Leah Litman

under the law was just too galling for them to note, and they had to take a pause over that one.

That's true, although the president can issue a preemptive pardon here before any criminal prosecution would begin. And it's possible, and I think even likely, that in the event the president did that, I don't really see the federal courts then trying to go back and say, well, even though he basically pardoned the offense up until this date, that offense has continued.

That's true, although the president can issue a preemptive pardon here before any criminal prosecution would begin. And it's possible, and I think even likely, that in the event the president did that, I don't really see the federal courts then trying to go back and say, well, even though he basically pardoned the offense up until this date, that offense has continued.

I think there would be difficult questions about whether it is indeed a new offense, and my guess is the federal court would probably stand down in that situation.

I think there would be difficult questions about whether it is indeed a new offense, and my guess is the federal court would probably stand down in that situation.

Short answer, yes. You know, I think at minimum, it evinces a sense that the seven justices in the majority aren't willing to take the Trump administration at their word because, of course, the Trump administration was saying, well, we're giving these guys like reasonable time and reasonable notice to file their challenges when obviously they weren't.

Short answer, yes. You know, I think at minimum, it evinces a sense that the seven justices in the majority aren't willing to take the Trump administration at their word because, of course, the Trump administration was saying, well, we're giving these guys like reasonable time and reasonable notice to file their challenges when obviously they weren't.

And the administration has basically been thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court's directive and Judge Sinis's order to to bring back Mr. Abrego Garcia. And so I think the Supreme Court looked at all of that and realized, look, the prospect of the government shunting these people off to El Salvador and then never bringing them back is so real and the harm is so profound.

And the administration has basically been thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court's directive and Judge Sinis's order to to bring back Mr. Abrego Garcia. And so I think the Supreme Court looked at all of that and realized, look, the prospect of the government shunting these people off to El Salvador and then never bringing them back is so real and the harm is so profound.

We need to order a halt until we figure out what is going on and whether the administration is indeed providing the individuals with the notice that we said was required in our previous decision.

We need to order a halt until we figure out what is going on and whether the administration is indeed providing the individuals with the notice that we said was required in our previous decision.

No. One is that's basically the point in Justice Alito's dissent. He says, you know, we should assume that the Trump administration is going to comply with our previous order directing them to provide reasonable time and notice. And he faults the seven justices who halted the deportations for not doing so. And I just want to kind of pause on the irony that.

No. One is that's basically the point in Justice Alito's dissent. He says, you know, we should assume that the Trump administration is going to comply with our previous order directing them to provide reasonable time and notice. And he faults the seven justices who halted the deportations for not doing so. And I just want to kind of pause on the irony that.

The Supreme Court basically did in this case what they faulted Judge Boasberg for doing previously, namely halt on a wholesale basis a bunch of deportations rather than requiring every individual to challenge deportation. their deportation themselves.

The Supreme Court basically did in this case what they faulted Judge Boasberg for doing previously, namely halt on a wholesale basis a bunch of deportations rather than requiring every individual to challenge deportation. their deportation themselves.

And I think that underscores what we were talking about, which is the Supreme Court realized the error of their ways, that there actually needs to be this wholesale pause because if there isn't, the government is just shuttling people around between jurisdictions trying to find some court somewhere that will allow them to expel these people without due process.

And I think that underscores what we were talking about, which is the Supreme Court realized the error of their ways, that there actually needs to be this wholesale pause because if there isn't, the government is just shuttling people around between jurisdictions trying to find some court somewhere that will allow them to expel these people without due process.

Yeah. So he basically faults the court for not adhering to their normal process. And the things he points out the court did were, one, to grant this pause in deportations before waiting to hear the government's response is one thing. Second is the Supreme Court acted by halting the deportations before waiting for the U.S.

Yeah. So he basically faults the court for not adhering to their normal process. And the things he points out the court did were, one, to grant this pause in deportations before waiting to hear the government's response is one thing. Second is the Supreme Court acted by halting the deportations before waiting for the U.S.

Court of Appeals, the intermediary court between the trial court and the Supreme Court, to act on the request to halt the deportations. And so those are two kind of abnormal procedural moves the seven justices made that Justice Alito says, what reason is there to do that? But the reality is, of course, we're not dealing with ordinary circumstances.