Good Grief! These Noemites Are A Pedantic Bunch: Khalil Being Asked To Explain Plain English Orders To Team Tangerine 2.0?!

You'll recall the Mr. Khalil is free on $1 bail/bond. He is residing in NYC under the protection of a federal injunctive decree.

Overnight, the Noem / Bondi / Trump 2.0 team said they cannot read. . . English. That is, they do not believe the injunction stops them from doing whatever they want. Here's the complaint to the able USDC Judge in NJ -- just docketed by Mr. Khalil's fine team of lawyers -- and a bit:

. . .As directed, Petitioner’s [Khalil's] counsel conferred with [Noem's] Respondents’ counsel following oral argument to ascertain Respondents’ understanding of this Court’s order. On June 27, Respondents’ counsel wrote the undersigned that while “[t]he Court’s order does preliminarily enjoin the Government from seeking to remove Petitioner from the United States based on the determination,” Respondents “understand that to mean actual physical removal from the United States,” and that nothing in the order prevents them from “continuing to litigate the removability charge [based on the Secretary of State’s determination] through the normal course of removal proceedings.” Ex. D, DOJ Email. Respondents also stated that “the Court’s PI order is prospective.” Id.

Petitioner respectfully submits that this interpretation cannot be squared with the plain terms of this Court’s order. “Seeking to remove” does not mean the same thing as “remove.” The former phrase encompasses any DHS pursuit of removal based on the Secretary of State’s determination and the immigration judge’s consideration of the determination, not just the final action of a removal based on the likely unconstitutional removal charge. See, e.g., ECF 299 at 2 (“The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to remove him from the United States on two grounds.”). It is Petitioner’s position that both continued DHS reliance on the Secretary of State’s determination in removal proceedings and the immigration judge’s rulings based on that same determination impermissibly seek to remove Mr. Khalil based on the Secretary of State’s determination and are therefore inconsistent with this Court’s order. See Oral Arg. Tr. 36:22-23 (June 20, 2025) (“THE COURT: There are two charges here and one of them has been enjoined.”); id. at 5:4-8 (“What happened a week ago [is]. . . I preliminarily enjoined. . . efforts to remove as to the Secretary of State’s determination as to the petitioner here.”). . . .

[And of course, the mentioned] immigration judge is an employee of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, a component of the U.S. Department of Justice. She wields authority derived from -- and answers to -- Attorney General Pam Bondi, a respondent in this matter. Accordingly, the immigration judge is subject to this Court’s orders in this matter, including its June 11 preliminary injunction. . . .

These people -- geez. The plain English couldn't be. . . plainer. The able USDC Judge will straighten the wheels on their little red wagon, right out -- for them, and likely before the Fourth. Out.

नमस्ते