District of Maryland Standing Order: Any Filed Habeas Petition Will Automatically Block Removal Of Alien

"[U]pon the filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus . . . the Government/Respondents, including all those acting for them or on their behalf, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from removing Petitioners in such cases from the continental United States"

A lawyer flagged a new standing order from the District of Maryland. It provides, in part:

ORDERED by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland that upon the filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on behalf of an alien detainee, the Government/Respondents, including all those acting for them or on their behalf, are ENJOINED and RESTRAINED from removing Petitioners in such cases from the continental United States or altering their legal status, provided that Petitioner's full name and A# have been provided to the Court, either in the Petition or in a separate sealed filing.

Am I reading this right? If a lawyer files a conforming habeas petition, an injunction is automatically entered blocking the removal of the alien. The merits are irrelevant. And this injunction applies to the government, writ large. Has anyone ever seen an order like this before?

This order is pretty clearly designed to thwart the Trump Administration's immigration policies. I can't imagine this order would remain in effect if a different President is in the White House.

Comments

[Bored Lawyer]

This Standing Order does state:

This Order shall be entered in every such case upon its filing and its terms shall remain in effect until 4:00 p.m. on the second business day following the filing of the Petition, unless the terms of this Order are further extended by the presiding judge.

So you can call it a VTRO -- Very Temporary Restraining Order. Which is not provided for anywhere in the federal rules. But hey, it's Trump, so we can ignore the law if we want.

[David Nieporent]

Call it an administrative stay.

[AmosArch]

So when you and the rest of your team were squawking about all the endruns around the rules and spirit of the rules Trump was supposedly doing, you didn't actually object to the endrunning itself you were only mad that it was against your side and you'd happily cheer along the same tactics yourself when your side does it.

[Martinned]

Are you suggesting that the district court is not empowered to impose a TRO in these circumstances?

[Brett Bellmore]

The question is, are they entitled to impose TRO's on autopilot, instead of after giving the individual case at least a cursory examination?

I mean, the district court is entitled to grant all defense motions, or grant all prosecutions motions, but are they entitled to promulgate a rule that all defense motions will be granted, or all prosecution motions will be granted? Are they allowed to delegate their power to impose TROs to the parties?

[Supremacy Claus]

Because the real purpose is inflate the population of a Democrat jurisdiction, the order is fraudulent and corrupt. The judge should be arrested for fraud from the bench. It is also to generate due process for 20 million illegales, each costing $thousands in lawyer fees. This bunko operation must be stopped by the FBI. There is no evidence that this order would further any purpose of improving accuracy.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — The courts are bound, sooner or later, to take judicial notice of what the Trump administration has repeatedly done. Which is to try to race lawless conduct ahead of its targets' ability to obtain legal remedy. The Maryland court has now taken that notice. That rule ought to be applied nationally, and later used as precedent in all like instances.

Everyone gets that you want to enable Trump, and encumber the courts. Screw you. Nobody needs your anti-American advocacy, but of course you remain at liberty to keep at it. At least until some future national administration which does not like you remembers what you said, and applies it against you.

[MaddogEngineer]

You're assuming your own conclusions, by saying courts should take judicial notice of what the administration has done repeatedly. Almost nothing has reached a final determination. Little to take judicial notice of.

Everyone gets that you want to enable the courts, and encumber Trump. Maybe he should be encumbered. That's still being sorted out.

[David Nieporent]

You're assuming your own conclusions, by saying courts should take judicial notice of what the administration has done repeatedly. Almost nothing has reached a final determination. Little to take judicial notice of.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Courts can take judicial notice of any fact that cannot reasonably be questioned.

[Sarcastr0]

are they entitled to impose TRO's on autopilot, instead of after giving the individual case at least a cursory examination?

Yes - that is the purpose of the TRO; to give the court to give the case in individual examination.

[Riva]

So much for the presumption of regularity. In fact, so much for due process.

[Michael Ejercito]

These people think a cop's say-so is sufficient due process?

https://reason.com/2025/04/14/libertarian-gov-jared-polis-signs-restrictive-gun-law-and-booze-ban/

The law requires purchasers to get a background check from their county sheriff, who will have the discretion to deny permission if the purchaser is deemed a "danger."

[y81]

Fraud!

[Glaucomatose]

The presumption of regularity becomes pretty silly when the government keeps disproving it. And I don't think you understand what "due process" means.

[David Nieporent]

Once more, the bot repeats a phrase it doesn't understand. Two, in this case.

Again: the presumption of regularity is merely a rebuttable presumption. Trump has rebutted it.

And due process is a right of the people, not of the government. Not to mention that this order in no way denies any due process.

[Brett Bellmore]

Do you have any idea how tiresome it is that you call people you don't like "bots"? Grow up, already.

[David Nieporent]

I don't call people I don't like bots. Voltage guy may be a troll; he's definitely a racist antisemitic asshole, but he's not a bot. I call Riva a bot because it literally does nothing but post talking points that first appeared elsewhere, and repeats them without responding to the comments to which they are appended.

[Riva]

That’s weird crazy Dave, I call you a dishonest troll because you regurgitate leftist talking points. I call you crazy Dave for your, shall we say, odd reflections on political succession. I say you wouldn’t understand a separation of powers issue, or essentially, any constitutional issue, if it swam up and bite you on the ass, because, well, you wouldn’t. If one needs confirmation, your idiotic comments speak for themselves. And what they say is idiotic, somewhat unstable, troll.

[jb]

Also, its pattern matching is pretty questionable. Tends to post talking points applicable to one topic on another one, or just regurgitate them when they're not particularly relevant.

The main reason to think its not a bot is that its feelings get hurt really easily.

[David Nieporent]

Also, its pattern matching is pretty questionable. Tends to post talking points applicable to one topic on another one, or just regurgitate them when they're not particularly relevant.

Right; like at any moment, regardless of the topic of the thread, it is likely to output something about the Hunter Biden laptop.

[Riva]

All you trolls, even the crazy ones, seem especially intimidated by my comments. I’m a little flattered.

[Tom Dial]

Is this a suggestion that "due process" includes arrest of targeted individuals by masked personnel who decline to identify themselves, transferring them immediately without notice to a remote site, and scheduling them for (and sometimes carrying out) deportation, some to a foreign prison for indefinite incarceration at US taxpayers' expense?

I'm not a lawyer, but my ninth grade civics class - 68 years ago - taught otherwise.

[MaddogEngineer]

Yes, not like this.

Although I am persuadable if someone can explain how this conforms to federal rules of procedure etc.

Especially as habeas petitions are individual rights assertions.

[David Nieporent]

That would certainly be a take that does not in any way sound similar to anything I said. This is not an "end run" around the rules or spirit of the rules.

And just to reiterate: this is a brief administrative stay that harms nobody, as opposed to Trump's irreversible decisions.

[MaddogEngineer]

So where is either the precedent or justification under federal rules of procedure?

Inquiring minds want to know. No side as a monopoly on lawlessness.

[Riva]

I call it a sickening perversion of the law driven by a political animus against the present administration. Never before, in the history of the republic, has it been presumed by the courts that the executive is acting illegally. A gross abuse snd overreach of judicial power. Quite literally a judicial coup.

[David Nieporent]

Never before, in the history of the republic, has it been presumed by the courts that the executive is acting illegally.

One reaps what one sows. It's a justified conclusion, not a presumption.

Trump has repeatedly tried to use "Ha, ha, I can act faster than the courts" as a legal strategy. That is not a legitimate position.

And all you're doing is having another tantrum, because the lawless, evil Trump administration is being mildly hindered from being lawless and evil as quickly as it would like.

[Krayt]

This whole administration is a blowback of "one reaps what one sows".

For those who have not been paying attention.

I invite folks to join with me and put the kibosh on it for both sides, and fix things for the long term, once and for all.

They won't.

Once Trump is over, they will return to the status quo ante, faceting about it's all good again.

This is the world you built. This is a rare opportunity to fix it. Which you won't take.

[MaddogEngineer]

Why?

Okay, what are the applicable rules of procedure for administrative stays? Or are they inherent in equitable powers for relief?

I thought it was a thing, when judges issue rulings, to both explain why they have jurisdiction and under what authority they are acting.

[David Nieporent]

I thought it was a thing, when judges issue rulings, to both explain why they have jurisdiction and under what authority they are acting.

This isn't a "ruling," but in any case, the standing order does explain under what authority the court is acting: the All Writs Act.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

In a showdown between a president and the judicial branch, I wonder who would win.

[Krayt]

It's sad there's something to even wonder.

[Frank Drackman]

Probably the one with more guns, I mean, who had 80 million peoples vote for him. (I still can't believe we don't get to vote on the Surpremes)

[MaddogEngineer]

Breaking: an almost similar number of people did not vote for him. Though certainly that portion of the population almost certainly has less guns than the ones who voted for Trump.

[y81]

Lord Varys asked: "If a king, a priest, and a rich man are in a room with an armed soldier, and each one orders the soldier to kill the other two, whom will he obey?" So the question in a dispute between branches of government reduces to whom the military will obey.

[Longtobefree]

According to the sergeant, kill them all and count the bodies.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

A religious soldier might well decide the afterlife matters more and obey the priest.

A practical soldier might just obey them all and kill them all, and make up any story he wanted.

[Scribe]

Actually, it's "kill them all, let God sort them out."

[Frank Drackman]

and it's corollary, "Kill a Commie for Mommie"

[Stephen Lathrop]

Y81 — In this nation it's different. The priest is right out. In his place stand the jointly sovereign People. The king reports to those. The soldier's extended family are all counted among those. That is supposed to make a difference. Pretty soon, we may all have occasion to find out if it does.

And by the way, Lord Varys is not Lord anybody. Just another schmoe like the rest of us.

[y81]

Huh? He is frequently addressed as "Lord Varys."

For those who seem unable to understand the analogy, the ultimate question is whom would the military obey: Donald Trump, John Roberts, or Elon Musk. We can rule out the last. For myself, I do not believe that the US military will disobey a court order. Let us hope we don't find out.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why would anyone suppose the Court would attempt to order the American military? The justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, which makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military.

If you confront a thorny problem, with your choices limited to agency or complacency, the latter is always the best choice to avoid worry. If you care about other outcomes, not so much.

[y81]

Hamdan v. Rumsfield, for instance. Bush could have said, "The President, as commander in chief, has the Constitutional authority to establish military courts to try terrorists under his Constitutional obligation to keep America safe." (Like my Pam Biondi imitation? Josh Blackman would have done one of his trademark more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger warnings about how the Court was overstepping its bounds.) Would the military have carried on with the military commissions? Ask Varys.

[John Hawkinson]

This order codifies a practice that is extremely normal in many districts, where the court rapidly enters a similar order upon filing of an immigration habeas case, e.g. within minutes or perhaps small hours. Sometimes these are called "service orders," and often they are couched as a 48 non-weekend-hour notice requirement before transporting a petitioner out of the federal court district, rather than an absolute bar on transportation or removal.

I don't think it makes any difference if it is a publicly announced standing order versus an internal operating practice that results in such an order in every case. Other than perhaps catching public attention.

This practice predates the Trump 47 and Biden 46 administrations, and I think may well predate the Trump 45 administration as well. So if one cannot "imagine this order would remain in effect if a different President is in the White House," then perhaps some attention to that imagination is warranted.

[tylertusta]

I'm interested in learning more about this practice. Can you provide some links to some examples?

[not guilty]

It's not exactly analogous, but I am reminded of certain domestic relations restraining orders that automatically issue upon the filing of a suit for divorce -- prohibiting both spouses from disposing of or alienating marital property, freezing bank accounts and so forth. Such orders are intended to maintain the status quo and to prevent litigants from taking unfair advantage while only one knows that suit has been filed.

Of course, this practice merely prompts the spouse seeking the divorce to clean out bank accounts just prior to filing the divorce complaint.

[wvattorney13]

In those cases, the injunction ostensibly protects both parties to the litigation and maintains the status quo. By this order, only the filing party gets--and gets it automatically---any relief at all. The defending party has an automatic TRO entered against it even if the filing is wholly frivolous.

It is more like an ex parte domestic violence restraining order except that nobody views the petition to see if it credibly even alleges violence.

[not guilty]

There was a time when the Department of Justice had a reputation for integrity, to which the courts paid considerable deference. See, e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996):

The Attorney General and United States Attorneys retain" 'broad discretion'" to enforce the Nation's criminal laws. Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 607 (1985) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 457 U. S. 368, 380, n.11 (1982)). They have this latitude because they are designated by statute as the President's delegates to help him discharge his constitutional responsibility to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." U.S. Const., Art. II, § 3; see 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 547. As a result, "[t]he presumption of regularity supports" their prosecutorial decisions and, "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties." United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U. S. 1, 14-15 (1926).

Like a young woman's virginity, however, a presumption of integrity is fragile: one prick and it disappears.

The Trump DOJ has squandered any presumption of good faith that once attached. The federal courts are (slowly) acknowledging that unfortunate reality.

[Frank Drackman]

"Reputation for Integrity"?? like the Integrity of RFK (the Original, like with "The Godfather" the sequel is better) bugging MLK's bedrooms? John Mitchell (not really sure what he did that was so bad, but he did several years in Federal Prision), Janet "How many kids did you kill today" Reno? Eric Holder? who's probably even more contemptible in person, Merrick the Elephant Man Garfield? who withheld the tapes of Cancerous Joe stuttering and sputtering like Sylvester the Cat...
Good Virginity joke, almost as funny as when I first heard it in 1974

Frank

[y81]

It's not so much a question of being moral as of being professional. Justice Department lawyers generally had well-prepared, non-frivolous cases and did not dissemble in open court. That has not been true for the past three months. Sad to say, in this life it takes a long time to build a good reputation, but you can lose it very quickly.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 8 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
There was a time when the Department of Justice had a reputation for integrity, to which the courts paid considerable deference. See, e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996):

That time would have been before Holder, Lynch, Garland

[Stephen Lathrop]

Garland, for pity's sake? The Attorney General who pre-quailed for years, to avoid unkind imputations from criminals? And you accuse him of tyrannical conduct in office. Why? Among the folks who enabled Trump's rampage, feckless Garland ranks very high.

MAGA cultists make terrible score keepers.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - you are showing your journalistic temperment - oblivious to actual facts.

[David Nieporent]

Another non-substantive comment from bookkeeper_joe. How shocking.

[MaddogEngineer]

Is there a "reputation of integrity" exception in federal court rules?

[Brett Bellmore]

" Such orders are intended to maintain the status quo and to prevent litigants from taking unfair advantage while only one knows that suit has been filed."

A pity it doesn't stop them from taking unfair advantage while only one knows that the suit will be filed...

[y81]

What's the unfair advantage you have in mind?

[Brett Bellmore]

I just meant that freezing accounts to prevent the person who filed the suit from taking advantage of the other party not yet knowing of the suit is totally futile, because the party that filed the suit knew they were going to do so before they filed it. So they can just transfer the money shortly before filing, as my first wife did, and thus before the freeze kicks in.

It's actually to prevent the person who DIDN'T file the suit from retaliating, not to protect them from the party filing.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — When you are about to bruit another complaint about your ex-wife, do you ever give any thought to what will happen to the credibility of your other commentary? I will give you a hint, one derived from journalistic experience. If you make it all about you, nobody is likely to afford you much presumption of disinterested credibility.

[Brett Bellmore]

Did you have anything to say that was responsive to my point?

Freezing accounts after a suit is filed is to prevent retaliation, it doesn't do ANYTHING to protect the person against whom the suit is filed, because the person who filed the suit knew before hand that they were going to do so, and could simply act prior to filing the suit.

[Joe_dallas]

SL - Do all journalist suffer from delusions or it just you?

Your comment is simply inane and detached from reality

[Stephen Lathrop]

Joe_dallas — Like Bellmore, you lack journalistic supervision. So you cannot afford to be without journalistic temperament as well. But alas . . .

[Joe_dallas]

Thank the lord we dont have "journalistic supervision" nor do we have "journalistic temperment".

The journalist industry proved themselves to be extremely corrupt with their concerted efforts to hide Bidens mental incapacity.

[y81]

Complaining about your ex-wife does not enhance credibility: It makes the complainer seem like a bitter, whiny, loserish member of the manosphere. Man up and find a new girl, make some new money, and keep your personal problems to yourself.

[John Hawkinson]

Oh, also, several Courts of Appeals have local rules that provide for a (time-limited) automatic stay of removal upon filing of a qualifying immigration Petition for Removal seeking to appeal a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. So although I don't know of any case law on the service orders, there's reason to think at least some of the courts of appeals are implicitly blessing this approach.

[y81]

It seems like Mr. Hawkinson knows a lot more about this topic than Josh Blackman. That is a common occurrence at the Conspiracy: professors talking about real life practices they know nothing about.

[MaddogEngineer]

Okay, so what is the rule here? Does that exist? Did they just make this up?

[John Rohan]

I think he meant to say that filing this for frivolous reasons, for the sole purpose of preventing people from being deported, never would have been tolerated in the past.

And in fact, I hope there are legal repercussions for this nonsense.

[Longtobefree]

The courts better start reading the headlines.

[jb]

They probably are. Like the ones where they learn that the administration accidentally deports the wrong people, or rushes to move them to evade judicial review, or ships them out of the country in the middle of the night after giving minimal notice.

[MollyGodiva]

If the administration is able to deport people while the habeas corpus petition was pending, it defeats the entire concept of habeas corpus.

The administration brought this upon themselves by deporting people without any due process to third party brutal countries, lying about it, and maintaining that once someone is deported nothing can be done to fix mistakes.

The administration's legal arguments would not change if detainee was a US citizen. That is dangerous.

[Dan Schiavetta]

+1

[Frank Drackman]

-1

[Kleppe]

"The administration brought this upon themselves by deporting people without any due process to third party brutal countries"

The American people didn't get the due process our laws guaranteed when these invaders came in; why do the invaders deserve better on the way out?

"...lying about it"

Never happened.

"... and maintaining that once someone is deported nothing can be done to fix mistakes."

It isn't the Court's business how the Executive conducts foreign policy. I see now inferior courts are demanding transcripts of communications between diplomats! It is risible.

[David Nieporent]

The American people didn't get the due process our laws guaranteed when these invaders came in;

Yes, we did.

[MaddogEngineer]

There is no such as the American people not getting due process, because a bunch of illegal aliens were allowed to enter the country.

That is not due process, has nothing to do with what due process means. Nor was it a violation of anyone's "rights". It is a political offense, but it does not give the president the complete freedom to deport any alien he wants. His authority to deport them comes from statute, not any inherent Article II powers.

[not guilty]

Kleppe, of which Native American tribe are you a member?

[Spinach Chin]

Funny that nobody cared when Obama deported millions "without due process".

[Frank Drackman]

Or “surged” 100,000 more troops into Afghanistan than “W” left him with, good thing Sleepy Joe was around to fix things

[Sarcastr0]

None of these suits are about the continuing simple deportations.

I hear Biden deported people tool btw.

[Frank Drackman]

Biden should have deported his Prostrate about 20 yrs ago

[jb]

More than Trump, even!

[Brett Bellmore]

I actually agree. Aliens have no constitutional right to be in the US, and illegal aliens don't even have a statutory right, but the due process isn't protecting THEM, it's protecting us citizens from being treated as though we were illegal aliens, and given no opportunity to prove otherwise.

This doesn't actually require very much process, little more than an opportunity to dispute one's legal status. But Trump doesn't want to bother with even that much process, and I can't agree with him.

I do, however, wonder about the automatic part of it. Just because a court has the authority to do something doesn't imply they're entitled to do it without bothering with any sort of process themselves.

The short duration of the TRO, though, largely renders that concern of mine academic; They really are just preserving the situation until they have a chance to give consideration.

What I DO want to see, however, is some sort of consequences where this delay is triggered pretextually.

[PaulS]

So could a judge issue an order (applying nationally) saying that no hearing shall be required to deport any individual who does not have/cannot provide a valid A#? Seems like they would just be stating what the law says

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : "But Trump doesn't want to bother with even that much process, and I can't agree with him."

Do you sense a pattern?

1. Trump didn't want to bother with cutting government so he sent Musk's tech-bro pranksters to toss hand grenades into random rooms. It was a pure scattershot incoherent mess. No amount of lying in the official DOGE reports could retroactively make it rational policy.

2. Trump didn't want to bother with an economic policy and is too damn stupid to know what a tariff is. So he made tariffs into a magical spell that would simultaneously fill the federal coffers, restore U.S. manufacturing primacy, and cause the yugest of economic booms. The motivation behind all this fantastical "logic" was they can be applied by imperial fiat without any discipline or work. Even then he was so half-ass as to use a childishly silly "formula" to calculate the rates and never bother to consider the obvious reactions and results. Thus his endless panics, resets, reversals, and retreats.

3. Trump didn't want to bother with being leader of the free world, but that responsibility was easily abdicated. He promised to end the war in Ukraine on Day One; segued to a promise he and his BFF Putin would get together to solve it, and is now so bored with the issue he's washed his hands of it.

Of course there are other examples, but the conclusion is clear : Trump is lazy, undisciplined, dumb as a box of rocks, and prefers stunts & gimmicks to hard work on policy. But - hey - as long as he gives MAGA their pro-wrestling-style entertainment, they're all happy. It's all they ever wanted anyway.

[y81]

"Trump is lazy, undisciplined, dumb as a box of rocks, and prefers stunts & gimmicks to hard work on policy.--And Blackman is with him gushing enthusiasm every step of the way.

[MaddogEngineer]

Thank you for again stating clearly that the due process here is for the protection of citizens, as much as it is for any alien.

It seems like there are 2 different tracks for a habeas petition. Either an assertion that (1) the person is actually a citizen, or (2) if an alien, challenging the legal justification for the pending deportation, especially in the case of the AEA, that the president's proclamation is sufficient and that the particular person is covered by it.

Asserting citizenship seems an easy call, and one where the government should have to prove to the court the person is not an alien. As the detainee probably cannot access documents to prove their citizenship. Nor should he be required to.

[MaddogEngineer]

The administration doing questionable things does not justify the courts also doing questionable things.

Which is why I'm asking under what rule or precedent is this being done?

[thesafesurfer]

...and the credibility of the judiciary decays even further.

[F.D. Wolf]

provided that Petitioner's full name and A# have been provided to the Court, either in the Petition or in a separate sealed filing.

I am no expert, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but "A#" ("A-number") refers to an alien-registration number, which someone in the country illegally would not have (nor would someone on a tourist visa, for example), so this would seem limited to the relatively smaller group of legal aliens the administration seeks to deport.

[gdanning]

Anyone given a notice to appear in immigration court for deportation hearings would also have an A number. And I believe an NTA is given to everyone detained (but maybe not those summarily expelled?). See page 7 here: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/detentionremovalguide_2006-02.pdf

And, anyone who applied for TPS or asylum or anything else would be given an A no. Also, anyone on a student visa.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

IANAL. This seems not only perfectly logical, but also perfect karma. Trump flouted that one court order that Garcia could be deported anywhere but El Salvador. He apparently deported someone else in violation of a court order. Near as I can tell, the courts-approved prosecutorial discretion allows the President to not investigate and not prosecute whatever he wants, just as Obama chose not to deport millions of immigrants for having young children. But play with fire and get burned; FAFO.

As to the legality of this particular standing order, criminy, who can tell these days with so many judges and appeals courts issuing national injunctions and restraining orders, and that's on top of normal lawyerly quibbling. IANAL but what makes this one so unusual, other than being Trump's FO?

You lawyers are going to be having a lot of fun the next 3.5 years, or maybe just the next two if both House and Senate flip in 2026 and he gets impeached.

[Frank Drackman]

He got impeached last time, how’d that work out for ya?

[Stupid Government Tricks]

For me? You think I'm Trump, or Pelosi, under a pseudonym?

[Frank Drackman]

Too Stupid to be Trump, not drunk enough to be Pelosi, you do strike me as light-in-the-loafers enough to be Booty-Judge or Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Good. Now use your superior wisdom and insight to predict what happens if the 2026 elections flip the House, which is the usual midterms outcome and even more expected this time, and the additional question of what happens if they flip the Senate too.

[Frank Drackman]

at the rate DemoKKKrat Congresspeoples keep dying?
The "usual midterms outcome" except when it isn't, 1998 for one, when another POTUS was facing impeachment (and as Barry Hussein would say, "Stupidly")
and 2002, the year after some Arab's "Did Something" (HT Rep Mullah Omar (D, MN). You think this guy murdering 2 Israelis in DC isn't just the start? It's a friggin 1/2 mile from the Capitol

Frank

[Bob from Ohio]

"if the 2026 elections flip the House"

Impeachment and acquittal

"what happens if they flip the Senate too."

Impeachment and acquittal

Another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.

[David Nieporent]

That's plagiarism, but it's not wrong.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

They've got more meat this time than any previous impeachment.

* Violated 15 trade agreements

* Deported two illegal immigrants in violation of court orders

Considering how fake the previous two were, this one might actually stick.

[Bob from Ohio]

Keep hope alive!

Say they get 52 Dem senators, that's a 5 seat pick up. In what universe do they get 15 GOP votes to convict? Not ours!

[Public Entelectual]

"Has anyone ever seen an order like this before?"

King John at Runnymede and the King of Morocco when Teddy Roosevelt sent his démarche to hand over Ion Pericardis.

[Martinned]

Unrelated:

A federal judge in Boston said on Wednesday that the Trump administration had violated an order he issued last month barring officials from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them sufficient time to object.

The finding by the judge, Brian E. Murphy, was one of the strongest judicial rebukes the administration has faced so far in a series of contentious cases arising from its sprawling deportation agenda.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/south-sudan-deportation.html

[MaddogEngineer]

Again, why does administration bad behavior (in this district, or elsewhere) justify courts themselves engaging in bad behavior?

Everybody keeps saying Hell yeah, Trump deserves this! without providing the legal justification for a federal district to impose a standing TRO.

[David Nieporent]

What exactly is "bad behavior" about saying that a litigant can't rush to create facts on the ground (or in the air, in this case) before a court even gets a chance to consider the case?

[MaddogEngineer]

The bad behavior would be illegal or not legally authorized behavior. Like district court judges asserting jurisdiction where none exists, fighting to retain it after its lost, or certifying class contrary to federal rules of procedure.

I'm not saying any of those have definitely occurred in all cases, but your pretend obtuseness is obnoxious.

MAGA turns a blind eye when the president oversteps. Anti-MAGA ignore when judges overstep. Because the end justifies the means. Everyone quick to bang on the table, instead of argue the law.

[ReaderY]

“I can’t imagine such an order would remain in effect if a different President is in the White House.”

Correct.

Such an order would not have been NECESSARY with a different President in the White House.

Judicial actions respond to behavior. Behavior has consequences. There are consequences to deporting people in the middle of the night without due process and then claiming they cannot be returned.

To say that Mr. Trump should be treated like other Presidents despite behaving differently from them is to say Mr. Trump should be immune from having to deal with the consequences of his actions just because he happens to be President. This demeans the office of the Presidency, the person of Mr. Trump, and Mr. Blackman himself.

[Frank Drackman]

"45/47 (and 48? the 22d Amendment only says you can't get ELECTED to more than 2 terms as POTUS) sends a handful of criminals to where they should be, Prison, and the DemoKKKrats/Media literally rub their shafts raw trying to get them back, and they're wondering why they lost every swing state.

Frank

[ReaderY]

It appears a large majority of the Venezualians detained under the Alien Enemies Act arrived perfectly legally and have no criminal records. For many of them, the only evidence of any connection to AdE is that some ICE officer took a disliking to their tattoos.

This idea that immigrants are all a bunch of criminals is a lie, propaganda, every bit as much a lie and every bit as much propaganda as Hitler’s claim that the Jews were all criminals.

I have said repeatedly that it is constitutional for this country to have strict immigration policies if it wishes to. But no policy should ever be based on hate, lies, and propaganda. And no Executive ever has any right to enforce any policy without regard to statutory and Due Process rights.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It appears a large majority of the Venezualians detained under the Alien Enemies Act arrived perfectly legally"

That's the expected application of the Alien Enemies act. If they hadn't arrived perfectly legally, you wouldn't NEED the Alien Enemies act to deport them.

[jb]

You could do exactly what Trump is doing and revoke their temporary protected status, no?

But once again: if your goal was to push back against ILLEGAL immigration, which is what Trump and his supporters often say, why is deporting these particular people a priority? They didn't sneak into the country; they haven't broken any laws that we know of. Why isn't Trump focusing his limited resources on deporting people who have?

[Brett Bellmore]

"But once again: if your goal was to push back against ILLEGAL immigration, which is what Trump and his supporters often say, why is deporting these particular people a priority?"

That's a fair question, and I'll give it a fair answer.

If by some weird confluence of circumstances, the only people who illegally immigrated to the US were modest numbers of English literate, otherwise law abiding, ideal citizens who would vastly contribute to the prosperity of the country, who would find illegal immigration objectionable? If the legal immigration process for some bizarre reason concentrated on admitting diseased felons who couldn't speak English, what would there be to like about legal immigration?

WHY do we object to illegal immigration? Because the legal immigration process normally, when allowed to function, admits people who have a much higher likelihood of being positive additions to the country than a random sample of humanity. Typically educated, English literate, law abiding, not disease carriers. And the numbers are limited to be manageable.

While illegal immigration involves entry of exactly the sort of people who we don't want entering: Poorly educated, English illiterate, disease carriers, with no commitment to obeying our laws. And if the border isn't secured, in entirely excessive numbers, too!

So, when Biden contrives to admit, in a pseudo-legal manner, exactly the people the legal immigration process is designed to exclude, people who are materially indistinguishable from illegal immigrants except for having Biden's blessing, why should we regard them any differently than the illegal aliens he admitted without the use of this app? They're the same people.

[David Nieporent]

That was a really long-winded way of saying, "I want white people, not Hispanics."

[jb]

First, does immigration for humanitarian reasons not fit into your view of "acceptable" legal immigration at all? There's a long tradition of this sort of immigration into the US.

This analysis seems to assume a lot of facts not in evidence. While it's true that you can probably assume that skill-based visas like H-1s or O-1s probably correlate to people who are more likely to make certain kinds of contributions to society than a random person in the world, but I believe the plurality of US immigration is family-based rather than skill-based. Beyond those skills, though, I haven't seen anything to suggest that immigrants that have Temporary Protected Status are less educated, committed to our laws or likely to carry disease than folks entering on proper visas. (And at least on some of those points, my understanding that disease and security screening are the same for TPS or visa applicants.)

Do you have data that suggests that these folks are actually associated with the traits you're worried about? If not, it does start to feel pretextual and actually rooted in something else.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

They arrived legally only because Biden brought them in on his own say-so, not because they followed all the usual procedures.

[Brett Bellmore]

True, but it's also beside the point, because, as I said, if they hadn't arrived 'legally' it wouldn't require the Alien Enemies act to deport them in the first place. They'd just be normal deportations.

The AEA lets the administration reconsider that legal admission.

[ReaderY]

That may be so. But people who abide by laws in effect at the time they take their actions are law-abiding. They cannot be called criminals. Trump is entitled to change Biden’s policy. Everybody understands elections have consequences. But he is not entitled to call Biden a criminal for enacting the policy. And he is not entitled to call aliens who entered in accordance with its terms criminals.

Our immigration laws give the President a good deal of discretion. Trump has discretion to tighten our immigration policy in many respects so long as he abides by statutory and Due Process requirements. I don’t think the AEA statute permitted his proclamation, but he has many other statutory avenues to tighten immigration if he wants to.

But that same discretion also means that Biden’s acts relaxing immigration policy were perfectly legal at the time, and immigrants who came in accordance with Biden’s relaxed policies came perfectly legally.

[ReaderY]

Also, it’s not exactly like Trump has been following all the usual procedures. In fact, he’s denounced the usual procedures. What does that make him?

[Brett Bellmore]

" But he is not entitled to call Biden a criminal for enacting the policy."

OK, first off, Biden, not being a legislature, can't enact anything.

Secondly, using a statutory power allowing a specified person to make individual determinations as to whether to grant parole to justify a program (Literally, a computer program, an app!) that just automatically admitted people based on fixed criteria? Yes, that was somewhat lawless.

[ReaderY]

There’s a long precedent of doing it. It can be applied to entire countries. The courts have upheld it. What Biden did was perfectly legal.

For example, Reagan did something similar for Cubans back in the 1980s. There’s a long history.

Even if Biden’s action was somehow legally improper, people who do what the Executive Branch tells them to do are law-abiding. Treating them as criminals simply for abiding by the rules set by a former President you disagree with is something only people in an autocracy with no concept of justice would do, not people in a constitutional republic who respect and consider themselves bound to follw the concept of fundamental fairness.

[jb]

I'm not sure why you think this is responsive to my point.

First, "All the usual procedures" vary wildly depending on the reason the person is immigrating. In this case, they followed the procedures in place for folks fleeing dangerous and oppressive countries.

Second, as others note below, it doesn't matter. They still followed the rules. If the complaint about illegal immigrants is that you shouldn't be allowed to break our laws and "jump the queue" ahead of people that do, why kick out all of these people who did follow the rules at the time?

[Frank Drackman]

If present trends continue (1 DemoKKKrat Congressman dying every 40 days) 14 more will die before the 2026 Erection, and get this, Maxine Walters, at 85, is only 3rd in Seniority among the D's.
OK, Chuckie Grassley is 90, he's a tough old coot, and he's a Senator anyway, you can just stuff them like Caligula did with Gemellus

[CEF]

Why this rule? Evidently the court believe that both (i) a significant portion of the people Trump is trying to deport have the right to stay and (ii) the Trump administration would probably try to deport them after their case had been filed, but before the judge had the ability to order a stop to the deportation. Both of those are probably accurate.

[austinrussell2025]

Oh, more jail time when they could just go home.

[Drewski]

This is fine, with the caveat that it should be propagated as a local rule as soon as possible. Automatic injunctions are not per se unconstitutional; for example, filing for bankruptcy automatically enjoins collection action. It's a rule tailored to further the administration of justice that certainly has a rational basis. Using standing orders to bypass the notice-and-comment period of rules is allowed to address issues of an urgent nature. Since it's not likely to be a temporary measure, however, it should be subjected to notice and comment via the Rules Enabling Act process.

[pts]

The automatic stay is create by a federal statute (11 USC 362) and takes effect upon the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, without any action on the part of a bankruptcy judge. I'm not aware of any statute authorizing this local rule.

[Drewski]

Are you suggesting the bankruptcy code is unconstitutional? Because otherwise you're agreeing with me.

[Stuart]

Has anyone ever seen an order like this before?

Has anyone seen an administration remove people without due process?

[Brett Bellmore]

A few years before my time, but, yes.

[ChristopherJLinas]

Yes, this order certainly does seem intended to thwart further illegal kidnappings from being committed by a habitually criminal defendant. The administration has demonstrated repeated bad faith by sending purported civil law violators to a Central American concentration camp with intentionally deficient notice to prevent them from challenging their imprisonment, and claiming that courts lack jurisdiction to remedy such imprisonments after they are proven erroneous. So, yes, this order does seem calculated to prevent more crimes against humanity.

[ChristopherJLinas]

I’ll add that the administration made their bed by taking the position early on that any injury caused by erroneously shipping someone to the concentration camp cannot be judicially redressed after the fact. The obvious equal and opposite reaction to THAT brilliant chess move is that no one can be sent to the concentration camp until full due process is exhausted.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Bluesky is leaking retards.

[ChristopherJLinas]

If I were wrong then you'd have a better rebuttal than that.

[David Nieporent]

I think the Abrego Garcia situation is foremost in everyone's mind when considering this order, but I think the administration's conduct in the JGG case was an even more important trigger. That was the famous "turn the planes around" case (although that is an inaccurate rendition of Boasberg's order). At least in the Abrego Garcia case, the deportation, illegal as it was, had been completed already. But in the JGG case, the plaintiffs were seeking a TRO while the prisoners were already in detention, and Boasberg scheduled a hearing for 4 pm that same day. And I believe he then adjourned it until 5 pm to give the administration a chance to obtain information about the prisoners. And while that process was ongoing, the administration rushed them onto the planes and had them take off, and then falsely claimed that there was nothing the court could do. (Actually, it first falsely claimed it didn't have to obey an oral order.)

This is akin to what happened in the AARP case, where the administration put the people on buses to the airport during the time the court had given it to respond to the plaintiffs' motion.

To be clear, because the MAGA loons — and I include Blackman — don't understand the judicial system, if any private litigant had done that people would've been in jail. (And I'm not talking about the immigrants.)

[Frank Drackman]

the last 2 months is probably the longest Kill-more Garcia's has gone without committing any crimes since he came to Amurica, but I do agree that his current punishment qualifies as "Cruel and Unusual"
Cocktails with Senator Van Hollen? couldn't they find someone even more despicable like Mullah Omar or Priapism Slap-a-Jap??

[ReaderY]

I understand psychologists tell us that when people repeat something over and over, people are more inclined to believe if or at least accept it as normal. But that doesn’t make it any more true.

As that RINO Abraham Lincoln put it, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it so.

[ReaderY]

I think that the courts are entitled to jail people in the government.

[MaddogEngineer]

Sounds authoritarian. Who exactly would be doing the jailing of people in the government? When it's the government that administers the jails?

I don't think that's going to work out the way you'd like it to.

[MaddogEngineer]

Got to the bottom of reading the comments. Didn't see anyone provide the legal justification for the district court to do this. Beyond Orange Man Bad.

Sure, I'm willing to stipulate that the Orange Man is bad here. I didn't vote for him, or for this. That doesn't mean I agree that the way to preserve the rule of law is to burn it down like this.

[ChristopherJLinas]

I am a lawyer but not a federal habeas lawyer. I am assuming, without claiming to know, that it is within the power of an individual judge in a specific case to issue a TRO against deportation immediately upon receiving a habeas petition. I am also assuming that the controversial issue here is whether a district can implement a policy whereby such orders are deemed automatically entered upon filing, without a judge actually having to take action.

I'm looking at FRCP 65(b)(1), which seems to be the general rule on point. I do not know if something specific exists in the habeas/immigration context. Assuming FRCP 65(b)(1) applies, I see two problems. One is that it says the Court "may" issue a TRO if the requirements are met, which suggests that the court must exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. Another problem is that FRCP 65(b)(1)(B) requires an attorney to certify efforts to give notice to the opposing party or reasons notice should not be required, but the standing order seems to apply to habeas petitions that do not meet that requirement.

Note that I am fully on board with the conclusion that, at this point, each and every habeas petition filed by an alien per se meets the requirement under FRCP 65(b)(1)(A) to "clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition." The administration, through actions such as providing intentionally deficient notice of deportation, and loading people on busses in the middle of the night while a request for a TRO is actively pending, and taking the position that deportation to places like CECOT cannot be undone after-the-fact however erroneous they may be, have made it so that no other conclusion is reasonable. We're dealing with an administration that is actively and repeatedly attempting to violate the law in bad faith, and the delay between the filing of a case and the issuance of a TRO, even if it is a matter of minutes, is a window the administration WILL use to break the law irreparably. So I actually do agree that the irreparable harm element is, in fact, satisfied in all cases covered by the standing order. Unfortunately, however, I am inclined to think Rule 65's other technical requirements cannot be met without case-specific review.

Perhaps there is a justification rooted in the Court's equitable authority or it's authority to control procedure in its own jurisdiction, I don't know.

[MaddogEngineer]

Thank you for this analysis.

I agree that one of the key controversies not conclusively settled is the irreparable harm here. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have heard others argue that deportation is not an irreparable harm. Maybe deportation to CECOT is, because of the confinement on the other end. Maybe US law can pierce that vale, for judges to consider that. Immigration law quite deliberately kept immigration decisions out of district courts. But district courts are the only venue where a plaintiff can file a habeas petition--something I misidentified citizen absolutely needs to have available to him.

I remain uncertain about the novelty of treating habeas petitions as class like this. Because the law is still an arse...just because something is according to common sense, doesn't mean the law allows it. It's unsettling for judges to be invoking generic equitable powers to do something that might be beyond the current rules of procedure. All to end run around that habeas petitions are generally beyond class certification. That's potentially every bit the power grab that the Trump administration is engaging in, stretching the AEA, equitable powers or not.

[David Nieporent]

Even if it were true that habeas petitions are not amenable to class treatment, the policy that is the topic of this thread has nothing to do with class certification. It resolves no issues and grants no relief to anyone.

I have heard others argue that deportation is not an irreparable harm. Maybe deportation to CECOT is, because of the confinement on the other end.

That's exactly it. As harsh as deportation can be, it is not typically deemed irreparable harm in our system, because if a court later rules that the person had a right to be here, the person can just return in the manner of his choosing and the government can be required to admit the person. But in the case of CECOT victims, Bukele, in collusion with the administration, is taking the position that the person can't come back no matter what.