Please click here to opt in to receive the Executive Functions Roundup via email.
Monday brought three significant developments in the Alien Enemies Act deportation case. First, Judge Boasberg denied the government’s motion to vacate his temporary restraining order (TRO) barring deportations pursuant to Trump’s proclamation. Second, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing on the government’s request to lift Judge Boasberg’s TRO. Third, the government notified the district court that it is invoking the State Secrets privilege and will not provide the additional information regarding the deportations that Judge Boasberg requested on March 18. See prior Roundups for background on the case. (Judge Boasberg’s denial.) (Recording of the hearing.) (Government’s notice invoking the State Secrets privilege.) (See the dockets for additional filings—district court docket, appeals court docket.)
The administration filed an emergency application Monday in the Supreme Court challenging a March 13 district court ruling directing the government to rehire probationary workers the administration had terminated from six federal agencies. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris asked the Court to stay the injunction and issue an immediate administrative stay. (Application.)
Judge Christine O’Hearn (D.N.J.) on Monday enjoined the Trump administration from firing two transgender service members. (Order.)
Jennifer Hillman argued that President Trump improperly invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as legal basis for the imposition of tariffs. (Lawfare.)
Aziz Huq contended that the U.S. is turning into a “dual state”—one in which “a lawless zone … runs alongside the normative state.” (The Atlantic.)
Tyler Lindley, Morgan Bronson, and Wesley White argued that temporary restraining orders enjoining executive branch activity should be appealable. (The Volokh Conspiracy.) And check out the authors’ new law review article on the subject here.
Andrew Weissmann criticized Paul Weiss’s decision to make a deal rather than challenge President Trump’s order targeting the firm. He argued that the firm’s decision “serves as a clarion call to further such improper action by this administration.” (Just Security.)
Deborah Pearlstein called on large law firms to bind together in the face of their current collective action problem to resist President Trump’s actions targeting them. (NYT.)