Ok, where to begin. I’m a lawyer with decades of experience, including with the occasional case that involves the government. I know how to read a case and follow the news from an informed perspective, and I recognize the individual traits/characteristics/background of the judges involved. There’s not one place to read it, but let’s try.
Here’s a litigation tracker that updates on all the big lawsuits trying to rein in Trump’s lawlessness:
CTRL+F “Abrego Garcia” for the rundown of Kilmar’s case. “Update 5” describes the appellate court’s decision not to stay the district court’s order to “facilitate and effectuate,” and contains a link to the opinion, which includes Judge Wilkinson’s concurrence that “facilitate” is a legal order but “effectuate” might exceed the court’s power to order the government to do specific things in foreign policy matters. The Supreme Court agreed that “facilitate” was a lawful order, but told the district court to make sure it doesn’t overstep by ordering “effectuation” in a way that infringes on the President’s constitutional powers.
Judge Wilkinson is a Reagan appointee who is widely regarded as a superstar in the Republican party, in Federalist Society circles. He was an influential thinker and jurist on conservative causes, and clerking for him as a first job out of law school is a marker of an up and coming conservative lawyer superstar. Many of those clerks went on to clerk for Scalia, Roberts, etc. Clerking for him remains a fairly prominent part of the pipeline for future Republican judges and politicians.
Yesterday, he wrote the majority opinion for the Fourth Circuit that makes very clear that the government’s position is “shocking” and a threat to “the foundation of our constitutional order.”
The work continues. This is just one case. All the other cases will have different results, but Trump isn’t going to win all of them, and each Trump loss draws blood, while his lack of focus means that he’ll continue to make unforced errors while opening new fronts to fight on: Gulf of Mexico, Greenland, Tariffs, picking a fight with the chair of the Federal Reserve, flip flopping on which federal programs or contracts to cut, all the different mistakes in administration, etc.
I’m not on board with doomerism or even accelerationism. I think there’s still a fight to be had in the legal arena, and I still think our side can win there. Watching how the cases are playing out confirms that the other side believes it, too. Otherwise, why would they be fighting this hard?
Ok, where to begin. I’m a lawyer with decades of experience, including with the occasional case that involves the government. I know how to read a case and follow the news from an informed perspective, and I recognize the individual traits/characteristics/background of the judges involved. There’s not one place to read it, but let’s try.
Here’s a litigation tracker that updates on all the big lawsuits trying to rein in Trump’s lawlessness:
https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/
CTRL+F “Abrego Garcia” for the rundown of Kilmar’s case. “Update 5” describes the appellate court’s decision not to stay the district court’s order to “facilitate and effectuate,” and contains a link to the opinion, which includes Judge Wilkinson’s concurrence that “facilitate” is a legal order but “effectuate” might exceed the court’s power to order the government to do specific things in foreign policy matters. The Supreme Court agreed that “facilitate” was a lawful order, but told the district court to make sure it doesn’t overstep by ordering “effectuation” in a way that infringes on the President’s constitutional powers.
Judge Wilkinson is a Reagan appointee who is widely regarded as a superstar in the Republican party, in Federalist Society circles. He was an influential thinker and jurist on conservative causes, and clerking for him as a first job out of law school is a marker of an up and coming conservative lawyer superstar. Many of those clerks went on to clerk for Scalia, Roberts, etc. Clerking for him remains a fairly prominent part of the pipeline for future Republican judges and politicians.
Yesterday, he wrote the majority opinion for the Fourth Circuit that makes very clear that the government’s position is “shocking” and a threat to “the foundation of our constitutional order.”
The work continues. This is just one case. All the other cases will have different results, but Trump isn’t going to win all of them, and each Trump loss draws blood, while his lack of focus means that he’ll continue to make unforced errors while opening new fronts to fight on: Gulf of Mexico, Greenland, Tariffs, picking a fight with the chair of the Federal Reserve, flip flopping on which federal programs or contracts to cut, all the different mistakes in administration, etc.
I’m not on board with doomerism or even accelerationism. I think there’s still a fight to be had in the legal arena, and I still think our side can win there. Watching how the cases are playing out confirms that the other side believes it, too. Otherwise, why would they be fighting this hard?
You’re the MVP, thanks dude