Legal

What is the judicial branch of the U.S. Government?

There is only one court defined in the Constitution, all the others are created by Congress and are inferior to the Supreme Court.

The Congress can establish courts, which implies that they can delete courts. This has happened in the past, I believe. We have been looking to split the Ninth Circuit into multiple circuits for several years now.

Neither the Congress nor the President can reduce the salary for Judges. They can only increase their salaries.

There are two ways to remove a federal judge from inferior court: 1) Impeach them, 2) Find that they are not exhibiting “good behaviour”.

While the Constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized inferior courts, it doesn’t, explicitly, say what authority over the other two branches it has.

The President has the power of the veto. He has command of the military and the tools required to fulfill his responsibilities as the head of the executive branch.

The Congress has the power of the purse and the ability to create laws. They can override a presidential veto.

Our government was set up to be at odds with itself. To be inefficient in creating laws. No man’s home or wallet is safe when Congress is in session.

The power of the Court came when they took it in Marbury. They didn’t justify that power grab under the Constitution. They simply declared that it is the job of the courts to say what the law is.

As part of that task, they are now empowered (authorized) to judge the Constitutionality of any law.

The Supreme Court has put guard rails on that power. While we heard it in Bruen and in Heller, it is a consistent message, first look at the plain text of the Constitution. If the proposed conduct implicates the plain text of the Constitution, then the burden shifts to the Government to show this Nation’s historical tradition of equivalent regulation.

Yes, that sort of language is in many Supreme Court opinions, not just Second Amendment Opinions. Which is part of the reason the legal people of the Second Amendment Community get upset with rogue inferior courts.

The Trump Administration’s Attack on Judges

Maybe we should say, “rogue, inferior court, judges.” These are judges, sometimes making up an entire court, that seem to feel that they have the power to overturn presidential orders.

Unfortunately, these judges step outside the guard rails constantly.

Consider just one question, “Does the President have the Constitutional authority to hire and fire personal within the executive branch?”

When we look at the plain text of the Constitution, we find that he does have the authority to hire. Sometimes that requires the Advice and Consent of the Senate. Other times it does not.

With the authority to hire comes the ancillary authority to fire. This is the same as the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” including the right of the press to purchase ink and to be free of targeted taxation.

Trump 2.0 came into office knowing that he would be subject to lawfare. The left has already played that hand.

When I read the filings of the state (good guys), it is obvious that they were prepared for these court cases. They have been extraordinarily careful to make sure they follow the court’s orders without letting the court win.

Battle Is Waged

There seems to be credible evidence that there are people in congress that are looking to start impeachment proceedings against those judges that they feel are going rogue. Chief Justice Roberts issued a statement that impeachment wasn’t the correct path to follow when a court’s ruling goes against you. Still, the undertones suggest that impeachments are coming.

Some lawyers are suggesting going after the good behavior aspect. If the judge is not staying within the guard rails created by the Supreme Court, they are not exhibiting good behavior. This means they can be removed. Is there good case law for this? I do not know. I suspect there is not.

You are welcome to read this article from the University of Notre Dame.

Regardless, there are judges out there that are seeing that they are getting into the “FO” stage of the equation.

Enter Judge Jesse M. Furman

Judge Furman is a member of the Southern District of New York District Court. When Khalil was detained, then transported before being deported, he was the lucky judge to get the case.

The case is a writ of habeas corpus.

The gist, in this case, is that the lawyers for Khalil want him in S.D.N.Y, and they want the court to have power over him. Currently, the federal government has power over him.

Unfortunately for Khalil, the state hit hard and fast. They detained Khalil, took him to the ICE Field Office in Manhattan for processing. The ICE Field Office does not have facilities for holding prisoners for more than 12 hours. Since he couldn’t hold him there, so they transferred him.

He was transferred to the Elizabeth Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey. Normally, this is where he would have been held until deported or released.

But, the Elizabeth Detention Facility was experiencing and continues to experience a bedbug issue that prevented [them] from accepting detainees as full transfers. In short, he couldn’t stay there.

This was known before Khalil was detained. They had transport ready and Khalil was on his way to the Louisiana Detention Facility in Jena, Louisiana shortly after he arrived in New Jersey.

This was happening so rapidly that the Judge is talking about where Khalil was at any particular minute. In some cases, he was removed from jurisdictions only a few minutes before court orders would have stopped the transfer.

Now Khalil is in Louisiana. The S.D.N.Y. did not have jurisdiction when the case was opened. That would have been in the District of New Jersey. By the time everything was sorted out, he was in the Western District of Louisiana.

This judge could claim he had jurisdiction and demand the return of Khalil. This would be fought, and is being fought. He is unlikely to win on the merits. It could be years before the Supreme Court makes a final decision. During that time, Khalil would be behind bars.

If the judge dismissed the case, his earlier TRO would be vacated and Khalil would be deported.

If the judge transferred the case to the W.D. of Louisiana, it is likely that the courts in that jurisdiction would not be issuing orders overriding the President.

Here is the thing. The Trump admin is going to put the same motions for dismissal or transfer in front of the judge in New Jersey.

How does a judge in New York decide that they don’t have jurisdiction because the person wasn’t in the district when the case was filed, believe that the case belongs in a jurisdiction where the complaint was never filed and where the person is currently being detained?

Bluntly, I think the judge in New York took a look at what was happening and decided, “I don’t want any part of this mess.” Then punted.

When my guy does something I like, I do cheer. When their guy does something I dislike, I’ll boo.

But what happens when my guy does something I like, but which I would boo if their guy did?

I worry about this.

In addition, I look at how I would react if something my guy is doing today, were to be done by their guy tomorrow. I need to be willing to accept both theirs and mine doing this thing.

I was extremely upset when Joe Biden’s masters were ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Is my guy ignoring court rulings?

One of the things to understand is how our Constitutional Republic works. We, The People, have rights. Our state has rights derived from The People of the state.

The federal government and the state government have power. They have power by existing.

The federal Constitution grants authority to the federal government to do certain things, and only those things.

Consider the following, a squad of cops breaks down your door, throws you in irons, transports you to the jail and locks the cage.

Under our Constitution, the cops only have the authority to do so if they have a warrant. If they don’t have that warrant, they do not have the authority to detain you. Did they have the power to do so? Obviously, they did because they did detain you, and they did throw you in jail.

The Supreme Court was not granted any authority under our Constitution. Our Constitution established a Supreme Court, but they didn’t explicitly give the Supreme Court any Authority.

With —, Constitution art. III (U.S.) the Supreme Court took the authority to arbitrate what was and what was not Constitutional.

We, as a country, have accepted this.

When we look at the courts, they have significant authority, they do not always have the power to enforce their authority.

When the judge looks down from his bench and orders a person into jail, it is Law Enforcement that executes that order. In some cases, the court employs those people. In federal court, the enforcement power rests in the executive branch, such as the federal marshals, who report to DoJ.

So, in the cases I’m looking at, the court has the authority but lacks the power.

Tren de Aragua(TdA)

What is due process as it relates to TdA?

We start with what due process do you have? You are stopped while walking down the street and the cop demands your papers.

You do not have to produce papers when a cop demands them (IANAL). In some states, you might have to identify yourself, but that does not require you to provide papers.

If you have followed your state’s laws regarding providing identification, what next?

Go watch some YouTube videos and reach out to a lawyer in your state. I have nothing to say because I just don’t know.

As a citizen, you have the right to a jury of your peers. You have the right to due process. You have the right to legal representation.

They do not have the authority to just disappear you into a cell.

You will get your day in court. If you are not found guilty, you will be released. It can be expensive, but you don’t get thrown into a cage without due process.

But what if you are here illegally?

If you are an illegal alien, then they only need to prove that you are here illegally. Once they prove that, you can be deported.

The question arises, who do they have to prove legality to? To a judge? To some nameless official? To their drinking buddies? Who?

In the case of TdA and other gangs, like MS-13, they self identify as belonging to those gangs. As part of those gangs, they are not welcome in the United States. Because they are not wanted, they do not have visa or green cards. Since they are not here legally, they can be deported.

But what if they do have a visa or green card?

Simple, those can be revoked. Being a member of such a gang is enough of a reason for the State Department to revoke a visa and/or a green card.

Once they are deported, it becomes the responsibility of the receiving country to deal with those deported.

Well, we decided to fly TdA members to El Salvador. There is an interesting law in El Salvador. According to one source, TdA are by definition criminals in El Salvador.

Under El Salvadorian law, any member of TdA can be arrested and jailed.

When these deportees arrived in El Salvador, the El Salvadorian officials determined if they were indeed members of TdA.

Since they were in El Salvador, they are, by definition, criminals. Thus, they can be jailed.

They were then in processed and get to stay in the comfort of El Salvador super max prison.

Was due process served? Yes. Could it have been abused? Yes. Will it be abused when the democrats regain power? Yes, it will.

How do I know that it will be abused by democrats? Because they did so over the last four years.

This is the current version of section §922(g). The word “felon” does not appear. All definitions are included within the list.

As you read on, notice that we have gone from actually crossing state lines to “affecting commerce”. This is a huge power grab by the federal government. The Constitution authorizes them to regulate interstate commerce.

The power grab is that they now claim the can regulate anything that might affect interstate commerce.
This is not how it started.

This does not seem to include as much as the current law does.

In October 1968, the law changed

Here we see that they have explicitly excluded misdemeanors with possible imprisonment of less than two years. The old version was greater than one year.

Read that last line carefully. In November 1968, a person who was a “prohibited person” could no receive any firearm or ammunition which had been shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. They could still keep and bear arms. They could not buy or be given guns that crossed state lines.

This means that it was perfectly legal for a prohibited person to keep all the firearms they owned before becoming prohibited and they could manufacture firearms for their use. All legal.

It also meant, that if they were to buy direct from a manufacturer, that would be legal. For example, if they lived in New Hampshire, they could go to the Sig Store and purchase a gun manufactured by Sig in NH.

Section (h) was rewritten to reference section (g) for who was prohibited. We also see that it is no longer receiving a firearm that is a crime, it is in possessing.

We still see that the limitation is on firearms that cross state lines. We see this in many federal laws. They will reference something crossing state lines being regulated. This is because that is all the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate.

These changes were part of “Firearms Owners’ Protection Act”. I just love it when something that is about protecting my rights adds more limits on rights. Yeah, I know, bad people.

In 1996, §§ 921-922 were amended to add definitions and text to prohibit who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence..

In 1998, in an “Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations” bill, they changed the definition of an illegal alien.

Conclusion

1) reading lawsuits is easy compared to reading “Public Laws”. They write bills like patch files. Instead of showing us the new version with strike through and underline to show removed and new text, they say things like (I) by inserting “transfer of a firearm to or” before “receipt”; and (II) by striking “(g) or (n)” and inserting “(d), (g), or (n) (as applicable)”.

I read that stuff all the time, but I have tools that make it easy to see the changes.

2) The law expands little by little, infringing more and more. What starts with something that feels reasonable ends with something that is totally unconstitutional.

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:

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?

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.

This case is distributed for Conference on 3/28/2025. This adds an interesting twist on our Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court.

Could this be combined with the Snope (assault weapon bans) and Ocean State Tactical (magazine bans)?

This case is where New York State’s Bruen tantrum replaced “proper cause” with “good moral character” and then proceeded to make almost all of New York State a sensitive place.

We are living in interesting times.

I wrote this morning’s post last night, before Mark Smith had posted.

I felt I got it right.

It feels wonderful to hear him saying the same things I was trying to write about.

I am NOT a Lawyer. That being said, I do analyze large systems all the time. And as my mentor used to say, “The justice system is just a system.”

History of the case:

January 20, 2025: EO 14,169 was signed by President Trump. “It is the policy of the United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President”

This is the long-term goal. No more foreign aid that is at odds with the President’s foreign policy.

for programmatic efficiency and consistency with United States foreign policy…immediately pause new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds to foreign countries

Stop all foreign aid payments until we have reviewed it for alignment with current foreign policy. Don’t enter into any new contracts while paused.

To you and I, this seems like a logical and reasonable situation. There was a short fuse put on the order of 90 days. Each agency had only 90 days to evaluate the situation and report.

Within the EO, there is an allowance for the Secretary of State to issue waivers. If some entity had a need, and it aligned with our foreign policy, they could get a waiver now to receive funds.

February 10, 2025: Plaintiffs/Respondents (Bad guys) challenged the pause. The alleged violations of the APA and the Constitution.

February 13, 2025: The District court (inferior to the circuit courts which are inferior to the Supreme Court) granted relief. The court did not give the government (good guys) an opportunity to file an opposition brief.

The court said that a pause wasn’t arbitrary or capricious, the government had not considered that aid recipients might be butt hurt.

Having issued the TRO, the State Department started issuing payments again. The difference was that before issuing a payment, they were evaluating how that “aid” aligned with our foreign policy.

The order, however, allowed the agency defendants to “take action to enforce the terms of particular contracts, including with respect to expirations, modifications, or terminations pursuant to contractual provisions.”

The government obeyed the rules as set out by the court. The plaintiffs (still the bad guys) did not see the faucet of cash open, so went whining back to the court claiming that the government was violating the court’s order.

February 24, 2025: One of the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the court’s order.

February 25, 2025: The court held another hearing. The court did not give the state time to file a written response to the emergency motion. The court then granted the motion from the bench. (Not a written order, yet)

The court did not address multiple issues the state brought up.

Instead, the court ordered the state to pay all invoices and letters of credit drawdown by 2359 on the 26th.

This amounted to around $2billion. The order ignored due dates, standard accounting practices of verification, and other aspects of the contract.

When I send out an invoice, my clients have a certain amount of time to pay the invoice. Normally, 30 days.

Government contracts often have longer delays built in. IIRC our contracts with the government had 90 day due dates.

What the court ordered was that the government had to pay invoices received by January 24th even if the invoice wasn’t due for many days.

After this hearing and new order, the government filed for an emergency stay pending appeal to the D.C. Circuit court.

The motion asked for an administrative stay by 1300 on the 26th. If not an administrative stay, the government wanted a ruling by 1600. These time frames are very fast, but the government was given about 36 hours to issue 2 Billion Dollars.

February 26, 2025: The Circuit court asked the plaintiffs (bad guys, still) to file a response by 1300. This is the deadline the state put forth for an administrative stay.

The circuit court didn’t issue the stay, nor did they rule on the motions. Instead, they dragged their feet. With time running out, the government appealed to the Supreme Court.

Just before the midnight deadline, Chief Justice Roberts issued an administrative stay. The Court then asked for a response by 1200 on February 28th.

February 28, 2025: Everybody got their briefings in. The state by normal rules can reply to the response.

March 3, 2025: The state filed their reply to the response to the motion.

March 5, 2025: The application was referred to the Court. An opinion was later issued.

Analysis

There is so much going on and so many moving parts, it is easy to get lost without picking up the minutia.

What we wanted was for the Supreme Court to roll up a newspaper and swat the inferior courts across the snoot a few dozen times. They didn’t.

The district court’s order was labeled a TRO, it was acting as a Preliminary Injunction, and the modified order granted relief that before the adversarial part of the case took place.

Said differently, the plaintiffs want the money to flow. The government says that they have paused spending. The plaintiffs seek the relief of having the money flow. The court’s original order said, “The money must flow.” The government started spending. The plaintiffs claimed that it wasn’t fast enough. The court “modified” their original order and said, “let the money flow”.

Thus, the court actually granted the relief the plaintiffs wanted.

What the Supreme Court’s opinion said was: The application is denied

This is the takeaway. The government has to start the money flowing again.

But here are the important parts that aren’t being noticed in some of the postings I’ve seen (all).

This is an order to the inferior court to change their order and correct deficiencies.

What the government (good guys) were asking for was time to present their case. The inferior district court stripped them of that right. They were not allowed to respond in writing. They were not given time to make appeals safely. In addition, they were ordered to do things which they cannot recover from.

If they pay some of these bills, there is no clawback available to the government. We know that the entities receiving that money will disperse it so fast heads will spin.

I don’t know what Barrett was thinking, but she sided with the denial of the application. I don’t trust Chief Justice Roberts to take risks. He much prefers the safer path, the more limited opinions. It always surprises me when he does join with
Thomas and the rest of that team.

But, in my opinion, the big takeaway is that the inferior court has to consider feasibility. They have to make sure that their order is clear.

The other part of this is that this should take the case out of the TRO state and into the Preliminary Injunction state. While a case is in the TRO state, there are limits in what can be appealed.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in this case.

It is difficult to actually conceive of how long the battle for our Second Amendment rights has been going on. It started in 1792 and has continued through tomorrow.

In the founding era, there were a number of racist and religious exceptions. These were designed to keep arms out of the hands of Negros, mixed race people, Indians, certain religions, and other deplorable. By the 1870s, all of these exceptions were found to be unconstitutional, leaving very few infringements that would survive constitutional muster.

At this time, temporarily denying the right to people that have been adjudicated violent in a court of law is the only one I know of. See: —, Constitution art. III (U.S.)

In the early 1900s, New York City decided to ignore the Constitution and passed the Sullivan Act. The Sullivan Act was designed to disarm those that would stand up to the corrupt bosses who controlled the city. They used a permitting system.

They claimed that this was constitutional because some people did get permits and everybody could beg for permission from the government for that permission slip. This continued until 2022, with the Bruen decision, the corrupt NYC permitting scheme was shutdown. For all of 10 seconds.

The Bruen response bill attempted to create a statewide “sensitive” places replacement.

After the Sullivan Act, the infringers decided to ban handguns, machine guns, and short shotguns. They did this by placing a tax on these guns that was so outrageous that The People could no longer afford them.

They did not accomplish this. What they got instead was a functional ban on Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, Machine guns, and Silencers. By 1936, this was the accepted law of the land.

Using a saying that had not yet been published, in the late 1960s the infringers took advantage of a crisis to stop mail order gun sales. The GCA of 1968 created FFLs and required in person sales of firearms.

The claim was that those FFLs wouldn’t sell to bad people.

When bad things kept happening, they tried more gun control. Mostly permitting schemes that made it nearly impossible for The People to get permission.

Using another crisis, they got the Brady Act passed. Thank goodness, the NRA was fighting for some level of a win. The original intention was to create a system where buyers would have to get permission from the government for any gun purchase.

This was in the form of a “background check” with no limit on how long it took or how intrusive it might be. The NRA got the NICS system for us. Along with a “not denied is proceed”. It put the onus on the government to complete the check rapidly.

In 1986, we got a win with a poison pill. This was the Firearms Owner Protection Act. This was designed to protect firearm owners from being persecuted by the ATF.

There was a time when describing the internal workings of a machine gun was being construed by the ATF as manufacturing a machine gun. Selling a gun or two could get you sent to prison for not having an FFL. It was bad. There are stories of ATF agents hanging around gun shows seeking people to arrest or FFLs to bust for trivial things.

The bad part of the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act was the Hughes Amendment. The infringers had realized that the NFA had outlived its usefulness.

In 1934, the $200 surcharge for transferring a machinegun was unreachable for most of The People. When a M3 machinegun was selling for under 30 dollars, $200 was nearly impossible. An ad for a Colt M16 shows a price of $236.00 plus $5.00 for shipping. By the mid-1980s, the price was around $1800.

At $1800, a $200 surcharge wasn’t as bad.

One of the problems that started happening after 1986, when the NFA was closed to new machineguns, was a price boost of $200 every time a NFA item changed hands.

Consider buying a silencer today. The can costs $500 + $200. If you want to sell the can, you would like to get $700, to recover your costs. Now, this doesn’t work. Given the choice of a used can for $700 + $200 tax or a new can for $500 + $200 tax, you buy new. Thus keeping the costs of silencer’s down.

After 1986, there were no new machineguns. This means that every transfer increases the cost of that gun by at least $200.

At this point, the infringers moved to stop the sale of all firearms. The method they decided on was to sue firearm retailers and manufacturers out of business.

What they did was they found a bloody victim and then sued the FFL that sold the gun. They knew they would not win the case, but the cost of litigation was punishment enough.

In 2005, bipartisan legislation was passed to stop this lawfare. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was designed to protect entities in the lawful commerce in arms from frivolous lawsuits.

And it worked.

Until Sandy Hook.

They sued Remington Arms because they owned Bushmaster who manufactured the rifle that the asshole used to murder children and teachers.

What they claimed was that Bushmaster produced ads that caused the asshole to decide to murder his mother. Steal her keys to the safe. Open the safe. Steal the AR-15 within. To drive the car he stole from his mother to the school. And there murder children and teachers.

It was all the fault of the manly man ads that Bushmaster used to sell guns.

The lower state court dismissed the case based on the PLCAA. It was appealed up to the Connecticut Supreme Court. They decided the case could move forward. That was appealed to the Supreme Court, who denied cert.

Remington was bleeding money, and this case didn’t help. They went bankrupt. The hull of the company had no assets and no people. The insurance companies were on the hook for the money involved in the suit.

They settled. No gun people were involved in that disaster. It was a purely money motivated decision.

Which brings us to this case. Sorry for this long history.

Mexico was approached by the usual suspects. They filed in Massachusetts claiming that all the gun manufacturers were causing horrible things in Mexico.

The argument goes something like this:

The Cartels get guns from an illegal gun dealer. That illegal gun dealer purchased that gun from an illegal gun smuggler. The illegal gun smuggler purchased the gun from a straw purchaser. The straw committed felonies when they filled out the 4473 and when they sold the gun. The FFL knows that some of the guns he sells are being sold to straw purchasers. The distributor knows that the retailer knows that he is selling some guns to straw purchasers. The manufacturer knows that they are selling to distributors that know that the FFL is selling some guns to straw purchasers.

Therefore, the gun manufacture is guilty of adding and abetting murder in Mexico.

Yeah, it is that bad.

The lawyer for the petitioners (good guys) gave his opening statement explaining this. He then stated that the path between crime and manufacture had too many intermediate steps to make them responsible. This is known as “proximate cause analysis”.

He didn’t say anything about PLCAA.

Thomas started the questioning. The conservatives asked the right types of questions.

Then Sotomayor stepped up to the plate. And asked good questions. Not great, but good.

After Gorsuch and Barrette, Kagan asked questions. Again, not great, but good.

Then the surprise of the day.

Jackson started asking questions. And her leading question was, “Why wasn’t this stopped by PLCAA?”

It was a Good question.

I’m looking forward to reading the court’s opinion. At this point, I am finding myself thinking that this maybe a 9-0 opinion.

Transcript of oral arguments in 23-1141

When I was in elementary school, the principal still had a paddle hanging on the wall behind him. The principal was the person that hired and fired teachers and all other staff at the school. They had significant power.

To quote Stan Lee, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Most principals did use their power responsibly. They used the power of the paddle to control their schools. They used the power to hire and fire to control their staff. And they did not abuse that power.

Unfortunately, when there are positions with great power, that power attracts people who are interested in power.

There was abuse. There were principals that abused the power of the paddle, taking it over that line. There were principals that hired and fired at a whim. Being a teacher had no stability.

The answer that was put into place was to remove the power of the paddle and the power to fire from principals.

Today, teachers are one of the most protected professions in the country. In my state, it is illegal for anybody to speak negatively of a teacher at a board meeting. You cannot say that a teacher is a bad teacher.

The only way that I could make that statement was to say my kids have Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Jones and Mr. Kilroy as teachers. Mr. Kilroy and Mrs. Smith do a fantastic job.

I had to leave “but Mrs. Jones sucks as a teacher” out. To say anything negative was forbidden.

Our president was given the job as chief executive. He was given the job of commander in chief. He is in charge of the executive branch.

This is stated in our Constitution, under Article II.

He delegates power to different people to oversee the executive branch.

Unfortunately, like those principles of times past, the power to fire somebody at will was abused by some.

To deal with that abuse, Congress stepped in and usurped the power and responsibility of the president. They did this by passing unconstitutional laws, which have not yet been struck down.

Our first highlight is almost constitutional. Where it fails is “for a term of 5 years”. Congress does not have the authority to set term limits for appointees. Appointees serve at the pleasure of the president.

Prior to Trump, this was never an issue. All such appointees tendered their resignation when a new administration came into office. Nobody had to be fired.

The Special Counsel may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. is unconstitutional. Why? Because every person in the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the president.

When congress put limits on when the Special Counsel could be fired, they overstepped their authority as granted by The People through Our Constitution.

Simple.

Challenges

Dellinger was fired. He was fired because the president did not trust him. Or because the gentleman wore bow ties instead of real ties. It doesn’t matter. He serves at the pleasure of The President.

When he was fired, he ran to the courts and asked the court to unfire him.

The court granted an “Administrative Stay”, stopping the firing. Now administrative stay is in quotes in all the paperwork by the state (good guys) filed and here because it is a made up term.

Courts can grant injunctions, temporary or otherwise. Superior courts can issue stays against inferior courts. Courts can issue administrative stays against themselves or inferior courts.

The common example is when an inferior court grants an injunction or final judgment, and they know the decision will be appealed. Rather than give the parties whiplash, they put an administrative stay on their order go give the parties time to appeal.

If the superior court does not issue a stay, then the administrative stay expires and the order or judgment goes into effect.

In this case, the plaintiff (bad guy) claims that he was fired in violation of 5 U.S.C. §1211(b). The Administrative Procedures Act.

He was. The state (good guys) did not offer any reason when the fired about Dellinger about “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” Thus, they did not meet the requirements of the APA regarding Dellinger.

I do not believe that the state attempted to justify the firing under the APA. Instead, the state made a Constitutional Challenge.

Otherwise known as a Civil Rights case.

This triggers a bunch of legal stuff I am not confident in my knowledge about. I.e. I don’t know what I don’t know.

I do know that the challenge should be addressed via the Winter factors.

The most important of which is the likelihood of success on the merits. Followed by irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.

The Supreme Court has ruled that any denial of a Constitutionally protected right is irreparable harm. They have also stated that violation of a Constitutionally protected right balances to the person harmed. And that the public has no interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law.

In other words, if the challenger is likely to win on the merits, they win on all four Winter factors.

The Order

(“ultra vires” means “beyond legal power or authority”)

This is the judge saying that the President broke the law when he fired Dellinger.

The judge reasoned:

My interpretation of the judge’s reason is: Since Congress created this position in the executive branch, they get to decide the limits on what the President can do regarding this position, regardless of what the Constitution says.

Conclusion

Social media is all a fuss about Trump losing. This isn’t over. This case took 3 weeks to go from filed to final judgment. It has already been appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court.

This is being done on an expedited basis. If the Circuit court does not issue a stay on this, the state (good guys) will appeal to the Supreme Court for a stay pending the appeal.

It is my belief that a stay will be granted by the D.C. Circuit court or by the Supreme Court. This will stop the delay tactics that the left loves to use. If they want this done, they will have to push to get it done as quickly as possible.

Actual filing in the case: