Posted on 04/11/2016 3:35:02 PM PDT by Elderberry
With arguments before the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Texas ten days away, the docket in Brownsville keeps on chugging along. A few minutes ago, Judge Hannen issued an order, noting that “In the immediate future, this Court intends to issue an order concerning the misrepresentations made to it and Plaintiffs’ counsel by counsel for the Government.”
But even stranger, the government submitted four envelopes to the court to review in camera, but asked the court not to open envelopes two and three.
Defense counsel invited this Court to review the contents of Envelopes One (Government’s unredacted brief) and Four (non-privilege responsive documents) and it has done so. 1 The Government asked this Court not to review the contents of Envelopes Two and Three. The Court has honored that request as well. This Court has explained on at least one prior occasion that it was perplexed by the Government’s use of this unorthodox procedure.
Judge Hanen has now mailed the unopened envelopes back to the government. Unless the government sends them back by April 15 (three days before arguments), “the Court will assume the Government did not want them considered.”
I have no idea what is in these mystery envelopes, and it is very strange that the government would send the court documents in camera, but tell the Judge not to open it. Judge Hanen writes:
The Government’s request is the equivalent ofasking this Court to “take our word for it.” Given the fact that the conduct under consideration concerns multiple misrepresentations (to which the Government has admitted), this approach is not reassuring.
Stay tuned.
As an aside, this order is all the more surreal, because this was effectively my aborted April Fool’s joke. I photoshopped an order from Judge Hanen, directing the parties to appear in court to address issues of misconduct. On second thought, I determined that doctoring an order of the court was probably a bad idea, and spiked it. Instead I went with Nino’s Cafe at the new Antonin Scalia Law School. The intent of the joke was to make something just plausible enough, but outrageous, that people would believe. April Fools!
Excellent and timely news.
I’ve got absolutely no idea what this is about. Context?
The bit with the envelopes is bizarre.
Fundamental change.
A few clues about the substance would help us know what you are posting about.
What case? Who is involved? Why should this make news?
{insert pic of bunny with pancake on head}
The first sentence:
With arguments before the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Texas
Sounds very fishy I agree. My instincts say its a trap...
From the Scotusblog:
Argument preview: A big, or not so big, ruling due on immigration
By Lyle Denniston on Apr 11, 2016 at 9:07 am
Analysis
When the Supreme Court in mid-January agreed to review the legality of President Barack Obama’s ambitious new policy for delaying the deportation of nearly five million undocumented immigrants, the Justices enlarged the case into a major constitutional test. But, with eight Justices now on the bench, the Court could find itself having to decide it on a narrower, yet still historically important, constitutional basis.
Next Monday, April 18, the Court will hold ninety minutes of oral argument on United States v. Texas, with the review coming coincidentally in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which immigration policy is one of the dominant issues being argued before the voters. When the Court decides, by summer, its ruling could play a direct part in presidential politics, even if the Court does not intend to have any influence on voters. The case is thus deeply immersed in politics, yet the Justices will try to decide it on purely legal grounds.
So what part of the case is still residual in District Court?
< The intent of the joke was to make something just plausible enough, but outrageous, that people would believe. April Fools!
Got us but you are a little late...
I haven’t kept up with it.
Sounds extremely interesting.
AND I HAVE NO F*CKING IDEA WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
Thank you!
Not a Joke, Josh Blackman is sick.
See posts 11 and 17
Hanen’s order 4/8/2016
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_6gbFPjVDoxak5lTmliNkc3Rzg/edit?pref=2&pli=1
I suppose, the underlying action being a stay, the case is active in that venue. I would expect the administration to attempt to moot the case somehow, much as GWB mooted one of the terrorist incarceration cases by moving a prisoner into a venue and accepting "regular" criminal jurisdiction. IIRC, that particular accused was a US citizen, and the administration really didn't want an adverse ruling from the court.
Same sort of pressure here. The administration (and probably Congress) want to avoid a ruling that puts pressure on the usual go-along, get-along, wink and a nod system. Nobody wants the immigration law enforced, but Obama went too far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.