Cru said:

---

Could this be done?

How about an executive order that requires a 5 panel judge review before an injunction or stay can be enacted. Then if a single judge tries you ignore it for not following the EO. Or go crazy and say 50 panel. Just something to force it.

---

No, not by EO.

Congress would need to do that, IMO.

The Trens Gang ACLU lawyers named their filing originally as a habeas case.

APA can only be used if no other justification can be used. In this case, the only justification for a court to use as jurisdiction under AEA is habeas. Judge even told the ACLU to drop the habeas part of the lawsuit so they could try to keep the case in DC. Also, the APA is for final AGENCY action. The President is not an agency, and the President is the ultimate word in AEA.

DC has no jurisdiction for the 5 gangbangers as they are in TX and habeas has to be brought where the prisoners are.

Judges can't substitute their judgement of an action for the President. They are not privy to all the information the President is. Also how would that even work? After Sept 11, could a Judge TRO Bush to not launch attacks back to Afghanistan/Bin Laden? Could a Judge TRO the assassination of Bin Laden?

A district judge is usurping the power of the President. An appointed judge is attempting to control what a president can and can't do, even powers explicitly laid out in the Constitution.

Boasberg is a partisan hack with terminal TDS.

JUST IN: Judge Boasberg sets a Thursday hearing on his efforts to determine whether the Justice Department violated his orders restraining removals under the Alien Enemies Act. pic.twitter.com/qjH0xc6XRJ

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 31, 2025

Bozoberg back at it!

Boasberg began the hearing by ticking through a set of undisputed facts, with the Trump administration lawyer agreeing to each.

-"My TROs did not order any TdA member to be released from custody"
-"The TROs did not prevent the govenrment from apprehending any TdA member."
-The…

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 3, 2025

Judge bozoberg notes irrelevant facts in tantrum within his courtroom;

Quote:

---

BOASBERG emphasizing that it was luck that he was available at 7:30AM on Saturday morning to hear the lawsuit filed at 1:12AM to block some of the Alien Enemies Act deportations. He notes that the rush appeared intended to avoid litigation and court scrutiny.

Boasberg notes that despite the concerns he raised at the early morning hearing, and the fact that he scheduled a 5pm hearing, the government continued to race to put people on planes and have them take off before he could rule.

He notes the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who the government has admitted was on the 3rd plane (though not an Alien Enemies Act deportee) erroneously.

---

"You were doing other things that were irrelevant to my opinion as to the case presented but I also disliked them and it pisses me off. Me very angry."

7/ Judge: They filed at 1:12 a.m. I was available at 7:30 is only reason they were able to get relief before put on a plane.
Why when you knew I have having hearing at 5:00 p.m. that related to class certification wouldn't prudent thing be to say "let's slow down here, let's see…

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 3, 2025

9/ Judge: Let's talk about that third plane, you agree if solely based on proclamation, violation.
DOJ: Yes. If an error under Title 8, it wouldn't be a violation.
Judge: Are you saying everyone on that plane was El Salvadorian? Plaintiffs aren't so sure it was kosher? What was…

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 3, 2025

"Who heard my tirade, I demand to know!" -bite me. I really think he's lost it.

Based on his comments and tone I'd be surprised if he doesn't believe he has probable cause to find contempt.

JUST IN: The Supreme Court has vacated Judge Boasberg's orders barring Trump's removals under the Alien Enemies Act largely over venue — but empahsizes the administration must give "reasonable notice" for targets to challenge their deportations in court. https://t.co/rnhB90af8y pic.twitter.com/FxG9kLDhui

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 7, 2025

Barrett sided with the liberals. Shocking.

Take that Boasberg. Deportation attorneys chomping at the bit waiting for the calls to come flooding in.

Edit - wrong emoji.

Wtf with Barrett very disappointed

For those wondering....

Boasberg reaffirmed a previously scheduled hearing on pending preliminary injunction motion AFTER SCOTUS vacated his temporary restraining orders. pic.twitter.com/3hjldOd9UM

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

HoustonAg9999 said:

---

Wtf with Barrett very disappointed

---

She's turned out to be just God awful. Not what she claimed to be.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Take that Boasberg. Deportation attorneys chomping at the bit waiting for the calls to come flooding in.

Edit - wrong emoji.

---

This is the next step in the lawfare...

But, the administration should start spreading these people all over every district. And spread the timing out so they can't get more than a few in each case.

Move them every day so that's it's harder for the NGOs/Soros *******s to know who will be where. They will be given notice but they may run out of money and lawyers if they continue doing this.

Rapier108 said:

---

For those wondering....

Boasberg reaffirmed a previously scheduled hearing on pending preliminary injunction motion AFTER SCOTUS vacated his temporary restraining orders. pic.twitter.com/3hjldOd9UM

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

So...what's he going to talk about?

Sorry all y'all. The SCOTUS ***** slapped me for thinking I had jurisdiction?

Ag with kids said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

For those wondering....

Boasberg reaffirmed a previously scheduled hearing on pending preliminary injunction motion AFTER SCOTUS vacated his temporary restraining orders. pic.twitter.com/3hjldOd9UM

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

So...what's he going to talk about?

Sorry all y'all. The SCOTUS ***** slapped me for thinking I had jurisdiction?

---

He'll probably issue an injunction this time since his TRO got blocked.

Rapier108 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

For those wondering....

Boasberg reaffirmed a previously scheduled hearing on pending preliminary injunction motion AFTER SCOTUS vacated his temporary restraining orders. pic.twitter.com/3hjldOd9UM

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 8, 2025

---

So...what's he going to talk about?

Sorry all y'all. The SCOTUS ***** slapped me for thinking I had jurisdiction?

---

He'll probably issue an injunction this time since his TRO got blocked.

---

Likely. The tactic is to delay at all costs. He doesn't care about it the rule of law or the Constitution

He is also trying to hold people in Trump Admin in contempt. Probably Trump himself so the have impeachment fodder.

Invoke it to whom?

He invoked it to deport third world terrorists.

Didn't the scotus opinion state DC was not the correct venue since the 5 that were sued on behalf of are in Texas? How can boasberg even issue a new order?

He doesn't care. He's a corrupt leftist.

will25u said:

---

He is also trying to hold people in Trump Admin in contempt. Probably Trump himself so the have impeachment fodder.

---

I agree with that...

They've got to have something to continue the RESIST movement.




The great thing is that they learned no lessons from the last election...They think the country didn't elect Kamala/Democrats because they didn't go farther to the left.

FatZilla said:

---

Didn't the scotus opinion state DC was not the correct venue since the 5 that were sued on behalf of are in Texas? How can boasberg even issue a new order?

---

Because reasons?

🚨🚨🚨Trump Administration pounces and says dismiss case and show cause...judge ain't gonna agree to later. Tomorrow should be 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/DnmWdHK7Ln

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025

If you are thinking Boasberg will hold Trump in contempt, prepare to be disappointed

I don't know what Boasberg will do. I just know that it will probably have no basis in law.

Hearing off!

Allowing one last gasp of air before sinking into the toilet water and the turd begrudgingly being flushed!

JUST IN: Judge Boasberg has canceled today’s hearing on the Alien Enemies Act, in light of the Supreme Court ruling, but he is asking the plaintiffs whether they see any other basis to pursue a preliminary injunction (seems unlikely). pic.twitter.com/Ju0puPvMnv

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 8, 2025

JUST IN: Trump-appointed judge in Texas blocks removals under the Alien Enemies Act, citing the SCOTUS ruling and the potential for a mistake as revealed in the Abrego Garcia case.

This follows a similar order from NY judge on two other AEA targets https://t.co/h1nrJX53XU pic.twitter.com/OvVSCi0dDv

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 9, 2025

Hearing Friday.

Im Gipper said:

---

JUST IN: Trump-appointed judge in Texas blocks removals under the Alien Enemies Act, citing the SCOTUS ruling and the potential for a mistake as revealed in the Abrego Garcia case.

This follows a similar order from NY judge on two other AEA targets https://t.co/h1nrJX53XU pic.twitter.com/OvVSCi0dDv

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 9, 2025

Hearing Friday.

---

Are these the habeas petitions that SCOTUS said should have been done instead of the APA claims in Boasberg's court?

The Complaint and full Docket are not available on Courtlisterner, but I believe that is correct!

(Meaning its for sure a habeas claim, but they may have other claims)

Thread

It would be very easy to prove in court by the precedents set at this time that the 1000 Talents program is a predatory incursion against the United States by the Chinese government.

And Trump set the stage during his 1st term!https://t.co/ZWa7YIAg8j

— DawsonSField (@DawsonSField) April 10, 2025

Also...

2 weeks ago, I introduced a bill to deny student visas to Chinese nationals because the CCP passed a law REQUIRING them to cooperate with intelligence gathering. The number caught here and arrested on our bases has exploded.

Today, the CCP issued a travel warning for their… pic.twitter.com/at75RksVa8

— Senator Ashley Moody (@SenAshleyMoody) April 10, 2025

the problem with that theory is that Trump is never going to have to "prove" that TdA or any other group is part of a predatory incursion. That is solely the decision of the president as a war power given by Congress shortly after the constitution was ratified. it is not reviewable.

even if some district judge says it is reviewable, Trump would still not have to prove anything because it that ruling would get overturned on appeal

BMX Bandit said:

---

the problem with that theory is that Trump is never going to have to "prove" that TdA or any other group is part of a predatory incursion. That is solely the decision of the president as a war power given by Congress shortly after the constitution was ratified. it is not reviewable.

even if some district judge says it is reviewable, Trump would still not have to prove anything because it that ruling would get overturned on appeal

---

They still have due process. Albeit is only limited to habeas under AEA.

280,000+ is a lot though. But if they do have to report intelligence info back to the CCP, that is an issue.

A friend of mine is an investigator working for tu, he reports directly to the President of the University. He told me 90% of his case load is spying by the Chinese. He also commented that Texas A&M leads the country in anti-spy efforts amongst Universities combatting intellectual theft.