I got the feeling that SCOTUS acted because they have lost faith in the government lawyers either knowing what the government is actually doing or that the government lawyers are not trustworthy.
I would say that is a very scary conclusion.
Agree it’s scary, also because it seems like it took SCOTUS a long time to reach that conclusion. They created this situation and are late to the party in realizing how bad it is for them specifically.
I think it’s a simpler explanation that plaintiffs were on busses, being relocated ahead of rendition flights, and jurisdiction was about to be complicated.
1 Like
Drew Ensign seems to have been flirting with getting cited for contempt for a while. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if that happens soon.
Ensign on Friday:
"I have also been told that there are no flights tonight and that the people I spoke to were not aware of any plans for flights tomorrow,”
Later…: “The information that was relayed to me was a definitive There are no flights tonight, and the people I spoke to were not aware of any plans for flights tomorrow.”
After being to get more info:
“I’ve spoken with DHS, they are not aware of any current plans for flights tomorrow, but I have also been told to say that they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow,”
SCOTUS then ruled at 1 am.
Alito: why did you wake me up? They just said they have no flights planned tomorrow!
In case you were wondering what the government was doing to comply with the judge’s orders in Garcia v Noem, following a 9-0 SCOTUS smackdown, the answer is nothing
We write on behalf of Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter to respectfully request that the Court hold a conference tomorrow afternoon at 1 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the Court is available to address the Governments’ failure to comply with the Court’s April 15, 2025 Order Granting Expedited Discovery (Dkt. 79) (the “Order”), requiring the Government to, among other things, produce documents and respond to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories.
On the eve of the first Court-ordered deposition concerning the Government’s failure to comply with this Court’s orders, the Government responded to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests by producing nothing of substance. Its document production consists entirely of public filings from the dockets, copies of Plaintiffs’ own discovery requests and correspondence, and two nonsubstantive cover emails transmitting declarations filed in this case. Its interrogatory responses are similarly non-responsive.
First, the Government artificially narrows the Court’s Order to avoid complying with its
obligations. For example, the Government refuses to respond to interrogatories it claims are “based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador,” Ex. A at 3 (Interrogatory Responses), despite the Supreme Court’s clear holding that “[t]he [O]rder properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.” Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—, slip op. at 2 (emphasis added). Likewise, the Government refuses to provide any information predating April
4, Ex. B at 2 (Responses to Document Requests), even though this Court held Plaintiffs “are Case 8:25-cv-00951-PX Document 98 Filed 04/22/25 Page 1 of 5
2 entitled to explore . . . who authorized” Abrego Garcia’s “initial placement” in El Salvador, which began on March 15. Order at 6 n.3. The Government refuses to provide any documents “concerning the legal basis for Abrego Garcia’s confinement.” Ex. B at 6. And the Government maintains that any information regarding the agreement between the United States and El Salvador to detain individuals in El Salvador is “irrelevant,” id. at 7, despite this Court’s finding that Plaintiffs “are entitled to explore the lawful basis—if any—for Abrego Garcia’s continued detention.” Order at 6 n.3. The Governments’ rights under any agreement governing Abrego Garcia’s transfer and detention in El Salvador are, without question, directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ ability to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody. Finally, the Government refuses to provide any information about the purported “diplomatic discussions with El Salvador regarding Abrego Garcia” in which it claims to have engaged (Ex. A), despite the Supreme Court’s direction that it must be prepared to explain the “steps it has taken.” Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—, slip op. at
Second, the Government refuses to answer several interrogatories or provide documents based on categorical assertions of privilege—including deliberative process privilege, state secret privilege, and “governmental privilege”—without any foundation for doing so. Indeed, despite invoking “state secret” privilege 13 times in response to Plaintiffs’ 15 interrogatories, the Government has not submitted a “formal claim of privilege” or otherwise identified the particular bases for its assertion of privilege. United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U.S. 195, 205 (2022); see also Rein v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 553 F.3d 353, 369 (4th Cir. 2009) (requiring the Government
to provide sufficient “information by which the district court can independently assess the asserted privilege”). Plaintiffs met and conferred with the Government about Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on April 19, at which time the Government stated it had no issues to raise with respect to the substance of the discovery, and the parties scheduled depositions to occur on April 22 and 23, starting at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiffs invited the Government to meet and confer several times thereafter regarding the scope of discovery, including by describing the specific topics Plaintiffs intend to
investigate in depositions, so as to identify and resolve any disputes in advance of the discovery deadline and depositions. Defendants declined. Defendants also rejected Plaintiffs’ proposed ESI protocol, refused to disclose their search parameters, refused to provide any documents or even “commit to a timeline” for doing so before the Court’s deadline of 5 p.m. today, and now—on the eve of depositions—have served incomplete and deficient responses. At Plaintiffs’ request, the parties met and conferred at 7 p.m. tonight, at which time the Government stood on its currently deficient discovery responses.
Looks like they are calling SCOTUS’ bluff. Time to put them in contempt, or cede all power imo.
1 Like
Admittedly a clickbait headline…
The phenomenon of young kids facing immigration judges is not new. The new part is:
I think the Garcia case is setting an important precedent. If he comes back then the other hundreds can come back as well.
It would be a really big deal to make them all come back home. Even if it’s just to stand for a phony trial, to declare them “terrorists” that we are “at war” with, and put them back in foreign torture prison.
1 Like
The big deal would be if they claim the Alien Enemies Act doesn’t apply because there is no “invasion or predatory incursion” that justifies using the law.
2 Likes
Yeah, that would be bigger news, and I hope they come to that seemingly obvious conclusion.
I guess I just mean that I can see why the Administration is trying to fight/ignore/flour the law here-- because it’s laying the groundwork for the big case.
Partly because 200 “terrorists” coming for trials would be huge just by itself.
Partly because possession is 9/10ths of the law.
ICE made this guy disappear. Note he was not sent to the gulag according to leaked ICE manifest
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article304722511.html
Edit for clarity: i don’t think ICE actually provided the list of names. I think it got leaked.
It’s possible that he was sent to the gulag but he was one of the ones we don’t know about
1 Like
This seems repugnant.
I figure it’s a short matter of time.
Agreed, although as I noted when I ninja’d you ( 
):
- The headline is slightly clickbait-y
- Annoyingly, the feds have been sending unaccompanied young children to stand before immigration judges for years
- The actual change is that the funding to cover lawyers willing to step in and be these kids’ advocates has been cut by the administration…and THAT is the truly repugnant change.
For more repugnance, it’s worth remembering that most deportation actions in the US are handled under civil law. It’s not actually a crime to be in the US without status; it’s merely a tort.
Part of the stated reason for this treatment is that under the pre-Trump-2.0 interpretation of the Constitution (disclaimer: IANAL), there is no right to a public trial, and no Miranda right to a public defender for torts or for crimes for which fewer than six months’ incarceration is sought as a penalty.
Disgustingly, this means that young kids and toddlers have been brought, without any adult support (much less legal representation) before immigration judges for years.
I’m not a lawyer, but is it bad if a judge says the following about you? (Re: Garcia v Noem)
Defendants—and their counsel—well know that the falsehood lies not in any supposed “premise,” but in their continued mischaracterization of the Supreme Court’s Order.
Defendants’ objection reflects a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The objection is overruled. Defendants are therefore ordered to supplement their answers in full compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their answers must include facts responsive to the requests, not oblique and incomplete, non-specific characterizations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3) (requiring that each interrogatory be answered “fully”).
Equally specious, Defendants’ objections on the grounds of privilege are rejected. Defendants invoke in name only a range of protections—attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, the deliberative process privilege, the state secrets privilege, and an undefined “governmental privilege”—without providing any supporting information or analysis. As Defendants and their counsel know, the proponent of a privilege must demonstrate the legal and factual bases to invoke the protections that such privilege affords.
Defendants’ answer to Interrogatory No. 5, in which they name exactly two individuals who “have been or will be involved in any of the actions responsive to Interrogatories 1–4 or in ordering or authorizing Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador, his initial placement in CECOT or his continued confinement in CECOT,” reflects a deliberate evasion of their fundamental discovery obligations. Defendants identify only Robert Cerna, Acting Field Office Director for Harlingen, and Evan Katz, Assistant Director for the Enforcement and Removal Operations at DHS, as the universe of individuals responsive to the question. Given the context of this case, Defendants have failed to respond in good faith, and their refusal to do so can only be viewed as willful and intentional noncompliance. Defendants must supplement their answer to include all individuals involved as requested in this interrogatory.
Are these people literally that bad at being lawyers? It’s like the judge has to spell out how to lawyer things. And i am not a lawyer, but i can tell they half-assed it.
Hard to imagine this is all just incompetence on their part. They are testing the boundaries of how far they can go before they are held in contempt.
A generous (perhaps overly generous) hypothesis is that the government attorneys are lower level minions charged by their bosses to do the legally impossible, and they’re complying as best as they can.
1 Like