il-conte-bsrlov.bsky.social
English Barrister
Sometime commentator on legal topics
Mostly harmless
91 posts
22 followers
22 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Arguably due process demands the habeas process has to be triggered before the court can determine whether a particular plaintiff’s ’privilege’ thereto has been ‘suspended’ by Congress. (Not the President). Otherwise allows error. Furthermore, US history has taken unkindly to previous suspensions.
comment in response to
post
Suspending habeas corpus will likely not prove to be quite as easy as perhaps Mr Miller imagines. Precedent suggests use of the US Constitution’s ‘suspension clause’ does NOT operate to prevent a detainee initiating the habeas process, thereby engaging the panoply of judicial interim relief.
comment in response to
post
Yes. Boasberg’s comparison of alleged facts in Sanchez v Trump (2025) to excerpts from Kafka’s acclaimed 1914 fictional novel ‘The Trial’ is as apt as it is frightening.
Lines of decency & legality have been crossed, when the real ICE agents’ behaviour mirrors that of ‘the guards’ in the novel.
comment in response to
post
… immigration forms. Success on ‘harm’ is vital to K’s success on preliminary relief. K’s evidential & legal argument on this point will be interesting. In Petrova v Noam judge granted bail despite P’s detention for criminal charges. IMAO, whilst morally K deserves win, he will likely struggle.
comment in response to
post
IMAO it’s perhaps unwise, at this stage, for the PM to attack Farage’s economic policies. The effectiveness of the PM’s own Chancellor’s budget and fiscal projections, hang by a hair over the abyss of financial mockery.
comment in response to
post
Also DoJ arguing alternative basis for K’s detention (non disclosure by K on immigration forms).
DJ to determine those later. Meanwhile the Immigration Court appears to have confirmed K’s removal directions…
So… I’m unclear whether K’s habeas claim is about to culminate in release or mootness?
comment in response to
post
khalil v Trump
But if K can’t demonstrate ‘irreparable harm’, he can’t obtain his prelim injunction.
(Tho prospect on merits ruling might open the door for Mapp v Reno bail ??)
comment in response to
post
Not in my experience. What’s the point? Instead one solicitor or other finds themselves on the hook for prof neg to lay client. Their indemnity insurers cough up.
comment in response to
post
You’d be surprised! In legal practice (admittedly rare and sporadic) this point crops up. Usually when either land vendor/ purchaser defaults and one has served on the other a ‘Notice to Complete’ the transaction.
comment in response to
post
Oops ! Sorry typos. I meant rule 65(c.) For the text of this rule see
www.uscourts.gov/file/78323/d...
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
For a learned and in depth analysis of the Court’s approach to rule 65 security bonds please see:
repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcont...
comment in response to
post
The rule 65(2) security bond might not be quite the impediment imagined. Whilst there’s a circuit split about whether this bond is mandatory, there’s broad consensus that the court itself sets the amount of the bond. That is discretionary.
comment in response to
post
Don’t we operate star chambers ? I understand why we’d want to deny it, despite the empirical evidence to the contrary. Public excluded from court rooms. IJ’s switching off video feed of their faces. Masked federal agents lurking in court corridors, snatching people…
comment in response to
post
A wondrous irony! Only last month Rubio was revoking the visa’s of foreign students because.. . Err… oh yeah adverse US ‘foreign policy’ interests. This month he’s spearheading a campaign. against nasty foreigners & their cronies, outrageously censoring & restricting the free speech of Americans.
comment in response to
post
Trump trills that his nominee to 3CA will ‘restore the Rule of Law’. But he does do without the slightest hint of irony. Does anyone else suspect that, Trump’s understanding of this legal tenet, might not exactly ‘square’, with the traditional version, historically taught to law students ? ?
comment in response to
post
Interesting…Hope you’re right. But… in a recent poll of 2,200 American adults, 26% didn’t know whether the Earth orbits the Sun or vice versa. That lack of basic knowledge tempts me to infer that, Trump’s chances of winning his War with the Truth, may be greater than we might prefer to suppose…
comment in response to
post
Yes. Thanks John. Great job messaging us live.
comment in response to
post
Ah well… “Dear Sir, if prison works, why are we building more of them ?”
comment in response to
post
It’s lamentable that the general ethos within the Trump Administration seems such as to demand, the forthright castigation of any view point / opinion contrary to that held by the Administration, as ‘fake’ ‘dishonest’ ‘radical’ or ‘corrupt’. It’d be more conducive to engage in healthy debate.
comment in response to
post
I’m inclined to agree. But in LC’s specific case, isn’t it difficult to discern her ‘defence’ to the charges? Didn’t her tweet, calling for mass deportation and acts of arson, powerfully demonstrate her guilt? Seriousness & need to deter violent disorder, swept low term & suspension off the table.
comment in response to
post
Trump issued a series of EO’s targeting specific individuals / entities with who he has some kind of grudge. IMAO they all appear facially unconstitutional. I guess it must be exasperating to repetitively have to enjoin this ‘gumbo’.
comment in response to
post
Hard to disagree with you. HM Govt decides UK energy need trumps net zero long term commitment. IF that’s the correct approach, it’ll nearly always be the trump card. I suspect that, in an attempt to fend off Farage’s ‘popular’ policies, sadly UK Govt will further dilute effort towards net zero.
comment in response to
post
Since DHS knew prior order required DHS to do x, y z before deportation, it ought to be child’s play for S/S to prove. The subsequent injunction based on DHS breach. So prove compliance & this injunction ought to be discharged. But apparently the S/S prefers the expense & delay of seeking a stay…
comment in response to
post
Some might say this is dictatorial & inconsistent with Trump’s purported policy to remove from businesses, the heavy hand of US Govt regulation. What’s the difference to businesses between having to obey Presidential whim and comply with regulatory rules ? Aren’t both fetters on free markets ?
comment in response to
post
It’s a scandal and very shortsighted.
comment in response to
post
V interesting. ACLU brief is to contrary of 5CA as you say. But, forgive me, I’m wondering why, 1st Amnd aside, the equal protection clause, wouldn’t apply to the ‘invidious discrimination’ in your examples of book removal?
comment in response to
post
Excellent example! When the then AG published this guidance there was disquiet amongst some at the Bar. IMAO one answer to it is that, in so far as in a given case, it conflicts with a barrister’s core duties (including their ‘prime’ duty to the court), the AG’s guidance is to be disregarded.
comment in response to
post
I’m ignorant of the applicable US tort law. But in England the victims might have a damages claim for ‘misfeasance in public office’. Ie an unlawful exercise of power, undertaken in bad faith and with a reckless disregard to the foreseeable damage caused to those proximately harmed by it.
comment in response to
post
One would think upholding this basic proposition is both obvious & inevitable. But disappointingly. the ‘majority’ in SCOTUS seem strikingly amenable to neutering such initial outcomes, by granting Trump et al emergency ‘stays’ thereof, pending the delay & cost of further appeals/ certiorari.
comment in response to
post
If you think it’s in ‘crisis’ now, I respectful suggest you keep watching. These outages are but appetisers. Trump et al are just getting warmed up. Is it fanciful to foresee the curtailment of meaningful democracy, a rapid descent into authoritarianism and the failure of the Republic itself ??
comment in response to
post
From over ‘the pond’ in England I’d agree. But it is not merely the actions of President Trump damaging the US reputation overseas. It’s also that the US Congress and SCOTUS seem either unable or unwilling to stop or remedy, what appear to be, quite frightening abuses of power by the executive.
comment in response to
post
It might be inferred that any concern about the ‘human rights’ of former Chagos Islanders eg to return ‘home’, is ‘trumped’ by consideration of the UK’s national & international security interests in that region.
comment in response to
post
Be that as it may, it is difficult not to feel sympathy, with the former islanders who were historically forcibly removed. IMAO it’s not a strikingly proud moment for UK. It’s made this deal with Mauritius partly with the express purpose & design of eliminating the UK’s future litigation risk.