Noem cites the 2021 district court decision, but fails to mention the 2025 5th Cir. decision limiting the injunction and vacatur of the DACA Final Rule to Texas only. That decision is stayed, I believe, but it is disingenuous to simply cite the district court ruling.
I can hear a body of literature forming as we speak.
Circuit level
One huge implication of this IFR is that DHS will now be able to remove people much more quickly after an order of removal issued by an IJ. In most circuits, stays of removal on filing a PFR are not automatic (at least as of now).
A statutory Bivens remedy would actually be a good legislative addition.
At you referring to secret instructions to all IJs to deny all bond applications?
Are these people admitted as refugees? If so, what authority permits them to be detained?
You joke, but I can legitimately see Miller going there with Marbury.
I wasn’t aware the opening cinematic for Far Cry 7 had dropped.
The Trump admin is planning to say that being from Cuba (or any other travel ban country) is a "significant negative factor" that could lead to a denial of any of several discretionary immigration benefits (like green cards).
Seriously; national origin discrimination as official government policy.
Awesome. You and your work are an enormous blessing to humanity!
Maybe she didn’t want to refer to full SCOTUS to avoid a possibly longer stay, but wasn’t comfortable fully denying a stay without referral?
Looks like an alternative set for The Play That Goes Wrong.
Enjoy :40 of tree roos having carrots.
That's Sauer? I thought it was either Beetlejuice or RFK Jr.!
Appointments in the alternative. Is that a thing?
Ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee Bennie G. Thompson said in a statement “Mobile Fortify is a dangerous tool in the hands of ICE, and it puts American citizens at risk of detention and even deportation.” He also said “ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person’s status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien. ICE using a mobile biometrics app in ways its developers at CBP never intended or tested is a frightening, repugnant, and unconstitutional attack on Americans’ rights and freedoms.”
New incredible detail here: ICE says a match in its facial recognition app Mobile Fortify is a "definitive" determination of a person's status, and that this overrides birth certificates. This is an app ICE is using in the field to scan people
www.404media.co/ice-and-cbp-...
Case: 25-6268, 10/28/2025, DktEntry: 89.1, Page 1 of 2 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OREGON; CITY OF PORTLAND, Plaintiffs - Appellees, No. 25-6268 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM District of Oregon, Portland ORDER FILED OCT 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK J.S. COURT OF APPEALS V. DONALD J. TRUMP, In his official capacity as President of the United States; PETER HEGSETH, In his official capacity as Secretary of Defense; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; KRISTI NOEM, In her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendants - Appellants, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Intervenor - Pending. MURGUIA, Chief Judge: Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c) Case: 25-6268, 10/28/2025, DktEntry: 89.1, Page 2 of 2 and Circuit Rule 40-3. The order published at ---F.4th---, 2025 WL 2951371 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2025), is vacated.
BREAKING: The full Ninth Circuit vacates last week’s 2-1 order granting DOJ a stay of the district court’s TRO in the case over Trump’s National Guard effort in Oregon. The court will rehear DOJ’s stay request w an 11-judge panel.
Today’s order means Judge Immergut’s TRO remains in effect for now.
DHS Joint Mask Forces Reauthorization Act of 2024
"Federal courts (& SCOTUS)" - interesting. Kind of like "Musicians (& singers)"?
Not to in any way excuse this officer’s actions, but a suit under the FTCA may be possible.
Checks and balances
Remember when it was a national scandal on the right that the White House pushed to take down a few tweets?
There was a Policy Memo issued recently saying they can: www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1...
Brilliant. Who is the speaker in the recording?
This video brought tears to my eyes. There is no justification for this behavior.
I really don't think Trump understood what he was signing, as evidence at the signing by his comment: “We need more workers. We need more workers”.
No it’s not. That’s clearly Hogwart’s.
Written by S. Miller personally.
