Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
On Friday, following Judge Paula Xinis’s order to the government to provide information about Abrego Garcia’s location and custodial status and the steps the government had taken and would take to facilitate Garcia’s return, the government said it was “unable to provide the information requested by the Court on the impracticable deadline set by the Court hours after the Supreme Court issued its order.” The court found on Friday that the government had failed to comply with its order and directed it to file daily updates providing the information Judge Xinis initially requested. The government on Saturday filed a declaration from a State Department official in which he said that Garcia was being held at the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador, that he was “alive and secure,” and was “detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.” The government in its Sunday status report provided “no updates.” However, the government stated in a filing on Sunday that it understood the direction from the Supreme Court to “facilitate” Garcia’s return as requiring only that the government take “all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede” Garcia’s return. (Government’s initial Friday response.) (Order finding that the government had failed to comply.) (Government’s Saturday status report.) (Government’s Sunday status report.) (Plaintiff’s motion for other relief.) (Government’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for other relief.)
Two Venezuelan men filed a lawsuit in Colorado federal district court today seeking to prevent the government from removing them and other similarly situated individuals from the District of Colorado, and from deporting them from the United States, under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). This is at least the third lawsuit related to the AEA filed since the Supreme Court’s AEA ruling last week. (Motion for temporary restraining order.)
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday stayed in part a district court order that prevented the Trump administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. See a prior Roundup for background. (Order.)
Judge Dabney Friedrich (D.D.C.) on Friday denied a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by faith-based communities against U.S. government immigration authorities seeking to prevent them from “conducting immigration enforcement actions in or near plaintiffs’ places of worship” absent exceptional circumstances. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ request to stay a memorandum issued by the Trump administration that removed “bright-line” rules regarding enforcement actions in or near places of worship. (Order.)
Judge John McConnell (D.R.I.) today denied the government’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s enforcement order of its preliminary injunction requiring the Federal Emergency Management Agency to halt a manual review process that the court found violated the injunction. Judge McConnell rejected the government’s argument that the Supreme Court’s ruling on the emergency stay application in the education grants case shows that the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider this enforcement motion. See a prior Roundup for background. (Order.)
Judge John Woodcock (D.Me.) on Friday issued a temporary restraining order that required the Department of Agriculture to unfreeze certain funds the administration refused to disburse “because of the state of Maine’s alleged failure to comply with the requirements of Title IX.” The court also barred the department from “freezing, terminating, or otherwise interfering with” Maine’s federal funding “for alleged violations of Title IX without complying with the legally required procedure.” (Order.)
Susman Godfrey on Friday became the fourth law firm to sue the Trump administration for an executive order targeting the firm. (Complaint.)
Jack Goldsmith argued on Friday that although it’s too early to evaluate the wisdom of the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings, “thus far it has neither bowed to the president nor proceeded in an untoward way.” (Executive Functions.)
Bob Bauer and Goldsmith discussed the Court’s emergency rulings record and the administration’s still-escalating attack on law firms. (Executive Functions.)
Will Baude described three models of thinking that might represent how the Court is approaching Trump 2.0 litigation. (Divided Argument.)
Steve Vladeck contended that the Court is delivering rulings that avoid “a head-on institutional confrontation” with the administration “at the cost of (1) standing up for the lower-court judges who are in the trenches in these cases; and (2) meaningful relief for the actual plaintiffs.” (One First.)
Vladeck also reviewed the president’s authority to use the military on domestic soil. (One First.)
Benjamin Wittes argued that judges cannot assume that the administration will comply with their orders, and that they should require the administration to demonstrate compliance. (Lawfare.)
Anne Joseph O’Connell argued that a president violates the Appointments Clause by “nam[ing] acting officials to multi-member boards under Article II—with no congressional permission—where he has created the vacancies.” (Lawfare.)
Paul Rosenzweig analyzed President Trump’s recent elections-related executive order and called it “nothing less than an attempt to disenfranchise his opponents and forestall electoral defeat.” (The Atlantic.)
Stuart Banner argued that an all-out conflict between the administration and the Supreme Court is unlikely because it is in neither of their interests. (WAPO.)
Pending Emergency Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Donald Trump v. Gwynne A. Wilcox: Government filed application on April 9 to stay pending appeal district court injunctions. Chief Justice Roberts on April 9 stayed district court injunctions and requested response to application by 5:00 pm on April 15.
Trump v. Washington: Government filed application on March 13 to stay pending appeal district court injunction. Plaintiffs filed response to application on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7.
Trump v. New Jersey: Government filed application on March 13 to stay pending appeal district court injunction. Plaintiffs filed response to application on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7.
Trump v. CASA: Government filed application on March 13 to stay pending appeal district court injunction. Plaintiffs filed response to application on April 4. Government filed reply on April 7.