Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email and to subscribe to Executive Functions.
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted the government's motion for clarification of the Court’s previous order, issued on June 23, which had stayed an injunction by Judge Brian Murphy (D. Mass.) that had prevented the government from deporting several men to South Sudan. The Court clarified that the district court could not “enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” Justice Kagan concurred, and Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justice Jackson. Following the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday, Judge Murphy denied the plaintiffs’ new motion to prevent their deportation. The government deported the men on Friday evening. See a prior Roundup for background. (Supreme Court’s Thursday order.) (Judge Murphy’s order denying new motion.) (Description of the effort to prevent the deportations following the Supreme Court’s Thursday order.) (DHS’s statement on the deportations.)
A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday granted the government’s application for a stay of a district court order that prevented the removal of a member of the Federal Labor Relations Authority. (Order.)
Judge Randolph Moss (D.D.C.) on Sunday granted government defendants’ motion for summary judgment on some claims and dismissed the remaining plaintiffs’ claims challenging a decision by the Executive Office of Immigration Review to terminate a contract to administer federal programs that provided legal services to people in immigration proceedings. (Order.) (Opinion.)
Jack Goldsmith argued that the letters from the attorney general to companies effectuating the non-enforcement of the TikTok ban—released via the Freedom of Information Act—include dramatic claims of executive authority that appear to be rooted in the “dispensing” power. (Executive Functions.) Alan Rozenshtein described the claims in the letters as “astonishing in their breadth and implications for executive power.” (Lawfare.)
Pending Interim Order Applications Involving the U.S. Government in the Supreme Court
Trump v. Mary Boyle: Government filed application on July 2 to stay a district court order invalidating Trump’s firing of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Chief Justice Roberts requested response to application by July 11.
Learning Resources v. Trump: Plaintiffs on June 17 filed petition for certiorari before judgment in the tariff case currently pending at the D.C. Circuit and asked the Supreme Court to expedite consideration of the petition. Government filed response to motion to expedite on June 18. Plaintiffs filed reply in support of the motion on June 20. Court denied plaintiffs’ motion to expedite on June 20.
McMahon v. State of New York: Government filed application on June 6 to stay district court preliminary injunction that barred the government from taking actions to dismantle the Department of Education. Plaintiffs filed responses to application on June 13. Government filed reply on June 16.
Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees: Government filed application on June 2 to stay district court universal injunction that blocked the government from implementing Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to implement reductions-in-force. Plaintiffs filed response on June 9. Government filed reply on June 10.