Case Analysis

DHS v D.V.D.

You know you done f’ed up when Kagan is siding with the conservative side of the court.

I voted to deny the Government’s previous stay application in this case, and I continue to believe that this Court should not have stayed the District Court’s April 18 order enjoining the Government from deporting non-citizens to third countries without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See DHS v. D. V. D., 606 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 9–18). But a majority of this Court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed. See United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 294–295 (1947); Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 24–26 (1887). Because continued enforcement of the District Court’s May 21, 2025 order would do just that, I vote to grant the Government’s motion for clarification.
— Justice Kagan

The gist of the issues is that the Supreme Court issued a stay regarding an inferior district court’s injunction stopping the Trump Administration from deporting criminal, illegal aliens. The 8 deportees in question have all been adjudicated guilty of violent crimes. Rape, rape of a child, murder, attempted murder and other crimes.

All of them have had not only full due process for a criminal alien, but also for somebody accused of a serious crime. They were found guilty.

After the court found them guilty, a final order for removal was issued.

These people were so despicable that their origin countries refused to take them back. This left the Administration with limited options. When a criminal alien is deported, the choices are to the last country they were in or their country of origin. If their country of origin and the last country refuses them entry, then it is the duty of the Administration to figure out what to do with them.

Since we can’t just execute them. Even though a wood chopper is the tool of choice for kiddy diddlers, that isn’t allowed under our morals.

The administration could just let them live in the comfort of a US jail/prison. Or they can deport them to a third-party country.

Nobody wanted these people. That is how bad they are. The Trump Administration negotiated with several countries before a couple agreed to take these monsters. We don’t know what it costs to be rid of them.

This inferior court judge decided that he was the person to set foreign policy and to decide how immigration policy should be.

Of course, he is in the First Circuit out of Boston. One of those 5 districts that issued 35 universal injunctions.

And this injunction was another universal injunction. Since this was before Trump v. CASA, universal injunctions had not been ruled unconstitutional.

Now, the left likes to play games with words. Trump is playing that even better. The injunction issued by the District Court’s injunction said that the DoJ could not deport these criminals. So the administration let the DoD deport them.

So the Administration followed the letter of the “law” but ignored the spirit. This Biden appointee, with less than 200 days on the federal bench, had a hissy fit.

He issued an order for remedial action against the Trump Administration. His order created new immigration policy. It set up new, never before used rules and methods. In short, he decided he was able to dictate to the Article II executive how immigration policy should be done.

The administration appealed to the First Circuit, which ruled against them. A foregone conclusion.

This was then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a stay on June 23rd.

This stay allowed the government to deport non-citizens to third countries.

The same day the stay was issued, the inferior district court issued an order stating that the remedies that had been ordered were still enforce because the government had not challenged the remedies.

This led the government to go back to the Supreme Court looking for a “Clarification”. This is almost unheard of.

This is one of the parties telling The Court that their inferior court was disobeying a direct order.

The Court granted that clarification. Even Kagan thought it should be clarified and agreed it was correctly clarified.

The motion for clarification is granted. Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 428 (2009) (explaining that a reviewing court’s stay order “divest[s]” the district court “order of enforceability”). Even if we accepted respondents’ characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to “coerce” the Government into “compliance” and would be unenforceable given our stay of the underlying injunction. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 303 (1947); see id., at 295 (“The right to remedial relief falls with an injunction which events prove was erroneously issued and a fortiori when the injunction or restraining order was beyond the jurisdiction of the court.” citations and footnote omitted)).

If the injunction is stayed, then any penalties that were issued by the inferior court are also stayed.

This is actually another powerful opinion from the Supreme Court.

In J.G.G. v. Trump, the district court was found to lack jurisdiction over the case. The case was transferred to the appropriate court, through the district court of New Jersey. The New Jersey district court got the case and immediately transferred it to Texas. Honest judges are doing such a good job that we don’t even hear about the case anymore.

The judge in the D.C. district court found “probable cause” to find the Trump Administration in contempt of an injunction he did not have the jurisdiction nor authority to issue.

This current opinion, DHS v. D.V.D. will help in the J.G.G. v. Trump case.

Trump v. CASA, Inc 606 U.S. ____(2025) No. 24A884

“Well, bless your heart.”

“Even the gun nuts want assault weapons bans, they keep telling me ‘come and take it'”

“May you live in interesting times.”

All of these sound polite yet are not. They have meaning that is decades or even centuries old.

“Bless your heart” is a southern way of politely saying, “you can go F yourself.”

“Come and take it.” is a reference to Mexico attempting to take a cannon from a small Texas town. They didn’t. It means that we will not go quietly into the dark.

“May you live in interesting times” is a translation of a Chinese curse.

“My estimated colleague” is a term of phrase used in congress to mean, “That MFing AH.” Or similar words.

“My friend” in oral arguments means, “That stupid ass that is arguing with me.”

In the Supreme Court, the majority opinion refers to “the principal dissent” or “JUSTICE KAGAN’s dissent”. If there is only one dissent, they will refer to it as “the dissent.”

They do not call each other out by name. It isn’t polite, it isn’t respectful.

Think about what this position means. If a judge in the District of Alaska holds that a criminal statute is unconstitutional, can the United States prosecute a defendant under that statute in the District of Maryland? Perhaps JUSTICE JACKSON would instinctively say yes; it is hard to imagine anyone saying no. But why, on JUSTICE JACKSON’s logic, does it not violate the rule of law for the Executive to initiate a prosecution elsewhere? See post, at 2 (dissenting opinion). Among its many problems, JUSTICE JACKSON’s view is at odds with our system of divided judicial authority. See, e.g., this Court’s Rule 10(a) (identifying conflict in the decisions of the courts of appeals as grounds for granting certiorari). It is also in considerable tension with the reality that district court opinions lack precedential force even vis-à-vis other judges in the same judicial district. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 709, n. 7 (2011).
Trump, President of The United States, et all., v. CASA, Inc., et al., 2025 606 U.S., n. 17

Justice Barrett wrote this. And 5 other justices signed on to it. This is a public spanking of the least qualified justice on the Supreme Court. “…view is at odds…” is court speak for “is wrong.”

The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a “mind-numbingly technical query,” post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush. In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to “order everyone (including the Executive) to follow the law—full stop.” Post, at 2; see also post, at 10 (“[T]he function of the courts—both in theory and in practice—necessarily includes announcing what the law requires in … suits for the benefit of all who are protected by the Constitution, not merely doling out relief to injured private parties”); see also post, at 11, n. 3, 15. And, she warns, if courts lack the power to “require the Executive to adhere to law universally,” post, at 15, courts will leave a “gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound,” post, at 12.
id. at 21–22

I can’t find the words to express how much of a slap in the face this language is. This is the Law Professor talking down to a C- student that didn’t bother to do their homework.

Rhetoric aside, JUSTICE JACKSON’s position is difficult to pin down. She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate—even required—whenever the defendant is part of the Executive Branch. See, e.g., post, at 3, 10–12, 16–18. If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions. See, e.g., Frost, 93 N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 1069 (“Nationwide injunctions come with significant costs and should never be the default remedy in cases challenging federal executive action”). As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction: JUSTICE JACKSON appears to believe that the reasoning behind any court order demands “universal adherence,” at least where the Executive is concerned. Post, at 2 (dissenting opinion). In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court’s opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment. But see Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 294 (2023) (“It is a federal court’s judgment, not its opinion, that remedies an injury”). Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires. And the Executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere.
id. at 22–23

The highlighted phrase indicates that this is not just Justice Barrett with this opinion of Jackson, it is all the Justices that signed on to the majority opinion. There is no mistaking this for anything than what it is. The majority is calling out Jackson as being unqualified to sit on the court.

We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.
id. at 23

There are dozens of articles out there talking about how the end to Universal Injunctions is good for this country. This case will end most of the legal battles against the Trump Administration.

The only reason these cases were being filed was to stop the Trump Administration from carrying out their actions. There have been no findings of merit in any of these cases. Merely inferior court judges saying they think the plaintiffs (bad guys) might win, and because it is so important, they are blocking the Administration.

Under normal circumstances, this would be a 3 to 10 year block on the Administration.

Now that the delay tactic is gone, there is no reason to file losing cases. The money will dry up, and these cases will just evaporate.

Conclusion

I have been disappointed that Amy hasn’t voted for cert in a number of Second Amendment cases. What I have noticed is that her arguments are clear and well-founded in our Nation’s history and traditions of regulations. She is doing the right thing, even if I don’t like the outcomes.

This case is still another “plain text, history, and tradition” result. This court has been standing firm in that belief.

When Kagan wrote the majority opinion in S&W v. Mexico, she referenced the plain text of the constitution, the plain text of the regulation, and the history and tradition of this Nation’s regulations.

I’m looking forward to a great Second Amendment opinion in the 2025 Term, likely released in June, 2026.

Nguyen v. Bonta, No. 24-2035, Doc. 54 (9th Cir.)

(Feature Image is Raymond M. DiGuiseppe, who argued the case before the Ninth Circuit merits panel)

This was a big case with all the big names involved. We had Chuck Michel and Anna Barvir from Michel & Associates PC. If there is a Second Amendment case happening in California, they are likely to be there. The NRA was there. Erin Murphy, Paul Clement, Matthew Rowen, and Nicholas Gallagher from Clement & Murphy. You should know their names, think Bruen.

Regardless, Raymond is the one that argued and ran this case.

This was a unanimous opinion by all three judges. This is great. It is a win for The People. The 1 gun per 30 days is currently enjoined. The people of The People’s Republic of California have one of the rights the rest of the citizens of these United States enjoy.

Is this judgment going to stand? I do not believe so. The People have had a few wins in the district courts of California, and we have had a few wins with merits panels of the Ninth Circuit. In every case, the Ninth Circuit has then agreed to hear the case en banc and reversed the merits panel.

According to one of the judges that sits on the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit is over 150 to 0 against The People in Second Amendment cases.

History

In 1999, the state of California enacted a one-gun-a-month law. The law banned the purchase of more than one “concealable handgun” per 30-day period. In 2019, the law was extended to “handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part”.

You just have to love that made up term “firearm precursor part”. Does that mean a billet of 6061? Does it mean a raw forging of aluminum? Does it mean an 80% lower? Yeah, when does it stop being a pipe from The Home Depot, and it becomes a firearm precursor part?

The plaintiffs in the district case became Appellees at the circuit level are the good guys. They wanted to buy more than one firearm per month. The case is a facial challenge to the law.

The judges looked at this case “de novo”, or as if it were new. Because the case was a facial challenge, they only considered the text of the statute. It is the burden of the plaintiffs (good guys) to establish that no set of circumstances exists under which the law would be valid.

The Analysis

The Second Amendment guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. This provision, coupled with the Fourteenth Amendment, “protect[s] an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 17; see also District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628–30 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 767–68, 791 (2010). The analysis of a Second Amendment challenge is rooted in the constitutional text and in our nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. We first ask whether “the Second Amendment’s plain text” covers the regulated conduct at issue. Id. If it does, “the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.” Id. That presumption can be overcome only if “‘historical precedent’ from before, during, and even after the founding evinces a comparable tradition of regulation.” Id. at 27 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 631).
Trump, President of The United States, et all., v. CASA, Inc., et al., 2025 606 U.S., n. 17

This is correctly stated and a good summary. It is at this point where most of the rogue, inferior, courts go off the rails.

Next, we consider whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the regulated conduct just identified. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. It is well established that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” U.S. Const. amend. II, protects “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635; see also McDonald, 561 U.S. at 780. This “core Second Amendment right … ‘wouldn’t mean much’ without the ability to acquire arms.” Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 873 F.3d 670, 677 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Bruen, 597 U.S. 1). Thus, we have “consistently held that the Second Amendment … ‘protects ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense.’” B&L Prods., Inc. v. Newsom, 104 F.4th 108, 118 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 677), cert. denied — S. Ct. —, 2025 WL 1211774 (2025). While we have not defined “the precise scope” of protected ancillary rights, we have held “that the plain text of the Second Amendment only prohibits meaningful constraints on the right to acquire firearms.” Id. (quoting Teixeira, 873 F.3d at 678) (emphasis added).
id. at 21–22

Teixeira was decided in 2017, against The People. Yet, it is quoted multiple times. Ezell v City of Chicago, in front of the Seventh Circuit court in 2011, was also a loss for The People. Both cases preceded Bruin and as such need to be reanalyzed in light of the Bruen analysis. In other words, they are likely bad law.

They did not cite to Minneapolis Star & Tribune C v. Minnesota. This is because that case is a Supreme Court opinion and was a much stronger indictment for not messing with The People’s rights via restricting ancillary actions. In that case, the state (bad guys) put a tax on the ink purchased by large newspapers.

The phrase “meaningful constraints” is where this opinion starts to go sideways. Because they are quoting case law from before Bruen they are sneaking in “interest balancing”. The state does not get to decide what is or is not a “meaningful constraint.”

They don’t get to because they always extend it to far. Is a $200 tax on a firearm accessory that much of a constraint? Is a requirement for government permission to purchase a firearm accessory? Or to ask for permission to move it across state lines?

According to the federal government, it is not a meaningful constraint. Nor does the state of California think it is a meaningful constraint.

This makes the statement erroneous. This is why I call foul on citing to bad case law to support current cases.

Making a Summary Because I’m tired

California argued that the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to possess multiple firearms, and even if it did, restricting the frequency of firearm purchases is not a meaningful constraint.

This panel swatted that one down. They point out that if the state was right and because things apart from firearms are arms. The state could argue that if a person owned a knife could be banned from purchasing a firearm.

They get the plain text section right.

Unfortunately, only in part. They claim that delays that serve presumptively valid purposes are constitutional but that in this particular case, the law purpose of the delay is the delay.

They found that there is no history or tradition of meter the exercise of a constitutional right.

Of course, the infringers use the “nuanced approach” argument. That phrase now makes me sick. It tells me the bad guys are about to lie through their teeth and expect me to smile.

Here the court reaches the correct conclusion but for the wrong reasons. This can be bad for the Second Amendment rights of the People.

The nuanced approach only applies to things that are not bans. This is a ban, a metering of rights. In Heller, the Supreme Court found that there was no history or tradition to support firearm bans. This means that a one-per-month ban is unconstitutional, period.

The merits panel then spends a half dozen pages of electrons to find other reasons to find no tradition.

Conclusion

It is a win. I’ll take it.

It is not good case law. They did not create a general understanding of “Plain text” and they did not do a correct history and tradition analysis.

This suggests, to me, that this opinion will be cited by the anti-gun people in the future, in negative ways.

Regardless, this opinion will not stand. It will get overturned by the en banc panel. The Supreme Court is unlikely to grant cert if they request cert.

Legal Case Analysis

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos 23-1141

Prohibition on bringing of qualified civil liability actions in Federal or State court

  1. In general

    A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

  2. Dismissal of pending actions

    A qualified civil liability action that is pending on October 26, 2005, shall be immediately dismissed by the court in which the action was brought or is currently pending.

Trump, President of The United States, et all., v. CASA, Inc., et al., 2025 606 U.S., n. 17

There are five listed exceptions.

  1. The transferor was convicted under section 925(h) of U.S.C. 18. This is part of the gun control action of 1968, as amended.
  2. The seller is guilty of negligence or negligent entrustment.
  3. The manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, AND the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.
  4. for breach of contract or warranty.
  5. Death, injury, or property damage resulting from a defect in design or manufacturer of the product, when used as intended.

Only section iii has any wiggle room. The question then becomes one of “proximate cause”.

For example, in the original Lilo and Stitch, there is a scene where the child crawls into a washing machine or a dryer. If your child were to watch the movie and then replicate crawling into the dryer or washing machine, and then they were injured or killed, you might be able to sue Disney for that scene because it was the “proximate cause” of the injury.

Claiming that an advertisement, in a firearms’ magazine, stating “Consider your man card reissued”, is the proximate cause of an asshole killing children and adults in a school shooting is a serious stretch.

This is precisely what the blood vultures did after Sandy Hook. They had the parents file a lawsuit against Bushmaster, with the novel legal argument that since Connecticut has laws about certain types of advertisements, and because the PLCAA had an exception for sale or marketing, that the suit would evade PLCAA protections.

This should have required the plaintiffs (bad guys) to prove that not only did Bushmaster produce advertisements that were in violation of CT law, but also that the asshole actually saw the advertisements and that those advertisements somehow incited the asshole to go murder children.

This should have been thrown out in the lowest court, where the case was filed. Instead, the case made it to the CT supreme court where they said, “This advertising claim might actually pierce the PLCAA protections. Please continue the case to establish a fact pattern.”

The Supreme Court did not stop this travesty. Remington went under, this lawsuit was part of the reason.

Since the insurance companies, which owned the Remington Name, settled for a considerable amount, more lawsuits attacking manufactures have been filed. One bad decision leads to more bad decisions.

Most of the motions for writ of certiorari are simply denied. The only thing the Court says is “Certiorari Denied”. The justices have started adding statements stating clearly that the denial of cert or denial of a stay does not mean the Court has made any judgment on the merits of the case.
The Government of Mexico brought this lawsuit against seven American gun manufacturers. As required by a federal statute, Mexico seeks to show (among other things) that the defendant companies participated in the unlawful sale or marketing of firearms. See 15 U.S.C. §7903(5)(A)(iii). More specifically, Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico’s complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not.
id. at 21–22 Justice Kagan, delivering the opinion of the Court

Kagan gets it right, Mexico is alleging that S&W et al. were doing something illegal. For that to be true, there would have to be convictions for those illegal acts.

In the very next paragraph, she slaps down all those that say that the firearms industry is the only industry that can’t be sued. 15 U.S.C. §§7901–7903, bars certain lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms. — id.

But PLCAA’s general bar on those suits has an exception, usually called the predicate exception, relevant here. That exception applies to suits in which the defendant manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms, and that “violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” §7903(5)(A)(iii). If a plaintiff can show that provision is satisfied—that, say, a manufacturer committed a gun-sale violation proximately causing the harm at issue—then a suit can proceed, even though it arises from a third party’s later misuse of a gun. Or otherwise said, the predicate violation opens a path to making a gun manufacturer civilly liable for the way a third party has used the weapon it made.
id. at 22–23

Kagan skillfully avoids the advertising part of the law, here. Instead, she gives a concrete example of how the law was intended to be used. If the seller or manufacturer breaks the law by the transfer of the firearm, they can be held responsible for later harms caused by a third party.

The Mexican Government, seeking redress for this gun violence, brought suit in 2021 against seven American firearms manufacturers. The suit, brought in a U.S. District Court, asserts a variety of tort claims against the defendants, mostly sounding in negligence. The basic theory is that the defendants failed to exercise “reasonable care” to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, and so are responsible for the harms arising there from the weapons’ misuse. Id., at 184a. That theory, as all agree, runs straight into PLCAA’s general prohibition. Mexico’s action, that is, seeks to hold firearms manufacturers liable for “the criminal or unlawful misuse” of guns by third parties—and so, according to PLCAA, “may not be brought.” §§7902(a), 7903(5)(A). The complaint thus tries to plead its way into PLCAA’s predicate exception. It asserts, as that exception requires, that the third-party misuse of guns in Mexico resulted from the manufacturers’ knowing violations of gun laws. See §7903(5)(A)(iii).
id. at 23

Yep, the PLCAA is implicated here, and should protect the defendants (good guys). Mexico is attempting to pierce the PLCAA’s protections by claiming the manufacturers were knowingly violating gun laws.

Mexico’s complaint survives PLCAA only if, in accord with usual pleading rules, it has plausibly alleged conduct falling within the statute’s predicate exception. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662, 678–679 (2009). Because Mexico relies exclusively on an aiding-and-abetting theory, that means plausibly alleging that the manufacturers have aided and abetted gun dealers’ firearms offenses (such as sales to straw purchasers), so as to proximately cause harm to Mexico. See supra, at 2–3. We need not address the proximate cause question, because we find that Mexico has not plausibly alleged aiding and abetting on the manufacturers’ part. “Plausibly” does not mean “probably,” but “it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Iqbal, 556 U. S., at 678. And Mexico has not met that bar. Its complaint does not plausibly allege the kind of “conscious … and culpable participation in another’s wrongdoing” needed to make out an aiding-and-abetting charge. Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U. S. 471, 493 (2023).
Missing citations for GW4C5JVQ

Wow, this is a big one. To pierce the PLCAA protections, the plaintiffs must prove that the manufacturer’s actions were the proximate cause of the injury. Before that can be done, they must first plausibly prove that the manufacturers added and abetted the illegal act which led to the injury. Mexico has not met the minimum requirements for plausible, much less probably.

Finally, Mexico’s allegations about the manufacturers’ “design and marketing decisions” add nothing of consequence. Brief for Respondent 23. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR-15 rifles, AK-47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR-15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too. The same is true of firearms with Spanish-language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history. See supra, at 6. Those guns may be “coveted by the cartels,” as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.” Tr. of Oral Arg 80; Reply Brief 20. That leaves only the allegation that the manufacturers have not attempted to make guns with non-defaceable serial numbers. See supra, at 6. But the failure to improve gun design in that way (which federal law does not require) cannot in the end show that the manufacturers have “join[ed] both mind and hand” with lawbreakers in the way needed to aid and abet. Direct Sales, 319 U. S., at 713.
Missing citations for GW4C5JVQ

To translate into language even a leftist can understand, “AR-15s are in common use”

And that conclusion, we note, well accords with PLCAA’s core purpose. Recall that Congress enacted the statute to halt a flurry of lawsuits attempting to make gun manufacturers pay for the downstream harms resulting from misuse of their products. See supra, at 1–2. In a “findings” and “purposes” section, Congress explained that PLCAA was meant to stop those suits—to prevent manufacturers (and sellers) from being held “liable for the harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm[s].” §7901(a)(5). Mexico’s suit closely resembles the ones Congress had in mind:…
Missing citations for GW4C5JVQ

Justice Jackson wrote a concurrence. Her concurrence is designed to limit the extent of the actual opinion.

In her flawed opinion, the only reason Mexico did not prevail is that they didn’t point to a specific violation of state or federal laws. If only they had done that, the court would have allowed them to put it to those evil gun manufacturers.

She also, intentionally, misstates the reasons for PLCAA. We have observed that lawfare is intended to destroy the defendants. The flood of civil lawsuits was designed to destroy the firearms industry. Even the military said as much.

According to Justice Jackson, Activists had deployed litigation in an effort to compel firearms manufacturers and associated entities to adopt safety measures and practices that exceeded what state or federal statutes required.Missing citations for GW4C5JVQ.

She has such a strong opinion of the good will and selfless motives of those filing lawsuits.

A.A.R.P. v Trump, the follow up

In sum, literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation for its order. I refused to join the Court’s order because we had no good reason to think that, under the circumstances, issuing an order at midnight was necessary or appropriate.

Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law. The Executive must proceed under the terms of our order in Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), and this Court should follow established procedures.
— 604 U.S. ____ (2025), Alito, J. dissenting. Thomas, J joining

)

A.A.R.P. are the initials of one of the plaintiffs. They are currently proceeding as John Does. This is the same with Trump vs. J.G.G., where J.G.G. are the initials of one of the plaintiffs in the inferior district court.

When Alito and Thomas are on the same side of an issue, your best bet on what is correct is to be on their side. Yes, I know I’ve been on the opposite side from them a couple of times. I lost my bet.

This case is moving rapidly, the Solicitor General had filed his response shortly after Alito published his dissent. This is “fast” in court terms.

To start, this Court is “a court of review, not first view.” Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 718, n. 7 (2005). Yet the application insists on judicial review in reverse. It calls for this Court to be the first to resolve due-process challenges to the adequacy of notice that designated enemy aliens receive, on behalf of a putative class that no court below has certified, on a nonexistent record. As the Fifth Circuit observed last night, appellate courts should not address those questions unless and until the district court is given a reasonable opportunity to rule. App., infra, 2a. Yet applicants gave the district court a mere 42 minutes’ notice before divesting it of jurisdiction by filing a notice of appeal claiming constructive denial of relief. Under these highly irregular circumstances, applicants can hardly establish a clear and indisputable entitlement to the extraordinary relief they seek. The application should be denied on that basis alone.

— Respondents’ Opposition to Emergency Application. 24A1007

Here we see the Solicitor General say much the same as Alito, with facts involved. Alito also stated in his dissent that the Supreme Court had spoken with the Fifth Circuit and knew that a decision was forthcoming from the Circuit shortly.

Nothing will happen today. The plaintiffs, (illegal aliens), will file a reply to the response. We might see some amicus briefs, but nothing is going to happen. The Court will have time to reflect and read the briefs.

We might hear something on Tuesday, but I don’t expect a response until laster in the week. The Supreme Court has given themselves time to move deliberately while instructing the parties to move rapidly.

A.A.R.P. v Donald J. Trump

Big news early Saturday morning, the Supreme Court “ordered Trump administration not to deport Venezuelans under Alien Enemies Act for now” — NPC News.

Or did they?

There is before the Court an application on behalf of a putative class of detainees seeking an injunction against their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The matter is currently pending before the Fifth Circuit. Upon action by the Fifth Circuit, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response to the application before this Court as soon as possible. The Government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this Court. See 28 U. S. C. §1651(a).

Justice Thomas and Justice Alito dissent from the Court’s order. Statement from Justice Alito to follow.
— Order in Pending Case 24A1007

Yep, they did. But there are interesting things happening in this short order.

First, it was issued at in the early morning of Saturday. Second, the Solicitor General is invited to file a response ASAP. Not on a particular date and time, but now.

In A.A.R.P. v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity 25-CV-00059 N.D.TX., the district court judge found for the administration and did not grant the TRO nor the Preliminary Injunction.

They appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 25-10534, (5th Cir.). The Fifth Circuit denied the appeal because the case is at the TRO stage, and TROs cannot be appealed. Where have we heard this before?

What we are likely to see is the statements by Alito and Thomas in the coming days. From there, they will wait for the Solicitor General of the United States to file a response, so they have both sides of the argument, briefed.

At that point, they will likely say, “This is in an interlocutory state, we aren’t going to interfere.”

Antonyuk v. James 24-795 U.S.

This case has had a long and torturous journey. We are not at the end of its travels.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case. There was no statement issued in relation to this case.

Just “cert is denied”

That might sound like a horrible loss, it is not.

This case has not reached a final judgment at the district court yet.

On December 13, 2022, Judge Glenn Suddaby issued his decision and order. The state (bad guys) had filed a motion to reconsider the court’s preliminary injunction granted November 17, 2022.

The state then appealed to the Second Circuit court. The Second Circuit court stayed the injunction pending the outcome of the appeal. They issued their opinion against The People, finding that it was ok for the state of New York to ban the carrying of firearms almost everywhere.

The plaintiffs (good guys) appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Second Circuit Court’s ruling in light of Rahimi.

The Second Circuit heard oral arguments again. After a suitable delay, they said that they got it right the first time, even when considering Rahimi. The plaintiffs (still the good guys), filed a petition for writ of certiorari.

Friday, the Supreme Court justices held their Friday conference. Yesterday, they issued their order and simply denied cert.

This means that the Second Circuits stay of the case stays in place. The case is remanded back to the district court to finish the “fact finding” and then to await final judgment.

In other words, this case is still in an interlocutory state.

In my humble opinion, the Supreme Court declined to hear this case because it was in an interlocutory state and if they were to GVR the case, they knew the Second Circuit will get it wrong again. The Second Circuit is a rogue inferior court.

We still have Snope and Ocean State Tactical seeking cert.

I don’t see either conferenced yet, but that should be forthcoming soon.

Department of Education v. California

The games people play…

Consider the following, a plaintiff comes to the district court with a challenge and a request for a summary judgment. The court looks at the filings by the plaintiff, agrees the plaintiff is in the right. The court grants the summary judgment.

At that instant, the defendants will appeal to the circuit court. They will request an administrative stay pending the court deciding if a stay pending appeal is warranted.

The administrative stay is supposed to be very short.

In one of the cases coming out of the D.C. District Court, the inferior court granted a temporary stay on a government action. The TRO then granted the plaintiff the relief they wanted as final judgment. The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit court, which said, “You can’t appeal a TRO, even if it is acting like a preliminary injunction or summary judgment.” The government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The appeal was presented to Chief Justice Roberts, who granted an administrative stay. This required almost no argument, the papers filed by the petitioner were enough. When SCOTUS heard the petition for a stay of the TRO, the Court denied the stay because the TRO had already expired, and thus the petition was moot.

If the appeals court denies the stay, the defendant can then appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay pending the outcome of the case.

The point of all of this is that a summary judgment can be appealed up to the Supreme Court.

A Temporary Restraining Order is a temporary injunction. It is supposed to pause actions until a hearing for a preliminary injunction is heard.

Since it is such a short-term instrument, it is not (normally) appealable.

These inferior court judges are granting TRO’s against the government that act more like preliminary injunctions than TRO’s.

Winter Factors

The Supreme Court, in the Winter opinion, gave clear guidance on when an injunction or stay should/can be issued. These are known as the “Winter Factors”.

The first factor is the likelihood of success on the merits. That is to say, is the party requesting the stay or injunction likely to prevail on the merits of the case?

For example, if you are requesting an injunction on the IRS freezing your assets, you have to have a strong enough argument that you will win before the court will consider your request. Since it is unlikely you will win, no injunction will issue.

This is the place where most Second Amendment challenges loose. The courts will determine that the plaintiffs (good guys) are unlikely to succeed on the merits, and will thus not grant the injunction.

The second factor is irreparable harm.

In general, if the party were to prevail with no stay or injunction, could they be made whole with a payment of money?

Any suit involving money is very unlikely to create irreparable harm.

For example, if you are fired, and you sue for wrongful termination, your loses can be made whole with payment for your lost wages. The courts do not consider secondary problems, only the primary. So if you were to lose your house because you defaulted on your mortgage, you might not get enough money to recover from that lose.

The third winter factor is Balance of Equities. This is designed to balance harm. If the injunction is granted, one party will be harmed. If the injunction is denied, the other party will be harmed. If granting the injunction would delay some “good thing” to the harmed party, but denying the injunction would cause somebody to lose their home, the balance of equities swings to granting the injunction.

The fourth factor is Public Interest. Is granting the stay or injunction in the best interest of the public?

When any court disregards the winter factors, they are going rogue.

In Second Amendment cases, the courts would often say that the infringement was “in the best interest of the public” and deny relief to the Second Amendment plaintiffs. They would do this, even if the other factors would lead to granting the stay or injunction.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that a denial of a Constitutionally protected right is irreparable harm, that the balance of equities always tilts to those being denied their Constitutionally protected right, and that the public has no interest in enforcing unconstitutional regulations.

Winter v. public interest

The opinions issued by these rogue inferior judges often discard the winter factors. This is something that could and should be appealed. But a TRO cannot be appealed.

This means that these rogue judges are doing their best to make these TRO’s as broad as possible and to last as long as possible to stop the administration’s policies from being effected.

Judge Shopping

There are almost 100 federal district courts with 677 judgeships, with a few more senior judges thrown in.

A senior judge is a judge who is no longer in the lottery but still hears cases. I.e. A judge who is very near retirement.

If you want to file a suit against a gun company, you can do no better than filing your case in the District Court of Massachusetts. They haven’t found an infringement they didn’t approve of.

There is no combination of judges in the First Circuit court who would agree that any law was an infringement of the Second Amendment. They are so anti-gun that I don’t believe there is a single case where they found for The People in a Second Amendment Challenge.

The attitude of the Supreme Court has varied. Unfortunately, it takes a very long time for a case to make its way to the Supreme Court.

These bad actors are intentionally searching out judges that they expect will go rogue. There also appears to be a thumb on the lottery system used to pick judges for cases.

Oh, when a case is filed, the judge assigned is picked at random via a lottery. A plaintiff can request that a case be assigned to a particular judge, if the plaintiffs believe that their case is similar to other cases the judge is or has handled.

This is why one judge in the Southern District of New York got so many of the product liability cases against drug manufacturers. He’s the guy who decided that even if a person couldn’t prove which company manufactured the medication, he would portion out the penalty based on the market share of the different manufacturers.

Consider a judge who found that the distillery was liable for crashes where the driver was drunk. He has 1000s of plaintiffs demanding money from the distillery.

The problem is which distillery is at fault for a particular crash. The guys drinking rum and coke, which brand of rum did they drink? It is unlikely they know.

So instead of forcing the plaintiffs to point to a particular “guilty” distillery, the judge looks at the market share of each distillery. If the penalty is $1,000,000 then the distillery with 50% of the market share of that class of product is responsible for $500,000 of the penalty.

The little distillery, that is producing Don’t Drive Vodka, is so small they only account for 0.1% of the market share of vodka. They would be responsible for $1,000 of the $1,000,000 penalty.

But what if 90% of the drivers that are drunk were drinking “Don’t Drive Vodka”? Wouldn’t that mean they should pay more of the penalty? Yes, it does mean that, but it’s not what this judge did. It was all about market share.

California in Massachusetts?

Why would the lead plaintiff, California, be opening a case in Massachusetts?

Because they know that it is an almost certainty that they will get a judge with TDS.

On March 10, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued what it styled as a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the Government from terminating various education-related grants. The order also requires the Government to pay out past-due grant obligations and to continue paying obligations as they accrue. The District Court’s conclusion rested on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 60 Stat. 237. On March 26, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s March 10 order (as extended on March 24) and requested an immediate administrative stay. The application was presented to JUSTICE JACKSON and by her referred to the Court.

Although the Courts of Appeals generally lack appellate jurisdiction over appeals from TROs, several factors counsel in favor of construing the District Court’s order as an appealable preliminary injunction. Among other considerations, the District Court’s order carries many of the hallmarks of a preliminary injunction. See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 87 (1974); Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. 579, 594 (2018). Moreover, the District Court’s “basis for issuing the order [is] strongly challenged,” as the Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA. Sampson, 415 U. S., at 87. The APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity does not apply “if any other statute that grants consent to suit expressly or impliedly forbids the relief which is sought.” 5 U.S.C. §702. Nor does the waiver apply to claims seeking “money damages.” Ibid. True, a district court’s jurisdiction “is not barred by the possibility” that an order setting aside an agency’s action may result in the disbursement of funds. Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U. S. 879, 910 (1988). But, as we have recognized, the APA’s limited waiver of immunity does not extend to orders “to enforce a contractual obligation to pay money” along the lines of what the District Court ordered here. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co. v. Knudson, 534 U. S. 204, 212 (2002). Instead, the Tucker Act grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over suits based on “any express or implied contract with the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §1491(a)(1).
Department of Education v. California 604 U.S. ___ (2025)

The five Justices that wrote the unsigned opinion obviously thought the rogue, inferior judge, was playing games.

The Chief Justice couldn’t bother to write why he dissented, but he did.

Justice Kagan claims her dissent was because the government didn’t argue that what they did was legal. She entirely ignores the government’s merits argument, that the district court didn’t have jurisdiction, instead focusing on “irreparable harm” that involved money.

Justice Jackson spent 15 pages on her dissent, with Sotomayor joining. Jackson also ignores the majority’s view that the government was likely to prevail on the merits, no jurisdiction, instead focusing on the inferior court thinking that the government’s termination of grants was somehow illegal.

She argues that the TRO would be moot in a few days, so this wasn’t the right time to take up the issue.

And finally, she thinks the government has to provide “meaningful explanation” of the cancellation of these grants.

I still think she is a clown.

Conclusion

This is a win for the Trump administration. It is the Supreme Court taking a stand. They are calling this particular judge on these preliminary injunctions wrapped in the verbiage of a TRO.

More importantly, that part where they say, …the Government is likely to succeed in showing the District Court lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under the APA &mdash, Ibid, that is a warning to the inferior courts that they need to reconsider if they have jurisdiction in these cases.

The Supreme Court speaks in code. Lawyers understand the code. Courts understand the code. Those that follow the Supreme Court will often figure out the code. Leftist refuse to acknowledge the code.

Rogue courts insist that the code means something different. All that you need to do to understand this is to watch a court twist one footnote into the most important part of Bruen while ignoring the thousands of words that refute the footnote.

Legal Case Analysis

Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce, 25-cv-01935, (S.D.N.Y.)

This is an interesting and challenging case, for me.

This is a Constitutional challenge to Mahmoud being detained and then deported. His claim is that this is a violation of his First and Fifth Amendment protected rights. Because it is a violation of his rights, the court should grant him relief.

Mahmoud is an Arab that claims to be a Palestinian. He entered the United States in December 2022 on a student visa to study for a Master’s degree at Columbia University in New York. He completed that degree in December 2024 and is going to graduate in May 2025. He married in November 2024 and got a green card.

He was granted a green card because he was married to a US citizen. He is still an alien, just not illegal. He has not overstayed his visa, nor is he required to leave when his visa expires.

His lawyer describes his actions in this way:

As a Palestinian, M.K. has felt compelled to be an outspoken advocate for Palestinian human rights and more recently, to speak out against Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the role of Columbia University in financing and in other ways facilitating the genocide. M.K. is committed to being a voice for his People, and calling on the rest of the world to stop providing weapons and support to enable the genocide in contravention with international law.

This describes his actions as speech. Regardless of how reprehensible that speech might be, it is still protected. The First Amendment protects reprehensible speech, not just the words we want to hear. It is easy to believe in “free speech” if the only allowed speech is that which we agree with.

This case is seeking the following relief:

  1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter
  2. Declare that the state violated Mahmoud’s First amendment and Fifth Amendment protected rights
  3. To keep Mahmoud in New York
  4. Release Mahmoud
  5. Pay Mahmoud’s legal fees

Item 3 is mooted because Mahmoud was out of New York before the case was filed. In a later filing they requested that he be returned to New York.

So we look at the Constitutional challenge. One of the things to note is that not all the Constitution applies to everyone. Some apply to Citizens and some apply to “the people”. The rights limited to citizens are called out by the term “citizen”. The rest of the time the founders use the terms “the people”, “person”, and “the accused.”

The Supreme Court has issued many opinions that restrict “The People” to those with a strong connection to the community politic.

With these in mind, it seems clear that Mahmoud is a member of the people. His rights are protected by most of the Constitution.

Is he challenging a federal law prohibiting the free exercise of or abridgment of his speech? Not directly.

Instead, he challenges the law as applied to him, His claim is that he can’t speak while detained and that the threat of detention has a chilling effect on his ability to speak freely.

The state has not justified his detention in court documents — yet. Instead, they are fighting the most relevant parts first. Bluntly, I don’t care if this asshole is deported or rotting in a jail cell. He’s not out there intimidating the people of the United States.

What the state did was they revoked his visa and his green card.

When can a green card be revoked?

5. Security-Related Reasons

Green card holders who engage in activities deemed threatening to U.S. national security can lose their status. This includes involvement in terrorism, espionage, or other activities that undermine the safety of the United States.

Examples of Security Violations

  • Membership in Terrorist Organizations: Being part of or assisting a terrorist group can lead to immediate revocation and deportation.
  • Espionage or Treason: Activities related to spying, intelligence gathering for foreign governments, or attempts to overthrow the government are considered severe violations.

Consequences: In addition to deportation, individuals accused of such activities may face criminal prosecution and significant legal penalties.

Trump, President of The United States, et all., v. CASA, Inc., et al., 2025 606 U.S., n. 17

What this means is that the state need only prove that Mahmoud was part of or assisting a terrorist group. Hamas is a designated terrorist group.

Conclusion

The left loves to talk about hate speech. They love it because it allows them to justify their violence. Hate speech is always in the eye of the offended.

“Violent” speech is violence, according to the left.

Violence can be countered with violence.

Therefore, you saying something that they disagree with is hate speech, which in turn is violence, which means they can punch you.

In the other direction, any real, physical violence they engage in is “just protests” and is “speech” protected by the Constitution.

They are going to lose this one. I’ve seen to many good filings from this administration to believe they aren’t going to win. Maybe not at the district level with all the rogue inferior judges, but they will win higher up.

Legal Case Analysis

Hudson v. District of Columbia

This is the type of case we want the Supreme Court to slap down.

The district judge’s analysis is based on a twisted view of Heller as affirmed by Bruen.

In Heller, the Court said that weapons that are most useful in military service, or at least that’s how the district court quoted it.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the concep­tion of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. …
Trump, President of The United States, et all., v. CASA, Inc., et al., 2025 606 U.S., n. 17

Ok, a bit more context, but how did the district court interpret this?

Heller specifically contemplated that weapons most useful in military service fall outside of Second Amendment protection.

This is good wordsmithing. That word “contemplated” doesn’t say that weapons most useful to military services are outside or inside the protections of the Second Amendment. It just means they discussed it. Factually, this is the only place they mention “useful” to the military or in military service.

In other words, the court gave far too much weight to what was not said.

But why is this even a question?

It is because the inferior courts can’t stop messing things up. Of going rogue.

The question is if the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated. The district court even agrees that it is.

The district court slaps down the state for claiming that magazines are not arms as defined for purposes of the Second Amendment.

Having equivalently answered the question “Is the plain text of the Second Amendment implicated?”, the district court then goes on to claim that is not the first part of Heller.

Instead, the district court argues that the plaintiffs (good guys) have to prove that they are in common use for lawful purposes of self-defense AND that they are not most useful for military service.

If the Supreme Court issues an opinion in Ocean State Tactical, then this is a done deal. Magazine bans are gone. This case will evaporate.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t issue an opinion in Ocean State Tactical, then we can hope they strike down Maryland’s “assault weapon” ban in Snope.

Regardless, I still get upset when I read the twisted arguments of these rogue inferior courts.