So many judges, so many losses - another day, another get outta here with that nonsense

Covid get you your inhertance?

 

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."

 

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

 

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.