Free Republic

The oral argument was directly addressing the issue of universal injunctions rather than birthright citizenship, but four precedents were brought up by Justice Sotomayor.

Oral Argument Transcript at 11-12:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No, we don't, because the argument here is that the president is violating an established -- not just one but, by my count, four established Supreme Court precedents. We have the Wong Ark case, where we said fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement -- your parents' fealty to a foreign sovereign doesn't defeat your entitlement to citizenship as a child. We have another case where we said that even if your parents are here illegally, if you're born here, you're a citizen. We have yet another case that says, even if your parents came here and were stopped at the border and -- but you were born in our territory, you're still a citizen. And we have another case that says, even if your parents secured citizenship illegally, you're still a citizen. So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.

IMO, and I am NOT a lawyer BUT this would be a difficult case to prosecute. These Aholes are stating current military law if I'm not mistaken. Serviceman don't have to follow ILLEGAL orders, do they?

You are not wrong. It is both current and long standing military law. Servicemen, such as Lt. Calley, can be prosecuted for following unlawful orders.

Since the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, the claimed excuse of following orders provides no legal shield from personal and criminal responsibility for crimes against international law.

The military member disobeys orders at his peril. A judge may later find the order to have been lawful. Should he obey unlawful orders he may be prosecuted for his unlawful acts.

Gary D. Solis is a retired Professor of Law ofd the United States Military Academy, where he directed West Point's Law of War program for six years. Gary D. Solis, "The Law of Armed Conflict, International Humanitarian Law in War," Cambridge University Press, 2010, at page 354:

9.2 The Standard Applied: The Nuremberg IMT

The Nuremberg IMT's proeceural rules were a product of the London Agreement of August 1945. Article 89 of the IMT charter embodied the change initiated by Professor Lauterpacht four and a half years earlier, and incorporated in the U.S. Rules of Land Warfare less than nine months previously. Article 8 read: "The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to orders of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment..." The Nazis were to be held criminally responsible, personally responsible, for war crimes they comitted and for war crimes they ordered. Obedience to a superiors orders would be no legal shield.

Basically, service members have a duty to disobey an order that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know to be illegal. For example, the order to Lt. William Calley to enter a Vietnamese village and and waste all the occupants provided him with no defense at trial.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7716454/riggs-v-state/

Riggs v State, 43 Tenn 55 (1866), Opinion of the Court:

It is a well settled principle, a soldier is not bound to obey an illegal order. If he does, and commits an offense, it is no justification to him, and he is liable to be proceeded against and punished. This principle was settled in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Mitchell vs. Harmon, 13 Howard, 129, in which it was held a military officer cannot rely on an apparently unlawful order of his superior, as a justification.

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep054115/

Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. (13 Howard) 115 (1852), Headnote:

The officer who made the seizure cannot justify his trespass by showing the orders of his superior officer. An order to commit a trespass can afford no justification to the person by whom it was executed.

https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/2023%20MCM%20(w_%20preface)%20(2023_09_15).pdf?ver=DYv_dgnVlSTjgwUwpO2piQ%3d%3d

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) 2023 Edition

Under "16. Article 90 (10 U.S.C. 890)—Willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer," at pages IV-23, IV-24.

[IV-23]

c. Explanation.

(1) Superior commissioned officer. The definition in subparagraph 15.c.(1) applies here.

(2) Disobeying superior commissioned officer.

(a) Lawfulness of the order.

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

(ii) Determination of lawfulness. The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.

(iii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, custom of the Service, or applicable order to direct, coordinate, or control the duties, activities, health, welfare, morale, or discipline of the accused.

(iv) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all

[IV-24]

activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the Service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of increasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.

(v) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.

[...]

Russia's still grinding, not steamrolling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0C0qiDTYc

"New Russian Offensive STEAMROLLING Ukraine in Zaporizhia"

History Legends
November 19, 2025

Those who have recently left Ukraine for some reason or other.

Volodymyr Zelensky (Pianist)
Andriy Yermak (Chief of Staff)
Svitlana Hrynchuk (Minister of Energy)
Rustam Umarov (Minister of Defence, Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council)
Timur Mindich (co-owner of Kvartal 95 film studio).

I believe the Court will rule that the President exceeded his authority using the IEEPA in this manner.

I believe that is what should happen based on the the law; however Scotus sometimes gets creative. I'm thinking of Obamacare where a penalty under the Commerce Clause was found unconstitutional; but an alternate reading resulted in a tax under the Taxing power, and that was constitutional. I thought they would just rule it unconstitutional, in blatant violation of the Commerce Clause.

I listened to the oral arguments today and Gorsuch-Sauer was interesting on constitutional issues. Generally, the justices seemed skeptical of the government argument.

Audio of the complete oral argument [2 hr 39 min] is available here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2025/24-1287

Transcript ewxcerpt of Gorsuch-Sauer is below: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2025/24-1287_097c.pdf

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Pages: 1 through 189

Place: Washington, D.C.

Date: November 5, 2025

[63]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice Gorsuch?

JUSTICE GORSUCH: General, just a few questions following up on the major questions discussions you've had.

You say that we shouldn't be so concerned in the area of foreign affairs because of the President's inherent powers. That's the gist of it, as I understand it, why we should disregard both major questions and nondelegation.

So could Congress delegate to the President the power to regulate commerce with

[64]

foreign nations as he sees fit -

GENERAL SAUER: We don't -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: --to lay and collect duties as he sees fit?

GENERAL SAUER: We --we don't --we don't assert that here. That would be a much harder case. Now, in 1790 -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Isn't that the logic of your --of your view, though?

GENERAL SAUER: I don't think so, because we're dealing with a statute that was a carefully crafted compromise. It does have all the limitations that I just talked about.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: But you're saying we shouldn't look -

GENERAL SAUER: He has broad powers in this very narrow assignment.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: --we shouldn't be concerned with --I want you to explain to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs, the President has inherent authority, and so delegation off the books more or less.

GENERAL SAUER: Or at least -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: And if that's true,

[65]

what would --what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war to the President?

GENERAL SAUER: We don't contend that he could do that. If it did -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Why not?

GENERAL SAUER: Well, because we're dealing with a statute, again, that has a whole list of limitations.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I'm not asking about the statute. General, I'm not asking about the statute. I'm asking for your theory of the Constitution and why the major questions and nondelegation, what bite it would have in that case.

GENERAL SAUER: Yes. I would say by then you would move from the area where there's enormous deference to the President in actually both the political branches, where, here, there's inherent authority, and pile on top of that there's a broad delegation of the duty and -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: You're saying there's inherent authority in foreign affairs,

[66]

all foreign affairs, so regulate commerce, duties and --and --and --and tariffs and war. It's inherent authority all the way down, you say. Fine. Congress decides tomorrow, well, we're tired of this legislating business. We're just going to hand it all off to the President.

What would stop Congress from doing that?

GENERAL SAUER: That would be different than a situation where there are metes and bounds, so to speak. It would be a wholesale abdication.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: You say we --we -we are not here to judge metes and bounds when the foreign affairs. That's what I'm struggling with. You'd have to have some test. And if it isn't the intelligible principle test or something more --with more bite than that, you're saying it's something less. Well, what is that less?

GENERAL SAUER: I think what the Court has said in its opinions is just that it applies with much less force, more limited application in this context.

[67]

So perhaps the right way to approach it is a very, very deferential application of the intelligible --intelligible principle test, that --that sort of wholesale abdication of -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: All right. So now you're admitting that there is some nondelegation principle at play here and, therefore, major questions as well, is that right?

GENERAL SAUER: If so, very limited, you know, very, very deferential -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay.

GENERAL SAUER: --and limited is what --and, again, the phrase that Justice Jackson used is it just does not apply, at least -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I know, but that's where you started off, and now you've retreated from that as I understand it.

GENERAL SAUER: Well, I think we would as our frontline position assert a stronger position, but if the Court doesn't accept it, then, if there is a highly deferential version -

[68]

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Can you give me a reason to accept it, though? That's what I'm struggling and waiting for. What's the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the President?

GENERAL SAUER: Well, we don't contend that. Again, that would be -

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Well, you do. You say it's unreviewable, that there's no manageable standard, nothing to be done. And now you're --I think you --tell me if I'm wrong. You've backed off that position.

GENERAL SAUER: Maybe that's fair to say.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Okay. All right. Thank you.

(Laughter.)

GENERAL SAUER: Because that would be, I think, an abdication. That would really be an abdication, not a delegation.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I'm delighted to hear that, you know. Okay. All right.

Your globalist free traitor dna is showing.

Your communist dictatorial dna is showing. Advocating serial rape of the Constitution is no way to go through life. The People, globalist free traitors all, saw fit by the Constitution to delegate certain powers to Congress: Article 1, Section 8 - "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations."

The Executive has no constitutional power to lay taxes, duties, imposts or excises. What statutory power the Executive has is delegated to it by the Legislature. Take it up with the globalist free traitor Framers who wrote that crap.

I’m afraid you are missing the point. The trade imbalance itself is not the emergency.

The thread article states: "Trump said the nation’s 'persistent' balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.'"

That is what was stated as the point.

None of what you posted changes the fact that Garcia entered the country illegally and therefore must and will be deported.

No one disputes the fact that he entered the country illegally. I don’t know why this is so hard for you.

None of what you puke up changes the fact that Abrego has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, he has constitutional rights, including due process, and nobody is time traveling to his original date of entry to effect a removal.

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)

THACKER, Circuit Judge, with whom Judge KING joins, concurring:

The panel unanimously agrees that the district court’s order requiring the Government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.

The Government’s motion to stay is, therefore, denied. I write to explain my view.

The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.

I.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has no criminal history and has never even been charged with a crime in the United States, El Salvador, or any other country. On March 12, 2025, agents with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) took Abrego Garcia into custody without authority. Although ICE agents told Abrego Garcia that his “status had changed,” S.A. 19; 147, that was not true. On March 15, 2025, in what the Government has conceded was “an administrative error,” the Government flew Abrego Garcia from the United States to Tecoluca, El Salvador. Dist. Ct. Op. at 2 n.3 (citing Hr’g Tr., Apr. 4, 2025, at 19:11-13 (Mr. Reuveni: “This person should -- the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”)).

Erez Reuveni was the attorney representing the Department of Justice.

At 7, footnote 3: "the Government attorney; appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that "the removal order" from 2019 "cannot be executed" and is not part of the record))."

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)

At 14-15:

Finally, I turn to the Government’s assertion that the public interest favors a stay because Abrego Garicia is a “prominent” member of MS-13 and is therefore “no longer eligible for withholding relief.” Mot. for Stay at 14–15. Whatever the merits of the 2019 determination of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) regarding Abrego Garcia’s connection to MS-13,⁸ the Government presented “[n]o evidence” to the district court to “connect[] Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or any other criminal organization.” Dis.t Ct. Op. at 22 n.19; see also id. at 2 n.2 (“Invoking such theories for the first time on appeal cannot cure the failure to present them before this Court.”). Indeed, such a fact cannot be gleaned from this record, which shows that Abrego Garcia has no criminal history, in this country or anywhere else, and that Abrego Garcia is a gainfully employed family man who lives a law abiding and productive life. Tellingly, the Government “abandon[ed]” its position that Abrego Garcia was “a danger to the community” at the hearing before the district court. Dist. Ct. Op. at 22 n.19. The balance of equities must tip in the movant’s favor based on the record before the issuing court. An unsupported -- and then abandoned -- assertion that Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang, does not tip the scales in favor of removal in violation of this Administration’s own⁹ withholding order. If the Government wanted to prove to the district court that Abrego Garcia was a “prominent” member of MS-13, it has had ample opportunity to do so but has not -- nor has it even bothered to try. The Government’s argument that there is a public interest in removing members of “violent transnational gangs” from this country is no doubt true, but it does nothing to help the Government’s cause here. As noted, the Government has made no effort to demonstrate that Abrego Garcia is, in fact, a member of any gang, nor did the Government avail itself of the “procedural mechanism under governing regulations to reopen the immigration judge’s prior order[] and terminate its withholding protection.” Mot. for Stay at 16–17.

⁸ Even then, the Government’s “evidence” of any connection between Abrego Garcia and MS-13 was thin, to say the least. The Government’s claim was based on (1) Abrego Garcia “wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” and (2) “a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived.” S.A. 146 n.5; Mot. for Stay Add. at 10–11.

⁹ Of note, the IJ’s 2019 decision, which granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) because he faced threats to his life from an El Salvadoran gang that had targeted him and his family, was during President Trump’s 2016–2020 term in office. That decision became final on November 9, 2019, and was not appealed by this Administration.

Trump Admin To Cut Food Stamps, Only Pay Out 50%....

As ordered by the Court. After a TACO, they decided following the ORDER of the Court was preferable to receiving a subpoena to appear and explain why they should not be held in contempt.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.rid.60750/gov.uscourts.rid.60750.19.0_3.pdf

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

[...]

- - - - -

[2]

ORDER

The Defendants in their “Emergency Motion for a Written Order on Motion for

Temporary Restraining Order” (ECF No. 18) have stated that:

Defendants are expeditiously attempting to comply with the Court’s order while also considering whether any emergency relief is required. Given the operational difficulties set forth in Defendants’ declaration, Doc. No. 14-2, clarity as to the Court’s ruling is critical to ensure that Defendants can comply with the Court’s order while avoiding an operational collapse as described in that declaration.

ECF No. 18 at 2. Also, the President of the United States stated Friday evening that:

I do not want Americans to go hungry . . . [I] ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible. . . . If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding . . .

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Oct. 31, 2025, at 6:10 PM).¹

So, here’s the ORDER and here’s the legal direction from the Court.² Having reviewed the Complaint, Motion, Memorandum of Law, Declarations, and evidence in support of the Motion, as well as the papers filed in opposition to this Motion, and

____________________

¹ The Court greatly appreciates the President’s quick and definitive response to this Court’s Order and his desire to provide the necessary SNAP funding.

² Given the geographic diversity of Plaintiffs and their membership as well as the injuries certain Plaintiffs suffer from the elimination of SNAP in their communities, a limited order would not provide complete relief. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 853–54 (2025).

- - - - -

[3]

after conducting a hearing on the matter, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, and for good cause shown, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for the issuance of a temporary restraining order because: (1) Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed absent a temporary restraining order; and (3) the public interest and balance of the equities strongly favor entry of a temporary restraining order.3

It is therefore ORDERED:

1. In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024, Congress appropriated more than $122 billion for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). Pub. L. No. 118-42, 138 Stat. 25, 93. Of that sum, Congress directed that $3 billion, “to remain available through September 30, 2026, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations.” (emphasis added). Congress maintained those funding levels for the SNAP program in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, meaning that an additional $3 billion was put aside in a reserve available through September 30, 2027. Pub. L. No. 119-4, 139 Stat. 9, 13 (collectively referred to here as “contingency funds”). Because of the lack of appropriations for Fiscal Year 2026 (i.e., “the shutdown”), use of those contingency funds has now become required because available funding is necessary to carry out the program operations, i.e., to

_____________________

³ The Court incorporates its oral order and reasoning stated in the hearing on this matter October 31, 2025, at 1 p.m. The Court recorded the hearing.

- - - - -

[4]

pay citizens their SNAP benefits. There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown; in fact, the President during his first term issued guidance indicating that these contingency funds are available if SNAP funds lapse due to a government shutdown.⁴

2. Because the contingency funds do not equal the total amount necessary to make November’s SNAP benefit payments, the Government has posited that implementing a partial allotment for the entire country “would be exceedingly difficult, highly disruptive, and delayed, requiring a reworking of every State system to recognize and set forward a reduced benefit.” ECF No. 14-1 at 12.

3. Congress created SNAP as an entitlement: The statute provides that “[a]ssistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households who make application for such participation.” 7 U.S.C. § 2014(a); see also Barry v. Lyon, 834 F.3d 706, 717 (6th Cir. 2016) (finding that this provision “grants a right to food assistance to households that meet federally-established eligibility criteria”); Garnett v. Zeilinger, 323 F. Supp. 3d 58, 71-72 (D.D.C. 2018) (“[S]ection 2014(a) … mandates that eligible households receive benefits.”).

4. Therefore, to ensure the quick, orderly, and efficient implementation of the Court’s Order, to fulfill the statute designation of SNAP as an entitlement, and to alleviate the irreparable harm that the Court found exists without timely payment of

____________________

⁴ During President Trump’s first administration, USDA advised regional partners that funding from the contingency reserves was available to provide SNAP benefits. See, e.g., Letter from Jessica Shahin to FNS Regions, Early Issuance of February 2019 SNAP Benefits – Questions & Answers #2 (Jan. 14, 2019), https://perma.cc/9HCL5GCU.

- - - - -

[5]

SNAP benefits, the Government should, within its discretion, find the additional funds necessary (beyond the contingency funds) to fully fund the November SNAP payments.⁵ Funds available for this include a fund created by section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act amendments of 1935—that had over $23 billion in it as of October 8, 2025. See OpenOMB, State Child Nutrition Programs, https://perma.cc/39Y3-4K9F. USDA is authorized under 7 U.S.C. § 2257 to use a percentage of appropriated funds “interchangeably” for certain expenditures. If the Government chooses to make the full payment, then it must do so by the end of the day Monday, November 3, 2025.

5. If the Government does want to use its discretion to use funds available to make a full payment of SNAP benefits for November 6, then it must expeditiously resolve the administrative and clerical burdens it described in its papers (see ECF

____________________

⁵ The Defendants point out that a partial payment would involve delay and potential error: “USDA has never implemented a reduction in SNAP benefits under 7 C.F.R. 271.7. Because no template, processes, or past experience exist to inform a reduction in benefits, there are multiple variables which could lead to significant problems in attempting to reduce benefits for every SNAP household in the country.” ECF No. 14-2 at 6.

⁶ Any decision by the agency on use of this discretion must be made in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and cannot be arbitrary or capricious.

- - - - -

No. 14-2 at 6), but under no circumstances shall the partial payments be made later than Wednesday, November 5, 2025.

6. The Government will report to the Court on or before Noon on Monday, November 3, 2025, what it will do to comply with this Court’s Order.

7. The Defendants, their agents, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendants are enjoined from terminating any able-bodied adults without dependents (“ABAWD”) waivers before the waivers’ expiration dates on the ground that the waivers were approved due to lack of sufficient jobs in the relevant geographic area.

8. In summary, the Government must make the full SNAP benefit payments by Monday, November 3, 2025. If they chose to use their discretion and not use other funds in additional to the contingency funds to make a full payment, then they must make a partial payment of the total amount of the contingency funds, and they must do this by Wednesday, November 5, 2025.⁷

IT IS SO ORDERED
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.

_________________________________
s/John J. McConnell, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

⁷ The Court GRANTS the Government’s Motion for a Written Order. ECF No. 18.

- - - - -

November 1, 2025

"Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law"

That's a feature.

Not a bug.

As quoted in the post to which you pretend to respond:

In 2012, Barton's New York Times bestseller The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (published April 10, 2012) was voted "the least credible history book in print" by the users of the History News Network website. A group of ten conservative Christian professors reviewed the work and reported negatively on its claims, saying that Barton misstated facts about Jefferson.

In August 2012, Christian publisher Thomas Nelson withdrew the book from publication and stopped production, announcing that they had "lost confidence in the book's details" and "learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported". A senior executive said that Thomas Nelson could not stand by the book because "basic truths just were not there."

That is a record of accomplishment few published authors ever achieve. It appears you aspire to win an award as least credible poster.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

Something which has persisted for five decades is as unusual as breathing for fifty years.

A balance of payments deficit for fifty consecutive years is not an extraordinary threat. It has been an ordinary, every day occurrence for fifty years.

An emergency is not defined by the time that a condition has been ongoing but by the condition of the patient (Country) at the time the emergency is declared. Most emergencies develop over time.

The Country is clearly in a state of emergency caused by the trade paradigm that has been allowed to develop through weakness & corruption. Our economy is disastrously weakened and our lack of robust supply chain puts US at acute risk.

A trade imbalance is neither unusual nor extraordinary. It may rise to levels that threaten the economy but that does not make it unusual or extraordinary.

A persistent condition which has continued for over fifty years can hardly qualify as unusual. That's like saying the Dallas Cowboys missing out on the Super Bowl is unusual.

Before the Court, the IEEPA is the only claim of Executive power to impose tariffs and it does not say anything about tariffs. The IEEPA, if applicable, authorizes the President to “regulate” a variety of international economic transactions, including imports.

The International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not bestow emergency powers to the Executive branch for that which has been going on for the past fifty years and which will continue going on for the foreseeable future. There is no emergency which cannot be addressed by the Congress to whom the power to impose tariffs is bestowed by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court should address this shortly. Trump had planned to attend oral argument but then he decided he would not.

How can he simultaneously be lawfully present in 2019 and be issued a final deportation order?

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)

Erez Reuveni was the attorney representing the Department of Justice, at 7, footnote 3:

... the Government attorney; appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that "the removal order" from 2019 "cannot be executed" and is not part of the record

No amount of judge shopping for activists and resisters can pull some sort of legal gymnastics to override our immigration laws.

The real kicker are those Trump-appointed judges. Why did he appoint activists and resisters to tell him as judges that he was violating the law?

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/31/trump-administration-mandatory-detention-deportation-00632086

More than 100 judges have ruled against the Trump admin’s mandatory detention policy

A POLITICO review of the rulings shows judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan have rebuked the administration’s new interpretation of immigration law.

By Kyle Cheney
10/31/2025 04:29 PM EDT

More than 100 federal judges have now ruled at least 200 times that the Trump administration’s effort to systematically detain immigrants facing possible deportation appeared to violate their rights or was just flatly illegal, according to a POLITICO review.

The rulings come from judges appointed by every president since Ronald Reagan, including 12 appointed by President Donald Trump. One of those appointees took the bench just last month.

[...]

Since July 8, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement reversed 30 years of practice and determined that ICE must lock up everyone facing deportation — even if they’ve lived in the country for decades and have no criminal record — federal courts have issued increasing warnings. The new ICE policy, they note, doesn’t just subject millions more people to detention while they fight deportation, it also bars them from even asking an immigration judge to consider releasing them on bond.

“Courts around the country have since rejected the government’s new interpretation,” U.S. District Judge Kyle Dudek, a Florida-based Trump appointee, ruled Wednesday. “This Court now joins the consensus.”

Other Trump-appointed judges who have ruled against the administration’s position include Terry Doughty in Louisiana, Nancy Brasel in Minnesota, J.P. Hanlon in Indiana and Jason Pulliam in Texas.

Pulliam ruled Oct. 21 that one ICE detainee, who had been held without any “individualized assessment” of his dangerousness, was deprived of his constitutional due process rights.

Only dedicated comunists, such as yourself, support the serial rape of the Constitution.

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)

At 14-15:

Finally, I turn to the Government’s assertion that the public interest favors a stay because Abrego Garicia is a “prominent” member of MS-13 and is therefore “no longer eligible for withholding relief.” Mot. for Stay at 14–15. Whatever the merits of the 2019 determination of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) regarding Abrego Garcia’s connection to MS-13,⁸ the Government presented “[n]o evidence” to the district court to “connect[] Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or any other criminal organization.” Dis.t Ct. Op. at 22 n.19; see also id. at 2 n.2 (“Invoking such theories for the first time on appeal cannot cure the failure to present them before this Court.”). Indeed, such a fact cannot be gleaned from this record, which shows that Abrego Garcia has no criminal history, in this country or anywhere else, and that Abrego Garcia is a gainfully employed family man who lives a law abiding and productive life. Tellingly, the Government “abandon[ed]” its position that Abrego Garcia was “a danger to the community” at the hearing before the district court. Dist. Ct. Op. at 22 n.19. The balance of equities must tip in the movant’s favor based on the record before the issuing court. An unsupported -- and then abandoned -- assertion that Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang, does not tip the scales in favor of removal in violation of this Administration’s own⁹ withholding order. If the Government wanted to prove to the district court that Abrego Garcia was a “prominent” member of MS-13, it has had ample opportunity to do so but has not -- nor has it even bothered to try. The Government’s argument that there is a public interest in removing members of “violent transnational gangs” from this country is no doubt true, but it does nothing to help the Government’s cause here. As noted, the Government has made no effort to demonstrate that Abrego Garcia is, in fact, a member of any gang, nor did the Government avail itself of the “procedural mechanism under governing regulations to reopen the immigration judge’s prior order[] and terminate its withholding protection.” Mot. for Stay at 16–17.

⁸ Even then, the Government’s “evidence” of any connection between Abrego Garcia and MS-13 was thin, to say the least. The Government’s claim was based on (1) Abrego Garcia “wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” and (2) “a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived.” S.A. 146 n.5; Mot. for Stay Add. at 10–11.

⁹ Of note, the IJ’s 2019 decision, which granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) because he faced threats to his life from an El Salvadoran gang that had targeted him and his family, was during President Trump’s 2016–2020 term in office. That decision became final on November 9, 2019, and was not appealed by this Administration.

He appears to be given legal status given his fear of remanding to his home country

What was his status prior to that 2019?

I think he originally entered illegally

He originally entered illegally. His status changed and the courts have explicitly found that he was in the country legally after 2019.

The issue I have is there is no way illegals can have totally comprehensive process given the numbers of them

The 5th Amendment mandates the observation of due process. There must be a hearing with an opportunity to be heard. This is an administrative hearing within the Executive branch; not a hearing before an Article III judge in the Judicial branch.

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025)

Erez Reuveni was the attorney representing the Department of Justice, at 7, footnote 3:

... the Government attorney; appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that "the removal order" from 2019 "cannot be executed" and is not part of the record

At 14-15:

Finally, I turn to the Government’s assertion that the public interest favors a stay because Abrego Garicia is a “prominent” member of MS-13 and is therefore “no longer eligible for withholding relief.” Mot. for Stay at 14–15. Whatever the merits of the 2019 determination of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) regarding Abrego Garcia’s connection to MS-13,⁸ the Government presented “[n]o evidence” to the district court to “connect[] Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or any other criminal organization.” Dis.t Ct. Op. at 22 n.19; see also id. at 2 n.2 (“Invoking such theories for the first time on appeal cannot cure the failure to present them before this Court.”). Indeed, such a fact cannot be gleaned from this record, which shows that Abrego Garcia has no criminal history, in this country or anywhere else, and that Abrego Garcia is a gainfully employed family man who lives a law abiding and productive life. Tellingly, the Government “abandon[ed]” its position that Abrego Garcia was “a danger to the community” at the hearing before the district court. Dist. Ct. Op. at 22 n.19. The balance of equities must tip in the movant’s favor based on the record before the issuing court. An unsupported -- and then abandoned -- assertion that Abrego Garcia was a member of a gang, does not tip the scales in favor of removal in violation of this Administration’s own⁹ withholding order. If the Government wanted to prove to the district court that Abrego Garcia was a “prominent” member of MS-13, it has had ample opportunity to do so but has not -- nor has it even bothered to try. The Government’s argument that there is a public interest in removing members of “violent transnational gangs” from this country is no doubt true, but it does nothing to help the Government’s cause here. As noted, the Government has made no effort to demonstrate that Abrego Garcia is, in fact, a member of any gang, nor did the Government avail itself of the “procedural mechanism under governing regulations to reopen the immigration judge’s prior order[] and terminate its withholding protection.” Mot. for Stay at 16–17.

The Government may not rely on its own failure to circumvent its own ruling that Abrego Garcia could not be removed to El Salvador. More importantly, the Government cannot be permitted to ignore the Fifth Amendment, deny due process of law, and remove anyone it wants, simply because it claims the victims of its lawlessness are members of a gang. Nor can the Government be permitted to disclaim any ability to return those it has wrongfully removed by citing their physical presence in a foreign jurisdiction. This is a slippery -- and dangerous -- constitutional slope. If due process is of no moment, what is stopping the Government from removing and refusing to return a lawful permanent resident or even a natural born citizen?

⁸ Even then, the Government’s “evidence” of any connection between Abrego Garcia and MS-13 was thin, to say the least. The Government’s claim was based on (1) Abrego Garcia “wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie,” and (2) “a vague, uncorroborated allegation from a confidential informant claiming he belonged to MS-13’s ‘Western’ clique in New York—a place he has never lived.” S.A. 146 n.5; Mot. for Stay Add. at 10–11.

⁹ Of note, the IJ’s 2019 decision, which granted Abrego Garcia withholding of removal to El Salvador pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) because he faced threats to his life from an El Salvadoran gang that had targeted him and his family, was during President Trump’s 2016–2020 term in office. That decision became final on November 9, 2019, and was not appealed by this Administration.

When it had to be presented to a court, the alleged evidence shriveled up and died. Removal had to be preceded by an administrative hearing. Having blown that off and having acted defiantly before all the courts, they are now mired in federal litigation. They have a bogus criminal case in Tennessee, and a complete mess of a removal case in Maryland where it appears the only real evidence they have is of the original unlawful entry.

- - - - -

Office of Homeland Security Statistics, Department of Homeland Security

https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/immigration-enforcement/monthly-tables

Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed. This website was last updated on October 1, 2025 and will not be updated until after funding is enacted. As such, information on this website may not be up to date.

Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or removable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed pursuant to a removal order has administrative or criminal consequences placed on subsequent reentry owing to the fact of the removal. DHS removals include removals completed by ICE/ERO and those completed by CBP.

Total 2025 (so far)

111,010

- - - - -

Removals 2025 (so far)

61,630

Returns are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Administrative returns are returns completed by OFO resulting from administrative encounters (see CBP Encounters by Type and Region tab), including withdrawn applications for admission in cases in which expedited removal or other immigration removal proceedings were not considered and foreign crew members without entry visas who are required to remain aboard their ships.

Enforcement Returns 2025 (so far)

35,070

Administrative Returns: The sum of Title 8 removals, Title 8 returns, and Title 42 expulsions of aliens to their country of citizenship or a third country.

Administrative Returns 2025 (so far)

14,310

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

Something which has persisted for five decades is as unusual as breathing for fifty years.

A balance of payments deficit for fifty consecutive years is not an extraordinary threat. It has been an ordinary, every day occurrence for fifty years.

Scotus tends to bend over backwards to satisfy the Executive on this sort of case, but this one may be a challenge. IEEPA is the only authority claimed, and it does not use the word tariff or any synonym for tariff.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/66/vos-selections-inc-v-united-states/

V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. United States, 1:25-cv-00066, (Ct. Intl. Trade Aug 29, 2025) ECF No. 66

At 5:

The Government appeals a decision of the Court of International Trade setting aside five Executive Orders that imposed tariffs of unlimited duration on nearly all goods from nearly every country in the world, holding that the tariffs were not authorized by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. Because we agree that IEEPA's grant of presidential authority to "regulate" imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm.

At 44:

VI

We affirm the CIT's holding that the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs imposed by the Challenged Executive Orders exceed the authority delegated to the President by IEEPA's text. We also affirm the CIT's grant of declaratory relief that the orders are "invalid as contrary to law." V.O.S. Selections, 772 F. Supp. 3d at 1383-84. We vacate the CIT's grant of a permanent injunction universally enjoining the enforcement of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs and remand for the CIT to reevaluate the propriety of granting injunctive relief and the proper scope of such relief, after considering all four eBay factors and the Supreme Court's holding in CASA.

That would depend on how long the Shutdown goes on doesn't it? The “funds” you keep blabbing about are tiny. They'll run out in next to no time.

As long as appropriated funds are available for SNAP, they must be released. Regardless of how tiny five thousand million dollars may be, it must be provided.

When appropriated funds are no longer available for SNAP, then the payments may stop.

You post erroneous information. His presence was not lawful. You are confused as to what the “withholding of removal” order was in 2019.

When all else absolutely fails, read the court opinion. You can cease the babbling nonsense any time now.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/39/abrego-garcia-v-noem/

Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 4th Circuit No. 25-1345 (7 Apr 2025) at 3:

THACKER, Circuit Judge, with whom Judge KING joins, concurring:

The panel unanimously agrees that the district court’s order requiring the Government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025,” should not be stayed.

The Government’s motion to stay is, therefore, denied. I write to explain my view.

The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.

I.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvadoran national who has been lawfully present in the United States since 2019, when he was granted withholding of removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has no criminal history and has never even been charged with a crime in the United States, El Salvador, or any other country.

- - - - -

Erez Reuveni was the attorney representing the Department of Justice.

At 7, footnote 3: "the Government attorney; appearing before the district court at the April 4 hearing candidly admitted that no order of removal is part of the record in this case. Dist. Ct. Op. at 14 (citing Hr'g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025, at 20 (counsel admitting no order of removal is part of the record), and id. at 22 (counsel confirming that "the removal order" from 2019 "cannot be executed" and is not part of the record))."

You cannot be serious.

Your criticism of the program is well taken. Your criticism of the court interpreting the law is ridiculous.

As the funds were appropriated, and the requirement to pay the funds were too clear to admit of argument, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated there would be NO APPEAL and the SNAP allotments could be funded by Wednesday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/02/bessent-trump-snap-food-stamps-shutdown.html

In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Bessent said that the administration would not appeal the court ruling, while adding that finding the funds to pay SNAP benefits by Wednesday "could be" done.

TACO TUESDAY came a day early.

“through 2023”

This is 2025.

And 2025-2026 were covered by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, at pages 69-70.

PUBLIC LAW 118–42—MAR. 9, 2024 138 STAT. 93

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4366/text

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

For necessary expenses to carry out the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), $122,382,521,000, of which $3,000,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2026, shall be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations: ....

As the funds were appropriated, and the requirement to pay the funds were too clear to admit of argument, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated there would be NO APPEAL and the SNAP allotments would be funded by Wednesday.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/02/bessent-trump-snap-food-stamps-shutdown.html

In an interview on CNN's "State of the Union," Bessent said that the administration would not appeal the court ruling, while adding that finding the funds to pay SNAP benefits by Wednesday "could be" done.

You can’t even answer the question. He entered the country illegally. That’s it.

Abrego's most recent entry was lawful. His presence in the U.S. since 2019 was lawful. Deal with it.

A.L.

Some are by Lincoln, some are not.

"We firmly denounce the use of excessive military force in carrying out actions in anti-drugs operations," foreign ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova said in a commentary on her ministry's website.

"Such actions are in violation of both U.S. domestic legislation ... and the norms of international law."

https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf

Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts 2001

Article 4

Conduct of organs of a State

1. The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or any other functions, whatever position it holds in the organization of the State, and whatever its character as an organ of the central Government or of a territorial unit of the State.

2. An organ includes any person or entity which has that status in accordance with the internal law of the State.

Article 8

Conduct directed or controlled by a State

The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying out the conduct.

- - - - - - - - - -

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/50-usc-1543-notice-to-congress-drug-cartels.pdf

Remarks to Congress, Sept 29, 2025

[T]he President determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States. In response, based upon the cumulative effects of these hostile acts against the citizens and interests of United States and friendly foreign nations, the Presidentd eterminedt hat the United States is in a non-international armed conflict with these designated terrorist organizations.

- - - - - - - - -

https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-at-a-un-security-council-briefing-on-venezuela/

UNITED STATES MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS, October 10, 2025

The United States has designated Tren de Aragua and Cartel de Los Soles as terrorist groups, which is what they are. ... President Trump determined these cartels are non-state armed groups, designated them as terrorist organizations, and determined that their actions constitute an armed attack against the United States. ... President Trump has determined the United States is in a noninternational armed conflict and has directed the Department of War to conduct operations against them pursuant to the law of armed conflict and consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter.

- - - - - - - - -

https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml

UN Charter Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

- - - - - - - - -

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2025-10/in-hindsight-the-increasing-use-of-article-51-of-the-un-charter-and-the-security-council.php

Differing Member State Positions on Article 51

Member states disagree over several aspects of Article 51. To begin with, a significant number of states take the view that an armed attack must occur before a member state can exercise its right of self-defence. These states tend to argue that the wording of Article 51 is clear and should not be reinterpreted, and often claim that ICJ jurisprudence, including the decisions in Nicaragua, DRC v Uganda, Oil Platforms, and the Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion, supports their view. This position was recently reaffirmed in the outcome document of the 19th high-level summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) held in January 2024.