Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
A divided Fifth Circuit panel held that due process requires individualized bond hearings within 90 days for longtime U.S. residents who entered the country without inspection and are detained under the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy. (Opinion.) (Texas Tribune.) (Politico.) For background on the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision upholding the statutory basis for mandatory detention, see a previous Roundup.
Judge P. Casey Pitts (N.D. Cal.) on Thursday preliminarily enjoined the Department of Justice from obtaining the medical records of patients who received gender-affirming care as minors at Stanford’s Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. (Order.) Chris Geidner discussed the order and DOJ’s efforts to obtain information about transgender patients through grand jury subpoenas. (Law Dork.)
The Justice Department asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to quash subpoenas issued to Boris Epshteyn, a longtime Trump adviser and attorney, in the American Bar Association’s challenge to the administration’s executive orders targeting law firms. The government argues that any communications Epshteyn may have had with the president or his team are protected by the presidential communications privilege and, where applicable, attorney-client privilege. (Motion.)
The New York Times reports that the FBI “is assigning an army of 260 investigative analysts to a ‘priority’ investigation related to the 2020 election in Fulton County, Ga., a reflection of President Trump’s ongoing push to prove his baseless claims that the 2020 election there was rigged.” (NYT.)
The Justice Department this week announced that it “unequivocally rejects any assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court (ICC) over U.S. persons.” DOJ also stated that the United States will not cooperate with the ICC in any way. (Press Release.) (Letter.)
Jack Goldsmith argued that the Supreme Court “has done a remarkable job thus far of vindicating its authority.” (Executive Functions.)
Steve Vladeck argued that the Court “inflicted a series of (unnecessary) credibility wounds on itself” by opting for outcomes in several instances that made it look more political. (One First.)
Adrian Vermeule argued that Trump v. Cook creates a vague and potentially destabilizing framework for judicial review of presidential action. (The New Digest.)