And...we're back. As indicated in Wednesday night's edition, I'm slimming the Evening Docket down. So, each installment will feature only three (or so) case updates from each day so as not to overwhelm — you or me.
There weren't as many rulings of significance today, so that made it a bit easier to wade through them, but there was one, in particular, that caused quite a stir:
In this case, which is an offshoot of the J.G.G. case before Judge Boasberg in D.C., we have a disappointing ruling regarding the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove Tren de Aragua members from the country.
⚖️ In J.A.V. v. Trump (removal of TdA via AEA), Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. (Southern District of Texas) certifies class and rules admin. cannot use AEA to remove alleged TdA members.https://t.co/rRLtH52snI
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) May 1, 2025
- This one is styled "J.A.V. v. Trump" and involves three named petitioners who are detained in the Southern District of Texas. Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. (a Trump appointee) held that Trump's invocation of the AEA through the Proclamation he issued on March 15 exceeds the scope of the AEA, and the government does not "possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country." (I provided a full rundown of the ruling earlier today.)
READ MORE: New: Texas Judge Rules Trump Admin. Cannot Use AEA to Remove Alleged TdA Members
Next, a regular guest star in our Evening Docket series:
⚖️ In Khalil v. Joyce (removal of pro-Hamas activist), Judge Michael Farbiarz (New Jersey) denies motion for certification of interlocutory appeal.https://t.co/cyd3VPnfkI
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) May 1, 2025
- In Khalil v. Joyce (challenging removal proceedings against a pro-Hamas activist), Judge Michael Farbiarz, who recently found that he does have jurisdiction to hear the case, denied the administration's motion to certify that finding so that they can take an immediate appeal from it. Why? Because, as he (in my opinion) snarkily notes in Thursday's order, his determination regarding jurisdiction was an opinion, not an order, so it's not an appealable ruling, and it's the administration's fault for making him issue it the way he did.
And last, even though this one is perhaps not as intriguing an issue, I wanted to share this ruling because it's sort of the judicial equivalent of damning with faint praise.
⚖️ In Nat'l Assoc of Diversity Officer in Higher Ed v. Trump (re: ban on DEIA initiatives), Judge Adam Abelson (Maryland) denies plaintiffs' motion to vacate preliminary injunction (now up on appeal) so they can amend and try again.https://t.co/4gJxe8wWOP
— Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) May 1, 2025
- In National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (a case challenging the administration's ban on DEIA initiatives), Judge Adam Abelson (Maryland) previously entered a partial preliminary injunction (in a very broad order that was roundly criticized). The administration appealed, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay (which, while no guarantee, may hint that the injunction will ultimately be overturned on appeal). The plaintiffs then scrambled and filed a motion asking Abelson to vacate his preliminary injunction, so they could amend their pleadings and try again (presumably, to give them a better shot at surviving the appeal). Judge Abelson, on Thursday, ruled that, yes, contrary to the government's assertion, he does have jurisdiction to address plaintiffs' motion to vacate (even though the case is up on appeal), but that there's insufficient justification to vacate his prior order. In the process of doing so, he made a point of reiterating the very dim view he has of the administration's actions here. So...he ruled against the plaintiffs on this issue but used the opportunity to gripe at the administration.
You can check out prior installments of The Evening Docket series here.