At my daughter's law school baccalaureate mass last night, the priest urged the students to practice law with "honor, honesty, integrity, and virtue." His words made me think about the current crisis in our judiciary as judges now make snap political decisions devoid of those important traits.

Then late last night, I learned about SCOTUS decision in Alien Enemies Act case.

Aside from interfering in what has always been sole executive authority turf--determining the use of the AEA--what 7 justices did is reward the ACLU's bad behavior and borderline misconduct.

SCOTUS endorsed the ACLU's strategy of filing emergency lawsuits over weekends and holidays (in this case, Easter weekend); using anonymous plaintiffs who are illegal Venezuelans then referencing those unnamed plaintiffs to demand classwide status for other potential AEA subjects based on little or no evidence as to who would be covered; relying on declarations by ACLU attorneys or other outside interests without any verification the statements are accurate; and demanding judges act on ACLU unreasonable timeline.

And rather than--as Kavanaugh suggested in a separate concurrence--immediately address the merits of these cases, i.e., the lawfulness of the president's AEA proclamation--the court shamefully gave the ACLU the green light to run roughshod over lower courts in terms of halting deportation of suspected TdA gang members who are here ILLEGALLY.

The criticism of Judge Hendrix, as Alito points out, also is completely out of line and inaccurate. SCOTUS misrepresented his handling of the case as a cop out to excuse themselves for the court's unprecedented and unnecessary interference in this crucial matter.

Truly shameful stuff.

Alito eviscerated the majority on a number of issues including unwarranted and inaccurate criticism of Judge Hendrix while noting the rush job of other judges

Alito noted the flimsy evidence entered by ACLU to support demands for classwide and emergency relief:

Hearing now for Judicial Watch lawsuit in killing of Ashli Babbitt.

There IS a settlement in the case.

Also her husband, Aaron, is a plaintiff.

They are suing the US government under federal torts claim act for assault, negligence, negligent supervision (of shooter Lt. Michael Byrd), negligent training, and wrongful death.

Plaintiffs on behalf of Ashli are seeking $30 million .

The settlement is not yet finalized so cannot be announced.

Holy shit -- the judge is Ana Reyes, the crazy Biden appointee. She is SCREAMING at both sides about who knew what about the proposed settlement.

This relates to a former attorney on the case.

DOJ: "Our intention is to settle this case." Terms have been sent to Babbitt's representatives.

She is again berating one of the plaintiff's attorneys.

This outrageous piece demonstrates what the Trump DOJ is up against not just in the media but within the ranks of the DOJ and federal judges.

First--shame on Barrett for whitewashing the evil Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) mob which is not a "student group" but a campus terror organization that has called for the destruction of both Israel and western civilization INCLUDING THE U.S.

CUAD has terrorized students and administrators at Columbia and Barnard College for over a year; at least one CUAD event featured a member of the PLO. (The event was banned on campus so the wannabe Hamasters conducted the panel virtually.)

But of course only at the NYT is the real villain the Trump DOJ--specifically Emil Bove, a top DOJ official who ordered an investigation into CUAD after masked student terrorists stormed a Barnard building in February and attacked a security guard.

Bove instructed prosecutors to compile a list of CUAD members--but he was once again met with defiance by DOJ lawyers. (This also happened when Bove sought to drop the indictment against NY Mayor Eric Adams.)

"The prosecutors were told by superiors that Mr. Bove was seeking a list so the information could be shared with immigration agents, these people said. Inside the civil rights division, prosecutors came to fear that their criminal investigation was a pretext to facilitate an intimidation and deportation campaign by the Trump administration against student protesters, these people said.

Prosecutors refused to compile such a list that could be given to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, these people said."

Now once upon a time, career government lawyers refusing to follow orders from a superior to investigate a known campus terror group seeking the destruction of the U.S. and involved in an anti-Semitic movement across the U.S. perhaps funded by our enemies would receive widespread condemnation in the press.

But not so with Barrett and the NYT.

🧵...

Here is just a little context on CUAD.

https://x.com/KhymaniJames/status/1843702358095868269

Bove sought a search warrant for CUAD's Instagram account including nonpublic data. Now this sort of thing was NEVER contentious when the DOJ sought (and received) Pres Trump's X data or when the FBI systematically sought social media data for thousands of Americans related to its Jan 6 investigation.

But seeking data on a radical campus terror group threatening the destruction of the US and Israel among other nations? THAT IS JUST A BRIDGE TOO FAR for career DOJ lawyers. (Instagram actually suspended CUAD's account in March for violating its policies.)

According to DAG Todd Blanche, "the warrant application focused on Columbia University Apartheid Divest included a photograph from C.U.A.D.’s social media of an inverted triangle symbol used by Hamas to designate targets for violence, which was spray-painted on Columbia property along with red paint designed to look like blood.”

Back to Barrett's piece: "While civil rights prosecutors conducted the investigation that Mr. Bove had demanded, they often pushed back against specific steps that he wanted taken, these people said, arguing that they were either not justified by the available facts or contrary to law and past practice, or both."

But civil rights division lawyers--who thankfully now are leaving en masse after the confirmation of Harmeet Dhillon--were not the only DOJ attorneys to defy Bove's request....

NEW: Records obtained by Sens Grassley and Johnson provide further proof DOJ/FBI was in cahoots with Biden WH on "Arctic Frost" investigation, the Jan 6 case against the president.

As I reported in the docs case, Biden WH general counsel Jonathan Su also was working with DOJ and NARA separably to concoct the documents case.

Biden WH turned over govt cell phones used by Pres Trump and VP Pence.

This is from dirty Wash FBI field office official Tim Thibault to others--including WFO chief Steven D'Antuono--about obtaining the devices.

Su arranged the pick up of the devices from Biden WH in May 2022. Again underscoring this is the same time Su was working with NARA to devise the classified documents case, meeting with NARA officials at WH.

Biden general counsel Su says he is the "point of contact" on the case. BTW Steven D'Antuono, former head of Wash FBI field office, retired after Republicans won in Nov 2022 and John Crabb was demoted by Trump DOJ in Feb 2025.

Last night, the DOJ filed its response to Jeb Boasberg's demand to prove the Trump adm did not defy his court orders related to the removal of Venezuelan illegals covered by the Alien Enemies Act (I also will get to a lot more of this in a separate thread and note his own discrepancies in the first temp restraining order next) on March 15.

As I have discussed here and in numerous interviews, the central dispute pertains to what Boasberg calls his "oral ruling" to turn around two planes already in the air carrying AEA illegals. The DOJ cites case law, jurisdiction, and Boasberg's own confusing orders as to why his verbal statement around 6:45pm on March 15--roughly 40 minutes before Boasberg's written minute order--is not controlling.

Note in particular the times the planes departed (this is from new DOJ filing)

While Boasberg now insists his two temporary restraining orders related to the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act--signed evening of March 14 and posted (and apparently enacted at the time) around 3pm on March 15--he CLEARLY stated TWICE n the rushed March 15 hearing that the first TRO covering the five unnamed illegal Venezuelans represented by the ACLU related to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Not the Alien Enemies Act--the basis of the ACLU lawsuit and request for restraining order.

From March 15 transcript (Gelernt is ACLU atty):

EXCEPT that Boasberg's TROs earlier in the day (those statements above were made after 5pm) granted relief sought by ACLU under the Alien Enemies Act.

Not the INA.

Here is ACLU proposed order, which Boasberg granted at around 9:40am without any input or briefing by the DOJ:

Oral arguments about to begin before 3-judge panel of D.C. circuit court on Pres Trump's appeal of Jeb Boasberg's temporary restraining order halting deportation of illegal Venezuelans subject to the president's Alien Enemies Proclamation.

DOJ in the motion to appeal: "If this TRO were allowed to stand, district courts would have license to enjoin virtually any urgent national-security action upon bare receipt of a complaint. District courts might next see fit to issue TROs restraining drone strikes, sensitive intelligence operations, or terrorist captures or extraditions. This Court should stay the district court’s unprecedented order."

DOJ calls Boasberg's orders "an unprecedented and enormous intrusion on the executive branch."

Boasberg's orders consisted of "second guessing" about the president's authority.

DOJ interrupted by Justice Millett (Obama) who pushes back against DOJ claims that this opens the door for a judge to frustrate other presidential powers including war powers.

Millett complains the Venezuelans were "rushed" on to planes and didn't have the chance to dispute their membership to TdA.

Millett asks DOJ atty is there are "any planes anywhere in the world" with individuals covered by Alien Enemies Act. DOJ says yes, that's his understanding.

Removal of Venezuelans under other laws are allowed--they both agree.

Millett: DOJ concern about ordering planes back and forth is "moot." Nothing we can do to remedy that now.

DOJ again argues Boasberg's oral "order" to return the planes did not control. Millett says that's a compliance issue at this point.