Legal

All references can be found at United States v. Dugan.

In looking for a good image to use of the Judge, I found an article written in the third person by Hannah Dugan about how wonderful she is and all the good she has done, and that she will not answer any other questions.

She is lawyered up HARD. Which is the only correct thing to do.

The Armed Attorneys described using a lawyer for communications with authorities as “you can’t incriminate yourself when you use a lawyer.” The example the gave went something like:

FBI agent: Do you know Jim Jones?

You: No, I don’t know Jim Jones.

FBI: You’re under arrest for lying to a federal agent.

Why? They have video proof of you interacting with Jim Jones 9 months, 7 days, 14 hours ago at a party where he was introduced to you. Along with 50 other people.

FBI agent: Do you know Jim Jones?

You whisper in your lawyer’s ear: No.

Lawyer: My client disavows knowing Jim Jones.

You walk out free. Your lawyer’s words are hearsay, not an admission or statement by you.

IANAL.

Back to Dugan.

The Charges

18 U.S.C. § 1505 Obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States.

18 U.S.C. § 1071 Concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.

My reading of §1505 is that it wasn’t the judge physically obstructing or impeding, it was that the judge impeded the arrest which impeded the proceeding to get him out of the country. The act of concealing an individual to prevent his arrest is also impeding.

The Internet Lawyer Wanna Be (like I am) are focusing on only one part of the complaint. That seems to be because they can’t defend the other part.

Prosecutor: Mr. V. Illen then used his 9mm Glock to put two rounds into the victim’s head. Killing him.

Mr. Illen: I don’t own no Glock in 9mm, I used a .45. You got to set me free, you made a mistake.

It doesn’t work like that. A single error does not entirely invalidate a charge. There will be parts that people get wrong.

It is also the case that the word “or” has meaning in the law. Impeding is a word like “infringing”, it doesn’t take much to meet the requirements of impeding. It takes more to get to obstructing.

The Charging Document

ECF No 1 is the complaint in this case. The complaint is the charging document.

The Charging Document must contain the name of the accused, the specific crimes allegedly committed, the date, location, and relevant facts surrounding the alleged crime, and a clear and concise statement of the elements of the offense.

This document is what leads to an arrest warrant.

This complaint has a Judge’s signature on it. From this, I will guess that the magistrate judge found probable cause to issue the arrest warrant. In other words, I can’t find the actual arrest warrant.

What was the initiating event?

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was charged with three counts of Battery, Domestic Abuse, Infliction of Physical Pain or Injury.

In other words, another wife beater.

When he was charged, his identification was transmitted to the federals. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations were notified and did a records search.

That research found his Alien Registration File (“A-File”). Turns out that Flores-Ruiz was issued a Notice and Order of Expedited Removal on January 16, 2013. He was kicked out of the states into Mexico through the Nogales, Arizona, Port of Entry.

This happened under Obama.

This is an illegal alien that has an order for removal. Who has had all due process afforded him under the Obama DoJ. Who was removed from the country. He then crossed the border illegally, again.

An arrest warrant was issued for Flores-Ruiz by an immigration official.

This is the normal procedure. He had his due process in 2013.

The Feds went to the courthouse to arrest Flores-Ruiz. This is a common procedure.

The arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz

The two types of warrants that we are used to are “arrest warrants” and “search warrants”. These fall into two different categories, judicial and administrative.

The Constitution does not tell us who issues warrants. This comes from case law.

The Supreme Court, through its case law, has established that it requires a judicial arrest warrant to enter a private location owned by the target of the warrant.

An arrest warrant for you allows the cops to enter your home to arrest you. They cannot search your home under that arrest warrant, but they can observe that which is in plain view.

They cannot enter your mother’s home to arrest you without consent, with just an arrest warrant.

With a judicial search warrant, they can enter the location identified by the search warrant without consent. The search warrant would list you as the thing they are searching for. Once they find you, they can arrest you with an adjacent arrest warrant.

With an administrative arrest warrant, the cops need consent to enter any private location, including your home. This is why you hear about agents waiting outside of courtrooms to affect an arrest. If all they have is an administrative warrant, they can’t legally enter the courtroom (private area) to arrest someone.

The arrest warrant for Flores-Ruiz was an administrative arrest warrant. After he was arrested, he would be able to contest the removal order. No need to send him through a court process.

This warrant does not require the Judge to do a damn thing to help Law Enforcement in arresting Flores-Ruiz.

…hive of scum and villainy…

Six ICE ERO members arrive to arrest Flores-Ruiz. ERO A, CBP A, FBI A and B, DEA A and B. They were in plains clothes.

ERO A and CBP A presented credentials to security guard, stated they were there to make an arrest. The guard passed them on to the Sheriff’s office. The Sheriff’s office requested that the arrest wait until after the completion of the scheduled hearing. This is standard. ERO A and CBP A agreed. They moved to the public hallway outside the courtroom.

Before ERO A and CBP A arrived, FBI A and FBI B had advised the courtroom deputy that they were there to arrest Flores-Ruiz. Again they agreed to wait until after his hearing before the judge.

The deputy notified a shift sergeant at the Sheriff’s Office.

A public defender came out and took pictures of some arrest team members. Fortunately, not all of them were together, so she missed at least one.

Flores-Ruiz arrived and was greeted by his attorney, and then the two entered the courtroom together.

The public defender spoke with the judge’s clerk. She told the clerk there ware ICE agents in the hallway. She described them to the clerk.

The clerk then informed Judge Dugan. Dugan became angry, left the bench to enter her chambers. Flores-Ruiz was in the gallery, waiting for his hearing.

Judge Dugan and another Judge came out into the public hallway to confront the known arrest team members. Dugan was visibly upset, angry, and confrontational. After determining that they were there for a court appearance, she ordered them out of the courthouse. They refused.

She then demanded to see a judicial warrant. They replied they had an administrative warrant. She said that it was no good. They argued that it was within the public areas of the courthouse.

She then ordered the arrest team to the chief judge’s office to talk to him.

The unidentified agents remained on post.

Judge Dugan then proceeded to look for more arrest team members before returning to her chambers.

The team members at the Chief Judge’s office learn that he is not in the building. They are then connected to him via phone.

(It appears that the Chief Judge had no problems with arrests being made in the courthouse, as long as they were done in public areas. It sounds like it was a cordial conversation)

The courtroom deputy reported to the other team members that Judge Dugan was attempting to expedite Flores-Ruiz’s hearing.

Flores-Ruiz was moved from the gallery to the Jury Box. The deputy reports that this is highly unusual.

Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer started to towards the public exit of the courtroom. Judge Dugan then ordered them to come with her. She took them to the “jury door” which leads to a nonpublic area of the courthouse.

Conclusion

This judge actively worked to obstruct and impede the arrest of a wife beating illegal alien. She actively hide him for agents seeking to arrest him.

She broke the law. The government now needs to prove that in a court of law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little dude, “Your mother wears army boots!”

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

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

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

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

)

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.

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.

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?

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.”

The NPCs will have their marching orders by now. Yesterday it was “Trump is ignoring a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling that he return Garcia”, today it will be “Trump held in contempt of court.”

Since I’m writing this yesterday, we’ll see how good I am at predicting the NPCs.

We need to start on March 15, 2025. The Trump signed an EO designating TDA and MS-13 as terrorist organizations and ordered their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. Five TDA members filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

If the writ is granted by the court, the named plaintiffs must be presented to the court, in person, in corpus (body)

That same day, the court granted a TRO forbidding the removal of the named TDA members. The court claims that the plaintiffs (bad guys) have satisfied the four factors governing the issuance of preliminary relief.

The court didn’t bother to show what those arguments are, nor did the court bother to write an opinion to accompany the order. It is reasonable for the TRO to be granted, the order entered, and then later an opinion entered into the record.

The government immediately filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Later that same day, the 15th, the court decided to extend the TRO to all noncitizens of the in U.S. custody who are subject to removal via the AEA.

The government then appealed the class certification, extending the TRO to all terrorists in U.S. custody.

Lots of back and forth took place, then on the 28th, the court extended the TRO until April 12th. Thus putting a one-month delay on deporting terrorists.

The same day, the government filed an application with the Supreme Court to vacate the orders of the inferior district court.

The first thing to note is that what the district court was a TRO the Supreme Court construed as appealable injunctions. The D.C. Circuit Court has taken all TROs at face value. I.e., not appealable.

The Supreme Court then vacated the TROs on the 7th of April.

As is normal in such situations, the Supreme Court ruled on the narrow question of venue. And that venue is NOT the district court of D.C.

Conclusion

I’m tired of reading this rogue inferior court judge yap. So I’ll wrap it up for y’ll.

The plaintiffs and the court were attempting to stop the Article II executive branch from performing its Constitutional duties and responsibilities.

The court issued a TRO even though the court did not have the jurisdiction to do so nor had they properly analyzed the Winter Factors as applied to this case.

The problem for the government is that judicial orders, in general, must be obeyed. Even if the court issued them erroneously and without proper authority to do so.

The administration learned their lesson. They are no immediately filing appeals when there are tight deadlines. Even an administrative stay gets them out of the contempt trap.

In this case, there was no deadline. The deadline was “now”. Since the government didn’t do what the court told them to do, they can be held in contempt.

Even though the Supreme Court later vacated the self-styled TRO.

This is just lawfare in a different way.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

They want to believe that Trump is breaking the law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The steps of the case:

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

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

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preliminary Injunction

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Judgment

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

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

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

Finally, there will be arguments made in court.

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

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

Appeals

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

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

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

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

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

Again, TROs normal cannot be appealed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relief From Appeals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCOTUS and Interlocutory State Cases

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

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

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

This last Monday, they issued orders in 78 cases.

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

We won, again.

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

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

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

His transfer was a mistake. The state acknowledges this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watching The Supreme Court is always frustrating. There is a tendency for things to take a long time.

David Snope filed a petition for writ of certiorari on September 23, 2024. This will be the third or fourth time he has requested a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court.

It has been granted once, the ruling of the Fourth Circuit court was vacated, and the case was remanded back down to the Fourth for a do-over in light of Bruen.

In November 2024, we were hoping that this case and Ocean State Tactical would both be granted cert. It did not happen.

If cert had been granted by January 16th, the case would have had oral arguments in the fall, with the opinion issuing in August.

As things sit, we might not hear the outcome of this case, if granted cert, until the fall of 2026.

But there are things afoot here.

First, the court heard Bondi v. Vanderstok and published their opinion on March 26th. This was not a direct Second Amendment Challenge, it was more of an administrative challenge. We did not win. Both Alito and Thomas dissented.

Mexico’s lawfare case was heard. We will have an opinion on that before the end of the 2024-2025 term. This is a case where the Supreme Court can slap down the lower courts for abusing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Snope is in regard to Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban. It is one of the many cases where the inferior courts have said things of the sort of “well, some arms aren’t arms under the protection of the Second Amendment.”

Another case, with a docket that looks almost the same, is Ocean State Tactical challenging Rhode Island’s magazine ban. Here, the inferior courts have declared that magazines aren’t really arms under the Second Amendment.

A third case has shown up on the radar.

Antonyuk II is a Second Amendment challenge to New York State’s Bruen tantrum response bill.

The heart of this is New York designating almost every part of the state a sensitive place. Even though Bruen explicitly said that the state couldn’t declare Manhattan a sensitive place, just because there were cops and people there.

All three of these cases are being discussed by the justices, again, this Friday. If we get lucky, we will hear some movement on Monday.

At this point, my tea leaves are missing, my crystal ball has clouded up, and the wife won’t let me sacrifice a chicken to read its entrails.

I haven’t a clue what the justices are going to do. I am holding out hope.

This is an outcome that I disagree with.

This was a 7-2 option in favor of the state (the bad guys).

Thomas wrote a great dissent, I agree with him about the correct outcome.

Alito did a better job of explaining why the court got it wrong.

Emphasis added.

Facial challenges that require the Salerno test are the most difficult to win. The challengers must prove there is no case in which the regulation is legal (or constitutional).

This is what happened in Rahimi. The court found that §922(g)(8) withstood a facial challenge because a person who had been found to be a violent danger to others could be temporarily disarmed.

The Court found that there was a tradition of disarming violent persons in the late 1700s. That the disarmament could only be temporary, and it had to be properly adjudicated.

Because of the very limited scope they found, the law survives the facial challenge.

By extension, a lifetime loss of Second Amendment protected rights runs against the opinion in Rahimi.

Here, the state slipped in a statement about Salerno. The respondents (good guys) didn’t feel it needed a response, so they didn’t respond.

The majority of the Court then took this as the respondents agreeing that Salerno should control.

Now that Salerno attaches, all the state need do is find ONE example where the regulation is acceptable.

In this case, they used an example, provided by the state, of a frame that required two plastic tabs clipped and filed, and a few holes drilled. Something any of you should be capable of doing in 10 to 15 minutes.

The other was a complete kit which contained everything to assemble a firearm. The time to assemble was listed as around 21 minutes.

As Alito points out, this means that those two are firearms, as defined by the GCA of 1968. It doesn’t say anything about the rest of the frames and receivers out there.

Regardless, background checks are unconstitutional, in my opinion.

This is 12 hours late. I am working a hard deadline for a client that has to be able to handle tariffs correctly by April 2nd. Sorry about that.