[U] Of Explaining Why Trump Cannot Use Mexico As His Faux-King’s “Tower of London” — Personal Detention Center…

Okay — this clearly merits a full-on new post. Once again, in the Ninth Circuit, Trump is being handed his. . . erm, hind-parts. [It almost seems silly to have to point out to Trump that he is no monarch — but there you have it.]

As I said I would — we will cover this new non-refoulement litigation in full. Here is the very well reasoned first merits brief, on whether the preliminary injunction against Team Trump’s hare-brained notion will stand — all 29 pages of PDF goodness — and a bit:

. . . .[Team Trump is] unlikely to prevail on their merits arguments on appeal. The district court held that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on three separate claims: 1) that Defendants are unlawfully applying the forced return policy to a population Congress expressly exempted from contiguous territory return — individuals who arrive at the border without proper documents, who are often seeking asylum, and who are subject to “expedited removal” proceedings; 2) that the forced return policy is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because its fear determination process for determining if individuals can be safely returned to Mexico dramatically departs, without explanation, from prior practice and virtually ensures that noncitizens who face persecution or torture in Mexico will be returned there in violation of our non refoulement obligation; and 3) that Defendants violated the APA by adopting the new fear determination process without undergoing notice and comment.

Because Defendants have not shown they are likely to prevail on each of these claims, they are not entitled to a stay.

Second, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the balance of harms favors a stay. They offer conclusory assertions that the injunction will hinder their diplomatic negotiations and efforts to deter unauthorized migration at the border, but provide no concrete evidence of any irreparable harm. In contrast, as the district court correctly found, “there is no real question” that the Individual and Organizational Plaintiffs face “the possibility of irreparable injury.” Op. at 24. Moreover, the injury to Plaintiffs and the harm to the public interest will increase exponentially as Defendants expand the policy.

Finally, the nationwide reach of the injunction does not warrant a stay. There is no other way to provide a remedy to the Plaintiff Organizations. . . .

Do go read it all, at that link. [And solely in the interest of a complete record, as of April 17, 2019 — I have included a link to the largely specious Team Trump (government) reply.]

Onward, warm and sunny here — off to go hunting my favorite taco truck, on foot. You know we need more of this — not less. Bring the asylum-seekers to Chicago. We have ample room — and open hearts — to handle it all. We always have. They will be welcomed here.


One Response

  1. And. . . oral argument on this matter will take place one week from today — in the Ninth Circuit:

    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, W. FLETCHER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

    The parties shall appear for oral argument on Wednesday, April 24, 2019, at 10:00 am in San Francisco, California. Each side will be allotted 15 minutes of argument time.

    The parties are encouraged to appear in person if possible. . . .

    Now you know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: