Just before 1:00 a.m., the justices (aggressively) stepped back into the Alien Enemy Act litigation—in a decision suggesting that a majority understands that these are no longer normal circumstances.
Thanks for this explanation that I read before I finished my morning coffee. I upgraded to paid because I have a feeling you'll be staying up late to do more of these.
Thank you Prof. This is the kind of irt analysis that prompted me to become a founding member this morning. Your ability to read between the lines by providing context is invaluable as we see if the Courts remain an equal branch of government. Btw, is it noteworthy that the DOJ has not, to my knowledge, filed a stay/mandamus emergency motion from Judge Wilkerson’s opinion in KAB? SteveG
Thanks Steve. I'm not sure exactly what to make yet of DOJ's maneuvering in Abrego Garcia, but yes, no filing at SCOTUS yet suggests at least some ... pause ... on its part.
On one level, I appreciated the Calvinball reference. On the other hand, its initial use in Calvin and Hobbes reflected a more joyful absurdity that is … not present here.
Thank you for this explanation. Even as someone who doesn’t understand much legalese, this helped me further conceptualize the important matter at hand. Thank you!
Such excellent reporting. I thank the @Bluesky for guiding me to you. I will be a follower, and with any luck, a paid subscriber someday. Thank you for your excellent work.
Thank you as always! (You must be exhausted). One question re: the AEA on the merits. Suppose the court found the govt can apply it to suspected gang members. I understand then that the AEA would give them power to detain and/or deport. But does it give them the right to deport and continue to detain? Isn’t there a separate legal question here about the ability to detain AEA prisoners after they’ve been deported? From a due process perspective, the deportation seems to be the least of it if they’re being deported to then serve a life sentence
Yes, I’m hoping a court will address this sooner rather than later — particularly when we are paying for the life sentence in the destination country, and thus controlling the outcome. Could we also pay another country to summarily execute the people we round up and deport?
I suspect internal dynamics and leadership on the court can on some occasions be very important, and perhaps here. In that light, the dissent by Thomas and Alito may serve to separate these two administration apologists from the rest of the conservative bloc- and that’s a good thing. I suspect Roberts is quite disappointed he was not able to achieve unanimity and makes me wonder how much the earlier 9-0 decision was watered down in order to get the votes of those two.
I claim no expertise, but I thought that both of the earlier decisions had so much wiggle room because they had been trimmed to get a 9-0 result. I thought that that trimming was for 9-0 instead of 5-4, but maybe they had 7-2 for upholding Xinis without substituting "facilitate" for "effectuate".
Steve, thanks. So, SCOTUS IS he cavalry, and they ARE coming? Trump (finally) is hoisted on his own petard? Deus ex machina? Stephen Miller is in (legal) comtempt? Enquiring minds want to know. (Where is Paul Harvey when you need him?)
Thank you, Steve. I really needed your analysis ... again. But last night was urgent for everyone trying to follow the administration's dark, crooked path and the courts's responses.
You seem to have anticipated our need to know and that it would also be a comfort to us, so thank you!
Any possible vagueness is being used by the administration to fuzzy the lines of compliance and spin a narrative of excuses that is being picked up by right-wing media. The longer that goes on, the less a significant portion of the public will notice when the line is fully crossed having been numbed to it, in my personal view. Even those of us in a panic and aware, have felt the fuzziness.
This all needs to be made crystal clear. No supple branch being bent, but if this line is crossed, it needs to shatter like breaking glass and everyone needs to know.
Upgraded to paid--so grateful for the work you put into teaching us how to parse these complex messages and make coherent sense out of the barrage of rulings coming from various courts in these non-normal times. Thank you!
Thank you for taking the time on a busy weekend to clarify these crazy times for us!
Thanks for this explanation that I read before I finished my morning coffee. I upgraded to paid because I have a feeling you'll be staying up late to do more of these.
Hopefully not too late 🤣
Ditto.
Ditto!
So did I.
Thank you Prof. This is the kind of irt analysis that prompted me to become a founding member this morning. Your ability to read between the lines by providing context is invaluable as we see if the Courts remain an equal branch of government. Btw, is it noteworthy that the DOJ has not, to my knowledge, filed a stay/mandamus emergency motion from Judge Wilkerson’s opinion in KAB? SteveG
Thanks Steve. I'm not sure exactly what to make yet of DOJ's maneuvering in Abrego Garcia, but yes, no filing at SCOTUS yet suggests at least some ... pause ... on its part.
Many thanks for the early morning facts/analysis/clarity.
[I had to google Calvinball.]
On one level, I appreciated the Calvinball reference. On the other hand, its initial use in Calvin and Hobbes reflected a more joyful absurdity that is … not present here.
How is it possible not to know Calvinball? Too young?
So you’re not going to tell us what it is?! I have to Google it myself???? HA, ok after my 2nd cup of coffee maybe😍
Here ya go: Noun. Calvinball (uncountable) (games) A deliberately absurd sport without fixed rules.
Thank you for this explanation. Even as someone who doesn’t understand much legalese, this helped me further conceptualize the important matter at hand. Thank you!
Such excellent reporting. I thank the @Bluesky for guiding me to you. I will be a follower, and with any luck, a paid subscriber someday. Thank you for your excellent work.
Thank you as always! (You must be exhausted). One question re: the AEA on the merits. Suppose the court found the govt can apply it to suspected gang members. I understand then that the AEA would give them power to detain and/or deport. But does it give them the right to deport and continue to detain? Isn’t there a separate legal question here about the ability to detain AEA prisoners after they’ve been deported? From a due process perspective, the deportation seems to be the least of it if they’re being deported to then serve a life sentence
Yes--there are a raft of second-generation questions even if the AEA can lawfully be invoked against TdA.
Yes, I’m hoping a court will address this sooner rather than later — particularly when we are paying for the life sentence in the destination country, and thus controlling the outcome. Could we also pay another country to summarily execute the people we round up and deport?
If not a slow death sentence, effectively, by being worked or mistreated to death
Extraordinarily valuable. Thank you.
I suspect internal dynamics and leadership on the court can on some occasions be very important, and perhaps here. In that light, the dissent by Thomas and Alito may serve to separate these two administration apologists from the rest of the conservative bloc- and that’s a good thing. I suspect Roberts is quite disappointed he was not able to achieve unanimity and makes me wonder how much the earlier 9-0 decision was watered down in order to get the votes of those two.
I claim no expertise, but I thought that both of the earlier decisions had so much wiggle room because they had been trimmed to get a 9-0 result. I thought that that trimming was for 9-0 instead of 5-4, but maybe they had 7-2 for upholding Xinis without substituting "facilitate" for "effectuate".
Agree
Thank you! And thanks for the reference to Calvinball. It gave me a little smile.
Saw this first on Bsky. Immediately shared to my Trumpy Facebook community. Thanks for all the great reads.
Steve, thanks. So, SCOTUS IS he cavalry, and they ARE coming? Trump (finally) is hoisted on his own petard? Deus ex machina? Stephen Miller is in (legal) comtempt? Enquiring minds want to know. (Where is Paul Harvey when you need him?)
Thank you, Steve. I really needed your analysis ... again. But last night was urgent for everyone trying to follow the administration's dark, crooked path and the courts's responses.
You seem to have anticipated our need to know and that it would also be a comfort to us, so thank you!
Any possible vagueness is being used by the administration to fuzzy the lines of compliance and spin a narrative of excuses that is being picked up by right-wing media. The longer that goes on, the less a significant portion of the public will notice when the line is fully crossed having been numbed to it, in my personal view. Even those of us in a panic and aware, have felt the fuzziness.
This all needs to be made crystal clear. No supple branch being bent, but if this line is crossed, it needs to shatter like breaking glass and everyone needs to know.
I am glad SCOTUS has made this decision clear.
Excellent development for now. Thank you for discussing in depth.
Upgraded to paid--so grateful for the work you put into teaching us how to parse these complex messages and make coherent sense out of the barrage of rulings coming from various courts in these non-normal times. Thank you!
Excellent summary and assessment of the Court’s obvious growing impatience with the Trump DOJ. Now for a decision on the merits