Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
Judge James Boasberg in a hearing in the Alien Enemies Act case on Thursday said that there was a “fair likelihood” that the Trump administration had violated his order barring deportations pursuant to President Trump’s proclamation directing deportations of alleged members of Tren de Aragua. Judge Boasberg said the administration “acted in bad faith throughout the day” on which it carried out the deportations. Boasberg also said to the government’s lawyer, Drew Ensign, “If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and would survive a court challenge, you wouldn’t have operated the way you did.” (NYT.) (Politico.)
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday administratively stayed in part a district court order enjoining the Trump administration from taking certain actions to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. See a prior Roundup for the district court order. (Order.)
Judge Mary McElroy (D.RI) on Thursday temporarily prohibited the Department of Health and Human Services from terminating certain public health funds that the department had allocated to states during the coronavirus pandemic. The ruling came from the bench. (NYT.)
Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) on Thursday granted in part the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) unlawfully provided DOGE with access to OPM systems and thereby allowed access to identifying information. Judge Cote dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims brought only under the Privacy Act, but allowed their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and their claims of ultra vires action to move forward. (Order.)
Judge Rolando Olvera (S.D.Tex.) on Wednesday determined that the Trump administration “wrongfully detained” a Venezuelan national with temporary protected status, Adrian Rojas, and ordered the administration to release the individual pending his immigration hearing. (Order.) (Politico.)
A group of plaintiffs including union organizations and nonprofit groups filed their response to the government’s application to stay a district court order requiring the Trump administration to reinstate probationary employees who had been fired from six federal agencies. See the government’s application in a prior Roundup. (Response.)
Jack Goldsmith argued that the Senate should not confirm Ed Martin to be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He wrote that “Martin even in his temporary role has proven to be the most openly politicizing and weaponizing figure in the most politicized and weaponizing department in our history.” (Executive Functions.)
Marty Lederman argued that the solicitor general’s briefs asking the Supreme Court to vacate Judge Boasberg’s temporary restraining orders “fall considerably short of the historical standards for quality and forthrightness that typify briefs that the Office of the Solicitor General files in the Supreme Court.” (Just Security.)
Ruth Marcus considered how the Trump administration’s lack of credibility in court might harm its prospects in the litigation challenging the administration’s actions. (The New Yorker.)
Leah Litman contended that the Trump administration is using the same playbook now to delay court rulings barring its actions that it used to carry out its travel ban during Trump 1.0. (The Atlantic.)
Steve Vladeck argued that members of Congress seeking to limit nationwide injunctions should consider making it easier for courts to certify nationwide classes. (One First.)
Three authors examined the legality of Trump’s tariffs. Kathleen Claussen wrote that legal challenges to the tariffs “face[] an uphill battle.” (Just Security.) Samuel Estreicher and Andrew Babbitt argued that the invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as legal basis for the tariffs constitute “a novel application of that law and an end run around the process specifically set up by Congress to authorize presidential tariff authority.” (Lawfare.) And Ilya Somin contended that the “Constitution gives Congress the power to impose tariffs, and the President cannot exercise it without, at the very least, having much clearer congressional authorization than exists here.” (The Volokh Conspiracy.)
Emergency Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Trump v. J.G.G.: Government filed application on March 28 to vacate district court injunctions and issue administrative stay; response to application filed April 1; government’s reply filed April 2.
Department of Education v. California: Government filed application on March 26 to vacate district court injunction and issue administrative stay; response to application filed March 28; government’s reply filed March 31.
Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees: Government filed application on March 24 to stay district court injunction and issue administrative stay; response to application filed April 3.
Trump v. Washington: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court injunction; Court requested response by 4:00 p.m. today.
Trump v. New Jersey: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court injunction; Court requested response by 4:00 p.m. today.
Trump v. CASA: Government filed application on March 13 to stay district court injunction; Court requested response by 4:00 p.m. today.
Rana v. Engleman: Petitioner filed application on February 28 for stay of extradition pending litigation for writ of habeas corpus; application denied by Supreme Court on March 6; application refiled and submitted to the Court on March 7; application distributed for conference held today.