Skip to content

The Law and Policy Blog

Independent commentary on law and policy from a liberal constitutionalist and critical perspective

Donate

You can support this independent law and policy commentary by PayPal

Subscribe

Please enter your email address to receive notifications of new stuff by me here and elsewhere.

Pages

  • About
  • Comments Policy

Categories

Recent Posts

  • A close reading of the “AI” fake cases judgment 9th May 2025
  • How the Trump administration’s “shock and awe” approach has resulted in its litigation being shockingly awful 22nd April 2025
  • How the United States constitutional crisis is intensifying 17th April 2025
  • A note about injunctions in the context of the Abrego Garcia case 14th April 2025
  • How Trump is misusing emergency powers in his tariffs policy 10th April 2025
  • How Trump’s tariffs can be a Force Majeure event for some contracts 7th April 2025
  • The significance of the Wisconsin court election result 2nd April 2025
  • “But what if…?” – constitutional commentary in an age of anxiety 31st March 2025
  • A significant defeat for the Trump government in the federal court of appeal 27th March 2025
  • Reckoning the legal and practical significance of the United States deportations case 25th March 2025
  • Making sense of the Trump-Roberts exchange about impeachment 19th March 2025
  • Understanding what went on in court yesterday in the US deportations case 18th March 2025
  • “Oopsie” – the word that means the United States has now tipped into a constitutional crisis 17th March 2025
  • Oh Canada 16th March 2025
  • Thinking about a revolution 5th March 2025
  • The fog of lawlessness: what we can see – and what we cannot see – in the current confusions in the United States 25th February 2025
  • The president who believes himself a king 23rd February 2025
  • Making sense of what is happening in the United States 18th February 2025
  • The paradox of the Billionaires saying that Court Orders have no value, for without Court Orders there could not be Billionaires 11th February 2025
  • Why Donald Trump is not really “transactional” but anti-transactional 4th February 2025
  • From constitutional drama to constitutional crisis? 1st February 2025
  • Solving the puzzle of why the case of Prince Harry and Lord Watson against News Group Newspapers came to its sudden end 25th January 2025
  • Looking critically at Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders: why we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by what is said 21st January 2025
  • A third and final post about the ‘Lettuce before Action’ of Elizabeth Truss 18th January 2025
  • Why the Truss “lettuce before action” is worse than you thought – and it has a worrying implication for free speech 17th January 2025
  • Of Indictments and Impeachments, and of Donald Trump – two similar words for two distinct things 16th January 2025
  • Why did the DoJ prosecution of Trump run out of time? 14th January 2025
  • Spiteful governments and simple contract law, a weak threatening letter, and a warning of a regulatory battle ahead 13th January 2025
  • A close look at Truss’s legal threat to Starmer – a glorious but seemingly hopeless cease-and-desist letter 9th January 2025
  • How the lore of New Year defeated the law of New Year – how the English state gave up on insisting the new year started on 25 March 1st January 2025
  • Some of President Carter’s judges can still judge, 44 years later – and so we can see how long Trump’s new nominees will be on the bench 31st December 2024
  • “Twelfth Night Till Candlemas” – the story of a forty-year book-quest and of its remarkable ending 20th December 2024
  • An argument about Assisting Dying – matters of life and death need to be properly regulated by law, and not by official discretion 28th November 2024
  • The illiberalism yet to come: two things not to do, and one thing to do – suggestions on how to avoid mental and emotional exhaustion 18th November 2024
  • New stories for old – making sense of a political-constitutional rupture 14th November 2024
  • The shapes of things to come – some thoughts and speculations on the possibilities of what can happen next 8th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day after an election: capturing a further political-constitutional moment 6th November 2024
  • A postcard from the day of an election – capturing a political-constitutional moment 5th November 2024
  • “…as a matter of law, the house is haunted” – a quick Hallowe’en post about law and lore 31st October 2024
  • Prisons and prisons-of-the-mind – how the biggest barrier to prisons reform is public opinion 28th October 2024
  • A blow against the “alternative remedies” excuse: the UK Supreme Court makes it far harder for regulators to avoid performing their public law duties 22nd October 2024
  • What explains the timing and manner of the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal? 20th October 2024
  • Happy birthday, Supreme Court: the fifteenth anniversary of the United Kingdom’s highest court 1st October 2024
  • Words on the screen – the rise and (relative) fall of text-based social media: why journalists and lawyers on social media may not feel so special again 30th September 2024
  • Political accountability vs policy accountability: how our system of politics and government is geared to avoid or evade accountability for policy 24th September 2024
  • On writing – and not writing – about miscarriages of justice 23rd September 2024
  • Miscarriages of Justice: the Oliver Campbell case 21st September 2024
  • How Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Harris and Walz is a masterpiece of persuasive prose: a songwriter’s practical lesson in written advocacy 11th September 2024
  • Supporting Donald Trump is too much for Richard Cheney 7th September 2024
  • A miscarriage of justice is normally a systems failure, and not because of any conspiracy – the cock-up theory usually explains when things go wrong 30th August 2024
  • Update – what is coming up. 29th August 2024
  • Shamima Begum – and ‘de jure’ vs ‘de facto’ statelessness 21st August 2024
  • Lucy Letby and miscarriages of justice: some words of caution on why we should always be alert to the possibilities of miscarriages of justice 19th August 2024
  • This week’s skirmish between the European Commission and X 17th August 2024
  • What Elon Musk perhaps gets wrong about civil wars being ‘inevitable’ – It is in the nature of civil wars that they are not often predictable 7th August 2024
  • How the criminal justice system deals with a riot 5th August 2024
  • The Lucy Letby case: some thoughts and observations: what should happen when a defence does not put in their own expert evidence (for good reason or bad)? 26th July 2024
  • And out the other side? The possible return of serious people doing serious things in law and policy 10th July 2024
  • What if a parliamentary candidate did not exist? The latest odd constitutional law question which nobody has really thought of asking before 9th July 2024
  • The task before James Timpson: the significance of this welcome appointment – and two of the obstacles that he needs to overcome 8th July 2024
  • How the Met police may be erring in its political insider betting investigation – and why we should be wary of extending “misconduct of public office” to parliamentary matters, even in nod-along cases 28th June 2024
  • What you need to know about commercial regulation, in the sports sector and elsewhere – for there is compliance and there is “compliance” 25th June 2024
  • Seven changes for a better constitution? Some interesting proposals from some good people. 24th June 2024
  • The wrong gong 22nd June 2024
  • The public service of an “Enemy of the People” 22nd June 2024
  • Of majorities and “super-majorities” 21st June 2024
  • The strange omission in the Conservative manifesto: why is there no commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act? 12th June 2024
  • The predicted governing party implosion in historical and constitutional context 11th June 2024
  • Donald Trump is convicted – but it is now the judicial system that may need a good defence strategy 1st June 2024
  • The unwelcome weaponisation of police complaints as part of ordinary politics 31st May 2024
  • Thoughts on the calling of a general election – and on whether our constitutional excitements are coming to an end 29th May 2024
  • Another inquiry report, another massive public policy failure revealed 21st May 2024
  • On how regulating the media is hard – if not impossible – and on why reviving the Leveson Inquiry may not be the best basis for seeing what regulations are now needed 4th May 2024
  • Trump’s case – a view from an English legal perspective 24th April 2024
  • Law and lore, and state failure – the quiet collapse of the county court system in England and Wales 22nd April 2024
  • How the civil justice system forced Hugh Grant to settle – and why an alternative to that system is difficult to conceive 17th April 2024
  • Unpacking the remarkable witness statement of Johnny Mercer – a closer look at the extraordinary evidence put before the Afghan war crimes tribunal 25th March 2024
  • The curious incident of the Afghanistan war crimes statutory inquiry being set up 21st March 2024
  • A close look at the Donelan libel settlement: how did a minister make her department feel exposed to expensive legal liability? 8th March 2024
  • A close look at the law and policy of holding a Northern Ireland border poll – and how the law may shape what will be an essentially political decision 10th February 2024
  • How the government is seeking to change the law on Rwanda so as to disregard the facts 30th January 2024
  • How the next general election in the United Kingdom is now less than a year away 29th January 2024
  • Could the Post Office sue its own former directors and advisers regarding the Horizon scandal? 16th January 2024
  • How the legal system made it so easy for the Post Office to destroy the lives of the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses – and how the legal system then made it so hard for them to obtain justice 12th January 2024
  • The coming year: how the parameters of the constitution will shape the politics of 2024 1st January 2024
  • The coming constitutional excitements in the United States 31st December 2023
  • What is often left unsaid in complaints about pesky human rights law and pesky human rights lawyers 15th December 2023
  • A role-reversal? – a footnote to yesterday’s post 1st December 2023
  • The three elements of the Rwanda judgment that show how the United Kingdom government is now boxed in 30th November 2023
  • On yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment on the Rwanda policy 16th November 2023
  • The courts have already deflated the Rwanda policy, regardless of the Supreme Court judgment next Wednesday 10th November 2023
  • The extraordinary newspaper column of the Home Secretary – and its implications 9th November 2023
  • Drafts of history – how the Covid Inquiry, like the Leveson Inquiry, is securing evidence for historians that would otherwise be lost 1st November 2023
  • Proportionality is an incomplete legal concept 25th October 2023
  • Commissioner Breton writes a letter: a post in praise of the one-page formal document 11th October 2023
  • “Computer says guilty” – an introduction to the evidential presumption that computers are operating correctly 30th September 2023
  • COMING UP 23rd September 2023
  • Whatever happened to ‘the best-governed city in the world’? – some footnotes to the article at Prospect on the Birmingham city insolvency 9th September 2023
  • One year on from one thing, sixteen months on from another thing… 8th September 2023
  • What is a section 114 Notice? 7th September 2023
  • Constitutionalism vs constitutionalism – how liberal constitutionalists sometimes misunderstand illiberal constitutionalism 24th August 2023
  • Performative justice and coercion: thinking about coercing convicted defendants to hear their sentences 21st August 2023
  • Of impeachments and indictments – how many of the criminal indictments against Trump are a function of the failure of the impeachment process 15th August 2023
  • A note of caution for those clapping and cheering at the latest indictment of Donald Trump 8th August 2023
  • Witch-hunt (noun) 2nd August 2023

Archives

Masterdon link

Mastodon

A significant defeat for the Trump government in the federal court of appeal

27th March 2025

The US presidency is not getting its own way – even with Republican-nominated appeals judges

*

Overnight the judgment for the federal court of appeal in the deportations case was handed down – and it was a 2-1 defeat for the Trump presidency.

*

The issue decided in this appeal was whether the “temporary restraining order” (TRO) – a form of interim injunction – should stay in place. This TRO, which was granted by the federal court in Washington D.C., prevents the federal government from removing alleged “enemy aliens” under the Trump proclamation of earlier this month.

In practical terms, of course, it is preventing the US government from placing currently detained Venezuelans – including those against whom there is no actual evidence – on planes to be sent to a El Salvador mega-prison under a commercial agreement between the US and El Salvador.

The TRO is not intended to be a permanent injunction – the key is the word “temporary” – but “to hold the ring” (as lawyers say) until there can be a proper hearing on the substantive case, after which it seems it can either be discharged or be converted into a firmer “preliminary” injunction.

*

The US government really do not like this TRO – for it is a powerful legal weapon and it applies across all the United States at the federal level. The government wants this TRO to be somehow vacated, so that they can go back to the business of mass deportations under the Trump proclamation.

But.

The US government failed to get the judge at first instance to vacate his own order – in a sterling (and highly readable) judgment, Chief Justice Boasberg rejected the US government’s application.

The US government appealed – and you can hear the audio of the appeal hearing here.

The appeal court comprised three judges – two of whom were nominated by Republican presidents (one by Bush the other by Trump) and one nominated by a Democrat president.

And in the appeal judgment now published, the TRO was upheld by a 2-1 majority, with only the Trump-nominated judge dissenting.

And even his dissent admits that the individuals can use habeas corpus to challenge removals, but they have to do it (if they can) in the state they are being detained, if they somehow get notice.

(This is, of course, on par with saying the detainees’ access to justice is via “the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.’”)

That said, that is still a move from saying that the individuals can have no absolute access to justice at all, which was the US government’s initial view.

The majority also gave a wide-ranging ruling, going against the government on point after point, and not just going against the government on a technical narrow basis.

*

And so the TRO stands – for now.

The US government may now seek to appeal to the Supreme Court – where there is also a majority of Republican-nominated judges.

But if the US government cannot win over the more moderate Republican judge at the court of appeal, it is an open question whether they will win over Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett who, although conservatives, are independently minded and less prone to slavishly follow a party line in such political cases than their conservative colleagues.

Had the court of appeal gone the other way, with a 1-2 majority against the TRO that may have indicated that the detainee plaintiffs would have a harder time at the Supreme Court.

*

So this is good news for liberals – for now.

There has been a win in another court skirmish.

But a win in a skirmish is not a win in a battle, and still less a win in a war.

The broader, longer battles – and the war itself – may still be lost.

The US government may eventually get its legal act together – rather than the amateur hour antics they have exhibited so far – and they have at least another four years to do so.

But.

If the tide was to turn, this appeal win also would be an early sign.

What the appeals win signifies beyond doubt is that the US government is not getting its own way – and that its improvised “shock and awe” “move fast and break things” tactics can become undone.

Even if the Supreme Court side with the dissenting judge here (and somehow also insist that detainees can challenge their removals via “the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’”) the losses so far for the government at first instance and on appeal on the TRO issue means they have not (and will not) have an easy legal time with other such measures.

The US government will not be happy today.

*

‘This must be Thursday,’ said Arthur to himself, sinking low. ‘I never could get the hang of Thursdays.’

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Posted on 27th March 202527th March 2025Author David Allen GreenCategories Constitutionalism, Human Rights and Civil Liberties, United States Law and Policy

21 thoughts on “A significant defeat for the Trump government in the federal court of appeal”

  1. Chris Drew says:
    27th March 2025 at 08:28

    For everyone who thanks you for this (and we do!) it would be *ace* if you could just reply saying “Glad to be of service”.

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      27th March 2025 at 08:39

      Of service, glad to be, replied Yoda of Kent.

      Reply
  2. Dave Ankers says:
    27th March 2025 at 08:32

    Nice Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy reference.

    Reply
  3. Pepper Culpepper says:
    27th March 2025 at 08:51

    Another fantastic post. You have been the go-to read on these cases. Questions: what is the jurisprudential ideological dimension that makes Roberts and Coney Barrett swing voters on the Supreme Court? Is it simply an independent streak? Or is there actually a judicial ideology that makes them more ‘swing voters’ than Kavanaugh or Gorsuch? It’s clear that Alito and Thomas have extreme views on exec authority, at least for this president.

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      27th March 2025 at 09:23

      “what is the jurisprudential ideological dimension that makes Roberts and Coney Barrett swing voters on the Supreme Court?”

      My view from reading their judgments, fwiw, is that although both conservative, both tend to reason outwards from the constitution, applying conservative principles. The others – especially Thomas and Alito – seem to me to reason backwards from the conclusions they want – with motivated reasoning. Roberts is also a minimalist – he dreally oes not like to decide more than is necessary to dispose of a case. This does not make them saints – and some of their decisions are very illiberal – but it means they are not “in the bag” for Trump supporters.

      This is not just a conservative thing though – liberals can also use motivated reasoning.

      Reply
    2. DT says:
      27th March 2025 at 16:19

      > It’s clear that Alito and Thomas have extreme views on exec authority, at least for this president.

      They both endorse the (or a) unitary executive theory that Congress and the judicial branch should show nearly absolute deference to the executive (although I wonder whether a Democrat executive would enjoy the same deference).

      Reply
  4. Adam says:
    27th March 2025 at 08:53

    I know it is pedantic, but isn’t it “at least 3 years 10 months more” of this? Personally I do actually take comfort that a clock is ticking down and we have already passed 2 of the 48 months….

    Reply
    1. David Allen Green says:
      27th March 2025 at 09:24

      I am sad that the comfort you gain on one hand is offset by the discomfort your pedantry must bring to you.

      Reply
    2. Casper Pesky says:
      27th March 2025 at 16:47

      The first ten thousand seconds were the worst, the next ten thousand, they were the worst too. After that I went into a bit of a decline.

      Reply
  5. Matt Flaherty says:
    27th March 2025 at 08:56

    “And even his dissent admits that the individuals can use habeas corpus to challenge removals, but they have to do it (if they can) in the state they are being detained, if they somehow get notice.”

    This is not good news. It should have been unanimous. It is a ridiculous proposition that habeus is the correct and indeed only way to challenge a removal. The case law doesn’t support this and habeus is a challenge to detention, not deportation. None of the plaintiffs challenge their detention and the TRO does not prevent detention. It’s absurd.

    Reply
    1. Matt Flaherty says:
      27th March 2025 at 09:56

      Sorry, by the way, for misspelling habeas twice.

      What I hate about this is that now he gets to rant and rave about how he should be allowed to fire all the federal court judges that he didn’t personally appoint so he can appoint their replacements. If he has not already said so, we will not be waiting long.

      The rule of law is hanging by a thread. As I’ve said before, even if SCOTUS should go against him, that will not spell the end of this dangerous behaviour. He will likely defy them.

      Reply
  6. Nick Norton says:
    27th March 2025 at 09:49

    Douglas Adams prescient as ever. You brightened the morning of a fellow ‘Brummie’.

    Reply
  7. Andrew says:
    27th March 2025 at 09:54

    You are doing sterling service with this series of explainers, David.

    This temporary restraining order might at least stop more deportation flights leaving for a while, at least until the affected individuals have an opportunity to challenge their seemingly arbitrary classification as “enemy aliens” on the basis of little to no evidence, but as far as I can see it does little to help the people already detained in the Salvadorian hellhole from which it seems no one is released. “Oopsie” indeed. The US government does seem to like these judicial no-spheres, like Guantanamo.

    It is disappointing to see an appeals judge relying on a theoretical right to seek judicial review from a local court, when any such right may be impossible to exercise and so in practice illusory. Just like the wonderful theoretical rights under the Soviet constitution. Long live Comrade Stalin.

    For the time being I would suggest anyone who is not a US citizen should think very carefully before voluntarily travelling to the US. Some quite horrific stories of people being detained at the border or seized off the streets by plainclothes immigration officers.

    Reply
    1. Matt Flaherty says:
      27th March 2025 at 10:48

      “It is disappointing to see an appeals judge relying on a theoretical right to seek judicial review from a local court, when any such right may be impossible to exercise and so in practice illusory.”

      Walker seems fixated on the original writ of habeas corpus which has been abandoned. It’s as though the plaintiffs are not entitled to change their legal position but the government may.

      In examining the public interest, he makes the prospect of irreparable harm to sensitive diplomatic negotiations paramount, as though you couldn’t just stick someone on a plane to Venezuela, where they actually come from.

      Indeed, they might choose to voluntary return to Venezuela rather than end up in prison in some third country with which they have no relationship. The reasoning is tortuous.

      Reply
  8. Ben Murphy says:
    27th March 2025 at 12:50

    So essentially, the message is “Don’t panic.”

    Reply
  9. Owen Roberts says:
    27th March 2025 at 13:49

    This makes the US extradition right over UK citizens look extremely unwise and unjustifiable. After all, the Court of Appeal said Rwanda was not safe enough to send immigrants to. They’d hardly support allowing UK citizens to be extradited to a country whose Government may send them to a Salvadorean “mega prison” without warning would they ?

    Reply
  10. Matt Flaherty says:
    27th March 2025 at 15:52

    Millet’s concurrence is masterful.

    Reply
  11. Anne Berkeley says:
    27th March 2025 at 21:48

    Potential deportees are going to find it harder to find anyone to act for them if Trump’s latest actions against law firms are anything to go by, what with the Attorney General directed “to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/

    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/politics/law-firms-trump-attacks/index.html

    Reply
  12. Anne Berkeley says:
    27th March 2025 at 21:51

    Sorry, those two urls got squashed together. They are the EO:
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/
    and a commentary by CNN on the chilling effect:
    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/27/politics/law-firms-trump-attacks/index.html

    Reply
    1. Matt Flaherty says:
      28th March 2025 at 10:22

      The memorandum is hogwash. Pure political posturing.

      “To address these concerns, I hereby direct the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.”

      Any such action deemed frivolous or vexatious would be thrown out. An action which is not thrown out cannot be deemed frivolous or vexatious. “Unreasonable” doesn’t even make sense, and the fact that all of these terms are joined by “and” means they would all have to be true. It’s idiotic in the extreme, but what else would we expect? The AG can pursue whatever sanctions he likes if he wants to be an idiot. Law firms will not be deterred by this.

      Reply
  13. Lawrence Buckley says:
    29th March 2025 at 08:26

    They are too savvy to fall for the memo. But watch their bowels turn to water when Musk’s thugs, armed and dressed up as U.S. marshals, march into their offices and slap on the cable-ties.

    (I don’t know what pronouns Pam Bondi prefers, but I can guess.)

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Post navigation

Previous Previous post: Reckoning the legal and practical significance of the United States deportations case
Next Next post: “But what if…?” – constitutional commentary in an age of anxiety
Proudly powered by WordPress