The AARP Is Not in Danger of Being Deported as a Tren de Aragua Member

From yesterday's opinion in the case formerly known as A.A.R.P. v. Trump, but now W.M.M. v. Trump:

The AARP, a nonprofit entirely unrelated to this case, seek leave to intervene to request that the petitioner A.A.R.P.'s pseudonym be changed to A.R.P. and that the case caption be styled as W.M.M., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al. The petitioners and the respondents do not oppose the AARP's motion….

The Court construes the motion to intervene as an agreement by the existing parties to amend the styling of the case caption. Accordingly, the Court amends its prior order granting the motion to proceed under pseudonyms and orders that the petitioners are permitted to proceed under the pseudonyms A.R.P., W.M.M., and F.G.M. [not to be confused with FGM -EV]. In addition, the Court orders that this case will hereafter proceed under the case caption W.M.M., et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et. al.

Well, that clears that up! The heart of the argument in the motion itself was:

Unsurprisingly, this litigation has already received attention from the press and social media. It will surely continue to do so. AARP is concerned that the nomenclature adopted by the caption of this case will create substantial confusion among journalists and the public. Indeed, in the 72 hours since the litigation was filed, it has already resulted in numerous misplaced inquiries to AARP. Both the ACLU and AARP are prominent advocacy organizations on federal policies, albeit in very different domains.

For more on the question If Pseudonyms, Then What Kind?, see this article; when I was writing it, I wasn't thinking about the litigant's initials vs. organizational name problem, but here's a related problem from a 1996 Ninth Circuit case:

The plaintiffs in this case previously were denominated "James Rowe, Jane Rowe and John Doe." One of the many persons genuinely named "James Rowe" wrote to the court while the appeal was pending, and said that his reputation was harmed by a newspaper story about the appeal, because careless readers might think erroneously that he is a convicted sex offender…. It is preferable for lawyers and courts to avoid harm to the reputations of real persons by using … traditional references for pseudonyms.

Thanks to Paul Alan Levy for the pointer.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

There are a lot of good jokes in this, but I can't find one at the moment.

[Supremacy Claus]

The AARP is a far bigger threat to the nation than any vicious gang. I do recommend that people Google AARP and Castleman. That content should be taught in high school, when it is most needed.

[jimc5499]

Agreed. I went through hell with them over my Mother's life insurance policy. First they said that I wasn't the beneficiary, I proved I was. Then they said that the premiums hadn't been paid, I produced cancelled checks showing that it had been. Finally it took me going to the State Attorney General's office to get it resolved, five years later.

[Krayt]

Legislatures should pass laws that clerical errors are not get out of jail free cards, if they've been happily accepting checks for years, or decades. Do not let that scammery be a valid business model.

[Drewski]

Uh oh, a minor procedural irregularity. Blackman and Alito must be apoplectic. Seriously, the judge went to some small trouble to allow the request, and I'm fine with that in this case. I wouldn't want a general rule allowing intervention by similarly-named people though.

[Kleppe]

"Uh oh, a minor procedural irregularity. Blackman and Alito must be apoplectic."

Blackman's latest posts have been on appellate courts operating without jurisdiction and parties making ex parte communications to the court. Which of those is a minor irregularity in your view?

[Sarcastr0]

No, his posts have been about minor stuff that he claims are big deals, based on at best not understanding the law and more likely lying to lather up the rubes.

[Kleppe]

"Lather up the rubes"

Oh, what's up, Rev? I thought you got banned.

[Sarcastr0]

I haven't read a Rev post since the mute button came online, so that must be an old one of his.

I'm not above stealing a good turn of phrase.

[Mr. Bumble]

Why the need for pseudonyms in the first place?

[SRG2]

To avoid reprisals against the plaintiffs?

[Mr. Bumble]

Reprisals from whom? You think the government doesn't know who they are?
Maybe to prevent any media outlets from publishing information about them?

[Magister]

If they are not gang members, maybe from actual gang members angered by stolen notoriety. More likely reprisals against their family members, who may even be citizens, from white nationalists in advance of a determination of their status.

[Michael P]

Stolen notoriety? Do you suggest that the people being deported on allegedly-mistaken identification as gang members sought that identification or status?

Concerns about purely hypothetical reprisals have never been sufficient to grant anonymity in the US court system. I think one of the bloggers here might have written about the history and jurisprudence around that -- maybe even linked from that big block of text before the comment section on this page.

[Malika]

"Do you suggest that the people being deported on allegedly-mistaken identification as gang members sought that identification or status?"

He's suggesting gang members might think so, duh.

[Magister]

No, I'm suggesting (but not too seriously) that actual gang members might be hostile to those who are not but are so labeled by the government, in the same way that right wingers are hostile to RINOs. I don't make any claim as to whether it's appropriate to caption with initials; I am a tiny bit surprised that Eugene did not comment on whether it was appropriate for this (kind of) case, as he does blog about that.

It might also be aimed at avoiding attacks on the wrong people who share the same name as the plaintiff, although that appears to have not entirely succeeded here with the AARP.

[Purple Martin]

So, it's those damn GINOs!

[Dr. Ed 2]

I am sure that I am not the only person who believed that the AARP, which leans left, was actually involved in the litigation.

[SRG2]

I made that mistake as well

[Magister]

On first seeing that title, I wondered if the case was in regard to a policy of deporting senior citizens onto ice floes.

[SRG2]

You mean, a policy of "respecting history and tradition" 🙂

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Darn. Oh, well.

Now, how is AARP funded? Because they claim me as a member and I've never signed up, never offered a single cent as membership dues. They signed my grandparents and my mother up as members - after they had already passed. My father (also deceased) was counted as a member but never signed/donated.

Seems suspicious....

[Malika]

Probably safe to assume Satan-worshiping lizard people Democrats got you signed up.

[rloquitur]

https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/how-the-ipcc-buried-the-medieval

[jb]

Gotta get the latest rage bait posted somewhere, I guess. Relevance be damned.

[HazelMeade]

If ONLY we could deport the AARP to El Salvador.

[David Nieporent]

Since they've started sending me hate mail (i.e., things claiming I'm old enough to be a member), I concur.

[MonitorsMost]

Very short sighted decision by the court. Deporting seniors seems like a viable way to address the massive social security and Medicare liabilities we are facing.

[Krayt]

Until it wasn't.

I first started using this quip here, in the context of my now famous phrase, "We love democracy! Until we don't."

I lifted that from House, where several times the kids say pronounce some statistically reasonable statement about a patient, and House says, "Unless it isn't."

I have no idea if that show got it from somewhere else.

[Riva]

Title to post a little misleading. Apparently, nobody is in danger of being deported as a TdA gangbanger. Even TdA gangbangers.

[Malika]

Bot needs someone to deport sans due process!

[John 4]

You legitimately need therapy.