we've got a lot more to report
here i'll be back after this quick break
did you know Fast Growing Trees is the
biggest online nursery in the US with
thousands of different plants and over 2
million happy customers they have all
the plants your yard needs like fruit
trees privacy trees flowering trees
shrubs and so much more whatever plants
you're interested in Fast Growing Trees
has you covered find the perfect fit for
your climate and space fast Growing
Trees makes it easy to get your dream
yard order online and get your plants
delivered directly to your door in just
a few days without ever leaving home
their live and thrive guarantee ensures
your plants arrive happy and healthy
plus get support from trained plant
experts on call to help you plan your
landscape choose the right plants and
learn how to care for them i got a lemon
tree from Fast Growing Trees and it's my
favorite thing in my yard i was worried
about ordering plants online but it
arrived fresh strong and ready to plant
plus now I get to just walk outside and
pick my own citrus not to mention it
smells amazing every time I go out and
by the way big yard small yard no yard
at all doesn't matter fastgrowing Trees
has over 6,000 plants to fit any space
from indoor plants to fruit trees to
full-size privacy trees and more
fastgrowing Trees has plant experts on
call so if you're like me and don't have
a green thumb they'll help you choose
the right plant and keep it thriving
this spring they have the best deals for
your yard up to half off on select
plants and other deals and listeners to
our show get 15% off their first
purchase when using the code Midas at
checkout that's an additional 15% off at
fastgrowingtreees.com using the code
midas me- at checkout
fastgrowingtreees.com code midas now is
the perfect time to plant use Midas to
save today offer is valid for a limited
time terms and conditions may apply here
trump said that he's open to sending
American citizens to El Salvador and
torture camps and just a follow question
a clarification you mentioned that
you're open to deporting uh individuals
that aren't foreign aliens but are
criminals to El Salvador does that in
does that include potentially US
citizens fully naturalized in America if
they're criminals and if they hit people
with baseball bats over their head that
happen to be 90 years old and if uh if
they rape 87y old women in Coney Island
Brooklyn yeah yeah that includes them
why do you think they're special
category of person they're as bad as
anybody that comes in we have bad ones
too and I'm all for it because we can do
things with the president for less money
and have great
security and we have a huge prison
population we have a huge number of
prisons and then we have the private
prisons and some are operated well I
guess and some aren't but
uh he does a great job with that we have
others that we're negotiating with too
but no if it's if it's a If it's a
homegrown criminal, I have no problem now.
We're studying the laws right now. Pam
is studying if we can do that. That's
good and I'm talking about violent
people i'm talking about really bad
people really bad people every bit as
bad as the ones coming in and I made the
statement when I heard about this a long
time ago now four years ago when I heard
that this guy was having open borders I
said "Every single criminal from all
over the world is going to be dumped
into our country." And that's what
happened jails the jails of the Congo
were emptied out and by the way here's
footage that was captured on the El
Salvadoran government's liveream this
did not make it on the cable networks in
the United States the quality isn't
great but you could hear Trump endorse
the idea of sending what he calls quote
homegrowns that means American citizens
to El Salvadoran prison camps watch this
[Trump] The homegrown criminals next, yeah. I said
homegrown are next. The homegrown.
You got to build about five more places,
yeah. That's big.
All right
it's not big enough no yeah marco Rubio
a man who has completely sold his soul
jumped in during the meeting to lie
about Abrago Garcia's immigration status
and play dumb as to why anyone would be
upset about the situation even I don't
understand what the confusion is this
individual is a citizen of El Salvador
he was illegally in the United States
and was returned to his country that's
where you deport people back to their
country of origin except for Venezuela
that wasn't refusing to take people back
or places like that i can tell you this
Mr president no the foreign policy of
the United States is conducted by the
president of the United States not by a
court and no court in the United States
has a right to conduct the foreign
policy of the United States it's that
simple end of story by the way this is
not the only court order that Trump was
defying today the Associated Press
reported that their journalists remain
blocked from the Oval Office despite a
court order demanding their
reinstatement the AP said quote "Our
journalists were blocked from the Oval
Office today we expect the White House
to restore AP's participation in the
pool as of today as provided in the
injunction order." Speaking of the media
Trump attacked CNN as fake news and said
that they hate our country watch this
what you're doing with with the border
is remarkable it has dropped what
95% it's incredible that as of this
morning 99%
99.1% to be exact why are those numbers
not in the media well they get out with
the fake news you know like CNN CNN over
here doesn't want to put them out
because they don't like they don't like
putting out good numbers they only like
putting out because I think they hate
our country actually
but it's it's a shame you're right isn't
that a great question why doesn't the
mediator Why do they put out numbers
yeah 99% i mean it's like it's crazy
right we're doing the El Salvadoran
president told Trump that he has 350
million people to liberate in the United
States but in order to do that Trump
must imprison people watch this and in
fact in fact Mr president you have uh
350 million people to liberate you know
to liberate 350 million people you have
to imprison some you know that's the way
it works right you cannot just you know
free the criminals and and think crime
is going to go down magically you have
to imprison them so you can liberate 350
million Americans that are asking for
trump then spread Russian propaganda and
refused to condemn Vladimir Putin after
the horrifying attacks we witnessed this
weekend in Ukraine a Russian missile
attack had killed 34 insumi in Ukraine
on Palm Sunday including two children
but Trump has refused to say a single
bad word about the attack or about Putin
and instead he's ramping up his attacks
on Zalinski trump on social media this
morning wrote quote "President Zilinsky
and crooked Joe Biden did an absolutely
horrible job in allowing this travesty
to begin blaming Zalinsky and Biden for
Putin's illegal invasion." Trump earlier
also called Putin's attack simply a
quote mistake he was asked about that
during the Oval Office meeting and he
ended up attacking Biden and Zilinski
for quote letting the war happen
repeatedly mentioned last night that
Russia's attack on Ukraine was a mistake
what is the exact mistake and had you
given Putin a deadline to actually move
toward a ceasefire the mistake was
letting the war happen if Biden were
competent and if Zalinsky were competent
and I I don't know that he is we had a
rough session with this guy over here he
just kept asking for more and more that
war should have never been allowed to
happen that war I went four years and
Putin wouldn't even bring it up and as
soon as the election was rigged and I
wasn't here that war started there was
no way that war should have been allowed
to happen and Biden should have stopped
it and
and you you take a look at Putin i'm not
saying anybody's an angel but I will
tell you I went four years and it wasn't
even a question he would never and I
told him "Don't do it you're not going
to do it." And it was the apple of his
eye trump then blamed Zilinski for
starting the war and scolded him for
asking for weapons trump said quote
"When you start a war you got to know
you can win a war." paring Russian
propaganda yet again and refusing to
acknowledge that it was Putin who
invaded Ukraine watch President Zilinski
stir out his offer to purchase war
patriot missile back oh I don't know
he's always looking to purchase missiles
you know he's he's against Listen when
you start a war you got to know that you
can win the war right you don't start a
war against somebody that's 20 times
your size and then hope that people give
you some missiles trump then bragged
about passing another cognitive test
over the weekend uh Trump then bragged
about passing another cognitive test
over the past few days this is one of
those tests that are designed to detect
signs of dementia and he bragged that he
got the highest marks of anyone ever
watch this very low IQ president and by
the way I took my cognitive exam as part
of my physical exam and I got the
highest mark and one of the doctors said
"Sir I've never seen anybody get that
kind of that was the highest mark i hope
you're happy with that although they
haven't been bugging me too much to take
a cognitive but I did do my physical and
it was released i hope you're all happy
with it i noticed there's no question so
probably you are but the cognitive they
said to me "Sir would you like to take a
cognitive test?" I said "Did Biden take
one?" "No." "Did anybody take one?" "No
not too many people took him." I said
"What about what about
uh Obama did he take one?" "No he didn't
take one either." I said "Let me be the
only one to take one." But I've actually
taken them three times already i like
taking them because they're sort of
they're not too tough for me to take
trump then said that he was going to
raise prices on pharmaceuticals by
implementing a tariff watch this
question potentially pharmaceuticals
semiconductor tariffs and potentially
pharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals we're
going to do we have We don't make our
own drugs our own pharmaceuticals we
don't make our own drugs anymore the
drug companies are in Ireland and
they're in lots of other places
China and all they have to do is impose
a tariff the more the faster they move
in the higher the tariff it's very it's
inversely proportional the higher the
tariff the faster they come and uh yeah
we're going to be doing that that's
going to be like we have on cars we have
as you know 25% tariff on cars we have a
25% tariff on steel and aluminum and
that's what that category fits right now
finally Trump then threatened to bomb
Iran and they're not going to have one
and if we have to do something very
harsh we'll do it and I'm not doing it
for us i'm doing it for the world does
that And these are radicalized people
and they cannot have a nuclear weapon
does that potential Does that include a
potential strike on Iranian nuclear
facilities of course it does so was I
lying or being hyperbolic when I said
this was possibly the most shameful Oval
Office meeting in American history this
was some deranged psychotic evil
anti-American filth that we all just
witnessed but we cannot close our eyes
or cover our ears to the reality we need
to continue to grow this community and
keep up the pressure i know that we will
never relent here at the Midas Touch
Network i know that you won't either
thank you so much for watching and
remember to subscribe right now to our
YouTube channel and add the Midas Touch
podcast on Apple podcast on Spotify
we'll see you soon can't get enough
Midas check out the Midas Plus substack
for ad free articles reports podcasts
daily recaps from Ron Philipki and more
sign up for free now at midasplus.com
[Music]
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon Apr 14, 2025 8:59 pm
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Mon Apr 14, 2025 10:36 pm
The Triad: Bukele, Abrego Garcia, and Red Lines
Emergency Triad: Are we now a country of political prisoners and gulags?
by Jonathan V. Last
The Bulwark
Apr 13, 2025
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bukele-abr ... -red-lines
An emergency Sunday Triad, because I’m concerned that people don’t appreciate how important this week will be for American democracy and our constitutional order.
Buckle up.
Nayib Bukele, the keeper of America’s gulag. (Ezequiel BECERRA / AFP) (Photo by EZEQUIEL BECERRA/AFP via Getty Images)
1. Escape
If you were Chris Krebs, would you flee the country?
Your answer before last week would probably be “no.” Your answer after last week is probably “maybe.” Your answer after the coming week might be “absolutely.”
Let’s break it down to understand what just happened and what is coming in the next 48 hours. Because the next two days may determine whether or not America crosses more critical red lines into open authoritarianism.
Last Wednesday, the president signed a memorandum instructing both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to investigate Chris Krebs. You’ll remember that during Trump’s first term, Krebs headed the new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—and was fired two weeks after the 2020 election for publicly rebutting Trump’s lies about the integrity of the election. Trump’s memorandum flips truth upside down, accusing Krebs of having “falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen,” and it not only orders an investigation into Krebs himself but it also commands that the entire cybersecurity company he now works for be stripped of any security clearances it has.
On Thursday, in an unsigned, unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ordered that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the immigrant whom Homeland Security mistakenly (by its own admission) arrested and extradited to a gulag in El Salvador.
On Saturday the government responded to the SCOTUS decision by stonewalling the district court judge and then claiming that it could not “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia because he is now detained by a sovereign nation on which the United States could not possibly exert any influence.
Also on Saturday, Nayib Bukele, the authoritarian ruler of that sovereign nation, arrived in the United States.
On Sunday, the government stonewalled the district court judge yet again—filing an update saying it had “no updates”—and in a separate filing challenged the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, and added that the details of the deal with Bukele to imprison deportees from the United States are “classified.”
On Monday, Bukele will meet with his patron, Donald Trump.
Over the next 36 hours, one of three things will happen.
(1) Bukele will agree to repatriate Abrego Garcia to the United States. He will insist that this decision is entirely his own and that he has chosen to do so as a token of good will toward President Trump.
(2) Bukele will defer the decision, saying that he is considering returning Abrego Garcia but has not yet made up his mind.
(3) Bukele will refuse to return Abrego Garcia. He will say that this is an internal matter on which the American courts can have no say. He will claim that Abrego Garcia is a criminal, a danger, and a threat to El Salvador.1
If (1) comes to pass, then a constitutional crisis will have been postponed. Both Trump and SCOTUS can claim to have held firm, but no further action will be necessary until Trump creates the next showdown.
If (2) happens, then all of the pressure falls to the district judge, who will be in the position of trying to manage the U.S. government’s lawyers as they stall, obfuscate, and attempt to evade the fact that they are making a direct challenge to the authority of the judicial system.
But if it’s number 3?
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him.2 If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?
Seeing clearly and speaking plainly are what we do here. Stand with us.
2. Two Roads
Surrender would entail the Supreme Court declining to move further in Abrego Garcia’s case. The justices can let the district judge twist in the wind and government lawyers deal with the fallout.3
In this scenario the Court does not take up the case again. It allows Kilmar Abrego Garcia to remain in El Salvador indefinitely.
I can see Chief Justice John Roberts viewing this as not a surrender but a tactical retreat. And I can understand the logic of it. If the Court declines to intervene further it could maintain that it did assert power over the executive and that the executive did not overtly defy it. The Court can say that it made its judgment and the executive acceded to the ruling—even though the president ultimately got the result he wanted.
Further, Roberts might tell himself that getting a unanimous decision and living to fight another day is the best outcome he was going to get. Because the truth is that no force in the American constitutional system can compel a dictator in El Salvador to do something that he understands the president does not want him to do.
Escalation would mean that when the plaintiffs attempt to take Abrego Garcia’s case back to SCOTUS, alleging that the administration has refused to comply with the Court’s order, the Court finds, in some way, that the administration did not attempt to comply—and from there makes a new demand of the executive in an attempt to gain compliance.
It is unclear where the logic of such actions would lead.
Leave a comment
3. Asylum
Let’s speak plainly once more: Kilmar Abrego Garcia will not return to the United States unless Donald Trump wants him to. The Supreme Court has the (theoretical) power to force the president to take some actions. But it does not have the power to compel the president’s wishes. And Abrego Garcia’s fate is tied to Trump’s wishes, not any act that Trump might perform.
So the question is: Is the Supreme Court willing to risk a final showdown on presidential power and authoritarianism in America at this moment?
I can see it both ways. On the one hand, the Court is vulnerable. There is no institution within the federal government to join it in a final stand against the executive. If it waits until 2027, then perhaps one house of Congress will be capable of standing with it in battle.
And if SCOTUS pushes all in on this case and loses, then it can no longer even pretend to have authority over the executive. After just three months of Trump’s rule, the Constitution will have become a dead letter.
On the other hand, the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a technical abstraction. It is not about some theory of government functioning. It is about the president’s use of secret police to abduct a man from American soil and send him to a foreign gulag.
For the Supreme Court to allow the government’s actions to stand after declaring them—unanimously—to be unconstitutional, is to declare open season on all enemies of the president. If Abrego Garcia can be kept in El Salvador in contravention of both the written law and the demands of the Supreme Court of the United States then there is nothing—literally nothing—stopping the administration from snatching whatever individual it chooses, putting him on a plane to El Salvador, and then claiming that what is done is done.
If we get (3) and the Supreme Court chooses not to escalate, it will mean that we have created a de facto extralegal policy of imprisonment in a foreign gulag for enemies of the regime.
And it is quite clear where that logic leads.
Which brings us back to our opening questions. If you are Chris Krebs and this week Bukele refuses to return Abrego Garcia and the Supreme Court decides to let Trump get away with it . . .
Would you stay in America? Or would you flee the country for your safety?
Let’s pretend, for a second, that you chose to leave. You show up at the Canadian border and file a claim of political asylum, alleging that you are fleeing political persecution in America and have reason to believe that remaining in your homeland would lead to indefinite imprisonment in a Salvadoran concentration camp.
What would the Canadian legal system make of such a claim?
Would they say that this was outlandish and unfounded?
Or would they believe it to be an accurate depiction of what America has become?
_______________
Notes:
1 There is a fourth option: Bukele could announce that Abrego Garcia is dead, so his return is no longer possible and the case is closed without him having had to render a decision.
2 Bukele holds no cards. Therefore he must do what the stronger power demands. At least according to Donald Trump.
3 Maybe some lawyers for the government will be held in contempt.
Emergency Triad: Are we now a country of political prisoners and gulags?
by Jonathan V. Last
The Bulwark
Apr 13, 2025
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bukele-abr ... -red-lines
An emergency Sunday Triad, because I’m concerned that people don’t appreciate how important this week will be for American democracy and our constitutional order.
Buckle up.
Nayib Bukele, the keeper of America’s gulag. (Ezequiel BECERRA / AFP) (Photo by EZEQUIEL BECERRA/AFP via Getty Images)
1. Escape
If you were Chris Krebs, would you flee the country?
Your answer before last week would probably be “no.” Your answer after last week is probably “maybe.” Your answer after the coming week might be “absolutely.”
Let’s break it down to understand what just happened and what is coming in the next 48 hours. Because the next two days may determine whether or not America crosses more critical red lines into open authoritarianism.
Last Wednesday, the president signed a memorandum instructing both the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to investigate Chris Krebs. You’ll remember that during Trump’s first term, Krebs headed the new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency—and was fired two weeks after the 2020 election for publicly rebutting Trump’s lies about the integrity of the election. Trump’s memorandum flips truth upside down, accusing Krebs of having “falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen,” and it not only orders an investigation into Krebs himself but it also commands that the entire cybersecurity company he now works for be stripped of any security clearances it has.
On Thursday, in an unsigned, unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ordered that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the immigrant whom Homeland Security mistakenly (by its own admission) arrested and extradited to a gulag in El Salvador.
On Saturday the government responded to the SCOTUS decision by stonewalling the district court judge and then claiming that it could not “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia because he is now detained by a sovereign nation on which the United States could not possibly exert any influence.
Also on Saturday, Nayib Bukele, the authoritarian ruler of that sovereign nation, arrived in the United States.
On Sunday, the government stonewalled the district court judge yet again—filing an update saying it had “no updates”—and in a separate filing challenged the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, and added that the details of the deal with Bukele to imprison deportees from the United States are “classified.”
On Monday, Bukele will meet with his patron, Donald Trump.
Over the next 36 hours, one of three things will happen.
(1) Bukele will agree to repatriate Abrego Garcia to the United States. He will insist that this decision is entirely his own and that he has chosen to do so as a token of good will toward President Trump.
(2) Bukele will defer the decision, saying that he is considering returning Abrego Garcia but has not yet made up his mind.
(3) Bukele will refuse to return Abrego Garcia. He will say that this is an internal matter on which the American courts can have no say. He will claim that Abrego Garcia is a criminal, a danger, and a threat to El Salvador.1
If (1) comes to pass, then a constitutional crisis will have been postponed. Both Trump and SCOTUS can claim to have held firm, but no further action will be necessary until Trump creates the next showdown.
If (2) happens, then all of the pressure falls to the district judge, who will be in the position of trying to manage the U.S. government’s lawyers as they stall, obfuscate, and attempt to evade the fact that they are making a direct challenge to the authority of the judicial system.
But if it’s number 3?
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him.2 If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?
Seeing clearly and speaking plainly are what we do here. Stand with us.
2. Two Roads
Surrender would entail the Supreme Court declining to move further in Abrego Garcia’s case. The justices can let the district judge twist in the wind and government lawyers deal with the fallout.3
In this scenario the Court does not take up the case again. It allows Kilmar Abrego Garcia to remain in El Salvador indefinitely.
I can see Chief Justice John Roberts viewing this as not a surrender but a tactical retreat. And I can understand the logic of it. If the Court declines to intervene further it could maintain that it did assert power over the executive and that the executive did not overtly defy it. The Court can say that it made its judgment and the executive acceded to the ruling—even though the president ultimately got the result he wanted.
Further, Roberts might tell himself that getting a unanimous decision and living to fight another day is the best outcome he was going to get. Because the truth is that no force in the American constitutional system can compel a dictator in El Salvador to do something that he understands the president does not want him to do.
Escalation would mean that when the plaintiffs attempt to take Abrego Garcia’s case back to SCOTUS, alleging that the administration has refused to comply with the Court’s order, the Court finds, in some way, that the administration did not attempt to comply—and from there makes a new demand of the executive in an attempt to gain compliance.
It is unclear where the logic of such actions would lead.
Leave a comment
3. Asylum
Let’s speak plainly once more: Kilmar Abrego Garcia will not return to the United States unless Donald Trump wants him to. The Supreme Court has the (theoretical) power to force the president to take some actions. But it does not have the power to compel the president’s wishes. And Abrego Garcia’s fate is tied to Trump’s wishes, not any act that Trump might perform.
So the question is: Is the Supreme Court willing to risk a final showdown on presidential power and authoritarianism in America at this moment?
I can see it both ways. On the one hand, the Court is vulnerable. There is no institution within the federal government to join it in a final stand against the executive. If it waits until 2027, then perhaps one house of Congress will be capable of standing with it in battle.
And if SCOTUS pushes all in on this case and loses, then it can no longer even pretend to have authority over the executive. After just three months of Trump’s rule, the Constitution will have become a dead letter.
On the other hand, the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is not a technical abstraction. It is not about some theory of government functioning. It is about the president’s use of secret police to abduct a man from American soil and send him to a foreign gulag.
For the Supreme Court to allow the government’s actions to stand after declaring them—unanimously—to be unconstitutional, is to declare open season on all enemies of the president. If Abrego Garcia can be kept in El Salvador in contravention of both the written law and the demands of the Supreme Court of the United States then there is nothing—literally nothing—stopping the administration from snatching whatever individual it chooses, putting him on a plane to El Salvador, and then claiming that what is done is done.
If we get (3) and the Supreme Court chooses not to escalate, it will mean that we have created a de facto extralegal policy of imprisonment in a foreign gulag for enemies of the regime.
And it is quite clear where that logic leads.
Which brings us back to our opening questions. If you are Chris Krebs and this week Bukele refuses to return Abrego Garcia and the Supreme Court decides to let Trump get away with it . . .
Would you stay in America? Or would you flee the country for your safety?
Let’s pretend, for a second, that you chose to leave. You show up at the Canadian border and file a claim of political asylum, alleging that you are fleeing political persecution in America and have reason to believe that remaining in your homeland would lead to indefinite imprisonment in a Salvadoran concentration camp.
What would the Canadian legal system make of such a claim?
Would they say that this was outlandish and unfounded?
Or would they believe it to be an accurate depiction of what America has become?
_______________
Notes:
1 There is a fourth option: Bukele could announce that Abrego Garcia is dead, so his return is no longer possible and the case is closed without him having had to render a decision.
2 Bukele holds no cards. Therefore he must do what the stronger power demands. At least according to Donald Trump.
3 Maybe some lawyers for the government will be held in contempt.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Apr 15, 2025 12:47 am
What we know about the arson at Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's residence
by Joe Hernandez
NPR
Updated April 14, 20252:13 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-53 ... -residence
[x]
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro speaks at a news conference Sunday after an alleged arson at the governor's residence that occurred overnight while he and his family were asleep inside. Marc Levy/AP
Authorities in Pennsylvania have arrested the man they say intentionally set fire to the governor's residence early Sunday morning while Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family were asleep inside.
Prosecutors have charged Cody Balmer, 38, with attempted murder, terrorism, aggravated arson and other crimes. He turned himself in to police later on Sunday.
Authorities have not disclosed a motive for the attack, but investigators say Balmer told them he had been "harboring hatred" toward Shapiro and would have beaten the governor with a hammer if he'd encountered him during the break-in at the Harrisburg residence.
Pennsylvania State Police said Monday that Balmer had been hospitalized and was receiving treatment for "a medical event not connected to this incident or his arrest."
At a press conference Sunday evening, a shaken Shapiro thanked law enforcement officers for their work and well-wishers for their messages of support, as he forcefully denounced acts of political violence.
[x]
This image provided by Commonwealth Media Services shows damage from a fire at the Pennsylvania governor's mansion in Harrisburg early Sunday morning. AP/Commonwealth Media Services
"This type of violence is not ok! This kind of violence is becoming far too common in our society," Shapiro said. "And I don't give a damn if it's coming from one particular side or the other, directed at one particular party or another or one particular person or another, it is not ok. And it has to stop. We have to be better than this."
Here's what we know so far about the arson attack.
Police detail how the arson unfolded
Investigators say Balmer accessed the governor's residence grounds by climbing a perimeter fence on the south side of the property.
According to a probable cause affidavit written by the Pennsylvania State Police, Balmer was then seen on surveillance video approaching the piano room on the south side of the residence.
He broke a window in the piano room and threw an incendiary device inside, authorities say, before breaking an adjacent window, climbing through it into the residence and throwing a second incendiary device into the dining room. Police say both rooms suffered "significant fire damage."
Balmer was then spotted on surveillance video kicking open a dining room exit door, climbing over the same fence he used to enter the property and running away.
[x]
Fire damage is seen inside the Pennsylvania governor's residences following a suspected arson attack Sunday. Police have charged Cody Balmer with attempted murder and other crimes. Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images North America
Pennsylvania State Police Lt. Col. George Bivens said Balmer was inside the residence for less than a minute and that the entire incident played out over "a period of several minutes" and was a "very quick event."
Troopers had been alerted to a perimeter breach at the residence and were investigating it while Balmer allegedly committed the arson, Bivens said. "He actively evaded troopers who were here to secure the residence even while they were searching for him on the property," he said. "While they were searching is when he attacked the residence, broke in and set the fires."
What Balmer told investigators
During the investigation, a woman police said was Balmer's "ex-paramour" called authorities and said Balmer had confessed to her to setting the fires at Shapiro's residence and wanted her to tell the police he did it.
A short time later, Balmer approached an officer outside the Pennsylvania State Police headquarters in Harrisburg and admitted he was responsible for the arson, police say.
In a subsequent interview, investigators say Balmer told them he hated Shapiro and was aware that Shapiro and others might be in the house at the time of the attack. When police asked Balmer what he would have done if he'd encountered Shapiro, "he advised he would have beaten him with his hammer," officers said.
Balmer allegedly told police that he walked for about an hour to the governor's residence — roughly three miles from the address listed for him in the affidavit — and that he created the homemade Molotov cocktails used in the attack by pouring gasoline from a lawnmower into empty Heineken beer bottles. Investigators found two broken Heineken bottles containing gasoline at the crime scene.
A search of Balmer's residence turned up a Snap-on jacket, a black bag and a small sledgehammer that police say were identical to those used by the perpetrator seen in the surveillance footage of the attack.
What happens next
The Pennsylvania State Police said Balmer was under police supervision at the hospital and will be transported to Dauphin County Prison for arraignment once he's released.
The full list of charges against him include attempted murder, aggravated arson, burglary, reckless endangerment, terrorism, aggravated assault and loitering.
It was unclear Monday afternoon if Balmer had retained an attorney.
Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo said Sunday evening that the FBI was involved in the investigation and that it would be possible for Balmer to face not only state but also federal criminal charges.
"He may face both. They're separate sovereigns," Chardo said. "It may be both, but we always look at … where we can get the best justice."
Bivens also said authorities had begun a security review to determine "how we can ensure that we don't have a repeat of a situation like this."
Political leaders offer messages of support
U.S. politicians from the federal to municipal level quickly offered messages of support for Shapiro, a Democrat, and his family after the fire.
Pennsylvania House Speaker Joanna McClinton condemned the "dangerous and despicable attack" on Shapiro's Harrisburg home. "Cowardly acts of violence meant to stoke fear have no place in our commonwealth," she said.
Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Austin Davis said "these sorts of acts deter good people from pursuing public service at a time when we desperately need more Americans to participate in our democracy."
"Thanks be to God that Governor Shapiro and his family were unharmed in this attack," Vice President JD Vance said. "Really disgusting violence, and I hope whoever did it is brought swiftly to justice."
Attorney General Pam Bondi said she was "deeply relieved that Governor Shapiro and his family are safe" and praised the work of first responders and police.
by Joe Hernandez
NPR
Updated April 14, 20252:13 PM ET
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/14/nx-s1-53 ... -residence
[x]
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro speaks at a news conference Sunday after an alleged arson at the governor's residence that occurred overnight while he and his family were asleep inside. Marc Levy/AP
Authorities in Pennsylvania have arrested the man they say intentionally set fire to the governor's residence early Sunday morning while Gov. Josh Shapiro and his family were asleep inside.
Prosecutors have charged Cody Balmer, 38, with attempted murder, terrorism, aggravated arson and other crimes. He turned himself in to police later on Sunday.
Authorities have not disclosed a motive for the attack, but investigators say Balmer told them he had been "harboring hatred" toward Shapiro and would have beaten the governor with a hammer if he'd encountered him during the break-in at the Harrisburg residence.
Pennsylvania State Police said Monday that Balmer had been hospitalized and was receiving treatment for "a medical event not connected to this incident or his arrest."
At a press conference Sunday evening, a shaken Shapiro thanked law enforcement officers for their work and well-wishers for their messages of support, as he forcefully denounced acts of political violence.
[x]
This image provided by Commonwealth Media Services shows damage from a fire at the Pennsylvania governor's mansion in Harrisburg early Sunday morning. AP/Commonwealth Media Services
"This type of violence is not ok! This kind of violence is becoming far too common in our society," Shapiro said. "And I don't give a damn if it's coming from one particular side or the other, directed at one particular party or another or one particular person or another, it is not ok. And it has to stop. We have to be better than this."
Here's what we know so far about the arson attack.
Police detail how the arson unfolded
Investigators say Balmer accessed the governor's residence grounds by climbing a perimeter fence on the south side of the property.
According to a probable cause affidavit written by the Pennsylvania State Police, Balmer was then seen on surveillance video approaching the piano room on the south side of the residence.
He broke a window in the piano room and threw an incendiary device inside, authorities say, before breaking an adjacent window, climbing through it into the residence and throwing a second incendiary device into the dining room. Police say both rooms suffered "significant fire damage."
Balmer was then spotted on surveillance video kicking open a dining room exit door, climbing over the same fence he used to enter the property and running away.
[x]
Fire damage is seen inside the Pennsylvania governor's residences following a suspected arson attack Sunday. Police have charged Cody Balmer with attempted murder and other crimes. Matthew Hatcher/Getty Images North America
Pennsylvania State Police Lt. Col. George Bivens said Balmer was inside the residence for less than a minute and that the entire incident played out over "a period of several minutes" and was a "very quick event."
Troopers had been alerted to a perimeter breach at the residence and were investigating it while Balmer allegedly committed the arson, Bivens said. "He actively evaded troopers who were here to secure the residence even while they were searching for him on the property," he said. "While they were searching is when he attacked the residence, broke in and set the fires."
What Balmer told investigators
During the investigation, a woman police said was Balmer's "ex-paramour" called authorities and said Balmer had confessed to her to setting the fires at Shapiro's residence and wanted her to tell the police he did it.
A short time later, Balmer approached an officer outside the Pennsylvania State Police headquarters in Harrisburg and admitted he was responsible for the arson, police say.
In a subsequent interview, investigators say Balmer told them he hated Shapiro and was aware that Shapiro and others might be in the house at the time of the attack. When police asked Balmer what he would have done if he'd encountered Shapiro, "he advised he would have beaten him with his hammer," officers said.
Balmer allegedly told police that he walked for about an hour to the governor's residence — roughly three miles from the address listed for him in the affidavit — and that he created the homemade Molotov cocktails used in the attack by pouring gasoline from a lawnmower into empty Heineken beer bottles. Investigators found two broken Heineken bottles containing gasoline at the crime scene.
A search of Balmer's residence turned up a Snap-on jacket, a black bag and a small sledgehammer that police say were identical to those used by the perpetrator seen in the surveillance footage of the attack.
What happens next
The Pennsylvania State Police said Balmer was under police supervision at the hospital and will be transported to Dauphin County Prison for arraignment once he's released.
The full list of charges against him include attempted murder, aggravated arson, burglary, reckless endangerment, terrorism, aggravated assault and loitering.
It was unclear Monday afternoon if Balmer had retained an attorney.
Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo said Sunday evening that the FBI was involved in the investigation and that it would be possible for Balmer to face not only state but also federal criminal charges.
"He may face both. They're separate sovereigns," Chardo said. "It may be both, but we always look at … where we can get the best justice."
Bivens also said authorities had begun a security review to determine "how we can ensure that we don't have a repeat of a situation like this."
Political leaders offer messages of support
U.S. politicians from the federal to municipal level quickly offered messages of support for Shapiro, a Democrat, and his family after the fire.
Pennsylvania House Speaker Joanna McClinton condemned the "dangerous and despicable attack" on Shapiro's Harrisburg home. "Cowardly acts of violence meant to stoke fear have no place in our commonwealth," she said.
Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Austin Davis said "these sorts of acts deter good people from pursuing public service at a time when we desperately need more Americans to participate in our democracy."
"Thanks be to God that Governor Shapiro and his family were unharmed in this attack," Vice President JD Vance said. "Really disgusting violence, and I hope whoever did it is brought swiftly to justice."
Attorney General Pam Bondi said she was "deeply relieved that Governor Shapiro and his family are safe" and praised the work of first responders and police.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Apr 15, 2025 8:19 pm
Trump Administration Conditions Harvard’s Funding on Eliminating DEI, Restricting Protests
by Caroline S. Engelmayer, Dhruv T. Patel and Grace E. Yoon, Crimson Staff Writers
The Harvard Crimson
April 4, 2025
Updated April 3, 2025, at 10:02 p.m.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025 ... g-demands/
The Trump administration demanded on Thursday that Harvard eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programming and ban masks at protests to avoid losing its federal funding, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Crimson.
In a Thursday afternoon letter addressed to Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 and Harvard Corporation senior fellow Penny S. Pritkzer ’81, the White House called on Harvard to “make meaningful governance reforms” and install leaders who will help implement the demands outlined in the letter.
But the White House did not give Harvard a timeline to accept the demands, only asking the University for “immediate cooperation” in rolling out the changes.
A Harvard spokesperson confirmed that the University had received the letter.
The letter, which came three days after three federal agencies pledged to review nearly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts to Harvard and affiliated institutions, asked Harvard to review and alter programs it accused of fueling antisemitism. It did not name the programs in question.
In the last week, Harvard has ousted personnel at its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, suspended programming focused on Israel and Palestine at the Harvard Divinity School, and terminated its partnership with the oldest university in the West Bank.
The letter also demanded that Harvard “commit to full cooperation” with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal regulators and “make organizational changes as necessary to enable full compliance.”
The letter also demanded that Harvard reject race- and gender-based preferences in hiring and replace them with a “merit-based” system — and asked the University to “demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.”
The Thursday letter will force the University to navigate between the Trump administration’s demands and increasing pressure from faculty members to resist yielding to the White House.
One week ago, more than 600 Harvard faculty members called on Harvard’s governing boards to publicly condemn the Trump administration’s attacks on universities and defy its demands. A protest outside University Hall on Tuesday — which drew roughly 300 attendees — urged Harvard to resist demands from the Trump administration.
The Trump administration’s demands were first reported by Fox News Digital.
—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.
—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.
**********************
April 03, 2025
Dr. Alan M. Garber
President
Harvard University
Office of the President
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation
Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dear Dr. Garber:
Please consider this a formal communication with respect to the current situation on the campus of Harvard University and a follow up to the March 31, 2025, letter from Commissioner Gruenbaum informing you that the United States Government would be reviewing Harvard’s federal funding. Harvard has asked for a dialogue with the Task Force to discuss this ongoing review. Below, you will find several broad, non-exhaustive areas of reform that the government views as necessary for Harvard to implement to remain a responsible recipient of federal taxpayer dollars. We look forward to a meaningful dialogue focused on lasting, structural reforms at Harvard.
U.S. taxpayers invest enormously in U.S. colleges and universities, including Harvard University. These funds are an investment and, like any investment, are based on the recipient’s performance, not owed as a matter of custom or right. It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that all recipients are responsible stewards of taxpayer funds. Harvard University, however, has fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment in addition to other alleged violations of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This letter outlines immediate next steps that we regard as necessary for Harvard University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.
● Oversight and accountability for biased programs that fuel antisemitism. Programs and departments that fuel antisemitic harassment must be reviewed and necessary changes made to address bias, improve viewpoint diversity, and end ideological capture.
● Disciplinary reform and consistent accountability. Harvard has an obligation to consistently and proactively enforce its existing disciplinary policies, ensuring that senior administrative leaders are responsible for final decisions. Reforms must include a comprehensive mask ban (with medical and religious exemptions, given identification is always displayed) and a clarified time, place, and manner policy. Harvard must review and report on disciplinary actions for antisemitic rule violations since October 7, 2023.
● Student group accountability. Recognized and unrecognized student groups, and their leadership, must be held accountable for violations of Harvard policy.
● Governance and leadership reforms. Harvard must make meaningful governance reforms to improve its organizational structure to foster clear lines of authority and accountability, and to empower faculty and administrative leaders who are committed to implementing the changes indicated in this letter.
● Merit-based admissions reform. Harvard must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies; cease all preferences based on race, color, or national origin in admissions throughout its undergraduate, graduate, and other programs; and demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.
● Merit-based hiring reform. Harvard must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies; cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in hiring throughout its teaching and research faculty, staff, and leadership; and demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.
● Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. DEI programs teach students, faculty, staff, and leadership to make snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes, which fuels division and hatred based on race, color, national origin, and other protected identity characteristics. All efforts should be made to shutter such programs.
● Cooperation with law enforcement. Harvard must cooperate with law enforcement to ensure student safety.
● Transparency and reporting to ED, DHS, and other federal regulators. Harvard must comply fully with existing statutory reporting requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, commit to full cooperation with DHS and other federal regulators, and make organizational changes as necessary to enable full compliance.
We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of providing a high-quality education in a safe environment for all students through a focus on truth-seeking, innovative research, and academic excellence.
Sincerely,
Josh Gruenbaum
Comm'r of the Federal Acquisition Serv.
General Services Administration
Sean R. Keveney
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Dep't Health & Human Servs.
Thomas E. Wheeler
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Education
*************************
April 11, 2025
Dr. Alan M. Garber
President
Harvard University
Office of the President
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation
Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dear Dr. Garber:
The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture.
Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.
If acceptable to Harvard, this document will constitute an agreement in principle, which the parties will work in good faith to translate into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement. As you will see, this letter incorporates and supersedes the terms of the federal government’s prior letter of April 3, 2025.
● Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship; and reducing forms of governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization that interfere with the possibility of the reforms indicated in this letter.
● Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.
● International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism. Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. As above, these reforms must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes; comprehensive throughout all of Harvard’s programs; and, during the reform period, shared with the federal government for audit, shared on a non-individualized basis with the public, and certified by deans of admissions.
● Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
● Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.
o The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.
o The report of the external party shall include information as to individual faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7, and the University and federal government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.
o The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025 and reforms undertaken to repair the problems. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to make repairs every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
● Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August 2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that confirms these reforms.
● Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. Harvard must immediately reform its student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double standards based on identity or ideology. Where those policies are insufficient to prevent the disruption of scholarship, classroom learning and teaching, or other aspects of normal campus life, Harvard must develop and implement disciplinary policies sufficient to prevent those disruptions. This includes but is not limited to the following:
o Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption or deplatforming; robust enforcement and reinstatement of existing time, place, and manner rules on campus, including ordering the Harvard police to stop incidents that violate time, place, and manner rules when necessary; a disciplinary process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.
o Harvard must adopt a new policy on student groups or clubs that forbids the recognition and funding of, or provision of accommodations to, any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment; invites non-students onto campus who regularly violate campus rules; or acts as a front for a student club that has been banned from campus. The leaders or organizers of recognized and unrecognized student groups that violate these policies must be held accountable as a matter of student discipline and made ineligible to serve as officers in other recognized student organizations. In the future, funding decisions for student groups or clubs must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty accountable to senior University leadership. In particular, Harvard must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student organizations.
o Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.
o Harvard must investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years, including the Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-in of November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024. This must include permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli Harvard Business School student, and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings, as warranted by the facts of individual cases.
o The Harvard president and police chief must publicly clarify that the Harvard University Police Department will enforce University rules and the law. Harvard must also commit to cooperating in good faith with law enforcement.
● Whistleblower Reporting and Protections. The University must immediately establish procedures by which any Harvard affiliate can report noncompliance with the reforms detailed in this letter to both university leadership and the federal government. Any such reporter shall be fully protected from any adverse actions for so reporting.
● Transparency and Monitoring. The University shall make organizational changes to ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30, 2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the federal government a report—certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter. The University must also, to the satisfaction of the federal government, disclose the source and purpose of all foreign funds; cooperate with the federal government in a forensic audit of foreign funding sources and uses, including how that money was used by Harvard, its agents, and, to the extent available, third parties acting on Harvard’s campus; report all requested immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all requirements relating to the SEVIS system.
We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.
Sincerely,
Josh Gruenbaum
Comm'r of the Federal Acquisition Serv.
General Services Administration
Sean R. Keveney
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Dep't Health & Human Servs.
Thomas E. Wheeler
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Education
***************************
Quinn Emanuel Trial Lawyers
King & Spalding
April 14, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Josh Gruenbaum
Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service
General Services Administration
Sean R. Keveney
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Thomas E. Wheeler
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Education
Dear Messrs. Gruenbaum, Keveney, and Wheeler:
We represent Harvard University. We are writing in response to your letter dated April 11, 2025, addressed to Dr. Alan Garber, Harvard’s President, and Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation.
Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community. Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s values but also threaten its academic mission.
To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural, policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across its academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies, whatever their source.
Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic measures. It has made changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures; imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicated resources to combat hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a very different place today from where it was a year ago. These efforts, and additional measures the university will be taking against antisemitism, not only are the right thing to do but also are critical to strengthening Harvard’s community as a place in which everyone can thrive.
It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country’s scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world. These demands extend not only to Harvard but to separately incorporated and independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.
Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community. But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.
William A. Burck
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
1300 I Street NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Robert K. Hur
King & Spalding LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
***************************
Harvard University
Harvard
Office of the President
NEWS
The Promise of American Higher Education
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
• nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
• affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
• work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
*********************
Trump officials cut billions in Harvard funds after university defies demands: Education department says $2.3bn in funds to be frozen after university rejects slew of demands as political ploy
by Guardian staff and agencies
Mon 14 Apr 2025 23.32 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ing-freeze
The US education department is freezing about $2.3bn in federal funds to Harvard University, the agency said on Monday.
The announcement comes as the Ivy League school has decided to fight the White House’s demands that it crack down on antisemitism and alleged civil rights violations, including shutting down diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
“Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws,” said a member of a department taskforce on combating antisemitism in a statement.
The education department taskforce on combating antisemitism said in a statement it was freezing $2.2bn in grants and $60m in multi-year contract value to Harvard.
In a letter to Harvard on Friday, the administration called for broad government and leadership reforms, a requirement that Harvard institute what it calls “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies as well as conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity.
The demands, which are an update from an earlier letter, also call for a ban on face masks, which appeared to target pro-Palestinian protesters; closure of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which it says teach students and staff “to make snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes”; and pressure the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment”.
The administration also demanded that Harvard cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Harvard’s president said in a letter that the university would not comply with the Trump administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity programming and to limit student protests in exchange for its federal funding.
“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Alan Garber, the university president, wrote, adding that Harvard had taken extensive reforms to address antisemitism.
Garber said the government’s demands were a political ploy.
“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” he wrote. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
On Monday, Barack Obama posted in support of the university: “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.”
The demands from the Trump administration prompted a group of alumni to write to university leaders calling for it to “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance”.
“Harvard stood up today for the integrity, values, and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education,” said Anurima Bhargava, one of the alumni behind the letter. “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative growth will not yield to bullying and authoritarian whims.”
It also sparked a protest over the weekend from members of the Harvard community and from residents of Cambridge and a lawsuit from the American Association of University Professors on Friday challenging the cuts.
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration has failed to follow steps required under Title VI before it starts cutting funds, and giving notice of the cuts to both the university and Congress.
“These sweeping yet indeterminate demands are not remedies targeting the causes of any determination of noncompliance with federal law. Instead, they overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the university to punishing disfavored speech,” plaintiffs wrote.
Edward Helmore contributed to this report
by Caroline S. Engelmayer, Dhruv T. Patel and Grace E. Yoon, Crimson Staff Writers
The Harvard Crimson
April 4, 2025
Updated April 3, 2025, at 10:02 p.m.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025 ... g-demands/
The Trump administration demanded on Thursday that Harvard eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programming and ban masks at protests to avoid losing its federal funding, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Crimson.
In a Thursday afternoon letter addressed to Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 and Harvard Corporation senior fellow Penny S. Pritkzer ’81, the White House called on Harvard to “make meaningful governance reforms” and install leaders who will help implement the demands outlined in the letter.
But the White House did not give Harvard a timeline to accept the demands, only asking the University for “immediate cooperation” in rolling out the changes.
A Harvard spokesperson confirmed that the University had received the letter.
The letter, which came three days after three federal agencies pledged to review nearly $9 billion in federal grants and contracts to Harvard and affiliated institutions, asked Harvard to review and alter programs it accused of fueling antisemitism. It did not name the programs in question.
In the last week, Harvard has ousted personnel at its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, suspended programming focused on Israel and Palestine at the Harvard Divinity School, and terminated its partnership with the oldest university in the West Bank.
The letter also demanded that Harvard “commit to full cooperation” with the Department of Homeland Security and other federal regulators and “make organizational changes as necessary to enable full compliance.”
The letter also demanded that Harvard reject race- and gender-based preferences in hiring and replace them with a “merit-based” system — and asked the University to “demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.”
The Thursday letter will force the University to navigate between the Trump administration’s demands and increasing pressure from faculty members to resist yielding to the White House.
One week ago, more than 600 Harvard faculty members called on Harvard’s governing boards to publicly condemn the Trump administration’s attacks on universities and defy its demands. A protest outside University Hall on Tuesday — which drew roughly 300 attendees — urged Harvard to resist demands from the Trump administration.
The Trump administration’s demands were first reported by Fox News Digital.
—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.
—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.
**********************
April 03, 2025
Dr. Alan M. Garber
President
Harvard University
Office of the President
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation
Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dear Dr. Garber:
Please consider this a formal communication with respect to the current situation on the campus of Harvard University and a follow up to the March 31, 2025, letter from Commissioner Gruenbaum informing you that the United States Government would be reviewing Harvard’s federal funding. Harvard has asked for a dialogue with the Task Force to discuss this ongoing review. Below, you will find several broad, non-exhaustive areas of reform that the government views as necessary for Harvard to implement to remain a responsible recipient of federal taxpayer dollars. We look forward to a meaningful dialogue focused on lasting, structural reforms at Harvard.
U.S. taxpayers invest enormously in U.S. colleges and universities, including Harvard University. These funds are an investment and, like any investment, are based on the recipient’s performance, not owed as a matter of custom or right. It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that all recipients are responsible stewards of taxpayer funds. Harvard University, however, has fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment in addition to other alleged violations of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This letter outlines immediate next steps that we regard as necessary for Harvard University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.
● Oversight and accountability for biased programs that fuel antisemitism. Programs and departments that fuel antisemitic harassment must be reviewed and necessary changes made to address bias, improve viewpoint diversity, and end ideological capture.
● Disciplinary reform and consistent accountability. Harvard has an obligation to consistently and proactively enforce its existing disciplinary policies, ensuring that senior administrative leaders are responsible for final decisions. Reforms must include a comprehensive mask ban (with medical and religious exemptions, given identification is always displayed) and a clarified time, place, and manner policy. Harvard must review and report on disciplinary actions for antisemitic rule violations since October 7, 2023.
● Student group accountability. Recognized and unrecognized student groups, and their leadership, must be held accountable for violations of Harvard policy.
● Governance and leadership reforms. Harvard must make meaningful governance reforms to improve its organizational structure to foster clear lines of authority and accountability, and to empower faculty and administrative leaders who are committed to implementing the changes indicated in this letter.
● Merit-based admissions reform. Harvard must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies; cease all preferences based on race, color, or national origin in admissions throughout its undergraduate, graduate, and other programs; and demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.
● Merit-based hiring reform. Harvard must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies; cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in hiring throughout its teaching and research faculty, staff, and leadership; and demonstrate through structural and personnel action that these changes are durable.
● Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. DEI programs teach students, faculty, staff, and leadership to make snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes, which fuels division and hatred based on race, color, national origin, and other protected identity characteristics. All efforts should be made to shutter such programs.
● Cooperation with law enforcement. Harvard must cooperate with law enforcement to ensure student safety.
● Transparency and reporting to ED, DHS, and other federal regulators. Harvard must comply fully with existing statutory reporting requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, commit to full cooperation with DHS and other federal regulators, and make organizational changes as necessary to enable full compliance.
We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of providing a high-quality education in a safe environment for all students through a focus on truth-seeking, innovative research, and academic excellence.
Sincerely,
Josh Gruenbaum
Comm'r of the Federal Acquisition Serv.
General Services Administration
Sean R. Keveney
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Dep't Health & Human Servs.
Thomas E. Wheeler
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Education
*************************
April 11, 2025
Dr. Alan M. Garber
President
Harvard University
Office of the President
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation
Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138
Dear Dr. Garber:
The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture.
Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.
If acceptable to Harvard, this document will constitute an agreement in principle, which the parties will work in good faith to translate into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement. As you will see, this letter incorporates and supersedes the terms of the federal government’s prior letter of April 3, 2025.
● Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship; and reducing forms of governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization that interfere with the possibility of the reforms indicated in this letter.
● Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.
● International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism. Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. As above, these reforms must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes; comprehensive throughout all of Harvard’s programs; and, during the reform period, shared with the federal government for audit, shared on a non-individualized basis with the public, and certified by deans of admissions.
● Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
● Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.
o The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.
o The report of the external party shall include information as to individual faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7, and the University and federal government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.
o The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025 and reforms undertaken to repair the problems. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to make repairs every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
● Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August 2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that confirms these reforms.
● Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. Harvard must immediately reform its student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double standards based on identity or ideology. Where those policies are insufficient to prevent the disruption of scholarship, classroom learning and teaching, or other aspects of normal campus life, Harvard must develop and implement disciplinary policies sufficient to prevent those disruptions. This includes but is not limited to the following:
o Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption or deplatforming; robust enforcement and reinstatement of existing time, place, and manner rules on campus, including ordering the Harvard police to stop incidents that violate time, place, and manner rules when necessary; a disciplinary process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.
o Harvard must adopt a new policy on student groups or clubs that forbids the recognition and funding of, or provision of accommodations to, any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment; invites non-students onto campus who regularly violate campus rules; or acts as a front for a student club that has been banned from campus. The leaders or organizers of recognized and unrecognized student groups that violate these policies must be held accountable as a matter of student discipline and made ineligible to serve as officers in other recognized student organizations. In the future, funding decisions for student groups or clubs must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty accountable to senior University leadership. In particular, Harvard must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student organizations.
o Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.
o Harvard must investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years, including the Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-in of November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024. This must include permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli Harvard Business School student, and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings, as warranted by the facts of individual cases.
o The Harvard president and police chief must publicly clarify that the Harvard University Police Department will enforce University rules and the law. Harvard must also commit to cooperating in good faith with law enforcement.
● Whistleblower Reporting and Protections. The University must immediately establish procedures by which any Harvard affiliate can report noncompliance with the reforms detailed in this letter to both university leadership and the federal government. Any such reporter shall be fully protected from any adverse actions for so reporting.
● Transparency and Monitoring. The University shall make organizational changes to ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30, 2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the federal government a report—certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter. The University must also, to the satisfaction of the federal government, disclose the source and purpose of all foreign funds; cooperate with the federal government in a forensic audit of foreign funding sources and uses, including how that money was used by Harvard, its agents, and, to the extent available, third parties acting on Harvard’s campus; report all requested immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all requirements relating to the SEVIS system.
We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.
Sincerely,
Josh Gruenbaum
Comm'r of the Federal Acquisition Serv.
General Services Administration
Sean R. Keveney
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Dep't Health & Human Servs.
Thomas E. Wheeler
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Education
***************************
Quinn Emanuel Trial Lawyers
King & Spalding
April 14, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Josh Gruenbaum
Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service
General Services Administration
Sean R. Keveney
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Thomas E. Wheeler
Acting General Counsel
U.S. Department of Education
Dear Messrs. Gruenbaum, Keveney, and Wheeler:
We represent Harvard University. We are writing in response to your letter dated April 11, 2025, addressed to Dr. Alan Garber, Harvard’s President, and Penny Pritzker, Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation.
Harvard is committed to fighting antisemitism and other forms of bigotry in its community. Antisemitism and discrimination of any kind not only are abhorrent and antithetical to Harvard’s values but also threaten its academic mission.
To that end, Harvard has made, and will continue to make, lasting and robust structural, policy, and programmatic changes to ensure that the university is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students and continues to abide in all respects with federal law across its academic programs and operations, while fostering open inquiry in a pluralistic community free from intimidation and open to challenging orthodoxies, whatever their source.
Over the past 15 months, Harvard has undertaken substantial policy and programmatic measures. It has made changes to its campus use policies; adopted new accountability procedures; imposed meaningful discipline for those who violate university policies; enhanced programs designed to address bias and promote ideological diversity and civil discourse; hired staff to support these programs and support students; changed partnerships; dedicated resources to combat hate and bias; and enhanced safety and security measures. As a result, Harvard is in a very different place today from where it was a year ago. These efforts, and additional measures the university will be taking against antisemitism, not only are the right thing to do but also are critical to strengthening Harvard’s community as a place in which everyone can thrive.
It is unfortunate, then, that your letter disregards Harvard’s efforts and instead presents demands that, in contravention of the First Amendment, invade university freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The government’s terms also circumvent Harvard’s statutory rights by requiring unsupported and disruptive remedies for alleged harms that the government has not proven through mandatory processes established by Congress and required by law. No less objectionable is the condition, first made explicit in the letter of March 31, 2025, that Harvard accede to these terms or risk the loss of billions of dollars in federal funding critical to vital research and innovation that has saved and improved lives and allowed Harvard to play a central role in making our country’s scientific, medical, and other research communities the standard-bearers for the world. These demands extend not only to Harvard but to separately incorporated and independently operated medical and research hospitals engaging in life-saving work on behalf of their patients. The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the government’s terms as an agreement in principle.
Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community. But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.
William A. Burck
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
1300 I Street NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Robert K. Hur
King & Spalding LLP
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
***************************
Harvard University
Harvard
Office of the President
NEWS
The Promise of American Higher Education
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And it threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
• nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
• affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
• work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
*********************
Trump officials cut billions in Harvard funds after university defies demands: Education department says $2.3bn in funds to be frozen after university rejects slew of demands as political ploy
by Guardian staff and agencies
Mon 14 Apr 2025 23.32 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ing-freeze
The US education department is freezing about $2.3bn in federal funds to Harvard University, the agency said on Monday.
The announcement comes as the Ivy League school has decided to fight the White House’s demands that it crack down on antisemitism and alleged civil rights violations, including shutting down diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
“Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws,” said a member of a department taskforce on combating antisemitism in a statement.
The education department taskforce on combating antisemitism said in a statement it was freezing $2.2bn in grants and $60m in multi-year contract value to Harvard.
In a letter to Harvard on Friday, the administration called for broad government and leadership reforms, a requirement that Harvard institute what it calls “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies as well as conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity.
The demands, which are an update from an earlier letter, also call for a ban on face masks, which appeared to target pro-Palestinian protesters; closure of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which it says teach students and staff “to make snap judgments about each other based on crude race and identity stereotypes”; and pressure the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment”.
The administration also demanded that Harvard cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Harvard is among the top recipients of federal funding
University research and development expenditure, 2020-23, $bn
Guardian graphic. Source: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Higher Education Research and Development surveys
Harvard’s president said in a letter that the university would not comply with the Trump administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity programming and to limit student protests in exchange for its federal funding.
Harvard’s president said in a letter that the university would not comply with the Trump administration’s demands to dismantle its diversity programming and to limit student protests in exchange for its federal funding.
“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Alan Garber, the university president, wrote, adding that Harvard had taken extensive reforms to address antisemitism.
Garber said the government’s demands were a political ploy.
“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” he wrote. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
On Monday, Barack Obama posted in support of the university: “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate and mutual respect. Let’s hope other institutions follow suit.”
The demands from the Trump administration prompted a group of alumni to write to university leaders calling for it to “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance”.
“Harvard stood up today for the integrity, values, and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education,” said Anurima Bhargava, one of the alumni behind the letter. “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative growth will not yield to bullying and authoritarian whims.”
It also sparked a protest over the weekend from members of the Harvard community and from residents of Cambridge and a lawsuit from the American Association of University Professors on Friday challenging the cuts.
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration has failed to follow steps required under Title VI before it starts cutting funds, and giving notice of the cuts to both the university and Congress.
“These sweeping yet indeterminate demands are not remedies targeting the causes of any determination of noncompliance with federal law. Instead, they overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the university to punishing disfavored speech,” plaintiffs wrote.
Edward Helmore contributed to this report
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Tue Apr 15, 2025 11:27 pm
Trump CAN'T Deport American Citizens To Foreign Prisons: Experts Weigh In
by Glenn Kirschner
Apr 15, 2025
As Donald Trump continues to drag the American people to the edge of the constitutional crisis cliff in the Abrego Garcia case, he is now threatening to deport American citizens to foreign prisons, and tells us that Attorney General Pam Bondi is "studying the law" to see if it's legal.
AG Bondi can probably close the law book she's "studying", as it is clearly ILLEGAL to deport American citizens, as this video discusses.
Transcript
[Glenn Kirschner] So friends as Donald Trump is dragging
the American people to the edge of the
constitutional crisis cliff in the
Abrego Garcia case he delivers a new
threat to the American people saying
that he would like to ship quote
homegrown close quote American citizens
to prisons in foreign lands
Let's talk about that because justice
[Music]
matters Hey all Glen Kersner here So
friends we already know Donald Trump is
always pushing the lawless envelope His
latest criminal scheme that he just
vomited out in the Oval Office and
spewed into the public
square sending American citizens to
prisons in foreign
lands The problem
is he
can't Not
lawfully I know I
know But let's start with the new
reporting This from NBC
News headline obviously illegal experts
pan Trump's plan to deport homegrown
criminals
And that article begins "If an immigrant
who the government claims is a gang
member can be deported to El Salvador
without any due process rights then why
not a US citizen?" That was the
nightmarish scenario immigration
advocates and constitutional law experts
were considering on Monday after
President Donald Trump again pushed the
provocative plan to deport US citizens
who have been convicted of unspecified
crimes Trump discussed the issue in the
White House with El Salvador and
President Na Boule who has agreed to
deposit people deported from the US into
a notorious prison
this from Trump Quote "We always have to
obey the laws but we also have homegrown
criminals that push people into subways
that hit elderly ladies on the back of
the head with a baseball bat when
they're not even looking that are
absolute monsters." Trump told reporters
"I'd like to include them." Last week
White House press secretary Caroline
Levit said Trump was interested in
deporting heinous violent criminals who
are US citizens to El Salvador if
there's a legal pathway to do that
During Monday's White House meeting
Trump said that Attorney General Pam
Bondi is studying the law
Quote "It is pretty obviously illegal
and
unconstitutional," said Ily Sman a
professor at George Mason University's
Antinine Scalia Law School "Immigration
law that gives the government the
authority to deport people simply does
not apply to US citizens," noted Emma
Winger a lawyer at the American
Immigration Council a nonprofit advocacy
group Anthony Kries, a professor at
Georgia State University College of Law,
noted that the British policy of
removing certain alleged criminals from
colonies to be put on trial elsewhere,
was one of the grievances during the
leadup to the American Revolution. Quote
I can't see how exiling someone is
permissible as part of the bundle of
rights that are fundamental to
citizenship
doubly so if the effort to house
American citizens overseas means turning
a person over to a foreign authority he
said David Byer an immigration expert at
the Libertarian Kato Institute said
Trump's remarks show how absolutely
critical it is for the courts to put an
immediate stop to this extrajudicial
imprisonment by foreign proxy quote "US
citizens may not be deported to
imprisonment abroad There is no
authority for that in any US law," he
added "So friends expert after expert
and scholar after scholar make it
crystal
clear you can't deport American citizens
to foreign prisons."
So Attorney General Bondi I know Donald
Trump tells us that you're studying the
law but you might as well just go ahead
and close that law book you're studying
from It's
illegal Now I know what you're thinking
friends Anytime you tell Donald Trump
that he can't do something because it's
illegal he's likely to say "Oh really
hold my Big
Mac So friends we know that the
litigation in the Abrego Garcia wrongful
deportation case is ongoing and we know
it will inevitably make its way back up
to the Supreme Court You may recall the
first Supreme Court opinion in the case
although it was nine to zero was pretty
mealy mouthed right it said to the Trump
administration "Well you're going to
need to facilitate the release and
return of Mr
Garcia." But the majority opinion
hastened to add that you know we don't
want the courts to interfere in the
Trump administration's authority to
engage in foreign
policy Wait a minute They
unconstitutionally and unlawfully
snatched up Mr Garcia stuffed him on a
plane and deported him to El
Salvador precisely where a judge had
ordered the United States may not deport
Mr Garcia to. And all they have to do is
send a plane there, tell the El
Salvadoran president, who we are paying
to house Garcia. So we are by extension
imprisoning Garcia down there because
we're paying for it. We just have to say,
"Give us Garcia back. We made a mistake.
We've admitted in court we made a
mistake." And Garcia is back in the United
States." That ain't the practice of
foreign
policy. That's the executive branch
making right what they did so
desperately wrong in at least three
different ways.
But the Supreme Court opinion mealy-
mouthed as it was indirect, as it was
gives the Trump administration some
wiggle room Well that will all come to
an end when the case makes its way back
up to the Supreme Court which I suspect
it will in the coming days And then the
Supreme Court needs to be definitive You
can't kidnap people and send them off to
foreign lands and imprison them pay to
imprison them down there Not immigrants
who may be subject to deportation
because you first need to give them
their constitutional due process rights
of notice and opportunity to be heard so
they can make their case in court And if
a judge orders that they are subject to
deportation then they can be deported
and certainly not American citizens. That
would be illegal, unlawful,
unconstitutional if you tried to do that.
And the Supreme Court better put its
judicial foot
down. And friends, if Donald Trump
violates a direct,
unambiguous command from the Supreme
Court to return Mr
Garcia, Then that will be Donald Trump
sort of bringing an end to our
constitutional construct of government.
And then the only thing left to
do is
impeach and
remove, because
justice matters.
And friends by way of a quick
postcript I know what you're saying But
the Republicans in Congress I know I
know But we're going to be talking
about how pressure can be applied to
maybe
maybe convince the Republicans in
Congress that it's in their own
self-interest to impeach and remove
But friends more on that in future
videos For now please stay safe Please
stay tuned And I look forward to talking
with you all again tomorrow
[Music]
by Glenn Kirschner
Apr 15, 2025
As Donald Trump continues to drag the American people to the edge of the constitutional crisis cliff in the Abrego Garcia case, he is now threatening to deport American citizens to foreign prisons, and tells us that Attorney General Pam Bondi is "studying the law" to see if it's legal.
AG Bondi can probably close the law book she's "studying", as it is clearly ILLEGAL to deport American citizens, as this video discusses.
Transcript
[Glenn Kirschner] So friends as Donald Trump is dragging
the American people to the edge of the
constitutional crisis cliff in the
Abrego Garcia case he delivers a new
threat to the American people saying
that he would like to ship quote
homegrown close quote American citizens
to prisons in foreign lands
Let's talk about that because justice
[Music]
matters Hey all Glen Kersner here So
friends we already know Donald Trump is
always pushing the lawless envelope His
latest criminal scheme that he just
vomited out in the Oval Office and
spewed into the public
square sending American citizens to
prisons in foreign
lands The problem
is he
can't Not
lawfully I know I
know But let's start with the new
reporting This from NBC
News headline obviously illegal experts
pan Trump's plan to deport homegrown
criminals
And that article begins "If an immigrant
who the government claims is a gang
member can be deported to El Salvador
without any due process rights then why
not a US citizen?" That was the
nightmarish scenario immigration
advocates and constitutional law experts
were considering on Monday after
President Donald Trump again pushed the
provocative plan to deport US citizens
who have been convicted of unspecified
crimes Trump discussed the issue in the
White House with El Salvador and
President Na Boule who has agreed to
deposit people deported from the US into
a notorious prison
this from Trump Quote "We always have to
obey the laws but we also have homegrown
criminals that push people into subways
that hit elderly ladies on the back of
the head with a baseball bat when
they're not even looking that are
absolute monsters." Trump told reporters
"I'd like to include them." Last week
White House press secretary Caroline
Levit said Trump was interested in
deporting heinous violent criminals who
are US citizens to El Salvador if
there's a legal pathway to do that
During Monday's White House meeting
Trump said that Attorney General Pam
Bondi is studying the law
Quote "It is pretty obviously illegal
and
unconstitutional," said Ily Sman a
professor at George Mason University's
Antinine Scalia Law School "Immigration
law that gives the government the
authority to deport people simply does
not apply to US citizens," noted Emma
Winger a lawyer at the American
Immigration Council a nonprofit advocacy
group Anthony Kries, a professor at
Georgia State University College of Law,
noted that the British policy of
removing certain alleged criminals from
colonies to be put on trial elsewhere,
was one of the grievances during the
leadup to the American Revolution. Quote
I can't see how exiling someone is
permissible as part of the bundle of
rights that are fundamental to
citizenship
doubly so if the effort to house
American citizens overseas means turning
a person over to a foreign authority he
said David Byer an immigration expert at
the Libertarian Kato Institute said
Trump's remarks show how absolutely
critical it is for the courts to put an
immediate stop to this extrajudicial
imprisonment by foreign proxy quote "US
citizens may not be deported to
imprisonment abroad There is no
authority for that in any US law," he
added "So friends expert after expert
and scholar after scholar make it
crystal
clear you can't deport American citizens
to foreign prisons."
So Attorney General Bondi I know Donald
Trump tells us that you're studying the
law but you might as well just go ahead
and close that law book you're studying
from It's
illegal Now I know what you're thinking
friends Anytime you tell Donald Trump
that he can't do something because it's
illegal he's likely to say "Oh really
hold my Big
Mac So friends we know that the
litigation in the Abrego Garcia wrongful
deportation case is ongoing and we know
it will inevitably make its way back up
to the Supreme Court You may recall the
first Supreme Court opinion in the case
although it was nine to zero was pretty
mealy mouthed right it said to the Trump
administration "Well you're going to
need to facilitate the release and
return of Mr
Garcia." But the majority opinion
hastened to add that you know we don't
want the courts to interfere in the
Trump administration's authority to
engage in foreign
policy Wait a minute They
unconstitutionally and unlawfully
snatched up Mr Garcia stuffed him on a
plane and deported him to El
Salvador precisely where a judge had
ordered the United States may not deport
Mr Garcia to. And all they have to do is
send a plane there, tell the El
Salvadoran president, who we are paying
to house Garcia. So we are by extension
imprisoning Garcia down there because
we're paying for it. We just have to say,
"Give us Garcia back. We made a mistake.
We've admitted in court we made a
mistake." And Garcia is back in the United
States." That ain't the practice of
foreign
policy. That's the executive branch
making right what they did so
desperately wrong in at least three
different ways.
But the Supreme Court opinion mealy-
mouthed as it was indirect, as it was
gives the Trump administration some
wiggle room Well that will all come to
an end when the case makes its way back
up to the Supreme Court which I suspect
it will in the coming days And then the
Supreme Court needs to be definitive You
can't kidnap people and send them off to
foreign lands and imprison them pay to
imprison them down there Not immigrants
who may be subject to deportation
because you first need to give them
their constitutional due process rights
of notice and opportunity to be heard so
they can make their case in court And if
a judge orders that they are subject to
deportation then they can be deported
and certainly not American citizens. That
would be illegal, unlawful,
unconstitutional if you tried to do that.
And the Supreme Court better put its
judicial foot
down. And friends, if Donald Trump
violates a direct,
unambiguous command from the Supreme
Court to return Mr
Garcia, Then that will be Donald Trump
sort of bringing an end to our
constitutional construct of government.
And then the only thing left to
do is
impeach and
remove, because
justice matters.
And friends by way of a quick
postcript I know what you're saying But
the Republicans in Congress I know I
know But we're going to be talking
about how pressure can be applied to
maybe
maybe convince the Republicans in
Congress that it's in their own
self-interest to impeach and remove
But friends more on that in future
videos For now please stay safe Please
stay tuned And I look forward to talking
with you all again tomorrow
[Music]
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Apr 16, 2025 12:13 am
Trump's Malignant Stupidity Could Screw Us All (w/ Paul Krugman)
WTF 2.0
The Bulwark
Apr 15, 2025
Columnist and economist Paul Krugman joins JVL on the latest WTF 2.0 to talk Trump’s tariff madness, the self-inflicted economic crisis and the president’s malignant stupidity.
Transcript
Hello friends I'm JVL from the Bullwark and I am joined today by the legendary
Paul Krugman uh who is now of Substack his Substack is just Paul Krug paul
Krugman.substack.com no fancy names no he just branded it the way you should put your name on the building hey Van
Jones how are you um been dying to get you on this show Van so uh Paul we're
going to talk economics and tariffs and I'm going to let you cook and then we're going to have to talk a little bit about
state terrorism and the collapse of the American order although in a weird way these two things are probably linked um
somehow so I guess I want to start by just teeing you up for the cost of chaos
because my understanding has been that for 80 years stability and transparency
and the rule of law were America's biggest advantages in international
economics and that chaos typically is bad for a nation state's economic
prospect um tell me all about it yeah so I mean
we you know this international order that Donald Trump has just torn down is something the United States created and
we uh uh FDR uh looking at the disastrous smooth holy tariff and
generally the the chaos in world affairs in the 1930s in you know have passed something called the reciprocal trade
agreements act which set the pattern that we make trade deals with other countries which are a way to deploy
employ the special interests don't go away but you can try to balance them so you balance the interests of exporters
against the interests of industries competing with imports and gradually move towards freer trade you establish a
set of rules that everybody's all the countries that are involved have signed on to um that are a way to you know
prevent countries from abusing their position but actually mo mainly are a way to protect countries from themselves
there's there's rules and uh and you can't just give in to special interests you can't just go with the whims of a of
the president or the prime minister of another country that that there are procedures not not rigid free trade but
a lot of constraints that work in everybody's interest um and that became
the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1947 which was basically built on the template the United States had
established and all of this was not just about this is good for business but the
idea was that it was good for peace that it was good for democracy that good that strong trading relationships and the
prosperity that they can help build would be a a force for generally a better world which you know for the most
part it did it it's nothing was perfect and there were serious issues and uh we
were probably did not we definitely did not think hard enough about some of the downsides of globalization but on the
whole it was an order that worked for the world worked for the United States and now my god um you know the uh and
one thing to say is that it's not just um I mean tariffs are a bad thing we
think certainly high tariffs are a bad thing they do reduce efficiency and so on but if there's one thing that's worse
than high tariffs it's tariffs where you don't know you know you don't um
businesses people trying to make plans don't know what trade is going to be what the rules are going to be uh not
only next year but next month and you know on we had one tremendous departure
from previous US policy announced on April 2nd and then suddenly a completely different set of rules announced on
April 9th and then there was a change in the rules on April 12th and I joked on
the morning of April 13th that you know we're soon we're going to have trade policy changing by the day and later
that day they announced another another big change of the rules you know with the uh with the exemption for uh for no
for we'd announced the exemption for electronics and then then announced that that was only temporary and you know so
this is a the chaos adds to these are bad policies even if they were
persistent but they're vastly worse when nobody knows what the what the rules of the game are
I mean and this it just seems so obvious as to not even worth saying but I'll do it
anyway how can anyone make plans or decisions Right if
you if you are the operator of a cargo ship uh you know sitting off the port of
Los Angeles do you do you dock today or do you wait a week right to like you
know because it depends on what rate the the your cargo is going to be tariffed at or uh if you are this idea that we're
going to build more manufacturing plants in America well who who's going to spend money to stand up a factory when nobody
has any idea what policy is going to be week to week yeah if you're thinking about building a factory well whether
that factory is worth doing depends upon you know not just the tariff how much protection you're going to get from
import competition but how high is the tariff going to be on the inputs that you use because in the modern world um
manufacturing is a process that takes place across the globe certainly it takes place across North America so if
you were depending upon components from a suppliers or your own factories in
Mexico or Canada you want to know what the tariffs are going to be on those components and at this point you'd have no idea um and it's all I mean I'm not
sure that there are any ships sitting off uh the ports in Long Beach um
waiting to decide whether to dock but I am hearing reports that uh ships are being held back in Shanghai while they
wait for the situation to clarify so this is real this is like the the co you know postco remember the the ships back
and forth we're we're doing that but this time it's not because there's a global catastrophe it's self-inflicted
um and one thing actually I have not seen enough about uh these are really
complex tariffs that differ from country to country and product to product and um
uh you know who's going to enforce who's going to make the paper who's going to
do the paperwork we don't have a customs service that's designed to do that so we don't actually have the ships may be
ending may be steaming back and forth because the uh we don't have the customs officials to process it i mean there are
already some issues that the software that's supposed to provide exemptions is not working because it's been stood up
in you know zero time so this is crazy crazy stuff uh designed clearly by people who had no idea hadn't thought it
through at all it's just you know the president said let's do this and and uh and they have no idea how to make it
work so we we seem to have been getting warning signs for at least the last four
to six weeks from like the the regional Fed governors and various consumer
surveys i think there's one out today uh of manufacturer surveys and confidence
and right it does the signals seem to be that the the people who are the actual
economic actors are really freaked out yes yeah yes the uh freaked out is is is
definitely the word it's it's a u nobody uh people's um I mean nobody knows
what's going to happen but they are presumably hearing uh from businesses
that they are just have no idea they they think things are going to be really bad um there's clearly uh a a drop off
in you know deal deals and and commitments are just being put on ice
because nobody knows what's going to happen and that means that that the outlook Yeah this was the Empire State
survey that came out today i think it was you know it's uh any one survey may have its quirks
but we're getting an overwhelming um picture of business grinding to a halt
because they they have no idea what the ground rules are
so can you talk to me through a little bit i mean let's step back and do just a
a broader discussion about tariffs um one of the frustrations I've had over
the last few weeks is a number of Democratic politicians deciding this is
the moment to have a deeply nuanced conversation about tariffs and how some tariffs are good and they really like
Gretchen Whitmer going to the Oval Office well you know um can you talk a
little bit about the US history of tariffs you had a post on this the other day and like what we're doing now where
it stands sort of relative to US history people can understand what a big outlier it is yeah so we had tar US tariffs
peaked around 1933 uh and they were brought down gradually
and it wasn't that the United States just said we believe in free trade and we're just going to plow ahead with free
trade and ignore what other countries are doing it was I mentioned the reciprocal trade agreements act of 1933
which um said that we are going 34 I guess anyway but never mind um we we we
we made deals we brought down our tariffs in return for tariff reductions
by other countries so it was always when when Trump says we're going to have reciprocity well reciprocity is how we
got to where we are we we negotiated lower tariffs around the world we we cut
our tariffs only in return for tariff reductions by other countries and so as
of 3 months ago we were in a world where tariffs were low not just US tariffs on
the rest of the world but foreign tariffs on US goods it was um you know the European Union I like to use that as
a you know a that there were almost as big an economy as we are and they are
sort of the the big kahuna aside from China which is a somewhat different story in the European Union the average
European Union tariff on US products is 1.7% the average US tariff on European price
is about 1.4% i mean basically we have virtually free trade across the Atlantic
uh which makes you question you know what is this all about i see some of the people are asking what are we negotiating for that's a really good
question because I mean if we're going to demand concessions from Europe
uh what are they supposed to concede considering that they actually don't have significant tariffs on US products
there are a few you know there's chlorinated chicken and there's uh but on the other hand there's US tariffs on
light trucks I mean but those are marginal the real story is that we have near near free trade with other advanced
countries there's there's nothing for them to concede and so um I've just been reading some stories like today about
the European uh you know they're trying to negotiate with the United States and they basically said we can't negotiate
cuz we have no idea what the Americans want and that's a hell of a situation to be in where the United States is
following radical policies and shouting and yet nobody can figure out what
they're supposed to do to satisfy Trump and the people around him
do you is your read on this that there is some master plan or is it just idiocy
and theology i mean what what do you think is there an endgame or no most
stupidity is the phrase that actually I my uh can I say my wife came up with
that but that's that's about right uh no look at the pe if you ask if you think there's a master plan you might want to
find out find some master planners for supposedly doing this and if we actually look at um the people around Trump uh
well I mean he's got this Peter Navaro who should be a comical figure i mean this is a guy who
who in his book cited a a an expert named Ron Vera who didn't exist was just
an anagram of his own name i mean the these are you know he would be a clown
uh except that he's got enormous power under this administration uh he found some other people that that that all of
the people in the Trump administration um or all the people advising supposedly
advising it were recruited because they had said something that seemed to agree
with what Trump had already said there is no experts coming in from outside there's no experts the funny thing about
economics is that there are a fair number of right right of center economists who are not idiots they are
not wanted they're completely shut out of out of this this is all just sick offense people who are willing to echo
uh Trump's ravings and so there's no there is no plan we know that the big
tariff announcement on April 2nd the plan which was very detailed was
apparently settled on about 3 hours before he went live and was devised by
this idiot formula and as everybody likes to talk about include a 10% tariff
on the herd and McDonald Islands which have nothing but penguins so we've got a 10% tariff on exports by penguins and
you know it's it's hard to people keep on thinking that the world's greatest
nation uh economic and military superpower that there must be something
there must be a plan down there but you know it's uh there must be a pony in there under the under the pile of manure
what can I say there's nothing there uh will the bond market save us this is
I I had a brief like 72 hours where I thought to myself well maybe the bond
market is going to show so much risk that uh I don't know the Canadians and
the Chinese who both hold a whole lot of Treasury bills will start selling off and drive down prices at the next
auction which is when is it next month maybe um and and put pressure on the
administration to change no am I crazy talk to me about the bond market well yeah so bonds are pretty have been I
mean there's the stock market and the stock market as several friends of mine have said is behaving like a a battered
spouse keeps on taking every sign of of of of sanity as oh he's going to get
better and it doesn't um so that's a yo-yo but it's um and it'll take
probably take a long time before that market concedes but um the and the bond
markets I mean the Yeah I mean we we have a something that's hap what's
happening in bonds and currency markets which is you have you know tariffs
normally strengthen your currency because you're spending less on imports um but in this case the dollar has
fallen and um we also have recession fears which normally cause interest
rates to fall but instead interest rates have risen and the dollar falling with
higher interest rates is all of this is not what you expect to see in an advanced country let alone the world's
reserve currency country this is looks like a developing country this looks like uh Argentina or Brazil or Indonesia
during the Asian financial crisis now it's much smaller the movements are not
we're not talking we're talking about a a 5% decline in the dollar and we're not
an Indonesia with an 80% decline in the rupia so the scale is much smaller but qualitatively we already look like a a a
developing country where the markets have lost faith but there's probably a lot more to go um and it's and there
once you start to look under look at the details so there's been rising interest
rates on 10-year Treasury bills in the face of this which is unheard of this
doesn't happen to the United States but there's much worse going on if you start to look at more at at at less liquid
markets at places you start to look at at uh spreads on uh on on corporate
bonds you start to say the corporate bond market right this market is really
yeah people and in general two things one is that people are starting to behave like the United States is not a
trustworthy place to put your money which it isn't um and also they were getting a lot of stress because and this
is where I even need you know uh three tylenols to try and track this stuff but
um the um the financial markets these days are they're really complex they're
based on a lot of uh arrangements that are much more
fragile than they look at first um the uh hedge funds are taking on huge
positions with enormous leverage and it doesn't take a whole lot to start to cause a really big stress and we're
starting to see that uh the um there's a lot of uh god you know um the we're
starting to see for the United States something that looks kind of like the Liz trust moment in Britain you know back in 2022 when people were absolutely
shocked at the sudden rise in interest rates on really long-term British government bonds it turned out that
there were weird stuff there was financial stress involving pension funds which turned out to be a really big
player and and to be surprisingly exposed financially so we're probably
seeing stuff like that but um it's it's still early stages it this does look
like there are real tremors going on in the financial markets but we don't know
how bad it gets and and uh I at least am spend when I'm not busy writing my
substack I'm spending a lot of time trying to understand the the plumbing of the financial system and boy is that
intricate can you give me like a low median and high variant scenario for what what the
economic world looks like over the next 12 months okay low scenario is that
Trump sort of stabilizes on 10% tariffs on everybody and whatever is going on
with China and actually find some way to reduce the China stuff to the point
where it does not it's not hugely disruptive in which case it's bad but I
mean even that is you know this the low end of of the damage is the high end of
anybody's estimates before the election right so but that's a we get a a 2% bump
in consumer prices for the next year and then things kind of settle down there we
never recover fully people never we would you know once we've lost the world's trust which we have uh you don't
get that back um certainly don't get that back until Trump himself is a distant memory um but that's you know we
stumble along and the it's not catastrophic and high tariffs don't necessarily mean high unemployment so
you know maybe it's it people are hurt but it's not too bad the medium is that
it's much worse than that that the uncertainty leads to a lot more inflation leads to a recession i think
the the low one is we we have a lot of tremors but no recession the medium scenario is we do have a recession which
is a really different recession from what any in the past i don't think we've ever had a recession generated by tariff
uncertainty but that man-made our first man-made recession right yeah i mean all recesses are some sense man-made but one
man-made this is the first time i mean some people are telling talking a recession of choice remember war
recession be a recession of choice well recession of choice but of choice stupidity because this is um but yes it
it is a real I mean this this is this is unique in in US history um and uh um
maybe as some people say well what about Andrew Jackson and the panic of 1837 I think that kind of makes the point if
you have to reach back to Andrew Jackson then this is some this is uniquely horrible um and that's actually my
central scenario i think we will uh if if you ask me to make a guess I would say we will have a significant but
though not catastrophic recession brought on just by the sheer craziness um the the worst I mean the the downside
is so enormous um we could have a real financial implosion uh it could be
global uh so that we start to talk about things like well you know in previous crises the United States has activated
the swap lines and provided dollars to people it's not clear that would happen or that the rest of the world would be
willing to use them if we if we offered them um and then I am really worried
about the China factor uh the you we the Trump and the people around him
fundamentally misunderstand international trade the purpose of international trade is not to sell stuff
the purpose of international trade is to be able to get stuff and we already have the Chinese cutting off rare earths and
batteries and uh so we could be seeing a lot of supply disruptions
uh coming on that are really catastrophic for the economy um and I'm particularly uh you know that the the
ultra nightmare scenario is if trade war devolves into war war i mean if you want
to think what could really be catastrophic it would be a war over Taiwan and which supplies you know an
enormous fraction of the world's semiconductors and um uh you know the
Chinese haven't done that partly because what they learned I hope from Ukraine is
that that uh short victorious wars often turn out not to be that um but also that
they were they wanted to keep access to world markets but with the United States imposing 30% tariffs on them you know
what exactly is the reason for them not to to go for it so I mean the the downsides are incredible and all of this
you know gratuitous all of this because we have one um one guy who wants to um
put on a dominance display i am worried not short term but medium
and long-term about the dollar as the world's reserve currency is that baseless is it I mean is it true is it
the case that the truth is nothing else could the euro is never going to be the world's reserve currency either minim is
never going to be the world's reserve currency okay so the importance of the the
advantages to the United States of owning the world's reserve currency uh is they're greatly overstated i mean
it's one of those things where the uh the people who have actually put in homework like me um tend to think that
the advantage to the United States of being in this position is is not all that great um you know we get a little
bit of advantage slightly lower borrowing costs the world holds you know something like a trillion dollars in
paper currency out there which is like a zero interest loan to America but but that's not in a way the point it's not
so and the the big risk is not that the euro or the red mimi could replace the
dollar the big risk is that nothing does that the uh that the the whole world
financial architecture is built on a foundation of us of dollars uh as the
transaction currency and US treasury bills as the ultimate safe asset that's used as collateral if we lose that then
the whole world that's like throwing sand in the gears of the whole world economy so I mean we we should be so
lucky as to have the euro take our place if we screw this up but we probably wouldn't what would actually happen is
that nothing takes our place and so we are uh we're in in you know the whole world economy works a lot less well and
financial crisis get bigger and longer and um yeah that so the the the risk
that we're running we're we're running we're risking the whole system that we've c you know that we've built up
over the past three generations all right I want to switch gears uh the
Financial Times is not Ramparts magazine it is not mother Jones and uh yet today
they had a piece the headline of which is that America is already halfway to being a police state this is because of
the meeting yesterday with uh Na Boule and Donald Trump in the white house in
which Boule refused to uh repatriate Kilmore Garcia trump seemed
to be happy with that and then Trump talked about sending American citizens to the prisons that uh the goologs that
he's requesting to build um I guess you know so I I'm curious as to your
thoughts on this even though it is outside of your brief um but you are an important person i think it's good for people to to say what they think on this
but the the second half of the question I have for you is that uh a lot of people in my world of politics have
assumed that if we get bad economic outcomes in America that hurts Trump
politically and I basically assume that as well but there's part of me that
wonders well I don't know trump is a talented demagogue who is good at blaming people for things and maybe that
provides him pretext to seize emergency powers or even further expand his his
hold over the executive branch of the government i don't know so I I I just wanted to sort of present this to you on
a platter and say what Paul Krugman what do you think of these two things no I'm I'm terrified i mean uh the uh this is
this is complete dictatorial power has been seized now how broadly it can be applied how far can Trump go um if you
know to to put a point on it if um I'm outside the United States at the moment
if when I land back at at uh at Newark airport um well might I be seized and detained
and you say "Well that can't happen." Well why not why not there is no limiting principle right that's right we
can see all we're seeing this happen to all kinds of people who are uh you know and and Trump has said that he wants to
go after homegrown people and the definition I mean if you look at at the the demand letter that was presented to
Harvard uh it basically said uh we demand your abject surrender that we
want to be able to determine what's taught in the courses we want to be able to tell you who to hire so how is that
not full-on dictatorship um now whether he can pull that off we don't know but
um but it does make you wonder i mean right now if you had to make a bet you would say that the Democrats will have a
sweep in the 2026 midterms but will we
have 2026 midterms or will they be remotely fair will there be will the we
have emergency powers will um people demonstrating be fired on you know it if
if you say every time anybody who's said that oh that won't happen everybody
who's been savvy and smart and said oh you know don't be don't uh freak out has
been wrong and everybody who has freaked out has been right so why think that that that it stops at any particular
point and that's a um I mean it it is terrifying I mean um I I've been talking
about uh what are what are the chances that I mean I in the end I don't think
this is what happens to America in the long run but how do we get from here back to someplace decent and I it may be
a color revolution i mean you know I I pay attention to these things a lot i mean um and uh uh you know that that
somehow or other idea that that the normal workings of politics will bring
us back to the center i don't think that politics is normal and may never be
normal again yeah I you know I was going to close with something light but I'm not going to do that um because this stuff is too
serious maybe I'll try to beg you to come back on the show some other time and talk about interstellar economics um
yeah but I wanna I want to I want to pull on this thread a little bit because this is one of my hobby horses at the
bull work is that Trump is both pathogen and symptom and uh that the but the
underlying problem is the American people the underlying problem is that the people have developed new
preferences and preferences for maybe not new but because uh you know the subjugation of African-Americans was a
long-held preference in America um but a preference for authoritarianism and
illiberalism which didn't exist over the last 40 years or 20 years in as broadly
as it is held and what I come to is is the revealed preferences shown by the 70
plus million people who voted for Trump as that number increased from 2016 to 2020 to
2024 despite the fact that those elections took place in wildly different contexts
and uh like I don't know like does this worry you that like people people have
just gotten a taste for this not everybody right but a big enough percentage of the population has gotten
a taste for this that this is what they want to some degree i'm a a little bit
less uh my take on this would be that that
probably half or a little bit more than half of the people who voted for Trump wanted this that this is what they were
voting for but a lot of people voted for Trump thinking that they were voting for lower grocery prices and that's you know
really you can say well that's really upsetting and stupid but I not allowed to say I guess the vote but you know
that's horrifying but but there was a lot of people just not believing not believing that he was who he said he was
um and look it's not just it's not just the regular it's not just guys in red caps and diners um Wall Street Silicon
Valley uh they're absolutely shocked shocked to discover that what you knew
what I knew is actually the reality they they come managed to convince themselves that somehow this was going to be just a
uh kind of benign good for good for them and and they they would be allowed to
say bad words uh in in in public and that they would be not face regulation
and are now you know having this horrible realization that I'm not sure
if they're willing to admit it to themselves but willing to they're having this horrible realization that all of the um people warning about the threat
to democracy were completely right and um I don't know what what you can say i
mean the I I'm not sure that the voters have really changed my there's always
been uh 25 30% of the electorate has always been fundamentally authoritarian
that's always been a tendency in in and it's that's true in every in every country you know 25 30% of of the French
electorate 25 30% of the Danish electorate uh even even the Canadian electorate I mean Canada was going to uh
was all set to put a Trumpy guy in power it might still happen but it seems
unlikely given the polls there uh but they were only saved by the example of Trump uh south of the border so I
actually do think maybe I'm romanticizing but I think that the the people are not that uh bad put that way
the the authoritarian impulse that there's a lot of voters behind it but there's a but they're not a majority not
that close to majority um the fact that they didn't understand what they were
voting for that's that does fall on elites i mean there's been an enormous elite failure uh and is not obviously
Wall Street Silicon Valley but also look at all of the not hardright media
figures political figures who were busy going on about oh you know Biden's old
when they should have been saying "Oh my god democracy is in danger." You know and um so the I think in some ways we
need to ask what it is that made elites so blind to the possibility of what
we're now seeing yeah well first we have to fend off the authoritarian attempt
paul Kugman thank you so much for being so generous with your time uh by chance if you are watching this and you are not
WTF 2.0
The Bulwark
Apr 15, 2025
Columnist and economist Paul Krugman joins JVL on the latest WTF 2.0 to talk Trump’s tariff madness, the self-inflicted economic crisis and the president’s malignant stupidity.
Transcript
Hello friends I'm JVL from the Bullwark and I am joined today by the legendary
Paul Krugman uh who is now of Substack his Substack is just Paul Krug paul
Krugman.substack.com no fancy names no he just branded it the way you should put your name on the building hey Van
Jones how are you um been dying to get you on this show Van so uh Paul we're
going to talk economics and tariffs and I'm going to let you cook and then we're going to have to talk a little bit about
state terrorism and the collapse of the American order although in a weird way these two things are probably linked um
somehow so I guess I want to start by just teeing you up for the cost of chaos
because my understanding has been that for 80 years stability and transparency
and the rule of law were America's biggest advantages in international
economics and that chaos typically is bad for a nation state's economic
prospect um tell me all about it yeah so I mean
we you know this international order that Donald Trump has just torn down is something the United States created and
we uh uh FDR uh looking at the disastrous smooth holy tariff and
generally the the chaos in world affairs in the 1930s in you know have passed something called the reciprocal trade
agreements act which set the pattern that we make trade deals with other countries which are a way to deploy
employ the special interests don't go away but you can try to balance them so you balance the interests of exporters
against the interests of industries competing with imports and gradually move towards freer trade you establish a
set of rules that everybody's all the countries that are involved have signed on to um that are a way to you know
prevent countries from abusing their position but actually mo mainly are a way to protect countries from themselves
there's there's rules and uh and you can't just give in to special interests you can't just go with the whims of a of
the president or the prime minister of another country that that there are procedures not not rigid free trade but
a lot of constraints that work in everybody's interest um and that became
the general agreement on tariffs and trade in 1947 which was basically built on the template the United States had
established and all of this was not just about this is good for business but the
idea was that it was good for peace that it was good for democracy that good that strong trading relationships and the
prosperity that they can help build would be a a force for generally a better world which you know for the most
part it did it it's nothing was perfect and there were serious issues and uh we
were probably did not we definitely did not think hard enough about some of the downsides of globalization but on the
whole it was an order that worked for the world worked for the United States and now my god um you know the uh and
one thing to say is that it's not just um I mean tariffs are a bad thing we
think certainly high tariffs are a bad thing they do reduce efficiency and so on but if there's one thing that's worse
than high tariffs it's tariffs where you don't know you know you don't um
businesses people trying to make plans don't know what trade is going to be what the rules are going to be uh not
only next year but next month and you know on we had one tremendous departure
from previous US policy announced on April 2nd and then suddenly a completely different set of rules announced on
April 9th and then there was a change in the rules on April 12th and I joked on
the morning of April 13th that you know we're soon we're going to have trade policy changing by the day and later
that day they announced another another big change of the rules you know with the uh with the exemption for uh for no
for we'd announced the exemption for electronics and then then announced that that was only temporary and you know so
this is a the chaos adds to these are bad policies even if they were
persistent but they're vastly worse when nobody knows what the what the rules of the game are
I mean and this it just seems so obvious as to not even worth saying but I'll do it
anyway how can anyone make plans or decisions Right if
you if you are the operator of a cargo ship uh you know sitting off the port of
Los Angeles do you do you dock today or do you wait a week right to like you
know because it depends on what rate the the your cargo is going to be tariffed at or uh if you are this idea that we're
going to build more manufacturing plants in America well who who's going to spend money to stand up a factory when nobody
has any idea what policy is going to be week to week yeah if you're thinking about building a factory well whether
that factory is worth doing depends upon you know not just the tariff how much protection you're going to get from
import competition but how high is the tariff going to be on the inputs that you use because in the modern world um
manufacturing is a process that takes place across the globe certainly it takes place across North America so if
you were depending upon components from a suppliers or your own factories in
Mexico or Canada you want to know what the tariffs are going to be on those components and at this point you'd have no idea um and it's all I mean I'm not
sure that there are any ships sitting off uh the ports in Long Beach um
waiting to decide whether to dock but I am hearing reports that uh ships are being held back in Shanghai while they
wait for the situation to clarify so this is real this is like the the co you know postco remember the the ships back
and forth we're we're doing that but this time it's not because there's a global catastrophe it's self-inflicted
um and one thing actually I have not seen enough about uh these are really
complex tariffs that differ from country to country and product to product and um
uh you know who's going to enforce who's going to make the paper who's going to
do the paperwork we don't have a customs service that's designed to do that so we don't actually have the ships may be
ending may be steaming back and forth because the uh we don't have the customs officials to process it i mean there are
already some issues that the software that's supposed to provide exemptions is not working because it's been stood up
in you know zero time so this is crazy crazy stuff uh designed clearly by people who had no idea hadn't thought it
through at all it's just you know the president said let's do this and and uh and they have no idea how to make it
work so we we seem to have been getting warning signs for at least the last four
to six weeks from like the the regional Fed governors and various consumer
surveys i think there's one out today uh of manufacturer surveys and confidence
and right it does the signals seem to be that the the people who are the actual
economic actors are really freaked out yes yeah yes the uh freaked out is is is
definitely the word it's it's a u nobody uh people's um I mean nobody knows
what's going to happen but they are presumably hearing uh from businesses
that they are just have no idea they they think things are going to be really bad um there's clearly uh a a drop off
in you know deal deals and and commitments are just being put on ice
because nobody knows what's going to happen and that means that that the outlook Yeah this was the Empire State
survey that came out today i think it was you know it's uh any one survey may have its quirks
but we're getting an overwhelming um picture of business grinding to a halt
because they they have no idea what the ground rules are
so can you talk to me through a little bit i mean let's step back and do just a
a broader discussion about tariffs um one of the frustrations I've had over
the last few weeks is a number of Democratic politicians deciding this is
the moment to have a deeply nuanced conversation about tariffs and how some tariffs are good and they really like
Gretchen Whitmer going to the Oval Office well you know um can you talk a
little bit about the US history of tariffs you had a post on this the other day and like what we're doing now where
it stands sort of relative to US history people can understand what a big outlier it is yeah so we had tar US tariffs
peaked around 1933 uh and they were brought down gradually
and it wasn't that the United States just said we believe in free trade and we're just going to plow ahead with free
trade and ignore what other countries are doing it was I mentioned the reciprocal trade agreements act of 1933
which um said that we are going 34 I guess anyway but never mind um we we we
we made deals we brought down our tariffs in return for tariff reductions
by other countries so it was always when when Trump says we're going to have reciprocity well reciprocity is how we
got to where we are we we negotiated lower tariffs around the world we we cut
our tariffs only in return for tariff reductions by other countries and so as
of 3 months ago we were in a world where tariffs were low not just US tariffs on
the rest of the world but foreign tariffs on US goods it was um you know the European Union I like to use that as
a you know a that there were almost as big an economy as we are and they are
sort of the the big kahuna aside from China which is a somewhat different story in the European Union the average
European Union tariff on US products is 1.7% the average US tariff on European price
is about 1.4% i mean basically we have virtually free trade across the Atlantic
uh which makes you question you know what is this all about i see some of the people are asking what are we negotiating for that's a really good
question because I mean if we're going to demand concessions from Europe
uh what are they supposed to concede considering that they actually don't have significant tariffs on US products
there are a few you know there's chlorinated chicken and there's uh but on the other hand there's US tariffs on
light trucks I mean but those are marginal the real story is that we have near near free trade with other advanced
countries there's there's nothing for them to concede and so um I've just been reading some stories like today about
the European uh you know they're trying to negotiate with the United States and they basically said we can't negotiate
cuz we have no idea what the Americans want and that's a hell of a situation to be in where the United States is
following radical policies and shouting and yet nobody can figure out what
they're supposed to do to satisfy Trump and the people around him
do you is your read on this that there is some master plan or is it just idiocy
and theology i mean what what do you think is there an endgame or no most
stupidity is the phrase that actually I my uh can I say my wife came up with
that but that's that's about right uh no look at the pe if you ask if you think there's a master plan you might want to
find out find some master planners for supposedly doing this and if we actually look at um the people around Trump uh
well I mean he's got this Peter Navaro who should be a comical figure i mean this is a guy who
who in his book cited a a an expert named Ron Vera who didn't exist was just
an anagram of his own name i mean the these are you know he would be a clown
uh except that he's got enormous power under this administration uh he found some other people that that that all of
the people in the Trump administration um or all the people advising supposedly
advising it were recruited because they had said something that seemed to agree
with what Trump had already said there is no experts coming in from outside there's no experts the funny thing about
economics is that there are a fair number of right right of center economists who are not idiots they are
not wanted they're completely shut out of out of this this is all just sick offense people who are willing to echo
uh Trump's ravings and so there's no there is no plan we know that the big
tariff announcement on April 2nd the plan which was very detailed was
apparently settled on about 3 hours before he went live and was devised by
this idiot formula and as everybody likes to talk about include a 10% tariff
on the herd and McDonald Islands which have nothing but penguins so we've got a 10% tariff on exports by penguins and
you know it's it's hard to people keep on thinking that the world's greatest
nation uh economic and military superpower that there must be something
there must be a plan down there but you know it's uh there must be a pony in there under the under the pile of manure
what can I say there's nothing there uh will the bond market save us this is
I I had a brief like 72 hours where I thought to myself well maybe the bond
market is going to show so much risk that uh I don't know the Canadians and
the Chinese who both hold a whole lot of Treasury bills will start selling off and drive down prices at the next
auction which is when is it next month maybe um and and put pressure on the
administration to change no am I crazy talk to me about the bond market well yeah so bonds are pretty have been I
mean there's the stock market and the stock market as several friends of mine have said is behaving like a a battered
spouse keeps on taking every sign of of of of sanity as oh he's going to get
better and it doesn't um so that's a yo-yo but it's um and it'll take
probably take a long time before that market concedes but um the and the bond
markets I mean the Yeah I mean we we have a something that's hap what's
happening in bonds and currency markets which is you have you know tariffs
normally strengthen your currency because you're spending less on imports um but in this case the dollar has
fallen and um we also have recession fears which normally cause interest
rates to fall but instead interest rates have risen and the dollar falling with
higher interest rates is all of this is not what you expect to see in an advanced country let alone the world's
reserve currency country this is looks like a developing country this looks like uh Argentina or Brazil or Indonesia
during the Asian financial crisis now it's much smaller the movements are not
we're not talking we're talking about a a 5% decline in the dollar and we're not
an Indonesia with an 80% decline in the rupia so the scale is much smaller but qualitatively we already look like a a a
developing country where the markets have lost faith but there's probably a lot more to go um and it's and there
once you start to look under look at the details so there's been rising interest
rates on 10-year Treasury bills in the face of this which is unheard of this
doesn't happen to the United States but there's much worse going on if you start to look at more at at at less liquid
markets at places you start to look at at uh spreads on uh on on corporate
bonds you start to say the corporate bond market right this market is really
yeah people and in general two things one is that people are starting to behave like the United States is not a
trustworthy place to put your money which it isn't um and also they were getting a lot of stress because and this
is where I even need you know uh three tylenols to try and track this stuff but
um the um the financial markets these days are they're really complex they're
based on a lot of uh arrangements that are much more
fragile than they look at first um the uh hedge funds are taking on huge
positions with enormous leverage and it doesn't take a whole lot to start to cause a really big stress and we're
starting to see that uh the um there's a lot of uh god you know um the we're
starting to see for the United States something that looks kind of like the Liz trust moment in Britain you know back in 2022 when people were absolutely
shocked at the sudden rise in interest rates on really long-term British government bonds it turned out that
there were weird stuff there was financial stress involving pension funds which turned out to be a really big
player and and to be surprisingly exposed financially so we're probably
seeing stuff like that but um it's it's still early stages it this does look
like there are real tremors going on in the financial markets but we don't know
how bad it gets and and uh I at least am spend when I'm not busy writing my
substack I'm spending a lot of time trying to understand the the plumbing of the financial system and boy is that
intricate can you give me like a low median and high variant scenario for what what the
economic world looks like over the next 12 months okay low scenario is that
Trump sort of stabilizes on 10% tariffs on everybody and whatever is going on
with China and actually find some way to reduce the China stuff to the point
where it does not it's not hugely disruptive in which case it's bad but I
mean even that is you know this the low end of of the damage is the high end of
anybody's estimates before the election right so but that's a we get a a 2% bump
in consumer prices for the next year and then things kind of settle down there we
never recover fully people never we would you know once we've lost the world's trust which we have uh you don't
get that back um certainly don't get that back until Trump himself is a distant memory um but that's you know we
stumble along and the it's not catastrophic and high tariffs don't necessarily mean high unemployment so
you know maybe it's it people are hurt but it's not too bad the medium is that
it's much worse than that that the uncertainty leads to a lot more inflation leads to a recession i think
the the low one is we we have a lot of tremors but no recession the medium scenario is we do have a recession which
is a really different recession from what any in the past i don't think we've ever had a recession generated by tariff
uncertainty but that man-made our first man-made recession right yeah i mean all recesses are some sense man-made but one
man-made this is the first time i mean some people are telling talking a recession of choice remember war
recession be a recession of choice well recession of choice but of choice stupidity because this is um but yes it
it is a real I mean this this is this is unique in in US history um and uh um
maybe as some people say well what about Andrew Jackson and the panic of 1837 I think that kind of makes the point if
you have to reach back to Andrew Jackson then this is some this is uniquely horrible um and that's actually my
central scenario i think we will uh if if you ask me to make a guess I would say we will have a significant but
though not catastrophic recession brought on just by the sheer craziness um the the worst I mean the the downside
is so enormous um we could have a real financial implosion uh it could be
global uh so that we start to talk about things like well you know in previous crises the United States has activated
the swap lines and provided dollars to people it's not clear that would happen or that the rest of the world would be
willing to use them if we if we offered them um and then I am really worried
about the China factor uh the you we the Trump and the people around him
fundamentally misunderstand international trade the purpose of international trade is not to sell stuff
the purpose of international trade is to be able to get stuff and we already have the Chinese cutting off rare earths and
batteries and uh so we could be seeing a lot of supply disruptions
uh coming on that are really catastrophic for the economy um and I'm particularly uh you know that the the
ultra nightmare scenario is if trade war devolves into war war i mean if you want
to think what could really be catastrophic it would be a war over Taiwan and which supplies you know an
enormous fraction of the world's semiconductors and um uh you know the
Chinese haven't done that partly because what they learned I hope from Ukraine is
that that uh short victorious wars often turn out not to be that um but also that
they were they wanted to keep access to world markets but with the United States imposing 30% tariffs on them you know
what exactly is the reason for them not to to go for it so I mean the the downsides are incredible and all of this
you know gratuitous all of this because we have one um one guy who wants to um
put on a dominance display i am worried not short term but medium
and long-term about the dollar as the world's reserve currency is that baseless is it I mean is it true is it
the case that the truth is nothing else could the euro is never going to be the world's reserve currency either minim is
never going to be the world's reserve currency okay so the importance of the the
advantages to the United States of owning the world's reserve currency uh is they're greatly overstated i mean
it's one of those things where the uh the people who have actually put in homework like me um tend to think that
the advantage to the United States of being in this position is is not all that great um you know we get a little
bit of advantage slightly lower borrowing costs the world holds you know something like a trillion dollars in
paper currency out there which is like a zero interest loan to America but but that's not in a way the point it's not
so and the the big risk is not that the euro or the red mimi could replace the
dollar the big risk is that nothing does that the uh that the the whole world
financial architecture is built on a foundation of us of dollars uh as the
transaction currency and US treasury bills as the ultimate safe asset that's used as collateral if we lose that then
the whole world that's like throwing sand in the gears of the whole world economy so I mean we we should be so
lucky as to have the euro take our place if we screw this up but we probably wouldn't what would actually happen is
that nothing takes our place and so we are uh we're in in you know the whole world economy works a lot less well and
financial crisis get bigger and longer and um yeah that so the the the risk
that we're running we're we're running we're risking the whole system that we've c you know that we've built up
over the past three generations all right I want to switch gears uh the
Financial Times is not Ramparts magazine it is not mother Jones and uh yet today
they had a piece the headline of which is that America is already halfway to being a police state this is because of
the meeting yesterday with uh Na Boule and Donald Trump in the white house in
which Boule refused to uh repatriate Kilmore Garcia trump seemed
to be happy with that and then Trump talked about sending American citizens to the prisons that uh the goologs that
he's requesting to build um I guess you know so I I'm curious as to your
thoughts on this even though it is outside of your brief um but you are an important person i think it's good for people to to say what they think on this
but the the second half of the question I have for you is that uh a lot of people in my world of politics have
assumed that if we get bad economic outcomes in America that hurts Trump
politically and I basically assume that as well but there's part of me that
wonders well I don't know trump is a talented demagogue who is good at blaming people for things and maybe that
provides him pretext to seize emergency powers or even further expand his his
hold over the executive branch of the government i don't know so I I I just wanted to sort of present this to you on
a platter and say what Paul Krugman what do you think of these two things no I'm I'm terrified i mean uh the uh this is
this is complete dictatorial power has been seized now how broadly it can be applied how far can Trump go um if you
know to to put a point on it if um I'm outside the United States at the moment
if when I land back at at uh at Newark airport um well might I be seized and detained
and you say "Well that can't happen." Well why not why not there is no limiting principle right that's right we
can see all we're seeing this happen to all kinds of people who are uh you know and and Trump has said that he wants to
go after homegrown people and the definition I mean if you look at at the the demand letter that was presented to
Harvard uh it basically said uh we demand your abject surrender that we
want to be able to determine what's taught in the courses we want to be able to tell you who to hire so how is that
not full-on dictatorship um now whether he can pull that off we don't know but
um but it does make you wonder i mean right now if you had to make a bet you would say that the Democrats will have a
sweep in the 2026 midterms but will we
have 2026 midterms or will they be remotely fair will there be will the we
have emergency powers will um people demonstrating be fired on you know it if
if you say every time anybody who's said that oh that won't happen everybody
who's been savvy and smart and said oh you know don't be don't uh freak out has
been wrong and everybody who has freaked out has been right so why think that that that it stops at any particular
point and that's a um I mean it it is terrifying I mean um I I've been talking
about uh what are what are the chances that I mean I in the end I don't think
this is what happens to America in the long run but how do we get from here back to someplace decent and I it may be
a color revolution i mean you know I I pay attention to these things a lot i mean um and uh uh you know that that
somehow or other idea that that the normal workings of politics will bring
us back to the center i don't think that politics is normal and may never be
normal again yeah I you know I was going to close with something light but I'm not going to do that um because this stuff is too
serious maybe I'll try to beg you to come back on the show some other time and talk about interstellar economics um
yeah but I wanna I want to I want to pull on this thread a little bit because this is one of my hobby horses at the
bull work is that Trump is both pathogen and symptom and uh that the but the
underlying problem is the American people the underlying problem is that the people have developed new
preferences and preferences for maybe not new but because uh you know the subjugation of African-Americans was a
long-held preference in America um but a preference for authoritarianism and
illiberalism which didn't exist over the last 40 years or 20 years in as broadly
as it is held and what I come to is is the revealed preferences shown by the 70
plus million people who voted for Trump as that number increased from 2016 to 2020 to
2024 despite the fact that those elections took place in wildly different contexts
and uh like I don't know like does this worry you that like people people have
just gotten a taste for this not everybody right but a big enough percentage of the population has gotten
a taste for this that this is what they want to some degree i'm a a little bit
less uh my take on this would be that that
probably half or a little bit more than half of the people who voted for Trump wanted this that this is what they were
voting for but a lot of people voted for Trump thinking that they were voting for lower grocery prices and that's you know
really you can say well that's really upsetting and stupid but I not allowed to say I guess the vote but you know
that's horrifying but but there was a lot of people just not believing not believing that he was who he said he was
um and look it's not just it's not just the regular it's not just guys in red caps and diners um Wall Street Silicon
Valley uh they're absolutely shocked shocked to discover that what you knew
what I knew is actually the reality they they come managed to convince themselves that somehow this was going to be just a
uh kind of benign good for good for them and and they they would be allowed to
say bad words uh in in in public and that they would be not face regulation
and are now you know having this horrible realization that I'm not sure
if they're willing to admit it to themselves but willing to they're having this horrible realization that all of the um people warning about the threat
to democracy were completely right and um I don't know what what you can say i
mean the I I'm not sure that the voters have really changed my there's always
been uh 25 30% of the electorate has always been fundamentally authoritarian
that's always been a tendency in in and it's that's true in every in every country you know 25 30% of of the French
electorate 25 30% of the Danish electorate uh even even the Canadian electorate I mean Canada was going to uh
was all set to put a Trumpy guy in power it might still happen but it seems
unlikely given the polls there uh but they were only saved by the example of Trump uh south of the border so I
actually do think maybe I'm romanticizing but I think that the the people are not that uh bad put that way
the the authoritarian impulse that there's a lot of voters behind it but there's a but they're not a majority not
that close to majority um the fact that they didn't understand what they were
voting for that's that does fall on elites i mean there's been an enormous elite failure uh and is not obviously
Wall Street Silicon Valley but also look at all of the not hardright media
figures political figures who were busy going on about oh you know Biden's old
when they should have been saying "Oh my god democracy is in danger." You know and um so the I think in some ways we
need to ask what it is that made elites so blind to the possibility of what
we're now seeing yeah well first we have to fend off the authoritarian attempt
paul Kugman thank you so much for being so generous with your time uh by chance if you are watching this and you are not
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Wed Apr 16, 2025 1:10 am
Trump THROWS TANTRUM after SCOTUS Ruling…SWIRLS DRAIN!
MeidasTouch
Apr 15, 2025
Legal AF Podcast
The Supreme Court gave Trump a one-line “out” about his foreign affairs powers, and Trump is now flipping the script and making the illegal removal and deportation of Armando Abrego Garcia all about Trump’s foreign affairs powers as he now declares that the US is powerless to tell El Salvador what to do with Mr. Garcia, as Trump and the dictator of El Salvador taunt the American people and the US Supreme Court from the Oval Office. Michael Popok explains how Trump used the scripted Oval Office event to reinforce his new court filings, and discusses how Judge Xinis at her contempt hearing and the Supreme Court will respond, as the chances of Mr. Garcia’s return dwindle to slim.
Transcript
the chances of Armando Abrego Garcia
being returned from El Salvador are
suddenly dwindling to very slim because
of Donald Trump's continued defiance of
the United States Supreme Court and the
unlikely and the likely event that the
Supreme Court wants to cause an
international crisis by making an order
against an Al Salvadorian dictator
president who is already in a scripted
moment with the Trump administration
said he is not bringing ago Garcia
attack This has to do with our democracy
and not just Donald Trump trying to
offload US citizens and others to be
housed and stored in El Salvador in jail
This has to do as whether we're going to
allow the petty dictator of El Salvador
Dictate how our constitutional republic
how our due process works in this
country We're supposed to be the leaders
of the free world not the petty dictator
of El Salvador the murder capital of the
world with a poverty rate exceeding 25%
When did that happen i'm Michael Popac
You're on Mightest Touch Network Let's
talk about this scripted call and
response pitch and catch Oval Office
ceremony crammed full of cabinet members
including Pam Bondi the attorney general
of the United States all there to
basically along with B Kelly the
dictator wearing some sort of black
t-shirt under his suit um all there in a
scripted moment like an oil painting to
tell the Supreme Court and Judge Zenison
Maryland to go f herself That is what
that was And then use that moment of the
of the pitch and catch between Donald
Trump and B Kelly where B Kelly says out
loud I'm not going to be smuggling a
terrorist back into the United States
even though I have the power setting up
the very confrontation that the Supreme
Court I believe was trying to avoid in
their decision But they left in a little
stray little line a little a little
clanking part inside of there that
Donald Trump grasped onto like it was
his last meal which was a comment about
the limits of the uh district court to
be able to order the Trump
administration to affffectuate the
return of Abrao Garcia instead of
facilitate suggesting that there were
limits because of the se uh the foreign
powers uh exclusivity of the
presidential
core function So be careful they told
the court be careful on what you order
and don't verge into this area of
foreign affairs which is the exclusive
province of the president Oh so they
latched on to that I'm telling you like
a dog with a bone Steven Miller oh we've
been we've been uh vindicated by the
Supreme Court You can't order us to do
anything It's a sovereign state And then
they started to flip They started to
flip their script and flip their
narrative On Monday or so Donald Trump
said out loud to reporters "Well if the
Supreme Court uh ordered me to return
somebody well I respect the Supreme
Court Well we'll or we'll we'll bring
him back." Well no Now their position is
El Salvador is sovereign We can't order
them to do anything You can't order me
as the president to conduct any type of
foreign policy This is all foreign
policy This is not foreign policy They
only It's only foreign because Donald
Trump decided to to delegate and offload
and store human beings in El Salvador
pursuant to a contract with uh and pay
El Salvador $6 million to fill an empty
jail Now Donald Trump loves that idea so
much that he declared out loud at the
Oval Office that he's considering
sending US citizen criminals to El
Salvador Sure why not there's a little
there's a little something called cruel
and unusual punishment We're supposed to
take care of our prisoners not other
people based on our morals our values
our patriotism We don't abuse We don't
have an inhumane
uh prison
system That's not America That's the
reason you don't want to be in other
countries because you end up in their
criminal justice system such as it is
and end up in these jails Now let's go
back to this filing that just got made
by the Trump administration telling the
judge to go f herself Uh every day
pursuant to a court order and there's
going to be a hearing today on it about
contempt the judge Judge Zenis ordered
pursuant to her empowering the
empowerment of a Supreme Court decision
that said "You are responsible for
administrating justice in that courtroom
You're doing the right thing." the 90
Supreme Court uh said just uh Judge
Zenis you are doing the right thing to
preserve the due process rights the
constitutional fifth amendment rights of
Arbago Garcia We like everything about
your order Continue to monitor and keep
the the uh government's feet to the fire
but there's limits We know this Supreme
Court They're going to back down against
Donald Trump on this foreign affairs and
foreign policy
issues And Trump has created it and
turned it into and morphed it into a
foreign policy issue Sub so sovereign El
Salvador sovereign US We can't tell him
what to do Sure you can You have a
contractor You're paying him $6 million
Use diplomacy to get him back Oh you
can't order me to use
diplomacy And you can see the flip
script in a comment made by Pam Bondi
who is in the packed into this room for
this photo op She's the head of the
Department of Justice Here's her message
to Judge Zenis with the hearing coming
up today Let's play Pam Bondi The
Supreme Court ruled President that if as
El Salvador wants to return him this
this is international matters foreign
affairs If they wanted to return him we
would facilitate it meaning provide a
plane
Now that's right on the heels of this
call and response Good boy give him a
biscuit comment by the petty dictator of
El Salvador
uh Boulli Now just a side note when
Zalinski President Zalinsky of Ukraine
who is a wartime president literally his
country is at war showed up with like a
fatigue shirt Trump all the Trumpers and
JD Vans said "Oh it's so insulting he
didn't wear a shirt and tie." You'll see
this next clip But Kelly shows up
wearing a black t-shirt over a suit
jacket That's how he goes to the Oval
Office And this is the new thing for
Donald Trump and we're going to keep a
close eye on it He uses the Oval Office
as a backdrop you know as part of his
bully pulpit You know the pomp and
circumstance of the Oval Office I've
never seen a president and I've been
covering this for a long time and I've
been a a student of presidential
politics since I was in college I've
never seen a president shove so many
people you know it's like 50 lbs of
potatoes in a 5B sack shoved into the
Oval Office You know Secretary of
State's there JD Vance is there Pam
Bondi's there Steven Miller let's take a
timeout for Steven Miller for a minute
Steven Miller who's the deputy White
House chief of staff and also like a a
lawyer or a spokesperson for the
Homeland Security he is running all of
Donald Trump's domestic policy You don't
like a domestic policy of Donald Trump
You don't like him the immigration
policies You don't know what you don't
like what he's doing with tariffs You
don't That is Steven Miller Steven
Miller is the one that came up with the
idea with Christine Gnome to use the
Alien Enemies Act to send 250 terrorists
that were allegedly at war with at
Venezuela to El Salvador in the first
place
So of course he's in the room misstating
the Supreme Court decision but Pam Bondi
knows better but she doesn't because
this is the position they're taking a
little bit inconsistently in the
courtroom Let's play a clip of a pitch
and catch comment callin response
scripted to within an inch of its life
between Trump and this comment by
President Blly that ends up in a filing
later that night required by Judge
Zennus Let's play the clip of President
Blly How can I smuggle a terrorist into
the United States i I don't have the
power to return him to the United States
But you can release him inside Yeah but
I'm not releasing I mean we're not very
fond of releasing terrorists into our
country Hey look at me Michael Popock
here And yes I'm actually using I
restore amazing elite hair growth device
And now you know one of my many personal
grooming secrets to having greatl
looking hair at 59 It's time to shake
off the winter blues and get ready for a
fresh start This season tackle thinning
hair and hair loss with the I restore
Elite It's a clinically proven solution
designed to help you regrow hair with
282 lasers and LEDs delivering light
therapy directly to your scalp Think of
it as a rejuvenating treatment for your
hair follicles giving you a new look for
the spring season Now that we're
experiencing those in between days you
know when it's still chilly but you're
ready for a change whether it's a rainy
afternoon or a quiet evening indoors the
I Restore Elite is the perfect way to
take care of your hair Lightweight
hands-free and painless It works while
you relax and prepare for the warmer
days ahead No hassle just real results
For a limited time only our listeners
get $625 off their I restore Elite when
you use code legal AF at i restore
laser.com That's 625 off your I restore
Elite at i restore laser.com with promo
code legal AF to get the hair regrowth
device you've been wishing for and start
feeling like yourself again Listen the
Eye Restore Elite device is the best
atome laser device in the world It has
more lasers LEDs and power output than
the competition ensuring you'll see
results wearing it And maybe the best
part about I restore they offer a
12month money back guarantee so you can
try it risk-free If your hair doesn't
make a glorious return you'll get a full
refund No awkward questions just
fabulous hair or your money back Give
yourself the gift of hair confidence
this spring For a limited time only our
listeners get $625 off their I restore
Elite when you use code legal AF at
irrestorelazer.com That's 625 off your I
restore Elite at i restore lasazer.com
with promo code legal AF Please support
our show and tell them that we sent you
Hair loss is frustrating You don't have
to fight it alone thanks to I restore
Now hold that thought Let me read to you
for what's been filed Now every day for
the last three days the Trump
administration has had to file what we
call in court a declaration which is a
sworn statement under oath It's like an
affidavit And every day they picked a
new person You know I don't know whether
they're it's a short straw going on over
there but every day it's somebody new
The first day they picked a guy that had
no factual knowledge whatsoever despite
the fact that he needed to have factual
knowledge He even filed it in the wrong
court or mentioned the wrong court in
the filing Then they picked another
person and now they picked a lawyer for
the Department of Homeland Security
which makes sense because all they're
doing is argument This is just
argumentative declarations Declarations
are supposed to be on facts of fact
witnesses who know something because of
their five senses not an argument not
written by a lawyer for a lawyer in
order to try to expand the record at the
trial court level in order to try to
have another argument at the United
States Supreme Court and relitigate the
Supreme Court ruling Now the judge
entered an order that every day at 5:00
she wants to know where Abrago Garcia is
in El Salvador and what steps have been
taken to get him out and what steps will
be taken Now in their filings they're
not telling her any of the steps They're
basically telling her to go f herself
We're not telling you We're not telling
you And we're not telling you In a
separate filing before I get to this new
filing in a separate filing on Sunday
against the motion for contempt which is
going to be heard today they actually
went as far as to say well we know you
know judge that President Blly is
meeting on Monday with President Trump
It's very sensitive situation and you
should just let us run this and you
can't tell us how to run foreign affairs
anyway See the United States Supreme
Court decision So we thought oh they
like dangling the hope that they're
negotiating a resolution They were dang
they you just saw the clip of B Kelly
saying I'm not going to smuggle a
terrorist back into the United States I
would never do that Well and Trump's
like well what am I supposed to do you
saw and you saw Pam Bondi saying well
we'd send a plane if he got out Yeah
right if he smuggled himself out if
there was a jailbreak like on television
and he got out sudden of this super max
prison in El Salvador and he just
wandered to an airport and then I don't
know uh stowed away in the landing gear
and ended up back in the United States
We'd we'd let him back in Great This is
not Macgyver right this is not a a
hostage movie you know one of these
action movies So here's what they just
filed
This is from Joe Mazaro We'll put his
picture up Look at this guy He's he's
the acting general counsel of the
Department of Homeland Security He said
um now this is supposed to be where Oreo
Garcia is what steps have been taken
what steps will be taken to have him
facilitate his return You listen to this
It won't take long It's only four
paragraphs substantively Um on March 15
2023 Abrago Garcia was removed to El
Salvador Uh yeah we know that That's
paragraph four That's how we got here
Paragraph five Now he's trying to
relitigate the history of the case with
stuff that is not before the judge and
has not been brought into evidence
During bond proceedings in 2019 an
immigration judge upheld the Department
of Homeland Security's decision not to
grant bond finding that its
determination that Abrao Garcia was a
member of
MS-13 a gang was trustworthy and
supported by the evidence and noted that
Abrego Garcia failed to present evidence
to rebut that assertion Let's stop right
there What facts does he have to support
that he says "During a bond proceeding
were you at the bond proceeding did you
participate in the bond proceeding were
you even in the Department of Homeland
Security in 2019 where did you get that
information from who told you what did
you refer to?" Again a deficient
declaration The Board of Immigration
Appeals now he's continuing with the
history of the case the procedural
history upheld the
finding and Obgo Garcia appealed But
okay next paragraph six Abrego Garcia
was ordered removed by an immigration
judge He was also granted withholding of
removal by an immigration judge Now
we're in see Dick Run See Jane Reed This
is caveman writing Brago Garcia is no
longer eligible for withholding Stop
right there A immigration judge in 2019
issued an order which the Trump
administration violated which 13
different judges acknowledged including
all nine judges of the United States
Supreme Court that he was illegally uh
brought to El Salvador against an order
of a federal immigration judge when the
Trump administration knew that there was
an order preventing his removal to El
Salvador That's it That is the driver
that led the Supreme Court to rule in
Abrao Garc Garcia's favor to uphold our
flag and our constitution and our values
Um then they go into the procedures
because their new argument is we're only
going to facilitate on the domestic side
We can't tell the sovereign what to do
You jump you dumped them off with the
sovereign You contracted with the
sovereign Pull the contract Pull the
funding and pull ago Garcia out of the
supermax prison
Um DHS has established process for
taking steps to remove domestic
obstacles but we can't do anything about
somebody in in foreign uh custody
Paragraph 8 I am aware that the
president of El Salvador Naive Blly was
in Washington today on Monday to meet
with President Donald Trump President
Blly and President Trump held a
bilateral summit at the White House Is
that what that was a bilateral summit it
looked like a phony press conference But
you know I digress I understand that in
response to a question President Blly
said and you saw the clip I'm not I hope
you're not suggesting that I smuggle a
terrorist into the United States How can
I do that it's preposterous A video of
the meeting is here at this clip judge
So you saw it A scripted call in
response I'm surprised they didn't give
B Kelly a dog bone He was so obedient
Here you go boy Good boy Good We're
going to use that today in our filing
Great You were right on the mark I'm
sure Stephen Miller wrote it and I'm
sure Pam Bondi couldn't read it and then
Bke Kelly said it and now it showed up
in this filing Judge's not going to be
happy But the real fundamental question
is what is she going to do about it and
what is the US Supreme Court going to do
about it she's got a contempt hearing
Does she find members of the Trump
administration and the lawyers for the
Department of Justice in contempt and
start sending people to jail i'm not
sure there's any other way to get Blly
uh to get Brao Garcia out And then if it
ultimately and when it ultimately gets
to the United States Supreme Court what
are they going to do including the
alt-right wing of the Supreme Court I'll
tell you what they're not likely to do
They're not likely to cause an
international global crisis of their own
making and do some sort of requiring
that Trump violate El Salvador's
sovereignty You you'll watch They're
going to uphold the sovereignty of El
Salvador in a US constitutional
decision and we're going to report on it
and you're going to hold everybody
responsible and vote the bastards out in
at midterms It's the only that's the
only thing we can do at this point as we
watch the Supreme Court try in vain uh
try uh you know kind of in a very
useless fashion to control an out of
control rogue president So until my next
report I'm Michael Popak.
MeidasTouch
Apr 15, 2025
Legal AF Podcast
The Supreme Court gave Trump a one-line “out” about his foreign affairs powers, and Trump is now flipping the script and making the illegal removal and deportation of Armando Abrego Garcia all about Trump’s foreign affairs powers as he now declares that the US is powerless to tell El Salvador what to do with Mr. Garcia, as Trump and the dictator of El Salvador taunt the American people and the US Supreme Court from the Oval Office. Michael Popok explains how Trump used the scripted Oval Office event to reinforce his new court filings, and discusses how Judge Xinis at her contempt hearing and the Supreme Court will respond, as the chances of Mr. Garcia’s return dwindle to slim.
Transcript
the chances of Armando Abrego Garcia
being returned from El Salvador are
suddenly dwindling to very slim because
of Donald Trump's continued defiance of
the United States Supreme Court and the
unlikely and the likely event that the
Supreme Court wants to cause an
international crisis by making an order
against an Al Salvadorian dictator
president who is already in a scripted
moment with the Trump administration
said he is not bringing ago Garcia
attack This has to do with our democracy
and not just Donald Trump trying to
offload US citizens and others to be
housed and stored in El Salvador in jail
This has to do as whether we're going to
allow the petty dictator of El Salvador
Dictate how our constitutional republic
how our due process works in this
country We're supposed to be the leaders
of the free world not the petty dictator
of El Salvador the murder capital of the
world with a poverty rate exceeding 25%
When did that happen i'm Michael Popac
You're on Mightest Touch Network Let's
talk about this scripted call and
response pitch and catch Oval Office
ceremony crammed full of cabinet members
including Pam Bondi the attorney general
of the United States all there to
basically along with B Kelly the
dictator wearing some sort of black
t-shirt under his suit um all there in a
scripted moment like an oil painting to
tell the Supreme Court and Judge Zenison
Maryland to go f herself That is what
that was And then use that moment of the
of the pitch and catch between Donald
Trump and B Kelly where B Kelly says out
loud I'm not going to be smuggling a
terrorist back into the United States
even though I have the power setting up
the very confrontation that the Supreme
Court I believe was trying to avoid in
their decision But they left in a little
stray little line a little a little
clanking part inside of there that
Donald Trump grasped onto like it was
his last meal which was a comment about
the limits of the uh district court to
be able to order the Trump
administration to affffectuate the
return of Abrao Garcia instead of
facilitate suggesting that there were
limits because of the se uh the foreign
powers uh exclusivity of the
presidential
core function So be careful they told
the court be careful on what you order
and don't verge into this area of
foreign affairs which is the exclusive
province of the president Oh so they
latched on to that I'm telling you like
a dog with a bone Steven Miller oh we've
been we've been uh vindicated by the
Supreme Court You can't order us to do
anything It's a sovereign state And then
they started to flip They started to
flip their script and flip their
narrative On Monday or so Donald Trump
said out loud to reporters "Well if the
Supreme Court uh ordered me to return
somebody well I respect the Supreme
Court Well we'll or we'll we'll bring
him back." Well no Now their position is
El Salvador is sovereign We can't order
them to do anything You can't order me
as the president to conduct any type of
foreign policy This is all foreign
policy This is not foreign policy They
only It's only foreign because Donald
Trump decided to to delegate and offload
and store human beings in El Salvador
pursuant to a contract with uh and pay
El Salvador $6 million to fill an empty
jail Now Donald Trump loves that idea so
much that he declared out loud at the
Oval Office that he's considering
sending US citizen criminals to El
Salvador Sure why not there's a little
there's a little something called cruel
and unusual punishment We're supposed to
take care of our prisoners not other
people based on our morals our values
our patriotism We don't abuse We don't
have an inhumane
uh prison
system That's not America That's the
reason you don't want to be in other
countries because you end up in their
criminal justice system such as it is
and end up in these jails Now let's go
back to this filing that just got made
by the Trump administration telling the
judge to go f herself Uh every day
pursuant to a court order and there's
going to be a hearing today on it about
contempt the judge Judge Zenis ordered
pursuant to her empowering the
empowerment of a Supreme Court decision
that said "You are responsible for
administrating justice in that courtroom
You're doing the right thing." the 90
Supreme Court uh said just uh Judge
Zenis you are doing the right thing to
preserve the due process rights the
constitutional fifth amendment rights of
Arbago Garcia We like everything about
your order Continue to monitor and keep
the the uh government's feet to the fire
but there's limits We know this Supreme
Court They're going to back down against
Donald Trump on this foreign affairs and
foreign policy
issues And Trump has created it and
turned it into and morphed it into a
foreign policy issue Sub so sovereign El
Salvador sovereign US We can't tell him
what to do Sure you can You have a
contractor You're paying him $6 million
Use diplomacy to get him back Oh you
can't order me to use
diplomacy And you can see the flip
script in a comment made by Pam Bondi
who is in the packed into this room for
this photo op She's the head of the
Department of Justice Here's her message
to Judge Zenis with the hearing coming
up today Let's play Pam Bondi The
Supreme Court ruled President that if as
El Salvador wants to return him this
this is international matters foreign
affairs If they wanted to return him we
would facilitate it meaning provide a
plane
Now that's right on the heels of this
call and response Good boy give him a
biscuit comment by the petty dictator of
El Salvador
uh Boulli Now just a side note when
Zalinski President Zalinsky of Ukraine
who is a wartime president literally his
country is at war showed up with like a
fatigue shirt Trump all the Trumpers and
JD Vans said "Oh it's so insulting he
didn't wear a shirt and tie." You'll see
this next clip But Kelly shows up
wearing a black t-shirt over a suit
jacket That's how he goes to the Oval
Office And this is the new thing for
Donald Trump and we're going to keep a
close eye on it He uses the Oval Office
as a backdrop you know as part of his
bully pulpit You know the pomp and
circumstance of the Oval Office I've
never seen a president and I've been
covering this for a long time and I've
been a a student of presidential
politics since I was in college I've
never seen a president shove so many
people you know it's like 50 lbs of
potatoes in a 5B sack shoved into the
Oval Office You know Secretary of
State's there JD Vance is there Pam
Bondi's there Steven Miller let's take a
timeout for Steven Miller for a minute
Steven Miller who's the deputy White
House chief of staff and also like a a
lawyer or a spokesperson for the
Homeland Security he is running all of
Donald Trump's domestic policy You don't
like a domestic policy of Donald Trump
You don't like him the immigration
policies You don't know what you don't
like what he's doing with tariffs You
don't That is Steven Miller Steven
Miller is the one that came up with the
idea with Christine Gnome to use the
Alien Enemies Act to send 250 terrorists
that were allegedly at war with at
Venezuela to El Salvador in the first
place
So of course he's in the room misstating
the Supreme Court decision but Pam Bondi
knows better but she doesn't because
this is the position they're taking a
little bit inconsistently in the
courtroom Let's play a clip of a pitch
and catch comment callin response
scripted to within an inch of its life
between Trump and this comment by
President Blly that ends up in a filing
later that night required by Judge
Zennus Let's play the clip of President
Blly How can I smuggle a terrorist into
the United States i I don't have the
power to return him to the United States
But you can release him inside Yeah but
I'm not releasing I mean we're not very
fond of releasing terrorists into our
country Hey look at me Michael Popock
here And yes I'm actually using I
restore amazing elite hair growth device
And now you know one of my many personal
grooming secrets to having greatl
looking hair at 59 It's time to shake
off the winter blues and get ready for a
fresh start This season tackle thinning
hair and hair loss with the I restore
Elite It's a clinically proven solution
designed to help you regrow hair with
282 lasers and LEDs delivering light
therapy directly to your scalp Think of
it as a rejuvenating treatment for your
hair follicles giving you a new look for
the spring season Now that we're
experiencing those in between days you
know when it's still chilly but you're
ready for a change whether it's a rainy
afternoon or a quiet evening indoors the
I Restore Elite is the perfect way to
take care of your hair Lightweight
hands-free and painless It works while
you relax and prepare for the warmer
days ahead No hassle just real results
For a limited time only our listeners
get $625 off their I restore Elite when
you use code legal AF at i restore
laser.com That's 625 off your I restore
Elite at i restore laser.com with promo
code legal AF to get the hair regrowth
device you've been wishing for and start
feeling like yourself again Listen the
Eye Restore Elite device is the best
atome laser device in the world It has
more lasers LEDs and power output than
the competition ensuring you'll see
results wearing it And maybe the best
part about I restore they offer a
12month money back guarantee so you can
try it risk-free If your hair doesn't
make a glorious return you'll get a full
refund No awkward questions just
fabulous hair or your money back Give
yourself the gift of hair confidence
this spring For a limited time only our
listeners get $625 off their I restore
Elite when you use code legal AF at
irrestorelazer.com That's 625 off your I
restore Elite at i restore lasazer.com
with promo code legal AF Please support
our show and tell them that we sent you
Hair loss is frustrating You don't have
to fight it alone thanks to I restore
Now hold that thought Let me read to you
for what's been filed Now every day for
the last three days the Trump
administration has had to file what we
call in court a declaration which is a
sworn statement under oath It's like an
affidavit And every day they picked a
new person You know I don't know whether
they're it's a short straw going on over
there but every day it's somebody new
The first day they picked a guy that had
no factual knowledge whatsoever despite
the fact that he needed to have factual
knowledge He even filed it in the wrong
court or mentioned the wrong court in
the filing Then they picked another
person and now they picked a lawyer for
the Department of Homeland Security
which makes sense because all they're
doing is argument This is just
argumentative declarations Declarations
are supposed to be on facts of fact
witnesses who know something because of
their five senses not an argument not
written by a lawyer for a lawyer in
order to try to expand the record at the
trial court level in order to try to
have another argument at the United
States Supreme Court and relitigate the
Supreme Court ruling Now the judge
entered an order that every day at 5:00
she wants to know where Abrago Garcia is
in El Salvador and what steps have been
taken to get him out and what steps will
be taken Now in their filings they're
not telling her any of the steps They're
basically telling her to go f herself
We're not telling you We're not telling
you And we're not telling you In a
separate filing before I get to this new
filing in a separate filing on Sunday
against the motion for contempt which is
going to be heard today they actually
went as far as to say well we know you
know judge that President Blly is
meeting on Monday with President Trump
It's very sensitive situation and you
should just let us run this and you
can't tell us how to run foreign affairs
anyway See the United States Supreme
Court decision So we thought oh they
like dangling the hope that they're
negotiating a resolution They were dang
they you just saw the clip of B Kelly
saying I'm not going to smuggle a
terrorist back into the United States I
would never do that Well and Trump's
like well what am I supposed to do you
saw and you saw Pam Bondi saying well
we'd send a plane if he got out Yeah
right if he smuggled himself out if
there was a jailbreak like on television
and he got out sudden of this super max
prison in El Salvador and he just
wandered to an airport and then I don't
know uh stowed away in the landing gear
and ended up back in the United States
We'd we'd let him back in Great This is
not Macgyver right this is not a a
hostage movie you know one of these
action movies So here's what they just
filed
This is from Joe Mazaro We'll put his
picture up Look at this guy He's he's
the acting general counsel of the
Department of Homeland Security He said
um now this is supposed to be where Oreo
Garcia is what steps have been taken
what steps will be taken to have him
facilitate his return You listen to this
It won't take long It's only four
paragraphs substantively Um on March 15
2023 Abrago Garcia was removed to El
Salvador Uh yeah we know that That's
paragraph four That's how we got here
Paragraph five Now he's trying to
relitigate the history of the case with
stuff that is not before the judge and
has not been brought into evidence
During bond proceedings in 2019 an
immigration judge upheld the Department
of Homeland Security's decision not to
grant bond finding that its
determination that Abrao Garcia was a
member of
MS-13 a gang was trustworthy and
supported by the evidence and noted that
Abrego Garcia failed to present evidence
to rebut that assertion Let's stop right
there What facts does he have to support
that he says "During a bond proceeding
were you at the bond proceeding did you
participate in the bond proceeding were
you even in the Department of Homeland
Security in 2019 where did you get that
information from who told you what did
you refer to?" Again a deficient
declaration The Board of Immigration
Appeals now he's continuing with the
history of the case the procedural
history upheld the
finding and Obgo Garcia appealed But
okay next paragraph six Abrego Garcia
was ordered removed by an immigration
judge He was also granted withholding of
removal by an immigration judge Now
we're in see Dick Run See Jane Reed This
is caveman writing Brago Garcia is no
longer eligible for withholding Stop
right there A immigration judge in 2019
issued an order which the Trump
administration violated which 13
different judges acknowledged including
all nine judges of the United States
Supreme Court that he was illegally uh
brought to El Salvador against an order
of a federal immigration judge when the
Trump administration knew that there was
an order preventing his removal to El
Salvador That's it That is the driver
that led the Supreme Court to rule in
Abrao Garc Garcia's favor to uphold our
flag and our constitution and our values
Um then they go into the procedures
because their new argument is we're only
going to facilitate on the domestic side
We can't tell the sovereign what to do
You jump you dumped them off with the
sovereign You contracted with the
sovereign Pull the contract Pull the
funding and pull ago Garcia out of the
supermax prison
Um DHS has established process for
taking steps to remove domestic
obstacles but we can't do anything about
somebody in in foreign uh custody
Paragraph 8 I am aware that the
president of El Salvador Naive Blly was
in Washington today on Monday to meet
with President Donald Trump President
Blly and President Trump held a
bilateral summit at the White House Is
that what that was a bilateral summit it
looked like a phony press conference But
you know I digress I understand that in
response to a question President Blly
said and you saw the clip I'm not I hope
you're not suggesting that I smuggle a
terrorist into the United States How can
I do that it's preposterous A video of
the meeting is here at this clip judge
So you saw it A scripted call in
response I'm surprised they didn't give
B Kelly a dog bone He was so obedient
Here you go boy Good boy Good We're
going to use that today in our filing
Great You were right on the mark I'm
sure Stephen Miller wrote it and I'm
sure Pam Bondi couldn't read it and then
Bke Kelly said it and now it showed up
in this filing Judge's not going to be
happy But the real fundamental question
is what is she going to do about it and
what is the US Supreme Court going to do
about it she's got a contempt hearing
Does she find members of the Trump
administration and the lawyers for the
Department of Justice in contempt and
start sending people to jail i'm not
sure there's any other way to get Blly
uh to get Brao Garcia out And then if it
ultimately and when it ultimately gets
to the United States Supreme Court what
are they going to do including the
alt-right wing of the Supreme Court I'll
tell you what they're not likely to do
They're not likely to cause an
international global crisis of their own
making and do some sort of requiring
that Trump violate El Salvador's
sovereignty You you'll watch They're
going to uphold the sovereignty of El
Salvador in a US constitutional
decision and we're going to report on it
and you're going to hold everybody
responsible and vote the bastards out in
at midterms It's the only that's the
only thing we can do at this point as we
watch the Supreme Court try in vain uh
try uh you know kind of in a very
useless fashion to control an out of
control rogue president So until my next
report I'm Michael Popak.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Apr 17, 2025 12:54 am
Judge Makes MAJOR RULING on Trump CRIMINAL CONTEMPT
MeidasTouch
Apr 16, 2025 Legal AF Podcast
In breaking and startling news, the Chief Judge of the DC Court has found the Trump Administration for the first time in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT of Court, and will make a “referral for prosecution” for willfully disobeying his order to ground the planes with prisoners bound for the super max prison in El Salvador. Michael Popok explains that when, not if, the Trump Administration refuses to return the 2 plane loads of prisoners back to the US, the Judge has the power to appoint his own special prosecutor if the DOJ/Pam Bondi refuses to prosecute.
Transcript
we got some breaking and startling news
not only do we have the first ruling by
a judge finding the Trump administration
in criminal contempt in criminal
contempt of court by Chief Judge
Booseberg uh district court judge in DC
about the uh Trump administration
violating his temporary restraining
order by continuing to fly planes over
his injunction to ground those planes to
El Salvador uh under the exercise of the
Alien Enemies Act uh we have the
criminal contempt order and even a
threat by the judge that if the Trump
administration does not immediately
intend to return those prisoners on
those two planes that were sent to El
Salvador and bring them back to the
United States to purge their contempt
that the judge wants to know from the
Trump administration the names of all
the people that violated his order
because he's going to send them uh he's
going to make a a referral for criminal
prosecution
now some might be thinking well there's
a limit there because the criminal
prosecution parts in the executive
branch not so fast i think there's a way
for the judge to appoint his own
prosecutor to go after the Trump
administration if they don't do it
themselves i'm Michael Popach you're on
the Midas Touch Network we're breathless
for a reason on this one there's been a
lot of threats there's been a lot of
people in the mightest mighty in legal a
efforts that have been demanding a
contempt finding by a judge for the
willful defiant o disobey disobedience
of the Trump administration this is now
probably the fourth or fifth version
we're watching it play out where they're
they're not obeying the Obago Garcia the
Obreo Garcia ruling by the United States
Supreme Court but this has to do with
two plane loads of of uh people who were
uh deported and removed to El Salvador
in that same prison but over the
injunction of the federal judge and the
federal judge says and I'm going to read
to you from his orders today he he says
"You might be thinking how can I
continue to exercise jurisdiction since
the United States Supreme Court vacated
my order on a technicality or or found
that it had an error in it?" In other
words the Supreme Court said "Well we we
get your point and they do need due
process but they really need due process
in the form of a habius corpus petition
that should be done before they're
loaded onto the planes in due process
wherever they are in the United States."
the Supreme Court basically letting 250
other people rot in an El Salvador in
prison but saying well going forward in
the future if you're you know as long as
you're still here you get due process
you get it by way of rid of habius
corpus not in a class action with Judge
Boseberg not in the District of Columbia
but in Texas but the judge says yeah
that may be true but until my order was
reversed it was effective and you
violated it and no man no matter how
high or exalted his station can can make
his own judgment about whether he's
going to ab obey a judge's order or not
and say "Well I think it's going to be
overturned one day so I'm not going to
do it." You can't crap over the
Constitution i'm translating it for you
let's get to the order now the judge had
a choice most judges in kind of a
progressive discipline for somebody
that's in contempt will find them in
civil contempt but the facts here are so
bad and egregious against the Trump
administration this judge skipped the
civil contempt went right to criminal
contempt and the threat of putting
people in jail if by next week these
people don't come from back from El
Salvador and you know the Trump
administration is not going to bring
people back from El Salvador because
they're laughing and mocking federal
courts and the Supreme Court right now
over ago Garcia so we know where this
goes and so the judge does too because
if they don't bring people back by next
Wednesday then the judge wants the names
he's taking names and he's kicking butt
who are the people that violated my
order i want the names on my desk by
5:00 next Wednesday and then from there
he's going to make that referral for
prosecution and I'll dive into that as
well speaking of diving let's get into
the judge's order and it really starts
at the very beginning i'm going to read
you a little from the beginning a little
from the middle and a lot from the end
here's what the judge says on the
evening of Saturday March 15 2025 this
court issued a written temporary
restraining order barring the government
from transferring certain individuals
into foreign custody pursuant to the
Alien Enemies Act at the time the order
issued th those individuals were on
planes being flown overseas having been
spirited out of the United States by the
government before they can vindicate
their due process rights by contesting
their removability in federal court
rather than comply with the court's
order the government continued the
hurried removal operation early on
Sunday morning hours after the order
issued it transferred two plane loads of
passengers protected by the TTRO
temporary restraining order into a
Salvador and mega prison the court
ultimately determines that the
government's actions on that day
demonstrate a willful disregard for its
order sufficient for the court to
conclude that probable cause exists to
find the government in criminal contempt
that's extraordinary extraordinary i
don't think any other presidency
administration has ever been found in
criminal contempt of violating a court
order maybe during the civil rights era
the court does not reach such conclusion
lightly or hastily indeed it has given
defendants ample opportunity to rectify
or explain their actions none of their
responses have been satisfactory then
the judge addresses "Well my order was
vacated does that take away my
jurisdiction to find people in contempt
for violating the order before it was
vacated?" He answers the answer he
answers the question
this that court's later
determination the Supreme Court's later
determination the judge says on page two
that the temporary restraining order
suffered from a legal defect does not
excuse the government's violation
instead it is a foundational legal
precept that every judicial order must
be obeyed no matter how erroneous it may
be until a court reverses it if a party
chooses to disobey an order rather than
wait for it to be reversed through the
the judicial process such disobedience
is punishable as contempt not
withstanding any later revealed
deficiencies in the order that rule of
law answers not just how this compliance
inquiry can proceed but why it must the
rule the judge continues reflects a
belief that in the fair administration
of justice no man can be the judge in
his own case no matter how exalted his
station or righteous his motives the
Constitution does not tolerate willful
disobedience of judicial orders
especially by officials of a coordinate
branch co-equal branch who have a sworn
an oath to uphold it otherwise it would
be a solemn mockery of the Constitution
itself citing United States versus uh uh
Peters from the first chief justice
Chief Justice Marshall in 1809 they then
he then goes off on page
14 and says the following defendants
prove provendants provide no convincing
reason to avoid the conclusion that
appears obvious from the above factual
recitation they deliberately flouted
this court's written order and
separately its oral command because he
did it at a hearing as well that
explicitly delineated what compliance
entailed they do they do not dispute
that it was ours after the written order
issued that they disembarked the class
members aboard two flame two planes and
transferred them out of of US custody
rather than offer a Mayulpa the judge
continues on page 15 and attempt to
explain this grave error and detail
plans to rectify it defendants offer
various imaginative arguments for why
they techn technically complied none of
their positions withstand scrutiny so
here's his
order let me unpack it for you here this
is on the last page on page 46 the court
finds probable cause the defendant's
actions constitute contempt we know
that's criminal contempt it has the
opportunity to purge that contempt if
they opt to do so if they opt not to do
so the court will proceed to identify
the
contemplation now here's
what the minute order along with this
says given the finding of probable cause
for contempt the court orders that
defendants if they opt to purge they do
so by April 23rd with a declaration
explaining the steps they have taken and
will take and will take to do so to
bring those people back if defendants
opt not to purge then they need to
identify those people with knowledge of
the court's classwide temporary
restraining order who made the decision
not to halt the transfer of the class
members out of US custody on March 15th
and 16th now what can the judge do after
a referral to the prosecutors because
you know Pam Bondi is not going to uh
continue this case not going to take
this case not going to prosecute people
in the in her own executive branch then
the judge has a choice he does have the
power based on my analysis of case law
to appoint his own special prosecutor if
the government found in contempt will
not follow through with it he can
appoint a special prosecutor from the
state side or from somebody who'll take
the case i can think of a few attorneys
general maybe like Leticia James make
them a deputized special prosecutor to
prosecute those people in contempt and
that's what I encourage the judge to do
this judge has people in high places i
know that Donald Trump's going to run
off to the Supreme Court kavanaaugh was
his roommate in law school justice
Roberts likes him a lot he's considered
to be one of the most esteemed federal
judges on the bench despite what Donald
Trump is saying today about him being a
liberal wacko activist criminal you know
corrupt and all the rest of it he's none
of those things and the Supreme Court
knows it and now they're going to have
to decide whether they're going to back
a federal judge enforcing his powers
having found on the record probable
cause that criminal contempt was was
committed by this administration and
that's going to be for a followup here
on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal
AF i'm Michael Popach follow me on All
Things Legal AF the Legal AF YouTube
channel hit the subscribe button there
here on the Midas Touch Network hit the
subscribe button here and join us for
our podcast Top 10 in the World Legal AF
Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8:00 p.m
eastern time right here on the Midas
Touch Network until my next reporting
I'm Michael Popak
**************************
US judge says he could hold Trump administration in contempt of court
by Caitlin Wilson & Jessica Rawnsley
BBC News
April 16, 2025
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c045qg9xr30o
A US judge has said he could hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for "wilful disregard" of an order to halt the departure of deportation flights carrying more than 200 people to El Salvador last month.
The administration had invoked a 227-year-old law meant to protect the US during wartime to carry out the mass deportation.
"The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory," federal judge James Boasberg wrote.
In a statement, the White House said it would contest the decision.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said: "We plan to seek immediate appellate relief", referring to a process in which parties can request a higher court review and potentially change a decision made by a lower court.
"The President is 100% committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country."
Judge Boasberg's decision to begin contempt proceedings escalates a clash between the White House and the judiciary over the president's powers.
The administration could avoid a contempt finding, or "purge" itself of contempt, if they provide an explanation of their actions and come into compliance with the original order issued last month, Boasberg said on Wednesday.
That filing is due by 23 April, he said.
His ruling comes despite the Supreme Court's later finding that Donald Trump could in fact use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to conduct the deportations to El Salvador.
The Supreme Court's ruling against Boasberg's temporary restraining order "does not excuse the Government's violation", he said.
If the administration does not provide the requested information by the 23 April deadline, Boasberg will then seek to identify the individual people who ignored the order to stop the deportations.
He could then recommend prosecutions for those involved. Federal prosecutions come under the US justice department which ultimately reports to the Trump administration.
The March deportation flights saw more than 200 Venezuelans accused by the White House of being gang members deported to a jail in El Salvador.
During a 15 March hearing, Judge Boasberg imposed a temporary restraining order on the use of the wartime law and a 14-day halt to deportations covered by the proclamation.
After lawyers told him that the planes had already departed, he issued a verbal order for the flights to be turned around to the US.
The White House denied violating the court ruling.
US press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: "The administration did not 'refuse to comply' with a court order.
"The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist TdA [Tren de Aragua] aliens had already been removed from US territory."
After two deportation flights continued to El Salvador despite his order that they be turned around, Judge Boasberg convened a hearing to discuss "possible defiance" of his ruling by the Trump administration.
In response, Trump took to TruthSocial to call Boasberg a "troublemaker and agitator" and call for his impeachment.
El Salvador has agreed to take in the deportees in exchange for $6m (£4.6m).
Earlier this week, Trump met with El Salvdador's President, Nayib Bukele, at the White House, and expressed an interest in sending more deportation flights to El Salvador.
MeidasTouch
Apr 16, 2025 Legal AF Podcast
In breaking and startling news, the Chief Judge of the DC Court has found the Trump Administration for the first time in CRIMINAL CONTEMPT of Court, and will make a “referral for prosecution” for willfully disobeying his order to ground the planes with prisoners bound for the super max prison in El Salvador. Michael Popok explains that when, not if, the Trump Administration refuses to return the 2 plane loads of prisoners back to the US, the Judge has the power to appoint his own special prosecutor if the DOJ/Pam Bondi refuses to prosecute.
Transcript
we got some breaking and startling news
not only do we have the first ruling by
a judge finding the Trump administration
in criminal contempt in criminal
contempt of court by Chief Judge
Booseberg uh district court judge in DC
about the uh Trump administration
violating his temporary restraining
order by continuing to fly planes over
his injunction to ground those planes to
El Salvador uh under the exercise of the
Alien Enemies Act uh we have the
criminal contempt order and even a
threat by the judge that if the Trump
administration does not immediately
intend to return those prisoners on
those two planes that were sent to El
Salvador and bring them back to the
United States to purge their contempt
that the judge wants to know from the
Trump administration the names of all
the people that violated his order
because he's going to send them uh he's
going to make a a referral for criminal
prosecution
now some might be thinking well there's
a limit there because the criminal
prosecution parts in the executive
branch not so fast i think there's a way
for the judge to appoint his own
prosecutor to go after the Trump
administration if they don't do it
themselves i'm Michael Popach you're on
the Midas Touch Network we're breathless
for a reason on this one there's been a
lot of threats there's been a lot of
people in the mightest mighty in legal a
efforts that have been demanding a
contempt finding by a judge for the
willful defiant o disobey disobedience
of the Trump administration this is now
probably the fourth or fifth version
we're watching it play out where they're
they're not obeying the Obago Garcia the
Obreo Garcia ruling by the United States
Supreme Court but this has to do with
two plane loads of of uh people who were
uh deported and removed to El Salvador
in that same prison but over the
injunction of the federal judge and the
federal judge says and I'm going to read
to you from his orders today he he says
"You might be thinking how can I
continue to exercise jurisdiction since
the United States Supreme Court vacated
my order on a technicality or or found
that it had an error in it?" In other
words the Supreme Court said "Well we we
get your point and they do need due
process but they really need due process
in the form of a habius corpus petition
that should be done before they're
loaded onto the planes in due process
wherever they are in the United States."
the Supreme Court basically letting 250
other people rot in an El Salvador in
prison but saying well going forward in
the future if you're you know as long as
you're still here you get due process
you get it by way of rid of habius
corpus not in a class action with Judge
Boseberg not in the District of Columbia
but in Texas but the judge says yeah
that may be true but until my order was
reversed it was effective and you
violated it and no man no matter how
high or exalted his station can can make
his own judgment about whether he's
going to ab obey a judge's order or not
and say "Well I think it's going to be
overturned one day so I'm not going to
do it." You can't crap over the
Constitution i'm translating it for you
let's get to the order now the judge had
a choice most judges in kind of a
progressive discipline for somebody
that's in contempt will find them in
civil contempt but the facts here are so
bad and egregious against the Trump
administration this judge skipped the
civil contempt went right to criminal
contempt and the threat of putting
people in jail if by next week these
people don't come from back from El
Salvador and you know the Trump
administration is not going to bring
people back from El Salvador because
they're laughing and mocking federal
courts and the Supreme Court right now
over ago Garcia so we know where this
goes and so the judge does too because
if they don't bring people back by next
Wednesday then the judge wants the names
he's taking names and he's kicking butt
who are the people that violated my
order i want the names on my desk by
5:00 next Wednesday and then from there
he's going to make that referral for
prosecution and I'll dive into that as
well speaking of diving let's get into
the judge's order and it really starts
at the very beginning i'm going to read
you a little from the beginning a little
from the middle and a lot from the end
here's what the judge says on the
evening of Saturday March 15 2025 this
court issued a written temporary
restraining order barring the government
from transferring certain individuals
into foreign custody pursuant to the
Alien Enemies Act at the time the order
issued th those individuals were on
planes being flown overseas having been
spirited out of the United States by the
government before they can vindicate
their due process rights by contesting
their removability in federal court
rather than comply with the court's
order the government continued the
hurried removal operation early on
Sunday morning hours after the order
issued it transferred two plane loads of
passengers protected by the TTRO
temporary restraining order into a
Salvador and mega prison the court
ultimately determines that the
government's actions on that day
demonstrate a willful disregard for its
order sufficient for the court to
conclude that probable cause exists to
find the government in criminal contempt
that's extraordinary extraordinary i
don't think any other presidency
administration has ever been found in
criminal contempt of violating a court
order maybe during the civil rights era
the court does not reach such conclusion
lightly or hastily indeed it has given
defendants ample opportunity to rectify
or explain their actions none of their
responses have been satisfactory then
the judge addresses "Well my order was
vacated does that take away my
jurisdiction to find people in contempt
for violating the order before it was
vacated?" He answers the answer he
answers the question
this that court's later
determination the Supreme Court's later
determination the judge says on page two
that the temporary restraining order
suffered from a legal defect does not
excuse the government's violation
instead it is a foundational legal
precept that every judicial order must
be obeyed no matter how erroneous it may
be until a court reverses it if a party
chooses to disobey an order rather than
wait for it to be reversed through the
the judicial process such disobedience
is punishable as contempt not
withstanding any later revealed
deficiencies in the order that rule of
law answers not just how this compliance
inquiry can proceed but why it must the
rule the judge continues reflects a
belief that in the fair administration
of justice no man can be the judge in
his own case no matter how exalted his
station or righteous his motives the
Constitution does not tolerate willful
disobedience of judicial orders
especially by officials of a coordinate
branch co-equal branch who have a sworn
an oath to uphold it otherwise it would
be a solemn mockery of the Constitution
itself citing United States versus uh uh
Peters from the first chief justice
Chief Justice Marshall in 1809 they then
he then goes off on page
14 and says the following defendants
prove provendants provide no convincing
reason to avoid the conclusion that
appears obvious from the above factual
recitation they deliberately flouted
this court's written order and
separately its oral command because he
did it at a hearing as well that
explicitly delineated what compliance
entailed they do they do not dispute
that it was ours after the written order
issued that they disembarked the class
members aboard two flame two planes and
transferred them out of of US custody
rather than offer a Mayulpa the judge
continues on page 15 and attempt to
explain this grave error and detail
plans to rectify it defendants offer
various imaginative arguments for why
they techn technically complied none of
their positions withstand scrutiny so
here's his
order let me unpack it for you here this
is on the last page on page 46 the court
finds probable cause the defendant's
actions constitute contempt we know
that's criminal contempt it has the
opportunity to purge that contempt if
they opt to do so if they opt not to do
so the court will proceed to identify
the
contemplation now here's
what the minute order along with this
says given the finding of probable cause
for contempt the court orders that
defendants if they opt to purge they do
so by April 23rd with a declaration
explaining the steps they have taken and
will take and will take to do so to
bring those people back if defendants
opt not to purge then they need to
identify those people with knowledge of
the court's classwide temporary
restraining order who made the decision
not to halt the transfer of the class
members out of US custody on March 15th
and 16th now what can the judge do after
a referral to the prosecutors because
you know Pam Bondi is not going to uh
continue this case not going to take
this case not going to prosecute people
in the in her own executive branch then
the judge has a choice he does have the
power based on my analysis of case law
to appoint his own special prosecutor if
the government found in contempt will
not follow through with it he can
appoint a special prosecutor from the
state side or from somebody who'll take
the case i can think of a few attorneys
general maybe like Leticia James make
them a deputized special prosecutor to
prosecute those people in contempt and
that's what I encourage the judge to do
this judge has people in high places i
know that Donald Trump's going to run
off to the Supreme Court kavanaaugh was
his roommate in law school justice
Roberts likes him a lot he's considered
to be one of the most esteemed federal
judges on the bench despite what Donald
Trump is saying today about him being a
liberal wacko activist criminal you know
corrupt and all the rest of it he's none
of those things and the Supreme Court
knows it and now they're going to have
to decide whether they're going to back
a federal judge enforcing his powers
having found on the record probable
cause that criminal contempt was was
committed by this administration and
that's going to be for a followup here
on the Midas Touch Network and on Legal
AF i'm Michael Popach follow me on All
Things Legal AF the Legal AF YouTube
channel hit the subscribe button there
here on the Midas Touch Network hit the
subscribe button here and join us for
our podcast Top 10 in the World Legal AF
Wednesdays and Saturdays at 8:00 p.m
eastern time right here on the Midas
Touch Network until my next reporting
I'm Michael Popak
**************************
US judge says he could hold Trump administration in contempt of court
by Caitlin Wilson & Jessica Rawnsley
BBC News
April 16, 2025
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c045qg9xr30o
A US judge has said he could hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for "wilful disregard" of an order to halt the departure of deportation flights carrying more than 200 people to El Salvador last month.
The administration had invoked a 227-year-old law meant to protect the US during wartime to carry out the mass deportation.
"The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory," federal judge James Boasberg wrote.
In a statement, the White House said it would contest the decision.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said: "We plan to seek immediate appellate relief", referring to a process in which parties can request a higher court review and potentially change a decision made by a lower court.
"The President is 100% committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country."
Judge Boasberg's decision to begin contempt proceedings escalates a clash between the White House and the judiciary over the president's powers.
The administration could avoid a contempt finding, or "purge" itself of contempt, if they provide an explanation of their actions and come into compliance with the original order issued last month, Boasberg said on Wednesday.
That filing is due by 23 April, he said.
His ruling comes despite the Supreme Court's later finding that Donald Trump could in fact use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to conduct the deportations to El Salvador.
The Supreme Court's ruling against Boasberg's temporary restraining order "does not excuse the Government's violation", he said.
If the administration does not provide the requested information by the 23 April deadline, Boasberg will then seek to identify the individual people who ignored the order to stop the deportations.
He could then recommend prosecutions for those involved. Federal prosecutions come under the US justice department which ultimately reports to the Trump administration.
The March deportation flights saw more than 200 Venezuelans accused by the White House of being gang members deported to a jail in El Salvador.
During a 15 March hearing, Judge Boasberg imposed a temporary restraining order on the use of the wartime law and a 14-day halt to deportations covered by the proclamation.
After lawyers told him that the planes had already departed, he issued a verbal order for the flights to be turned around to the US.
The White House denied violating the court ruling.
US press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: "The administration did not 'refuse to comply' with a court order.
"The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist TdA [Tren de Aragua] aliens had already been removed from US territory."
After two deportation flights continued to El Salvador despite his order that they be turned around, Judge Boasberg convened a hearing to discuss "possible defiance" of his ruling by the Trump administration.
In response, Trump took to TruthSocial to call Boasberg a "troublemaker and agitator" and call for his impeachment.
El Salvador has agreed to take in the deportees in exchange for $6m (£4.6m).
Earlier this week, Trump met with El Salvdador's President, Nayib Bukele, at the White House, and expressed an interest in sending more deportation flights to El Salvador.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Apr 17, 2025 1:31 am
Part 1 of 2
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... g-v-trump/
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 81.0_5.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
J.G.G., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 25-766 (JEB)
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 2025, this Court issued a written Temporary Restraining Order barring the Government from transferring certain individuals into foreign custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the time the Order issued, those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires. Trump v. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025) (per curiam). Rather than comply with the Court’s Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation. Early on Sunday morning — hours after the Order issued — it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into a Salvadoran mega-prison.
As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt. The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.
One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” Id. at 320–21.
The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.). “So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.” Id.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
As just noted, the injunction in question was issued on the evening of Saturday, March 15, a day of events that moved at breakneck speed because of the Government’s apparent effort to remove individuals more quickly than the judicial proceedings in which it was actively participating could keep pace. See generally J.G.G. v. Trump, 2025 WL 890401, at *1, *3–5 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2025).
The day prior, the President had seemingly signed — but not yet made public — a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. See 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (Mar. 14, 2025). Through that 1798 Act, Congress granted the President broad authority if there is a “declared war” with a “foreign nation or government,” or if a foreign government has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an “invasion or predatory incursion . . . against the territory of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. In such a scenario, and if the President “makes public proclamation of the event,” he is authorized to “apprehend[], restrain[], secure[], and remove[]” any “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” who are fourteen years or older. See id. In his Proclamation, President Trump announced that the Government would use the Act’s authorities to apprehend and remove members of Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan transnational gang that had recently been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 13033. To support that finding, the President asserted that the Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro indirectly “relies” on Tren de Aragua and has been “infiltrated” by the gang. Id. He further announced that Tren de Aragua had committed or attempted an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” upon the United States, including through “drug trafficking,” “mass illegal migration,” and “irregular warfare,” though he provided no examples of the last. Id.
Although the Proclamation was not published until 3:53 p.m. on Saturday, see ECF No. 28-1 (Robert L. Cerna Second Decl.), ¶ 5, Defendants had begun setting Act-based removals into motion weeks earlier. Beginning in early March, the Government interrogated Venezuelans in its custody about alleged membership in Tren de Aragua and transferred many of those it deemed gang members to El Valle Detention Facility, located outside Harlingen, Texas, not far from the Mexico border. The reason for staging them together at El Valle became clear on Saturday. Early that morning — when the signed Proclamation was still hours from being disclosed to the public — the Government reportedly loaded scores of Venezuelans onto buses, drove them to a nearby airport, and began putting them onto three planes. See ECF Nos. 44-9 (Karyn Ann Shealy Second Decl.), ¶¶ 3–9; 44-10 (Stephanie Quintero Decl.), ¶¶ 3–4; 44-11 (Grace Carney Third Decl.), ¶¶ 11–13; 44-12 (Melissa Smyth Decl.), ¶¶ 11, 14; see also ECF No. 76 (Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr.) at 9 (Government counsel agreeing Defendants “were acting in preparation of the Proclamation before it was posted”). As the planes sat on the tarmac, officials refused to answer the deportees’ questions about where they would be taken. See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 10; Carney Third Decl., ¶ 12.
Among those queued on the tarmac or placed onto planes that morning were the five Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Apparently catching wind of the impending Proclamation, they filed suit at 1:12 a.m. on Saturday — before the buses left El Valle — and then moved for a TRO preventing their removal under the Proclamation. In addition to asserting that the Proclamation lacks a legal foundation, each Plaintiff adamantly denies that he is even a member of Tren de Aragua. See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 4 (J.G.O.); Carney Third Decl., ¶ 3 (G.F.F.); ECF Nos. 1 (Compl.), ¶¶ 9–10, 12 (J.G.G., J.A.V., W.G.H.); 3-6 (W.G.H. Decl.), ¶ 12; 3-8 (J.A.V. Decl.), ¶ 5.
Around 8:00 a.m., this Court learned that it had drawn the case through the court’s random-assignment system. Chambers then reached out to locate Government counsel. Less than an hour later, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed chambers that at least one Plaintiff was reportedly already aboard a removal flight. Having not yet heard from the Government, and given the “exigent circumstances” prompting the need to freeze in place the status quo until a hearing could be held, the Court entered an ex parte TRO preventing Defendants from removing the five Plaintiffs for 14 days. See Minute Order of Mar. 15, 9:40 a.m. Not long after the TRO issued at 9:40 a.m., Government counsel informed chambers by email that the TRO “ha[d] been disseminated to the relevant executive branch agencies.” Sure enough, several of the named Plaintiffs report that they were abruptly removed from planes, see Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 11; Carney Decl., ¶ 13; Smyth Decl., ¶ 14 — evidence that Defendants were able, if they wished, to ensure that people on the ground knew relatively quickly of developments in the Court proceedings. See also ECF No. 20 (Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr.) at 5 (Government stating on Saturday evening that relevant agencies had “confirmed” named Plaintiffs were not to be removed).
At 10:15 a.m., in an email thread including chambers and counsel for both sides, Plaintiffs asked the Court to hold an emergency hearing on their pending request to provisionally certify a class — comprising them and those similarly situated — and issue a second TRO covering the whole class. The Government objected that a “broader injunction” and a “hearing” on the issue would be “premature,” and it asked the Court to wait until Monday for a hearing. The Government notably did not respond to Plaintiffs’ pointed question about whether it was “prepare[d] to halt removals pursuant to the Act” in the interim. So, just after 11:00 a.m., the Court set an emergency hearing for 5:00 p.m. that same afternoon.
Shortly after the Proclamation appeared on the White House website at 3:53 p.m., and about 45 minutes before the hearing began, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed chambers that he believed that two flights, both operated by a contractor used by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for deportations, were scheduled to depart Harlingen that afternoon. Counsel expressed concern that the flights might imminently take off with his five clients and members of the potential class on board. The Government again offered no response.
In the 5:00 p.m. hearing, the Court clarified the limited scope of the TRO then in place, see Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 3, and turned to whether it should provisionally certify the class. Id. at 5–6. The Government began by objecting that venue was improper because Plaintiffs’ claims could be raised only through a petition for habeas corpus in the federal district in Texas where they were being held, not in the District of Columbia. Id. at 6–11.
Noting that it would benefit from further argument on the issue, the Court pivoted to addressing Plaintiffs’ concerns “about imminent deportation.” Id. at 11. It asked the Government point blank whether there were any “removals under this Proclamation planned . . . in the next 24 or 48 hours.” Id. Government counsel said that he did not know, but that he could “investigate” and “report . . . back.” Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel then interjected that various “sources” had informed him that the two removal flights that were scheduled to depart that afternoon “may have already taken off,” including “during this hearing.” Id. at 12. So, at 5:22 p.m., the Court adjourned the hearing until 6:00 p.m. and directed Government counsel to find out whether the Government was in the process of removing people under the Proclamation. Id. at 13–15.
It was. Although the Government has refused to provide the particular details, all evidence suggests that during the short window that the Court was adjourned, two removal flights took off from Harlingen — one around 5:25 p.m. and the other at about 5:45 p.m. See ECF No. 21 (Resp. to Mar. 16 Notice) at 3–4 (relying on flight-tracking data for GlobalX Flights 6143, 6145, and 6122); see also Marianne LeVine et al., White House Official Says 137 Immigrants Deported Under Alien Enemies Act, Wash. Post (Mar. 16, 2025), https://perma.cc/U3NY-V3AS (comparing flight-tracking data with planes visible in three-minute video posted online by President of El Salvador and reposted by President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio); Joyce Sohyun Lee & Kevin Schaul, Deportation Flights Landed After Judge Said Planes Should Turn Around, Wash. Post (Mar. 16, 2025), https://perma.cc/QT6J-3SEQ (same); Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele), X (Mar. 16, 2025, 8:13 a.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/XLE4-DDRW.
Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 15–18; see also ECF No. 51 (Mar. 21 Hrg. Tr.) at 7 (Defendants’ counsel later affirming that at that time he had no “information from the Government as to the status” of the flights). When pressed, Government counsel stated that the “operational details” he had learned during the recess “raised potential national security issues,” so they could not be sharedwhile the public and press listened to the hearing through a call-in line. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 15. He suggested, however, that the Government could “provide [the Court] additional details in an in camera” setting. Id. So the Court arranged to do just that. It disconnected the public line so that only counsel for the parties were present and asked Government counsel to report. Id. at 15–16. Except that he did not: he clarified only that the “additional details” he had just mentioned could eventually be provided in camera, but he had no information to share at that time. Id. at 16.
With the growing realization, then, that the Government might be rapidly dispatching removal flights in an apparent effort to evade judicial review while also refusing to provide any helpful information, the Court turned to the pending legal issues. Id. at 18. After hearing argument, it first determined that venue was proper, id. at 18–22, and it next provisionally certified a class of Plaintiffs covering all noncitizens in custody subject to removal solely under the Proclamation. Id. at 23–26; see also id. at 38.
The Court then addressed the sole remaining question: whether it should issue a broader TRO covering the entire class. It concluded that this was appropriate because Plaintiffs had satisfied the factors governing emergency relief and because the distinct possibility — “unrebutted by the Government” — that flights were “actively departing” or planning to depart required an immediate order preserving the status quo. Id. at 41–43. The Court therefore ordered that for 14 days the Government was enjoined from conducting the “removal” of any noncitizens in its custody solely on the basis of the Proclamation. Id. at 42. Then, at about 6:45 p.m., the Court delivered an oral command clarifying what compliance with the TRO meant. It directed Government counsel to “inform your clients of [the Order] immediately” and to notify them that if class members were on a plane “that is going to take off or is in the air, . . . those people need to be returned to the United States. However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not [dis]embarking anyone on the plane . . . , I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.” Id. at 43. The hearing adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Id. at 47. Roughly 30 minutes later, the Court memorialized the TRO in a written Order. See Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m. That Order referenced the just-concluded hearing and reiterated that the Government was enjoined from “removing” class members. Id.
Despite the Court’s written Order and the oral command spelling out what was required for compliance, the Government did not stop the ongoing removal process. According to Defendants, the two planes that took off during the adjournment departed U.S. airspace before the Court’s 6:45 p.m. oral command, see ECF No. 49-1 (Robert L. Cerna Third Decl.), ¶ 5, and “landed abroad” sometime after the Court posted the Minute Order at 7:25 p.m. See ECF No. 56 (State Secrets Notice) at 7–8. A third flight reportedly took off from Harlingen at 7:36 p.m., see Lee & Schaul, supra, but the Government maintains that all aboard were removed under authorities other than the Proclamation. See Cerna Second Decl., ¶ 6. he first two planes — those carrying members of the Plaintiff class covered by the TRO — apparently touched down in Honduras at 7:37 p.m. and 8:10 p.m., and remained there for several hours before taking off again for El Salvador. See Lee & Schaul, supra; LeVine et al., supra. After the planes landed in El Salvador shortly after midnight on Sunday, see Lee & Schaul, supra, most of the passengers were apparently transferred into one of that country’s prisons, known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).
But not all passengers, it seems. One Venezuelan woman swears in a declaration that she was on one of the flights that landed in El Salvador but was flown back to the United States along with seven other women, apparently because Salvadoran authorities on the ground refused to accept any female prisoners. See ECF No. 55-1 (S.Z.F.R. Decl.), ¶¶ 1, 19–21; see also Didi Martinez, Julia Ainsley & Laura Strickler, “We Were Lied To:” Two Women the Trump Administration Tried to Send to El Salvador Prison Speak Out, NBC News (Apr. 2, 2024), https://perma.cc/F5Y6-XCG8. Her account is corroborated by a declaration from a Nicaraguan man, who avows that he was also on board one of the removal flights but was returned alongside the women because Salvadoran officials would not take custody of Central American nationals such as himself. See ECF No. 55-2 (Katiana Gonzalez Decl.), ¶¶ 1, 7–9.
By mid-Sunday morning, the picture of what had happened the previous night came into clearer focus. It appeared that the Government had transferred members of the Plaintiff class into El Salvador’s custody hours after this Court’s injunction prohibited their deportation under the Proclamation. Worse, boasts by Defendants intimated that they had defied the Court’s Order deliberately and gleefully. The Secretary of State, for instance, retweeted a post in which, above a news headline noting this Court’s Order to return the flights to the United States, the President of El Salvador wrote: “Oopsie . . . Too late [emoji].” Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele), X (Mar. 16, 2025, 7:46 a.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/Y384-4TDW, https://perma.cc/6VTW-5KRD (ellipses in original).
B. Procedural Background
A filing submitted by Defendants on Sunday afternoon failed to dispel any concerns that they had flouted the Court’s injunction. See ECF No. 19 (Mar. 16 Notice); see also Resp. to Mar. 16 Notice at 1–6. So the Court set a hearing for Monday, March 17, to determine what had transpired over the weekend. See Minute Order of Mar. 17, 3:09 p.m. (denying ECF No. 24 (Mot. to Vacate Mar. 17 Hrg.)). The Court expected that at the hearing, Defendants might explain that, despite appearances otherwise, none of the people on the first two flights was a member of the Plaintiff class. Or, at worst, Defendants would admit to a grave mistake, explain how it transpired, and detail plans to rectify it.
The United States Government took neither tack. Rather, what followed in the ensuing days was increasing obstructionism on the part of the Government as it refused to answer basic questions about what had happened, questions that were all ultimately in service of resolving one key fact: whether members of the Plaintiff class — that is, noncitizens removable solely on the basis of the Proclamation — were transferred out of U.S. custody after this Court’s injunction preventing their deportation.
Such stonewalling started before the Monday hearing. Just before it was set to begin, Defendants sought to cancel it as an unnecessary “incursion[] on Executive Branch authority.” Mot. to Vacate Mar. 17 Hrg. at 1. Nowhere in their filing did they dispute that class members were transferred into Salvadoran custody hours after the injunction issued. Instead, Defendants set forth several hyper-technical legal arguments for why, in spite of that fact, they had complied with the Court’s Order. Id. at 2–5. Such arguments were unconvincing then and remain so now.
Then, in the hearing itself, the Government refused to provide any relevant facts. The lawyer the Government sent to the proceeding — conveniently not the counsel who had appeared at the TRO hearing — repeatedly stated in some form or another that he was not “at liberty to disclose anything about any flights.” ECF No. 25 (Mar. 17 Hrg. Tr.) at 7. Although he would not say that such information was even classified, see id. at 9–10, he claimed that it could not be shared — even ex parte with the Court — because of “diplomatic concerns” and “national security concerns with flight patterns and things of that sort.” Id. at 6, 8; see id. at 30. That is, the Government maintained that it could not share any details about the flights even privately with the Court despite the fact that, the previous day, Defendants had retweeted a three-minute video that portrayed a host of operational details. See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Mar. 16, 2025, 3:54 p.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/WJ8H-F8HW; Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio), X (Mar. 16, 2025, 8:39 a.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/ZD8J-KAGH. In high definition, the video displayed the planes and the runway where they parked; how migrants were restrained and transported; the faces and uniforms of many detainees, guards, and other officials; where the vehicles apparently entered CECOT; and the inside of the prison. Id.
So, on Monday evening, the Court ordered the Government to submit another filing the next day. Seeking to accommodate Defendants’ national-security concerns — vague as they were — yet nonetheless needing answers on how members of the Plaintiff class had been transferred into a foreign prison hours after the injunction issued, the Court directed the Government to explain its “position on whether, and in what form, it will provide answers to the Court’s questions regarding the particulars of the flights.” Minute Order of Mar. 17, 6:47 p.m. The Court again offered that such information could be provided in camera, including in a classified setting. Id.
In their March 18 response, Defendants reiterated their various arguments for why they should not have to share information related to flights, but conceded that if ordered to do so, they would submit “an in camera and ex parte declaration.” ECF No. 28 (Mar. 18 Notice) at 1–2. The Court ordered Defendants to do just that by noon the next day, and it set out five basic questions that the declaration needed to answer: when the two flights in question took off and from where; when they left U.S. airspace; when they landed in a foreign country (or countries); what time people subject solely to the Proclamation (and not other authorities, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act) were transferred out of U.S. custody; and how many people were on the flights solely on the basis of the Proclamation. See Minute Order of Mar. 18, 2:27 p.m.
Defendants then reversed course entirely. On Wednesday morning, the 19th, a few hours before their deadline, they moved this Court to stay its Tuesday Order on various grounds. See ECF No. 37 (Emergency Mot. to Stay Mar. 18 Minute Order). Most relevant, they asserted for the first time that they were considering invoking the state-secrets privilege over the flight details and needed more time to make that determination. See id. at 3–4. The Court was “unsure” how answering its five questions could “jeopardize state secrets” — Defendants, after all, had publicly shared images of the flights making them trackable and had still not claimed that the questions bore on any classified information, see ECF No. 38 (Mar. 19 Order) at 2 — but nonetheless sought to accommodate their last-minute request. It gave them yet another day either to answer the five questions or to invoke the state-secrets doctrine. Id. at 4.
On Thursday, the 20th, the Government “again evaded its obligations.” ECF No. 47 (Mar. 20 Order) at 1. Rather than invoke the privilege or answer the questions, it submitted a short declaration from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer stationed in Harlingen. See Cerna Third Decl. It was his “understand[ing],” he said, that Cabinet Secretaries were then considering whether to invoke the privilege. Id. at 2. In response to this wholly inadequate response from a low-level official without any actual knowledge, the Court required Defendants to submit a declaration from someone directly involved with the Cabinet-level discussions and gave Defendants five days to indicate whether they were invoking the state-secrets privilege. See Mar. 20 Order at 3. The Government has since invoked it. See State Secrets Notice. The Court also directed the parties to brief whether Defendants had violated the Court’s TROs. See Mar. 20 Order at 3. That briefing is complete, and the Court held a hearing on the matter in early April.
In parallel to the investigation of Defendants’ compliance have been further proceedings on the TROs’ merits. After briefing and a hearing, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to vacate the TROs; it held that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on one of their core claims — i.e., those subject to removal under the Proclamation had a due-process right to challenge the Government’s determination that they were removable — and that they would face irreparable harm if the TROs were dissolved, a harm that also tipped the balance of equities in their favor. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 890401, at *11–14, 16–17. The Court of Appeals then rejected Defendants’ request to stay the Orders, raising concerns with both the applicability of the Act and the lack of due-process. See J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682, at *8–10 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (Henderson, J., concurring); id. at *13–14 (Millett, J., concurring).
The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the TROs on a narrow ground. It held that challenges to removal under the Act must be brought through a habeas-corpus proceeding — not, as Plaintiffs did, through the Administrative Procedure Act — and therefore venue lay in the district of the class members’ confinement, not the District of Columbia. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1. While the Court split on the venue question, it unanimously held — as this Court did when declining to dissolve the TROs — that those subject to removal under the Act must be allowed to challenge their removability in federal court before being deported. See id. at *2; id. at *2 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring); id. at *2, 6 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Specifically, all Justices agreed that the Due Process Clause requires the Government to provide anyone it seeks to remove notice “that they are subject to removal under the Act,” and to do so “within [a] reasonable time and in such manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief” before being removed. Id. at *2 (per curiam); id. at *6 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). In holding as much, the Court effectively said that the Constitution flatly prohibits the Government from doing exactly what it did that Saturday, when it secretly loaded people onto planes, kept many of them in the dark about their destination, and raced to spirit them away before they could invoke their due-process rights.
As this Opinion will shortly explain at greater length, the fact that the Supreme Court determined that this Court’s TROs suffered from a venue defect does not affect — let alone moot — the compliance inquiry presently teed up here.
II. Analysis
Defendants provide no convincing reason to avoid the conclusion that appears obvious from the above factual recitation: that they deliberately flouted this Court’s written Order and, separately, its oral command that explicitly delineated what compliance entailed. They do not dispute that it was hours after the written Order issued when they disembarked the class members aboard the two planes and transferred them out of U.S. custody. See State Secrets Notice at 7–8; ECF No. 58 (Resp.) at 4. Rather than offer a mea culpa and attempt to explain this grave error and detail plans to rectify it, Defendants offer various imaginative arguments for why they nevertheless technically complied with the Order. None of their positions withstands scrutiny.
Defendants’ core contention — that in prohibiting class members’ removal, the written Order barred only their physical exit from the United States, not their subsequent transfer into Salvadoran custody — requires ignoring the clear context in which the Order was issued. Their other arguments amount only to retroactive attacks on the legal validity of the injunction, but that road leads nowhere: even a legally defective order must be complied with until reversed through the appeals process. Defendants’ conduct, moreover, manifests a willful disregard of the Court’s legally binding proscriptions. Given the evidence at this early stage in the inquiry, and offered no persuasive reason to conclude otherwise, the Court finds that there is probable cause that Defendants acted contemptuously.
The following analysis first sets out the parameters of criminal contempt and then explains why court orders, regardless of their ultimate validity, must be complied with. The Court last analyzes why Defendants’ willful and knowing actions here constitute probable cause for a finding of contempt.
A. Contempt
1. Legal Standard
When Congress established lower federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789, it conferred on them the power “to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same.” 1 Stat. 83; see Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 202 (1968). In doing so, Congress “gave federal courts the discretionary power to punish for contempt as that power was known to the common law.” United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 687 (1964); see id. at 699–700 (“The power to fine and imprison for contempt, from the earliest history of jurisprudence, has been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of a court, without which it could no more exist than without a judge.”) (quotation marks omitted); United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 694–95 (1993). Although Congress eventually pared back federal courts’ statutory contempt power, it preserved their authority to punish, among other transgressions, “‘disobedience or resistance’ to court orders.” Dixon, 509 U.S. at 694 (quoting 4. Stat. 488); see Bloom, 391 U.S. at 202–04.
That statutory authority is now codified in 18 U.S.C. § 401, which provides that any “court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, . . . [d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” For a contemnor to be convicted of criminal contempt under § 401(3), it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the court order was “clear and reasonably specific”; (2) “that the defendant violated the order”; and (3) “that the violation was willful.” United States v. Young, 107 F.3d 903, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. NYNEX Corp., 8 F.3d 52, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
The Court here inquires only into whether there is probable cause that Defendants violated § 401. Such an inquiry does not appear to be strictly necessary. The statute does not include a probable-cause requirement, and as the Department of Justice has explained in an internal manual, “It is unclear whether probable cause that a willful violation has occurred is a condition precedent to the commencement of a criminal contempt action.” U.S. Dep’t of Just., Criminal Resource Manual § 763, https://perma.cc/Z5DV-RUNU. In practice, “the vast majority of criminal contempt decisions make no mention of such a requirement.” Id. Some courts, however, have opted to make or require findings of probable cause before initiating criminal-contempt proceedings. See, e.g., In re Res. Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 5411771, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2008); Beyond Blond Prods., LLC v. Heldman, 2025 WL 902445, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025); In re Sydor, 132 B.R. 243, 245–46 (E.D.N.Y. Bankr. 1991); Reed v. Rhodes, 500 F. Supp. 363, 376, 404 (N.D. Ohio 1980); United States v. Hovind, 2014 WL 12887669, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 8, 2014); In re United Corp., 166 F. Supp. 343, 345 (D. Del. 1958). The Court finds that practice to be a prudent way of affording alleged contemnors the procedural protections associated with other criminal proceedings and so follows it here.
2. Effect of Supreme Court Vacatur
But hold on, Defendants protest. If the Supreme Court has since vacated the TROs, how can contempt lie? See ECF No. 78 (Notice Regarding Supreme Court Decision) at 1. The Supreme Court long ago answered that question: it is firmly settled that a court order “must be obeyed” until it is “reversed for error” by the issuing court or a “higher” one. Walker, 388 U.S. at 314 (quoting Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189–90 (1922)). That, in turn, means that a party “may be punished for criminal contempt for disobedience of an order later set aside on appeal” for being defective. United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 294–95 (1947). If a party believes that a court order suffers from legal deficiencies, it therefore “must have the injunction modified or vacated; [it] cannot simply ignore it.” Evans v. Williams, 206 F.3d 1292, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The so-called collateral-bar rule enforces that principle. It provides that if a party is charged with contempt for disobeying a court order, it cannot raise the legal invalidity of the order as a defense. See id. (citing Walker, 388 U.S. 307). Defendants were thus obligated to comply with this Court’s TRO until vacated by this Court or a higher one; if they failed to comply, the fact that the TRO was legally unsound is no obstacle to a contempt conviction.
There are only two narrow exceptions to this rule, neither of which applies here. First, an enjoined party can violate an order and then challenge its validity in a contempt proceeding if — and only if — “there was no opportunity for effective review of the order before it was violated.” 11A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2960 (3d ed. Apr. 2025 update). Defendants do not seek cover behind this exception. For good reason. Just as they had sought emergency appellate relief for the first TRO mere hours after it issued, see ECF No. 12 (First Notice of Appeal), they notified this Court while the planes were en route to El Salvador that they intended to do the same for the TRO in question, see ECF No. 17 (Second Notice of Appeal) (filed 8:37 p.m.), docketing their appeal only minutes after the planes landed in that country. See Corrected Emergency Mot. for a Stay Pending Appeal, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2025) (filed 1:07 a.m. Sunday). Defendants also could have sought relief from this Court, including, for example, requesting a stay of the TRO pending appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A); J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *22–23 (Millett, J., concurring) (noting failure to do so). Defendants, moreover, nowhere identify a reason that the transfer had to occur early Sunday morning. If they considered waiting for appellate relief impracticable or unattractive given the speed at which events transpired, that circumstance was entirely of their own making, not the result of any bona-fide obstacle to effective review. Indeed, the appellate process worked at a breakneck pace. Cf. Walker, 388 U.S. at 318–19 (case is “different” if party faces “delay or frustration of their . . . claims” in appellate courts).
Second, a party need not obey an injunction that is “transparently invalid or had only a frivolous pretense to validity.” Id. at 315. That is an exceedingly high bar. This narrow carveout does not apply if the order was “arguably proper” or “had any pretence to validity at the time it was issued.” Matter of Providence J. Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1347 (1st Cir. 1986). The exception therefore applies “[o]nly in the rarest of situations.” Zapon v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 53 F.3d 283, 285 (9th Cir. 1995). This is not one. The Supreme Court has admittedly held that Plaintiffs’ claims should have been brought in habeas, see J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1, but this Court’s view of the issue at the time of the Orders was not patently frivolous. Rather, the question was “substantial,” United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 293, dividing both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *23–31 (Millett, J., concurring); id. at *34–37 (Walker, J., dissenting); J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1; id. at *7–10 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
To be sure, some courts outside this Circuit have suggested that when a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute, an enjoined party may raise that fact as a defense to contempt. See, e.g., In re Novak, 932 F.2d 1397, 1401–02 (11th Cir. 1991); In re Estab. Inspection of Hern Iron Works, Inc., 881 F.2d 722, 726–27, 726 n.12 (9th Cir. 1989) (but noting pervasive uncertainty on the issue). Those statements, however, do not control here, not least because they are incompatible with the Supreme Court’s subsequent opinion in Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992). See United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003, 1006, 1010 (11th Cir. 2007) (upholding 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) contempt charge even though court lacked jurisdiction “over the underlying controversy,” and noting Willy “resolve[d] this issue”).
In Willy, a district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions — which function like criminal contempt, as they are “designed to punish a party who has already violated the court’s rules,” 503 U.S. at 139 — even though it was later shown that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction when the sanctionable conduct occurred; indeed, it issued the final sanctions order after its lack of jurisdiction had been determined by the court of appeals. Id. at 133–34. The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the sanctions order. Id. at 135–39. “A final determination of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the Court explained, “precludes further adjudication of” the case’s merits, but a sanctions order is “collateral to the merits,” so a court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction poses no constitutional bar. Id. at 137–38; see also id. at 137 (explaining that United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, “upheld a criminal contempt citation even on the assumption that the District Court issuing the citation was without jurisdiction over the underlying action”). Following Willy, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that “subject-matter jurisdiction over an underlying action is not a precondition of a federal court’s authority to sanction those who violate its orders.” In re LeFande, 919 F.3d 554, 561 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (citing Willy, 503 U.S. at 137). Notwithstanding whether a court is later determined to have lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of the violation, then, a party can be held in contempt for disobedience, and the same court can impose the sanctions even after its lack of jurisdiction has been revealed.
In any event, this Court possessed such jurisdiction. Recall, the Supreme Court held in its per curiam opinion that claims challenging removal under the Alien Enemies Act “must be brought in habeas.” J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1. That conclusion rested on a line of cases holding that habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for state prisoners challenging their sentences, even though such claims “may come within the literal terms of” another statute. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489–90 (1973). In such circumstances, the Court has previously explained, the availability of habeas relief means a separate “cause of action . . . does not accrue.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. By analogy, the same occurred here. In holding that habeas is the exclusive remedy for Plaintiffs, the Supreme Court denied that they possessed a valid cause of action under the APA when this Court granted the classwide TRO; it did not hold that this Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. In fact, Justice Kavanaugh noted in his concurrence that the availability of habeas relief constitutes an “adequate remedy” barring suit under the APA. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704); see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *34 (Walker, J., dissenting) (making same point). The adequate-remedy bar, however, is not a jurisdictional one: on the contrary, the D.C. Circuit has explained that § 704 “determine[s] whether there is a cause of action under the APA, not whether there is federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin, 864 F.3d 591, 621 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Under either habeas or APA precedents, then, both paths lead to the same destination: the relevant defect in this Court’s classwide TRO was not jurisdictional.
At worst, as the Supreme Court held here, “venue [was] improper in the District of Columbia.” J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1 (emphasis added). Indeed, regardless of how the issue is framed, the Court has been clear that any reference to habeas “jurisdiction” does not refer to a court’s “subject-matter jurisdiction.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 n.7 (2004). Rather, the “territorial-jurisdiction rule[]” is a question of proper “venue.” Id. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 812–13 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (similar). And it is black-letter law that while subject-matter jurisdiction goes to whether any federal court may even hear the dispute, venue determines which jurisdiction-possessing court is the most convenient. See 14D Wright & Miller, supra, § 3801 (4th ed. Apr. 2025 update); Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 167–68 (1939) (same). Just like the availability of a cause of action under the APA, that question has been determined by statute — the federal habeas statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2242.
The upshot is that, after the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, it has been preliminarily determined that Congress channeled a challenge to removal under the Alien Enemies Act to a habeas petition filed in a detainee’s district of confinement. This Court’s decision to recognize a cause of action under the APA in the District of Columbia, while ultimately found erroneous by the Supreme Court, therefore is not a defect that would excuse compliance under any of the recognized exceptions.
The “firmly established” “rule of law” that even a legally unsound order must be obeyed at the risk of contempt therefore focuses the present inquiry. Walker, 388 U.S. at 319. The question presented here is whether there is probable cause that Defendants deliberately or recklessly disregarded a clear and reasonably specific order. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907, 910. The question is not — as many of Defendants’ evasive legal arguments imply — whether that Order was legally impeccable.
3. Sufficiently Clear, Reasonably Specific, and Unequivocal Order
The first element of contempt requires that the injunction be “clear,” “reasonably specific,” Young, 107 F.3d at 907 (quotation marks omitted), and “unequivocal at the time it is issued.” In re Holloway, 995 F.2d 1080, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting Traub v. United States, 232 F.2d 43, 47 (D.C. Cir. 1955)). To “determin[e] whether an order is sufficiently clear and specific,” courts “apply an objective standard that takes into account” not just “the language of the order” but also “the objective circumstances surrounding the issuance of the order.” Young, 107 F.3d at 907. Thus, “[w]hether an order is clear enough depends on the context in which it [was] issued,” which includes “the audience to which it [was] addressed,” id. at 907–08 (quoting In re Levine, 27 F.3d 594, 596 (D.C. Cir. 1994)), as well as “the relief sought by the moving party, the evidence produced at the hearing on the injunction, and the mischief that the injunction seeks to prevent.” Common Cause v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 674 F.2d 921, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (quotation marks omitted).
The question here, then, is whether it was sufficiently clear to the Government that the Court was prohibiting it from transferring class members into another country’s custody — something Defendants admit to doing hours after the written Order issued. See State Secrets Notice at 7–8. The Government, however, now contends that the Court’s Order should be understood to have enjoined it only from transporting class members outside of U.S. territory, not from relinquishing custody of them once they were already outside the United States. That narrower Order, it argues, was one with which it fully complied. That interpretation is deliberately blind to the Court’s unequivocal language and the context surrounding its Order.
At 7:25 p.m. on Saturday evening, roughly 30 minutes after the hearing adjourned, see Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 47, the Court issued its written Order. See Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m. Expressly referencing the hearing, the Order certified a Plaintiff class consisting of all noncitizens in U.S. custody who were subject to the Proclamation, and, relevant here, memorialized the TRO using the same language as in the hearing. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 42, 46–47. Specifically, this part of the Order stated:
Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m.
As already explained, the Government does not dispute that after this written TRO issued, it temporarily landed two planeloads of class members in Honduras, flew them to El Salvador, deplaned them there, and then — critically — transferred them from U.S. to Salvadoran custody. See State Secrets Notice at 7–8. Indeed, the Government does not challenge that this transfer of custody happened some five hours, at least, after the written Order was docketed. See LeVine et al., supra (planes landed in El Salvador at 12:10 and 12:18 a.m.).
Defendants offer a novel interpretation of the Order that, if adopted, would mean that they were not in violation. The linchpin of their argument is that in forbidding them from “removing” class members, see Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m., the TRO prohibited only flying class members outside of the United States, not the further act of relinquishing custody of them into the hands of a foreign government. See Resp. at 2–4. And, they continue, because both planes had already departed U.S. airspace before the written Order posted (and before the oral command preceding it), everyone on board had already been removed before the Order issued. See id. While perhaps clever, this argument does not carry the day.
Defendants agree that an injunction must be understood in the context in which it is issued. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907–08; Resp. at 2. But they would have the Court search for context in all the wrong places. After observing that the written TRO did not define “remove,” Resp. at 3, they seek to show that the term has a clear meaning under the Act, with the implication that the Court incorporated that definition into its Order. They do not make their case.
Across a couple paragraphs, Defendants halfheartedly seek to root their narrow reading of “removal” in the Act. They cite several dictionary definitions from around the time that Congress passed the Alien Enemies Act in 1798, but these are far from conclusive. See Resp. at 3. They also suggest that their territorial understanding makes sense because the Act speaks of “the territory of the United States.” Id. (quoting 50 U.S.C. § 21). This, too, is hardly definitive: just because an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” must be “against the territory of the United States” to trigger the Act’s authorities does not resolve whether the process of removal comprises a physical departure or a transfer of custody. Defendants therefore fall well short of showing that “removal” carries a definitive meaning under the Act.
As a fallback of sorts, Defendants gesture toward the adjacent INA context, but that undercuts their position. They cite a lone case in which the Ninth Circuit held that an INA removal order is executed when the person physically exits the United States. Nicusor-Remus v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 895, 898, 899 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). That court, however, recognized that departure can convey a “physical departure” (territorial exit) or, conversely, a “legal departure” (implicating questions of one’s legal admission to and status in the country of destination), and it found that the former controlled only because the INA’s own statutory definition made that conclusion unavoidable. Id. at 899–900 (noting statute defined “deported or removed” as having “left the United States”) (quotation marks omitted). Here, by contrast, as Defendants concede, see Resp. at 3, we have no statutory definition that might be dispositive.
Insofar as INA cases are relevant, moreover, they demonstrate that, at the time the TRO issued, the Government understood removal to mean the exact opposite of what they now claim. But don’t take the Court’s word for it. Just listen to the argument the Government made a mere five days before the events in question here. In a different case in this district — with some of the same Defendants, and in a filing signed by some of the same lawyers signing Defendants’ show-cause response — the Government argued that “removal” under the INA is a “term of art,” and that “[t]o effectuate a departure or removal, the alien must lawfully enter another country,” as “the fact that [he] is physically on foreign soil is not alone sufficient to establish that he has legally departed the United States.” Escalona v. Noem, No. 25-604, ECF No. 14 (Opp. to Mot. for Stay of Transfer) at 29–30 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2025) (citations omitted); see id. at 40 (lawyers).
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... g-v-trump/
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 81.0_5.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
J.G.G., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Action No. 25-766 (JEB)
DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On the evening of Saturday, March 15, 2025, this Court issued a written Temporary Restraining Order barring the Government from transferring certain individuals into foreign custody pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act. At the time the Order issued, those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires. Trump v. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025) (per curiam). Rather than comply with the Court’s Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation. Early on Sunday morning — hours after the Order issued — it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into a Salvadoran mega-prison.
As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt. The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.
One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. Walker v. City of Birmingham, 388 U.S. 307, 314 (1967). If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order. See id. at 314, 320. That foundational “rule of law” answers not just how this compliance inquiry can proceed, but why it must. See id. at 320. The rule “reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.” Id. at 320–21.
The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely “annul the judgments of the courts of the United States” would not just “destroy the rights acquired under those judgments”; it would make “a solemn mockery” of “the constitution itself.” United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115, 136 (1809) (Marshall, C.J.). “So fatal a result must be deprecated by all.” Id.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
As just noted, the injunction in question was issued on the evening of Saturday, March 15, a day of events that moved at breakneck speed because of the Government’s apparent effort to remove individuals more quickly than the judicial proceedings in which it was actively participating could keep pace. See generally J.G.G. v. Trump, 2025 WL 890401, at *1, *3–5 (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2025).
The day prior, the President had seemingly signed — but not yet made public — a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. See 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (Mar. 14, 2025). Through that 1798 Act, Congress granted the President broad authority if there is a “declared war” with a “foreign nation or government,” or if a foreign government has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an “invasion or predatory incursion . . . against the territory of the United States.” 50 U.S.C. § 21. In such a scenario, and if the President “makes public proclamation of the event,” he is authorized to “apprehend[], restrain[], secure[], and remove[]” any “natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government” who are fourteen years or older. See id. In his Proclamation, President Trump announced that the Government would use the Act’s authorities to apprehend and remove members of Tren de Aragua, a violent Venezuelan transnational gang that had recently been designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. at 13033. To support that finding, the President asserted that the Venezuelan government of Nicolas Maduro indirectly “relies” on Tren de Aragua and has been “infiltrated” by the gang. Id. He further announced that Tren de Aragua had committed or attempted an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” upon the United States, including through “drug trafficking,” “mass illegal migration,” and “irregular warfare,” though he provided no examples of the last. Id.
Although the Proclamation was not published until 3:53 p.m. on Saturday, see ECF No. 28-1 (Robert L. Cerna Second Decl.), ¶ 5, Defendants had begun setting Act-based removals into motion weeks earlier. Beginning in early March, the Government interrogated Venezuelans in its custody about alleged membership in Tren de Aragua and transferred many of those it deemed gang members to El Valle Detention Facility, located outside Harlingen, Texas, not far from the Mexico border. The reason for staging them together at El Valle became clear on Saturday. Early that morning — when the signed Proclamation was still hours from being disclosed to the public — the Government reportedly loaded scores of Venezuelans onto buses, drove them to a nearby airport, and began putting them onto three planes. See ECF Nos. 44-9 (Karyn Ann Shealy Second Decl.), ¶¶ 3–9; 44-10 (Stephanie Quintero Decl.), ¶¶ 3–4; 44-11 (Grace Carney Third Decl.), ¶¶ 11–13; 44-12 (Melissa Smyth Decl.), ¶¶ 11, 14; see also ECF No. 76 (Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr.) at 9 (Government counsel agreeing Defendants “were acting in preparation of the Proclamation before it was posted”). As the planes sat on the tarmac, officials refused to answer the deportees’ questions about where they would be taken. See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 10; Carney Third Decl., ¶ 12.
Among those queued on the tarmac or placed onto planes that morning were the five Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Apparently catching wind of the impending Proclamation, they filed suit at 1:12 a.m. on Saturday — before the buses left El Valle — and then moved for a TRO preventing their removal under the Proclamation. In addition to asserting that the Proclamation lacks a legal foundation, each Plaintiff adamantly denies that he is even a member of Tren de Aragua. See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 4 (J.G.O.); Carney Third Decl., ¶ 3 (G.F.F.); ECF Nos. 1 (Compl.), ¶¶ 9–10, 12 (J.G.G., J.A.V., W.G.H.); 3-6 (W.G.H. Decl.), ¶ 12; 3-8 (J.A.V. Decl.), ¶ 5.
Around 8:00 a.m., this Court learned that it had drawn the case through the court’s random-assignment system. Chambers then reached out to locate Government counsel. Less than an hour later, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed chambers that at least one Plaintiff was reportedly already aboard a removal flight. Having not yet heard from the Government, and given the “exigent circumstances” prompting the need to freeze in place the status quo until a hearing could be held, the Court entered an ex parte TRO preventing Defendants from removing the five Plaintiffs for 14 days. See Minute Order of Mar. 15, 9:40 a.m. Not long after the TRO issued at 9:40 a.m., Government counsel informed chambers by email that the TRO “ha[d] been disseminated to the relevant executive branch agencies.” Sure enough, several of the named Plaintiffs report that they were abruptly removed from planes, see Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 11; Carney Decl., ¶ 13; Smyth Decl., ¶ 14 — evidence that Defendants were able, if they wished, to ensure that people on the ground knew relatively quickly of developments in the Court proceedings. See also ECF No. 20 (Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr.) at 5 (Government stating on Saturday evening that relevant agencies had “confirmed” named Plaintiffs were not to be removed).
At 10:15 a.m., in an email thread including chambers and counsel for both sides, Plaintiffs asked the Court to hold an emergency hearing on their pending request to provisionally certify a class — comprising them and those similarly situated — and issue a second TRO covering the whole class. The Government objected that a “broader injunction” and a “hearing” on the issue would be “premature,” and it asked the Court to wait until Monday for a hearing. The Government notably did not respond to Plaintiffs’ pointed question about whether it was “prepare[d] to halt removals pursuant to the Act” in the interim. So, just after 11:00 a.m., the Court set an emergency hearing for 5:00 p.m. that same afternoon.
Shortly after the Proclamation appeared on the White House website at 3:53 p.m., and about 45 minutes before the hearing began, Plaintiffs’ counsel informed chambers that he believed that two flights, both operated by a contractor used by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for deportations, were scheduled to depart Harlingen that afternoon. Counsel expressed concern that the flights might imminently take off with his five clients and members of the potential class on board. The Government again offered no response.
In the 5:00 p.m. hearing, the Court clarified the limited scope of the TRO then in place, see Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 3, and turned to whether it should provisionally certify the class. Id. at 5–6. The Government began by objecting that venue was improper because Plaintiffs’ claims could be raised only through a petition for habeas corpus in the federal district in Texas where they were being held, not in the District of Columbia. Id. at 6–11.
Noting that it would benefit from further argument on the issue, the Court pivoted to addressing Plaintiffs’ concerns “about imminent deportation.” Id. at 11. It asked the Government point blank whether there were any “removals under this Proclamation planned . . . in the next 24 or 48 hours.” Id. Government counsel said that he did not know, but that he could “investigate” and “report . . . back.” Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel then interjected that various “sources” had informed him that the two removal flights that were scheduled to depart that afternoon “may have already taken off,” including “during this hearing.” Id. at 12. So, at 5:22 p.m., the Court adjourned the hearing until 6:00 p.m. and directed Government counsel to find out whether the Government was in the process of removing people under the Proclamation. Id. at 13–15.
It was. Although the Government has refused to provide the particular details, all evidence suggests that during the short window that the Court was adjourned, two removal flights took off from Harlingen — one around 5:25 p.m. and the other at about 5:45 p.m. See ECF No. 21 (Resp. to Mar. 16 Notice) at 3–4 (relying on flight-tracking data for GlobalX Flights 6143, 6145, and 6122); see also Marianne LeVine et al., White House Official Says 137 Immigrants Deported Under Alien Enemies Act, Wash. Post (Mar. 16, 2025), https://perma.cc/U3NY-V3AS (comparing flight-tracking data with planes visible in three-minute video posted online by President of El Salvador and reposted by President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio); Joyce Sohyun Lee & Kevin Schaul, Deportation Flights Landed After Judge Said Planes Should Turn Around, Wash. Post (Mar. 16, 2025), https://perma.cc/QT6J-3SEQ (same); Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele), X (Mar. 16, 2025, 8:13 a.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/XLE4-DDRW.
Those later-discovered flight movements, however, were obscured from the Court when the hearing resumed shortly after 6:00 p.m. because the Government surprisingly represented that it still had no flight details to share. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 15–18; see also ECF No. 51 (Mar. 21 Hrg. Tr.) at 7 (Defendants’ counsel later affirming that at that time he had no “information from the Government as to the status” of the flights). When pressed, Government counsel stated that the “operational details” he had learned during the recess “raised potential national security issues,” so they could not be sharedwhile the public and press listened to the hearing through a call-in line. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 15. He suggested, however, that the Government could “provide [the Court] additional details in an in camera” setting. Id. So the Court arranged to do just that. It disconnected the public line so that only counsel for the parties were present and asked Government counsel to report. Id. at 15–16. Except that he did not: he clarified only that the “additional details” he had just mentioned could eventually be provided in camera, but he had no information to share at that time. Id. at 16.
With the growing realization, then, that the Government might be rapidly dispatching removal flights in an apparent effort to evade judicial review while also refusing to provide any helpful information, the Court turned to the pending legal issues. Id. at 18. After hearing argument, it first determined that venue was proper, id. at 18–22, and it next provisionally certified a class of Plaintiffs covering all noncitizens in custody subject to removal solely under the Proclamation. Id. at 23–26; see also id. at 38.
The Court then addressed the sole remaining question: whether it should issue a broader TRO covering the entire class. It concluded that this was appropriate because Plaintiffs had satisfied the factors governing emergency relief and because the distinct possibility — “unrebutted by the Government” — that flights were “actively departing” or planning to depart required an immediate order preserving the status quo. Id. at 41–43. The Court therefore ordered that for 14 days the Government was enjoined from conducting the “removal” of any noncitizens in its custody solely on the basis of the Proclamation. Id. at 42. Then, at about 6:45 p.m., the Court delivered an oral command clarifying what compliance with the TRO meant. It directed Government counsel to “inform your clients of [the Order] immediately” and to notify them that if class members were on a plane “that is going to take off or is in the air, . . . those people need to be returned to the United States. However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not [dis]embarking anyone on the plane . . . , I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.” Id. at 43. The hearing adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Id. at 47. Roughly 30 minutes later, the Court memorialized the TRO in a written Order. See Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m. That Order referenced the just-concluded hearing and reiterated that the Government was enjoined from “removing” class members. Id.
Despite the Court’s written Order and the oral command spelling out what was required for compliance, the Government did not stop the ongoing removal process. According to Defendants, the two planes that took off during the adjournment departed U.S. airspace before the Court’s 6:45 p.m. oral command, see ECF No. 49-1 (Robert L. Cerna Third Decl.), ¶ 5, and “landed abroad” sometime after the Court posted the Minute Order at 7:25 p.m. See ECF No. 56 (State Secrets Notice) at 7–8. A third flight reportedly took off from Harlingen at 7:36 p.m., see Lee & Schaul, supra, but the Government maintains that all aboard were removed under authorities other than the Proclamation. See Cerna Second Decl., ¶ 6. he first two planes — those carrying members of the Plaintiff class covered by the TRO — apparently touched down in Honduras at 7:37 p.m. and 8:10 p.m., and remained there for several hours before taking off again for El Salvador. See Lee & Schaul, supra; LeVine et al., supra. After the planes landed in El Salvador shortly after midnight on Sunday, see Lee & Schaul, supra, most of the passengers were apparently transferred into one of that country’s prisons, known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).
But not all passengers, it seems. One Venezuelan woman swears in a declaration that she was on one of the flights that landed in El Salvador but was flown back to the United States along with seven other women, apparently because Salvadoran authorities on the ground refused to accept any female prisoners. See ECF No. 55-1 (S.Z.F.R. Decl.), ¶¶ 1, 19–21; see also Didi Martinez, Julia Ainsley & Laura Strickler, “We Were Lied To:” Two Women the Trump Administration Tried to Send to El Salvador Prison Speak Out, NBC News (Apr. 2, 2024), https://perma.cc/F5Y6-XCG8. Her account is corroborated by a declaration from a Nicaraguan man, who avows that he was also on board one of the removal flights but was returned alongside the women because Salvadoran officials would not take custody of Central American nationals such as himself. See ECF No. 55-2 (Katiana Gonzalez Decl.), ¶¶ 1, 7–9.
By mid-Sunday morning, the picture of what had happened the previous night came into clearer focus. It appeared that the Government had transferred members of the Plaintiff class into El Salvador’s custody hours after this Court’s injunction prohibited their deportation under the Proclamation. Worse, boasts by Defendants intimated that they had defied the Court’s Order deliberately and gleefully. The Secretary of State, for instance, retweeted a post in which, above a news headline noting this Court’s Order to return the flights to the United States, the President of El Salvador wrote: “Oopsie . . . Too late [emoji].” Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele), X (Mar. 16, 2025, 7:46 a.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/Y384-4TDW, https://perma.cc/6VTW-5KRD (ellipses in original).
B. Procedural Background
A filing submitted by Defendants on Sunday afternoon failed to dispel any concerns that they had flouted the Court’s injunction. See ECF No. 19 (Mar. 16 Notice); see also Resp. to Mar. 16 Notice at 1–6. So the Court set a hearing for Monday, March 17, to determine what had transpired over the weekend. See Minute Order of Mar. 17, 3:09 p.m. (denying ECF No. 24 (Mot. to Vacate Mar. 17 Hrg.)). The Court expected that at the hearing, Defendants might explain that, despite appearances otherwise, none of the people on the first two flights was a member of the Plaintiff class. Or, at worst, Defendants would admit to a grave mistake, explain how it transpired, and detail plans to rectify it.
The United States Government took neither tack. Rather, what followed in the ensuing days was increasing obstructionism on the part of the Government as it refused to answer basic questions about what had happened, questions that were all ultimately in service of resolving one key fact: whether members of the Plaintiff class — that is, noncitizens removable solely on the basis of the Proclamation — were transferred out of U.S. custody after this Court’s injunction preventing their deportation.
Such stonewalling started before the Monday hearing. Just before it was set to begin, Defendants sought to cancel it as an unnecessary “incursion[] on Executive Branch authority.” Mot. to Vacate Mar. 17 Hrg. at 1. Nowhere in their filing did they dispute that class members were transferred into Salvadoran custody hours after the injunction issued. Instead, Defendants set forth several hyper-technical legal arguments for why, in spite of that fact, they had complied with the Court’s Order. Id. at 2–5. Such arguments were unconvincing then and remain so now.
Then, in the hearing itself, the Government refused to provide any relevant facts. The lawyer the Government sent to the proceeding — conveniently not the counsel who had appeared at the TRO hearing — repeatedly stated in some form or another that he was not “at liberty to disclose anything about any flights.” ECF No. 25 (Mar. 17 Hrg. Tr.) at 7. Although he would not say that such information was even classified, see id. at 9–10, he claimed that it could not be shared — even ex parte with the Court — because of “diplomatic concerns” and “national security concerns with flight patterns and things of that sort.” Id. at 6, 8; see id. at 30. That is, the Government maintained that it could not share any details about the flights even privately with the Court despite the fact that, the previous day, Defendants had retweeted a three-minute video that portrayed a host of operational details. See Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Mar. 16, 2025, 3:54 p.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/WJ8H-F8HW; Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio), X (Mar. 16, 2025, 8:39 a.m. EDT), https://perma.cc/ZD8J-KAGH. In high definition, the video displayed the planes and the runway where they parked; how migrants were restrained and transported; the faces and uniforms of many detainees, guards, and other officials; where the vehicles apparently entered CECOT; and the inside of the prison. Id.
So, on Monday evening, the Court ordered the Government to submit another filing the next day. Seeking to accommodate Defendants’ national-security concerns — vague as they were — yet nonetheless needing answers on how members of the Plaintiff class had been transferred into a foreign prison hours after the injunction issued, the Court directed the Government to explain its “position on whether, and in what form, it will provide answers to the Court’s questions regarding the particulars of the flights.” Minute Order of Mar. 17, 6:47 p.m. The Court again offered that such information could be provided in camera, including in a classified setting. Id.
In their March 18 response, Defendants reiterated their various arguments for why they should not have to share information related to flights, but conceded that if ordered to do so, they would submit “an in camera and ex parte declaration.” ECF No. 28 (Mar. 18 Notice) at 1–2. The Court ordered Defendants to do just that by noon the next day, and it set out five basic questions that the declaration needed to answer: when the two flights in question took off and from where; when they left U.S. airspace; when they landed in a foreign country (or countries); what time people subject solely to the Proclamation (and not other authorities, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act) were transferred out of U.S. custody; and how many people were on the flights solely on the basis of the Proclamation. See Minute Order of Mar. 18, 2:27 p.m.
Defendants then reversed course entirely. On Wednesday morning, the 19th, a few hours before their deadline, they moved this Court to stay its Tuesday Order on various grounds. See ECF No. 37 (Emergency Mot. to Stay Mar. 18 Minute Order). Most relevant, they asserted for the first time that they were considering invoking the state-secrets privilege over the flight details and needed more time to make that determination. See id. at 3–4. The Court was “unsure” how answering its five questions could “jeopardize state secrets” — Defendants, after all, had publicly shared images of the flights making them trackable and had still not claimed that the questions bore on any classified information, see ECF No. 38 (Mar. 19 Order) at 2 — but nonetheless sought to accommodate their last-minute request. It gave them yet another day either to answer the five questions or to invoke the state-secrets doctrine. Id. at 4.
On Thursday, the 20th, the Government “again evaded its obligations.” ECF No. 47 (Mar. 20 Order) at 1. Rather than invoke the privilege or answer the questions, it submitted a short declaration from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer stationed in Harlingen. See Cerna Third Decl. It was his “understand[ing],” he said, that Cabinet Secretaries were then considering whether to invoke the privilege. Id. at 2. In response to this wholly inadequate response from a low-level official without any actual knowledge, the Court required Defendants to submit a declaration from someone directly involved with the Cabinet-level discussions and gave Defendants five days to indicate whether they were invoking the state-secrets privilege. See Mar. 20 Order at 3. The Government has since invoked it. See State Secrets Notice. The Court also directed the parties to brief whether Defendants had violated the Court’s TROs. See Mar. 20 Order at 3. That briefing is complete, and the Court held a hearing on the matter in early April.
In parallel to the investigation of Defendants’ compliance have been further proceedings on the TROs’ merits. After briefing and a hearing, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to vacate the TROs; it held that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on one of their core claims — i.e., those subject to removal under the Proclamation had a due-process right to challenge the Government’s determination that they were removable — and that they would face irreparable harm if the TROs were dissolved, a harm that also tipped the balance of equities in their favor. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 890401, at *11–14, 16–17. The Court of Appeals then rejected Defendants’ request to stay the Orders, raising concerns with both the applicability of the Act and the lack of due-process. See J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682, at *8–10 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (Henderson, J., concurring); id. at *13–14 (Millett, J., concurring).
The Supreme Court subsequently vacated the TROs on a narrow ground. It held that challenges to removal under the Act must be brought through a habeas-corpus proceeding — not, as Plaintiffs did, through the Administrative Procedure Act — and therefore venue lay in the district of the class members’ confinement, not the District of Columbia. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1. While the Court split on the venue question, it unanimously held — as this Court did when declining to dissolve the TROs — that those subject to removal under the Act must be allowed to challenge their removability in federal court before being deported. See id. at *2; id. at *2 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring); id. at *2, 6 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Specifically, all Justices agreed that the Due Process Clause requires the Government to provide anyone it seeks to remove notice “that they are subject to removal under the Act,” and to do so “within [a] reasonable time and in such manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief” before being removed. Id. at *2 (per curiam); id. at *6 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). In holding as much, the Court effectively said that the Constitution flatly prohibits the Government from doing exactly what it did that Saturday, when it secretly loaded people onto planes, kept many of them in the dark about their destination, and raced to spirit them away before they could invoke their due-process rights.
As this Opinion will shortly explain at greater length, the fact that the Supreme Court determined that this Court’s TROs suffered from a venue defect does not affect — let alone moot — the compliance inquiry presently teed up here.
II. Analysis
Defendants provide no convincing reason to avoid the conclusion that appears obvious from the above factual recitation: that they deliberately flouted this Court’s written Order and, separately, its oral command that explicitly delineated what compliance entailed. They do not dispute that it was hours after the written Order issued when they disembarked the class members aboard the two planes and transferred them out of U.S. custody. See State Secrets Notice at 7–8; ECF No. 58 (Resp.) at 4. Rather than offer a mea culpa and attempt to explain this grave error and detail plans to rectify it, Defendants offer various imaginative arguments for why they nevertheless technically complied with the Order. None of their positions withstands scrutiny.
Defendants’ core contention — that in prohibiting class members’ removal, the written Order barred only their physical exit from the United States, not their subsequent transfer into Salvadoran custody — requires ignoring the clear context in which the Order was issued. Their other arguments amount only to retroactive attacks on the legal validity of the injunction, but that road leads nowhere: even a legally defective order must be complied with until reversed through the appeals process. Defendants’ conduct, moreover, manifests a willful disregard of the Court’s legally binding proscriptions. Given the evidence at this early stage in the inquiry, and offered no persuasive reason to conclude otherwise, the Court finds that there is probable cause that Defendants acted contemptuously.
The following analysis first sets out the parameters of criminal contempt and then explains why court orders, regardless of their ultimate validity, must be complied with. The Court last analyzes why Defendants’ willful and knowing actions here constitute probable cause for a finding of contempt.
A. Contempt
1. Legal Standard
When Congress established lower federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789, it conferred on them the power “to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same.” 1 Stat. 83; see Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 202 (1968). In doing so, Congress “gave federal courts the discretionary power to punish for contempt as that power was known to the common law.” United States v. Barnett, 376 U.S. 681, 687 (1964); see id. at 699–700 (“The power to fine and imprison for contempt, from the earliest history of jurisprudence, has been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of a court, without which it could no more exist than without a judge.”) (quotation marks omitted); United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 694–95 (1993). Although Congress eventually pared back federal courts’ statutory contempt power, it preserved their authority to punish, among other transgressions, “‘disobedience or resistance’ to court orders.” Dixon, 509 U.S. at 694 (quoting 4. Stat. 488); see Bloom, 391 U.S. at 202–04.
That statutory authority is now codified in 18 U.S.C. § 401, which provides that any “court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, . . . [d]isobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.” For a contemnor to be convicted of criminal contempt under § 401(3), it must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the court order was “clear and reasonably specific”; (2) “that the defendant violated the order”; and (3) “that the violation was willful.” United States v. Young, 107 F.3d 903, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. NYNEX Corp., 8 F.3d 52, 54 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).
The Court here inquires only into whether there is probable cause that Defendants violated § 401. Such an inquiry does not appear to be strictly necessary. The statute does not include a probable-cause requirement, and as the Department of Justice has explained in an internal manual, “It is unclear whether probable cause that a willful violation has occurred is a condition precedent to the commencement of a criminal contempt action.” U.S. Dep’t of Just., Criminal Resource Manual § 763, https://perma.cc/Z5DV-RUNU. In practice, “the vast majority of criminal contempt decisions make no mention of such a requirement.” Id. Some courts, however, have opted to make or require findings of probable cause before initiating criminal-contempt proceedings. See, e.g., In re Res. Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 5411771, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2008); Beyond Blond Prods., LLC v. Heldman, 2025 WL 902445, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2025); In re Sydor, 132 B.R. 243, 245–46 (E.D.N.Y. Bankr. 1991); Reed v. Rhodes, 500 F. Supp. 363, 376, 404 (N.D. Ohio 1980); United States v. Hovind, 2014 WL 12887669, at *2 (N.D. Fla. July 8, 2014); In re United Corp., 166 F. Supp. 343, 345 (D. Del. 1958). The Court finds that practice to be a prudent way of affording alleged contemnors the procedural protections associated with other criminal proceedings and so follows it here.
2. Effect of Supreme Court Vacatur
But hold on, Defendants protest. If the Supreme Court has since vacated the TROs, how can contempt lie? See ECF No. 78 (Notice Regarding Supreme Court Decision) at 1. The Supreme Court long ago answered that question: it is firmly settled that a court order “must be obeyed” until it is “reversed for error” by the issuing court or a “higher” one. Walker, 388 U.S. at 314 (quoting Howat v. Kansas, 258 U.S. 181, 189–90 (1922)). That, in turn, means that a party “may be punished for criminal contempt for disobedience of an order later set aside on appeal” for being defective. United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 294–95 (1947). If a party believes that a court order suffers from legal deficiencies, it therefore “must have the injunction modified or vacated; [it] cannot simply ignore it.” Evans v. Williams, 206 F.3d 1292, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The so-called collateral-bar rule enforces that principle. It provides that if a party is charged with contempt for disobeying a court order, it cannot raise the legal invalidity of the order as a defense. See id. (citing Walker, 388 U.S. 307). Defendants were thus obligated to comply with this Court’s TRO until vacated by this Court or a higher one; if they failed to comply, the fact that the TRO was legally unsound is no obstacle to a contempt conviction.
There are only two narrow exceptions to this rule, neither of which applies here. First, an enjoined party can violate an order and then challenge its validity in a contempt proceeding if — and only if — “there was no opportunity for effective review of the order before it was violated.” 11A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2960 (3d ed. Apr. 2025 update). Defendants do not seek cover behind this exception. For good reason. Just as they had sought emergency appellate relief for the first TRO mere hours after it issued, see ECF No. 12 (First Notice of Appeal), they notified this Court while the planes were en route to El Salvador that they intended to do the same for the TRO in question, see ECF No. 17 (Second Notice of Appeal) (filed 8:37 p.m.), docketing their appeal only minutes after the planes landed in that country. See Corrected Emergency Mot. for a Stay Pending Appeal, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16, 2025) (filed 1:07 a.m. Sunday). Defendants also could have sought relief from this Court, including, for example, requesting a stay of the TRO pending appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(A); J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *22–23 (Millett, J., concurring) (noting failure to do so). Defendants, moreover, nowhere identify a reason that the transfer had to occur early Sunday morning. If they considered waiting for appellate relief impracticable or unattractive given the speed at which events transpired, that circumstance was entirely of their own making, not the result of any bona-fide obstacle to effective review. Indeed, the appellate process worked at a breakneck pace. Cf. Walker, 388 U.S. at 318–19 (case is “different” if party faces “delay or frustration of their . . . claims” in appellate courts).
Second, a party need not obey an injunction that is “transparently invalid or had only a frivolous pretense to validity.” Id. at 315. That is an exceedingly high bar. This narrow carveout does not apply if the order was “arguably proper” or “had any pretence to validity at the time it was issued.” Matter of Providence J. Co., 820 F.2d 1342, 1347 (1st Cir. 1986). The exception therefore applies “[o]nly in the rarest of situations.” Zapon v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 53 F.3d 283, 285 (9th Cir. 1995). This is not one. The Supreme Court has admittedly held that Plaintiffs’ claims should have been brought in habeas, see J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1, but this Court’s view of the issue at the time of the Orders was not patently frivolous. Rather, the question was “substantial,” United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 293, dividing both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *23–31 (Millett, J., concurring); id. at *34–37 (Walker, J., dissenting); J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1; id. at *7–10 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).
To be sure, some courts outside this Circuit have suggested that when a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute, an enjoined party may raise that fact as a defense to contempt. See, e.g., In re Novak, 932 F.2d 1397, 1401–02 (11th Cir. 1991); In re Estab. Inspection of Hern Iron Works, Inc., 881 F.2d 722, 726–27, 726 n.12 (9th Cir. 1989) (but noting pervasive uncertainty on the issue). Those statements, however, do not control here, not least because they are incompatible with the Supreme Court’s subsequent opinion in Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131 (1992). See United States v. Straub, 508 F.3d 1003, 1006, 1010 (11th Cir. 2007) (upholding 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) contempt charge even though court lacked jurisdiction “over the underlying controversy,” and noting Willy “resolve[d] this issue”).
In Willy, a district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions — which function like criminal contempt, as they are “designed to punish a party who has already violated the court’s rules,” 503 U.S. at 139 — even though it was later shown that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction when the sanctionable conduct occurred; indeed, it issued the final sanctions order after its lack of jurisdiction had been determined by the court of appeals. Id. at 133–34. The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the sanctions order. Id. at 135–39. “A final determination of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the Court explained, “precludes further adjudication of” the case’s merits, but a sanctions order is “collateral to the merits,” so a court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction poses no constitutional bar. Id. at 137–38; see also id. at 137 (explaining that United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, “upheld a criminal contempt citation even on the assumption that the District Court issuing the citation was without jurisdiction over the underlying action”). Following Willy, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that “subject-matter jurisdiction over an underlying action is not a precondition of a federal court’s authority to sanction those who violate its orders.” In re LeFande, 919 F.3d 554, 561 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (citing Willy, 503 U.S. at 137). Notwithstanding whether a court is later determined to have lacked subject-matter jurisdiction at the time of the violation, then, a party can be held in contempt for disobedience, and the same court can impose the sanctions even after its lack of jurisdiction has been revealed.
In any event, this Court possessed such jurisdiction. Recall, the Supreme Court held in its per curiam opinion that claims challenging removal under the Alien Enemies Act “must be brought in habeas.” J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1. That conclusion rested on a line of cases holding that habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for state prisoners challenging their sentences, even though such claims “may come within the literal terms of” another statute. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489–90 (1973). In such circumstances, the Court has previously explained, the availability of habeas relief means a separate “cause of action . . . does not accrue.” Heck, 512 U.S. at 489–90. By analogy, the same occurred here. In holding that habeas is the exclusive remedy for Plaintiffs, the Supreme Court denied that they possessed a valid cause of action under the APA when this Court granted the classwide TRO; it did not hold that this Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. In fact, Justice Kavanaugh noted in his concurrence that the availability of habeas relief constitutes an “adequate remedy” barring suit under the APA. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 704); see also J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *34 (Walker, J., dissenting) (making same point). The adequate-remedy bar, however, is not a jurisdictional one: on the contrary, the D.C. Circuit has explained that § 704 “determine[s] whether there is a cause of action under the APA, not whether there is federal subject matter jurisdiction.” Perry Capital LLC v. Mnuchin, 864 F.3d 591, 621 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Under either habeas or APA precedents, then, both paths lead to the same destination: the relevant defect in this Court’s classwide TRO was not jurisdictional.
At worst, as the Supreme Court held here, “venue [was] improper in the District of Columbia.” J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *1 (emphasis added). Indeed, regardless of how the issue is framed, the Court has been clear that any reference to habeas “jurisdiction” does not refer to a court’s “subject-matter jurisdiction.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 n.7 (2004). Rather, the “territorial-jurisdiction rule[]” is a question of proper “venue.” Id. at 452 (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 812–13 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (similar). And it is black-letter law that while subject-matter jurisdiction goes to whether any federal court may even hear the dispute, venue determines which jurisdiction-possessing court is the most convenient. See 14D Wright & Miller, supra, § 3801 (4th ed. Apr. 2025 update); Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165, 167–68 (1939) (same). Just like the availability of a cause of action under the APA, that question has been determined by statute — the federal habeas statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241–2242.
The upshot is that, after the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, it has been preliminarily determined that Congress channeled a challenge to removal under the Alien Enemies Act to a habeas petition filed in a detainee’s district of confinement. This Court’s decision to recognize a cause of action under the APA in the District of Columbia, while ultimately found erroneous by the Supreme Court, therefore is not a defect that would excuse compliance under any of the recognized exceptions.
The “firmly established” “rule of law” that even a legally unsound order must be obeyed at the risk of contempt therefore focuses the present inquiry. Walker, 388 U.S. at 319. The question presented here is whether there is probable cause that Defendants deliberately or recklessly disregarded a clear and reasonably specific order. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907, 910. The question is not — as many of Defendants’ evasive legal arguments imply — whether that Order was legally impeccable.
3. Sufficiently Clear, Reasonably Specific, and Unequivocal Order
The first element of contempt requires that the injunction be “clear,” “reasonably specific,” Young, 107 F.3d at 907 (quotation marks omitted), and “unequivocal at the time it is issued.” In re Holloway, 995 F.2d 1080, 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting Traub v. United States, 232 F.2d 43, 47 (D.C. Cir. 1955)). To “determin[e] whether an order is sufficiently clear and specific,” courts “apply an objective standard that takes into account” not just “the language of the order” but also “the objective circumstances surrounding the issuance of the order.” Young, 107 F.3d at 907. Thus, “[w]hether an order is clear enough depends on the context in which it [was] issued,” which includes “the audience to which it [was] addressed,” id. at 907–08 (quoting In re Levine, 27 F.3d 594, 596 (D.C. Cir. 1994)), as well as “the relief sought by the moving party, the evidence produced at the hearing on the injunction, and the mischief that the injunction seeks to prevent.” Common Cause v. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 674 F.2d 921, 927 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (quotation marks omitted).
The question here, then, is whether it was sufficiently clear to the Government that the Court was prohibiting it from transferring class members into another country’s custody — something Defendants admit to doing hours after the written Order issued. See State Secrets Notice at 7–8. The Government, however, now contends that the Court’s Order should be understood to have enjoined it only from transporting class members outside of U.S. territory, not from relinquishing custody of them once they were already outside the United States. That narrower Order, it argues, was one with which it fully complied. That interpretation is deliberately blind to the Court’s unequivocal language and the context surrounding its Order.
At 7:25 p.m. on Saturday evening, roughly 30 minutes after the hearing adjourned, see Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 47, the Court issued its written Order. See Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m. Expressly referencing the hearing, the Order certified a Plaintiff class consisting of all noncitizens in U.S. custody who were subject to the Proclamation, and, relevant here, memorialized the TRO using the same language as in the hearing. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 42, 46–47. Specifically, this part of the Order stated:
As discussed in today’s hearing, the Court ORDERS that . . . [t]he Government is ENJOINED from removing members of [the] class (not otherwise subject to removal) pursuant to the Proclamation for 14 days or until further Order of the Court.
Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m.
As already explained, the Government does not dispute that after this written TRO issued, it temporarily landed two planeloads of class members in Honduras, flew them to El Salvador, deplaned them there, and then — critically — transferred them from U.S. to Salvadoran custody. See State Secrets Notice at 7–8. Indeed, the Government does not challenge that this transfer of custody happened some five hours, at least, after the written Order was docketed. See LeVine et al., supra (planes landed in El Salvador at 12:10 and 12:18 a.m.).
Defendants offer a novel interpretation of the Order that, if adopted, would mean that they were not in violation. The linchpin of their argument is that in forbidding them from “removing” class members, see Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m., the TRO prohibited only flying class members outside of the United States, not the further act of relinquishing custody of them into the hands of a foreign government. See Resp. at 2–4. And, they continue, because both planes had already departed U.S. airspace before the written Order posted (and before the oral command preceding it), everyone on board had already been removed before the Order issued. See id. While perhaps clever, this argument does not carry the day.
Defendants agree that an injunction must be understood in the context in which it is issued. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907–08; Resp. at 2. But they would have the Court search for context in all the wrong places. After observing that the written TRO did not define “remove,” Resp. at 3, they seek to show that the term has a clear meaning under the Act, with the implication that the Court incorporated that definition into its Order. They do not make their case.
Across a couple paragraphs, Defendants halfheartedly seek to root their narrow reading of “removal” in the Act. They cite several dictionary definitions from around the time that Congress passed the Alien Enemies Act in 1798, but these are far from conclusive. See Resp. at 3. They also suggest that their territorial understanding makes sense because the Act speaks of “the territory of the United States.” Id. (quoting 50 U.S.C. § 21). This, too, is hardly definitive: just because an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” must be “against the territory of the United States” to trigger the Act’s authorities does not resolve whether the process of removal comprises a physical departure or a transfer of custody. Defendants therefore fall well short of showing that “removal” carries a definitive meaning under the Act.
As a fallback of sorts, Defendants gesture toward the adjacent INA context, but that undercuts their position. They cite a lone case in which the Ninth Circuit held that an INA removal order is executed when the person physically exits the United States. Nicusor-Remus v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 895, 898, 899 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). That court, however, recognized that departure can convey a “physical departure” (territorial exit) or, conversely, a “legal departure” (implicating questions of one’s legal admission to and status in the country of destination), and it found that the former controlled only because the INA’s own statutory definition made that conclusion unavoidable. Id. at 899–900 (noting statute defined “deported or removed” as having “left the United States”) (quotation marks omitted). Here, by contrast, as Defendants concede, see Resp. at 3, we have no statutory definition that might be dispositive.
Insofar as INA cases are relevant, moreover, they demonstrate that, at the time the TRO issued, the Government understood removal to mean the exact opposite of what they now claim. But don’t take the Court’s word for it. Just listen to the argument the Government made a mere five days before the events in question here. In a different case in this district — with some of the same Defendants, and in a filing signed by some of the same lawyers signing Defendants’ show-cause response — the Government argued that “removal” under the INA is a “term of art,” and that “[t]o effectuate a departure or removal, the alien must lawfully enter another country,” as “the fact that [he] is physically on foreign soil is not alone sufficient to establish that he has legally departed the United States.” Escalona v. Noem, No. 25-604, ECF No. 14 (Opp. to Mot. for Stay of Transfer) at 29–30 (D.D.C. Mar. 10, 2025) (citations omitted); see id. at 40 (lawyers).
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu Apr 17, 2025 2:21 am
Part 2 of 2
Defendants, then, do not show that “removal” carries the specific meaning they urge under the Act. For that reason, rather than a smattering of late-18th-century dictionaries and an inconclusive fragment of the Act’s text, the better — indeed the obvious — place to look for the meaning of “removal” in the Court’s written TRO is the hour-plus-long hearing that immediately preceded it. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907–08 (context for determining meaning of injunction includes “objective circumstances surrounding the issuance of the order” and “audience to which it is addressed”) (quotation marks omitted).
Anyone paying attention to the hearing (as the Government presumably was) would have known that the ultimate action Plaintiffs sought to prevent through a TRO was not their mere transportation across the U.S. border, but instead their discharge from U.S. custody into a foreign country or into foreign hands. Common Cause, 674 F.2d at 927 (context for determining meaning of injunction includes “the relief sought by the moving party” and “mischief that the injunction seeks to prevent”). When the Court accordingly referred to removal or deportation in the hearing, it consistently used those terms to mean a legal departure that was complete upon discharge from U.S. custody, not upon mere physical exit from U.S. territory.
First, mark the opening exchange of the hearing. The Court asked the Government to confirm that none of the five named Plaintiffs was “on any plane that has departed,” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 4, as the first TRO then in place prohibited their “remov[al] . . . from the United States.” Minute Order of Mar. 15, 9:40 a.m. Government counsel said that he had “confirmed” that they would “not be removed.” See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 5. The Court then clarified what that must entail, stating: “I would assume that means that they are either not on the planes or that they will not be removed from the planes and will be brought back once the planes land in El Salvador.” Id. (emphasis added). The Government did not disagree with that characterization. Id. From the start, then, the Court plainly considered removal (from the United States) — i.e., the action that would violate the TRO — to mean a legal removal, and specifically a process that culminated not in a detainee’s movement out of U.S. airspace or arrival in a foreign country, but instead upon his transfer out of U.S. custody. Similarly, during a later exchange on irreparable harm, the Court expressly said that it viewed “the status quo” (which Plaintiffs sought to maintain) as “keeping [class members] in ICE custody but not deporting them.” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 35. Again, the issue was custody, not physical location.
Second, consider the recurring discussion about when and how the Court would lose equitable jurisdiction. These exchanges make clear that the Court considered a TRO to be appropriate in part to preserve the status quo; that the Court (and Plaintiffs) felt that this entailed ensuring that it did not lose jurisdiction; and that it was concerned that it would lose jurisdiction not when class members exited U.S. airspace but instead when they left U.S. custody. The Government listened to and indeed participated in these exchanges.
To start, prior to the mid-hearing adjournment, Plaintiffs’ counsel interjected that “sources” “on the ground” had indicated that planes were actively departing or could be at any moment. Id. at 12. That created time pressure, he said, but not because class members would simply be flown outside the United States; instead, it was because they could imminently “end[] up in a Salvadoran prison,” and that eventuality might “divest this Court of jurisdiction.” Id.
The reason was explained later in the hearing, when the discussion returned to irreparable harm. The Government said that it did not understand Plaintiffs’ irreparable-harm argument, which it construed to be “predicated on the premise that this Court would somehow lose jurisdiction if [class members] were” “in the United States” but “not in D.C.” Id. at 35. The Court clarified for the Government that Plaintiffs’ “argument in part is [that class members] are going to be sent to Salvadoran or Honduran prisons.” Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, that event, Plaintiffs again agreed, was the crux: not only did they face “real danger . . . if they end up in a Salvadoran prison,” but if that were to occur, “the Court would lose jurisdiction because it wouldn’t be able to offer a remedy” — and a TRO was needed to prevent both things from happening. Id. at 36–37. The Government surely understood the black-letter principle that to have jurisdiction, a Court must be able to redress the plaintiff’s injury. See Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279, 291 (2021). Plaintiffs here clearly recognized that if they were turned over to Salvadoran authorities, the Court might lose its ability to offer any remedy: while a federal court can exercise equitable powers over U.S. officials even if they are overseas, it cannot directly control foreign officials, see Doe v. Mattis, 928 F.3d 1, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2019), meaning that this Court could not order the guards at CECOT to release class members. But see Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, 350 F. Supp. 2d 28, 30–31, 47–50 (D.D.C. 2004) (denying motion to dismiss habeas petition filed by U.S. citizen held in Saudi prison at United States’s behest because prisoner was in “constructive” U.S. custody); Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 686 (2008) (one is “held ‘in custody’ by the United States when” a U.S. official “has ‘the power to produce’ him”) (citation omitted).
In an egregious case of cherry-picking, Defendants selectively quote only a fragment of the Court’s response here to mischaracterize its position, suggesting that the Court acknowledged that it lacked jurisdiction once class members left U.S. airspace. See Resp. at 8; see also id. at 11. But that contention overlooks that the first words of the response — “Right. Sure. I mean, once they are out of the country, I’m not sure what I can do there,” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 36 — affirmed Plaintiffs’ custody-based articulation of why it would lose jurisdiction. Defendants’ suggestion also ignores the Court’s prior and repeated references to removal as a transfer of custody. Any lingering doubt on this score is dispelled by the exchange that occurred just a few minutes later. Immediately after the Court ruled on the TRO and delivered the oral command on how it should be implemented (which will be addressed shortly), see id. at 42–43, Plaintiffs provided an update on the two flights that they understood to have taken off that afternoon; one had ended up in El Salvador and the other in Honduras, they said. Id. at 44. In response, the Court said:
Id. (emphasis added). “Right,” agreed Plaintiffs. Id. If the Court believed jurisdiction to be territorial, it would not have said the emphasized portion; instead, its answer would have been, “If the planes have left the United States, I don’t have jurisdiction to require their return.”
In short, then, these exchanges on equitable jurisdiction — in which the Government was both “audience” and participant, Young, 107 F.3d at 907–08 — demonstrate that Plaintiffs sought a classwide TRO that would ensure that the Court retained that jurisdiction over class members; that the Court agreed that it would lose such jurisdiction upon class members’ handover to foreign authorities, and not before; and that the only TRO the Court was considering granting was one that would prevent such an eventuality.
Third, return to the oral ruling and command. At around 6:45 p.m., the Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ request for a broader TRO covering all class members. After explaining the reasons that a TRO covering the Plaintiff class was “appropriate,” the Court spelled out its scope: the TRO “would be to prevent the removal of the class for 14 days or until further order of the Court. And the class will be all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the Proclamation . . . and [to] its implementation.” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 42 (emphasis added). After noting that it would “memorializ[e]” the TRO through a Minute Order, the Court then addressed “where we go from here,” id., and turned to the Government to emphasize “the first point”:
Id. at 43 (emphasis added).
From this command alone, it was clear and unequivocal that the ultimate action proscribed by the TRO was not class members’ removal from U.S. territory, but instead their transfer from U.S. custody into foreign hands. If the Court’s TRO only prohibited class members from being transported out of U.S. territory, much of the oral command would be nonsensical. It would make no sense to command that “people” who had never left the United States needed “to be returned to the United States.” Id. (emphasis added). Nor would it make any sense for the Court to have ordered the Government not to deplane “anyone on [a] plane.” Id. The inescapable meaning of that directive, particularly in light of the exchanges leading up to it, was that anyone on a removal flight that had already landed abroad should not be discharged from U.S. custody and turned over to Salvadoran (or Honduran) authorities. That was clearly the ultimate harm Plaintiffs sought to prevent and the jurisdiction-terminating event they endeavored to preclude by freezing the status quo. If the injunction only prevented class members’ exit from U.S. airspace, the Court would have had no need to detail how they should be handled if their plane had already landed abroad.
* * *
In sum, numerous exchanges throughout the hearing, including the ultimate unequivocal oral command that clarified how the TRO must be obeyed, demonstrate that the Court consistently considered removal to be not mere physical removal, but instead legal deportation that was complete upon transfer out of U.S. custody. Defendants’ proposition — that the written Order used removal in a dramatically narrower sense — flies in the face of this overwhelming context. And they provide no convincing explanation for why, after its emphatic oral command, the Court would have made an abrupt U-turn in the 30-minute window between the end of the hearing and the docketing of the Order. Contra Resp. at 7. Indeed, the Court twice told the Government in the hearing that it would “memorializ[e]” the TRO in the written Order, see Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 42, 46; the only objectively reasonable expectation, then, was that the written order enshrined the injunction unchanged unless the Court expressly drew attention to any discrepancies between what was said and what was recorded in writing. Nor did the Government seek to clarify the relationship between the oral command and written Order, which it plainly should have done had it felt any confusion. The Court therefore concludes that the written TRO and the oral command defining compliance were each sufficiently clear and specific in proscribing the handover of class members to Salvadoran officials.
4. Violation
The second element of contempt requires that the sufficiently clear and specific order was in fact violated. Young, 107 F.3d at 907. Defendants do not dispute that, if the Order indeed proscribed transferring class members out of U.S. custody, they plainly violated it hours after it issued. Rather than mount any factual defense, they rely on post-hoc legal arguments to attack the validity of the Order itself. These positions are without merit, but, more important, they are not even available to Defendants. As previously explained, per the collateral-bar rule, what matters is whether they violated the terms of the Order, not whether the Order itself was legally valid.
a. Separation of Powers
Defendants first claim that even if the TRO used the term “removal” to describe a legal departure and thereby did enjoin class members’ transfer into foreign custody, it did not prohibit — indeed could not prohibit — Defendants from making such a transfer if the class members “were already outside the United States” at the time of the Order. See Resp. at 9; id. at 2, 9–13. That argument sails wide of the mark.
Underpinning their claim is a sweeping assertion: they contend that once the class members exited U.S. airspace, Defendants’ authority over them flowed solely from the President’s Article II powers, not from the congressional grant of immigration authority invoked by the Proclamation. Id. at 10, 12. In their view, from El Valle to the U.S. border, Defendants transported class members pursuant to the Act; upon exiting U.S. airspace, however, the Act fell away, and Defendants continued on under only the President’s Article II powers.
From that bold premise, Defendants urge two points. They first posit that because it only enjoined removals effectuated “pursuant to the Proclamation,” Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m., the TRO “by its terms” did not reach conduct outside of United States territory taken pursuant to Article II. See Resp. at 9–10, 12. Even were the premise solid (which it is not), this is simply another argument about how the TRO should be construed based on its language. But we have already been down this path: the TRO should be understood in light of the circumstances in which it issued — not given a belated gloss by virtue of sweeping separation-of-powers theories raised for the first time in briefing. To reiterate again, the relevant context here demonstrates that the Order clearly and specifically prohibited Defendants from transferring any class members into a Salvadoran prison, even — in fact, especially — if they had already been flown outside the United States. See supra pp. 26–30.
To the degree that Defendants’ objection does not concern the Order’s interpretation, it melds into their secondary argument: even if the Court’s Order prohibited (or “purported to” prohibit, see Resp. at 9) transferring custody of class members already outside the United States, the Court lacked the constitutional power to enjoin such transfers. Id. at 11 (Executive Branch’s handling of class members abroad “was beyond the courts’ authority to adjudicate”). This position does not persuade.
First and most important, the collateral-bar rule stops it in its tracks. Even if Defendants’ theory of Article II power were sound, it would not help them in this contempt inquiry. The argument, at bottom, is an attack on the legal validity of the TRO: by restraining their conduct, Defendants say, the Order infringed on the President’s Article II powers and thus violated the Constitution. See Resp. at 7; id. at 12 (“extraterritorial exercise” of President’s Article II authority “present[s] a non-reviewable political question”). But, as explained above, Defendants cannot “defend contempt charges by asserting the unconstitutionality of the injunction.” Carroll v. President & Comm’rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 179 (1968) (citing Walker, 388 U.S. 307). If Defendants believed — correctly or not — that the Order encroached upon the President’s Article II powers, they had two options: they could seek judicial review of the injunction but not disobey it, or they could disobey it but forfeit any right to raise their legal argument as a defense against criminal-contempt charges. See supra pp. 17–18. They chose the latter course.
Even if their Article II argument could be construed as something other than a barred collateral attack on the legal soundness of the Orders, it would still come up short. There is no merit to their contention that outside U.S. airspace, Defendants somehow operated solely under the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers, not the Alien Enemies Act. The Constitution gives Congress “plenary authority” over immigration, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983), so any “discretion over the admission and exclusion of aliens” possessed by the Executive “extends only as far as the statutory authority conferred by Congress and may not transgress constitutional limitations.” Abourzek v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Since the Act’s passage, moreover, an unbroken line of cases has considered the “disposition of alien enemies during a state of war” to be within Congress’s constitutional ambit, not the President’s. See Ludecke, 335 U.S. at 173; id. at 161; Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110, 126 (1814) (Marshall, C.J.) (Act “affords a strong implication that” President “did not possess” power over “alien enemies” “by virtue of [a] declaration of war”); Citizens Protective League v. Clark, 155 F.2d 290, 293 (D.C. Cir. 1946).
Although Defendants offer certain soundbite-ready assertions, see State Secrets Notice at 1 (declaring “President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate . . . to remove from the homeland designated terrorists”), they cite no legal authority that Defendants here operated pursuant to a presidential power preclusive of both congressional and judicial power. Such an extraordinary claim “must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 638 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Yet across multiple filings they muster not a single case in direct support of the proposition that when the Government carries out deportations pursuant to a grant of statutory authority, that authority is necessarily eclipsed by the Executive’s exclusive constitutional prerogative when deportees leave U.S. territory. See State Secrets Notice at 1–2; Resp. at 9–13; Mot. to Vacate Mar. 17 Hrg. at 4–5. Were that true, Executive Branch officials could do as they please with deportees abroad, regardless of statutory constraints that plainly apply — for example, by rerouting a plane to discharge deportees into a country where they would be tortured, even though federal law expressly forbids that outcome. See Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718, 721–22 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The Constitution cannot tolerate that result.
Even when the Supreme Court has found that an immigration statute does not apply extraterritorially, its reasoning undercuts Defendants’ claim. In Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993), the Court considered the legality of a program in which the Coast Guard interdicted Haitian refugees on the high seas and repatriated them. The executive order authorizing those operations relied on an INA provision that allowed the President to “suspend the entry of” aliens in certain circumstances, id. at 172 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)), but it also gestured toward the President’s constitutional powers. Id. at 164 n.13. The challengers urged that the operations violated a separate provision of the INA from the one undergirding the operation. Id. at 170–71. The Court held that the second provision did not apply to extraterritorial actions, but that was a matter of statutory interpretation, not because any Article II powers dissolved all statutory constraints. Id. at 171–74, 177.
Defendants’ extravagant assertion of Article II power, moreover, runs headlong into the fact that courts regularly adjudicate — and sometimes, through their equitable powers, restrain — Executive Branch conduct abroad. Indeed, this occurs even when national-security concerns are at their apex and Article II powers robust. See, e.g., Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (holding Executive’s military commissions on Guantanamo Bay cannot proceed given their unlawful structure and procedures); Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (concluding that U.S. courts retain authority to constrain Executive action in Guantanamo Bay through writ of habeas corpus). In Doe v. Mattis, for instance, the U.S military held a dual U.S./Saudi citizen in Iraq, believing him to be a member of the Islamic State. See 928 F.3d at 3. The district court enjoined the U.S. military from transferring him into another country’s custody without 72 hours’ notice. Id. at 3–4. After the military then provided such notice, the court enjoined the ensuing transfer on the ground that the military lacked legal authority. Id. at 4. The D.C. Circuit upheld both orders, agreeing that the military had failed to satisfy the legal preconditions for such a transfer. Id. at 4–5.
That courts can enjoin U.S. officials’ overseas conduct simply reflects the fact that an injunction operates in personam, meaning that it “is directed at someone, and governs that party’s conduct.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 428 (2009). It therefore binds the enjoined parties wherever they might be; the “situs of the [violation], whether within or without the United States, is of no importance.” New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 482 (1931); Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 289 (1952) (“Where . . . there can be no interference with the sovereignty of another nation, the District Court in exercising its equity powers may command persons properly before it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction.”); cf. Massie v. Watts, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 148, 158 (1810) (“[T]he principles of equity give a court jurisdiction wherever the person may be found.”); Mallory v. Norfolk S. Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122, 128 (2023).
To argue that this Court did something more than what courts routinely do, Defendants must grossly mischaracterize its Order and oral command. They contend that this Court ordered “the Government to reverse an extant counterterrorism operation and deliver foreign terrorists to United States soil,” Resp. at 7; see id. at 10–11 (similar), including by mandating that they “turn[] planes around mid-air without regard to important logistical constraints such as fuel availability or foreign airspace restrictions.” State Secrets Notice at 8. Hardly. The fair reading of the TRO is that it only prevented class members’ transfer from American into foreign custody. See supra pp. 26–30. To be sure, in its oral command, the Court said: “[A]ny plane containing [class members] that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States.” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 43. But the Court made clear in the same breath: “However that’s accomplished” — i.e., however custody is retained — “whether turning around a plane or not [dis]embarking anyone [on it] . . . , I leave to you.” Id. The overriding implication was therefore that U.S. officials needed to retain custody. The Court thus warned that if retaining custody hinged on ensuring that planes did not take off, or turned around, or did not discharge their passengers, then such actions needed to happen — but it was up to Defendants to comply however they saw logistically and operationally prudent. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *21 (Millett, J., concurring) (TROs did “nothing remotely like” Government’s characterization, as they “only directed immigration officials to preserve their custody, and thus the court’s jurisdiction, over the Plaintiffs”). And if the Government indeed voluntarily delivered nine passengers back to U.S. soil, see supra p. 9, the choice to hold them in the United States as opposed to somewhere else was the Government’s, not this Court’s.
Once the dust Defendants kick up is cleared away, it is evident that the TRO merely did what courts consistently do: review and sometimes restrict Executive actions, including when the officials are overseas and the issues implicate national security or foreign affairs. It in no way invaded any Article II powers, despite Defendants’ effort to incant new ones into existence. In any event, even if the TRO did somehow overstep the Court’s Article III power, Defendants cannot now evade a contempt charge on that basis.
b. Rule 65(d)
Defendants next seek protection in one of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 65(d)(1), which sets out the parameters for issuing a preliminary injunction or TRO, provides that “every restraining order must: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail — and not by referring to the complaint or other document — the act or acts restrained or required.” Defendants argue that the written Minute Order failed to satisfy Rule 65(d)’s requirements because it did not “state the reasons why it issued” and was thus not binding upon them. And, they contend, neither was the oral command standing alone. See Resp. at 2, 5–9. On each point, they are mistaken.
First, the collateral-bar rule once again renders this entire line of argument a non-starter. As will shortly be explained, the written Order fully satisfied Rule 65(d). But even if the written Order had been deficient, it would not have been void and thus non-binding; instead, it would have been subject to reversal or vacatur on appeal, while binding the parties in the interim. See 11A Wright & Miller, supra, § 2955 (“A court’s failure to comply with the prerequisites in Rule 65(d) as to the proper scope or form of an injunction or restraining order does not deprive it of jurisdiction or render its order void. But an order challenged on appeal should be set aside if it fails to comply with the rule.”) (footnotes omitted). By disobeying the Order rather than pursuing appellate relief, Defendants cannot now rely on any nonconformity with Rule 65(d) as a defense to contempt. See supra pp. 17–18.
To suggest otherwise, Defendants cite two cases from the Seventh Circuit. See Resp. at 5. But both undercut their contrarian proposition, as that Circuit considered a failure to satisfy Rule 65(d) as reason either to reverse the injunction or to remand for an explanation, but not to declare the injunction void. Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 779 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2015); e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 604 (7th Cir. 2007). Defendants’ argument, moreover, makes little sense. They nowhere explain why a failure to fulfill Rule 65(d)’s requirements is a unique legal defect, rendering an injunction void rather than — like all other defects — binding but potentially reversible. Other circuits, unsurprisingly, hold the exact opposite. See In re U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 918 F.3d 431, 437 n.3 (5th Cir. 2019); Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 577 (5th Cir. 2005); Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 n.2 (2d Cir. 2000); Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 476 F.2d 860, 862 (3d Cir. 1973); Va. Coal. for Immigrant Rts. v. Beals, 2024 WL 4601052, at *3 (4th Cir. Oct. 27, 2024); see also Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588, 591–92 (1927) (failure to adhere to analogous requirements set forth by statute — requiring “every order of injunction” to “set forth the reasons for [its] issuance” — “did not render the [order] void,” but instead meant it “must be . . . reversed”).
Second, in any event, the written TRO did comply with Rule 65(d). Defendants assert that it did not contain any “reasoning,” although they acknowledge that it contained “directives.” Resp. at 5. They overlook, however, that the written Order expressly incorporated the reasoning provided during the hearing. See Mar. 15 Minute Order, 7:25 p.m. (“As discussed in today’s hearing . . . .); Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 41–42 (explaining reasons why TRO issued). Defendants nowhere suggest that that reasoning was insufficient for purposes of Rule 65(d). They are wrong, furthermore, insofar as they contend that a TRO falls short of Rule 65(d) if its reasoning is expounded orally in a hearing (and not reiterated in the written Order). Although this section of their Response relies heavily on Seventh Circuit cases, they conspicuously neglect to address the one in which that court squarely held that to satisfy the requirements of Rule 65(d), the “explanation can be oral rather than written.” EEOC v. Severn Trent Servs., Inc., 358 F.3d 438, 442 (7th Cir. 2004); see Dexia Credit Loc. v. Rogan, 602 F.3d 879, 885 (7th Cir. 2010) (same for similar rule); see also Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 400–01 (6th Cir. 1997) (similar). Defendants muster no contrary authorities.
That rule makes sense, moreover, in light of the purposes behind Rule 65(d). One is to ensure that parties understand their legal obligations. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 75–76 (1967). That concern is not present if the bound party — here, the Government — has direct knowledge of the Court’s reasoning, regardless of whether it was in written or oral form. Another purpose is to facilitate judicial review. Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 477 (1974). Although a written opinion is presumably better on this score, a court can review the correctness of an injunction by reviewing a Court’s oral exposition of its reasoning. See, e.g., Six Clinics Holding Corp., 119 F.3d at 400–01.
Third, even if the written Order were somehow completely out of the picture — that is, if Defendants were able to show that the written TRO failed to satisfy Rule 65(d) and was therefore void, despite no legal support for that view — a violation of the oral command itself is grounds for contempt. The Fifth Circuit, for instance, has held that contempt can lie where — as here — the oral command was “not tentative” and the court “made clear that [it] would be effective immediately.” In re U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 918 F.3d at 437 & n.3; see also Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 n.7 (11th Cir. 1993) (“Oral orders are just as binding on litigants as written orders”); United States v. Elcock, 851 F. App’x 299, 302 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing id. for same); In re Charlotte Observer, 921 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1990) (treating oral injunction as enforceable but vacating on merits); Lau, 229 F.3d at 123 & n.2 (noting Rule 65(d) “contemplates” a written order but “oral order” is not “void” by virtue of not being “memorialize[d]”). Indeed, consider the absurd mischief that Defendants’ position would license: if an oral command is not binding for purposes of contempt unless or until memorialized in a written Order, the enjoined party could race to accomplish the plainly proscribed act before the court could put pen to paper.
* * *
In sum, each of Defendants’ arguments about whether there was a violation — arguments crafted for the most part as this contempt litigation has developed — are, at root, attacks on the TRO’s legal soundness and are therefore precluded by the collateral-bar rule. Even if they were not, however, they do not pass muster. The Court therefore must conclude that probable cause exists to find that Defendants violated its Order.
5. Willful
Having so determined, the sole remaining question is whether such defiance was willful. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907. “To establish willfulness,” the Court must determine that Defendants “acted with deliberate or reckless disregard of [their] obligation[s] under the” Order. Id. at 909 (citing In re Holloway, 995 F.2d at 1082); accord United States v. Rapone, 131 F.3d 188, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Several aspects of Defendants’ conduct strongly support such a conclusion. Cf. In re Holloway, 995 F.2d at 1082 (analyzing whether there was willful “intent properly encompasses the contemnor’s behavior in related incidents such as disobedience or resistance to other orders of the court”).
From the opening hours of Saturday, the Government’s conduct betrayed a desire to outrun the equitable reach of the Judiciary. See supra pp. 2–10; J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *9 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Hustling class members to an airport before the Proclamation had even been published and in the face of a suit that sought a TRO was bad enough. The decision to launch planes during the afternoon hearing was even worse. The Government knew as of that morning that the Court would hold a hearing on whether anyone in its custody could, consistent with the law, be removed pursuant to the Act — and yet it nonetheless rushed to load people onto planes and get them airborne. Such conduct suggests an attempt to evade an injunction and deny those aboard the planes the chance to avail themselves of the judicial review that the Government itself later told the Supreme Court is “obviously” available to them. See Government Reply in Support of Application at 1, Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2025).
Second, although Defendants now seek to muddy the waters, at no point on Saturday evening — not when the Court delivered the oral command directly to the Government, nor at any time after the written Order issued — did the Government so much as hint that it was not “clear . . . precisely what action [was] proscribed.” Young, 107 F.3d at 907 n.5 (quotation marks omitted). After the oral command, the hearing progressed for another five minutes. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 43–47. Although the Government spoke for the majority of that time, it never mentioned — much less asked the Court to clarify — the injunction just issued. See id. Government counsel has since confirmed that he understood the oral command and communicated it up the chain. See Mar. 21 Hrg. Tr. at 5. Additionally, that night — after the oral injunction was relayed to the agencies, see Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr. at 21, and as custody-transfer operations proceeded — the Government never contacted the Court with any questions about the injunctions’ scope. That is telling. The Government had been in regular email contact with chambers throughout the day, and it thus knew that it would get a rapid reply to any question it might have about the injunction. Indeed, that is exactly what had happened that morning: on the email chain that included the Government, Plaintiffs asked the Court to confirm whether the first TRO covered only named Plaintiffs, and the Court replied a mere nine minutes later. Only now does the Government suggest that the Court ordered something less than what it unequivocally stated in the hearing.
Finally, the Government plainly had an opportunity to avoid noncompliance — and yet it chose to press ahead. As previously explained, the Government pulled named Plaintiffs from removal flights in response to the Court’s first TRO, and two class members now aver that they were among the nine people who landed in El Salvador early Sunday morning but were later returned to the United States. See supra pp. 5, 9. Although Defendants maintain that they “did not order any removal flights to return to the United States,” Resp. at 4, they offer no evidence to support that assertion or discredit the first-hand declarations of class members.
Taken together, this behavior indicates “deliberate or reckless disregard” of the Order, Young, 107 F.3d at 909, leading this Court to conclude that there is probable cause that Defendants willfully disobeyed a binding judicial decree.
B. Next Steps
So now what? The Court last details the next steps that these proceedings may take.
First, before initiating any criminal-contempt proceedings, courts typically allow the contumacious party an opportunity to purge its contempt — that is, to remedy its violation by voluntarily obeying the court order. See Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66, 75 (1957) (“[A] court should first apply coercive remedies in an effort to persuade a party to obey its orders, and only make use of the more drastic criminal sanctions when the disobedience continues.”); cf. 9A Wright & Miller, supra, § 2465 (“The district judge normally will preface a contempt citation with an order directing either compliance with the subpoena or a showing of an excuse for the noncompliance.”). The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2. Per the terms of the TRO, the Government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland. The Court will also give Defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance, which the Court will evaluate.
In the event that Defendants do not choose to purge their contempt, the Court will proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose “specific act or omission” caused the noncompliance. See Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v. Voss, 82 F.3d 1521, 1525–27 (10th Cir. 1996). At the suggestion of the Government in the last hearing, the Court will begin by requiring declarations. See Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr. at 24–25. Should those be unsatisfactory, the Court will proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs. Id. at 29–30 (Plaintiffs suggesting declarations, depositions, hearings). The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to “request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). If the Government “declines” or “the interest of justice requires,” the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.” Id.
* * *
Finally, a note on Defendants’ invocation of the state-secrets privilege, which “permits the Government to prevent disclosure of information when that disclosure would harm national security interests.” United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U.S. 195, 204 (2022). They invoke the privilege as a ground for not providing certain details related to the movement of flights and class members before and after this Court’s TROs. Sharing such details, they assert, could make foreign countries less likely to collaborate with the U.S. in the future, and would disclose means used to thwart alien enemies, allowing them to evade capture and risking the security of removal personnel. See State Secrets Notice at 4–6; see also ECF Nos. 56-2 (Marco Rubio Decl.), ¶¶ 10, 13; No. 56-3 (Kristi Noem Decl.), ¶ 10. Defendants also add that there is also no need for the information in this case, as this Court “has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues.” State Secrets Notice at 1; see id. at 8–9.
Judicial review of a state-secrets invocation is circumscribed, but not nonexistent. The Government’s claim is to be afforded the utmost deference, and the Court must evaluate whether “there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.” United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953); but see El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296, 312 (4th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he state secrets doctrine does not represent a surrender of judicial control over access to the courts.”); Linder v. Dep’t of Def., 133 F.3d 17, 23 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describing proper examination of information’s national-security impact).
The Court is exceedingly doubtful that the privilege applies here. It is not inquiring into the diplomatic agreements that facilitated the flights nor the operational specifics of how Defendants apprehended and transported class members. Instead, the Court is simply seeking to confirm times and numbers: how many passengers the two flights carried, whether they were all deported pursuant to the Proclamation, and when they were transferred out of U.S. custody. See Minute Order of Mar. 18, 2:27 p.m. The Court is skeptical that such information rises to the level of a state secret. As noted, the Government has widely publicized details of the flights through social media and official announcements, see supra p. 11 (reposting video showing operational details); ECF No. 69 (Resp. to State Secrets) at 4–10, thereby revealing snippets of the information the Court seeks and raising doubts that such information would jeopardize future diplomatic engagements or operational security. Defendants, moreover, have still not asserted that the information is even classified, and they have identified no case in which unclassified material was nonetheless protected by the privilege. Nor is the Court yet persuaded that even if publicly disclosing the information might harm state secrets, sharing it only ex parte with a federal court would do the same.
At this point in the contempt inquiry, however, the information at issue is not necessary to proceed, so the Court will not resolve whether the invocation is warranted. Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 11 (“necessity” of information “determine[s] how far the court should probe in satisfying itself that the occasion for invoking the privilege is appropriate”). But if the information turns out to be necessary later in these proceedings, the Court may revisit the invocation.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will find probable cause that Defendants’ actions constitute contempt. It will provide them an opportunity to purge such contempt. If they opt not to do so, the Court will proceed to identify the contemnor(s) and refer the matter for prosecution. A separate Order so stating will issue this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
Chief Judge
Date: April 16, 2025
Defendants, then, do not show that “removal” carries the specific meaning they urge under the Act. For that reason, rather than a smattering of late-18th-century dictionaries and an inconclusive fragment of the Act’s text, the better — indeed the obvious — place to look for the meaning of “removal” in the Court’s written TRO is the hour-plus-long hearing that immediately preceded it. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907–08 (context for determining meaning of injunction includes “objective circumstances surrounding the issuance of the order” and “audience to which it is addressed”) (quotation marks omitted).
Anyone paying attention to the hearing (as the Government presumably was) would have known that the ultimate action Plaintiffs sought to prevent through a TRO was not their mere transportation across the U.S. border, but instead their discharge from U.S. custody into a foreign country or into foreign hands. Common Cause, 674 F.2d at 927 (context for determining meaning of injunction includes “the relief sought by the moving party” and “mischief that the injunction seeks to prevent”). When the Court accordingly referred to removal or deportation in the hearing, it consistently used those terms to mean a legal departure that was complete upon discharge from U.S. custody, not upon mere physical exit from U.S. territory.
First, mark the opening exchange of the hearing. The Court asked the Government to confirm that none of the five named Plaintiffs was “on any plane that has departed,” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 4, as the first TRO then in place prohibited their “remov[al] . . . from the United States.” Minute Order of Mar. 15, 9:40 a.m. Government counsel said that he had “confirmed” that they would “not be removed.” See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 5. The Court then clarified what that must entail, stating: “I would assume that means that they are either not on the planes or that they will not be removed from the planes and will be brought back once the planes land in El Salvador.” Id. (emphasis added). The Government did not disagree with that characterization. Id. From the start, then, the Court plainly considered removal (from the United States) — i.e., the action that would violate the TRO — to mean a legal removal, and specifically a process that culminated not in a detainee’s movement out of U.S. airspace or arrival in a foreign country, but instead upon his transfer out of U.S. custody. Similarly, during a later exchange on irreparable harm, the Court expressly said that it viewed “the status quo” (which Plaintiffs sought to maintain) as “keeping [class members] in ICE custody but not deporting them.” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 35. Again, the issue was custody, not physical location.
Second, consider the recurring discussion about when and how the Court would lose equitable jurisdiction. These exchanges make clear that the Court considered a TRO to be appropriate in part to preserve the status quo; that the Court (and Plaintiffs) felt that this entailed ensuring that it did not lose jurisdiction; and that it was concerned that it would lose jurisdiction not when class members exited U.S. airspace but instead when they left U.S. custody. The Government listened to and indeed participated in these exchanges.
To start, prior to the mid-hearing adjournment, Plaintiffs’ counsel interjected that “sources” “on the ground” had indicated that planes were actively departing or could be at any moment. Id. at 12. That created time pressure, he said, but not because class members would simply be flown outside the United States; instead, it was because they could imminently “end[] up in a Salvadoran prison,” and that eventuality might “divest this Court of jurisdiction.” Id.
The reason was explained later in the hearing, when the discussion returned to irreparable harm. The Government said that it did not understand Plaintiffs’ irreparable-harm argument, which it construed to be “predicated on the premise that this Court would somehow lose jurisdiction if [class members] were” “in the United States” but “not in D.C.” Id. at 35. The Court clarified for the Government that Plaintiffs’ “argument in part is [that class members] are going to be sent to Salvadoran or Honduran prisons.” Id. (emphasis added). Indeed, that event, Plaintiffs again agreed, was the crux: not only did they face “real danger . . . if they end up in a Salvadoran prison,” but if that were to occur, “the Court would lose jurisdiction because it wouldn’t be able to offer a remedy” — and a TRO was needed to prevent both things from happening. Id. at 36–37. The Government surely understood the black-letter principle that to have jurisdiction, a Court must be able to redress the plaintiff’s injury. See Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279, 291 (2021). Plaintiffs here clearly recognized that if they were turned over to Salvadoran authorities, the Court might lose its ability to offer any remedy: while a federal court can exercise equitable powers over U.S. officials even if they are overseas, it cannot directly control foreign officials, see Doe v. Mattis, 928 F.3d 1, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2019), meaning that this Court could not order the guards at CECOT to release class members. But see Abu Ali v. Ashcroft, 350 F. Supp. 2d 28, 30–31, 47–50 (D.D.C. 2004) (denying motion to dismiss habeas petition filed by U.S. citizen held in Saudi prison at United States’s behest because prisoner was in “constructive” U.S. custody); Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 686 (2008) (one is “held ‘in custody’ by the United States when” a U.S. official “has ‘the power to produce’ him”) (citation omitted).
In an egregious case of cherry-picking, Defendants selectively quote only a fragment of the Court’s response here to mischaracterize its position, suggesting that the Court acknowledged that it lacked jurisdiction once class members left U.S. airspace. See Resp. at 8; see also id. at 11. But that contention overlooks that the first words of the response — “Right. Sure. I mean, once they are out of the country, I’m not sure what I can do there,” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 36 — affirmed Plaintiffs’ custody-based articulation of why it would lose jurisdiction. Defendants’ suggestion also ignores the Court’s prior and repeated references to removal as a transfer of custody. Any lingering doubt on this score is dispelled by the exchange that occurred just a few minutes later. Immediately after the Court ruled on the TRO and delivered the oral command on how it should be implemented (which will be addressed shortly), see id. at 42–43, Plaintiffs provided an update on the two flights that they understood to have taken off that afternoon; one had ended up in El Salvador and the other in Honduras, they said. Id. at 44. In response, the Court said:
Again, just so we are clear, if planes have already landed and discharged their occupants, aside from the five Plaintiffs I enjoined earlier, then . . . I don’t have jurisdiction to require [the occupants’] return.
Id. (emphasis added). “Right,” agreed Plaintiffs. Id. If the Court believed jurisdiction to be territorial, it would not have said the emphasized portion; instead, its answer would have been, “If the planes have left the United States, I don’t have jurisdiction to require their return.”
In short, then, these exchanges on equitable jurisdiction — in which the Government was both “audience” and participant, Young, 107 F.3d at 907–08 — demonstrate that Plaintiffs sought a classwide TRO that would ensure that the Court retained that jurisdiction over class members; that the Court agreed that it would lose such jurisdiction upon class members’ handover to foreign authorities, and not before; and that the only TRO the Court was considering granting was one that would prevent such an eventuality.
Third, return to the oral ruling and command. At around 6:45 p.m., the Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ request for a broader TRO covering all class members. After explaining the reasons that a TRO covering the Plaintiff class was “appropriate,” the Court spelled out its scope: the TRO “would be to prevent the removal of the class for 14 days or until further order of the Court. And the class will be all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the Proclamation . . . and [to] its implementation.” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 42 (emphasis added). After noting that it would “memorializ[e]” the TRO through a Minute Order, the Court then addressed “where we go from here,” id., and turned to the Government to emphasize “the first point”:
[Y]ou shall inform your clients of [the Order] immediately, and that any plane containing [class members] that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not [dis]embarking anyone on the plane . . . , I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.
Id. at 43 (emphasis added).
From this command alone, it was clear and unequivocal that the ultimate action proscribed by the TRO was not class members’ removal from U.S. territory, but instead their transfer from U.S. custody into foreign hands. If the Court’s TRO only prohibited class members from being transported out of U.S. territory, much of the oral command would be nonsensical. It would make no sense to command that “people” who had never left the United States needed “to be returned to the United States.” Id. (emphasis added). Nor would it make any sense for the Court to have ordered the Government not to deplane “anyone on [a] plane.” Id. The inescapable meaning of that directive, particularly in light of the exchanges leading up to it, was that anyone on a removal flight that had already landed abroad should not be discharged from U.S. custody and turned over to Salvadoran (or Honduran) authorities. That was clearly the ultimate harm Plaintiffs sought to prevent and the jurisdiction-terminating event they endeavored to preclude by freezing the status quo. If the injunction only prevented class members’ exit from U.S. airspace, the Court would have had no need to detail how they should be handled if their plane had already landed abroad.
* * *
In sum, numerous exchanges throughout the hearing, including the ultimate unequivocal oral command that clarified how the TRO must be obeyed, demonstrate that the Court consistently considered removal to be not mere physical removal, but instead legal deportation that was complete upon transfer out of U.S. custody. Defendants’ proposition — that the written Order used removal in a dramatically narrower sense — flies in the face of this overwhelming context. And they provide no convincing explanation for why, after its emphatic oral command, the Court would have made an abrupt U-turn in the 30-minute window between the end of the hearing and the docketing of the Order. Contra Resp. at 7. Indeed, the Court twice told the Government in the hearing that it would “memorializ[e]” the TRO in the written Order, see Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 42, 46; the only objectively reasonable expectation, then, was that the written order enshrined the injunction unchanged unless the Court expressly drew attention to any discrepancies between what was said and what was recorded in writing. Nor did the Government seek to clarify the relationship between the oral command and written Order, which it plainly should have done had it felt any confusion. The Court therefore concludes that the written TRO and the oral command defining compliance were each sufficiently clear and specific in proscribing the handover of class members to Salvadoran officials.
4. Violation
The second element of contempt requires that the sufficiently clear and specific order was in fact violated. Young, 107 F.3d at 907. Defendants do not dispute that, if the Order indeed proscribed transferring class members out of U.S. custody, they plainly violated it hours after it issued. Rather than mount any factual defense, they rely on post-hoc legal arguments to attack the validity of the Order itself. These positions are without merit, but, more important, they are not even available to Defendants. As previously explained, per the collateral-bar rule, what matters is whether they violated the terms of the Order, not whether the Order itself was legally valid.
a. Separation of Powers
Defendants first claim that even if the TRO used the term “removal” to describe a legal departure and thereby did enjoin class members’ transfer into foreign custody, it did not prohibit — indeed could not prohibit — Defendants from making such a transfer if the class members “were already outside the United States” at the time of the Order. See Resp. at 9; id. at 2, 9–13. That argument sails wide of the mark.
Underpinning their claim is a sweeping assertion: they contend that once the class members exited U.S. airspace, Defendants’ authority over them flowed solely from the President’s Article II powers, not from the congressional grant of immigration authority invoked by the Proclamation. Id. at 10, 12. In their view, from El Valle to the U.S. border, Defendants transported class members pursuant to the Act; upon exiting U.S. airspace, however, the Act fell away, and Defendants continued on under only the President’s Article II powers.
From that bold premise, Defendants urge two points. They first posit that because it only enjoined removals effectuated “pursuant to the Proclamation,” Minute Order of Mar. 15, 7:25 p.m., the TRO “by its terms” did not reach conduct outside of United States territory taken pursuant to Article II. See Resp. at 9–10, 12. Even were the premise solid (which it is not), this is simply another argument about how the TRO should be construed based on its language. But we have already been down this path: the TRO should be understood in light of the circumstances in which it issued — not given a belated gloss by virtue of sweeping separation-of-powers theories raised for the first time in briefing. To reiterate again, the relevant context here demonstrates that the Order clearly and specifically prohibited Defendants from transferring any class members into a Salvadoran prison, even — in fact, especially — if they had already been flown outside the United States. See supra pp. 26–30.
To the degree that Defendants’ objection does not concern the Order’s interpretation, it melds into their secondary argument: even if the Court’s Order prohibited (or “purported to” prohibit, see Resp. at 9) transferring custody of class members already outside the United States, the Court lacked the constitutional power to enjoin such transfers. Id. at 11 (Executive Branch’s handling of class members abroad “was beyond the courts’ authority to adjudicate”). This position does not persuade.
First and most important, the collateral-bar rule stops it in its tracks. Even if Defendants’ theory of Article II power were sound, it would not help them in this contempt inquiry. The argument, at bottom, is an attack on the legal validity of the TRO: by restraining their conduct, Defendants say, the Order infringed on the President’s Article II powers and thus violated the Constitution. See Resp. at 7; id. at 12 (“extraterritorial exercise” of President’s Article II authority “present[s] a non-reviewable political question”). But, as explained above, Defendants cannot “defend contempt charges by asserting the unconstitutionality of the injunction.” Carroll v. President & Comm’rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 179 (1968) (citing Walker, 388 U.S. 307). If Defendants believed — correctly or not — that the Order encroached upon the President’s Article II powers, they had two options: they could seek judicial review of the injunction but not disobey it, or they could disobey it but forfeit any right to raise their legal argument as a defense against criminal-contempt charges. See supra pp. 17–18. They chose the latter course.
Even if their Article II argument could be construed as something other than a barred collateral attack on the legal soundness of the Orders, it would still come up short. There is no merit to their contention that outside U.S. airspace, Defendants somehow operated solely under the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers, not the Alien Enemies Act. The Constitution gives Congress “plenary authority” over immigration, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 940 (1983), so any “discretion over the admission and exclusion of aliens” possessed by the Executive “extends only as far as the statutory authority conferred by Congress and may not transgress constitutional limitations.” Abourzek v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Since the Act’s passage, moreover, an unbroken line of cases has considered the “disposition of alien enemies during a state of war” to be within Congress’s constitutional ambit, not the President’s. See Ludecke, 335 U.S. at 173; id. at 161; Brown v. United States, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 110, 126 (1814) (Marshall, C.J.) (Act “affords a strong implication that” President “did not possess” power over “alien enemies” “by virtue of [a] declaration of war”); Citizens Protective League v. Clark, 155 F.2d 290, 293 (D.C. Cir. 1946).
Although Defendants offer certain soundbite-ready assertions, see State Secrets Notice at 1 (declaring “President’s plenary authority, derived from Article II and the mandate of the electorate . . . to remove from the homeland designated terrorists”), they cite no legal authority that Defendants here operated pursuant to a presidential power preclusive of both congressional and judicial power. Such an extraordinary claim “must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 638 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Yet across multiple filings they muster not a single case in direct support of the proposition that when the Government carries out deportations pursuant to a grant of statutory authority, that authority is necessarily eclipsed by the Executive’s exclusive constitutional prerogative when deportees leave U.S. territory. See State Secrets Notice at 1–2; Resp. at 9–13; Mot. to Vacate Mar. 17 Hrg. at 4–5. Were that true, Executive Branch officials could do as they please with deportees abroad, regardless of statutory constraints that plainly apply — for example, by rerouting a plane to discharge deportees into a country where they would be tortured, even though federal law expressly forbids that outcome. See Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718, 721–22 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The Constitution cannot tolerate that result.
Even when the Supreme Court has found that an immigration statute does not apply extraterritorially, its reasoning undercuts Defendants’ claim. In Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155 (1993), the Court considered the legality of a program in which the Coast Guard interdicted Haitian refugees on the high seas and repatriated them. The executive order authorizing those operations relied on an INA provision that allowed the President to “suspend the entry of” aliens in certain circumstances, id. at 172 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)), but it also gestured toward the President’s constitutional powers. Id. at 164 n.13. The challengers urged that the operations violated a separate provision of the INA from the one undergirding the operation. Id. at 170–71. The Court held that the second provision did not apply to extraterritorial actions, but that was a matter of statutory interpretation, not because any Article II powers dissolved all statutory constraints. Id. at 171–74, 177.
Defendants’ extravagant assertion of Article II power, moreover, runs headlong into the fact that courts regularly adjudicate — and sometimes, through their equitable powers, restrain — Executive Branch conduct abroad. Indeed, this occurs even when national-security concerns are at their apex and Article II powers robust. See, e.g., Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) (holding Executive’s military commissions on Guantanamo Bay cannot proceed given their unlawful structure and procedures); Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) (concluding that U.S. courts retain authority to constrain Executive action in Guantanamo Bay through writ of habeas corpus). In Doe v. Mattis, for instance, the U.S military held a dual U.S./Saudi citizen in Iraq, believing him to be a member of the Islamic State. See 928 F.3d at 3. The district court enjoined the U.S. military from transferring him into another country’s custody without 72 hours’ notice. Id. at 3–4. After the military then provided such notice, the court enjoined the ensuing transfer on the ground that the military lacked legal authority. Id. at 4. The D.C. Circuit upheld both orders, agreeing that the military had failed to satisfy the legal preconditions for such a transfer. Id. at 4–5.
That courts can enjoin U.S. officials’ overseas conduct simply reflects the fact that an injunction operates in personam, meaning that it “is directed at someone, and governs that party’s conduct.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 428 (2009). It therefore binds the enjoined parties wherever they might be; the “situs of the [violation], whether within or without the United States, is of no importance.” New Jersey v. City of New York, 283 U.S. 473, 482 (1931); Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 289 (1952) (“Where . . . there can be no interference with the sovereignty of another nation, the District Court in exercising its equity powers may command persons properly before it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction.”); cf. Massie v. Watts, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 148, 158 (1810) (“[T]he principles of equity give a court jurisdiction wherever the person may be found.”); Mallory v. Norfolk S. Railway Co., 600 U.S. 122, 128 (2023).
To argue that this Court did something more than what courts routinely do, Defendants must grossly mischaracterize its Order and oral command. They contend that this Court ordered “the Government to reverse an extant counterterrorism operation and deliver foreign terrorists to United States soil,” Resp. at 7; see id. at 10–11 (similar), including by mandating that they “turn[] planes around mid-air without regard to important logistical constraints such as fuel availability or foreign airspace restrictions.” State Secrets Notice at 8. Hardly. The fair reading of the TRO is that it only prevented class members’ transfer from American into foreign custody. See supra pp. 26–30. To be sure, in its oral command, the Court said: “[A]ny plane containing [class members] that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States.” Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 43. But the Court made clear in the same breath: “However that’s accomplished” — i.e., however custody is retained — “whether turning around a plane or not [dis]embarking anyone [on it] . . . , I leave to you.” Id. The overriding implication was therefore that U.S. officials needed to retain custody. The Court thus warned that if retaining custody hinged on ensuring that planes did not take off, or turned around, or did not discharge their passengers, then such actions needed to happen — but it was up to Defendants to comply however they saw logistically and operationally prudent. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *21 (Millett, J., concurring) (TROs did “nothing remotely like” Government’s characterization, as they “only directed immigration officials to preserve their custody, and thus the court’s jurisdiction, over the Plaintiffs”). And if the Government indeed voluntarily delivered nine passengers back to U.S. soil, see supra p. 9, the choice to hold them in the United States as opposed to somewhere else was the Government’s, not this Court’s.
Once the dust Defendants kick up is cleared away, it is evident that the TRO merely did what courts consistently do: review and sometimes restrict Executive actions, including when the officials are overseas and the issues implicate national security or foreign affairs. It in no way invaded any Article II powers, despite Defendants’ effort to incant new ones into existence. In any event, even if the TRO did somehow overstep the Court’s Article III power, Defendants cannot now evade a contempt charge on that basis.
b. Rule 65(d)
Defendants next seek protection in one of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 65(d)(1), which sets out the parameters for issuing a preliminary injunction or TRO, provides that “every restraining order must: (A) state the reasons why it issued; (B) state its terms specifically; and (C) describe in reasonable detail — and not by referring to the complaint or other document — the act or acts restrained or required.” Defendants argue that the written Minute Order failed to satisfy Rule 65(d)’s requirements because it did not “state the reasons why it issued” and was thus not binding upon them. And, they contend, neither was the oral command standing alone. See Resp. at 2, 5–9. On each point, they are mistaken.
First, the collateral-bar rule once again renders this entire line of argument a non-starter. As will shortly be explained, the written Order fully satisfied Rule 65(d). But even if the written Order had been deficient, it would not have been void and thus non-binding; instead, it would have been subject to reversal or vacatur on appeal, while binding the parties in the interim. See 11A Wright & Miller, supra, § 2955 (“A court’s failure to comply with the prerequisites in Rule 65(d) as to the proper scope or form of an injunction or restraining order does not deprive it of jurisdiction or render its order void. But an order challenged on appeal should be set aside if it fails to comply with the rule.”) (footnotes omitted). By disobeying the Order rather than pursuing appellate relief, Defendants cannot now rely on any nonconformity with Rule 65(d) as a defense to contempt. See supra pp. 17–18.
To suggest otherwise, Defendants cite two cases from the Seventh Circuit. See Resp. at 5. But both undercut their contrarian proposition, as that Circuit considered a failure to satisfy Rule 65(d) as reason either to reverse the injunction or to remand for an explanation, but not to declare the injunction void. Adkins v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co., 779 F.3d 481, 483 (7th Cir. 2015); e360 Insight v. The Spamhaus Project, 500 F.3d 594, 604 (7th Cir. 2007). Defendants’ argument, moreover, makes little sense. They nowhere explain why a failure to fulfill Rule 65(d)’s requirements is a unique legal defect, rendering an injunction void rather than — like all other defects — binding but potentially reversible. Other circuits, unsurprisingly, hold the exact opposite. See In re U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 918 F.3d 431, 437 n.3 (5th Cir. 2019); Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 577 (5th Cir. 2005); Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 n.2 (2d Cir. 2000); Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 476 F.2d 860, 862 (3d Cir. 1973); Va. Coal. for Immigrant Rts. v. Beals, 2024 WL 4601052, at *3 (4th Cir. Oct. 27, 2024); see also Lawrence v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 274 U.S. 588, 591–92 (1927) (failure to adhere to analogous requirements set forth by statute — requiring “every order of injunction” to “set forth the reasons for [its] issuance” — “did not render the [order] void,” but instead meant it “must be . . . reversed”).
Second, in any event, the written TRO did comply with Rule 65(d). Defendants assert that it did not contain any “reasoning,” although they acknowledge that it contained “directives.” Resp. at 5. They overlook, however, that the written Order expressly incorporated the reasoning provided during the hearing. See Mar. 15 Minute Order, 7:25 p.m. (“As discussed in today’s hearing . . . .); Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 41–42 (explaining reasons why TRO issued). Defendants nowhere suggest that that reasoning was insufficient for purposes of Rule 65(d). They are wrong, furthermore, insofar as they contend that a TRO falls short of Rule 65(d) if its reasoning is expounded orally in a hearing (and not reiterated in the written Order). Although this section of their Response relies heavily on Seventh Circuit cases, they conspicuously neglect to address the one in which that court squarely held that to satisfy the requirements of Rule 65(d), the “explanation can be oral rather than written.” EEOC v. Severn Trent Servs., Inc., 358 F.3d 438, 442 (7th Cir. 2004); see Dexia Credit Loc. v. Rogan, 602 F.3d 879, 885 (7th Cir. 2010) (same for similar rule); see also Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., Inc., 119 F.3d 393, 400–01 (6th Cir. 1997) (similar). Defendants muster no contrary authorities.
That rule makes sense, moreover, in light of the purposes behind Rule 65(d). One is to ensure that parties understand their legal obligations. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Phila. Marine Trade Ass’n, 389 U.S. 64, 75–76 (1967). That concern is not present if the bound party — here, the Government — has direct knowledge of the Court’s reasoning, regardless of whether it was in written or oral form. Another purpose is to facilitate judicial review. Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 477 (1974). Although a written opinion is presumably better on this score, a court can review the correctness of an injunction by reviewing a Court’s oral exposition of its reasoning. See, e.g., Six Clinics Holding Corp., 119 F.3d at 400–01.
Third, even if the written Order were somehow completely out of the picture — that is, if Defendants were able to show that the written TRO failed to satisfy Rule 65(d) and was therefore void, despite no legal support for that view — a violation of the oral command itself is grounds for contempt. The Fifth Circuit, for instance, has held that contempt can lie where — as here — the oral command was “not tentative” and the court “made clear that [it] would be effective immediately.” In re U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 918 F.3d at 437 & n.3; see also Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1542 n.7 (11th Cir. 1993) (“Oral orders are just as binding on litigants as written orders”); United States v. Elcock, 851 F. App’x 299, 302 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing id. for same); In re Charlotte Observer, 921 F.2d 47, 50 (4th Cir. 1990) (treating oral injunction as enforceable but vacating on merits); Lau, 229 F.3d at 123 & n.2 (noting Rule 65(d) “contemplates” a written order but “oral order” is not “void” by virtue of not being “memorialize[d]”). Indeed, consider the absurd mischief that Defendants’ position would license: if an oral command is not binding for purposes of contempt unless or until memorialized in a written Order, the enjoined party could race to accomplish the plainly proscribed act before the court could put pen to paper.
* * *
In sum, each of Defendants’ arguments about whether there was a violation — arguments crafted for the most part as this contempt litigation has developed — are, at root, attacks on the TRO’s legal soundness and are therefore precluded by the collateral-bar rule. Even if they were not, however, they do not pass muster. The Court therefore must conclude that probable cause exists to find that Defendants violated its Order.
5. Willful
Having so determined, the sole remaining question is whether such defiance was willful. See Young, 107 F.3d at 907. “To establish willfulness,” the Court must determine that Defendants “acted with deliberate or reckless disregard of [their] obligation[s] under the” Order. Id. at 909 (citing In re Holloway, 995 F.2d at 1082); accord United States v. Rapone, 131 F.3d 188, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Several aspects of Defendants’ conduct strongly support such a conclusion. Cf. In re Holloway, 995 F.2d at 1082 (analyzing whether there was willful “intent properly encompasses the contemnor’s behavior in related incidents such as disobedience or resistance to other orders of the court”).
From the opening hours of Saturday, the Government’s conduct betrayed a desire to outrun the equitable reach of the Judiciary. See supra pp. 2–10; J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *9 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). Hustling class members to an airport before the Proclamation had even been published and in the face of a suit that sought a TRO was bad enough. The decision to launch planes during the afternoon hearing was even worse. The Government knew as of that morning that the Court would hold a hearing on whether anyone in its custody could, consistent with the law, be removed pursuant to the Act — and yet it nonetheless rushed to load people onto planes and get them airborne. Such conduct suggests an attempt to evade an injunction and deny those aboard the planes the chance to avail themselves of the judicial review that the Government itself later told the Supreme Court is “obviously” available to them. See Government Reply in Support of Application at 1, Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2025).
Second, although Defendants now seek to muddy the waters, at no point on Saturday evening — not when the Court delivered the oral command directly to the Government, nor at any time after the written Order issued — did the Government so much as hint that it was not “clear . . . precisely what action [was] proscribed.” Young, 107 F.3d at 907 n.5 (quotation marks omitted). After the oral command, the hearing progressed for another five minutes. See Mar. 15 Hrg. Tr. at 43–47. Although the Government spoke for the majority of that time, it never mentioned — much less asked the Court to clarify — the injunction just issued. See id. Government counsel has since confirmed that he understood the oral command and communicated it up the chain. See Mar. 21 Hrg. Tr. at 5. Additionally, that night — after the oral injunction was relayed to the agencies, see Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr. at 21, and as custody-transfer operations proceeded — the Government never contacted the Court with any questions about the injunctions’ scope. That is telling. The Government had been in regular email contact with chambers throughout the day, and it thus knew that it would get a rapid reply to any question it might have about the injunction. Indeed, that is exactly what had happened that morning: on the email chain that included the Government, Plaintiffs asked the Court to confirm whether the first TRO covered only named Plaintiffs, and the Court replied a mere nine minutes later. Only now does the Government suggest that the Court ordered something less than what it unequivocally stated in the hearing.
Finally, the Government plainly had an opportunity to avoid noncompliance — and yet it chose to press ahead. As previously explained, the Government pulled named Plaintiffs from removal flights in response to the Court’s first TRO, and two class members now aver that they were among the nine people who landed in El Salvador early Sunday morning but were later returned to the United States. See supra pp. 5, 9. Although Defendants maintain that they “did not order any removal flights to return to the United States,” Resp. at 4, they offer no evidence to support that assertion or discredit the first-hand declarations of class members.
Taken together, this behavior indicates “deliberate or reckless disregard” of the Order, Young, 107 F.3d at 909, leading this Court to conclude that there is probable cause that Defendants willfully disobeyed a binding judicial decree.
B. Next Steps
So now what? The Court last details the next steps that these proceedings may take.
First, before initiating any criminal-contempt proceedings, courts typically allow the contumacious party an opportunity to purge its contempt — that is, to remedy its violation by voluntarily obeying the court order. See Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66, 75 (1957) (“[A] court should first apply coercive remedies in an effort to persuade a party to obey its orders, and only make use of the more drastic criminal sanctions when the disobedience continues.”); cf. 9A Wright & Miller, supra, § 2465 (“The district judge normally will preface a contempt citation with an order directing either compliance with the subpoena or a showing of an excuse for the noncompliance.”). The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2. Per the terms of the TRO, the Government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland. The Court will also give Defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance, which the Court will evaluate.
In the event that Defendants do not choose to purge their contempt, the Court will proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose “specific act or omission” caused the noncompliance. See Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v. Voss, 82 F.3d 1521, 1525–27 (10th Cir. 1996). At the suggestion of the Government in the last hearing, the Court will begin by requiring declarations. See Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr. at 24–25. Should those be unsatisfactory, the Court will proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs. Id. at 29–30 (Plaintiffs suggesting declarations, depositions, hearings). The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to “request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). If the Government “declines” or “the interest of justice requires,” the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.” Id.
* * *
Finally, a note on Defendants’ invocation of the state-secrets privilege, which “permits the Government to prevent disclosure of information when that disclosure would harm national security interests.” United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U.S. 195, 204 (2022). They invoke the privilege as a ground for not providing certain details related to the movement of flights and class members before and after this Court’s TROs. Sharing such details, they assert, could make foreign countries less likely to collaborate with the U.S. in the future, and would disclose means used to thwart alien enemies, allowing them to evade capture and risking the security of removal personnel. See State Secrets Notice at 4–6; see also ECF Nos. 56-2 (Marco Rubio Decl.), ¶¶ 10, 13; No. 56-3 (Kristi Noem Decl.), ¶ 10. Defendants also add that there is also no need for the information in this case, as this Court “has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues.” State Secrets Notice at 1; see id. at 8–9.
Judicial review of a state-secrets invocation is circumscribed, but not nonexistent. The Government’s claim is to be afforded the utmost deference, and the Court must evaluate whether “there is a reasonable danger that compulsion of the evidence will expose military matters which, in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.” United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953); but see El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296, 312 (4th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he state secrets doctrine does not represent a surrender of judicial control over access to the courts.”); Linder v. Dep’t of Def., 133 F.3d 17, 23 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (describing proper examination of information’s national-security impact).
The Court is exceedingly doubtful that the privilege applies here. It is not inquiring into the diplomatic agreements that facilitated the flights nor the operational specifics of how Defendants apprehended and transported class members. Instead, the Court is simply seeking to confirm times and numbers: how many passengers the two flights carried, whether they were all deported pursuant to the Proclamation, and when they were transferred out of U.S. custody. See Minute Order of Mar. 18, 2:27 p.m. The Court is skeptical that such information rises to the level of a state secret. As noted, the Government has widely publicized details of the flights through social media and official announcements, see supra p. 11 (reposting video showing operational details); ECF No. 69 (Resp. to State Secrets) at 4–10, thereby revealing snippets of the information the Court seeks and raising doubts that such information would jeopardize future diplomatic engagements or operational security. Defendants, moreover, have still not asserted that the information is even classified, and they have identified no case in which unclassified material was nonetheless protected by the privilege. Nor is the Court yet persuaded that even if publicly disclosing the information might harm state secrets, sharing it only ex parte with a federal court would do the same.
At this point in the contempt inquiry, however, the information at issue is not necessary to proceed, so the Court will not resolve whether the invocation is warranted. Reynolds, 345 U.S. at 11 (“necessity” of information “determine[s] how far the court should probe in satisfying itself that the occasion for invoking the privilege is appropriate”). But if the information turns out to be necessary later in these proceedings, the Court may revisit the invocation.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will find probable cause that Defendants’ actions constitute contempt. It will provide them an opportunity to purge such contempt. If they opt not to do so, the Court will proceed to identify the contemnor(s) and refer the matter for prosecution. A separate Order so stating will issue this day.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
Chief Judge
Date: April 16, 2025
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37305
- 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 1 guest