Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 05/01/2025 Vol.507, Q Day 2742

Only citizens have privileges, we may perhaps extend them to legal residents and visitors, but invaders do not have privileges.

Pulled that one right out of ya butt, did ya?

While the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Free Republic has spoken, it just so happens that the United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam Opinion, has also spoken today. Their Opinion matters, and yours is just noise.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf

Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A1007
A. A. R. P., ET AL. v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
[May 16, 2025]
PER CURIAM.
The President has invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to remove Venezuelan nationals who are members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. See Presidential Proclamation No. 10903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (2025). Applicants are two detainees identified as members of TdA and a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas. All of the alleged TdA members in the putative class are currently being held in U. S. detention facilities. In the application before the Court, the detainees seek injunctive relief against summary removal under the AEA.
I
On April 17, 2025, the District Court denied the detainees’ motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against summary removal under the AEA. No. 25-cv-59, ECF Doc. 27. The detainees allege that, hours later, putative class members were served notices of AEA removal and told that they would be removed “tonight or tomorrow.” ECF Doc. 30, p. 1. On April 18 at 12:34 a.m. central time, the detainees moved for an emergency TRO. See ibid. At 12:48 p.m., the detainees moved for a ruling on that motion or a statusconference by 1:30 p.m. ECF Doc. 34. At 3:02 p.m., they appealed “the constructive denia[l]” of the emergency TRO
- - - - -
[2]
to the Fifth Circuit. ECF Doc. 36, p. 1. The detainees also applied to this Court for a temporary injunction.
We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees’ allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day “would be consistent with” its due process obligations, and it “reserve[d] the right” to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that “tomorrow . . . starts at 12:01 a.m.”). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA—including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a-5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11-20.
At 12:52 a.m. eastern time (11:52 p.m. central time), we ordered the Government—in light of all these circumstances—“not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees” in order to preserve our jurisdiction to consider the application. 604 U. S. ___ (2025). We invited the Government to respond to that application after the Fifth Circuit ruled. The Fifth Circuit dismissed the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for injunction pending appeal as premature, on the ground that
- - - - -
[3]
the detainees “gave the [district] court only 42 minutes toact.” No. 25-10534, ECF Doc. 14, p. 2. We now construe the application as a petition for writ of certiorari from the decision of the Fifth Circuit. See Reply 15. We grant the petition as well as the application for injunction pending further proceedings, vacate the judgment of the Fifth Circuit, and remand for further proceedings.
II
The Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellate courts have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders that have “the practical effect of refusing an injunction.” Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). A district court’s inaction in the face of extreme urgency and a high risk of “serious, perhaps irreparable,” consequences may have the effect of refusing an injunction. 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3924.1, pp. 174, 180-181 (3d ed. 2012) (quoting Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, 181 (1955)). Here the District Court’s inaction—not for 42 minutes but for 14 hours and 28 minutes—had the practical effect of refusing an injunction to detainees facing an imminent threat of severe, irreparable harm. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
“[T]he Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in the context of removal proceedings.” Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (per curiam) (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Procedural due process rules are meant to protect” against “the mistaken or unjustified deprivation of life, liberty, or property.” Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247, 259 (1978). We have long held that “no person shall be” removed from the United States “without opportunity, at some time, to be heard.” The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 101 (1903). Due process requires notice that is “reasonably calculated, under all the
- - - - -
[4]
circumstances, to apprise interested parties” and that “afford[s] a reasonable time . . . to make [an] appearance.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314 (1950). Accordingly, in J. G. G., this Court explained—with all nine Justices agreeing—that “AEA detainees must receive notice . . . that they are subject to removal under the Act . . . within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief ” before removal. 604 U. S., at ____ (slip op., at 3). In order to “actually seek habeas relief,” a detainee must have sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to contact counsel, file a petition, and pursue appropriate relief.
The Government does not contest before this Court the applicants’ description of the notice afforded to AEA detainees in the Northern District of Texas, nor the assertion that the Government was poised to carry out removals imminently. The Government has represented elsewhere that it is unable to provide for the return of an individual deported in error to a prison in El Salvador, see Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-cv-951 (D Md.), ECF Docs. 74, 77, where it is alleged that detainees face indefinite detention, see Application for Injunction 11. The detainees’ interests at stake are accordingly particularly weighty. Under these circumstances, notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster.
[...]

- - - - - - - - -

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cod.243061/gov.uscourts.cod.243061.35.0_1.pdf

DBU and RMM v Trump, D. Colo. 25-cv-1163-CNS (22 Apr 2025) ORDER at 21-26

1. Proclamation “Satisfying” the Act
According to Petitioners, the Proclamation exceeds the President’s “statutory authority in three critical respects.” ECF No. 2 at 11. First, there is no “invasion or predatory incursion.” Id. Second, any purported invasion is not perpetuated by a “foreign government or nation.” Id. And third, there is “no process to contest whether an individual falls within the Proclamation.” Id. Skepticism of the Proclamation’s contrary findings is required, Petitioners urge, to the point of satisfying their first TRO burden. Id.; see also M.G., 117 F.4th at 1238. The Court agrees.
a. Invasion or Predatory Incursion
Petitioners’ first argument, see ECF No. 2 at 12, proceeds from a straightforward premise. The President’s authority under the Proclamation is “vested” under the Act. The Act demands, as a “statutory requirement,” an “invasion or predatory incursion.” ECF No. 12; 50 U.S.C. § 21. And because the Act’s “text and history” use these terms “to refer to military actions indicative of an actual or impending war”—not “mass illegal migration” or “criminal activities”—the Act cannot sustain the Proclamation. ECF No. 2 at 12–13. The Court agrees with Petitioners.
The Court does not define these words—“invasion,” “predatory,” and “incursion”— against blank definitional or historic registers. Begin with language. See, e.g., Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980) (“[T]he starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself.”). “The term ‘invasion’ was a legal term of art with a well-defined meaning at the Founding.” J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 25-5067, 2025 WL 914682, at *8 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 26, 2025) (Henderson, J., concurring); see also id. (defining “invasion as a “‘[h]ostile entrance upon the right or possessions of another; hostile encroachment,’ such as when ‘William the Conqueror invaded England’”) (quoting Samuel Johnson, Invasion, sense 1, A DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (4th ed. 1773)); (reciting second dictionary defining “invasion as a “‘hostile entrance into the possession of another; particularly the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force’”) (quoting Noah Webster, Invasion, sense 1, AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1828)).
The Court finds these at-the-Founding definitions persuasive in demonstrating what “invasion” does—and does not—mean as a matter of plain language. “Invasions” contemplate military action. J.G.G., 2025 WL 914682, at *9 (“The term ‘invasion’ was well known to the Fifth Congress and the American public circa 1798. The phrase echoes throughout the Constitution ratified by the people just nine years before. And in every instance, it is used in a military sense.”) (Henderson, J., concurring). And at a bare minimum, “invasion” means more than the Proclamation’s description of TdA’s “infiltrat[ion],” “irregular warfare,” and “hostile actions” against the United States— notwithstanding the Proclamation’s conclusory description of “the devastating effects of [TdA’s] invasion.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13,033 (Mar. 14, 2025). See also id. (finding “TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare”); id. (stating TdA members are “chargeable with actual hostility against the United States”).

Zelensky remains a coke head maniac....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/05/just-russia-ukraine-peace-talks-istanbul-end-after/

JUST IN: Russia-Ukraine Peace Talks in Istanbul End After Less Than 2 Hours – Ukrainians Complain of Moscow’s Demands – Russian Delegation Satisfied With Outcome (VIDEOS)

The once-impossible peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, aimed at ending the bloodiest European conflict since WW2, have taken place today.

The historic good news end right there – the talks ended in just 90 minutes, leading the Ukrainian side and their allies in the MSM to call to the fours winds that it was a flop.

The Russian delegation was upbeat after the talks, while the US response was pragmatic in the sense that they knew real progress will come after Donald J. Trump meets Russian President Vladimir Putin.

This was the first direct peace negotiation between Russia and Ukraine in more than three years, a complex architecture of events with two trilateral meetings: the first with representatives from Turkey, the US, and Ukraine, followed by the ‘main event’: Turkey, Russia and Ukraine.

The delegations met at the Dolmabahçe Presidential Office in Istanbul. The Russian delegation was led by top Putin’s aide, Vladimir Medinsky, while the Ukrainians were headed by Defense Minister Rustem Umerov.

Reuters reported:

“The chasm between the two sides was quickly apparent, according to the Ukrainian source who told Reuters that Russia’s demands were ‘detached from reality and go far beyond anything that was previously discussed’.

They included ultimatums for Ukraine to withdraw from parts of its own territory in order to obtain a ceasefire ‘and other non-starters and non-constructive conditions’, the source told Reuters on condition of anonymity.”

Once again, Reuters tells the story by stacking ‘off-the-records’ Kiev regime sources – it’s long been known that Moscow will demand the totality of the four Oblasts that voted in referendums to become part of Russia.

Both sides are under relentless pressure from the Trump administration to end the war.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio had warned that a major breakthrough was unlikely.

“’I hope I’m 100% wrong. I hope tomorrow the news says they’ve agreed to a ceasefire; they’ve agreed to enter serious negotiations. But I’m just giving you my assessment, honestly’, he said.”

The Telegraph reported:

“Russia has demanded Ukraine withdraw its troops from four Ukrainian regions annexed by Vladimir Putin as the price for a ceasefire.

A Ukrainian diplomatic source said the proposals were ‘detached from reality’.

The Kremlin formally annexed Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine in September 2022, and only partially occupies them currently.”

Leaving the Ukrainian complaints aside, in terms of substance, we learn that Russian and Ukrainian representatives discussed a ceasefire and a prisoner exchange during the talks.

Russian delegation, on the other hand, was satisfied with result of negotiations with Ukraine — head of delegation Vladimir Medinsky.

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.

Many come here to read dispatches from the War between Good and Evil, to red-pill and encourage.....and to pray and give thanks to the God who fights for us.

Where We Go 1, We Go All