BREAKING: Challengers to Trump's Alien Enemies Act proclamation respond to DOJ's Sunday "notice," asking Judge Boasberg to "seek immediate clarification from Defendants, in one or more sworn declarations, about their conduct regarding this Court’s Orders." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... - ThreadSky

chrisgeidner.bsky.social • 2 days ago

BREAKING: Challengers to Trump's Alien Enemies Act proclamation respond to DOJ's Sunday "notice," asking Judge Boasberg to "seek immediate clarification from Defendants, in one or more sworn declarations, about their conduct regarding this Court’s Orders." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.21.0.pdf

Comments

jennaroutenberg.bsky.social•2 days ago

I mean, it sure will be something to see when a DOJ lawyer admits to the US defying a court order *while standing in* the very court that gave the order

jennaroutenberg.bsky.social•2 days ago

(Metaphorically, I know it was done virtually)

kokoreed.bsky.social•2 days ago

Not only did they not abide by the courts orders, they weren’t planning on it. A IFR flight plan was filed AFTER the TRO for a 3/16 flight HRL➡️XPL leaving at 4:05pm. The fight plan was filed at the mandatory required deadline. It can be file up to 28 days in advance.

https://bsky.app/profile/kokoreed.bsky.social/post/3lkhnpjujek23

psiphiorg.bsky.social•2 days ago

I'm sure it's not the first time it's happened, but at least it's the first time I've seen a court document include an emoji in the text of the argument (as opposed to in an exhibit or a screenshot), on page 5.

picci0909.bsky.social•1 day ago

badcyclist.bsky.social•2 days ago

There’s so much paper being thrown around Trump may mistake it for a parade 🥳 🎉
Tip: Fascists only like and abide by their own bureaucracy.

arrowintotheair.bsky.social•2 days ago

very sorry that you have to be up this late for things like this. it would seem to suck big time.

simonfrcox.bsky.social•1 day ago

does Chris sleep? I hope so!

bust3d00.bsky.social•2 days ago

Sworn declarations mean nothing

Physical evidence is required

jordanehoser.bsky.social•2 days ago

I realize this could be a strategically typical, first thing Monday morning move but, the urgency here once again has the spidey senses going.

ztopia.bsky.social•2 days ago

If the brief history of this administration and the “wiggle room” the courts have granted them

(which is supposedly within some norm) is any measure,

they will wiggle out of this too 🤢

j-waller55.bsky.social•2 days ago

This requested order, which will almost certainly be granted, would require the DOJ to provide solid evidence of its likely violations of the Court's TROs. That evidence should enable the Court to issue a more bullet-proof contempt order against the DOJ attorneys involved.

johnpanzer.com•1 day ago

Yes, and, what happens when Trump issues a pardon against any actions by his attorneys?

j-waller55.bsky.social•1 day ago

Trump's power to pardon people is very broad, but is not unlimited. Presidential pardon powers only cover Federal crimes. As virtually all attorneys are licensed by state and local bar associations, they could still be disbarred for criminal or highly unethical conduct.

very-simple.com•1 day ago

It’s also generally understood that the pardon power doesn’t extend to civil contempt, because it’s not a “punishment” but rather to coerce compliance with a court order, but I guess we’ll have to have that fight when it happens.

samhalpert.bsky.social•1 day ago

Also, as the govt’s actions cross over into violations of customary international law (like slavery) the appropriate place for such cases might be state court (open q I believe). https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=djclpp

samhalpert.bsky.social•1 day ago

I haven’t run the issue down so if it’s settled to the opposite please lmk.

occasionalprof.bsky.social•1 day ago

There’s no action that the attys have taken here that is an ethical violation.

A client doing something against the order of a court is not the attys fault.

Even if the attorney gave advice that said “I think this order doesn’t apply — that’s not an ethical violation.”

Might be malpractice.

j-waller55.bsky.social•1 day ago

Knowingly lying to a court or violating a court's order can be grounds for disbarment. Don't believe it? Rudy Giuliani and several other Trump attorney WERE disbarred for such conduct!

occasionalprof.bsky.social•1 day ago

“Knowingly” is key here. It is a very high standard and incredibly hard to reach.

And these are rank and file attys - not decision makers and policy makers like Guliani.

So, no, not in this scenario.

kberki.bsky.social•1 day ago

Then we force him to do it. “It’s useless because he will just do “x”” is preemptive surrender. Even if / when he does “x”, it’s helpful to know just how far they are willing to go because it informs just how far we must be prepared to go in response.

sacornus.bsky.social•1 day ago

johnpanzer.com•1 day ago

Totally. I'm trying to figure out what the plan to deal with it will be. (Because, after Schumer's abject surrender on Friday, I no longer hope that Democrats have any secret plans whatsoever.)

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply