Apparently conservatives/Republicans had no problem with District Court judges issuing nationwide decisions invalidating presidential executive orders when the president was Joe Biden or Barack Obama.
My net worth increased to over $1M during Trumps first term for the first time in my life.....It is still well over $1M I'm not complaining.
Looks like the Supreme Court is agreeing with the Trump Administration. Supreme Court allows Trump to terminate teacher training grants as part of anti-DEI policy Supreme Court allows Trump to terminate teacher training grants as part of anti-DEI policy "The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to terminate Education Department grants for teacher training that officials deemed to violate their new policy opposing diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The 5-4 decision blocks a Massachusetts-based judge’s ruling that said the administration had failed to follow the correct legal process in terminating the grants. About $65 million in grant payments are outstanding. The decision is the first win for President Donald Trump at the Supreme Court in his second term."
^ Yup, looks like they agreed. To let him implement his counterproductive vileness. Who needs teachers anyway? What we really need are top bracket and corporate tax cuts.
LOL We don't really even know why they're cutting this appropriated teacher training funding. Just trust the lying felon and the dude the paid $280mill to have massive unchecked influence over our federal government. Laughable. And adult American voters tolerate this chit ..... The letters contained no specific information on why any particular program was deemed to be in violation of the anti-DEI policy, the appeals court said.
It's not actually a final decision by the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS held the implementation of the Trump Administration's decision to terminate the grants would not result in irreparable harm overruling the District Court's decision to issue a temporary restraining order enjoining the Administration from implementing termination of the grants pending appeal. My guess is that the plaintiffs in the original lawsuit will still pursue their appeal although in the end the SCOTUS could still uphold the Administration's decision considering that Trump's personal SCOTUS has a history of deferring to the Dear Leader.
Roberts is running scared giving him unlimited time.. Information is power. What information on Roberts could someone with access to everything the CIA or FBI or ??? has access to? why continue to delay the inevitable when he refuses a supreme court order? why placate the tantrums any longer building apolitical base to support the court? enough to impeach and convict? Supreme Court delays midnight deadline for Trump admin to fix mistaken deportation Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a temporary administrative stay -- putting off a midnight deadline for the government to return a mistakenly deported Maryland man to the U.S. -- giving the court more time to consider the arguments presented by both sides. ......................... Roberts did not explain the decision. Administrative stays are not rulings on the merits in any way and do not indicate one way or the other how the court might eventually rule. .............................. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration's emergency motion to block the order to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges agreed Xinis' order requiring the government "to facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] by the United States by no later than 11:59 pm on Monday, April 7, 2025," should not be stayed. "The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process," the judges said. "The Government's contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable." U.S. Circuit Judge Jamie Wilkinson, who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, said in his opinion that "there is no question that the government screwed up here."
Another smack down by the SCOTUS on these federal judges. This decision apparently overturns two federal judges rulings. Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to restart for now deportations of migrants it claims are members of a Venezuelan gang using a seldom-invoked wartime authority. The high court split 5-4 in granting a request for emergency relief sought by the Justice Department in the dispute over President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly remove alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang without a hearing. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with the three liberal justices in criticizing the majority's decision. In its unsigned decision, the Supreme Court said the detainees who are challenging their removals under the Alien Enemies Act are confined in Texas, so the venue for their case is "improper" in the District of Columbia, which is where the dispute has been considered. "As a result, the government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action," the court said in its ruling lifting two temporary restraining orders issued by a federal district judge in Washington that prevented removals under the Alien Enemies Act. Supreme Court clears way for deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to resume
you and bill swallowing the same swill here is the actual ruling quoted for you to read and determine if it does what your author claims or not. they voted that the applicants deserved protection but had to request it under a different premise. do you consider it a victory that they court confirmed that the applicants deserve due process? read the bolded part and show me where it says they are NOT entitled to relief under the AEA as you and Bill claim TRUMP v. J. G. G. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “ ‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs. For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.
meanwhile, a US appeals panel agreed that we cannot deport people to countries that they are not from..in case you missed it. US appeals court rejects Trump bid to fast-track migrant deportations BOSTON (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday declined to lift an order blocking the Trump administration from sending people with final deportation orders to countries not cited in earlier proceedings without first letting them make a case for humanitarian protection. ....... The migrants' lawyers argue the policy exposed an untold number of people to the risk of being sent to countries they did not originate from and that were not listed in their final deportation orders as potential locations for deportation. They said that lack of notice from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deprived them of the ability to raise claims that they feared they could suffer persecution, torture or death if deported to those newly identified countries.
supremes say the unions lack standing. so now they need to file as individuals?? Supreme Court allows Trump to terminate 16,000 probationary federal workers The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the Trump administration can move forward with the termination of 16,000 probationary federal workers across six agencies and departments, rescinding a lower court order that they be reinstated as litigation challenging the layoffs continues. In a brief, unsigned order, the court said the nine labor unions and nonprofit groups that had challenged the firings lacked standing in the matter. The groups' "allegations [of harm] are presently insufficient to support the organizations' standing," the order read.
They directed them to show standing. Says nothing about the legality of the firings. Similar to the other, ruling on procedure, not legality of the action
Another smack down from the Supremes Supreme Court blocks order requiring Trump administration to reinstate thousands of federal workers https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-mass-firings-02e218d2b7ee59925ddcb597b6b0a4fe "WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked an order for the Trump administration to return to work thousands of federal employees who were let go in mass firings aimed at dramatically downsizing the federal government. The justices acted in the administration’s emergency appeal of a ruling by a federal judge in California ordering that 16,000 probationary employees at six federal agencies be reinstated while a lawsuit plays out because their firings didn’t follow federal law. The court’s order involved a technical legal assessment of the right, or standing, of several nonprofit associations to sue over the firings. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have kept the judge’s order in place. It’s the third time in less than a week that the justices have sided with the Republican administration in its fight against federal judges whose orders have slowed President Donald Trump’s agenda. The court also paused an order restoring grants for teacher training and lifted an order that froze deportations under an 18th century wartime law." These federal judges are getting smacked down by the Supremes yet again.
they ruled that the unions didn't have standing and that the affected employees had to show standing to file claim they said nothing about the legality of the firings your definition of a smack down is peculiar to me in the first smack down, they basically all agreed that the act is illegal (deportees deserve due process) but they split on what process remedy should be sought through.
