If you have an interest in fixing the country then you definitely need to have a burner phone system because you’re the exact kind of person they’re going to single out (like, this article was inspired by an ttorney for a pro-Palestine protester having his phone seized when he re entered the country)
If that comes to pass the burner phone would become “your phone,” as much of a pain in the ass and potential cause of losing media as that would be
Because they’ve been shit tier journalism and the handmaidens of human rights atrocities since at least Iran-Contra. They used to be good back in like the 60s and their insane amount of resources they can throw at stories means occasionally they get an interesting scoop, but their editorial board are a bunch of mendacious pricks who will throw marginalized people under the bus and help the rich and powerful sweep dirt under the rug for access.
turned away by school administrators
Those school administrators are heroes who should be an example to everyone right now
Court: “You can’t just deport people for no reason!”
Marco Rubio: “We don’t like his opinions.”
Court: “Understandable have a great day.”
Eh, fair, I definitely don’t want to trash the value of a real genuine education, but I am sick to death of these arrogant idiots who just memorized a bunch of neoliberal ideology and justifications for empire at bullshit ivy league schools and then act like they deserve their giant platforms and paychecks
Can’t wait for some overpaid and overeducated shithead at the New York Times to get all “Ah ah ah, it’s not a constitutional crisis yet you dirty plebs! They didn’t say they’re defying the court order, they said they’re interpreting it, and we have no choice but to take that completely obvious bullshit at face value because that’s how patriotic journalists talk about the leader of the free world.”
Trump in February ordered the creation of a “Make America Healthy Again” Commission made up of Kennedy and other secretaries to look at everything from the rates of autism and asthma in children to how much medicine is being prescribed to them for ADHD or other conditions.
Secretary Brainworms and the DSM-5 table of contents administration are going to take a break from their ketamine amphetamine modafinil ozempic etc. regimens to fix all the rest of us, how lovely /s
I’m honestly surprised they haven’t started talking about “curing” homosexuality yet
Oh neat, memes, I love those! [Clicks article] Oh, two twitter embed videos that aren’t worth the trouble to try to liberate from the shithead nazi bar platform, my disappointment is immeasurable and etc.
Why is mainstream media constantlyso bad at serving its readers?
Thank goodness, these fucking scumbags are ballot box poison who pretend voters in fly over country want more arms deals and subsidy money for businesses and don’t want public healthcare and an expansion of the government workforce when they know damn well it’s the opposite but don’t want to piss off their donors by admitting it
Year to date it’s down ~4%
deleted by creator
”The money was frozen in connection with several ongoing, credible, and concerning Title VI investigations,” a Trump administration official said
FFS, reprinting this administration’s claim that they’re doing a “credible” investigation the same week they’re fighting to not have to return the man they say they mistakenly deported is just helping them spread misinformation, and letting them hide behind “a Trump administration” official instead of giving us their name (which would allow motivated readers to use publicly available information to see if that person has lied to us in the past, if they would have even been in a position to know anything about these investigations, etc.) is really egregiously bad journalism
DOGE staff reportedly “freaked out” after seeing “Some of you guys are alright, don’t go to the White House tomorrow” message from Musk (jk)
Their opinion focused entirely on the dumb technicality of where the lawsuit was filed, but then turned around and used that as the sole reason to clear away Boasberg’s orders and let the government carry on deporting people.
Also, they talk a bit game about defendants’ rights to hearings, but they also made it so every defendant has to challenge individually (in other words, no one big ACLU suit representing everyone finding the whole scheme unconstitutional and a bunch of defendants will probably fall through the cracks), they have to challenge in the fifth circuit in Texas (the most pro-trumo court in the country), and (with the Abrego Garcia case) they aren’t making the government bring people back from El Salvador so these defendants are presumably going to be stuck in the El Salvador dungeon unable to assist their attorneys while those cases are going on.
That all said, while the court is obviously trying to give the Trump administration everything they want while still making it look like there will be a real trial, I don’t doubt that this administration is stupid/arrogant enough to get pissy about how it looks and try to blow off even these kangaroo court hearings like you’re saying.
Random sub stack I found that makes a couple of good points , tl;dr they didn’t instantly kill the case so all the pundits can say the rule of law still exists, but this ruling rigs the proceedings going forward in such a way that it’s going to be much harder for people facing deportations to win
…the more I read the Court’s Monday night ruling in Trump v. J.G.G., in which a 5-4 majority vacated a pair of temporary restraining orders entered by Chief Judge Boasberg in the Alien Enemy Act case, the more I think that this ruling really is a harbinger, and a profoundly alarming one, at that. To be clear, it’s not a sweeping win for the Trump administration; the Court did not suggest that what Trump is doing is legal, or, just as bad, that it might not be subject to judicial review. Indeed, the Court went out of its way to emphasize that individuals detained under the Act are entitled to due process, including meaningful judicial review.
But much like last Friday’s ruling in the Department of Education grants case, it’s still a ruling by a Court that seems willing to hide behind less-than-obvious legal artifices to make it harder for federal courts to actually restrain conduct by the current administration that everyone believes to be unlawful. As in that decision, here, a 5-4 majority has made it much harder for litigants to bring systemic challenges to what the Trump administration is doing. And especially in the broader context in which the Alien Enemy Act litigation, specifically, has unfolded, the justices in the majority got there by burying their heads in the sand.
…
The short per curiam opinion effectively says two things: First, the Court held that individuals detained and facing removal under the Alien Enemy Act are, contra the Trump administration, absolutely entitled to due process before they are removed, including meaningful judicial review. That should’ve been obvious, but it’s nice having the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirm that point. Indeed, the Court expressly held that “AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.” This is actually good.
But second, the Court also held that such judicial review must come through habeas petitions—not through the APA. In other words, the five individual plaintiffs in J.G.G. need to bring their suit as a habeas petition—and, given where they’re detained, not in the D.C. federal district court. This holding was, suffice it to say, not exactly obvious. Indeed, there are some compelling arguments that, although habeas is a vehicle through which to challenge the government’s use of the Alien Enemy Act, it’s not (and never has been) the exclusive vehicle for doing so. But here we are.
…
… lawyers could presumably try to file a habeas petition in D.C. on behalf of the individuals already removed to El Salvador—one that will depend upon how Abrego Garcia is resolved. But even if the Supreme Court sides with the lower courts there, and holds that federal courts can order the federal government to take steps to bring these folks back if their removals were unlawful, by vacating Boasberg’s TROs, the majority has made that review that much more difficult and potentially ineffective. That’s plenty alarming all by itself.
… going forward, assuming that this Court is going to aggressively enforce the district-of-confinement rule for individuals still in the United States (which I wrote about in the context of the Khalil case), that means habeas petitions will have to be brought in the district in which those individual detainees are each detained. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent raises the specter of individuals being held all over the country, but I think it’s more likely most of these cases end up in the Southern District of Texas—and, thus, in the Fifth Circuit. (Much like the Department of Education ruling is going to likely mean that at least some of the funding cutoff cases end up in the Court of Federal Claims.) … Trading APA review for habeas, even if the remedies were otherwise commensurate, is trading the ideologically diverse (and national security-experienced) D.C. federal courts for the most right-leaning federal courts in the country. And the justices know that, too.
… regardless of which court conducts the review, there are at least some reasons to fear that the scope of review in a habeas petition won’t be commensurate with what’s available under the APA. Among other things, there’s less case law supporting emergency relief in habeas cases. There are additional practical roadblocks to certifying a class of affected individuals in habeas cases (because each member of the class is presumably challenging their detention, versus seeking facial review of government action). Unlike under the APA, there’s no specter of “universal” relief in a habeas case. And, although Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence plays up the use of habeas historically to prevent unlawful transfers to foreign countries before they happen, the very D.C. Circuit case that he cites in support, “Kiyemba II” (in which he was one of the judges), held that Guantánamo detainees could not use habeas to block their transfer to a foreign country based upon fear that they would be tortured there—so long as the federal government said they wouldn’t be. (I’ve written at some length about how wrong then-Judge Kavanaugh was on this point.)
Thus, there will be judicial review of the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemy Act… But the review we end up with will be far more impoverished than what was already unfolding before Chief Judge Boasberg. That review may still suffice in individual cases, but what the Court’s ruling completely refuses to engage with (unlike Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, which tackles it head-on) is how much the Trump administration is attempting to use the Alien Enemy Act systemically—for mass, summary removals rather than case-by-case, individualized adjudications. By relying upon an unpersuasive procedural technicality to force more individualized litigation, the Court is effectively bringing a pea-shooter to a gunfight.
Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250408111208/https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/140-the-disturbing-myopia-of-trump
e; added tl;dr
Boasberg still needs to rule on this case
Unfortunately it really is absolutely horrible news, the whole sole reason in this bullshit unsigned 5-4 opinion is that the plaintiffs should have filed in Texas not D.C., so it’s going to a different judge now and this probably voids the question of whether or not the administration ignored court orders at the outset of this because (per this bullshit opinion) those orders were given by a court that never should have been involved
Incidentally, I found a better article about this (archive)
By a vote of 5-4, the justices declined to address the challengers’ contention that they are not covered by the 18th-century law on which Trump relied in issuing the order. Instead, the challengers’ lawsuit must be brought in Texas, where they are being held, rather than in Washington, D.C., the court explained.
The unsigned four-page opinion emphasized that although courts have a limited role in reviewing claims under that law, the plaintiffs and others detained under the law are entitled to “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”
Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”
So, just to recap, the supreme court is not going to let deportation flights to El Salvador be stopped yet, but they will stop an order to have someone returned from El Salvador, but they want people being flown to El Salvador to have “notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal.”
At the risk of asking a stupid question, what’s the point in challenging your deportation if you’ve already been flown to El Salvador and nobody can bring you back?
Several Republican senators have signed onto the Trade Review Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington
Way to work with Republicans on the one issue they give a shit about while doing fuck all for human rights you fucking collaborationist scum
Secret leak investigations leaking never gets old