Read the full order here: https://t.co/5JX0L5PkQX

— Eric W. (@EWess92) September 6, 2025

Deerdude said:

---

Yea I don't get this. Biden granted temp asylum and then extended it. Trump just not extending

---

Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

Judge stops Trump admin from removing protections from 1M Haitian and Venezuelan immigrants

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/05/politics/tps-venezuelans-haitians-noem

Article doesn't say what legal basis for the injunction just that Noem overstepped and that her decision to remove temporary protections that had already been extended three times by Biden was capricious and arbitrary.

Seems to me that if Homeland Security can extend temporary status under one admin then it shouldn't be overstepping for homeland security to remove or not extend it in another admin and shouldn't be up to a judge to interfere

---

That's because basis or case law to back up the injunction. The judicial branch intervening in immigration courts alone is unprecedented and way out of their lane. Activist Judges are granting rights to illegal immigrants that they have no authority to give and the illegal immigrants have no legal right to have. Immigration courts fall under the executive branch jurisdiction and there is only limited due process rights available for people who sneak in our country. All these left is doing is throwing sand in the gears to slow things down and burn taxpayers money


All these bogus asylum claims and extensions that are granted by the executive branch are fully under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and the judicial is encroaching on the executive branch authority

---

🚨 EXCLUSIVE 🚨

Chinese, California Obama-Appointed Judge Edward Chen, who just struck down President Trump’s decision to end TPS for Venezuelan and Haitian illegals, has a family foundation called Rose T.Y. Chen Charitable Foundation, now part of the San Francisco Foundation,… pic.twitter.com/mZbLkOBXBk

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) September 6, 2025

1985-2002 Judge Edward Chen worked for the ACLU specializing in language & Asian discrimination. Obama had to nominate him 3 TIMES due to Chen's judicial activism. He faced ethics complaint post 9/11 for his public comments "concerned for race relations & religious intolerance"🚨 pic.twitter.com/Z7rZrId261

— Lauren G 🇺🇸 (@lbc360) September 5, 2025

BREAKING: Federal judge Edward Chen in San Francisco has blocked the Trump administration from ending TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for 350,000 Venezuelans in the US, for now. Their work permits & protection from removal was set to be terminated next week.

Judge Chen writes:…

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) March 31, 2025

flown-the-coop said:

---

In lib world, a Republican POTUS needs 2/3rds of the house and senate plus a formal blessing by a unanimous SCOTUS some random district court judge in Hawaii before any action can be officially taken.

Evidently this is coequal branches of government to them. Check with us first, follow all judges orders, if not then we will tell the crazies you are Hitler and will exterminate gays and liberals. But if D potus, you cheer when they call for stacking the courts, killing children and using f15s on folks standing up for the 2nd Amendment. Oh and speaking of amendments, the 1st needs to be government by their Ministry of Truth.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

In lib world, a Republican POTUS needs 2/3rds of the house and senate plus a formal blessing by a unanimous SCOTUS before any action can be officially taken.

Evidently this is coequal branches of government to them. Check with us first, follow all judges orders, if not then we will tell the crazies you are Hitler and will exterminate gays and liberals. But if D potus, you cheer when they call for stacking the courts, killing children and using f15s on folks standing up for the 2nd Amendment. Oh and speaking of amendments, the 1st needs to be government by their Ministry of Truth.

---

As would have been easy to predict, Justice Sotomayor filed a 21 page dissent to the granting of the stay, telling all that the end of the freedom to walk the streets is at hand.

BUT, in a very surprising move to me, Justice Kavanaugh writes an opinion -- not joined by any other… https://t.co/Tp1519SQpl

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) September 8, 2025

Also this morning -- Justice Roberts has issued an Admin stay on the D.C. Circuit's decision that an FTC Commissioner fired by Trump must be allowed to remain in her position until her lawsuit is completed.

This is a case IMO that is most likely to go up to the Supreme Court…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) September 8, 2025

I think the commentary among several members is enough that reversing Humphrey's as wrongly decided is the most likely outcome.

Historically, there was quite a bit of consternation over Humphrey's when it was decided, and some attributed the Court's decision to lasting… https://t.co/HtvbVvrr9b

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) September 8, 2025

Quote:

---

Kavanaugh's concurrence is 10 pages long.

I haven't thoroughy read each at this point, so I don't know the extent to which Kavanaugh is directly addressing the dissenters.

But it is quite unusual to me for a Justice who is not dissenting to write in advance where he/she is likely to come out if/when the case reaches the court. I suspect this is why none of the other Justices joined his opinion.

It might just be that he has grown tired of the dissenters writing lengthy opinions on the shadow document condemning the majority, where the dissent presents arguments that are not consistent with current SCOTUS precedent.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Dissension within the ranks of SCOTUS.

Quote:

---

Kavanaugh's concurrence is 10 pages long.

I haven't thoroughy read each at this point, so I don't know the extent to which Kavanaugh is directly addressing the dissenters.

But it is quite unusual to me for a Justice who is not dissenting to write in advance where he/she is likely to come out if/when the case reaches the court. I suspect this is why none of the other Justices joined his opinion.

It might just be that he has grown tired of the dissenters writing lengthy opinions on the shadow document condemning the majority, where the dissent presents arguments that are not consistent with current SCOTUS precedent.

---

---

techno-ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Dissension within the ranks of SCOTUS.

Quote:

---

Kavanaugh's concurrence is 10 pages long.

I haven't thoroughy read each at this point, so I don't know the extent to which Kavanaugh is directly addressing the dissenters.

But it is quite unusual to me for a Justice who is not dissenting to write in advance where he/she is likely to come out if/when the case reaches the court. I suspect this is why none of the other Justices joined his opinion.

It might just be that he has grown tired of the dissenters writing lengthy opinions on the shadow document condemning the majority, where the dissent presents arguments that are not consistent with current SCOTUS precedent.

---

---

Well, it has gotten ridiculous.

When the lower courts are openly defying SCOTUS, something needs to happen.

---

From Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence today -- I'm paraphrasing:

"Hey Ninth Circuit. We are going to take this up on Cert if you are dumb enough to affirm this Judge."

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) September 8, 2025

I think the horse is out of the barn.

I don't have any confidence that the current tactics will "succeed" or "fail" by the Admin. in altering the landscape in the future. They are fighting on the ground that was prepared by others.

These are the rules of the game now in… https://t.co/brxmU7jNPS

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) September 8, 2025

shipwreckedcrew said:

---

I think the horse is out of the barn.

I don't have any confidence that the current tactics will "succeed" or "fail" by the Admin. in altering the landscape in the future. They are fighting on the ground that was prepared by others.

These are the rules of the game now in how policy gets made, unmade, remade (?) in an era where Congress won't find its voice and make new rules. If anything, the more extreme views of each side are the only voices now heard in Congress.

Executive Orders, challenged via lawfare, in a court system rigged by both sides to reflect the extremes of each in the trial courts. That norm has been developing for 30 years -- it didn't happen overnight.

What the Trump Admin is seeking to accomplish -- in my opinion -- is to do lasting damage to some of the foundations upon which the Admin State and permanent bureaucracy has been built, and using an "energetic Executive" to swing that hammer.

It must seize for itself both the energy and the hammer to do so.

Would it be better if it was in bipartisan? Sure, but he's challenging orthodoxies about how the federal government is expected to function in ways that are unacceptable to the left because the left relies on the functionality being destroyed to accomplish its goals when in power.

This is transformational. It was always going to be ugly and the reaction was easily predictable.

---

Quote:

---

These are the rules of the game now in how policy gets made, unmade, remade (?) in an era where Congress won't find its voice and make new rules. If anything, the more extreme views of each side are the only voices now heard in Congress.

Executive Orders, challenged via lawfare, in a court system rigged by both sides to reflect the extremes of each in the trial courts. That norm has been developing for 30 years -- it didn't happen overnight.

What the Trump Admin is seeking to accomplish -- in my opinion -- is to do lasting damage to some of the foundations upon which the Admin State and permanent bureaucracy has been built, and using an "energetic Executive" to swing that hammer.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Dissension within the ranks of SCOTUS.

Quote:

---

Kavanaugh's concurrence is 10 pages long.

I haven't thoroughy read each at this point, so I don't know the extent to which Kavanaugh is directly addressing the dissenters.

But it is quite unusual to me for a Justice who is not dissenting to write in advance where he/she is likely to come out if/when the case reaches the court. I suspect this is why none of the other Justices joined his opinion.

It might just be that he has grown tired of the dissenters writing lengthy opinions on the shadow document condemning the majority, where the dissent presents arguments that are not consistent with current SCOTUS precedent.

---

---

In a near-midnight ruling, the district court has adopted yet another novel theory to compel USAID to obligate $4 billion in taxpayer funds by September 30. We will get to legalities, but consider practicalities. One cannot wisely obligate $4b in three weeks. 5/ pic.twitter.com/AibOLlaafJ

— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) September 8, 2025

It is also enormously disruptive to executive administration. The President and his senior appointees need to focus on running the government--not sitting at the beck and call of district judges humoring litigants pressing policy goals via flimsy legal claims. 14/ pic.twitter.com/iKZld0XBiF

— James Burnham (@BurnhamDC) September 8, 2025

Quote:

---

What do you think about the argument that this is a new tactic by SCOTUS to address inferior judges citing to brain-dead dissents by the not-so-smart SCOTUS justices?

I have been involved in something like 100 civil litigations that were appealed, and only recall one legal argument that relied on a dissent issued by an appeals court judge. And, the petitioner in that case got drop-kicked straight to the moon. So, my understanding is that widespread use of that tactic is fairly new, but, again, all my knowledge of law is within a very small segment of civil litigation.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What do you think about the argument that this is a new tactic by SCOTUS to address inferior judges citing to brain-dead dissents by the not-so-smart SCOTUS justices?

I have been involved in something like 100 civil litigations that were appealed, and only recall one legal argument that relied on a dissent issued by an appeals court judge. And, the petitioner in that case got drop-kicked straight to the moon. So, my understanding is that widespread use of that tactic is fairly new, but, again, all my knowledge of law is within a very small segment of civil litigation.

---

One of the things I disliked about Rehnquist was his tendency to cite his own dissents. I mean, what does that have to do with the case at bar? It is not controlling. But that was at SCOTUS level not district court level.

And therein lies the difference. Federal district court judges have always had a God complex but they also used to care about their reputations as a solid jurist and not a laughingstock or subject to ridicule.

They no longer have that sense of pride, nor shame.

---

🚨 BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett FIRES BACK at Democrats who claim SCOTUS keeps ruling in favor of Trump just to protect him — confirms that many of the left’s cases are dangerous overreach. pic.twitter.com/WH72bN53oi

“We're not deciding cases just for today.…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 8, 2025

will25u said:

---

🚨 BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett FIRES BACK at Democrats who claim SCOTUS keeps ruling in favor of Trump just to protect him — confirms that many of the left’s cases are dangerous overreach. pic.twitter.com/WH72bN53oi

“We're not deciding cases just for today.…

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 8, 2025

---

Quote:

---

"We're not deciding cases just for today. And we're not deciding cases based on the president as in the current occupant of the office. We are deciding cases about the presidency. So we are taking each case and we're looking at the question of presidential power as it comes and the cases that we decide today are going to matter four presidencies from now, six presidents from now…"

---

pic.twitter.com/rveykLqqTb

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 9, 2025

nortex97 said:

---

Yep, only other thing they could have added would have been 'without pouting about it.'

---