Coming Soon To The Shadow Docket? Immigrants Remain in Mexico, But Tenants Vacate Your Apartment (Updated)

Two emergency applications filed on Friday afternoon. Which ones will be granted?

Today, two emergency applications were filed with the Supreme Court. First, a group of landlords asked Circuit Justice Roberts to enter a temporary administrative stay of the eviction moratorium. He declined, but set a super-fast briefing schedule. The reply is due on Monday.

Second, the Acting Solicitor General asked Circuit Justice Alito to enter temporary administrative stay of the District Court's injunction against the "Remain in Mexico" policy. As of 11:00 pm ET, Justice Alito has not taken any action--calling for a response or entering an administrative stay. The injunction will take effect at 12:01 am on Saturday--in about an hour.

One week from now, we may get a divided shadow docket ruling. Immigrants do not need to remain in Mexico, but tenants must vacate their apartments. Or, we get a unified shadow docket ruling. Immigrants must remain in Mexico, and tenants must vacate their apartments. Or, the Court squishes on both cases, and stays the Mexico injunction, but leaves the eviction moratorium in place.

We should know soon enough.

Update: Around 11:30 p.m., Justice Alito granted an administrative stay until Tuesday, August 24 "so that the full Court can consider the application." The response is due on Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. The Court will not have much time to consider that response.

Comments

[LiborCon]

We need the immigrants to do the work Americans won't do, and use their taxes for stimulus checks to all the poor unemployed Americans who don't want to pay their rent.

[Aktenberg78]

The "stimulus" checks didn't come from taxes. They came from holders of dollars, through inflation.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Money is fungible.

[Aktenberg78]

In this case, it's not.

[Brett Bellmore]

Money may be fungible once you have it, that doesn't mean the manner of obtaining it doesn't have consequences.

[Aktenberg78]

Yes. Since March of 2020, the Fed has monetized the entire Treasury borrowing. So all of the "stimulus" came from inflation, not taxes.

[M L]

Just as bad. That's backdoor taxation.

[Jimmy the Dane]

To top it off, looks like either the media is no longer willing to run cover for a Biden who is now showing advanced stages of dementia and/or the disease has progressed drastically in the last few weeks. He can't even remember simple questions at this point in time. Have been calling it since last summer when his handlers kept him in his basement for the entire campaign. They are going to have to figure out how to get him to exit gracefully quick, like as quick as Kabul fell, and make K-Har look like a legit successor.

[DaivdBehar]

Jimmy, go easy on the dementia accusation. His baselone was always at stupid. I would hate to see a Biden Derangement Syndrome. It made people angry when Trump was called sick.

[BillyG]

Tell you what. When Foreign Media is even asking the question about Biden's Dementia, you need to be concerned.

https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/biden-continues-to-demonstrate-his-nonpublic-dementia-diagnosis-almost-every-day/video/a0623a226c37ac6b21d2ce4578a1fa9b

[Brett Bellmore]

Making her look good may just be beyond their capabilities; She's seriously underwater at this point, even with the media running cover for her, and Biden taking the blame for things. Probably wasn't smart to pick a VP who did that badly in the primaries.

If she becomes President, she's instantly the presumptive nominee in 2024, or if they replace her against her will, the nominee has to campaign after a bloody primary.

But replacing her as VP before Joe goes away looks logistically difficult.

It's not looking good for the Democrats in 2024, unless they can get HR1 passed, stat.

[Kristian H.]

Logistically, replacing her AFTER Joe goes away is difficult with no tie breaker in the senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Thursday night they demonstrated how they'd do it: They tried to pass HR1 at 3:30 in the morning by a voice vote with just a handful of Senators present. Only reason HR1 isn't passed and signed now is that there was one Republican Senator present, Cruz, and he was rather stubborn about insisting on the lack of a quorum being recorded.

Really, all they have to do is plan it in advance, then without warning Joe resigns, Harris ascends and nominates some nutcase, and the Senate confirms, all in the space of the same hour, on a voice vote in the wee hours.

Things get really easy once you don't have scruples getting in the way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Only way to stop it is to keep a Republican Senator in chamber 24/7, in shifts, right through breaks and vacations. And not a squish, either. The Republican leadership are probably not up for that.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not going to happen. Because that kind of legal but illegitimate tactic would create a constitutional crisis.

We don't live in a political thriller.

[Ben of Houston]

Two years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now, please forgive my cynicism.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sarcastro, they tried to pass a massive and massively controversial bill, which seems to have, not party line, but sub-party line support, in the wee hours in a practically empty chamber. A gross constitutional violation, though one the courts refuse to take notice of.

That kind of legal but illegitimate tactic is already being employed. We're just discussing whether it will be employed MORE.

[Sarcastr0]

You mean they did it with Republicans on the floor? What a clever plot!

It was symbolic, and not what you're saying it was.

Either it's a super dumb execution of an evil plan, or maybe it's just normal stuff and you're being dramatic.

[Brett Bellmore]

One Republican. Was it theater, with them having arranged for Cruz to be there? Or was it a serious attempt at passage, and Cruz had been tipped off by somebody who didn't like what they were doing?

I could see it going either way.

But the bottom line is that, while this particular unconstitutional tactic, (And it IS unconstitutional, even if the quorum clause is one of those parts of the Constitution the courts refuse to enforce.) has been used on rare occasions in the past for procedural votes on controversial matters, I've never heard before of it being attempted for actual passage of anything controversial.

This event represents a genuine change in tactics, and I don't see them backing off on trying it again, perhaps successfully next time.

And this particular tactic doesn't even require them to have their own caucus agreeing with the legislation. It's the sort of thing the leadership can pull off with just a few members agreeing, which is exactly why quorum rules exist in the first place.

They're playing with fire here, and you're denying it because the tinder didn't catch this time.

[Sarcastr0]

Was it theater, with them having arranged for Cruz to be there? Or was it a serious attempt at passage, and Cruz had been tipped off by somebody who didn’t like what they were doing?

Then they wouldn't have done it when they saw he was there, eh?

Having one member of a party on the floor at all times is de rigour. We don't live in a political thriller.

I’ve never heard before of it being attempted for actual passage of anything controversial.
It wasn't even an attempt here.

They're not playing with fire, you're making things up.

[Don Nico]

"a constitutional crisis."
overused hyperbole

[Kristian H.]

That is tactics. Professionals study logistics.

Though, our current political class is well up on tactics and woefully amateurish at logistics, so that is to be expected I suppose.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The only logistics involved is scheduling the 24x7 rotation, bathroom break coverage, etc.

[Brett Bellmore]

Logistics only becomes an issue after you've established that the leadership WANT to win the fight.

[ChrisC]

I am loving all these Dem tactics. Can't wait until President DeSantis takes office with a republican congress. The day after the inauguration, they can roll back the liberal admin and welfare state back to the New Deal.

[Jimmy the Dane]

The difference between Biden and Trump is that Trump never hid in a basement, avoided press questions, had media collaborators run cover for him, or shied away from public appearances.

Trump said plenty of inarticulate statements, mostly because the press latched on to any sound bite, but also because he was a public President. The guy is a showman, in part, so it was easy to see the accusations that he was losing it were just so plainly false it was laughable. That is what got people mad, not the accusations but that the media and lefties (mostly those who drank the anti-Trump kool aid) were taking as gospel truth.

Biden on the other hand has been shielded from public scrutiny, barely campaigned, and clearly only responds to the press in planned scripted events. There are actual signs there that he is losing it which is not a surprise given his history. And that isn't necessarily a problem until you get a disaster like Afghanistan that could have been easily avoided or at least mitigated to the tune of 90%. The executive can run on auto-pilot for a long time, but it does need a leader that is at least aware of the major motions.

I'm not sure what his handlers thought this time last year. Assuming he has dementia or another form of mental decline, it would be an outlier to give him four "good" years in which he could have declined the nomination in 2024 and faded away. At most they must have known he would have 1-2 years before it was patently obvious to anyone. Maybe they didn't get a chance to think long term. It looked like Bernie might win the primaries so the Dems had to do all that backroom dealing before South Carolina to start clearing the slate. It was basically Biden or bust. And we know Trump is the devil so that would override any long term concerns. What is more puzzling is why the selection of K-Har if they knew. That is the only reason why I think they might have not outright known. But who also knows what deals had to be cut the clear it out for Biden and bump Bernie. There was probably a large degree of "figure it out later" going on and now we are at "later". I'll be curious to see what the next move is....

[SimonP]

This comment is a fascinating insight into the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

You openly acknowledge alternative explanations for the behavior you've witnessed and the existence of facts that cut against your preferred theory. Yet you embrace the theory anyway, without any apparent concern over the dissonance

"Trump was a showman, Biden is not, so we have plenty of data on Trump's mental health... but Biden's lack of showmanship counts as evidence of his losing it. Meanwhile, Harris's selection as VP can be explained by the possibility that no one in the party understood that Biden was losing it, despite that actually being obvious to everyone."

I would acknowledge that Biden's governing style may reflect a preference for delegation of authority and a willingness to tolerate his appointees' acting autonomously. I would even go so far to accept that he may prefer that style of governance because he is of advanced age and wants things to depend less on his own say-so. This contrasts with Trump's style (such as it was), which wasn't necessarily any more coherent, but was certainly more top-down, insofar as he viewed the administrative branch as basically existing to serve his own political, financial, and legal interests.

[DaivdBehar]

The idea these Ivy indoctrinated, know nothing bookworms get to set national policy is ridiculous to normal people. The lawyer is oblivious to the stupidity of this way of making decisions. Why? Because the lawyer is a dumbass.

[DaivdBehar]

The Founders knew that too. They gave "all" lawmaking power to the Congress.

[Aktenberg78]

They also sensibly limited voting.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps you could have clarified which got the temporary stay? I guess the "remain in Mexico" order, but it wasn't exactly crystal clear.

[Lee Moore]

I think :

1. There was a Trump "Remain in Mexico" policy
2. Then a Biden "Scratch that Trumpy Remain in Mexico" policy
3. Then a District Court injunction, to take effect at 12.01am, against the Biden "Scratch that Trumpy Remain in Mexico" policy, which would have reinstated the Trump "Remain in Mexico" policy had it taken effect
4. And Alito has just produced, with half an hour to spare, a stay of the District Court injunction against the Biden "Scratch that Trumpy Remain in Mexico" policy

Not obvious to me why Biden needs the stay. Even if the Trumpy "Remain in Mexico" policy was reinstated, there's no way that Biden would actually have to implement it, on any timescale that would make any difference. "Takes time, O Wise and Honorable Judge Who We Would Never Disobey , we can't turn the Ship of State on a dime."

[Brett Bellmore]

The stay puts them in a slightly better position going into the court fight, I suppose. They were going to violate the injunction in any case, but that annoys judges. Better going into the litigation with a colorable excuse for continuing to import the illegals and dump them into the interior of the country in record numbers.

Their efforts to replace the American people sure have shifted into overdrive in the last six months. I wonder if it's a case of "We're almost there, one more push!" or "Best do what we can before the midterms shut us down again."?

[Aktenberg78]

That's exactly what it is. They only need to bring in a few million more to flip Texas and Florida, and then it's all over.

[SimonP]

What is it with this obsession of addle-bodied, older white men with this “replacement” myth? None of the people now trying to get into the country have any reasonable shot at becoming voters any time soon. Even if they do become naturalized citizens, they’re far more likely to vote conservative than Democrats would like to believe. And anyone who has lived through the risks to get here, and then to do everything necessary to become a citizen, will have earned that right to participate in American society - unlike anything I’m sure you have ever done, Brett.

So what’s the problem? These immigrants are in every sense your better. Is that why you’re worried about their “replacing” you?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Unless you know Brett personally, your sense that immigrants are his better implies you think they will vote your way, which is also unfounded speculation. If that's typical of your magical thinking, you must be a political partisan of the least thinking sort.

[SimonP]

It doesn’t imply that, and I don’t think that. I believe in democracy, unlike most of you here. I don’t believe in changing the rules and erecting barriers to the franchise in order to protect my interests.

I’d rather share this country with Spanish-speaking, hard-working conservatives who’ve undertaken a lot of trouble to get here and vote than with functionally retarded, conspiracy-minded, racist fatheads like Brett. If they outvote “my side” in elections, then that’s how it works.

[Brett Bellmore]

The conservative Spanish speaking illegals, the refugees from Cuba, are the only ones they're actually making a real effort to keep out.

[SimonP]

That you think Democrats only have a problem getting Cubans to vote for them just shows how much of a racist fathead you are. Your politics are at least a decade out of date.

[Don Nico]

Simon,
There is no need to be insulting.

[SimonP]

Poor snowflake.

[Don Nico]

"Poor snowflake."
Simon,
Don't be a jerk. No one insulted you. Yet you can't resist.
Rein yourself in

[Aktenberg78]

Don't you people ever tire of this lie? No, semi-literate mestizos are not more likely to vote conservative, because their low IQs and propensity to alcoholism, along with their tendency to have bastard children, makes them much more likely to need to rely on the welfare state.

We're not talking about democracy. We're talking about being told that we have to accept people that we don't want, who statistically will outvote us and replace our culture and ideologies with something far inferior.

Look at the Census and the media gloating over whites only being 59% of the population. That's why so many states are now permanently blue.

[BillyG]

These immigrants are in every sense your better.

Please explain why you believe someone is someone else's "better". I do so enjoy listening to the justification for bigotry.

[SimonP]

My judgment is based entirely on the content of their character.

Any migrant who sacrifices and risks what they have to sacrifice and risk to travel to the United States, gain entry, and make a life here, has shown a tremendous amount of grit, determination, and self-sufficiency. They've proven, more than most of us born here, that they have a lot to offer this country.

Brett is a conspiracy-huffing, later-middle-aged FoxNews acolyte. He's weighing this country down far more than the migrants he fears are here to replace him. They will be holding up his saggy ass when he slips, inevitably, into a Medicare-subsidized nursing home for the last years of his life (only for Medicare to implode shortly after, due to the machinations of people like him and the cynical politicians he supports without fail).

[Brett Bellmore]

"They’ve proven, more than most of us born here, that they have a lot to offer this country."

It shows a tremendous amount of grit, determination, and self-sufficiency to rob a bank. Running an urban gang, too. Lots of crimes require grit and determination.

The problem is, crimes also require a disdain for the law. That's a pretty bad criterion to select future citizens based on.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What is it with this obsession of addle-bodied, older white men with this “replacement” myth?"

Because it's not a myth. Don't brag about how demographic changes are inevitably going to give the Democratic party a permanent majority, pursue policies to dramatically increase those demographic changes by bringing in illegal aliens by the millions, and demand that people not see the connection.

I can understand you wanting us to not notice the connection, but demanding we not notice it seems a bit arrogant.

[SimonP]

Don’t brag about how demographic changes are inevitably going to give the Democratic party a permanent majority,...

I am not bragging about this, and 2020 illustrates how badly the Democratic establishment fails to appreciate the realities of race and politics in this country. They will soon start to lose the Black vote, as well, and they are going to have to pivot to a different coalition-building strategy.

...pursue policies to dramatically increase those demographic changes by bringing in illegal aliens by the millions,...

No Democratic policy does this. Migration to the United States, particularly from the countries you no doubt have in mind, is driven by "pull" factors like economic prosperity and opportunity, public safety, and political stability, as well as by "push" factors like violent gangs, corrupt governments, and collapsing economies. Democratic policies do not drive migration (apart from by generally promoting the welfare of all Americans).

What you mean is that Democrats are trying to add legitimacy and order to a process that Republicans would prefer to keep on the black market. Democrats want to provide legal status to people who are here and are coming here anyway, including potentially (very long) paths to citizenship, while Republicans want to set up numerous barriers to entry that do nothing to prevent immigration but do everything to ensure that migrants, once here, must remain hidden and unprotected by our laws.

Anyway, the "connection" you're trying to find here is not found in what Democrats are actually doing, either. Asylum seekers can't vote. Lawful permanent residents can't vote. Dreamers can't vote. And the only paths anyone is even close to talking about, when it comes to naturalization of undocumented immigrants, contemplate the process taking years, with numerous financial and regulatory obstacles along the way. Meanwhile, all of these migrants are counted as part of the census and so swell the political power of citizens in the districts where they settle - which so far seems to mean helping the Republicans across several different states.

So, no, it's not some grand conspiracy to cement a permanent majority (unlike the Republican efforts to achieve exactly that result, through manipulation of voting rules, extreme gerrymandering and the injection of politics into election administration, which is very real and patent).

What does seem to be true is that the number of pure-bred whites in this country is declining over time, and old miserable farts like you will eventually be "replaced" by people with a different face, culture, and possibly language from you. But this is neither new nor anything of particular concern. America is strong, and it has always adapted to these kinds of demographic shifts. The only people who worry are people like you, who intuit on some level that you don't think America is strong, that "America" is as you know it just a white supremacist, Christo-fascist state, and so the idea of dramatic demographic change strikes terror in your feeble and ailing heart, because only by cementing white political power can you envision the continued survival of the "America" that you think you know and love.

You're a parasite and a traitor. You don't know what America is, and you reject everything about it that makes it truly exceptional in history, in favor of narrow parochial interests you can barely muster the intellectual power to articulate.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Migration to the United States, particularly from the countries you no doubt have in mind, is driven by “pull” factors like economic prosperity and opportunity, public safety, and political stability, as well as by “push” factors like violent gangs, corrupt governments, and collapsing economies."

Right, and the prospect of being stopped and turned around, or being given a bus ticket into the heartland instead, has no effect. Which explains why the change of administrations was accompanied by a ten fold increase in illegal immigration: Because nobody takes into account the odds of succeeding before they do something.

[Aktenberg78]

You're an idiot if you think that America is a propositional nation, and has nothing to do with the white Protestants who created it.

[M L]

(Mentally diseased Liar and Fool)

[Gospace]

Well, with motor voter laws and checking "Yes", a really good chance. Or did you mean "legal voters"?

Doesn't seem to make much difference to Democrats.

[Aktenberg78]

And even if SCOTUS rules in favor of the landlords, it won't be before Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Meaning Biden's gamesmanship had exactly the effect he wanted.

[wreckinball]

Well tenants have to pay rent or it's theft so I'm betting on that one.

[wreckinball]

But you never know. Seems like our leaders have found put that all you have to do is scream "emergency" and the constitution is null and void. And the courts are Ok with it for the most part

[Aktenberg78]

The leftist elites should be gassed.

[IPLawyer]

Another Blackman post and another comment section that is generally devoid of discussion about Josh's work as opposed to partisan political bickering

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Tbf, Josh kinda invites that crowd, no?

[IPLawyer]

Yeah, that's my point. Josh barely does actual academic work, and to whatever extent he does, any discussion of it here is precluded by his partisan hackery. That's assuming his given piece of political work was worth discussing of course. But I'd think that people on "his side" of the "culture war" would have something to say besides retreading screeds about democrats and babies and taking your money and and your property

[SimonP]

Josh has various agendas. The one furthered by this particular OP is to further bolster his profile as a commentator on the so-called "shadow docket," so that he can get the calls from newspapers and cable news channels looking for an "expert." As such, it hardly bears much comment. Like - ah, yes, once again, the Supreme Court may take action with meaningful consequences for petitioners through processes that do not require carrying a majority of the Court's members, as we slip further and further away from the meaningful rule of law under this Court.

[Commenter_XY]

Wait...I have a different question.

When has SCoTUS ever gotten a petition on a Friday, and scheduled a reply for the very next Monday? Or Tuesday? Is this typical of SCoTUS to request a brief on that accelerated timeline?

Maybe one of the VC Conspirators can speak to this....when has SCoTUS ever acted this expeditiously? Any specific examples?

[Aktenberg78]

Let's assume that they haven't. Has a president ever gotten on national TV and admitted he was doing something that the court had strongly implies was impermissible, but that the court process would buy time?

[SimonP]

You've basically described Trump's entire immigration and trade agenda, and a whole host of rules.

Does this need to be spelled out for you? Every time he tried to demonstrate efficacy by doing something through direct executive action, the calculation was apparent. Do something now with dubious legal authority, for immediate impact, and let the legal process grind its gears; if it gets invalidated in several years' time, then that's too bad, but in the meantime he gets the immediate political benefit.

[Aktenberg78]

Trump's EOs were not unconstitutional, or even illegal. Leftist judges came up with Trumplaw, just for him, claiming that everything he did was "arbitrary and capricious."

What's arbitrary and capricious is giving you and your fairy friends marriage licenses.

[Don Nico]

C_XY,
I can't say that SCOTUS has don this before, but I can tell you from personal experience that the NSC staff does this.

[Don Nico]

Two topics of such queries were
The ABM facilities of the USSR, the possibilities of making radiological weapons.
Of course they did not really want answers. They wanted to sell their opinion to the actual NSC members and insist that they got appropriate technical input.

[dwb68]

Response was due by noon, and its posted https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C21a23.html

Looms like it was printed in 1980s MS DOS, lol. I bet that ruined someones weekend.

smh "any concerns about delegation to an agency of authority to address important political and economic issues are met by the deliberately broad language of Section 264"

really, they want to play it that way?? The language is broad to give us authority to do whatever we want??

I am surprised that they did not spend more time on the sec 502 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021. All of two paragraphs, but arguably their most plausible argument.

[dwb68]

application in Remain in Mexico case denied: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21a21.html