***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

427,336 Views | 3459 Replies | Last: 6 hrs ago by We fixed the keg
FTAG 2000
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to We fixed the keg • 1:01p, 3/4/26
AG
We fixed the keg said:
What do you know, she gets to pen an opinion from the winning side. I haven't read her opinion yet, but I betting she finds a way to attribute the decision to something other than reality.


Still written in crayon though
Reply Quote
8
We fixed the keg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FTAG 2000 • 1:18p, 3/4/26
AG
Quote:
Still written in crayon though

Reply Quote
3
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:57a, 3/7/26
AG
Lost one...for now. DC Circuit Biden judges strike again. Judges Pan and Garcia. Neither should ever have been confirmed.

Spoiler alert; the Haitians will still have to go back.
Reply Quote
6
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:11a, 3/7/26
will25u said:
YUGE WIN! And 9-0. Jackson opinion.






Kilmar Abrego Garcia Get ready to go back to El Salvador
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
9
Hogties
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 9:19a, 3/7/26
AG
I like Kilmer in Uganda or the Sudan much better. Serves the poster child of the Nutty Democrats right.
Reply Quote
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:46a, 3/7/26
AG
The swamp is always inter-married (Not talking about racial bs) it seems, with these judges in particular.

Quote:
Stier's organization routinely fights the Trump administration (both 45 and 47) related to his efforts to reduce the federal workforce.

Just recently, his organization--Partnership for Public Service--called President Trump an "existential threat" and noted cuts to the group's budget for grants to "train" federal employees.

Is this court-sanctioned retaliation?

Stier has been a political hit-man for Democrats going all the way back to Monica Lewinsky.
Reply Quote
5
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:37p, 3/7/26
AG
Reply Quote
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:19a, 3/8/26
AG
Good.
Quote:
A panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals scorched a Canadian-born, Obama-appointed judge for her heavy-handed and illegal imposition of operating procedures on all federal officers operating in Illinois. The majority opinion said the order imposed by Judge Sara Ellis, "impermissibly infringes on separation of powers principles. It effectively established the district court as the supervisor of all Executive Branch activity in the city of Chicago." It also hinted that her legal maneuvering was calculated to appear to dismiss an unconstitutional order while preserving the ability of future litigants to breathe new life into the suit.
...
These two decisions by Ellis meant that no one else was affected by the dismissal of the case and that the plaintiffs could sue again in the future and again be certified as a class. The intent seemed to be to allow Ellis to make the same ruling again in the future, with the same or different plaintiffs, and make the administration fight the same fight again. Perhaps several times.
Ordinarily, an appeals court would have considered the case moot as both sides wanted to end the litigation. In this case, the Seventh Circuit was suspicious.
Quote:
The district court's order may also spawn adverse legal consequences. Because the district court dismissed this case without prejudiceagainst the plaintiffs' unopposed request for a dismissal with prejudiceany class members or the lead plaintiffs could refile these claims tomorrow. They could ask the district court to reinstate a near-identical preliminary in junction, adopting the facts and legal reasoning from the district court's order.

So, this case is closed, at least for now. ICE can go back to doing ICE business without worrying about Judge Ellis. Other district judges in the Seventh Circuit are on notice to follow the rules. Plus, they set a model for other courts of appeal to draw on if they are confronted with the same shenanigans.

More at the link. 'Judge' Ellis tried to get cute and did not dismiss with prejudice (as the commie plaintiffs asked) so she could revisit the matter in future with the class still certified. Complete jack ass in the Obama judge model, Canadian-born to Jamaican parents. 'Completely untethered.'
Reply Quote
6
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 8:14a, 3/8/26
AG
Small correction - she decertified the class sua sponte and then dismissed without prejudice - even worse since the decertification also failed to comport with the requirements of Rule 23 FRCP.
Reply Quote
6
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:44p, 3/11/26
Reply Quote
8
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:51p, 3/11/26
Reply Quote
6
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 3:39p, 3/11/26
AG
Good win for the good guys.
Reply Quote
5
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:38a, 3/12/26

Reply Quote
8
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:37a, 3/14/26
AG
Herr boasberg quashes grand jury subpoenas into powell spending.
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 10:56a, 3/14/26
Boasberg is a lawless piece of *****
Reply Quote
12
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 11:41a, 3/14/26
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
Boasberg is a lawless piece of *****

So is Tillis...
Reply Quote
8
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 5:49p, 3/14/26
AG
Mel or Pam?
Reply Quote
3
We fixed the keg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 7:39p, 3/14/26
AG
flown-the-coop said:
Mel or Pam?

Gotta be Pam cause I want Mel to 'stay a little longer.'
Reply Quote
3
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:43p, 3/16/26
AG
Reply Quote
8
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 1:48p, 3/16/26
AG
flown-the-coop said:
Mel or Pam?

Unfortunately, I meant Tommy Boy...
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TRM • 1:58p, 3/16/26
Guarantee these ****faces are at the courthouse right now filing another frivolous suit.
Reply Quote
4
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:00p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
9
Dirty_Mike&the_boys
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:56p, 3/16/26
"We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
Reply Quote
10
techno-ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 9:13p, 3/16/26
AG
Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:


The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
Reply Quote
10
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 9:55p, 3/16/26
Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:

Granting cert does not mean they're going to rule in Trump's favor.

Sortor should know better.
Reply Quote
2
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 10:10p, 3/16/26
AG


Quote:
Granting cert does not mean they're going to rule in Trump's favor.

Sortor should know better.

It does here - and we all know it. This one isn't even a close question.
Reply Quote
11
1 edit
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggie Jurist • 10:11p, 3/16/26
Aggie Jurist said:


Quote:
Granting cert does not mean they're going to rule in Trump's favor.

Sortor should know better.

It does here - and we all know it. This one isn't even a close question.

Most likely, but the Supreme Court can always be surprising.
Reply Quote
1
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 10:39p, 3/16/26
You can be sure the imbecile KBJ will opine that temporary and permanent are synonymous.
Reply Quote
9
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 4:40a, 3/17/26
AG
Sorry, not sorry Orange Man is going to get a big win on this one.

And Boasberg is likely to lose, again:

An example of a faux judge who sees himself as more of a deity than a neutral party.
Reply Quote
8
Aggie Jurist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 7:07a, 3/17/26
AG
Quote:
Most likely, but the Supreme Court can always be surprising.

Not here. What are they going to argue? A status summarily created by the Executive cannot be rescinded by the Executive? Because reasons? Are we going to see some equitable laches argument (LOL) or turn immigration into a contractual right, and argue course-of-dealing/detrimental reliance? Again, LOL.

Concerns about judicial reputation and the hope to be promoted to a Ct. App judge tended to keep most (but not all) federal district judges in line. These judges know they will never be promoted, and these days many are expecting to be rewarded by leaving the bench and working elsewhere for a lot more money later. It's truly unprecedented. The federal judiciary is imploding its credibility before our eyes, and Roberts, the person responsible for keeping the lower courts in line, refuses to do anything about it.
Reply Quote
12
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 7:33a, 3/17/26
Boasberg alone has done tremendous damage to the credibility of the judiciary in the eyes of Americans. I know he's just a leftist activist doing his job, but he has no integrity or respect for the rule of law.
Reply Quote
16
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:36a, 3/17/26
Two injunctions for TPS have already been shot down by SCOTUS. And judges are continuing to issue injections saying that their cases are "different" from the two SCOTUS overruled the injunctions on. The DOJ, argues that they are essentially identical, and the SCOTUS needs to rule that the lower courts are overstepping separation of powers.

The judges are saying that they can't rule on the final determination, but they CAN rule on how Noem reached that decision. Which seems absurd, that judges are able to second guess a delegated authority that only the President holds, which is passed to Noem.

This would open up almost any Executive branch decision to judicial oversight. AKA... Judicial branch owns Executive branch decision making, and any of the 670+ federal lower court judges are then arbiters of Executive Branch decision making process.

There are also more than 4 of these cases currently pending, and more are seemingly added by the day for other countries/people.

To me, seems like an EASY case of Article III judges thinking separation of powers doesn't exist.
Reply Quote
12
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:55a, 3/17/26
This is all about delaying implementation till after the midterms and hoping they can thwart Trump altogether.

It is denying the American people the government they voted for. It is insidious.
Reply Quote
17
Law-Apt_3G
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:52a, 3/17/26
No time out for these judges, their asses need to be spanked.
Reply Quote
5
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:17p, 3/17/26
Reply Quote
6
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.