But in a show of equanimity, coupled to a thoughtful expediency, the lawyers for the kids are willing (but only in the federal trial level court in San Francisco) to allow the Trump Administration to wait until Christmas week 2017 to deliver the full discovery materials it owes them -- because it is likely (they rightly surmise) that one court or another will enjoin Trump on the merits by or before then. Lovely. Here's a bit, from the 11 page PDF, just filed:
. . . .As it happens, the plaintiffs here agree that it would be sensible at this particular juncture for the district court to temporarily stay its orders requiring completion and filing of the administrative record by November 22, although not in exactly the manner sought by defendants. Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants’ motion to dismiss are now pending in the district court, and will be fully briefed and argued by December 20. A temporary stay until after the district court rules on those motions would allow the parties to focus on the most immediate issue of whether defendants’ decision to rescind DACA should be enjoined from taking effect while this litigation proceeds. The district court’s ruling on those motions could also either moot or clarify some of the arguments proffered by defendants in support of the extraordinary interlocutory relief that defendants sought from this Court and have now indicated they otherwise intend to pursue immediately in the Supreme Court. A temporary stay would perhaps also obviate any perceived need for defendants to further multiply proceedings in this case.
For all these reasons, on November 19 (Saturday) plaintiffs themselves (the kids!) filed a motion in the district court seeking a stay tailored to the circumstances of this case. See D.Ct. Dkt. No. 190. This morning, the district court issued a tentative order that would delay defendants’ obligation to file the augmented administrative record and stay discovery until December 22, two days after the scheduled hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and defendants’ motion to dismiss. . . .
Gentle readers: this is what it looks like -- when one side is so far ahead on the merits, in important litigation: they (the kids) turn their cards all face up -- and offer to be. . . kind. It clearly illuminates just how preposterous Trump's lawyers are being. And I love this style -- both economical, and devastating, all in one. Well-done!
[45's lawyers will have their say, later this evening -- such as it is. I'll post it
नमस्ते
नमस्ते
1 comment:
And, after defeats in Chicago and elsewhere this past fall, overnight in the Santa Clara, California version of the Sanctuary Cities litigation, Trump has suffered as complete a defeat as any POTUS has ever been handed, in a federal trial court:
. . .Heidi Li Feldman, a professor of law at Georgetown University, called the judge’s ruling a “recognition of the lawlessness” of the order.
“What is amazing about this is the thoroughness with which he dismisses the executive order,” she said. “The major ways in which an executive action can fail to be constitutional are all included in this suit, and Orrick is accepting the argument that literally every way the executive branch could violate the constitution with regard to municipalities, this administration has. . . .”
Well -- that's something his grandkids will one day read: Grandad didn't understand even the rudiments of the office he once held.
Namaste, and a good (if gray) morning ahead -- lunch in the loop with my eldest. . . .
Post a Comment