It's 12:19 PM and there is no sign on the public docket that the DOJ filed the response that Judge Boasberg ordered submitted by 12:00 today. Because he let them submit the document "in camera" (to his chambers) I am not sure it would be on the public docket, tho. Others with knowledge please help? - ThreadSky

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social • 69 days ago

It's 12:19 PM and there is no sign on the public docket that the DOJ filed the response that Judge Boasberg ordered submitted by 12:00 today.

Because he let them submit the document "in camera" (to his chambers) I am not sure it would be on the public docket, tho. Others with knowledge please help?

Reposted from Big Cases Bot

New filing: "J.G.G. v. Trump (can president deport at will?)"
Doc #38: ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Defendants' 37 Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and 2) Defendants shall have until March 20, 2025, at…

[full entry below 👇]

Download PDF | View Full Case

#CL69741724

Comments

planetcupcake.bsky.social•69 days ago

Just give all parties 20 minutes or so to think of an excuse to kick the can down the road to next week. One thing I'm convinced of is that absolutely nobody is going to jail over this

paige2.bsky.social•69 days ago

Thank You for asking and others for clarifying, as I have been glued to Court listener also :>)

robert-e-630.bsky.social•69 days ago

Does this mean we can now deport Elon musk?

scrispin.bsky.social•69 days ago

My recollection is that it would be on the public docket, just sealed. You can do a quick check by looking for other sealed filings. (These could include cases involving minors.)

fredgrott.bsky.social•69 days ago

so that would mean that instead of claiming state secrets DOJ submitted proof of what they are calling complying with the court...

crystalynn.bsky.social•69 days ago

📌

drramblings.bsky.social•69 days ago

I’ve been wondering about an update….probably more bullshit stonewalling and lies.

fabster12345.bsky.social•69 days ago

I'm sat 🍿

gbliss.bsky.social•69 days ago

If they missed the deadline, prepare for a “stern admonishment” or even a “warning about potential future action.”

katherinewolf.bsky.social•69 days ago

Thanks for asking. I had been reloading the public docket with exactly the same question.

krhawkins.bsky.social•69 days ago

Usually there’s at least a public notice right? Have they gone whining to the Circuit again?

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social•69 days ago

Thank you, really appreciate that context. So we may not know immediately whether the government met their filing deadline or not. https://bsky.app/profile/gabrielmalor.bsky.social/post/3lkt46qrswr2d

326bureauchief.bsky.social•69 days ago

I would suggest that good practice dictates a filing saying "hey, look, we just made an in camera submission" to make the record clear.

Of course... "good practice" isn't exactly an arrow that is in the DOJ's quivver right now.

evaneisenberg.bsky.social•69 days ago

And the idiot puppets Trump installed don’t want to admit that they are even subject to the law

gabrielmalor.bsky.social•69 days ago

Yes. In some cases, it's appropriate to memorialize ex parte communications, even at the court's order, by filing a letter stating that the communication occurred.

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social•69 days ago

Well, it's already past 12:30 and nothing. Which makes me go "hmmmm."

periodictweet.bsky.social•69 days ago

Ok I was wrong - Boasberg: "shortly after today’s deadline, the Government again evaded its obligations." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.47.0_1.pdf

326bureauchief.bsky.social•69 days ago

Hey. If it's the worst mistake you make all day, you're fine.

shelspenc.bsky.social•68 days ago

Ugh. And he gave them more time. 🤦🏼‍♀️

periodictweet.bsky.social•69 days ago

This happened in the Jack Smith case too -- I expect there will be something on the docket eventually, and assume they sent it to the Court under seal, doubt they blew the noon deadline. https://x.com/PeriodicTweet/status/1839067416531448275

dramber.bsky.social•69 days ago

Please screenshot instead of linking something that helps Musk profit.

wheystandard.bsky.social•69 days ago

They probably didn't, but they did blow a noon deadline in the Perkins Coie case today by a few minutes. They had enough time to complain about the deadline in their filing though (it's really incredibly whiny).

bilbo8128.bsky.social•69 days ago

These are people with no due process!

Any updates?

housecoathennery.bsky.social•69 days ago

Soo... if it's sent by email just before noon and docketed by the clerk some hours later, does that count as 'oopsie, too late' and they missed the deadline? /s

gabrielmalor.bsky.social•69 days ago

It would likely have been filed by email. The clerk might docket something at the court's direction, or wait. Typically, if the filing is accepted, they will be required to file a motion or notice that the filing is under seal (this gives notice to the other parties).

esmewrites.bsky.social•69 days ago

if it is such sensitive information it couldn't be admitted in open court, is their email encrypted or secure - is it really safe to send it via email??

ejacobslaw.com•69 days ago

Interesting. If I were dictator, my unhinged executive orders would be things like “every district court must use the same procedures for filing under seal. Piecemeal local rules are MARXISM.”

sophiethebear.bsky.social•69 days ago

You now have my vote

lily77.bsky.social•69 days ago

So DC doesn't have a filing category for in camera docs that would have file a cover page showing docs were submitted but not filed into the docket? They require a motion or notice?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply