"Indefensible"

"Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial."

Apparently the only two Supreme Court justices who know the law.

Dateline: July 3, 2025, Santa Fe, New Mexico

Moments ago the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, gave Gollum’s Goons the green light to send deportees to South Sudan, and Due Process be damned. Justices Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Jackson.

Justice Sotomayor:

• “What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death. … In simple terms, the Government requests that the Court remove an obstacle to its achieving those unlawful ends.”

• “Although Members of today’s majority have previously insisted that “this Court should follow established procedures” when granting emergency relief, … the Court now ignores its Rules to grant the Government its desired “clarification” immediately.”

• “Even now, the Government seeks to defy this Court’s clear holdings that it must afford noncitizens with due process of law before removing them. In the end, the majority ignores the Court’s Rules for seeking emergency relief and creates new law on civil contempt, all to allow the Government to circumvent the appellate process with respect to an order it continues to defy.”

• “[I]f this Court wishes to permit the Government to flout the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause, it cannot avoid accountability for that lawlessness by tasking the lower courts with inventing a rationale. The Court’s continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case, even as it faults lower courts for failing properly to divine their import, is indefensible. “In a democracy, power implies responsibility. The greater the power that defies law the less tolerant can this Court be of defiance. As the Nation’s ultimate judicial tribunal, this Court, beyond any other organ of society, is the trustee of law and charged with the duty of securing obedience to it.” Mine Workers, 330 U. S., at 312 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). This Court continues to invert those principles. Today’s order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.” [Emphasis mine.]

IN BETTER NEWS:

• Yesterday, in a 128-page decision, federal District Judge Randolph D. Moss protected the right to apply for asylum. DOJ will appeal, of course, and his ruling may be overturned by the bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court (see above,) but let’s savor a little justice while we can. Highlight: “[T]he Court concludes that neither the INA nor the Constitution grants the President or the Agency Defendants authority to replace the comprehensive rules and procedures set forth in the INA and the governing regulations with an extra-statutory, extraregulatory regime for repatriating or removing individuals from the United States, without an opportunity to apply for asylum or withholding of removal and without complying with the regulations governing CAT protection. … [N]othing in the INA or the Constitution grants the President or his delegees the sweeping authority asserted in the Proclamation and implementing guidance.”

MORE GOOD NEWS:

• On July 1, 2025 federal District Judge Brian M. Cogan protected TPS for some Haitians, at least for a while: “Because Secretary Noem does not have statutory or inherent authority to partially vacate a country’s TPS designation, her partial vacatur must be set aside as unlawful under the APA.”

AND:

• “From the moment Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia challenged his illegal rendition to El Salvador in March 2025, the government has repeatedly maligned him in public statements.” His lawyers asked the judge to tell DOJ and DHS to cut it out. He did. (Frankly, I don’t expect DOJ or DHS to comply, but it’s a start.)

SOME GOOD LAWSUITS:

• “California Attorney General Rob Bonta today [July 1, 2025,] leading a multistate coalition, filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) decision to provide unfettered access to individual personal health data to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which houses Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).” - Cal. A.G. Bonta, July 1, 2025.

• “Southern California residents, workers, and advocacy groups across various industries sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in federal court for abducting and disappearing community members using unlawful stop and arrest practices and confining individuals at a federal building in illegal conditions while denying them access to attorneys.” - ACLU So. Cal., July 2, 2025.

That’s all for today. Comments always welcome. THANK YOU! to all subscribers, free and paid.

Be like Sonia and Ketanji.

***