Category: Rule of Law

Posted on

Of Habeas Corpus, Venezuelan Deportees, Class Action Procedures, Appellate Jurisdiction, Cutesy-Poo Bad Faith Maneuvers by the Justice Department, and Hound Dogs That Are Not Barking in the Night

Yesterday, May 16, the Supreme Court issued another ruling in the case of the Venezuelan people than Trump wants to deport to a gulag in El Salvador; read the opinion here. I posted about this case on April 19,April 20, and April 22.

The May 16 decision consists of (1) an eight-page unsigned (“per curiam”) opinion on behalf of the Chief Justice, the three Trump-appointed justices, and the three liberal justices, (2) a two-page concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, and (3) a 14-page dissenting opinion by Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas. 

Although the majority, per curiam opinion did not use words such as “bad faith,” “fibbing,” or “too cute for words” in describing the Justice Department’s position, it clearly implied that the government attorneys were prevaricating with the Supreme Court about the government’s plans to whisk the plaintiffs away—and then claim the Court had no jurisdiction as to individuals located in a foreign country. 

The Court ordered, once again, that the Venezuelans should stay in this country pending further legal proceedings, and it remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration of how due process should work under the Alien Enemies Act, along with a variety of other considerations.

Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the majority’s analysis but would have kept the case in the Supreme Court and have the Court eschew further shilly-shallying, and just decide the damn case. 

In his dissent, Justice Alito enlarged ad nauseam on the multiple ways in which the majority’s truncated, expedited procedure is in tension with the way things are normally done. As indeed they are. No shit, Sherlock. The government was lying to the courts, frog-marching the poor Venezuelans out of the country, and employing every bad faith trick in the books to use the normal, deliberative rules of the law of civil procedure in order to forestall real due process for immigrants.

Let’s look at the situation from 30,000 feet. What do we see?

First, Team Trump’s legal strategy—along will all the legal tactics that flow from that strategy—is to replace rule of law with a Ptemkin village that looks, from the outside, something like rule of law, but is not in fact rule of law. 

Second, that legal strategy is doomed to failure unless a critical mass of the judiciary—and particularly a critical mass of the justices of the Supreme Court—are prepared to go along with it. (Sure, Trump could just order the police to arrest or kill all the members of the Supreme Court, and if the police obey the order, then Trump would win. But in that situation, the outcome would not be a legal Potemkin village, but rather a legal wasteland.)

Third, Team Trump seems to have thought that Justices Alito and Thomas, plus the three Trump-appointed justices would embrace the Potemkin village approach. Well, if that’s what Team Trump thought, then it appears they were right about Alito and Thomas but wrong about Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. 

The real news here—the Man Bites Dog element—is that the three Trump-appointed justices did not bark in the night at Trump’s command.

Logical conclusion: the days are hastening on to the place where Team Trump is either going to have to back down on multiple legal fronts or it is going to have to declare, in words that are clear to the least intelligent folks among us, that the rule of law is over. 

If it choose the latter option, it will be subject to vehement objections by all the Trump justices appointed in the first term–as well as a great many of the Trump Judes appointed to the courts of appeal and to the district court.

The unvarnished assault on the rule of law will come at a time when Walmart is running out of cheap goods, then Americans are being injured in multiple ways by cuts in government services, when small businesses are going out of business, and when Walmart is running out of cheap imported goods.

Posted on

Trump and Big Law: The Current State of Play

The immediately preceding post gave links to sources that summarize how major law firms have reacted to Trump’s nonsense. Here, using FAQs, I give an account of the current state of play.

Among the law firms that have been targeted by Trumps, how many have sued, and how are the lawsuits going to date?

On March 6, Trump issued an executive order against Perkins Coie—“Where Innovation Meets Infrastructure”—because he was butt hurt that the firm had previously represented Hillary Clinton. Five days later, on March 11, the law firm sued. On May 2, less than two months later, the district judge issued a 100+ page order permanently enjoining Trump from carrying out his threats. 

Presumably, Team Trump will appeal the decision, but that has not happened as of this writing.

Why did the district judge in the Perkins Coie case reach a final decision in record time?

Because Team Trump had no cognizable defense. 

Or, as we used to say back in New York, their only argument is the so-you-caught-me defense.

What about the other law firm lawsuits?

WilmerHale filed its case on March 28, and procured a preliminary injunction—not a permanent injunction—on April 24. Team Trump can still appeal the PI ruling, if it so chooses, or it may decide to wait until the decision on a permanent injunction. 

Jenner & Block also filed on March 28. Judge Howell, the judge in the Perkins Coie case, rejected Jenner’s attempt to get the case assigned to her as a “related case.” The lawsuit was then bounced to Judge Bates, who granted a temporary restraining order the same day.

Fast footwork, that. 

There was a hearing on April 28 on Jenner’s request for a final ruling it its favor, but the judge has not yet issued his decision. Presumably, he is writing his opinion—with due attention to the 100+ page ruling in the Perkins Coie litigation. 

Meanwhile, a temporary restraining order against Trump remains in effect. 

Susman Godfrey was the last of the four, filing its complaint on April 11. A temporary restraining order was entered and remains in effect. On May 8, Judge AliKhan held a hearing on the question whether Team Trump should be enjoined permanently, but no decision has been released as of this writing. However, back on April 15 when he issued the TRO, the judge described Trump’s action against the Susman firm as a misuse of presidential authority and a “shocking abuse of power.”

This would be a clue about how the good judge is likely to rule.

Apart from the four law firms that have sued Team Trump, which other firms have been targeted by punitive executive orders?

In alphabetical order they are:

  • Covington & Burling
  • Elias Law Group
  • Milbank
  • Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
  • Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
  • Willkie Farr & Gallagher
Have all of these firms reached “deals” with Trump?

No. Covington and Elias have not. Milbank, Paul, Weiss, Skadden, and Willkie all have capitulated.

Have other big law firms bowed down under the mere threat of a punitive executive order?

Yes, indeed. In alphabetical order they are:

  • Allan Overy Shearman Sterling
  • Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
  • Kirkland & Ellis
  • Latham & Watkins
  • Simpson Thacher & Bartlett

So, all together, nine big law firms have signed “deals” with Trump?

Correct.

And why are you putting quotation marks around “deals”?

Because the so-called “agreements” are not legally enforceable and do not even purport to be legally enforceable. See, for example, Just Security, No, the President Cannot Enforce the Law-Firm Deals and Yahoo News, Trump’s Law Firm Deals Are Already Falling Apart.

Are any new “deals” in the works?

I believe not.

What’s the story with Covington & Burling and the Elias Group, both of which were targeted by executive orders and neither of which has a “deal” with Team Trump?

Covington is a major law firm headquartered in Washington, D.C., has a significant lobbying operation, and recruits politically prominent individuals from both parties. Its best known current partner is Eric Holder, the former Attorney General. 

As far as is publicly known—and that’s an important qualification,

  • Team Trump has not taken any serious enforcement action against Covington, which continues to go about its ordinary business, 
  • Covington has not lost clients or lawyers,
  • Covington has neither sued Team Trump nor issued any fire-breathing declarations against Trump, and
  • There are no ongoing negotiations.

And why is nothing happening (as far as is publicly known)? Maybe (1) Covington, being the well-connected firm that it is, has some threat to hold over Trump’s head. Or maybe (2) Covington has done something valuable for Trump, but not told anyone about it. Or, perhaps most likely (3) with both sides knowing that Covington could walk down to the courthouse any day of the week and get an injunction, both sides decided to see how the four pending cases play out, once they reach the Supreme Court, and will then reconsider their position.

The Elias Law Group, a small, progressive firm focusing on voting rights and other public interest issues, has just told Team Trump to go to hell.

In view of all the foregoing, what are we to make of the claim by the head of Paul, Weiss that he had to capitulate because his firm faced an “existential threat”?

It’s reasonable to conclude that the head of Paul, Weiss showed poor situational awareness, exercised bad judgment, and demonstrated an attitude at odds with his duty as a legal professional.

The nine capitulating law firms have, in the aggregate, “agreed” to provide over $900 million (in value) in pro bono legal services to causes mutually agreed with Team Trump. How does that stand?

Each of the nine firms has “agreed” to provide pro bono services in identified general areas, like “promoting justice” or “opposing antisemitism.” And Trump has made some public noises about the kinds of legal services he has in mind. But, as far as is publicly known,

  • None of the nine firms is currently providing pro bono services to anyone, pursuant to their Trump “deals,” and, indeed,
  • There are no reports that Team Trump has asked a specific firm to take on a specific pro bono client.

Have the nine capitulating law firms suffered negative effects such as client departures, attorney resignations, and reduced recruitment of the ablest law school graduates?

In a previous post, I reported on Microsoft’s replacement of a capitulating law firm with a fighting law firm, in major ongoing litigation. More recently, the Wall Street Journal has written about how capitulating firm Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft is in deep doo-doo. See Venerable New York Firm That Struck a Deal with Trump Is Losing Lawyers: Cadwalader avoided a punitive executive order, but the accord has left the firm in turmoil.

There have been reports of some resignations by attorneys at other capitulating firms, but, thus far, as far as is publicly known, concrete harms have been limited.

But push will shortly come to shove. To take one example: Kirkland & Ellis expects to welcome more than 500 “summer associates” (rising third-year law students) next month, at its various offices, and probably an equal number of law graduates this fall (after they have taken their bar exams).

Of those anticipated hires, how many will actually show up? 

Maybe all of them, or maybe not. I don’t know. But I do know that, for those young men who descend on the K&E home office in Chicago, when the visit the men’s room they will find two kinds of hair spray and two brands of mouthwash. Their breath will smell of roses, but, otherwise, the stink will be pungent and lasting.

Finally, is the real effect of the nine capitulations something that isn’t written down on paper, namely, the cowardly law firms’ decision to stay away from clients and causes that Trump doesn’t like, both paid and pro bono?

Yes. That is a correct assessment.

Posted on

Big Law Spinelessness: Scorecards That Separate the Sheep from the Goats

I have been asked for a summary of how law firms responded to Trump’s threats.

There appear to be two indices. 

One tracks the “AmLaw 200”—the top 200 firms, as determined by the American Lawyer. It’s found here. The 200 law firms are listed in order of their gross worldwide revenues. But, to give additional context, the rightmost column gives information on each firm’s average profit per equity partner. For example, a firm with a very large number of lawyers may rank high in gross income but lower in profit per average partner. 

This first index is called the “Biglaw Spine Index,” a demonstrates the correlation between high revenue and profits and willingness to capitulate. 

Another comprehensive index, prepared by Georgetown Law students, will be found here.

Meanwhile, over 800 law firms are said to have signed on to amicus briefs like this one in the lawsuit brought by WilmerHale.

Posted on

Try to Remember

The Constitution has this to say about the presidential oath of office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: – “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Constitution has this to say about the role of the courts:

The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior … The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution [or] the Laws of the United States …

Posted on

Simpson Thacher and Jenner & Block—Big Law’s Answer to Goofus and Gallant—Show the Cost of Cowardice and the Economic Value of Courage

One Swallow Does Not a Summer Make—But I Think This is the Start of a Trend

N.Y. Times, Microsoft Drops Law Firm That Made a Deal With Trump From a Case

The Times writes,

When big law firms attacked by President Trump decided to make a deal with him rather than fight, many did so because their leaders feared that clients would abandon a firm caught on the administration’s bad side.

Now that logic may be getting less compelling. A major company, Microsoft, has dropped a law firm that settled with the administration in favor of one that is fighting it. … 

On April 22, several attorneys at the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett informed the Delaware Court of Chancery that they would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to the company’s 2023 acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard, according to court filings.

Simpson Thacher reached a deal with the White House last month in which the firm committed to perform $125 million in free legal work for causes acceptable to the Trump administration. In a joint statement with other firms making similar agreements, Simpson Thacher said the pro bono work would be on behalf of “a wide range of underserved populations.”

On the same day that the Simpson Thacher lawyers filed paperwork withdrawing from the Microsoft case, at least three partners at the firm Jenner & Block informed the court that they would be representing Microsoft in the case. Jenner is fighting in court to permanently block a Trump administration executive order targeting its business. …

In some cases, a client may worry that a law firm that has reached a deal with the White House has a conflict of interest that prevents it from aggressively representing the client. For example, the client may be a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the federal government and worry that a settling law firm would be reluctant to stand up to the administration.

Other clients may have broader concerns. A senior partner at another firm that does not have an agreement with the White House said his firm was beginning to attract clients from firms that had settled with the administration. The partner, who was not authorized to discuss client matters publicly, said prospective clients had indicated that they had lost confidence in settling firms for not standing up to an attack on the rule of law.

Some firms challenging the administration have sought to capitalize on this frustration, suggesting that their pushback reflects a commitment to fight on behalf of their clients as well.

Posted on

The First 100 Days, the Next 100 Days

Thomas B. Edsall (N.Y. Times), How Does a Stymied Autocrat Deal With Defeat?

Mr. Edsall writes,

The window of opportunity that allowed President Trump to overwhelm his adversaries with an onslaught of executive orders dismantling core American institutions is closing.

Public opinion has turned against him, the economy is faltering, the Supreme Court has ordered him to stand down, his tariffs have backfired, and such conservative mainstays as National Reviewand The Wall Street Journal are questioning his judgment.

How does a stymied autocrat deal with defeat? As the opposition gains strength, frustrating the nation’s commander in chief, how will Trump respond?

It is unthinkable to imagine him graciously acknowledging defeat, changing direction and moving on.

Will he claim victory in defeat? Will he try to provoke his adversaries into violence in order to invoke the Insurrection Act?

Trump’s unpredictability makes it impossible to answer these questions with any certainty, but as his actions in the first three months of his second term demonstrate, Trump’s choices veer to the extreme. …

If, in the face of adversity, Trump and his allies attempt to overturn democracy, what are their chances? I asked Herbert Kitschelt, a professor of international relations at Duke and the 2025 recipient of the prestigious Johan Skytte Prize in political science, that question, and he provided a nuanced reply by email: “No scientific, evidence-based investigation can currently provide a factually grounded prognosis” on “whether and how Trump and the Christian evangelical-nationalist-Southern wing of the Republican Party might break the democratic Constitution of the United States,” he wrote.

Instead, Kitschelt argued, it is possible to “outline the forces that may impinge on whether this process will take place or not.”

Kitschelt then specified the four factors working in favor of the establishment of “an authoritarian coalition in the United States”:

U.S. technological innovativeness and productivity gains — more so than in other advanced capitalist countries — have generated anxiety among many occupational groups.

The U.S. has a weak welfare state — in terms of pensions, health care, unemployment insurance, aid to families with children, public education — when compared to just about any other advanced capitalist country.

America is the most inegalitarian advanced Western country, in terms of income and wealth. That induces rich people to promote politicians who distract the economically worse off from questions of economic distribution and focus their attention on issues of political governance, culture war, racial and ethnic hierarchies and nationalist claims to global supremacy.

Unlike any other Western democracy, America has a deeply antidemocratic, intolerant, illiberal religious strand.

Kitschelt went on to describe conditions in the United States that “are adverse to the victory of an authoritarian coalition” and are, in contrast, favorable to democracy:

America’s civil society: If it awakens from its current shock and slumber, signs of which are already emerging, it is likely that it will become a powerful force to uphold democracy.

Most importantly: American capitalism, large segments of the U.S. business class, whether in finance, I.T. and A.I., U.S. manufacturers in global production chains (vehicles, aerospace, pharma, etc.) and U.S. culture industries are averse to a MAGA & Tea Party authoritarian coalition. Populism undercuts property rights and the rule of law, rendering it impossible to make rational, profit-generating, long-term business investments.

A severe economic crisis, which Kitschelt believes is probable, given current trends, would sharply undermine Republican prospects in the 2026 congressional elections, which might prompt Trump and his allies to “realize that they cannot win a free and fair election and actually might face a defeat in the midterms severe enough to precipitate the impeachment of both president and vice president.”

The question then becomes, in Kitschelt’s view:

Will evangelical-nationalist clero-fascism — with other MAGA and Tea Party currents in tow — be capable of converting America into an electoral autocracy faster than U.S. civil society and large parts of the business sector will be able to mobilize a defense of American democracy and to stiffen the spine of the U.S. judiciary to preserve American institutions?

Posted on

Judge Dugan’s Arrest, Civil Disobedience, the Authoritarian Playbook, Cosplay Fascism, and the Utility of Analytical Thinking

Please read these remarks in light of my comments, right below, on the character of judges.

By now, we have all read a lot about the authoritarian playbook. If, by and large, judges can’t be intimidated, can’t be bought, and can’t be fooled, then, presumably, the next step in the authoritarian playbook would be to start arresting them. 

We are now conditioned to look for that sort of thing to start happening. We hear that, a couple of days ago, the FBI arrested a state judge out in Milwaukee for something having to do with immigration. Our confirmation bias kicks in, and the chorus all proclaim in unison, “Well, the fascism is now beginning in earnest!”

To add to the circus atmosphere, Attorney General Blondi goes out in public to do her cosplay fascist act—encouraging us to fear that federal judges who follow the constitution and demand due process might risk arrest, too. See Aaron Blake (Washington Post), Pam Bondi’s striking comments on arresting judges.

As a side observation: most humans, myself included, try to make ourselves look morally better than we really are. But that seems to be going out of fashion. Now the Attorney General of the United States wants everyone to think she is Ilsa, the She Wolf of the SS. 

A sign of the times, I suppose.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program. 

Back in Milwaukee, Judge Dugan, learning that ICE was about to snatch one Eduardo Flores-Ruiz—a misdemeanor criminal defendant in a case before her— allegedly showed Señor Flores-Ruiz how to get out the side door, thereby delaying his capture by ICE by a few minutes.

I don’t know how many people witnessed this incident. I don’t know whether they all remember it the same way. I don’t know what Judge Dugan’s account is; I don’t know what she says she did or didn’t do, and I don’t know what she says about her her intent. Accordingly, I have no rational basis to reach a conclusion as to what actually went down.

I don’t know—because I haven’t researched the matter, and I don’t intend to do so—what are the words of the statutes that Judge Dugan is supposed to have violated. Nor do I know how these words have been interpreted in judicial decisions (“case law,” as we call it). I don’t know whether Judge Dugan’s conduct clearly violated the law, clearly did not violate the law, or fell into an ambiguous gray area. I don’t know whether she will claim to have consciously run a legal risk to herself in order to advance a higher moral principle. If she does make such a claim, I don’t how whether the evidence will back up her claim.

But here is something I do know. I do know that it would be unwise for our side to be tricked into arguing that “lawless behavior by our guys is OK, while lawless behavior by your guys is not OK.” 

Instead, we should just reserve judgment on the facts and the law in this case, agree that everybody who breaks the law should be punished—and that, sometimes, people who decide to break the law to promote righteousness should suffer legal punishment. And then we should erect a statue in their honor. 

Posted on

Two Things About Judges

Judges, as a group, share many, many things in common with the rest of the human race, as a group. But I want to mention two things that tend to set the judges apart. Two things that explain why the federal judiciary is holding it together, while, for example, the Skadden Arps Management Committee acts like a bunch of wusses. 

First of all, think for a moment about what judges actually do every day. Well, a lot of what they do is ensure that criminals get their just deserts. Many criminals are violent. Many criminals, just like Mango Mussolini, threaten retribution. Threats to federal judges have reached an alarming level.

If you are the kind of person who backs down whenever an asshole leaves a threatening voicemail, then, most likely, you are not a federal judge.

Secondly, if you are a federal judge, at any level, then the chances are very good that you could make a lot more money doing something else. They want to live comfortably, but, unlike the Skadden Arps Management Committee, their nights are not occupied with dreams of avarice.

Federal district judges make about $240 thousand a year; appellate judges, about $262 thousand; and associate justices of the Supreme Court, about $304 thousand. 

If you are a federal district judge, your compensation is the same as a second-year lawyer at one of the 100 top law firms. 

If you are a judge on one of the federal courts of appeals, then you are making a small fraction of the compensation of a partner at one of the top 100 law firms. 

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court brings in a whopping $317 thousand. Back in the day, Chief Justice Roberts was a top partner of Hogan & Hartson, now Hogan Lovells, where the current profit per partner is more than $3 million a year. 

Hold that thought, while you remember George Conway’s offhand remark that the Paul, Weiss Management Committee chose to knuckle under to Trump because they were afraid their annual compensation would drop from $25 million to a mere $15 million. 

That’s why, facing off against the very richest of our top law firms, Trump could huff and he could puff and he could blow their house down. They were, metaphorically, the kind of little pig who builds his house out of straw or wood. 

Federal judges, as a group, are not that kind of little pig. They have physical courage. A lot of them have moral courage. And, for the most part, they can’t be bought. 

Nor, may I add, are they stupid. 

Trump gaslights.

But people try to gaslight every federal judge each and every day. Several times a day. They are used to it. It doesn’t work. 

Posted on

If You Want to Understand the Legal Landscape as of Friday, Please Watch This Video

A couple of random points, if I may.

First, if anyone has forgotten or doesn’t know, I’d like to provide a brief reminder about who George Conway is. To put this in context: YouTube serves up a lot of legal commentators. Many of them have some relevant experience and some good points to make. But, in my opinion, Conway stands out as a Very Series Person. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School, and, for 26 years, was a litigation partner of Wachtell, Lipson, Rosen & Katz, the richest law firm in the United States. Why did he leave? It’s not clear, but my speculation is that he had as much money as he needed for the rest of his life, and wanted to be a champion for the rule of law. 

Conway understands exactly what is going on. And he has the capacity to explain what’s going on.

And here’s the second random point—the question of why Legal Team Trump are acting like a bunch of menacing clowns, as detailed in the video. 

They have already been smacked down by the Supreme Court. And, as sure as God made little green apples, they are headed straight for a full on, definitive, rebuke by the Court.

Actually, lots and lots of rebukes—in the immigration cases, the law firm cases, the education cases, all as discussed in the video.

So … what the hell is Legal Team Trump’s game plan? Once, rebuked, to back down and look like idiots?

Or … to tell the Supreme Court to go to hell. But if THAT’s their plan, then why not stand on “principle” now, and just tell the lower courts that they “lack jurisdiction” or are “acting illegally”? That would be a bad plan—but not merely as bad as the menacing clown show That Legal Team Trump is staging now. 

There is an answer to that question. They are acting like menacing clowns because they are fifth rate minds. And, of course, because they have to please His Most High Excellency on TV every day. In now way, have they thought through where all their tomfoolery is going to lead. In no way, do they know how to deal rationally with the likely consequences of their actions.

In short, the Trump legal shit show is entirely of a piece with the shit show in pretty much all other aspects of government. See Dana Milbank (Washington Post), For the Trump administration, it’s amateur hour

Posted on

Team Trump Responds to the Midnight Ruling

Version 1.0.0

I made a mistake. Amidst all the chaos of the previous weekend, I thought that the Trump Administration had not responded to the Supreme Court’s midnight ruling, and to the dissent to that ruling by Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas. 

In fact, the Solicitor General did file a brief, to which the ACLU responded. 

It is common ground that, on Friday night, the ACLU sounded the alarm, got the justices out of bed, told them that the Trump Administration had put a bunch of immigrants on buses, that the buses were headed to the airport, where a plane was headed for El Salvador, and that seven of the nine justices believed the ACLU and issued the Midnight Order.

The main issue, for purposes of the weekend, was whether the ACLU was just throwing sand in the Court’s eye, or whether the Administration really was trying to pull a fast one, tying the courts up in the niceties of their own procedures while a bunch of immigrants were headed to the gulag. 

Now, as I said, the Solicitor General filed a 15-page weekend brief. And what, pray tell, did the Solicitor General say about the main issue?

He said nothing whatsoever about the main issue. And that is because there was nothing he could say, without either lying through his teeth or expressing open contempt for the Supreme Court.

Ladies and gentlemen, when you are compelled to file a brief that says nothing at all about the key issue then you are indeed having a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad day. 

Part of the Solicitor General’s problem was that the Fake News Media had video of the immigrants on the buses – which passed by the exit to the Abilene, Texas, airport, turned around, and delivered the prisoners back to their Texas prison!

Unlike some in the Administration, the Solicitor General has enough sense to know that “who’re you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?” is not an argument you should make to the Supreme Court.

And Meanwhile, What of Mango Mussolini?

His Most High Excellency has addressed the issue—but only by saying that he’s very frustrated. See The Hill, Trump blasts Supreme Court while arguing trials for migrants ‘not possible’. 

What Does This All Mean?

You never know what will happen tomorrow, or next week. But, for now, His Most High Excellency has backed off deporting people without due process.