USDC Judge Xinis In Maryland Is Very Likely (By Next Tuesday, Or So), To Tell Noem / Rubio / Miller / Tangerine 2.0... That Their Fruits From "A Poisoned Tree" Have Now Ripened, And They Must "Eat Them" .

More -- out of Maryland this afternoon, to combat Noem's awful abuses, as to Abrego Garcia's continued detention. It is eleven pages of excellent argument.

Also, the main All Writs Act complaint has been amended tonight -- here's that filing, as a redline.

Here's that fine filing, this afternoon -- in Maryland -- and a bit:

. . .The Government’s opposition (ECF No. 208) does not contest any aspect of the merits of Plaintiffs’ emergency motion to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to Maryland. Among other things, the Government does not dispute that:

➣ The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, and inherent equitable powers authorize the requested relief. ECF No. 203 at 2–3.

➣ This Court’s injunction “properly requires the Government. . . to ensure that [Abrego Garcia’s] case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 145 S. Ct. 1017, 1018 (2025), and achieving that—i.e., restoring the status quo ante—requires returning Abrego Garcia to Maryland. ECF No. 203 at 3–4.

➣ The equities are one-sided in favoring a return to Maryland. Id. at 4–5.

➣ If this Court does not act, the Government will likely shuttle Abrego Garcia elsewhere for forum-shopping purposes. . . .

Indeed, the Government’s brief does not even mention the All Writs Act, courts’ equitable powers, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case, or the equities. See generally ECF No. 208. Instead of contesting the merits, the Government presses three jurisdictional defenses: (1) the case is moot, id. at 1–2; (2) certain statutory provisions—8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), §1252(b)(9), and §1252(g)—bar jurisdiction, id. at 2–6; and (3) the requested relief sounds in habeas, yet this Court lacks habeas jurisdiction, id. at 6–7. Each defense fails. . . .

The relief Abrego Garcia seeks in this motion is critical “to restore the status quo and preserve Abrego Garcia’s access to due process in accordance with the Constitution and governing immigration statutes.” ECF No. 21 at 2–3. This Court should therefore enter the order under the All Writs Act and the Court’s inherent equitable authority. Because of the threat the Government will remove Abrego Garcia unlawfully if ICE takes him into custody and no such order is in place, Abrego Garcia requested, and the Tennessee court agreed, to delay issuance of its release order so that he remains in U.S. Marshal custody, rather than ICE custody, until the hearing scheduled in that case for July 16, 2025. See ECF No. 67 in United States v. Abrego Garcia, No. 3:25-cr-115 (M.D. Tenn. June 30, 2025). Plaintiffs request that the Court enter the requested relief by then. . . .

Onward -- to the choo choos, for a night classical / rap / concert up north, outdoors. . . . [And I'll see you there, on the 16^th, then].

नमस्ते