Explainer

We have heard, over and over again, how some scum was released back into society to do more evil.

In my opinion, the worst of these is when a criminal alien is released into society when the authorities know he has a detainer. Why would anybody allow someone who was picked up for a crime to be released to commit more crimes when they can have them removed from the country?

The answer is partially word games and partially legal games.

A detainer is a warrant, of sorts. It is a warrant issued by an administrative judge, not a part of the judiciary.

We have been taught that the police are not allowed to enter your home without a warrant. In some cases, they can’t enter your house, even if they have a warrant.

Sanctuary cities and states have been using this to allow criminals to roam our streets freely.

If the locals are doing their jobs correctly, they should do a search for warrants on anybody they arrest. This will pick up both judicial and administrative warrants. If warrants exist, that person should not be released until those warrants are cleared.

In sanctuary locations, the locals have not been informing ICE when they have a criminal alien in custody.

This means that ICE needs to look through the records of everyone who is taken into custody, searching for people with warrants. If they find a person with an outstanding warrant, they must pick them up before they are released.

If there are only administrative warrants, ICE is restricted on what they can do.

They cannot enter non-public locations to detain a criminal alien.

They can arrest the criminal alien if they are in a public location. Thus, they could pick them up while they are shopping or driving around. They can detain them at work, if they have permission of the owner to enter the non-public locations, or if the criminal alien encounters them in a public location.

In other words, a criminal alien can hide at work or home. If they leave the protection of those non-public locations, they can be detained.

On the other hand, if they have a judicial arrest warrant, they can go into non-public locations to affect the arrest.

That warrant allows them to enter the home or apartment of the criminal alien, if that alien is legally the homeowner or lessee. They cannot enter a third party’s dwelling with an arrest warrant.

A judicial arrest warrant allows them the legal authority to enter some non-public areas, such as jails, prisons, and courtrooms.

In addition, if they can get a search warrant for the criminal alien, that warrant will name the location where they can enter without permission to search for the criminal alien. If they find them, they can then arrest them with an arrest warrant.

ICE and the rest of the feds are now getting judicial warrants as well as the administrative warrants. This allows them to arrest criminal aliens, regardless of the “sanctuary” status.

More progress.

Justice Sotomayor used to be the least talented Justice on the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown Jackson said, “Hold my beer!” and took that title.

During the oral arguments, Sotomayor asked:

When a case is opened, the plaintiffs can make a motion for a temporary restraining order. This is another name for an injunction. A TRO should last no more than a couple of weeks, should maintain the status quo and should not grant final outcomes. Sorry for the poor English.

Thus, a TRO might stay an execution. This is the current status, so no change, maintaining the status quo. This is within the normal understanding of a TRO.

The TRO should not release the prisoner. That is a final outcome. That might be what the plaintiff is requesting, to be set free. That is what the final judgment would or would not grant.

In some cases, the plaintiff can be ordered to provide a bond before the TRO is issued. For example, the plaintiffs want the state to payout $2 billion as part of the TRO. They can be ordered to post a $2 billion bond before the defendants are required to pay out the $2 billion.

By the end of the TRO, the arguments for and against a preliminary injunction should be fully briefed. If there are any oral arguments to be made, those will have also been made.

The judge will then issue a preliminary injunction/stay as the TRO lapses, or will not issue the preliminary injunction/stay, which means the TRO lapses and nothing takes it place.

In general, TROs and Preliminary Injunctions are only granted to the parties of the case. The judge can issue a TRO blocking the execution of prisoner A, but unless prisoner B is also a party to the suit, the TRO does not apply to them.

If the case is a class action suit, once the class is granted, then orders of the court apply to the entire class. If the parties are an organization, the injunctions might apply to all members of the organization.

So what happens in Sotomayor’s hypothetical if there are no universal injunctions?

First, I don’t believe that we are going to have a situation where there are no universal injunctions. I believe that Sotomayor is correct, we need to preserve that capability for the judiciary.

What I believe would actually happen is that a true universal TRO would be issued. This would have a limited lift time.

Blocking the deportation of TdA for two weeks is a pain, but not unbearable. Blocking the deportation of TdA for the duration of a drawn out court case is unacceptable.

Blocking the confiscation of guns for two weeks for everybody is just as bearable.

This would give the inferior court time to certify the class, if such was needed, and to do a proper evaluation of the request for a preliminary injunction.

As the Supreme Court said in A.A.R.P v. Trump, the inferior courts MUST answer the merits question of the Winter factors. They cannot side step this.

In the case of TdA, the government will win on the merits. They have been granted the authority to remove criminal aliens from the United States by the Constitution and Congress. The most that might be justified is the process might require enough time for an attorney to become involved.

In the case of a gun confiscation, the plain text of the Second Amendment would be implicated. There is no way around that. There is no regulation in this Nation’s history of arms regulation that is analogous to an outright gun confiscation. The People are likely to win on the merits. Having a Constitutionally Protected right violated is unrepairable harm. The balance of equities lies with The People who have been harmed. Being denied your rights outweighs any state harm. The public has no interest in upholding an Unconstitutional Law or Regulation.

For the Circuit courts that would suddenly find that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms only applies to Nerf guns would cause a nearly instant circuit split, which would get appealed to the Supreme Court.

In addition, it would be physically difficult to confiscate all guns.

I wasn’t expecting this opinion this quickly. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the 15th, they issued their opinion on the 16th. It is only 24 pages long.

This case has many concurrent issues running through it. It is important to focus on what the opinion actually does, how it does it, and what the legal issues the Court is attempting to resolve.

What the holding is, what it means

The Supreme Court has issued an injunction stopping the deportation of TdA terrorists while the Fifth Circuit Court issues a new opinion. This injunction stands until the Supreme Court issues their opinion in this case after being fully briefed and oral arguments given, OR if the Court denies certiorari, OR neither party appeals from the Fifth Circuit Court.

This Supreme Court Order vacates and remands the case back to the Fifth Circuit with specific instructions:

I hope you realize what a slap in the face the highlighted section is to the inferior courts. The inferior courts are well aware of the Winter factors. They are well aware of the order in which the factors should be evaluated.

This line is written to all inferior courts. It is a blunt warning that the inferior courts should apply the Winter factors, correctly, to any injunction (or stay) being granted.

The second part is the Supreme Court punting. They want somebody else to do the heavy lifting on “what notifications need to be given to afford a terrorist due process?”

The J.G.G. plaintiffs are claiming it is 30 days. The state has argued that 24 hours is more than enough. The Fifth is likely to come down with something closer to the state’s standing.

Another part of this, is that there is a question of “adequate notification.” The plaintiffs want the notifications to be in English and Spanish. The state provided the notifications in English only. Since these people are in the United States, it seems reasonable to ask that they figure out how to read an English document or get a translation.

And, as one pundit on X put it, the government should give notification to every criminal alien they currently have detained, and any new ones they pick up, a notification of deportation. This will start that clock running and whatever time is finally determined, the state will be that much closer to the time limit.

Finally, this injunction is not going to keep any of these criminal aliens in the United States.

If you are in our country illegally, you can be deported. That is a full stop. If you are a criminal alien, you can be deported.

Trump declared TdA to be Alien Enemies, then used the Alien Enemies Act to deport them.

He did not need to use the AEA!

All the focus on the AEA is a distraction. The Trump administration could load all those terrorists on to planes tomorrow morning as criminal aliens and ship them down to CECOT with no issues. As long as they don’t use the AEA for the source of authority.

What wasn’t addressed

The Solicitor General in oral arguments and in the briefings advanced the argument that universal injunctions are bad. That these rogue, inferior court judges do not have the authority to block the executive with nationwide injunctions.

This opinion does not address universal injunctions.

When Democrats are in office and a court issues a universal injunction, Sotomayer, Kegan, and Jackson Brown are in full agreement with the rest of the court that universal injunctions are wrong.

When Republicans are in office and a court issues a universal injunction, Sotomayer, Kegan, and Brown believe that universal injunctions are great.

Legal Games

This case should not be in front of the Supreme Court. It is here because of games played by the plaintiffs (bad guys).

The D.C. District court, having had their hands slapped, were on warning not to take cases outside their jurisdiction. This meant the case was filed in Texas, where the terrorists are housed, pending deportation.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs opened the case, then called the judge and demanded action. The transcript of that call was entered into the record by the judge. He was not happy.

The call was an ex parte communication. This is in violation of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, Canon 3(A)(4)) and Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(1).

Regardless, the judge in the case was working on the complex issues involved in this case.

After the judge filed his remonstration of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO.

They demanded the judge respond within 42 minutes, or they were going to appeal the case. 133 minutes after filling the motion, they filed an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

The Supreme Court majority, seven justices, felt that the plaintiffs were right in appealing. Thomas and Alito dissented.

The case was moving rapidly, the judge was responding to the motions being filed. The important aspect of the judge’s response was he had given the state 24 hours to respond.

The plaintiffs knew this before they filed. The judge had pre-emptively told the state they had 24 hours to respond.

The plaintiffs didn’t like this. They felt that the judge should issue the injunction as if he were a robed, rogue D.C. district court activist, litigating from the bench. This Texas judge wasn’t a slave to the leftist agenda. He was doing his job correctly.

Conclusion

If Thomas and Alito are on one side of the argument, and you are on the other side, you are wrong. Having been there myself, I know of what I speak.

Alito and Thomas are superb at what they do. Trust them.

Final Thoughts

The Supreme Court majority was making judgments about what the inferior courts should have done with 20/20 hindsight. There are things in the record now that were not there when the lower courts issued their orders and opinions. Thomas and Alito point this out and tell the majority to follow proper procedures.

There is a battle of procedure that takes place in our courts. That is getting to a final result.

If the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Trump in December 2028, it would not matter that he won. We would have lost.

That would be four years of waiting for a final result.

We watched and are watching this play out in the Second Amendment community. Duncan v. Bonta has been around for almost a decade at this point. It has been through the district court twice, the Ninth Circuit court multiple times, and the Supreme Court at least once.

The case has won at the District and Supreme Court, yet the relief sought by the plaintiff is still out of reach. In March 2025, the Ninth Circuit decided to twist the words of the Supreme Court to find that magazines are not arms and are not protected by the Second Amendment.

The State of California doesn’t care how long this case takes or how much money it costs to litigate. The district court enjoined the law back in 2017-2018. The Ninth stayed the injunction. That stay has remained in effect even now as the case has been remanded to the district court, ordering the district court to rule for the state.

As long as the status of the case leans towards the infringers, they are happy to delay.

To show how real this is, a district judge in New York issued a TRO enjoining the SAFE act (Bruen tantrum law). The state had that appealed within hours, even though a TRO is not appealable. The Second Circuit Stayed the injunction.

It took over a year before the Second Circuit finally ruled against The People and The Constitution, sending it back to the District Court for more litigation before the case can start up the chain to the Supreme Court, again.

Because that stay is in place, most of New York state is a gun free zone.

The left is using the same methods to stop the Trump administration. They do not care if they win or if they lose, as long as it doesn’t happen now.

They go court shopping until they find a court willing to issue a universal injunction, stopping the Article II executive branch.

Once the injunction is in place, they start slow walking things.

The Circuit courts are just as rogue in these locations as the District Courts. They are using the interlocutory state to excuse not staying the injunctions. “Just let it play out in court.”

The leftest Justices on the Supreme Court echo those words, “just let it work its way here through the normal process. There is no reason to rush this.”

This go around, the Trump administration has been ready and has been moving hard and fast. Multiple cases have made it to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has issued opinions favorable to the Trump administration each time.

How are they favorable? In most of the cases, the Justices have ruled to allow the Trump administration to continue as they had intended, while the case works its way through the courts.

This means that the left is on the wrong side of that snail. They are the ones attempting to get the cases through as fast as they can. And it isn’t working for them.

In the few cases where the Justices have not issued a stay, they have chastised the lower courts or scheduled oral hearings quickly.

The case at hand.

A group of people suffering from gender dysphoria have been given medical release from the military. They sued in federal district court, asking for an injunction, which was granted.

This means that the military does not have the power to determine which service members are medical disqualified from serving.

The Supreme Court issued a stay against that injunction for the duration. The stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court denies cert OR issues a final opinion.

We are winning, the courts are moving at breakneck speed, and it keeps looking good.

The other thing which is happening, is that the lanuguage of the Court is changing, they are getting less and less polite and more and more pointed in their correcting of the inferior courts.

Update

The world is ending because the United States is imposing tariffs on other countries. This will cause the economy to crash.

Amazon was going to put up a “this product cost you $x in tariffs” to drive home just how evil tariffs are.

That is not what happens.

Let’s consider a tool I purchased recently. It cost me $45, it was made in China.

According to Amazon, since there is a 145% tariff on China, that means that $18.37 of that price is me paying a tariff.

This is garbage. Not true. There is no way to know what I am paying in tariffs because that is decided by the vendor.

To understand tariffs, we need to understand the difference between cost and price.

Let’s assume I’m buying lots of widgets from a vendor in Canada. According to the US government, there is a 145% tariff on those goods coming into the US.

Using the Amazon system, if we would see this particular item on Amazon for around $0.99 with $0.59 of that being “tariffs”.

This particular widget cost $0.58 cents. This is the amount the Chinese seller gets per unit. It costs $0.01 to get it shipped over to Canada.

This puts the total cost to the vendor at $0.59. This includes any tariffs imposed by Canada or export costs imposed by China.

The customer is buying these widgets from the vendor for $0.80/unit.

Using the Amazon model, this would mean that the tariffs would be $0.47/unit. If this were the case, the vendor would make negative $0.12 per unit. This is not viable. Something else must be happening.

There is something else happening. That is, that the vendor first sells the widget at cost to himself in the United States.

This means that he is paying a tariff on his cost of the item. Which is $0.58 with a tariff of $0.85. This makes the breakeven point on this product $1.44

The vendor and the customer have negotiated how much each will pay of the tariff. They agree to split the tariff 50/50.

This means that the breakeven point is now $1.02, meaning that the vendor loses $0.22/unit. The cost to the customer is now $0.80 + $0.43 = $1.23.

The customer will lose $0.24 per unit sold on Amazon instead of the $0.19 he was making before the tariffs.

The reality is that this widget is listed on Amazon. The price is $2.83/unit.

The Canadian vendor is not going to eat any of the tariff costs, that will be passed on to the customer.

The customer’s cost will go from $0.80 to $1.66.

Your price will go from $2.83 to what?

It will likely stay at $2.83. Why?

Because if they could sell the product at $3.83 they would already be selling it at $3.83. It is that simple.

Will it go up a little? Maybe. What if it went up enough to cover the entire cost of the tariffs? That would take it to $3.69/unit. That is still a much smaller percentage than what Amazon and the media would have you believe.

Which brings us to reality, once again. The price of this item will probably go to $3.33 per unit. A cost increase of $0.50/unit.

This is the complexity of tariffs, much of the pricing calculations are done well outside the view of the final user.

At every stage, the price of the good is set at the maximum that the market will tolerate. If that means that profits go down, profits will go down. If profits go down too much, then that seller will go out of business.

I’m saddened when I read the blog of somebody I respect, I’m looking at you Divemedic, gets it wrong because it is everywhere.

The inferior district court judge has claimed (lied) that the Supreme Court agreed with him and that the Government had to “Facilitate the return of Abrego-Garcia”. The Supreme Court did not say this.

The Supreme Court used polite court speak to slap this inferior court judge around the block. The judge then decided to take a victory lap because he refused to read the Supreme Court’s ruling correctly.

What does that “polite court speak” require? First, it requires that you respect all parties. Second, it requires you to treat all statements by the lawyers as being truthful. And it requires that you treat any willful error by the inferior courts as being honest mistakes.

The District Court judge ordered the United States Executive Branch (Article II) to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Abrego-Garcia. The judge was ordering the government to put Abrego-Garcia in his courtroom.

Under the standard legal dictionary meaning, facilitate means “get out of the way, do what you can do to help get this done.” “Effectuate” means “get it fucking done.”

The inferior court judge cannot order the Article II branch of the government to “effectuate” the return of Abrego-Garcia because the US Government does not have control of Abrego-Garcia.

Thus, the “effectuate” becomes an order to the government to start a war or otherwise do diplomatic things at the whim of the court.

Instead of saying, “You are a fucking arrogant worm. What the hell did you think you were doing when you ordered the Article II branch to do things? You are a co-equal branch, you don’t get to determine US policy, that is the job of the Article II branch.” Instead, the Supreme Court said, “We know you couldn’t have meant what you said, so you must clarify what you meant by ‘effectuate’.”

Sort of like when a little guy is starting to square up against a bigger dude and says something nasty.

Little dude, “Your mother wears army boots!”

Big dude, “I think I misunderstood you, you didn’t say my mom wears army boots, did you?”

This particular rogue judge decided to misunderstand. According to the documents that were available to me when I researched this article, the district court judge has not clarified what he meant by “effectuate”.

Instead, he has lied and changed “facilitate” to “effectuate” by claiming the Supreme Court said that the Article II branch must “facilitate the return of Abrego-Garcia”. Nowhere did the Supreme Court say that.

The Supreme Court told the government they had to talk to the judge and provide him with what information the government felt was acceptable to share.

Our court system is built around a false or better said, forced, politeness. This means that words have meaning in the context of the Supreme Court that aren’t obvious outside of those that watch The Court.

The Education Industry also does this. When my children were in kindergarten, I had a meeting with their teachers. The teacher said something to the effect of, “Your son is not sharing with his friends.”

I was surprised at this, to say the least. Then I found out that the school had changed the definition of “friend”.

It seems they had noticed that children treat their friends differently and often times better than those that are not friends. So the school changed the definition of “friend” to mean any classmate or student the child interacts with.

The court is filled with this sort of rhetoric, using polite words of friends when it is more likely that somebody wants to rip their lying opponent’s throat out.

This is a polite way of saying that the state has made the claim that Garcia is a member of MS-13 but that the Supreme Court doesn’t accept it as proven.

Fact: An Immigration Judge (Article II Judge), found that Garcia was a member of MS-13.

This is also polite court speak for said but not proven.

Fact: Garcia is charged with a crime, he is an illegal alien. He has a removal order put in place under Biden.

This is Court speak for, “You were wrong. We are returning it to you to fix.” The word “requires” is an order. It is telling the inferior court judge that he MUST correct their error.

“Clarification” means that the inferior court said something wrong.

With normal people, this is the equivalent of “I believe you are mistaken” when you want to say, “What you said is wrong. And the entire room is dumber for having had to listen to it.”

“…unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority” is court talk for something like. “Either you meant what you said which is outside your authority, OR you meant something else. You must have meant something else. Make it clear you didn’t mean what you said.”

This is as strong of language that I’ve read in a SCOTUS opinion.

Sometimes, I will be in a discussion with somebody, and they will say something insulting or rude to me. I will respond, “Did you intend to call me ignorant/a lier/stupid/racist?” If I’m saying this, I’m pretty darn sure they said it intentionally. This gives them an opportunity to walk it back without me forcing the issue.

The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order was clear. The judge was ordering the US government to put Garcia in front of the Judge by midnight. And that judge didn’t care what the government had to do to accomplish his order.

“…with due regard”, “deference”, and “conduct of foreign affairs.” are all code. “Due regard” is SCOTUS telling the inferior courts that the Executive branch is co-equal with the legislative and judicial branch. “Deference” means that the executive branch is responsible for the executive branch, not the courts.

The last part, “conduct of foreign affairs,” means that this is a limited ruling. If it has to do with foreign affairs, the executive branch is responsible, not the judicial or legislative branches. This also means that if it is not “foreign affairs”, the court might have the authority to step in, after giving due regard and deference.

Conclusion

There are many situations where the setting demands a level of decorum, of the trappings of respect. In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, it is proper to refer to the opposing council as “my friend.” To call congress critters “honorable”.

Unfortunately, there are those in the business of selling panic know that most people will not understand forced respect, instead they will latch on to the thing that is panic worthy, or which is what they want to hear.

The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated sounds like it is a loss for the administration. It is not. The stay issued by the Chief Justice did what it was supposed to do. It protected the administration from charges of contempt.

The differences between effectuate and facilitate is lost on the masses. The number of people who believe that the administration was ordered to return Garcia to the United States is nearly unbelievable.

They want to believe that Trump is breaking the law.

As Allyson says, “read the bill”. Unfortunately, I believe that the plain text of Supreme Court opinions is beyond the comprehension of most people suffering from TDS.

In the best of all worlds, the states would look at the Constitution, look at their laws, and gut their regulations until every last regulation aligned with our Constitution.

This is not the best of all worlds. There are too many politicians who are agenda-driven. There are too many courts that are agenda-driven. The agenda is more important than the Constitution or The People.

This means that judges who have an agenda will look for ways to manipulate case law or the lack of case law.

Does the Second Amendment apply to the states? We don’t think so. The Supreme Court never said that it does, so our opinion is the correct opinion.

Because our legal system is built on common law, the law must apply to everyone equally. Once a decision has been made based on a particular line of reasoning, other, similar decisions should have the same result.

In rogue courts, this will ratchet in only one direction. If the case law favors The People but at odds with the court’s agenda, the case law won’t apply. If the case law favors the court’s agenda, then it will apply.

One of the lawyers I follow or use to follow puts it as, “Congress writes the bill, the President makes it law, the Courts decide what it means.”

It doesn’t matter what the intentions of Congress and the Executive branch might be when drafting and creating law, it only matters how the Courts interpret the law.

There are 600+ Federal District Court Judges. Each of them has an opinion about what the law means. Some of them attempt to respect, to adhere to the Constitution, some of them do not. Regardless, because there are so many, there will be differences in opinion.

To bring the inferior courts into agreement, each district court reports to a circuit court. The circuit courts will accept cases for review and publish opinions, which the inferior district courts must follow.

This brings the district courts into alignment within a circuit. Unfortunately, the inferior circuit courts are often agenda-driven. This means that the circuits will split on agenda differences. The Fifth Circuit court is more likely to find for The People, for The Constitution. The Ninth Circuit is more likely to find for the state, against The People.

When the circuits split, or if the matter is of importance to the Supreme Court, they might agree to hear a case. When the Supreme Court issues their Opinion, the inferior courts should follow instructions the Supreme Court issues.

The Process

A court case starts by a person filing a suit. In a criminal case, this is the state, as represented by the prosecutor. The case is filed against someone. Remember that corporations are legally people. I’m going to ignore the criminal side, as I’m just not interested in that side, at this time.

The person opening the suit is the plaintiff. The other party is the defendant. The plaintiff will state a harm and request relief from the harm. The court must be able to grant that relief.

Let’s consider a common situation, a divorced man has been ordered to pay child support. He works to better himself and finds himself promoted or working in a better paying job. His ex-wife can file suit to have the child support increased.

She will allege that he is making more money, part of which should be going to his children.

There is alleged harm, he is shorting his children. The court can remedy the situation by ordering him to pay more in child support. The court grants her the relief she was seeking

Turn it around, a divorced man goes to pick up his children. His ex-wife refuses to hand them over for visitation. It is a Friday, the courts are closed, he goes home without his children.

On Monday, he attempts to file a suit. He alleges that his ex-wife denied him his visitation rights. He asks that he get the weekend with his children.

There is no way for the court to give that weekend back. It is gone. It is not a case for the courts. There is no relief the court can grant to fix the harm that was done.

There must be standing and an active conflict for the courts to act.

The suit makes allegations. If the allegations are about the law, the plaintiffs can request summary judgment. This means that the case can be decided by the courts without requiring facts/evidence be provided.

If there is a need for evidence to be collected, that requires fact finding.

Consider these two suits, 1) The plaintiffs file suit asking for a summary judgment finding that requiring permits to carry a firearm is unconstitutional. 2) The plaintiffs file suite asking for an injunction forcing the sheriff’s department to issue permits to carry in a timely fashion.

In the first case, there is no evidence or facts to be found. It is a matter of law. Per case law, when a constitutional challenge is made, the plaintiff needs to show that the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of The Constitution. Once the plaintiffs have shown that implication, the burden shifts to the state to prove the modern regulation is inline with this Nation’s historical tradition of regulation.

Note that this language is similar to what we saw in Bruen. That is because Bruen didn’t invent anything new. This has been the standard for at least a hundred years.

In the second case, the plaintiffs will need to prove that the sheriff’s department is not issuing permits in a timely fashion.

The steps of the case:

1. File suit
2. Request Temporary Restraining Order
3. Request Preliminary Injunction
4. Request Summary Judgment
5. TRO granted or denied.
6. Pleadings filed regarding the Preliminary Injunction
7. Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction
8. Preliminary Injunction granted or denied
9. Pleadings filed regarding Summary Judgment
10. Hearing on the Summary Judgment
11. Summary Judgment granted or denied

Until the case has reached step 11, Summary Judgment granted or denied, the case is in an interlocutory state.

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

When a case is filed, “bad things” could be happening, which needs to be stopped immediately.

A person gets notice they are to be evicted the following day. They request a TRO to stop the eviction.

An alien is detained and will be deported. Their lawyer files a suit to stop the deportation and requests a TRO to stop the alien from being removed from the local jurisdiction.

A TRO lasts until a preliminary injunction is issued or denied. They are supposed to only a short period of time. If it is an urgent matter, then the preliminary injunction should be briefed and heard in a short period of time. A week, maybe two should be the limit of a TRO.

We see one of the issues with rogue courts, such as the Ninth. The Supreme Court has stated that TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, and stays are extraordinary actions which require the Winter Factors be used. Here, the Ninth has said that an inferior, district court, can use the Winter Factors, or use a sliding scale.

When using a sliding scale, the inferior court is supposed to use the “balance of hardships”. Balance of hardships is not part of the Winter Factors. This gives courts in the Ninth Circuit to decide that anything is a hardship, which allows them to grant TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, and Stays when the party requesting them hasn’t shown a likelihood of success on the merits.

Preliminary Injunction

For a preliminary injunction, the court needs the plaintiffs and defendants to file briefs to demonstrate why the preliminary injunction should be granted or denied. The plaintiff files their motion for a preliminary injunction. The defendant files their response. The plaintiff then files a reply to the response.

If the court requires more, they will request more. If defendants feel they need to reply to the reply, they ask permission of the court to do so.

The court then schedules a hearing. The parties can meet independently of the hearing. They can file a joint motion on what they think the preliminary injunction should be. The plaintiffs can file a motion suggesting what the wording of the preliminary injunction should be. The defendants might file a “we don’t think it should be granted, but if it is, this is what the wording should be.”

After the hearing, the court will issue their order granting, denying or granting in part and denying in part the requested preliminary injunction.

The process of getting a preliminary injunction is adversarial. The process of getting a TRO is not.

If a preliminary injunction is granted, that injunction will be in place until final judgment is issued.

Final Judgment

After the preliminary injunction is granted (or not), the parties start filing their arguments, briefs, motions. Amicus Curiae can file briefs as well.

During this process, the parties will meet, discuss what can and cannot be agreed to between them. Anytime an agreement is reached between the parties, a motion if filed with the court to get the court’s approval.

There will be status reports and hearings to make sure everybody is on track to have everything filed on time.

Finally, there will be arguments made in court.

After the arguments have been made, the court will make their decision and issue their final judgment.

When the final judgment is given, the case is no longer in an interlocutory state, at the district level.

Appeals

Normally, a TRO cannot be appealed. The thinking is that since it lasts such a short time, by the time the superior court has heard the arguments, the TRO should have expired.

Since a TRO is supposed to maintain the status quo, there should be nothing in a TRO that cannot be undone, with a proper application of money.

If a party appeals a TRO or the denial of a TRO, the superior court should apply the Winter Factors and there must be an extraordinary reason for the intervention.

To have the Supreme Court hear an appeal regarding a TRO is almost unheard of. To have them action a TRO is even rarer.

The normal method that is used to stop a TRO with a deadline is to grant an administrative stay long enough for the deadline to pass. This gives the defendant time to respond without facing contempt charges.

Again, TROs normal cannot be appealed.

A Preliminary Injunction can be appealed. Since a Preliminary Injunction lasts for the duration of the case, a “bad” Preliminary Injunction can cause immense damage.

It is also the case that a Preliminary Injunction should not normally grant the relief sought in final judgment. If what you are asking for in final judgment is for the homeowner to stop hoarding rainwater and the preliminary injunction requires the rainwater to be distributed to all their neighbors, there is no way to make the homeowner whole when the dry season hits.

The Preliminary Injunction might require the homeowner to retain that rainwater, not using it nor releasing it.

The Preliminary Injunction can be appealed. From the District Court it is appealed to the Circuit Court. From there it could be appealed to the Supreme Court.

After the final judgment is issued, the case at the District Level is done. The case is no longer in an interlocutory state.

Findings of fact cannot be appealed. Thus, if the District Court finds that the sheriff is taking 18 months on average to issue a permit to carry, the sheriff can appeal that finding of fact.

They can appeal the procedure and rules used to make the determination. For example, the sheriff submitted documentation showing that 10,000 permits were granted within 30 days, but the district court refused to accept the documentation because the staples were in the wrong place.

Relief From Appeals

There must be an active controversy for a court to intervene. If there is no active controversy, the case is moot.

A criminal on death row is appealing his sentence. He dies of a heart attack. There is no longer a controversy, the case is moot.

There are exceptions for this. The most common was abortion cases. Since a pregnancy lasts 9 months and most court cases take years, there is no possibility for an abortion case to be heard at the appeals level before the woman is no longer pregnant.

The rogue inferior courts have been throwing out Second Amendment challenges from 18 year-olds because they age out. To resolve this, their needs to be an organization involved representing all members under 21. As the individual plaintiffs age out, the organization adds new 18-year-old plaintiffs.

The superior court can grant stays and injunctions. These are temporary in nature. They are designed to change the state of preliminary injunctions or final judgments.

If the superior court finds that the inferior court got it wrong, they can vacate the lower court’s judgment. Normally, the case is then remanded (returned) to the inferior court for them to correct whatever it was they did wrong.

In our example, the inferior district court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the homeowner from using the collected rainwater or from wasting it. The appeals court can stay that injunction, allowing the homeowner to use the rainwater while waiting for the final judgment.

In the same way, if the inferior district court did not issue an injunction, the plaintiffs (not the homeowner) could appeal and the appeals court could issue an injunction, stopping the homeowner from using or destroying the rainwater.

SCOTUS and Interlocutory State Cases

The Supreme Court produces thousands of words per day per justice. They hear oral arguments. They read 10s of thousands of words in filings in cases.

Unlike myself, they need to read everything. I normally skip the boring stuff or the state’s BS. It isn’t worth my time.

This means they hear about 70 cases per term. This is in addition to making a few dozen to a few hundred orders per week.

This last Monday, they issued orders in 78 cases.

Anything the Supreme Court does or says becomes precedent. If they were to grant cert to cases in an interlocutory state, the number of requests for cert would skyrocket. They already get in excess of 7000 petitions for cert every term.

It is a big deal, therefore, when the Supreme Court grants cert on a case that is in an interlocutory state.

They don’t normally hear requests for stays or injunctions from cases in an interlocutory state.

The fact that they have made statements in a few Second Amendment challenges that were at the TRO or Preliminary Injunction state is astonishing.

Conclusion

The Second Amendment community needs to fight to a final judgment as quickly as possible. If we ask for a TRO, and it isn’t granted, that was a waste of our resources. If it is granted, the state will appeal to the circuit courts, where it will be stayed. The circuit court can then delay the case for many months.

The Supreme Court will not step in, while a case is just starting

If we ask for a preliminary injunction, either we are denied, in which case it just cost us resources and time, or we are granted the injunction which will be appealed, and the entire case is again delayed.

We want the case completed at the district level as quickly as possible. If we win, the state will appeal, but now we are on the way to the Supreme Court. If we lose, we appeal, we are still on our way to the Supreme Court.

We won, again.

These inferior rogue courts lose and the media plays it up as a win.

The short of it, the state (not bad guys) transferred Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the El Salvador “super max”. Garcia was under a court order to be kept in the United States.

Garcia is a bad person. The state says he is a member of MS-18, he claims he is not. He does not appear to have a criminal record outside of being here illegally. He was detained under the Biden Puppet administration.

His transfer was a mistake. The state acknowledges this.

The District Judge issued another of those magic TROs. He overstepped his Article III power when he ordered the Government to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59PM on Monday, April 7.

To understand this win, it is necessary to understand the power of a court. When a court gives an order, it must be followed or the court can find you in contempt. Being in contempt can cause people to be arrested.

In this particular case, I believe it is Kristi Noem who would have been held in contempt.

The TRO uses two different terms with different legal meanings. The first is to “facilitate”. This is telling the Government to work with El Salvador to get Garcia back. It could be the Government paying money, it could be other diplomatic pressure, or it could be a simple “please give him back.”

The difficulty the Government has is that Garcia is a member of MS-13. Under El Salvador law, this means he is a terrorist. As a terrorist in El Salvador, he will be detained in their super max under their laws.

Under the facilitate requirement, as long as the Government was working to get Garcia returned to the United States, they were within the boundaries of the TRO.

The second term, “effectuate” is different. This is a get-it-done requirement. This requires that Garcia be back in the United States before midnight on the 7th. If the Government does not have Garcia back in the United States by that deadline, they will be in contempt.

Whatever the full reasons might be for the state not wanting Garcia back, it is unreasonable to expect the state to negotiate the return of Garcia and to have him back in the states within the deadline given by the court.

Chief Justice Roberts quashed this TRO without committing the Court. He issued an administrative stay. Because that stay took the case past the midnight deadline, there was no more threat of contempt.

Having made it past the deadline, the Court then issued an order today.

Yep, the district court was just slapped down for overreaching its power.

The government is no longer required to return Garcia, they are required to work towards getting him back. Meanwhile, they can continue the court case at the district level, which might end with Garcia staying in El Salvador.

The government is only required to share, what it can, about the steps they are taking to facilitate the return of Garcia.

“We’ve scheduled a meeting with the representative of El Salvador.” Which is 4 weeks from now. They can slow walk this thing.

BLUF: Miracle Gro is basically minerals salts and coloring, which can (but doesn’t always) help short term, but long term will destroy the beneficial things in your soil. It’s expensive and messy and can harm your vegetables. Free and low cost alternatives include animal manure, natural mulch, etc… all of which add to rather than depleting from the soil.

I’m not sure if any of you are aware of the demon Monsanto. Coming from the Left, as I do, I have a real hate for Monsanto. However, I also learned hate for them through local farmers who are very conservative Trump supporters. Monsanto is not a good company, for a LOT of reasons. I don’t want to write about them, so I am offering you an article to go read at your own pace (yes, the site is anti-Trump, but their information on this topic is not bad).

Now to Miracle Gro. There’s an incestuous relationship between Monsanto and Miracle Gro which makes me uneasy. Monsanto doesn’t own it Miracle Gro, nor vice versa, but there’s a lot going on between them. That alone is enough to warn me off, however, there’s more. MG was successfully sued for lying about pesticides in their bird food that they manufactured and sold, which led to the death of enough song birds to cause a lot of people to get upset. I realize one legal case by a rabid leftist isn’t enough to cause a conservative to flinch, as it could always just be one they settled out of court to get the suing party to shut up. So I present you with a tracking website keeping dibs on all the court cases MG has lost.

There are places for chemicals. I use chemicals in the garden from time to time. I use chemicals against wasps, because they’re stingy assholes and I’m allergic. There are times when it’s just right to use chemicals. But if you’re paying extra to get something free of chemicals, if you’re actively looking to avoid chemicals, and a company sells you something it says is chemical free and it is not… that’s just not right. And that’s what Miracle Gro seems to be doing.

It’s not even that it’s necessarily “bad chemicals” in their products. I believe that ever MG product has salt in it. While tiny amounts of salt can help add things to your soil that benefit your plants, at least in the short term, it destroys your soil in the long term. Ever heard of Romans “salting the earth” before leaving an area? That’s so the enemy couldn’t plant crops for 20 years or more. That’s how bad salt is for your garden.

If you want to give good fertilizer to your garden and improve your soil, pick up some bunny poop and make bunny poop tea, and use that to water your plants. Pick up some local well aged manure and shovel that in around your plants. Most of the time, if you’re dealing with local folk, it will cost you nothing or very little, because you’re saving those people from having to remove the manure themselves.