Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Honduran Migrant Caravan members file lawsuit against Trump border enforcement plans

Honduran Migrant Caravan members file lawsuit against Trump border enforcement plans

An election eve gift to Republicans

This is like an election gift to Republicans.

People participating in the Honduran Migrant Caravan making its way through Mexico have filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in D.C. against Trump’s possible border enforcement plans.

The Complaint (pdf.) is fully embedded at the bottom of this post.

The complaint initially focuses on Trump’s statement that he would end ‘catch and release’ and would detain those caught entering the U.S. illegally. The complaint alleges this is a violation of the Flores settlement agreement (exhibit 1 to the Complaint) and a violation of the migrants constitutional rights:

Trump’s professed and enacted policy towards thousands of caravanners seeking asylum in the United States is shockingly unconstitutional. President Trump continues to abuse the law, including constitutional rights, to deter Central Americans from exercising their lawful right to seek asylum in the United States, and the fact that innocent children are involved matters none to President Trump….

Despite the Flores Agreement’s lawfully binding mandates, President Trump’s policy position/initiative is to put these very children in tents, touting that “when they find out this happens, [held in tents for years in the desert] you’re going to have far fewer people come up.” Clearly President Trump cannot believe that his tents are facilities run by licensed programs as required by the Flores Agreements. And President Trump clearly is not talking about adequate temperature controlled and ventilated tents with toilets and sinks and drinking water, for Plaintiffs’ children, noting that Trump has condoned tent encampments as recent as 8 months ago. Id. Moreover, the issue of detaining people in tents indefinitely brings about more unconstitutional conduct by our President.

So, taking President Trump at his word—that his policy position/initiative is to detain people in tents until they have to go back to central America—President Trump must be directing officials to designate all Caravanners as “you are an arriving alien.” Id. The problem with this designation however is that the law requires Defendants to permit all such designated persons to challenge their designations; consequently, Trump’s policy of keeping all persons detained until they must leave the country necessarily violates due process rights.

The complaint goes on to complain about Trump’s plan to prevent illegal border crossers from applying for asylum, requiring them to present themselves instead at official border points of entry:

On top of the above, Trump has repeatedly professed that the caravan people will not get into this county, and just as significant, Trump has taken meaningful steps to ensure the world that this is his policy position/initiative, meaningful steps such as deploying thousands of active military troops to the border, waiting on caravan persons to arrive. The legal problem with Trump’s
plan to stop caravan persons from entering this country is that Plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.

Last, but not least, the complaint has a general complaint about Trump’s intentions:

This Court should also note that President Trump has begun hysterically asserting without any evidence that “many criminals” and “many gang members” are in this “onslaught” of migration. In an effort to create fear and hysteria, Trump has gone so far as to call this “an invasion of our Country.” Despite these statements and actions, Trump has been unable to produce any evidence of criminals and gang members within the caravan, which has largely proceeded peacefully on its journey. Plaintiffs now request that this Court declare Trump’s policy positions/initiatives outlined in this Complaint unconstitutional, to end this case and controversy.

I’d like to say this is a legal joke, coming before any plan has been adopted much less implemented. None of the plaintiffs has yet suffered any legal harm. But we know from the litigation against Trump’s travel orders that there likely is a district court judge somewhere who will expand concepts of standing and restrict presidential powers over who may enter the country.

So don’t completely dismiss this. But don’t take it too seriously at the moment. I checked the docket this morning, and as of this writing there is no motion for an injunction. So no immediate relief is sought.

I see this primarily as a legal placeholder, so that if and when the migrants actually are detained or prevented from applying for asylum this lawsuit, being the first filed, will be the legal vehicle for challenge.

More important, perhaps, is that it plays right into Republican election themes. Coming just days before the midterms, consider it an election eve gift to Republicans.


Pineda v Trump – Migrant Caravan Lawsuit – Class Action Complaint by Legal Insurrection on Scribd


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Obvious question. Does this lawsuit have any legal standing at all? “Constitutional rights of immigrants”? By people with no legal addresses?

    harleycowboy in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 2, 2018 at 9:25 am

    Nor citizenship.

    Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 2, 2018 at 10:14 am

    Foreign nationals sue in Federal courts every day.

    I know of no procedural rule that would disable someone without an address from suing in either state or federal courts, so long as they have an agent to whom suit-related stuff could be sent.

      Yes, anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time however frivolous. They are called “frivolous lawsuits”. I apologize for not making my question concise enough to fend off nuisance comments by legal wiseguys.

      My question addressed the likelihood that the court might accept the case or dismissing it as the political nuisance that it obviously is. Lack of standing would be the obvious CONSTITUTIONAL grounds for dismissal. There may be others. Like “applying for entry into the US via normal established channels” would be another.

        Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 2, 2018 at 11:59 am

        I gave you a perfectly civil and factual legal response to your question.

        You didn’t have the writing ability to ask about a “frivolous” lawsuit.

        What a jackass…

        My question was directed to real practicing lawyers with real legal careers, not a protected troll from Mayberry who fancies himself a “humble country lawyer” and “modest bon vivant”. Now go back and hide behind Fuzzy’s skirts before you get hurt. You might think of getting a job too.

          Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 2, 2018 at 12:48 pm

          Your questions were directed at the commenters here.

          They asked two specific questions. Nothing else.

          I am a practicing attorney, and I responded to your questions both civically, directly, and with sound legal opinion.

          You obviously are the hateful troll here.

          And I have no fear of any harm from a jackass who can’t formulate a question about a “frivolous” lawsuit even using elementary school language.

          Close The Fed in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 2, 2018 at 5:42 pm

          Pasadena Phil, I have to go with Rags on this one. He made a perfectly civil response….

      Ratbert in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 5:35 pm

      Yes, and Ratspierre posts stupid comments every day. Just because ambulance chasers file frivolous lawsuits every day for which they should get sanctioned is not the point, but it could be your career.

        Rags is protesting by arguing that his comment was civil. Yes, it was a civil “dumb-phuq” reply of stating the obvious. Did his dumb answer enlighten anyone here? Maybe it’s because he is just a “humble country lawyer”. A Barney Fife of the law profession. It’s like dealing with an ornery, petulant 10-year old.

          Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 4, 2018 at 9:24 am

          If my answers were “stating the obvious”, why did you pose such stupid questions?

          What’s “obvious” is that not everyone here knew that foreign nationals sue in Federal courts every day OR that someone without an address still has standing in the courts of the US.

          I’ll keep dragging you through this knothole as long as you like.

    “We have the right, the right, to invade your country.”


    “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to pfg. | November 2, 2018 at 4:07 pm

      Adolph Hiter said that didn’t he?

      RE: “We have the right, the right, to invade your country.”

        But he went about it the wrong way. He should have sued Poland, the Soviet Union, France, etc. to prevent them from opposing his forcible entry. At least in France, surely he could have found a French court willing to surrender without a fight? (I know, I know, the French didn’t actually surrender without a fight. It’s called a “joke.”)

    Phil, my professional background was in quality audits. A career of verifying products conformed to federal and military standards which set forth the purpose, scope and detailed requirements for product manufacture and test.

    One of the stranger arguments I had with a liberal dealt with the constitution and whether or not the ‘Preamble’ was part of it. To this old QA auditor, the PURPOSE and SCOPE of the constitution is established by the Preamble:

    We the People of the United States … to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    In my non-legal professional experience, the US Constitution applies only to citizens of the US. The Liberal argued that the Preamble was NOT part of the Constitution.

    That the Preamble is at the top and on the same page as Article I of the constitution made no difference to him. The liberal viewed the Preamble as a non-binding introductory statement where only the articles were applicable.

    I have no idea how to address that kind of lunacy …

      I’m not a lawyer either but am well-versed in the history and meaning of the Constitution. But I can’t argue constitution law as it has evolved beyond its original simplicity.

      It is a simple 2-page document that was well-understood by most of the citizenry at its founding and even today for those of us who simply know how to read. It means exactly what it says and the preamble could stand alone as a document were men angels but we aren’t so we now refer to many sources like the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution in its entirety to establish “original meaning”. You don’t take a lawyer to understand that. Our Constitution was not written to be only understood by lawyers.

      I will now defer to our resident troll to disassemble what I just said with his usual fog bank of legal-sounding nonsense and personal insults.

        Ragspierre in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 2, 2018 at 5:36 pm

        My question was directed to real practicing lawyers with real legal careers, not a protected troll from Mayberry who fancies himself a “humble country lawyer” and “modest bon vivant”. Now go back and hide behind Fuzzy’s skirts before you get hurt. You might think of getting a job too.


        I will now defer to our resident troll to disassemble what I just said with his usual fog bank of legal-sounding nonsense and personal insults.
        Look up “self-parody”. See also “hypocrite”.

        I waiting to see how you plan to “hurt me”, jackass.

      iRickee in reply to MrE. | November 6, 2018 at 11:56 am

      The Articles of the Constitution are read in the context of the Preamble.

    Ohio Historian in reply to Pasadena Phil. | November 4, 2018 at 10:17 pm

    Sorry for the negative; it clicked when I hit “Reply”.
    They are claiming to be seeking asylum. That claim is bogus; they could have received that in Mexico and instead rejected it. How can they claim Constitutional protections under our Constitution when their native country is NOT the US? Shouldn’t they claim their rights under the Honduran/etc Constitution? After all, they are seeking asylum for some reason.

    This is a typical “what I want you have to give me” suit. Watch some progressive judge give them standing and the “rights” that they are seeking which they may deserve as human beings, but which have been effectively trampled by the left’s support of these tinpot dictators running these s**thole countries.

Out of curiosity how do the “plaintiffs” have standing to sue for injunctive relief when clearly they have yet to make entry into U.S. jurisdiction and have not yet filed for asylum.
Real question as I am only a hobbyist In legal matters.

So which Democrat is paying for all this?

Let them in if they win the case and only then. The government can drag the case out FOR YEARS.

Close The Fed | November 2, 2018 at 9:28 am

Unbelievably this is bankrolled by the company that makes over $400 a MONTH putting ankle bracelets on illegal aliens that are waiting for a hearing. Their contract should be ended yesterday.

From gateway pundit:
The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of the migrants by Nexus Services whose Libre by Nexus company charges migrants a reported $420 a month to wear the company’s ankle bracelet while out on immigration bond. Libre by Nexus is reported to be under investigation by state and federal authorities and is “accused of preying on detained undocumented immigrants”.

I have long believed that elected governments should not be bound by consent decrees agreed to by their predecessors; they should be able to declare that the people no longer consent to this extralegal constraint, and if the plaintiffs think they really have a case let them litigate it.

I’ve seen cities crippled by decrees foolishly (or maliciously) entered into decades ago; the people elect a better government and it finds that it can’t change the policies that created the mess because a judge rubber-stamped them.

The federal government has the power to actually make such a policy stick. If the President were to declare that the USA no longer regards itself as bound by Flores, and will no longer voluntarily comply with it, what can any judge do about it? So long as the President sticks to his guns, and Congress doesn’t impeach and remove him for it, he wins, and he establishes the precedent for all time.

Of course if the plaintiffs in the Flores case wish to resume their original litigation let them do so, and make their case in court. And of course if the USA loses the case, and the appeals, then it should be bound by that decision, properly arrived at through the normal judicial process. But no more of these shortcuts.

    Close The Fed in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2018 at 9:38 am

    I would upvote Milhouse on this, because I agree these decades-old decrees are hokum. But I would go further and agree with Tom Jefferson that the courts do not have the power they usurped so long ago, to bind the co-equal branches. Even Jefferson noted that impeachment in his time was not even a scarecrow to judges, and that should be changed. Judges mere lawyers with a very narrow slice of perspective have alienated Americans from their own country in a deliberate fashion. It is time to rein them in harder and stronger than a runaway team of horses.

    Potus should emulate Andrew Jackson- whom I’m told is a distant relative of mine – and note the court may decide as it wishes, and then may enforce with the troops it doesn’t have. KMA judges!

    legalbeagle in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2018 at 10:01 am

    Milhouse raises an excellent point here. Can a United States Disrict Court whose jurisdiction s limited to that District enter a consent decree that sets national policy. Such consent decrees can usurp the power of all three Branches of Government. The Supreme Court is not given a chance to review the decree. Congress is not given a chance to exercise its constitutional law making powers. The Executive is putatively prohibited from reversing the policy of another President.

    This process is encourages corruption. An Justice Department can find a like minded Plaintiff to enter into a consent decree with thereby usurping the roles of all three branches of government.

    Trump should take the position that Flores is nugatory because it has no more effect than an executive order

      Ragspierre in reply to legalbeagle. | November 2, 2018 at 10:28 am

      “Such consent decrees can usurp the power of all three Branches of Government.”

      Explain, please. Because that makes absolutely no sense.

        legalbeagle in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 11:37 am

        I am not sure what you don’t understand. A consent order, since it is subject to minimal review is the most dangerous and least representative way to set national policy. Consent orders should not be used for that purpose.

        The Obama Administration was accused of working hand in glove with favored NGOs to have consent decrees issued.

        Suppose the Justice Department in response to Planned Parenthood Federal Complaint that the United States was failing to ensure the State of Texas maintained a Republican form of Government, entered into a consent order in a Texas District Court specifying that any non-Texas licensed physician can perform an abortion in Texas, subject only the restrictions of Federal Law. Sound okay to you?

          Ragspierre in reply to legalbeagle. | November 2, 2018 at 12:03 pm

          Well, no, of course not.

          But the judiciary can’t usurp the judiciary’s powers.

          Nor can a consent decree bind the legislature from passing law.

          THAT’s what I found unsupportable in your comment.

          neanderthal in reply to legalbeagle. | November 2, 2018 at 2:21 pm

          I’d say it makes perfect sense, though I only agree up to a point.

          Consent decrees certainly usurp the power of the executive branch. That’s basically their function. You could argue that point by saying that the president at the time has agreed to it, and may even have wanted it, as in the case of agreeing to a policy he wants but knows does not have political support. But even then, the consent decree usurps the power of the next president, who is often from a different political party.

          And while Congress could override the consent decree with new legislation, that’s hardly an immediate solution. At the very least, a consent decree preempts legislation, and in many cases there’s insufficient support or time to override the consent decree.

          It’s trickier for the judicial branch. The judge issuing the consent decree is part of the judicial branch, so you’re effectively arguing the judicial branch is usurping itself.

          But the fact remains that the judge issuing the decree gets to set a policy that other judges might well have disagreed with. And even SCOTUS can’t override a consent decree unless they have an appropriate lawsuit by someone with standing. In the case of judge-shopping for a friendly judge, it would be fair enough to say the judiciary as a whole was preempted by shopping for just the judge you want.

        zennyfan in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 1:57 pm

        Lower federal courts try to usurp the power of the Supreme Court by creatively trying to evade its decisions. Just one example is the Ninth Circuit’s by-now-routine attempts to avoid SCOTUS’ rulings in penalty cases. Another will be the next immigration injunction, which will ignore SCOTUS’ clear words upholding the president’s power in immigration matters (Trump v. Hawaii).

        Ratbert in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 5:41 pm

        I understood it. Everyone else seems to understand it. I bet this happens to you all the time.

    neanderthal in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2018 at 2:34 pm

    I’m not sure there’s an easy solution to the problem, but it’s definitely an issue. Too often, consent decrees are used to get a policy mandated that could never have passed Congress or the rule-making process of federal agencies — which cause enough problems in the way they bypass Congress.

    It definitely seems to me that a new president should not be bound by the old administration’s consent decrees. Recently, the president had to sue — unsuccessfully — to have the Flores consent decree modified.

    Maybe the answer is to reverse the burden. Let a new president reject a consent decree that applied to a former president, and force the other side to sue to have it re-applied. I can see that causing its own set of problems, of course. But the new president can always just affirm an old consent decree if he agrees with it. And if he doesn’t, the opposition can always request a temporary injunction, it seems like a better answer than any alternative.

    Except one. The best response is still legislation, which is how all national policy should be set, subject only to the Constitution itself.

      Ragspierre in reply to neanderthal. | November 2, 2018 at 3:43 pm

      I like your burden-shifting idea.

      Generally, any consent decree is an agreement (in this case) between the executive and the plaintiff, with a court saying grace over the agreement. So it involves two branches of government.

      However, I see no impediment to them being vacated by a new executive. Just as I see no reason an EO by a prior executive should be binding on a new one.

      Close The Fed in reply to neanderthal. | November 2, 2018 at 5:49 pm

      Well, in theory, cases bind only the litigants. The problem is when a party is a government, or some similar type of entity.

      We already have a principle that one legislature cannot bind a subsequent legislature. That is, a legislature may adopt all the legislation it wishes, however, the following session of that legislature may repeal that law.

      Therefore, the entire concept of decrees, or consent decrees, that bind a governmental body for “forever” contradicts the more modest legislative principle that one legislature cannot bind another.

      The courts thus show us another example of them assuming powers far beyond what even a legislature would presume. We need legislation to rein in the ability of courts to fashion these decrees where governmental entities exist.

      Again, just saying the same thing: the courts’ wings need clipped.

        Ragspierre in reply to Close The Fed. | November 2, 2018 at 6:14 pm

        Well, we aren’t that far apart.

        Thing is that the executive is not the legislative. And, in either case, each respectively can accept the results of the prior session(s) or administrations.

        One aspect of this is the question of res judicata, which means in legal terms the controversy between parties on that issue is resolved. Period. It’s a pretty strong doctrine in civil law. But even there, you’ll find some exceptions.

        My point is that any subsequent executive, not being a party to any consent decree, is not bound by the prior agreement, and nothing…even as powerful a legal doctrine as res judicata…can bind them to it. The converse position is that “the government” made the agreement with whoever, and “the government” is bound by it.

        An simple solution (not easy…but simple) would be for Congress to simply outlaw any consent decree, and mandate that litigation be conducted according to procedure, which would include appellate review.

          Close The Fed in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 6:23 pm


          “My point is that any subsequent executive, not being a party to any consent decree, is not bound by the prior agreement, and nothing…even as powerful a legal doctrine as res judicata…can bind them to it. The converse position is that “the government” made the agreement with whoever, and “the government” is bound by it.

          An simple solution (not easy…but simple) would be for Congress to simply outlaw any consent decree, and mandate that litigation be conducted according to procedure, which would include appellate review.”

          My response is, right now, such as in Flores, it’s being insisted that the current executive is bound by it. I believe your position, that the next executive should NOT be bound by it.

          As far as Congress outlawing consent decrees – by the government if the government is a party – is something to consider but doesn’t address my primary objection: that the courts constantly usurp the jobs of the other two branches.

          I mean, Plyler v. Doe was a total joke and usurpation, as was overruling the electorate over California’s Prop what was it? 184? in the mid-90s, disallowing illegal aliens any benefits? I object to the judiciary telling the executive what to do, because the judiciary has lost any perspective on its own powers. It’s become Plato’s philosopher-kings and not wise kings at that.

          Make the judiciary an elective office and grill them to the gills on their policy positions since they cram them down our throats, OR gut their ability to do so. One of the two needs to happen.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 6:44 pm

          But…going back to the whole notion of a consent decree, it isn’t a court usurpation of anything.

          It is an agreement, made in this instance by the executive and the opposing party that the court just ratifies. In that sense, it is like a settlement in a civil matter that the court approves on a showing that certain conditions have been met.

          The legislature is free to brush it aside with a subsequent law.

          I DON’T think the same ideas apply here as to a civil case settlement, and for the reasons I’ve mentioned. Res judicata sounds in large part in equity. But equity has little to do with sound government, and I can see no reason to prevent a prior executive’s agreement to bind any subsequent one. Again, a reason to prohibit consent agreements and insist on full litigation of any controversy, to include interested parties.

a place holder lawsuit, who would have thunk it

The Plaintiff’s are not in the United States. How do you argue due process rights when one is not in the United States and has not applied at an embassy for admission. President Trump has not taken any official action or issued any official order.

The Plaintiffs have not yet suffered any injury. They also lack standing to sue in a United States Court.

I am also not sure that Flores is binding on another Administration. A consent settlement that makes national immigration policy subverts Congress’s lawmaking authority and the ability of the Executive to make policy changes. A willing Attorney-General could forever subvert Congress by working in concert with Plaintiff’s and District Court Judges to reach “consent decrees”. This cannot stand.

    legalbeagle in reply to dystopia. | November 2, 2018 at 9:55 am

    I think MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, LLC may have struck too early. document was hastily and poorly prepared. For example in some sections they refer to the President as “Trump” instead of “President Trump”. That is indecorous and un-befitting of legal counsel. It indicates that the Partners did not take the time to edit out angry verbiage of junior associates.

    The Supreme Court needs to rule on whether a District Court can enter a consent decree that can make national policy that usurps both the power of the Supreme Court and of Congress.

      Close The Fed in reply to legalbeagle. | November 2, 2018 at 10:17 am

      Dear legal beagle, since Congress has the power under the constitution to determine if there shall be any lower courts whatsoever, I submit that it is up to Congress to pass legislation that provides that the lower courts Lack jurisdiction to render nationwide decisions including injunctions.

      This constant leaning up on the judiciary to be the ultimate decision maker of every important decision atrophies the other branches and our citizenry. The time for such a crutch is long over and frankly it was never a good time for such a crunch. See Dred Scott, et al.

        I think the point is more that consent decrees frequently seem to be arrived at with the connivance of at least one party of Congress, with the express purpose of avoiding legislation.

      That thing reads like it was written by a 19 yo MSNBC staffer

    Ragspierre in reply to dystopia. | November 2, 2018 at 10:25 am

    “The Plaintiffs have not yet suffered any injury. They also lack standing to sue in a United States Court.”

    The first statement is true. The second is simply false. Foreign nationals and their interests sue every day in Federal courts.

    As to the poor drafting noted below, it is common to note a person or entity by name and title once, and to refer to that throughout a pleading by some expressed short-cut. A POTUS is not entitled to some monarchical conventions of his/her own. In this context, they’re just another American.

    That aside, the drafting is pretty bad.

      dystopia in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 11:54 am

      You should refer your stylistic concerns to the Justices of the United States Supreme Court who refer to President Trump as “the President” in their decisions.

      As far as standing goes, I don’t see it. Give me a US Code citation that gives a foreigner not yet in the United States, with no contact with the United States, standing to undertake an action to redress a prospective, undetermined and not imminent injury. There isn’t even an Executive Order drafted yet. Relief from what?

        Ragspierre in reply to dystopia. | November 2, 2018 at 12:10 pm

        You’re fighting a shadow. I never asserted otherwise. Merely that foreign nationals sue…successfully…and have standing in US courts every day.

        I also noted below that standing and jurisdiction are complex issues.

      counsel in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 11:58 am

      I would never use “Trump” in a pleading when litigating against the President of the United States in his official capacity. It would be President Trump or the President. The reference is improper. You are litigating against the office, not the man.

      One could even file a motion to strike that part of the pleading might be permissible under the FRCP.

        Ragspierre in reply to counsel. | November 2, 2018 at 12:54 pm

        What rule? I might raise it in a pleading, but I can’t see offering a motion to strike on such a thin reed.

          counsel in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2018 at 2:11 pm

          Agreed. Technically, the allegations in those sections that use “Trump” don’t refer to the President in his official capacity. It is very thin ground for a Motion to Strike.

          I could see a fastidious Court order the Plaintiff to revise those sections of the pleading. DOJ could state in the answer that the allegation makes no reference to a named Defendant so the allegation cannot be affirmed or denied.

    sidebar in reply to dystopia. | November 2, 2018 at 1:07 pm

    “foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry,” Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___

A November Surprise that helps the Republicans. Happy Trump-mas!

Assuming a district court judge rules against Trump’s EO.

1) would the EO stay in place through the appeals process up the chain?

2) how quickly could (would?) SCOTUS get to make the final ruling?

Bucky Barkingham | November 2, 2018 at 10:06 am

As soon as the inevitable TRO is issued by a Lefty judge AG Sessions should appeal directly to SCOTUS for a stay. That is if he can rouse himself from his lethargy.

    Close The Fed in reply to Bucky Barkingham. | November 2, 2018 at 10:20 am

    Again, Trump should ignore these orders which usurp his authority. The Supreme Court makes a point of acting extremely slowly. They act even more slowly than Central Americans traversing a continent. National defense cannot be left to a doddering supreme court

Standing? Legal standing? Can anyone tell me why citizens from another nation trekking through a country not their can file a lawsuit against any foreign government for enforcing or enacting their own immigration laws?

Anyone, please?

    Sure. A foreign national is not denied standing simply because they are that, or that they are anywhere in the world.

    Standing and a court’s jurisdiction are complex issues, and there are a LOT of questions regarding this lawsuit that are not resolved.

FWIW John Shoreman of McFadden and Shoreman LLC was involved in another case(lawsuit) back in the summer, a Guatemalan mother who was separated from her 7 year old son after an illegal border crossing. It seemed to be resolved very quickly.

I would like to know who is paying these attorneys, or are they working for free?

    Close The Fed in reply to amwick. | November 2, 2018 at 10:41 am

    Dear Amwick: As I wrote above, Gateway Pundit has an article which states the company which supplies the ankle bracelets that the illegal aliens wear while awaiting a hearing on their claims – for which they must pay $420 A MONTH – is bankrolling this suit.

    It’s obvious financial interest in making sure the illegal aliens are free, means that every person you see in the invasion groups’ photos is worth 420/mo. x 12/mos. x 3/yrs. =$15,120 dollars to that company.

      Ty… That makes sense…

      The ankle belt may appear to serve the interest of justice, but what happens if the person stops paying the fee? Does the vendor simply collect its device then turn the person free?

      At first glance, the idea of fitting ankle devices on people awaiting trial seems like a mechanism for ensuring that they do not disappear into the society at large. Yet if there is no requirement by the government to continue monitoring the person if no fee is paid, a person who stops paying has a perfect backdoor to entry to the US.

Completely OT, but let’s all give thanks that this kid was white, so we’ll never hear another word about him. He’s had his 15 seconds and will now be buried, both literally and figuratively.

what if our citizens refuse THEIR consent?–the arrogance of some of these district court judges is breathtaking–the idea that one fool can bind our entire government/population to the whims/concerns of a bunch of foreign nationals is preposterous–what this nonsense is REALLY saying is that we do not have the right to secure our border and regulate the immigration of foreigners to our country


They’ve been offered asylum in Mexico. And refused it. Therefore, they are logically no longer asylum seekers. They’re economic migrants, a wholly different category.

The lawyers who filed should be disbarred for misrepresenting material facts, that is, that they’re seeking asylum.

    stevewhitemd in reply to gospace. | November 2, 2018 at 1:11 pm

    That’s the best comment I’ve seen yet (I do endorse Milhouse’s thoughts above). If one is seeking asylum one should accept asylum when it is offered.

    Recall that some of the “asylum seekers” floating across the Med from Africa to Europe were offered asylum in some of the bordering countries there — Greece, Italy, Slovenia, etc. The response of many of the people? “No thanks, we want to go to Germany!” Or Sweden.

    So it’s the same issue, and you’re correct, these people are not asylum seekers, they’re economic migrants — or invaders.

It’s reasonable to ask whether Beto’s Bunch have anything to do with it.

“Nobody needs to know” Beto Campaign Appears to Illegally Spend Funds on Supplies for Caravan Aliens, Campaign Manager Says “Don’t Worry”

If the Beto Campaign is illegally paying for transportation and supplies, what’s to stop them from supporting a lawsuit? They have the money, the wherewithal, and the location.

“Trump has been unable to produce any evidence of criminals and gang members within the caravan, which has largely proceeded peacefully on its journey.”

That’s a lie. The Mexican Ambassador to the U.S. said just the other day that the claims that the “migrants” are largely peaceful is bunk, and he warned that some of the migrants have been making bombs and other weapons, and said they have been “very violent” when confronting Mexican law enforcement authorities.

There have already been MS-13 gang members caught illegally crossing the southern U.S. border in these “migrant caravans.”

And the Guatemalan president announced that his country had caught 100 ISIS terrorists in Guatemala just prior to the formation of the latest “migrant caravan.”

This is beyond ridiculous. No standing, total lunacy that foreign invaders could/would do something like this. Lawfare at its most idiotic.

Why does the government have to allow those claiming asylum to wait inside the USA for their court date? They are perfectly safe in Mexico and can wait there until their court date.

buckeyeminuteman | November 2, 2018 at 1:28 pm

“Hahaha. You have no power here.”

If only the 9/11 attackers had thought to file a lawsuit first before launching their attacks.

There would have been a legal injunction against trying to protect the nation from attack, guaranteeing success!

Regarding the two sub-threads above about standing, Rags is of course correct that the mere fact that someone is a foreigner and has no fixed address does not in itself prevent him from bringing a suit in a US court. The idea that US courts are open only to citizens, or only to those in the US, is just wrong.

But I think those who raised the question just used the wrong word. What I think they really meant was that constitutional rights only apply to US citizens or residents, and to non-resident aliens who are physically in the USA. Foreigners on foreign soil have no rights that are protected by the US constitution. They might have other rights, and if so they have standing to sue for those.

Guess what? Maria of Address unknown is the Powerball winner.

the person/persons about break the law are suing the person that is going to enforce the law they are going to break. there has to some sort of perverse logic in that

regulus arcturus | November 3, 2018 at 8:48 pm

Why is this lawsuit even allowed to continue?

No harm has been suffered. They have no standing to sue.